HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/15/2008, - RHNA RECOMMENDATION TO SLOCOG BOARD �. U VV W/11 , , Page 1 of 1
0U ���
Council Members,
This came to my personal e-mail address. I'm forwarding it to all of you in case you have not already
received it.
Moving from a 60/40 jobstpopulation split to 80/20 would increase the portion of the RHNA allocation
coming to the City of SLO. This would conform, I believe,to "smart growth" principles but may conflict
with your own personal viewpoints.
We may want to have this be a.subject of Council Communication tonight.'
Ken/Audrey,you may want to do a red file on this e-mail plus the attachment. I71 leave that to your
discretion.
Andrew Carter
1283 Woodside Drive
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
805-594-1906(home)
805-235-0015 (cell)
ancarter@aol.com
—Original Message—
From: Steve Devencenzi<SDEVENCEN23@SLOCOG.org>
To: Mle Harmon<MHARMON@SLOCOG.org>
Sent: Mon,31 Mar 2008 10:18 am
Subject: RHNA'recommendation to SLOCOG Board
The SLOCOG Board will be reviewing the staff and Methodology Committee recommendations at their upcoming
meeting on April 2,2008.
The staff report is attached for your review.
In short
The Methodology Committee recommended keeping the eAsting 60%jobs 140%population based formula.
Staff is recommending modifying the formula to an 80%jobs 120%population based formula.
Please feel free to call or email"rf you have any questions.
Steve Devencena
Planning Director, SLOCOG
805.781.4662
Planning your summer road trip?Check out AOL Travel Guides.
4/1/2008
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: April Z 2008
SUBJECT: Regional Housing Needs Allocation
SUMMARY
The state Department of Housing and Community Development(HCD)determined the regional housing
need numbers for the SLOCOG region in July of 2007. The current number proposed by HCD is 4,885
units(compared to the 18,033 units required in the prior cycle). SLOCOG accepted that determination
Last August and formed the required Methodology Committee to consider an allocation methodology for
SLOCOG Board approval. Their recommendation is fisted below.
The share of a city or county of the regional housing need shall include that share of the housing need of
persona at all income levels which are divided in into the very-tow, low, moderate and above-moderate
categories. Any ordinance, policy, voter-approved measure, or standard of a city or county that directly
or indirectly fmrits the number of residential building permits issued by a city or county is not allowed to be
a justification for a determination or a reduction in a city or county share of the regional housing need.
SLOCOG is required to identify e>asfirg local,regional, or state mom,such as a priority for funding
or other incentives available to those local government;that are willing to accept a Higher share than
proposed in the draft allocation to those local governments by the council of governments pursuant to
Section 65564.05.
Following the conclusion of a 60-day public comment period on the proposed allocation methodology and
after making arty revisions deemed appropriate by the council of governments as a msuft of comments
received:SLOCOG will adopt a final regional housing need allocation methodology and provide notice of
the adoption of the methodology to member jurisdictions and HCD.
RECOMMENDATION
Methodology Committee: Adopt the 60%jobs 40%population based formula.
Allnrate income category shares by (very low 23%, low 16%, moderate 19% and above
moderate 42%).
Staff: Adopt one of the following options:
A Adopt the 80%jabs 20%population based formula.
1. Refer discussion of the d>sfibufion of income category shares (very low, low, moderate
and above-moderate)to the subregional areas for consideration during the required 60
day comment period and fmaliz a the allocation in August
Z. Address poterhfel fiscal/revenue sharing options through the Community 2050 regional
blueprint process.
or
B. Adopt the 80%jobs 2D%population based fornula.
1. Allocate income category shares by(very low 23%, low 16%, moderate 19%and above-
moderate 42%)to each jurisdiction.
2. Address potential fiscal/revenue sharing options through the Community 2050 regional
blueprint process-
A- -1
DISCUSSION
At their January 29M 2008 meeting the Methodology Committee supported adoption of the
distribution tormula based upon 60%employment and 40%population factors(See pg 5)
The Methodology Committee discussed a wide range of issues relative to both the income distribution
factor and the relative to weighting of the formula ratios between the previous 60/40 split regarding jobs
and population and utilizing a higher jobs to population ratio (ie 70/30, 80)20, or even 100/0). The
eormuitee's recommendation to maintain the cement 60/40 split reflects discussion recognizing that
many of the vehicle trips generated by households are related to non-work commute trips.
