HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/06/1993, K3 - REVIEW OF THE DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT. Q��IIII� �III`IIIIII�II�IIII vJ T L P MEETING DATE:
uu
city of san ' ��s os�sl',o T�--�
Marme COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
FROM:,,,,4Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director; By: Jeff
Hoo ciate Plan er
SU JECT: Review of the draft Housing Element.
CAO RECOMMENDATION: 1) Give direction to staff regarding changes
or additions to the Housing Element; and 2) By motion, authorize
the Community Development Director to . submit a revised draft
Housing Element incorporating Planning Commission and City Council
comments to the State Department of Housing and Community
Development.
SITUATION
State law requires all cities and counties to review and revise
their housing elements based on established deadlines. San Luis
Obispo was to have updated its housing element by July 1, 1992 .
Procedural and policy questions dealing with the state-mandated
regional housing needs program, and the need for the housing
element review process to "track" the draft land use element have
prevented the City from meeting that deadline..
There are no direct state sanctions against local governments which
have not updated their housing elements by the deadline; however
cities and counties without a state-certified housing element may
not be eligible for certain state housing funds. A case in point:
the future of a $444,000 CDBG grant for acquisition of the Women's
Shelter is in question because the state has required the City of
San Luis Obispo to "self-certify" that its housing element meets
state housing law before the funds can be used.
To expedite the housing element, staff is asking the Council to
review the draft housing element and the commission's comments,
provide direction on any changes or additions needed, and authorize
staff to forward a revised draft to the State Department of Housing
and Community Development (HCD) for its mandatory 45-day review.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
This report introduces the April 1992 draft housing element, major
new programs, and identifies the Planning Commission's recommended
changes. After the Council reviews the draft, its recommended
changes will be incorporated into the revised draft which will be
forwarded to HCD for mandatory review. HCD staff will review the
draft for compliance with state law, and return its comments in 45
days. A City Council Hearing Draft will then , be prepared and
brought back to the City Council for review this summer.
BACKGROUND
The Housing Element was last updated in 1987 . As part of the
-- General Plan update, city staff has prepared a draft Housing
.111011111@11 city of San IS OBISpo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 2
Element which has been reviewed at two public workshops, and at
three Planning Commission hearings in 1992. The draft incorporates
policies and programs which the Planning Commission originally
discussed in October 1991, and addresses recent changes to state
housing law.
Last Fall the City Council considered policy options regarding the
state-mandated regional housing needs plan, and directed staff to
work with the League of California Cities to initiate changes in
the requirement, and to hold off on further hearings on the draft
housing element until the draft land use element was ready for City
Council hearings.
ADVISORY BODY RECOMMENDATION
At its May 13 , 1992 meeting, the Planning Commission completed its
review of the Draft Housing Element update and recommended several
changes to the text. Most of the Commission's comments were on
policy and program details and implementation. The most
significant revision dealt with the. City's response to "regional
housing need" as determined by the San Luis Obispo Area
Coordinating Council (COG) . Commissioners felt that COG's housing.
need allocation was unrealistic, and that the updated housing
element should reflect the City's current growth management policy
which allows for about a 1 percent increase (about 180 dwellings)
in the housing stock per year. Major Planning Commission changes
are summarized below, and detailed comments are in the attached
Planning commission minutes.
1. Housing production/regional housing need. Revise housing
element policies and programs for consistency with the City's
land use element's one percent growth rate in the 1990s.
2 . Land costs, P. 31 1. 0: Add discussion of land costs and the
availability of residentially-zoned land.
3. Chs. 10.12, 10.14: Provide more details on types and levels
of urban services which the City provides.
4. Affordable housing requirement, P. 125: Clarify the terms
"project" and "expansion areas. "
S. Sororities and fraternities, P.. 17: Include a program to
. provide a greek row on the Cal Poly campus, address married
students and faculty housing needs, Cuesta College student
needs, and prepare a map showing one-mile radius of Cal Poly.
6. Rent controls for motel conversions, P. 16: Include a program
to ensure that conversions, particularly small motel
conversions, have rent controls to keep them affordable.
111111%J11$01§1 city Of San ..AIS OBISPO
SMormis COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 3
Other Changes
Since the Planning Commission completed its review, staff has
revised sections on: housing programs to include costs and
implementation; availability of water resources; public services;
and revised some exhibits to reflect new demographic data.
DISCUSSION
Council Review Strategy
Detailed council review may be premature until HCD has commented on
the draft housing element. HCD will focus on information required
to meet state housing law, possibly resulting in the need for
additional analysis, policies or programs. The revised council
hearing draft would then return for council review this summer.
At this point, overall council policy direction would be most
appropriate to expedite the review process, particularly with
regard to:
■ Regional housing needs; and
■ Major new housing policies and programs.
Regional Housing Need
A report. discussing , policy options for addressing the State's
regional housing needs requirement -is attached. The Planning
Commission's recommendation is essentially, "policy option 3:
General Plan (1 percent growth limit) " in the attached report.
Do councilmembers support this approach? If not, what is the
preferred approach?
Major Housing Policies and Programs
San Luis Obispo City has been designated by the federal government
as part of the SLO-Atascadero-Paso Robles Metropolitan Area. This
designation entitles the city to receive federal block grant
housing funds which could be used for a wide variety of housing
related programs, like low-cost loans for homebuyers, housing
rehabilitation loans, infrastructure improvements to reduce housing
costs, acquisition and/or development of affordable housing, and
for certain public services. The draft housing element includes
several new programs which reflect these new opportunities, and
engages the City in a more active role in providing or maintaining
affordable housing. These include.:
1. Affordable Housing Incentives. Additional incentives for
developer-assisted low- and moderate-cost housing. Subject to
future council review and approval, these might include
3 .3
���� ►�INIII ���► MY of San L.AIs OBIspo
i COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 4 _
waivers of planning and permit fees, expedited application
processing, higher density bonuses, and direct financial
assistance for unmet housing needs.
2.. Inclusionary Housing. Establish an inclusionary housing
program to require that a fixed percentage of new residential
units be sold or rented at levels affordable to low-and
moderate-income households; or as an alternative, allow
payment of an "in-lieu" fee toward the development of below-
market rate housing elsewhere in San Luis Obispo.
3. Housing Trust Fund. Establish a housing trust fund, with
possible funding through Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) and other sources, to provide low-cost loans and grants
to leverage development of affordable housing, and to provide
assistance to first-time home buyers through local non-profit
housing agencies.
4. Assisted Housing. City would use CDBG or other grant funds to
help acquire, build, or rehabilitate assisted housing in
cooperation with the Housing Authority.
5. City Regulations Amendment. Amend regulations which
unreasonably increase housing costs, and revise development ,
standards to encourage the production of affordable housing
through density bonuses, reduced minimum lot areas, or floor
area limits in new residential subdivisions.
6. Downtown Housing. Determine feasibility of expanding downtown
housing through rehabilitation and retrofit of downtown
buildings for single-room occupancy, low-cost housing for
seniors and low/moderate income households.
7. Tenant/Landlord Assistance. Re-establish a. rental housing
assistance program to mediate tenant/landlord disputes and to
encourage preservation of rental housing. The program could
be administered through a local non-profit housing agency and
funded through CDBG funds.
8. student/Community Relations. City and Cal Poly to jointly
prepare and adopt a student housing plan and "good neighbor
program. "
Attachments: -Staff report on regional housing needs
-Planning Commission minutes
Enclosure:
-Draft Housing Element, April 1992
3
city of $an lues OBI SPO
000NCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
FROM: old Jonas, Community Development Director; By: Jeff
Hoo sociate Pla er
SUBJECT: Consideration of policy options regarding regional
housing needs for San Luis Obispo.
CAO RECOMMENDATION: Evaluate the regional housing need policy
options and by motion, provide direction to staff regarding the
preferred policy to incorporate into the City's draft housing
element update.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
The City is at a "crossroads" in the preparation of its draft
housing element update. The Planning Commission has' completed its
review, and recommended changes to the element to reflect the 1
percent growth policy incorporated into both the current and draft
update land use elements. This recommendation conflicts with state
requirements that the City meet "regional housing needs" in its
housing element. Compliance with this requirement is necessary to
assure state acceptance of the draft housing element as being in
compliance with state law. The report concludes that the
Commission's recommendation and the State's requirements cannot be
reconciled, and that the City Council should provide direction as
to the preferred growth strategy. This approach would then be
included in the City Council hearing draft of the housing element.
SITUATION
At its May 13 , 1992 meeting, the Planning Commission completed its
review of the Draft Housing Element update and directed staff to
revise the draft prior to City Council review. Most of the
Commission's comments were on the housing policy and program
details and implementation. The Commission' s most significant
revision dealt with the City' s response to "'regional housing need"
as determined by the San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council
(COG) . Commissioners felt that COG's housing need allocation was
unrealistic, and that the updated housing element should reflect
the City's current growth management policy -- allowing a 1 percent
increase (about 180 dwellings) in the housing stock per year. This
policy direction is not consistent with State-approved regional
housing needs, and may conflict with state housing law.
Before the Commission's changes are incorporated into . a City
Council hearing draft, and with the Commission's understanding and
agreement, staff is asking the Council to ,provide policy direction
on how to reconcile state regional housing need requirements with
City growth policies. This report discusses the regional housing
need issue and presents policy options for Council consideration.
HCD staff will review the draft element for compliance with State
law, and return its comments in 45 days.
3 .�
'J I
V
1 MEETING DATE:
III
city Of SAn LUIS OBISPO ITEM NUMBER:
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Regional Housing Need
Page 2
Once the Council identifies its policy preference, the City Council
hearing draft housing element will be prepared and scheduled for
Council hearings, and forwarded to the California Department of
Housing and Community Development (HCD) for their mandatory review
prior to Council action.