State Housing Law sections (Govermnent Code [Article 10.61 65560 eLseq) regarding the allocation
process require the allocation plan prepared by a council of governments be corhsistent with all of the
following objectives:
1. Increasing the housing supply and the mix of housing types,tenure, and affordability in all cities
and counties within the region in an equitable manner. which shall result in each jurisdiction
receiving an allocation of units for low-and very low income households.
2. Promoting infill development and socioeconomic equity, the protection of environmental and
agricultural resources.and the encouragement of efficient development paftems.
3. Promoting an unproved intraregional relationship between jobs and housing.
4. Allocating a lower proportion of housing need to an income category when a jurisdiction already
has a disproportionately high share of households in that income category, as compared to the
countywide distribution of households in that Category from the most recent decennial United
States census.
The final RHNA will describe the proposed methodology, along with any relevant underlying data and
assumptions,and an explanation of how information about local government conditions has been used to
develop the proposed methodology.
These factors and the regional response(in italics)are listed below
(1) Existim and projected lobs and housing relationship
The existing and prgected relationship of jobs and housing are at Hue core of the proposed
fomwla. The relative percentage ratios for each juri ckhon are not p rgeced to signilkandy
change during the planning period. A key issue in this cyde is consideration for adusting
the formula to be more heavffy weighted toward,an emphasis on employment over and
above the previous fomrufa which was weighted 60% toward those conmundies where
employmerd occurs versus 40%toward where population is kxxfed.
(2) Ooportrrmties and constraints to development of additional housing:
(A) Lade of capadty for sewer or water service due to federal or state laws, regulations or
regulatory actions, or supply and distribution decisions made by a sewer or water service
provider other than the local jurisdiction that preclude the jurisdiction from providing
necessary mere for additional development during the ping period.
Resource issues are draflerging in many areas of the region;however no constraints were
aderrbTied that prevent fie dshihution of units as pwgposed MWe some unincorporated
service areas have severe service level concerns or limitations, fie proposed aftation to
fie overall unincorporated area can be accommodated.
(B) The availability of tared suitable for urban uneal or for conversion to residential
use,the availability of underutilized land,acct opportunities for infill development and
increased residential densities.
Adequate land exists w fifth aB jurist l nalrcio areasIf should be rioted that Grover Beach is
a 7andlboked"city and has Berated area for hitme expansion without annexing the Oeeano
Community Services District that is cumnty substantiaffy developed as an unincorporated
urban area.
A-4-2
In addition, the region
may not limit its consideration of suitable housing• or land
suitable for urban development to existing zoning ordinances and land use nestrichons of a
locality, but shall consider the potential for increased residential development under
alternative zoning ordinances and land use restrictions.
(C) Lands Reserved or Protected iron urban develooment under existing federal or state
Programs, or both, designed to protect open space, farmland, environmental habitats, and
natural resources on a long-term basis.
This potential limitation does not preclude the absorption of the proposed allocation with
any of the scenarios under consideration.
(D) County policies to preserve Prime agricultural land as defined pursuant to Section 56064,
within an unincorporated area.
This potential fnrt hon does not preclude the absorption of the proposed allocation with
any of the scenarios Under oons+derabon The allocation does not require the rezoning of
any prime agrArxdtroal land
3. The distribution of household arw*M assumed for purposes of a comparable period of regional
transportation plans and opportunities to maximize the use of public transportation and existing
transportation infrastructure.
The focus on employment centers is intended to support pubrra transportation and existing
bansPortabw ir*Rstudure and address demand on the 101 corridor especially during
peak commute times.
5. The market demand for housing.
The market demand for housing, espeaagy in the very knv, low and moderate`ranges far
exceeds supply. This is due to a number of factors including.the dominance of the tourism
and agricultural sectors where marry lobs provide relatively low pay, the disparity in the
growth of hous6rg costs and the growth in local income levels; the attractiveness of the
area for reWement livmg and scarcity of coastal riving environments with moderate dimates,
ongoing demand from beyond the kxae/market that sustain relatimy high housing costs in
the region relative to other parts of the state and nation.Resource capacity and other local
sarvxe delivery system tinutabons that necessitate high development fees or increased
utility oasts These factors impactall of the jurisdictions m varymg degrees.
6. Agreements bm%v en a county and cities in a county to dired growth toward incorporated areas
of the county.
Such agreements do not currently exist See City of Paso Robles letter, Mang 27'b Trib
C-ddonal, and the City of San Luis Obispo /elver regarding the emerging discussion
concerning directing housing more lbrcell ly toward employment centers and agreements
between the county and alias to direct growth toward incorporated areas of the county.
7_ The loss of units conlidned in assisted housing developments that changed to non-low-
income use through mortgage prepayment subsidy contr t expirations, or termination of use
restrictions.
This issue is not a problem area within the region.
9. Hin"oushm costs burdens.
Highfiou sing costs burdens are endemic in the state of Calilbmia and especially within the
coastal areas south of Mendocino County.
10.The housing needs of fanrrwrorkers.
The housing needs of humwwfcers are especially problematic due to the low pay afforded
this segment of the wnorfdoroe and the competing demand for affordable units Many within
this population double and even are known to triple-up to rmd shelter. Due to the year
round agricultural opPorhmrties many h m ties reside within the urban areas to be near
A-4-3
schools shopping and other services. The allocation formula anticipates that this segment
of the population will be primarily served within the urban areas addressed m the proposed
allocation
11.The housing needs generated by the Presence of a Private university or a campus of the
California State University or the University of California within any member jurisdiction.
The housing needs generated by the presence of Cal Poly have been signdkantfy
addressed by the recent expansion of campus housing options. No adjustments are made
due to this factor.
12.Any other factors adopted by the council of governments.
None
The income based component of the Housing allocation has historically been distributed to all
jurisdictions at the percentages listed below.
Table/t, - -- _— ronnaned:Font:(oeraurc)ndai,u
2007 PROJECTED HOUSING NEED BY INCOME a<,Sold
Determination Income %
Very Low 1,123 23%
Low 782 16%
Moderate 928 19%
Above moderate 2,052 42%
Total 4,885 100%
The Methodology Committee recommended that subregional areas should be given the opportunity to
discuss possible redistribution of the income percentages based upon local conditions within each
subregion.
A44
I
c
rA
° ' � ' is Do
o0m �;
0
» cm Qm � m
0 :r 40 a m
--a— - m
'O mam co �I O
CD O 7
S
x x x x x x x x x a O
00000000 0 m m
Of � � � Oa � of Qt W m =
--- -- o.
� o
,O A Cn
0 of m
�a L $ m
° xxxxxxxx, x
IT o�p
O C
m �
00000000 0'iO
CL o
O
VV VV Z O V V A V V m c
A A AAAA A i 3
m p ^ Q
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CL j p m
m 7 O
II 11 11 11 II II 11 11 II
007 O
CC- pc m 3
p�
V
in
OO V 07 (A71 (Wn 7 Ga Ol
O Oma7O mAO W 0 q_ G.
7 2 w
O
3
JiW A ..am
V ODO
o n
II II II II II II II II II
C
A � p�� ppp�1 Npyy� W m GC
VOi cc N W AIDAO W aOD rL
O
�a
s
'a+
T
O
7
3
d
C
D
1
W
I.I
n
0
aB�NIE�iYa a°�&Y a , p r=°a O
o83f',a � $BSI- 3 p10
�3a� ! � YIY�
PYw Iw wOml e� VILw�YW001 �� r+W�WW00i ♦ -] ,V
xx 's#'xx 'I ja xs x #sl s xx3� aai` a
m
4 3 g CD
%%lI k'X XiN X 3 XX%% 'X 3 %%%%%%X% % %i%%X%i%'X
000000000 0000000010 00000000 O
_ I 00'000NODt b1 QSC VVVV�I�eVVy y� OccooGIgOY
1..T ♦ 1. 1♦ P ♦...i. '♦ 4 ♦1 1
W1w�c?�I B 'CCC LmwYWaom. a ZimuYu\om °a O
uo wO r1. meq; x
v M 3:F e
%X%YlAi i ' 1;%%%%N%XX ' L %M Xii'iMX i is %%%M% X '� '^
00000000 '0 000000000 000000000 O
W
NN1Y AlIAIN NN �l ; -- 00000000 O
_Y_—_j WW WWGI0WW 1/ coo Coco0 �/�3.