Regional Housing Need
Like many California communities, San Luis Obispo is required to
update its adopted Housing Element regularly (status report on
other Central Coast cities attached) . As part of the updating
process, state law requires local governments to incorporate
specific housing production targets -- called "regional housing
need" -- into their housing elements. Regional councils of
government are delegated the authority to determine regional
housing needs for each city and county following state guidelines.
HCD then reviews and approves the regional housing needs plans to
determine compliance with state housing goals.
On November 61 1991, COG adopted a Regional Housing Plan calling
for the construction of 19,880 new housing units in San Luis Obispo
County by July 1997, a 22 percent increase in the number of
existing units. Based on the methodology used, San Luis Obispo
City is charged with providing 5, 128 new units by July 1997, a 26
percent increase in the City's housing stock -- and over one
quarter of the County's total projected housing need.
After careful review, staff determined that the allocation for San
Luis Obispo is based on inaccurate assumptions about City/County
economic trends and population growth. Using methods similar to
those used by COG and the State, and using what staff feels are
more appropriate growth trends, city staff estimated that the City
of San Luis Obispo's would need approximately 31,700 new housing
units by July 19.97 to meet both city and regional housing needs.
The City's Housing Element update includes new policies and
programs to expand the City's affordable housing supply. To put
the Area Coordinating Council's numbers in perspective, however,
the City would need to allow the construction of about 1,000
dwelling units annually for the next five years to meet the adopted
target. The City has never achieved this rate of housing
construction --not even when housing construction has been most
active. We reached a peak during the mid-1980s of about 800 units
in one year.
MEETING DATE:
�n7i ►�dlllfilip�' �dlU city of San Luis OBIspo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
Regional Housing Need
Page 3
Previous "Fair Share" Requirement
This isn't the first time San Luis Obispo has addressed state-
mandated housing targets. In 1984, HCD prepared a "housing needs
plan" for San Luis Obispo County and all the cities within the
County. During the 1987 housing element update, HCD required San
Luis Obispo to include a regional housing need allocation of 1,630
new dwellings between 1984 and 1990. During this period, the City
gained new 2, 690 dwellings -- substantially more than the HCD's
regional housing need figure. The element's target numbers for new
dwellings for low and very low income households, however, were not
achieved.
State Housing Law Changes
In 1990, then Governor Deukmejian signed into law SB 2274
(Bergeson) . In effect, this law put "teeth." into the State's
regional housing need requirement by revising the process of
allocating local shares of regional housing need, and by requiring
that HCD review housing elements to assure compliance with state
mandated housing needs prior to adoption (State Housing Law
attached) . Now under state law, local governments no longer had
the right to adopt a "local revision" to its regional need
allocation. Instead, cities and counties could propose revisions
to COG. The "catch" : if COG accepts the revision, it must ensure
that the total regional housing need is remains the same. Locally,
that would mean that the portion of regional housing needs assigned
to but not accepted by San Luis Obispo City must then be allocated
to some other jurisdiction in the County.
According to planning directors of the various cities in the
County, these cities may be unable to meet their regional need
allocation, and they are not willing to accept a portion of the
City's allocated need. . The County is in a similar position.
COG's Action
State law requires HCD to determine the regional housing needs for
each COG jurisdiction, in this case, the County of San Luis Obispo.
Using population growth estimates prepared by the California
Department of Finance, HCD determined San ' Luis Obispo County's
regional housing need and notified the County in June 1990. COG
staff attempted to lower the State's growth estimates, citing
resource constraints to growth due to sewer and water. In March
1991, HCD agreed to lower its population growth estimates -- mainly
in response to newly released 1990 Census data.
3��
tltl^^y1I III Ip�I 1 MEETING DATE:
11`IItlII1�I�M1$11�IIII'I'�II�III city O f Sart Luis OBISPO ITEM NUMBER:
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT.
Regional Housing Need
Page 4
Originally, HCD estimated that the County's total population would
increase from 221,703 to 281, 100 persons between January 1, 1990
and July 1, 1997 --- an average annual increase of 3 . 6 percent. The
revised, final estimate is for the County's population to grow from
221,703 to 267, 600 persons between April 1, 1990 and July 1, 1997 -
- an average annual increase of 3 .2 percent.
City Appeal of Regional Housing Needs
In August 1991, City staff reviewed COG's determination and
concluded that it did not accurately reflect the City's housing
need or capability to support additional growth. In September
1991, the Planning Commission discussed the regional housing need
issue, and supported staff's contention that COG's numbers were not
achievable. Commissioners directed staff to prepare an appeal of
COG's determination as part of the housing element update work.
In January 1992 , the Commission reviewed staff's proposed revision
to COG's determination, and concurred with the approach.
The appeal was submitted to COG. .staff in January, including an
analysis of COG' s numbers and methods on which the needs assessment
is based. COG's regional housing need determination was based
primarily on employment growth projections and availability of
water resources. On April 8, 1992 COG denied the City's appeal,
finding that the City's proposed revision was not justified
because: 1) the regional housing needs were developed following
state law and accepted planning methods; 2) if employment
projections on which the regional needs are based were not
achieved, the City still has unmet need for housing for existing
local employees; and 3) the City's revision would require
reallocating the difference in housing need to other jurisdictions
in the County, and evidence indicates that these jurisdictions are
not able to accommodate the additional housing.
The main factors that COG used to .determine the City's regional
housing need are summarized below.
Employment Growth
The 1980s were years of rapid growth for much of San Luis Obispo
County. According to COG figures, San Luis .Obispo and surrounding
areas showed a 28 percent increase in the mumber of jobs between
1980 and 1987. As noted in COG's study, one-half of the County's
jobs were in San Luis Obispo City. To arrive at housing need
figures, COG's plan assumes that a robust 18 percent rate of job
growth will prevail through the planning period.
MEETING DATE:
nllui�nlllll�pu ��� jl city or San tins OBISpo ITEM NUMBER:
j COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Regional Housing Need
Page 5
The rate of job growth in the "central county" area during the
1990s is likely to be much less than the 28 percent experienced
during the economic boom days of the 1980s. These job growth
figures included large employment generators which are not likely
to continue, at least in the foreseeable future, such as
construction of P.G. & E. 's Diablo Canyon nuclear power. plant,
major enrollment and facility expansions at Cal Poly and Cuesta
College, and growth in State and County employment. • The Diablo
Canyon facility is built out, and enrollment at Cal Poly and Cuesta
College have stabilized, and will probably decline due to budget
constraints. A lack of water, coupled with recessionary economic
factors state wide are likely to dampen public and private sector
employment growth for the period covered by this plan.
The plan notes that "San Luis Obispo's role as a regional
employment center is expected to continue., although employment
growth is expected to be deflected to other communities due to
water and sewage disposal service limitations in San Luis Obispo. "
Between January 1989 and January 1990, job growth in SLO County
dropped to about 1 percent. According to State Employment
Development Department (EDD) staff, that employment growth rate is
expected to last at least through 1992. Yet COG's plan assumes an
overall job growth rate of 18 percent between January 1991 and July
1997, (based on a 1990 estimate of 37 , 317 jobs in the "central
county" area) , despite reduced economic expectations for the early
1990s. Based on EDD data and economic trends, a more realistic
estimate of 10 percent overall job growth should be used for the
planning period.
Revised calculations for additional housing need based on
employment trends are:
10% job growth from 1/1/91 through 7/1/97 equals 0. 10 (37,371)
3, 332 new jobs;
substituting,
3, 332 new jobs/ (1.2 employed person per household x 0.95
occupancy rate) = 2, 923 new dwellings.
The city's average number of employed persons per household is 1.2,
not 1.1 as used in COG's analysis. Hence, the base housing need
for the City of San Luis. Obispo (January 1991 through July 1997)
should equal about 2,923 housing units. To allow for housing
demolitions and conversions and a 5 percent vacancy rate, this
figure is increased by 8 percent to an adjusted need of 3,282 new
housing units by July 1997.
3 -9
MEETING DATE:
�� ' iiilli�I� �h►'ll city O� san Luis OBISPO.
ITEM NUMBER:
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Regional Housing Need
Page 6
Water Resources
Since COG prepared its housing need estimates, the time frame for
development of new City water sources has changed. COG assumed
that the Salinas Reservoir expansion would provide 1,350 acre feet
in January 1994, Nacimiento Reservoir water in 1995, and State
Water Project coastal branch water would be available in 1996. Due
to the actual time needed for engineering and environmental
studies, design and construction, the earliest any of these new
sources will be available, optimistically, is July 1995 (Salinas
Reservoir) , at -least 1 1/2 years later than anticipated.
COG assumes 4,400 new units could be served with water during the
'planning period; however using the most accurate estimates
available, the most dwelling units which could, be served based on
anticipated water supplies between 1992 and July 1997 is 2,900
units.
According to state law, availability of public services like water,
sewers, police and fire services limits growth only in terms of
timing. Thus, the regional housing allocation plan can consider _.
the time needed to provide the necessary services to support growth
in setting housing allocations. The law does not allow cities and
counties toset permanent growth limits based on limited water or
sewer facilities.
Summary
Using COG's methodsand substituting more realistic assumptions
about demand, job growth, available land, and public services, the
City's. base share of regional housing need is 1, 170 to 2, 923 new
housing units between January 1991 and July 1997 . To allow for a
5 percent vacancy factor and demolitions, an additional 234
dwelling units is added to the base housing need, for a total need
of 3,282 new housing units.