-...... y yN y W
VrJJ\+VJ � 6 Y+V \VVY �'Y 8 ca
SS'S SSSSS ' °CS C SSSSSSSS B 'g° SS SSOSSS �S g SSSSSSSS =C O n
eengnvevn a n0' Y nnnit li linn 'o O— unugn�n v{nnle O? vnnnnenuw O c Q
I CD
d S mYYZuP•Y'm I' n • W�E�mmrW.m�' E r ZI
P �aEI"mb A
u19
I a a
0.
i m
s .. T
... '. a (D
\ ��NNNPINAt \ $gP�NNr- °t \yNTN II..TT T. ♦IIT 1.. �. C.
q OO G V O•J N(J.� OPO+rI AE L VS°'ONO�r' at
CD
nnnnavnu s nnnnnnn n 'v n'nnnuun il° nnnunnn n �=
gg @ qq rr«$IS'NIo3im8:tee. S «S$'g►aS �� � g g I I $ II G
'
gy O
c
Ym'$mYY$ WOOY VVO � W�OVNI°5101
° r i r Y c l
y x
N�.iOPo•V1VOi °--J(� �OONNmWN Q1
+. �.
CD
ka t*
'w,tl�Ly'yE.oe 3= :oN-g yyp1sSi 3� •:a } Zg� O» s 3c O
O Pm\N 9 YO�»8± 9= �IVVOi�tY'. -f�C cr
�s 9&'+£ R9 SY N R� L'8W of .� I rl0� lY .
bb 7 '
a'
J
0
0
O
I
l �
' a
a
s
r
The following table shows the proposed attemative distribution scenarios for each subregional area.
Table D - -- ---- Famamee:Font(oe9aurc)adal,u
e9rm-aae map Te%Jma-sa A Bald
Pon ent.ee.-zar,pap 1aax.tm-Itx wp
South Cmnr Saslh Carver natal caane sa MCaamv
taata Umar M amyo<ame. M Ano6aooee 6t0AmbimGmawla
t;aaa9m-1, 209 Gamma, omem eeion 110 omiaooh 1®
F e /a Pmmpaaaeh 102 Mame aemh 161 pmmp8emh 1®
SmlmfmahtJ� ME JNA me 2m unm«m„oext Le
bbma mbma, lapama NNS
ammo 0asem ame aooa
Tod Oms 11w Tar aria 11e Todurm maT. Tad Uma M
Nast Comer Naafi Naar Nam Ceanr Naam CamM
NMoaaeno a Atmeam 466 Nooeaa as mmmemo M
Ido amtia, ew pmoR, an PMRaa.. set Pmoamlo ns
JtWmrml m Orma,CmmtV 6e+ Y�.Sewactffi!5l 9]e 1111m,Cmmh,MM 264
saw � eo Mbar em mbar
eh.bon ehmem
Tempm6ml Tmapm6an Tempdm T4mpdm
Taml Umb -196 Ta41 Ua6a tm2 Tod Unlm Lm Tad Uab I=
Nafh Coat Nae,Count Nam CootAWM
abno ea aN l4am em tet Nanev m mamma" 1m
Lftd,,Cmmh, 11 a+ Sll Cbm,IVOMM a Vd 1e6
Cgma cm amm StObA: l im Cgaaaa
Cambria code Cambria canonMr
taaCm t Cana luaom mom
Tm., 696 Tad Uam M Taduam 464 Tmeaaa M
atarnna CamdAro Cam AM
em Laba4mpa tm San lffi amen =tll 9m IJlb allbpo 1614 em, O
bmpo 210e
YdmCmmbca �- ! 41 68 yCobalt,,W%) m
Tad Unlb 164 Taftl Unna Rta Tar Unlb '1e@ Tar UNb 214
Note that the Unincorporated County shares in each subregion are estimates—as the County receives a
single allocation under the RHNA process.
Mew&a
Deleted:2
Table E, - — Table F rmmamed:Fore (OetaDrt)Adai,u
pt,BDId
%Jobs Factor 0 Change Over 60140 Formula Forna� f ) 11
60% 70% 70% 80% 100%
Arroyo Grande 362 376 383 398 Arroyo Grande 14 21 36
Ataseadero 462 455 447 428 Atascadero -7 -15 -34
Grover Beach 192 190 180 158 Grover Beach 4 -12 -34
Morro Bay 179 181 177 170 Morro Bay 2 -2 -9
Paso Robles 647 665 681 715 Paso Robles 18 34 68
Pismo Beach_ 158 162 161 158 Pismo Beach 4 3 1
San Luis Obispo 1589 1725 1847 2105 San Lues Obispo 136 257 516
Unincorporated 1296 1131 1009 752 Unincorporated -165 -287 -544
4885 4885 4885 4885
Table G _ ____ __ ___ Zrmmea,Fa,r(Default)arwl,11
Housing Need by Income Comparison pL Bold
PROJECTED HOUSING NEED BY INCOME PROJECTED HOUSING NEED BY INCOME
60%Employment Factor 70%Employment Factor
Very Low Low Mod ADove Motl Very Low Low Mal Above Mod
23% 1tPi6 19% 42% 23% 19% 19% 42%
Arroyo Grande 83 58 69 152 Arroyo Grande 86 80 71 158
Atncadero 106 74 as 194 Ataseadero 105 73 87 191
Grover Beach 44 31 36 80 Grover Beach 44 30 36 80
Mono Bay 41 29 34 75 Morro Say 42 29 34 76
Paso Robles 149 103 123 272 Peso Robles 153 108 126 279
Plow Beach 36 25 30 fib Pla as Beach 37 25 31 68
San Lds Obispo 366 254 302 668 San Luis Obispo 397 276 328 725
Unincorporated 298 267 246 544 Unlnoorporsted 2610 181 215 475
1124 782 928 2062 1124 782 928 2052
4685 4885
PROJECTED HOUSING NEED BY INCOME PROJECTED HOUSING NEED BY INCOME
80%Employment Factor 100%EmploymentFactor
Vary Low Low Mod Above ModVdYLow .Low Mod Above Mod
23% 16% 19% 42% t3% 18% 19% 42%
Arroyo Grande 88 61 73 161 Arroyo Grande 92 64 76 167
AhReadaro 103 71 85 188 Atan:adsro 99 69 81 180
Grover Beach 41 29 34 75 GravmwBoach 36 25 30 67
mom Bey 41 26 34 74 Morro Bay 39 27 32 71
Paso Robles 157 10.8 129 296 Paso Robles 164 114 136 300
Plvrto Bruch 37 28 31 68
Phase,Beach 36 25 30 57
San Luh Obispo 42_5 296 351 775 Sen Luh Obispo 484 337 400 884
UsIncapaated 232 181 192 424 UnkwmPoraftd 173 120 143 316
1124 782 929 2952 1124 782 828 2052
4885 4885
Deleted:B
Deleted:2
I gee
The following shows the estimated existing shares of the population within each allocation category in the
incorporated areas,and the urban and rural components of the unincorporated territory in each of the four
subregions.
Table H _ rormamee:ronc(oerautt)aria,u
Income Category Estimated Population by Subarea a.eoic
South County
South County Cities South County Unincorporated Rural
Uninc.Urban (30%•) South County Totals
15,694 100% 6,474 100 92 100% 27,060 100°6
Very low 2,372 15.1% 912 14.1 539 11.0% 3,823 14.1%
Low 1,909 12.2% 713 11.0 495 10.1% . 3116 11.5%
Moderate 2,436 15.5% 980 15.1° 664 13.6% 081 15.1.%
Above Moderate 8,977 57.2°.5 3,194 65.3% 16,040 59.3%
North County
North County Cities North County Unincorporated Rural North County Totals
Uninc.Urban (40%-)
18,079 100% 2,749 100 6,523 100% 27,351 100°6
Very Low 2,673 14.8% 422 15.4 719 11.0% 3,815 13.9%
Low 2,081 11.5% 326 11.8% 660 10.1% 3,066 11.2%
Moderate 3,019 16.7% 437 15.9 886 13.6% 4,342 15.9%
Above Moderate 10.307 57.0% 1,564 56.9° 4,259 65.3% 16,129 59.0%
North Coast
North Coast Cities North Coast Uninc. Unincorporated RuralUrban (10%..) North Coast Totals
51045 100% 10,034 1D0% 1,631 100% 16,710 100%
Very Low 1,166 23.1% 1,257 12.5 180 11.0% 2,602 15.6%
Low 656 13.0% 1.161 11.6 165 10.1% 1,982 11.9%
Moderate 913 18.1% 1,716 17.1 .221 13.6% 2,851 17.1%
Above Moderate 2,310 45.8% 5,900 58.8 1,065 65.3% 9,274 55.5%
Central County
Central Area City San Unincorporated Rural Central Area Totals
Luis Obispo (20%')
18,656 100% 0 0 3,262 100% 21,916 100%
Very Low 5.111 27.4% 360 11.0% 5 471 25.0%
Low 2,520 13.5% 330 10.1% 2,850 13.0%
Moderate 2,759 14.8% 443 13.6% 3,202 14.6%
Above Moderate 8,266 44.3% 2,129 65.3% 10,395 47.4%
estimated
Deleted:9
' Deleoetl:2
TRIB Editonal
February 24,2008
Trib Editorial Opinion
Regarding RHNA
2-24-08
oektea:B
oeWea:2
310 -- — —
Text of City of Paso Robles Con_ ,6ndence regarding Regional Housing Needs Alloy in
t
" L
CITY 0 EL PASO DE ROBLES
i
"The PosS of the Oaks"
j
Isnuary 25,2008
I
Ron DeCark Fxecative Director {
San Luis Obispo Council of Oovmnr mm
1150 Osos St.Ste 202
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