For reasons cited above, COG's total projected housing need for SLO
County is lower than that projected by the State Department of
Housing and Community Development. So a portion of the difference
between COG's projected regional need and the , State's projected
need was allocated to each city and to the unincorporated area
based on the amount of growth forecast for , each. So to be
consistent with COG's method, the City's regional need allocation
was adjusted accordingly:
31282 units (projected City need) + 451 units (HCD added need)
= revised regional housing need of 3,733 dwelling units.
3 -�o
IIIIf ``��II112 MEETING DATE:
�i�Ih��uII�IN�IIIIIuI���Hu�lcity of San Luis OBI SPO ITEM NUMBER:
l COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Regional Housing Need
Page 7
To produce enough housing to meet this revised need, the City would
need to accommodate 575 new dwellings per year between January 1,
1991 and July 1, 1997. Even if the City did tailor its policies
and programs to allow this rate of housing production, it still
might not be achieved. It could be achieved only if:
■ City water supply improvements proceed as planned, and
necessary public services (water, .sewers, roads, schools) are
available to meet the needs of current residents plus those
of new residents;
■ the City receives development applications proposing at least
this number of new housing units;
■ City policies are amended to allow growth to exceed the 1
percent level identified in the General Plan and proposed Land
Use Element update; and
■ the City annexes land within its urban reserve to allow room
to accommodate this level of residential growth.
Consequences of Not Meeting Regional Housing Needs
State law requires the City to include policies and programs in its
Housing Element which would allow the City to achieve its regional
housing need, but it does not hold the City responsible for
actually producing this housing. If the City makes a "good faith"
effort to allow this much housing and provide the necessary
policies, programs, properly zoned land, and resources but the
housing is not built, it would be deemed to be in compliance with
state housing law, according to HCD officials. For example, if the
City is not able to secure additional water during the planning
period from 1992 to 1997, HCD would recognize that situation as a
legitimate reason for not achieving COG' s regional housing need.
There is, however, a likelihood that the state will try to "carry
forward" the unmet housing need into the City's future housing
programs.
If the City does not reflect COG's regional housing need numbers
in the pending Housing and Land Use Element updates, it is likely
that HCD will find the City's Housing Element to be not in
compliance with state housing law (Article 10.6. , Ch. 65580
et.seq. , Cali B. Govt. Code) , according to Gary Collord, State
Department of Housing and Community Development (June 10, 1992) .
-1 This action has at least two possible ramifications:
1) As a result of developer or citizen legal action, the adequacy
MEETING DATE:
++�����►�►illlll�i►' ►� SII city of San tins OBISPO
ITEM NUMBER:
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Regional Housing 'Need
Page 8
of the City's General Plan could be challenged. Courts have
restricted cities' ability to issue construction permits where
it's been determined that their general plans were invalid.
2) The City's eligibility to compete for and receive .housing
grants through HCD would be reduced. This should not,
however, affect the City's eligibility to receive federal
housing block grants for which the City is now entitled due
to its recent classification as an "urbanized area. "
POLICY ALTERNATIVES
The City of San Luis Obispo does not actually construct dwellings.
However, through its provision of services, zoning regulations and
growth management programs, it influences housing production. By
establishing housing goals, the City is stating that it will enable
housing construction to occur at established rates.
Staff has identified three policy alternatives for dealing with the
conflict between city policy and state-mandated housing needs.
Only alternative 1 would meet the State's requirements.
1. COG's Allocation: Set housing production goals consistent
with the City's regional housing need as determined by COG and
approved by the State.
2. Moderate Growth: Set housing production goals which are lower
than COG's regional housing need, and linked to the.
availability of public services and moderate economic growth
expectations.
3. Continued 1% Growth Limit: Set housing element goals and
policies based on the General Plan's 1 percent.
Table 1 on the following page compares the housing rates and
construction levels associated with the three policy options
described above.
POLICY OPTION 1: COG's Allocation
Description: The City would incorporate into its housing element
the housing goals prepared by the San Luis Obispo Council of
Governments and approved by HCD. The City would enable the
construction of an average of 789 dwellings per year between
January 1991 and July 1997.
MEETING DATE:.
IIIh������VII�IIIIIII�1I lII city of San lui s OBI SPO ITEM NUMBER:
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Regional Housing Need
Page 9 `
1. Consistency With the General Plan
This policy option conflicts with the current and proposed Land Use-
Elements
seElements because it would allow annual average growth rates to
reach 4.3 percent, while the General Plan limits the annual growth
rate to 1% or less. The 1 percent growth rate is not linked to any
specific resource or service limitation, but reflects previous
Council judgements about a sustainable growth rate which allows the
orderly provision of facilities and services for new development,
and the assimilation of new residents and physical changes into the
community. In terms of the City's ultimate size, 'however, this
approach is consistent with the draft land use element. This
document anticipates the addition of about 5,100 new units between
1992 and 2017. In effect, by meeting COG's regional housing need,
the City would-reach its ultimate size as much as 20 years sooner
than anticipated.
Table 1
Alternative Policies for Meeting Regional Housing Needs
(Units Produced, January 1991 - July 1997)
Policy Options Total -Units Units/Year
COG Allocation 5, 128 789
Moderate Growth (1) 31733 575
General Plan (2) 11290 184
(1% Annual Rate)
Production History 21809 468
(1984 - 1990)
Notes:
(1) This policy option was incorporated into the draft
Housing Element considered by the Planning Commission i
May, 1992.
(2) The Planning Commission has recommended that the Cit.
target its housing goals to be consistent with the Lan
Use Element of the General Plan .(1 annual growth rate) .
3
MEETING DATE:
t(li*;illiiWhlllhlllilll�II City Of San LUIS OBI SPO
COUNCIL. AGENDA REPORT, ITEM NUMBER:
Regional Housing Need
Page 10
2. Resource/service availability and environmental impact
The proposed regional housing need for the City of 5, 128 new
dwellings between January 1991 and July 1997 is not achievable
because adequate water and sewer resources are not available during
the planning period to support this rate of growth, and because the
increased population in so short a time span would result in
significant, unmitigatable impacts to traffic, air quality, police
and fire services, and schools. The City's draft Land Use Element
indicates that 5, 100 new dwellings will be added gradually at about
200 units per year between 1992 and 2017, accommodating a total
City population of about 55, 000 persons.
Air Quality
The levels for ozone and particulate matter in this area currently
exceed acceptable standards, and emissions of these pollutants must.
be reduced by b% per year until State standards are achieved.
Adding 5, 128 dwellings will significantly increase traffic levels
and mobile emissions, and delay if not preclude the City's
attainment of State air quality standards and compliance with the
1988 Clean Air Act.
Traffic
The draft Circulation Element proposes various programs and traffic
improvements during the next 30 years and assumes that in-city
traffic volumes will increase at an average rate of slightly over
1 percent per year. If the City population grows faster than 1 ,
percent per year, planned traffic improvements may not be adequate
to maintain safe, efficient traffic flow during peak hours. To
meet the regional housing need, the City would produce new housing
at an average rate of about six percent per year between July 1992
and July 1997.
Police and Fire Services
As the City's population grows, the need for police and fire
services grows at a disproportionately faster rate. Police
staffing in San Luis Obispo is already below the state average, as
measured by the number of sworn officers to resident population.
Currently, the City's ratio of sworn officers to population is 1.33
per 1, 000 resident population, below the state average of 1.8 per
11000. The increased need for staff, equipment, and facilities
will be met partially through development impact fees and
environmental impact mitigation fees, imposed at the time of future
development. Added costs for these services will, in part, be paid
" I ,
MEETING DATE:
city of san luis 0151spo
COUNCIL-AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
Regional Housing Need
Page 11
by city residents through increased fees or taxes.
Sewer
Sewer treatment plant upgrades now underway will expand the City's
sewer treatment capacity to about 5.4 million gallons per day
(average dry weather flow) , or five ,percent. This will accommodate
a population increase of . 4 , 300 persons through the year 2000
(Wastewater Treatment Plant Final EIR, March 1990) . The plant will
be operational by Fall 1992, and is planned to accommodate an
increase of up to 3 , 000 persons, or about 1250 new dwellings by
1997.
Water
Engineering and environmental studies are underway to secure
additional water supplies. At the earliest, additional water
supplies are not expected to beavailable to support new
development until 1995 with the enlargement of the Salinas
Reservoir. This project is expected to add about 1, 600 acre feet
for residential use. At a use rate of 0.43 acre foot per dwelling
per year, this could support development of 3 ,700 new dwellings.
Between July 1992 and January 1995, housing growth would be limited
by lack of water to the rate of development which could be
accommodated by retrofitting, or probably somewhat less than 1
percent per year (180 to 200 dwellings per year, compounded) . If
the City were successful in securing all of the additional water
sources under consideration, it could make available up to 5,970
acre feet of water to meet the needs of new residents -- enough for
about 13, 000 new dwellings. ,
Timing is the main water constraint in achieving the COG's numbers.
Beginning in January 1995, housing production could increase;
however, to meet the City' s regional housing need of 5, 100
dwellings by July 1997, 4 ,443 dwellings would have to be built in
two and one-half years -- a rate of almost 1500 units per year or
148 dwellings per month. The City has never achieved this rate of
growth, nor is it likely that this rate could be achieved even if
the environmental impacts could be mitigated, and the resources and
policies were in place to allow such growth.
schools
San Luis Coastal Unified School District's current enrollment is
7,800 (includes eight schools outside SLO City) . According to
District studies, new residential development generates 0.65
MEETING DATE:
����w��� Nlliilll���' lllllll city O� San 1wS OBISPO
ITEM NUMBER:
COUNCIL. AGENDA REPORT
Regional Housing Need
Page 12
schoolchild per dwelling. COG's regional housing need translates
into about 3,300 added students in five years -- an increase of
about 600 students per year and an increase of over 40 percent in
local school enrollment (50 percent or more in SLO City) . In
recent years, the District has grown at about 80 students per year.