Re: Regional Housing Needs Allocation
Dear Pmr-
t
In its General Plan,Economic Strategy,and current City Council Goals,the City of Paso Robles has
w—dred itself to a future dedicated m enhancing its sense of place and in managing natural resources in i
order to ensure a fut re quality of life for its cities. The fume envisioned by these documents would
include,but not be limited to:
i
• Redirecting growth to achieve a compact urban form featuring mixed uses and lusher residential j
densities within City Limits sprawl would be actively diswmaged; land development and }
transportation systems would achieve connectivity among neighborhoods,and alterative modes to
the use of the automobile such as wa0®g cycling,and transit would be encouraged and facilitated I
t ,
• Protecting and enhancing agncWwm andopen space surraending the Cit'y,most notably
that related
to the wine industry,and establishing meaningful community separators. j.'
• Reducing consumption of natural resources(energy,an
quality,water,and agricultural L•md to name 1
but a few)and encouraging recycling of resources.
i
Fnclosed with this leas is a summary of those polity and action statements from the City's General Plan, i
Economic Stately,and City Council Goals that support such efforts. i
}
To implement the vision described above and in the enclosed policy and action slaternents,the City has
undertaken the following activities:
i
•. Preparation of the UptowntTown Ceffis Specific Plan to guide the fume of the City's historic West
Side core This plan will wasider expanding mixed uses, intensified residential density, j
waAabldimcconnected neighbbmhoods, alternative transportation mode improvements, resource
management practices(e-g-I.EED standards).
I
• Preparation of specific plans for greenfield areas(Chandler Ranch and the Olsen Ranc bSeechwood
Area)that mwrporaw radinooal neighborhood design and resource management principles, f
3
• Prepmatian of a Purple Belt Plan to preserve agricultural resources surrounding the City and enhance
the City's position as a center for the wine mdost y.The 150 acre agriculture)conservation easement
recently acquired by the Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County at Turley Vineyard was the
fust step toward realization of this Cheam.
3
1000 SPRING S'rntre'r.PASO ROBLFS,CALffORMA woos L
i
I Deleted:B
Deleted:2
Sm Luis OYmo Cowd of Gffvmuwm
hnmy a 2608
Re: R-z-.iuml Rmang KL-ds Allarali
exc&Nk their PwcwCvt of PuPul'IiD" in Wtnclicli to IliviT rcbfi%,c Rcpund flousing NCW
Alkvl�ian.
A. The Cbun4.%- of San ", GSi= wi biafe d w ce,ru tii III TCW-.vli:ll &-'k5DpFm ajj�idc of
rMjMtlldiMies Md XhU sffY!d QIZ3hlh v-=:H-A-jicT vilk ocummimity M-rirA district 5V6
dLqnr,-=,.m u-aLdd not be ,H-xd to idupli0f, of ptod Si&.ailmiaI .nl!$
LIU pm
m, firm of ram-hatm a uma slriW-mmW gwt eq,E�ifil dik'11MIll-kc;blirr"1 ;j"!Pmu I
ue"vhi.h utould Lv used to fimd inihmmut impamucni4 dinxjy Oniai to fuslaing co--pwl
trrbm dum.lmmm.,iwn 7m pulf do,-and griedwo pm%tfv&xx-,
A.rjry id WYes be5c-.-zs tit the ffm cwg for SLO(Tjfi'suvlvella�m to& W-�v
j .. T *.lhdr
!ftmilutrul to rtNunuz:mral%n=ud ca:pm whm d!v6*ab=-with Lxvjzmje:j:�
Run vlqfia=d
Coramm6ty D6VWpftkuT Dif6fter
c. C-y CCUDC2
rt"T
I'mmm Camifissim
orthc Twhnical NbisoryCamraftue
Ddete&8
Delete&2
&*12
Viewpoint
Cut sprawl and improve communities by building homes where the jobs are
By Frank Mecham,Gary Nemeth,John Fmmon,Duane Pisano and Fred Strong
O n Feb.24,The Tribune encouraged consideration of a Paso Robles proposal to allocate public fimds in proportion to
state-mandated housing needs distributed among local agencies.The Tribune's encouragement is welcome.Btu the
proposal is mach more than an argument for a new tax-sharing formula
Every five to seven years local agencies are informed that they must provide their share of housing for the state's
growing population.Locally,this results in a process dubbed the Regional Housing Needs Allocation.The local
regional planning agency,San Luis Obispo Council of Governments,of which every incorporated city and the county
of San Luis Obispo are members,administers the RHNA process.
The process compels local agencies to cooperatively develop a basis for distributing the region's state housing
allocation.In recent history,the jurisdictions have agreed that both papulation and jobs are key factors to be considered
when allocating new housing requirements.
In other words,if one agency has a greater population and more jobs than another,then its share of new housing
requirements is proportionally greater-In fact,the formula has weighted job location more heavily(60 percent)than
population(40 percent)on the premise that pule ought to have the opportunity to live in the same community where
they work.
The theory goes that if more people live in the community where they work,there will be less regional traffic
congestion,air pollution,etc.It follows that higher degrees of livetwork pmrrimiry can lead to even more motion
relief.
As Paso Robles measured the allocation formulas est this theory and its own General Plan and Economic Strategy,
as well as policies emerging in the regionwide"Community 2050 Plan"and county General Plan updates,it was found
that they all discourage sprawl(the practice of scattering housing around in low densities),seek to make maxim[®use
of established communities'facilities that support community life(roads,water and sewer systems,Parks,etc.),treat
land as a limited nonrenewable resource by utilizing it more intensely(provide more density—more living,work or
commercial units—on each parcel),encourage agriculture and open space and in doing so,increase neighborhood
connectivity,allow for efficient alternative modes of transport and lessen h0mz*ork commutes,thus diminishing the
need for interregional road expansion,remote services,etc
If the theory is to be realized,and communities'policies are consistent with the theory,then the policies need to be
implemented To be unpl mented,the means to implement must also be developed So,Paso Robles proposed that
regional housing needs lobe allocated based upon job location only.And,to provide the means to support the resulting
housing re-allocation,that public funds are allocated in bice proportions.
In doing so,people may have the opportunity to live where they work,to break the cycle of sprawl and longer
commutes,to develop m estabFshed communities that have the infrastructure to support community life and to provide
the means to support homing over the long term.
Frwzk Mecham,Ginty Namuerh,John Hamorr,Dumre Prem w and Fred Strong an members of die Paso Robles City
ConnciL
oeteWd:B
DeleWd:2
8413 - -- - --
Text of City of San Luis Obispo1-29-08 Correspondence regarding Regional Housing Needs Allocation
January 29,2008
Ronald L DeCarti,Executive Director
San Luis Obispo Council of Governments
1150 Osos Street,#202
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
Subject: Regional Housing Needs Allocation Formula
Dear Mr.DeCarfi,
The City of San Luis Obispo is pleased to once again participate in the Regional Housing Needs Allocation
(RHNA) process set forth in California State Law. The SLOCOG methodology committee is now at point of
recommending to the SLOCOG Board an allocation formula for the upcoming seven and a half year period(2009-
2016). The City, as indicated in its Major City Goals and Housing Element, is committed to the production of
housing units at all income levels in order to meet the needs of current and future residents. At the Sarre time,
the General Plan promotes maintaining balanced growth and community goals for community character, open
space preservation,arid infill development. Selediom of an equitable region-wide allocation metthodofogy is a key
step in planning for future residential development.
While all jurisdictions must comply with State Law in order tD plan for future housing development in their General
Plan Housing Elements,the RHNA process does not produce housing units or make housing more affordable.
What achieves these goats are programs such as the City's Inclusionary housing requirements, promotion of
dersAy bonuses, funding of non profit housing providers, and speak plan development for designated growth
areas The City is well along in the planning process for the Onmrtt Area and the Margarita Area Specific Plans.
These annexations will provide over 800 housing units each, with 15% required to be for low and moderate
irncorne households.