Due to budget constraints and current overcrowding at the
elementary school level, 5, 100 new dwellings would have serious
adverse consequences for school staffing, facilities, and programs
in the City alone, not counting additional problems due to
enrollment growth in areas outside the City also served by the
District.
3. Availability of Land. Resources
The City currently has enough land within its boundaries to allow
construction of about 1700 additional dwellings (includes added
development potential from mixed use sites, redevelopment and
intensification) . When expansion areas listed in the draft land
use element are included, an additional 3 , 245 dwellings could be.
accommodated, for a total added residential capacity of 4,950
dwellings -- less than COG's need figure of .5, 128 dwellings.
To increase residential capacity, the City would need to consider
additional residential annexations, probably near the City's
western and southern edges.
4. Impact on community Expectations
This growth increase would represent a major departure from citizen
preferences on community growth, as expressed in the Land Use
Element opinion survey and recent advisory elections. Although it
is unlikely that this number of new units would actually be built,
the policy change itself would probably not be consistent with the
majority of citizens' views as to San .Luis Obispo's planned growth
character.
5. Economic Impact
City costs to provide additional services should be partially
offset through permit and user fees, added local sales tax
revenues, and other revenues. Generally, housing (unlike retail
commercial uses, for example) tends to cost local governments more
to provide services than it generates in taxes and fees. Hence,
this rate of residential growth is. likely to have an adverse fiscal.
impact on the City. The increased rate, of housing construction
could be expected to hold city housing , costs down and .increase
vacancy rates, thus assisting low and moderate-income homebuyers
who wish to live in San Luis Obispo..
MEETING DATE:
°�Iiiifll�I� j�Ili city of sanuIs OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
Regional Housing Need.
Page 13
6. Potential For Litigation
This approach would allow the City to meet state housing laws, and
reduce the risk of litigation over the validity of the City's
general plan due to lack of HCD acceptance of the Housing Element.
There may be some risk, . however, of developers using litigation to
force the City to allow residential development to achieve this
number of new units even if water were not available to serve the.
new residents.
POLICY OPTION 2.: Moderate Growth
This approach would set a growth rate intermediate between COG's
numbers and the City's current and planned 1 percent growth limit
during the 1990s. It would set the City's regional housing need at
3,733 dwellings, and would allow an average annual growth rate of
up to 570 units per year, or 3.2 percent. By comparison, the
City's annual average housing production during the period from
1984 to 1990 was about 470 units per year, or between . 2 .5 and 3
percent. This is the approach which the current draft housing
element incorporates.
1. Consistencp .With the General Plan
This option would conflict with the current and proposed Land Use
Elements because it would allow annual average growth rates
slightly exceeding 3 percent, while the General Plan limits the
annual growth rate to 1 percent or less. At this rate, it is
estimated that the City would achieve buildout about ten years
sooner than anticipated.
2 . Resource/service availability and environmental impact
The revised regional housing need of 3 ,733 new dwellings between
January 1991 and July 1997 is achievable if the planned water and
sewer facilities are completed and available during the planning
period. For example, Utilities Department staff anticipate that
the Salinas Reservoir Expansion would be completed by the end of
1995. Once completed, the modified reservoir would. allow storage
to supply an additional 1, 600 acre feet for new housing. This
would be enough to accommodate about 3,700 new dwellings. However
since the additional water supplies will not be available until the
end of 1995 at the earliest, it is not likely that even the revised
housing need could-be achieved by July 1997. .Environmental impacts
of this option would be similar to, but - less severe than those
listed for Option 1. Since the impacts of growth are spread over
a longer time period than in Option 1, their short-term effects are
r
MEETING DATE:
city of San IDIS OBispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
Regional Housing Need
Page 14
more easily mitigated and absorbed by the community.
3. Impact on Community Expectations
Like Option 1, this represents a departure from city policies and
citizen preferences on community growth. Although it is unlikely
that even this revised number of new units would actually be built,
and the growth rate would be less "dramatic" than with Option 1,
the policy change itself would probably not be consistent with the
majority of citizens' views as to San Luis Obispo's planned growth
character. Those wishing to buy housing in San Luis Obispo would
find a wider range of housing types and prices available under this
approach than would otherwise belikely if the City maintained its
one percent growth rate.
4. Potential For Litigation
According to HCD officials, this approach would not meet state
housing law, even though the City might be "procedurally in
compliance" by following all other state requirements for housing
elements. In short, the City must include the COG numbers, or the
housing element will not be accepted by HCD to be "in compliance"
with state housing law. What does this mean? Again, according to
HCD's own staff, it doesn't mean alot. San Luis Obispo's current
housing element has been certified to be in compliance; however of
the 509 California cities and counties required to have housing
elements, only 107 localities had adopted housing elements which
HCD found to be in substantial compliance with housing element law.
Cities and counties who do not comply with state housing law are
at somewhat of a disadvantage when vying for highly competitive
state housing grants. Otherwise, there are currently no penalties
or enforcement tools available to the state to force cities and
counties to comply with housing law. There have been only a few
instances of California cities being sued by third parties (ie.
developers) for not having a certified housing element, and
according to State officials, in those instances the cities
prevailed.
POLICY OPTION 3• General .Plan (1 percent growth limit)
Under this option, the City would accommodate construction of up
to about 180 dwellings per year. This is the City's current policy
and it would continue under policies now contained in the draft
land use element. This is the Planning Commission's recommended
option. The City has already planned to accommodate this rate of
growth through its General Plan, so resources and .urban services
MEETING DATE:
����� i�illllfii►�il��llll city of San Luis OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
CRegional Housing Need
Page 15
are not expected to prevent the City from achieving this rate of
housing production. Environmental impacts are being addressed as
part of the current land use element update; however staff does not
anticipate significant, unmitigatable adverse impacts resulting
from this growth rate. By holding to the one percent growth rate,
the City's ability to promote a range of housing types and prices
is limited more than under Options 1 and 2.
Staff's Recommended Policy Approach
Staff supports the Planning Commission's recommendation to maintain
the 1 percent growth rate; however staff supports additional
provisions to exempt affordable housing (which meets city
affordability standards) from the l percent limit. This would
allow additional flexibility to meet a demonstrated need for
affordable housing in San Luis Obispo, while holding the
community's over-all growth rate to levels anticipated by the
General Plan. The draft. Housing Element would need to address the
_ details of how this exception to growth limits would be
implemented.
C. ALTERNATIVES
In addition to the three policy alternatives above, the City
Council could:
1. Further revise the regional housing need figure downward to
reflect changing employment projections in the San Luis Obispo
area. This would probably result in an annual average growth
rate of between 1 and 2.5 percent. Although this approach
still wouldn't meet state law, it would allow the production
of more housing than would otherwise be possible, and come
closer to meeting regional housing needs.
2. Consider revising growth management and land use policies to
exempt below-market priced housing from any growth management
regulations.
RECOHMENDATION
Evaluate the regional housing need policy options and by motion,
provide direction to staff regarding the preferred policy to
address regional housing need, and direct staff to incorporate this
policy approach into the draft housing element..
Attachments: Planning Commission Minutes
3�-�9
P.C. Minutes
May 13, 1992
Page 4
The motion passed.
Cindy Clemens explained that if t City was pursuing an
enforcement action against the appl.i ant, the City would have to
prove the use was illegal . Howeve , because the applicant is
asking the City to grant him a permit, the applicant had the
burden of proving to the Cit at the previous use was legal .
DISCUSSION ITEMS
----------------------------------------------
Item 2 . Draft Housina_:Element . The commission will continue to
review and comment on the draft Housing Element.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Hook presented the staff report and explained the Commission
started reviewing the Draft Housing Element on April 27, 1992, at
a meeting focusing on regional housing needs. He said the
Commission had directed staff to use a one percent growth factor
to establish city housing needs because the local Council of
Governments ' (COD' s) determination of housing needs was
considered too high to achieve due to resource limits. He asked
for comments on the goals, policies, and programs of the Draft
Housing Element , with the Commission' s focus on consistency with
city needs and priorities. He said the City Council would see
the draft after the Commission finished its review, and suggested
that the Commission take public comment at this meeting. Mr.
Hook explained the State deadline for adoption of a Housing
Element is July 1, 1992, and although the Housing Element is not
expected to be adopted by that date, staff hopes that the
Commission will conclude its review by the end of . June so that
the draft can be submitted to the State as soon as possible. He
said San Luis Obispo is the closest to meeting the time deadline
of all the maior cities between Monterey and Santa Barbara.
However, he said the other cities are either stating they intend
to grow at the rate set by the State, or are including the growth
rate set by the State in their housing elements but adding
statements. that the growth rate will probably not be met . He _
said he has been in contact with Ernie Silva, a lobbyist for the
League of California Cities. He explained developers, non-profit
housing agencies, governmental agencies, architects , and planners
were invited to two public meetings for input on the draft.
Commr. Gurnee felt the document was well organized. He expressed
concern about sanctions from the State hitting home and mentioned
a city in Northern California that is facing losing Park and
Recreation funding from the State. He .believed contacting the.
_ League of Cities was an excellent place to start, especially in
October when the League meets regularly. He agreed that not
enough was being done to meet housing needs, but felt the State' s
numbers were unrealistic and impossible to achieve.
rvo
P.C. Minutes
May 13, 1992
Page 5
Commr. Williams said she did not want to wait until October and
suggested that State representatives from the State Housing and
Community Development Department and legislative leaders be asked
to come to San Luis Obispo for a community forum. She said if
they refused to come to San Luis Obispo, the Commission, along
with some concerned citizens, should go to see them.