The latest discussions focus on only two variables for the distribution of the regional housing need;1.Percentage
of county population and 2. Total number of jobs. The fust few meetffW have produced amensus for
ma'uttairhrtg a 60-40 weighting of jabs over populatiorh.The rationale is that while no one knows exactly what a
jobs-hosing basnoe s.it makes conceptual sense to place a mild emphasis on planning for housing where jobs
currently exist Rey.however.a recomrnerdation from the City of Paso Robles has been submitted m place
100% of the weighting on jobs and aero on population. The following points illustrate the weakness of the
proposaL
1. The premise of a jobs-housing balance does not necessarily result in workers wing in the community in
which they wok The tad study to evaluate the jcbs-hoising balance found that the City of San Luis
Obispo had the closest numeric balance between jobs and horsuhg and had the most workers living in
the community in which they were employed. People choose the location of their housing based upon
many factors, including schools, cod of housuxg. community amenities, (f&etyle choices, pro>omity to
employment and recreational oppohmtm and climate. Mandating a jobs-housing balance through the
RHNA process will not change the where people choose to five.
2. Regional Studies,such as the SLOCOG Traffic Model,point out Out the majority,of trips, 75%or more,
are not work-related.H only two out of eight trips per day are work-related,and the other six trips are not
planned for through tiansporlation of ematives,any attempt to achieve the illusive jobs-trousirg batanc�e
will fail Furthermore,strains on the environment air pollution,and transportation intreetruchue will remain
unchanged. In addition, Mv4mrker households are very common today and it bay impossible to
produce a jobs-hosing balance at the household level unless it is required that both household workers
five and work in the same city.
DdeW.B
DdIeW:2
3. The economics of housing production will drive new construction.Where the cost of land,development,
permitting,and infrastructure is lowest,is where housing will be buelL In our region,much of this has been
in the unincorporated county. Until development costs in the unincorporated area account for the costs of
infrastructure planning, air quality impacts, parks and amenities provisions that the cities must provide
and find ways to finance, there will be fittle fiscal incentive for builders to promote infill, or concentrate
residential production withinestablished communities. Underlying legal lots most in the county for
development and there is no financial disincentive attached to this type of development. The RHNA
process does not achieve either incentives or penalties to re-direct development
4. Local govemments win want kcal control as every rand of the RHNA process attests.Each City,and the
County,will be looking to uripWment their General Plan poledes,Housing Elements and Specific Plans to
determine how,when and where future developmerd should occur.State Allocation should not override
cornmunity values.
I am attaching an excerpt from our General Ran Annual Report from 2006. It outlines many of the policies and
programmes alluded to here.Importantly,you'll note that of the 4,087 assigned to the City through the 2001 RHNA
process, only 1,399 units were built The City does not build housing, and even with aggressive local and
regional policies in place during one of the most significant housing booms in the last c enhrry;only 34%of the
horsing envisioned by the State and SLOCOG's methodology was produced in the City of San Luis Obispo.
The methodology committee is considemg using a range of emphasis between jobs and population for the
allocation formula. However, it is dear that placing the allocation squarely upon employment not only fails to
property meet the intent of Government:Code section 65664 by singling out one factor(see 3 below), but it
also does all of the communities a disservice by burdening a single community with the majority of the
regional need. Furthermore, placing a planning requkernent of over 2100 units on a community where
developers oily produced about 14W units during a major boom cycle both ignores the physical constraints
within the City of San Luis Obispo as well as its adopted local planning priorities.The City made great strides
to get its Housing Element certified at over 4006 units and may be able to accommodate an additional 16M in
the upcoming update,but not more.
From CaCdornia Government Code Section 65584.
(d) The regional housing needs allocation plan shall be consistent with all of the following objectives
(1)tndeasiirg the(rousing supply and ft mix of housing types,tenure, and alfondability m aU aftes and
counties m&m the region in an equitable manner, which shelf result in eachlunisdretion receiving an
allocation of units for low-and very low income households.
(2)Promoting infill development and socioeconomic equity,the protection of environmental and
agricultural resources,and the encowagement of effx*rd development pattens.
(3)Promoting an improved intraregional relationship between jobs and housing.
(4)Allocating alower proportion of housing meed to an income category when a jurisdiction already has
a dbsprofha6onately high share of households in that income category,as compared to the countywide
distnbutior of households in that category form the most recent decenniat United States census.
We loots forward to following up with the process with our City Council, with the SLOCOG Board and with the
members of the methodology cortrmittee. If you have any questions, please contact Peter Brown, Housing
Programs Manager,at 805.781.7523.
Sincerely, _
John Mandeville,Director
Community Depamnent
City of San Luis Obispo
Delete&6
Dehft&2
&-*15