Commr. Settle believed that a rejection of COG' s regional housing
need determination by San Luis Obispo would not affect possible
Federal block grant funding. He said he knew of other cities
that have said to comply with the rules from this State agency
will violate rules of other State agencies and the matter wi.11
end up in litigation. He expressed concern that State
interference with the Housing Element was only the beginning and
the City Planning Commission could become an agency of the State
unless a pro-active approach is taken now through the League of
Cities.
Commr. Cross said Kathy Krustweli , from the State Housing and
Community Development Department said she would be willing to
come to San Luis Obispo. He expressed concern that a private
citizen could sue the City in court , and the City would be in
trouble if the Housing Element was not in conformance.
Comma. Peterson agreed with Commr. Williams that action needs to
get underway immediately.
Chairman Karleskint opened the public hearing.
Carla Sanders , 660 Oakridge Drive, said her main concern was that
the housing element draft could change San Luis Obispo' s long
term growth management planning. She said the State quota of
41000 is five times the community' s stated goal . She said she
had called Mr. Maddy, California State Community Development ,
and was referred to a Bill Murphy, head of the Public Policy
Division, and was told state funds are contingent upon cities
accepting state housing needs assessments. She said the State
does not consider resources such as water for cities to meet the
reasonable share of growth. She said Dana Lilly, a planner with
San Luis Obispo County, told her that San Luis Obispo was
designated an urban place last year by the Census Bureau, which
will make it eligible for federal entitlement block grants. She
quoted the follow response from Mr. Lilly, "If San Luis Obispo is
entitled to federal block grants, there is no longer a linkage
between block grants and the housing element. It is only a
problem if you get small city block grant funds . There is no
linkage if a city receives federal entitlement block grants. "
When she asked about the women' s shelter and the homeless shelter
funds being tied to the housing element , she said she was also
told, "The housing element is not a requirement for award of ESP
funds because the emergency shelter is not a housing program
it is emergency intervention. There is an attempt to keep it
J
P.C. Minutes
May 13, 1992
Page 6
from regular housing programs. " She made the following comments
on goals: on Page 3, third paragraph from the bottom she felt it
would be important to state that existing urban services should
be maintained, not just adequate services so that it would be
clearly stated that San Luis Obispo does not want a decrease in
the level of services. She suggested the following wording:
"The present level of urban services and air quality will be
maintained or improved for the City' s residents. Urban services
include water, sewer, schools, police, fire, and road services . "
She suggested that the same wording be used on Page 6. She
expressed concern about mansionization, large homes going into
existing neighborhoods, and asked if they were in the housing
element .
Jeff Hook said those types of issues were discussed under
neighborhood plans and community relations such as on Pages 16 &
is.
Carla Sanders felt it would be appropriate to have that type of
issue addressed in the General Plan or Land Use Element, rather
than relying on neighbors to object to developments.
Commr. Settle felt that Ms. Sanders suggestion that current
�. levels of services be mentioned in the housing element draft was
important.
Arnold Jonas said the State' s position is that restriction in
services are only a matter of time. For example, he explained
that if a city' s only scarce resource was water, the State would
say it was the City' s responsibility to pursue other sources of
water.
Jeff Hook suggested that clarification of existing services in
the Land Use Element, such as emergency response time in July
1992, could also be incorporated into the draft. He said that
the one percent growth rate is primari.ly based on a quantitive
judgment the community has made about its desired character.
In answer- to a question by Commr. Williams, Jeff Hook explained
. that the State wants to see programs in place for cities to
achieve the regional housing needs, but if market needs change
and those homes are not built , the State cannot penalize cities.
Coimr. Gurnee said the housing need requirements originated under
previous Governor Jerry Brown to counteract a city' s ability to
control growth at the expense of other communities. He felt the
State' s message was not bad, but he believed the numbers set by
the State were unreasonable. He warned that sanctions are
becoming real in the Bay area. He expressed concern that 28 of
the 37 policies in the draft depend on General Fund financing.
He supported the idea of asking the council to invite or demand
the state representatives to explain the requests and possible
.��Aa.
P.C. Minutes
May 13 , 1.992
Page 7
sanctions . He said providing adequate housing cannot be
dismissed simply because the City says it cannot do it .
In answer to a question by Commr. Settle, Jeff Hook said the 37
programs in the draft are not prioritized.
COMMENTS ON DOCUMENT
Page 3, No. 1 .0; Commr. Williams suggested adding land costs and
the availability of residentially zoned land.
Jeff Hook suggested that Commissioners not become involved in the
detailed wording of the document, but rather focus comments on
policies and programs. He added that staff would welcome notes
from Commissioners requesting items to be added or deleted from
the document .
Page 4:, 10 . 2: Commr. Gurnee expressed concern that some of the
policies require affordable housing rather than encouraging it by
incentives .
Jeff Hook explained that staff tried to present a balanced
approach because there is a presumption that the City will
require some affordable housing with certain types of new \
developments. He said if the Commission feels that the City
should not have mandatary affordable housing provisions, that
direction should be given to staff.
Commr. Settle expressed concern that the elimination of mandatory
affordable housing could make other City policies irrelevant and
eliminate an opportunity for municipal government to require
affordable housing as part of a major development.
Commr. Karleskint agreed with Commr. Settle.
Commr. Gurnee said he disagreed with Commrs. Settle and
Karleskint . He favored eliminating the requirement for
affordable housing.
10. 12 : Commrs . Hoffman and Karleskint felt that more detail was
need to clarify the types of services it is important to provide
such as schools and fire stations. Commr. Hoffman said those
same restrictions should be discussed in 10 . 14 .
In answer to a question by Commr. Cross, Jeff Hook said low and
very low income have been lumped together as low income.
In answer to a question by Commr. Williams, Jeff Hook said Mr.
French had submitted a letter suggesting-:that duplexes be allowed
on corner lots to provide affordable housing. He explained that
although the idea has not yet been researched, it would be
considered.
3�-�3
P.C. Minutes
May 13 , 1992
Page 8
Commr. Gurnee suggested that a policy stating the City will work
with the San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council (COG) and keep
up to date on State requirements should be added under housing
supply policies. 1
Commr. Settle expressed concern that other communities see San
Luis Obispo as part of the problem. He said he had no objection
to working with other cities, but did not believe San Luis Obispo
should be linked to other communities' policies.
10. 14 : Commr. Hoffman questioned why a city housing element
should address meeting regional county needs as referred to in
10. 14 .
Commr. Cross suggested including manufactured housing and mobile
homes parks as possible affordable housing alternatives.
Jeff Hook said it would be appropriate to include it as a goal if
the Commission agreed.
Commrs. Cross and Hoffman disagreed with the statement about
balancing housing supply under housing demand. Commr. Hoffman
said balance needs to be defined because San Luis Obispo is a job
center for the County. -
Jeff Hook explained that that issue was discussed later in the
document and suggested the statement be reworded to state that
the City will prevent a further imbalance between jobs and
. -housing, by linking housing increases with job growth.
The Commission discussed the reference to a joint land use and
housing element between the City and the county.
Carla Sanders said Dana Lilly told her the City could decide
whether to keep its federal entitlement block grants or share the
wealth with the county and other cities through joint agreements,
which would entitle the county and other cities to federal.
entitlement block grant funds.
Commr. Hoffman said it would be helpful if the Housing Program
titles were the same titles as those for Housing Goals.
PROGRAMS -
Exclusionary Housing, Appendix E, Page 125: Commr. Hoffman asked
what constituted a project .
Jeff Hook said it covered new units and new commercial space. He
- said it could cover so called "granny units."
Commr. Hoffman said that def.inition..,was not clear and could be
construed to mean any addition to a Current building. He
1%�
t
P.C. Minutes
May 13, 1992
Page 9
expressed concern a 5 percent tax would be required for building
a granny unit inside the City and a 15 percent in-lieu housing
fee would be required for the same granny unit in an expansion
area of the City. Commr. Hoffman asked that the term expansion
areas be defined.
Commr. Gurnee said the 15 percent in-lieu fee would discourage
annexation and encourage development in the county.
Commr. Karleskint also felt the housing impact fees were high.
Jeff Hook said it maybe appropriate for the City to exempt .some
projects. For example, he said the City could exempt commercial
project under 5,000 square feet , residential developments under
10 units, and affordable housing projects from providing housing
or paying the in-lieu fee. He said at this point the fees apply
to all new developments, commercial and residential .
Carla Sanders said at a City council meeting she attended,
Suzanne Lampert , author of a consultant report on affordable
housing strategies, presented a chart showing possible fee
schedules.
Jeff Hook said on April 15, the City Council discussed affordable
housing and the Mundie Report , which establishes four categories
for residential development in the City. The categories allow
the option of paying a set affordable housing fee or constructing
a percentage of low and moderate income housing which would
reduce the affordable housing fee. He began to discuss the
affordable housing fees required for commercial development.
Commr. Gurnee stepped down due to a conflict of interest and left
the meeting.
Jeff Hook explained that commercial development creates jobs
which in turn increases the demand for housing. He said between
1.986 and 1990 , the requirement being discussed would have
generated 1 . 1 million dollars for affordable housing.
Commr. Williams expressed concern that the source of funding for
most projects was listed as coming from the City' s general fund.
Jeff Hook said that it is hoped that in-lieu fees held in a trust
fund and entitlement funds could also be used. He explained that
the rationale behind listing general fund money as the main
source, is that individual project requests would go before the
City Council for funding.
Commr. Settle said some housing elements in other cities mention
a fund set aside for disaster relief . He suggested the draft
could allow trust fund money as disaster relief.
3`f as'
P.C. Minutes
May 13, 1992
Page 10
Commr.. Hoffman suggested the term time frame should be defined.
Commr. Cross questioned what was meant by development standards.
7'
Jeff Hook suggested design standards might make the meaning
clearer.
Page 8: Carla Sanders asked for a rewording of the statement
that the City will amend regulation standards to protect the
health, safety, and welfare of residents. She said there are
some policies, such as hillside development , which are not
covered by health, safety and welfare that citizens value.
Jeff Hook explained that the intent was for the City to possibly
reduce development standards which were not essential to protect
public health, safety or welfare to avoid unnecessary impediments
to affordable housing. He suggested keeping language stating the
City shall review its regulations and adding "may modify" its
regulations . The Commission agreed.
Page 11 , 120 . 11 Commr. Hoffman felt this section should be
eliminated.
Jeff Hook explained the statement was needed to state that the
- - Land Use Element and the capital improvement program would carry
out mentioned policies . He said the word "investment" should be
replaced with the word " improvement . "
Commr. Settle suggested the words "will enable" be replaced with
"may enable" because the goal might not be possible to reach. He
said he preferred permissive wording to mandatory wording.
Commr. Hoffman believed the meaning of the statement was not that
the City would achieve it , but would provide the climate in which
it would be possible for it to happen.
Commr. Settle preferred Commr. Hoffman' s wording.
Jeff Hook said the policies are designed to enable the City to
reach the goal , but whether that goal is actually achieved
depends on many other variables.
Commr. Hoffman suggested adding a sentence stating that providing
the regulatory climate to meet regional housing needs does not
ensure that the City will achieve the goal .
Carla Sanders said she agreed with Commr. Settle.
Page 12, 120 . 14 : Commr. Settle suggested a rewording stating
"The City will review and may amend. "
P.C. Minutes
May 13 , 1992
Page 11
Commr. Karleskint suggested the Growth Management Ordinance be
referenced in the draft as guiding the growth rate.
Jeff Hook explained that the Land Use Element and the Housing
Element must, by law and by City policy, be consistent . 7
In response to concerns of Commrs. Hoffman and Settle, Jeff Hook
explained the chart on page 14 was included to show a baseline of
housing units to coincide with city land zoned currently zoned
residential and areas in expansion areas to be zoned residential
in the future. He said the information in the housing element
was included to meet State law.
Commr. Settle suggested that a statement be included mentioning
that total buildout is not expected to occur during the next five
years.
Comma. Hoffman felt that the wording under Residential , which
Addresses rezoning to a non-residential use as being only
approved as a comprehensive update of the LUE, could lead to the
assumption that general plan amendments would only be evaluated
every 10 years.
Arnold Jonas suggested rewording the passage to state any
rezoning from residential to another use will require an analysis
of the City' s ability to provide housing throughout the City.
Commr. Hoffman said he agreed with the rewording.
Page 17 , Sororities and Fraternities: Commr. Hoffman suggested
adding a program whereby the City would work with Cal Poly to
dedicate a Greek Row on campus or near Cal Poly.
Comma . Settle said that if housing for married students, faculty,
and handicapped individuals were included in the discussions
about housing for sorority and fraternity members , Cal Poly would
be more willing to negotiate with the City for housing on campus .
Arnold Jonas agreed with Commr. Settle. He added that Cuesta
College could also be included in discussions .
The Commission asked staff to prepare a map showing a one mile
radius 'of Cal Poly.
Page 16: Carla Sanders asked that the reference. to neighborhood
needs be consistent with the wording of neighborhood character
.needs in the LUE.
Page 19, 20 .33: Commr. Cross asked how this cost could be
accomplished.
i
P.C. Minutes
May 13 , 1992
Page 12
Commr. Settle said it had been implemented regarding a past
proposal. for expansion at the California Mens Colony.
Comza . Karleskint said a reference to Cuesta College should.. be
included here, as well as everywhere else Cal Poly is mentioned
in the draft.
Page 26, 2. 10 : Commr. Cross asked that an increase for Cuesta
College be included.
Section 5, Page 5: In answer to a question by Commr. Settle,
Jeff Hook proposed that staff write a position paper to the City
Council explaining the issues, presenting the Commission.' s
recommendation, explaining the possible implications of not
meeting the State' s guidelines, -and explaining alternatives to be
considered for staff to receive direction from the City Council .
Commr. Settle said that because it was an election year and there
would be different in members on the City Council in the Fall , it
might not be beneficial to prolong the preparation process by
having the City Council review the draft before it is submitted
to the State. He expressed concern that the document could
become a campaign issue.
Commr. Karleskint agreed with Commr. Settle and felt that the
City Council would want to know the State' s response before
reviewing the document .
Commr.. Settle felt that if the document was sent to the State
before review by the City council , the burden would be on the
State, not the City.
Jeff Hook said staff planned to propose sending the document to
the State before review by the City Council as an option to the
City Council . He said a City Council member had told him that
nothing should be sent to the State without the Council ' s review
and approval .
Commr. Settle suggested that the City Council be informed that
the Commission' s intention is to send the draft to the State
without City Council review, in time for the City Council to
overrule that decision.
Jeff Hook said that staff believed it was essential to provide
Councilmembers with the background behind the regional housing
needs .issue and to provide possible alternatives. He also said
some planning commissions in other cities are sending drafts or
lists of programs to the State before review by their city
councils.
Arnold Jonas said there was no usual .procedure regarding when
city councils review this type of draft . He explained that when
P.C. .Minutes
May 13 , 1992
Page 13
planning commissions send drafts directly to the State, city
councils then have the benefit of the State' s response to the
documents, but other city councils prefer to review documents
before submittal to the State. He suggested giving the City
Council the option of reviewing the one percent growth rate or
postponing review until the State' s response is received.
Commr. Karleskint said it might be best for the City Council to
support the one percent growth rate before it is sent into the
State. He expressed concern that if the Planning Commission sent
the document to the State and the State denied the requested one
percent growth rate, the City Council would not be able to say it
supported the one percent growth because it would no longer be an
option.
Page 138 , Regional Housing Needs Assessment : Jeff Hook explained
the chart illustrating percentages of low and very low incomes of
those needing housing.
Chairman Karleskint requested the other Commrs. to read through
the document and submit written corrections on errors and
omissions to Jeff Hook by Friday, May 22, 1992 .
In answer to a question by Commr. Settle, Jeff Hook said it would
probably be about one month before changes are made and a
decision is reached by the City Council as to when it wishes to
review the document .
Commr. Settle felt it was important to find out the opinion of
the City Council .
Page 16, Program 23: Commr. Cross expressed concern that
conversions, particularly small motels near the freeway, should
have rent controls to keep them affordable.
Jeff explained that concern had only been addressed in the
downtown area, but it could be expanded.
Chairman Karleskint closed the public hearing.
COMMENT D DISCUSSION
The Planing Commission retreat was scheduled for Thursday, May
28, 199-Y m 7: 00 p.m. to 11 :00 p.m. at the Apple Farm.
A Planning Commiss study session was scheduled for June 8 ,
1992 from 4: 00 p.m. o 6: 00 p_m.
Commr. Cross d the City Council voted 4-1 to include a
requiremen for showers in the Circulation Element . /
AGENDA * ``
DATEMEEf-G 9V ITEM # -✓----
DATE._.�-----
San Luio 0993 os '4
To : Hononable dLyon. Peg Pirum,%d
Council- Membe t6
Fnom Leah 2ubottom
To inzaae the incluei"on oA Mobi lehome l aAh4 in ;he "Land Ude
6tementil P,% 1993 a4 peA c" conve4wt_i.on/ pteaae conoid" the
1. Arun neva Mobitelwme %aA" ane to be tenant owned.
2. With the help q dtnte loans thin milt meet the attoca-
tion ded.ignated P,% lourincome Yxoupd.
3. Thio mould eao ' meet the %equi�nent oA 2jjo deoignated
�on low-income.
4. San`C:ui o Obi.6po could dial-y build a ff ondab.-e how6inl
that people mould buy into.
2eopegjj 4 dubmi tted,�
7
Leola 2ubottom
COPTS TO: i
�ycAt' l ' "
_I i1a1'
A,
Com~>..'. `....
�I SLi4F •
❑ t; .!!;:."i'.. !" ,,,C.PIR.
� APR 5 1993
i Y CvuiJCIL
aBism CA
D=ales Ac-Eon /° M MEETING AGENDA
2'-b; DIR DATE `� 93 ITEM #
�J O LT FIN. JRL
TO: City Council ,��+0 ❑ r1rl:c1IliF
�J
GINEY ❑ FW DR.
FROM: Peg Pinard IeQE:K/0RA-. ❑ POLiCE01
❑ 1AGNIT.TF!-M ❑ REC DIP-
THE
IRTHE PROBLEM: ❑ s FE ❑° L ILDIR.
The City of San Luis Obispo has a long standing, firm
commitment to protecting its clean air, high level of services,
and quality of life through local growth management. That
committment to a sustainable, local growth rate of 1% was made
by the previous Planning Commission in its draft of the Land Use
Element of the General Plan, strongly reaffirmed by the previous
. City Council, again reaffirmed by the present Planning Commission
last spring, and publicly supported by members of the present
City Council. The community further voted two to one to extend
the one per cent growth rate to commercial development in an
advisary election. (Measure G) .
. With hind sight, it was a misjudgement for city
administrators to sign a grant application which specifically
required the city to be in sustainative compliance with a "State,. '
Housing Quota" which exceeded our local growth management rate by
500% .The State then witheld State grant funds for the Women' s
Shelter, demanding that the city drop its local growth management
policy and put "the State Housing Quota" in writing in the City' s
general plan housing element. The State has been unyeilding in
this demand.The City Council has been recently urged to remove
its local growth management plan from its general plan, put the
State Housing Quota in its general plan with no intention of
honoring it, and continue to negotiate with the State as a way
out of the dilema. The State Assemblywoman representing San-Luis
Obispo apparently supported this approach,suggesting that other
cities in California "are similar to San Luis Obispo in that
they also have a housing growth cap such as our one percent rate'.
but were able to work with HCD to create a plan which puts them -
in compliance with the law" . The cities of Filmore, Petaluma, T
Ojai, Dixon, Camarillo, Calistoga and Livermore were specifically
named. Were these cities able to keep their local growth
management plans AND be in compliance with the State?
HAVE CITIES BEEN ABLE TO KEEP THEIR LOCAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANS
AND BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATE?
The Planning Directors or City Planners in charge of working
with the State on Housing Elements of Livermore, Camarillo,
Filmore, Petaluma, Dixon and Ojai were available and were asked
specifically about their city' s 1% growth rate, its State Housing
Quota, and its out
with State Housing requirements. A
summary of the results are on the attached chart.
The conclusions are:
1. The cities which were "in compliance" with State-
Housing requirements had local growth managment rates WHICH Tai ERE
APPROXIMATELY THE SAME AS THEIR STATE HOUSING QUOTA. There is
obviously no problem in meeting a state housing quota which is
the same as your local growth management. In extreme contrast,the
J...K
CITY CGU','C;L
city of San Luis Obispo was given a State Housing Quota which is
500% higher than our local growth management. Only Ojai was also
'given a State Housing Quota which differed greatly from its local
growth management program. Ojai is "Out of Compliance" and the
State has told them that "The city' s growth management ordinance
is a governmental constraint which should be removed or
mitigated" . The former Mayor of Ojai has been quoted as calling
the State Housing demands, "the greatest threat to the
preservation of Ojai' s enviornment" he could ever remember. These
are NOT examples of successfully keeping local growth management
of 1% and being in compliance with the State.
. 2. By far, the most striking similarity between all of the
cities listed, was the great difficulty they reported in working-
with the State to meet State requirements. Even in the best of
of circumstances, with full compliance and State Housing Quota
which was the same as local growth management, there were
complaints about the effort required and the many months it took.
Even when specific State employees were deemed helpful, the
multitude of State requirements were found difficult and very
time consuming to navigate through.
It was also mentioned that there was already fear by cities
about the NEXT demand by the State. For example, the State' s•,
projection for Livermore, present population 59,000, is 60,000
ADDITIONAL residents in 17 years.
The experiences reported by these cities, which were
presumable singled out as "success stories" , were hardly a ,
recommendation for believing that working with the State will be' 1
fruitful. Our own experience has already shown that the State is
very willing to withold shelter from battered women and children
to get the compliance they are demanding from us. There are
reasons that 80% of all cities in California chose not to be
"in compliance with the State" .
I. Many of the communities cited praised their local C.O.G.s
for assigning State Housing Quotas which WERE THE SAME AS THEIR
LOCAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT. C.O.G.s were specifically praised for
lowering State Housing Quotas which were considered too high by
cities. In contrast, the State Housing Quota assigned to the City
of San Luis Obispo by our C.O.G. is 500% higher than our local
growth managment. When our city appealed its extraordinarily high
State Housing Quota, the appeal was denied. The city council' s
representative to C.O.G. seconded the motion to accept the. State
Housing Quota. When the city appealed, the city' s representative
did not vote to support the city' s appeal. Had our C.O.G. , •
assigned our city a State Housing Quota which was the same as our
local growth management policy, the grant for the Women' s Shelter
would not have been a problem.
CONSEQUENCES OF LYING IN OUR HOUSING ELEMENT:
There are very obvious dangers in taking the suggestion that
the City of San Luis Obispo drop its own, local growth management
policy , and lie ,in writing, in our General Plan that we intend
to .try to meet the State Housing Quota. No matter how many
r. 1 .
qualifiers are thrown in, it would expose the city to very
expensive litigation. The city would very likely be sued by the
proposer of an annexation or a real estate developer "to perform"
what the Council has stated in writing in its general plan. And
what would the city' s defense be, "We lied when we said we would
try to meet the State Housing Quota" , "We really didn't mean
it,* " .If the city claims lack of resources as the reason it cannot
"perform" , it would very likely be monitored by the court to
ensure that it is doing everything possible to get those
resources. If the a real estate developer or other interested d
party prevailed and the city was forced to try to meet the State
Housing Quota, taxpayers would face millions of dollars in new
infrastructure and school improvements OR the degradation of our '
existing high level of services and air quality if we could not*
raise the millions. (See "MEETING THE QUOTA" by Ken McCall) :
. The "good news" is that the City is now entitled to Federal
Entitlement Block Grants . According to Bill Murphy of the . .
Housing Policy Division of the State Department of Housing and
Community Development, "There is no linkage (with Housing Element
Compliance) if a city receives Federal Entitlement Block Grants."
Our city is "lucky" in that we are no longer totally dependent
upon the State for grants.
THE BEST OF AVAILABLE ACTIONS;
Not surprisingly, other cities in California have also .,
protested State Housing Quotas and other demands of State Housing
Element Compliance. 80% of all cities in California are not in
compliance and it seems most unlikely that California cities, will
so easily give up their local control. Until these unreasonable
State demands are changed as a result of pressure from the
cities, and the right of local cities for local control are :.
reaffirmed, the City Council' s decision seems the most reasonable
available action . The City Council chose not to succumb to the..
State' s blackmail to give up local growth management or to •lie in
the city' s general plan but the City Council also chose to help
the County Women' s Shelter . Perhaps our Assembly Representative•
can work at the Sacramento level to help reestablish the right ti
of- local control by California Cities, , while also working :
specifically with the State to lower the State Housing Quota,. to .
conform with our local growth management.
J
AGENDA
Dmf 6-93 ITEM #�_
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Department rnrlTo:
❑'DenaesA&on ❑ FY!
MEMORANDUM LECAO ($'C�DDIR
1X
CAo ❑0 RRRECHI .
DATE: April 6, 1993 rQ-7 7M rEY q MIDIR
zrx FIC ❑ rouCECR
❑
TO: San Luis Obispo City Council irGMT.M� ).4 EJ pLCDIR
O CRaDFILE ❑ UTILDIR
� !LE ❑ ,
FROM: John Dunn, City Administrative Officer
VIA: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director O
BY: John Mandeville, Long-Range Planning Manage
SUBJECT: Follow-Up to.Council Direction at March 30 Meeting to Examine Housing
Element Alternatives
The following information is provided in response to the Council's direction to follow-
up on the housing element alternatives that were presented during the previous visit
by Tom Cook, Deputy Director of the State's Housing and Community Development
-" Department, and in the March 30 letter of Assemblywoman Andrea Seastrand.
April 1, 1993 Phone Conversation with Tom Cook
Staff contacted Tom Cook, Deputy Director of the State Housing and Community
Development Department (HCD) to try and define where HCD could be "flexible" in
their review of the City's Housing Element.
It appears that there is no way that a housing element can be certified if it does not
contain all of the statutorily required contents. All of the required contents listed in
Government Code Section 65583 must be present. The "flexibility" exists in HCD's
evaluation of housing elements which contain all of the required contents, but which
do not identify as a quantified objective a total number of units to be built that is
equal to a city's need assessment. Section 65583(b)(2) of the State Government
Code states that:
"It is recognized that the total housing needs identified pursuant to
subdivision (a) may exceed available resources and the community's
ability to satisfy this need within the content of the general plan
requirements outlined in Article 5 (commencing with with Section
65300). Under these circumstances, the quantified objectives need not
be identical to the total housing needs. The quantified objectives shall
establish the maximum number of housing units by income category that
can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved over a five-year time
period."
TAP 1993
per,.
('ArfY COU.JCtL
!qi LUISOBISPOr.CA
If a city identifies a housing objective that is less than its need assessment, the city
must clearly domonstrate (quantitatively) why it is not possible to provide for the
number of units identified in the needs assessment. According to Mr. Cook, a city _-
must do everything in its power to remove obsticles to providing for the projected
needs, but a city will not be required to make fiscally unsound decisions or violate
environmental protection laws. It is then up to HCD to review the city's housing
element and determine if the city has done everything it can. HCD's "flexibility"
exists in making this determination. There are no guidelines or minimum percentages.
Determinations are made on a case-by-case basis.
Clearly a city has a better chance of getting its housing element certified by HCD if
it establishes quantified objectives for providing a number of housing units consistent
with its assessed housing need. In such cases, HCD's review is primarily focused on
whether or not the housing element contains all of the statutorily required contents.
Not providing for the assessed housing need triggers much greater scrutiny and
subjective review by HCD. But it is possible.to have the housing element certified.
Survey of Cities Identified in Assemblywoman Seastrand's Letter
Staff contacted each of the seven cities identified at the bottom of Assemblywoman
Seastrand's letter in order to make a comparison between circumstances in those
cities and in San Luis Obispo. The attached matrix summarizes the information
obtained from those cities. Several conclusions can be drawn from the survey
information (reading across the columns left to right):
G San Luis Obispo is being asked to provide a proportionately larger amount of
housing than the other cities (about,twice as much as the closest city);
o San Luis Obispo is being asked to grow at a faster rate than any of the other
cities (about twice as much as the closest city);
O The cities surveyed, with the exception of Ojai, generally have . growth
management mechanisms that allow them to construct the number of housing
units identified in their housing needs assessments;
O None of the cities surveyed have actually constructed the number of housing
units identified in their housing needs assessment.
hosurvey/jrn
Cl)
- ; 2 ; ° °
c ) ; - \ f
$ ° ) § !
�.. CO
� P0m
2c ;.
\ \ \ m
kc
.. �
.2d �
\ CD § i ( k N t k § k
:ljk \ °
\ �k \ ) k k / \ k K K
q § M (
; § Cl)
0 § g
§zo m
j \
r-
44k ) k Ka ) m
o � / ,
z � \• ce
A32 � $
) ; 3 ; ; ) m ` � � ) E m ° � /
c ® • c � ( 2E G � m
3 Z d ) kg = cmmm m
m ® dn2 n0mn = ) § o § ) �
§ Kz Z0) � � , � n ■ 5
b � $ � . ) \ § { j \ � \ ( \ k (
\ ( � 0 � 2z BR j m ƒ R ; m
a > » ! x m q
/ ( 22 \ 77 2 §
a z z
Sk ) 7 7 ) m
z i22zKz ) 0M m m ƒ § § } o
o opo = mC « m m o
/ ] ; 6 j x §
d / ) 2 A>
§ ! ° § ■ .
5 §' 6 §3 3§ k� �� z_
i ) § � °
; � z
ML.,s]NG AGENDA
DATE—�'�ITEMI#3
SIERRA CLUB w SANTA LUCIA CHAPTFR
rovNoeo tM sBgi
5 April 1993 Conservation Committee,
P.O.Box 15755, San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
re: Women's Shelter
Mayor Peg Pinard NO REPLY EXPECTED
SLO City Hall, 990 Palm
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Mayor Pinard,
This weekend, our Chapter Conservation Committee reviewed the
implications of some of the advise you were given at last Tuesday's
meeting regarding the Women's Shelter grant from the state and the
housing growth requirement attached to it.
Dishonesty surely should not be the basis of our city's action. As
our representative reported the meeting to us, one of the
recommendations given to you and the Council. is to give the state
officials what they want to hear, that the City will agree to allow
private developers to build whatever number of houses the state
requires of us in -order for us to obtain the grant for the women's
shelter. Then at some later time, you (the city government) will
tell the state "April Fool! now that we have your money, our
citizens have established a 1% per annum growth rate which they do
not wish to exceed, so we won't meet the housing requirement we
have agreed to. "
This is so ludicrous our committee members' couldn't believe the
report they were given. We see this proposal as another attempt by
some to circumvent the 1%/year growth cap. We oppose any such
scheme. Even if the state accepts such nonsensical thinking, a
private person planning future development in the community has a
right to believe these agreements are honest city policy. You
should expect to be in court often!
Let's face financing our share of the Shelter without adopting a
change in our growth policy. If someone wants the growth rate
reviewed, let's be honest about it and do it officially.
We,were astounded to learn that our Assemblywoman's representative
was one of those who advised the Council to lie to the state
agencies. We are going to ask her if this is correct. As a teacher
for 40 years I don't want to believe that we have to corrupt our
local government to gain the obJq%pMW we wan or'.the city.
•Denotes Amo:, ❑ FYI
� CoenclQ'CDD D1R.
FIREBIR }� �o p
Cwt A7TORITEY ❑ flM DM E ° r C F_ R O.l 1E
(�CL' w6?ir. ❑ PoucECIi '
❑ MGMT.T<AM CJ =D1% APR 6 199
❑ C.READF,LS ❑ lr. -
CITY CLERK
. . . To explore. enjoy. and protect the notion's scenic resources . . . CAN IJUIS 0EQP0,CA
L"Ll "'
4-t-93
�]E ITEM #.
COP:ESTO:
April 5, 1993 L�j OL-25 n
S��, di
DIPL
D DI
.
TO: Council Members 6 Z FNDIR.
I...
11 Llt7 M4EY P'YV DR
I CL7T K/C-.-\Ir,. PCILICE CH
FROM: Peg Pinard OD, i UC.D!F .
r
F EA 0 Lc r] UFiLDTF,-
SUBJECT. HOUSING ELEMENT
In reviewing the draft Housing g Element, most of the attention has focused on the
policy issues surrounding the regional housing need numbers. In my review, I have
come to feel there is another equally important issue. This is the question whether the
element is in a form that is a useful planning tool. My feeling is the draft is too long
(163 pages), complex, wordy, confusing in organization, and difficult to get a hand J le on.
My concern is that if we adopt such a document, it will be placed on a shelf and all but
ignored.
So, I offer a suggested alternative approach. I feel that to be a useful planning fool, the
element needs to be simple and easy to use. It should have two qualities -- first, a very
clear organization, so that users can find what they need to find, and second, brevity
and focus. I've looked at some elements from other cities, and find they have these
qualities. Petaluma's element, for example, covers all the city's policies and the
discussion items required by the state, in 22 pages. It is clear, concise, and interesting to
read.
ve only two parts or "chapters" to our Housing Element. Up
Nly proposal is that �ve ha
front there is a "policy chapter" that contains our list of housing goals, policies and
programs, so they are all together in one place and accessible when the element is
opened. Behind that is a "background chapter," which discusses subjects the state wants
in housing elements but which aren't necessary to understand the policies.
Attached for Council review is a proposed draft of a "policy chapter." The policy comes
from many places, but most of it comes from our current Housing Element. It is
organized so relationships between the groupings of goals, policies and programs on a
single subject are apparent.
'If'the'CbdnciI agrees the element should be simplified, I propose the following
guidelines for drafting cr a "background chapter."
1. The chapter should be as short and simple as possible. Include nothing that is not
clearly mandated by the state. There's no need for lengthy"discussions of the obvious,
like that housing is expensive.2. There should be no appendices. V%Ie don't need to reprint state laws. The graphics
and charts are excessive and all aren't needed. Those that are kept should be in the text
to amplify what is being explained.
0
3. The overall length I Yth of ID the "background chapter" should be no more than 20 pages.
If we follow through on these ideas, I believe we can create'a clear, interesting and
useful Housinc, Element that is about 35 pages in length.
w
co
;-. CA
r
INTRODUCTION
State law requires each city and county to adopt a general plan to guide conservation
and development of certain resources. The Housing Element is one of seven State-
mandated sections of the City's general plan. By state law, it must be consistent with
the other'general plan elements, and must provide information about past housing
programs, current housing conditions and future housing needs. But the most
important planning function of the Element is its enumeration of the City's
housing policies. These policies guide housing activity in the City during the life of
the Element.
Purposes of the Housing Element
The City has prepared this document to meet state law and to help guide housing
development and conservation. Another.general plan section, the Land Use
Llement, addresses residential densities, the desired ph}'sical character of residential
areas, and overall population growth and expansion of the City. This Element must
therefore be read in conjunction with the Land Use Element to gain a full picture of
how the City envisions housing development will take place.
Overriding Housing Goal
It is the goal of the City of San Luis Obispo to ensure that safe, affordable housing is
available for City residents. A more detailed enumeration of City housing goals can -
be found in the first section-of the Element. This version of the Housing Element is
a five-year plan which explains-what the Citydo in the short term to help meet
its housing goals. The Element is tentatively scheduled for another update in 1997.
Public Particiation in Adopting the Housing Element
.Adoption of this element involved extensive public review. The Planning
Commission and the City Council held public hearings between December 1991 and
May 1993 to receive public comment on the draft Housing Element. Community
groups with interest or expertise in housing, such as neighborhood groups, students,
Housing agencies, developers, architects, and lenders reviewed the housing element
update and suggested policies and programs for inclusion within it. To all who
contributed to this document, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo extends its
-appreciation.
Page 1
ti
Part I
A BLUEPRINT FOR THE FUTURE: Housing Goals, Policies & Programs
San Luis Obispo's Housing Goals
• The City's overriding housing goal is to provide safe shelter for all residents. (Source:
Existing H.E.)
In addition to that overriding goal, the City has a number of more specific housing goals:
• Encourage housing production whose affordability fits the income profile of the city's
present population. (Source: Modification of Draft and Existing H.E.)
• Conserve existing housing and cause the least possible displacement of current
occupants. (Source: D- isting H.E.)
• Encourage development of mixed-income neighborhoods and housing rather than
housing that is segregated by economic status. (Source: San Francisco H.E.)
• Provide variety in the location, tti,pe, size, tenure, cost, style and age of divellings to
accommodate the wide range of households desiring to live within the city. (Source.
Existing H.E.)
• Construct new housing to fulfill the needs of, first, city residents, and second, those
who work in the city and who would like to live there. (Source: Existing H.E.)
• Preserve the quality of existing neighborhoods, and develop new areas in a manner
that creates neighborhoods of high quality. (Source: LUE Update)
• Encourage the creation and maintenance of housing for those with special housing
needs. (Source: Draft H.E.)
• Produce housing that is economical to occupy because it incorporates energy-saving
and water-saving features. (Source: Energy, Existing H.E., 1/%70.ter,Ne-cv)
• Moderate the growth of external housing demand to maximize housing opportunities
for present city residents, and for those who work here. (Source: Existing H.E.)
• Develop and retain housing on sites that are suitable for the purpose. (Source: San
Francisco H.E.)
The section that follows lists the City's housing goals, policies and programs, which together
form the City's blueprint for housing policy during the lifetinie of this Element. Goals,
policies, and programs are hierarchical, with goals being the frost general statements, and
programs the most specific. Here is how the three levels of policy differ:
• Goals are desirable conditions which the City will attempt to reach over the long term.
Altl;o�� h it nr:�:! be inrhn_sible to att:7in all goals during this Element's five year planning
period, they will ;nonetheless be the basis for City actions during this period.
• Policies are st: Cements of city intent. Most policies have a time frame that fits within this
Element's planning period. Policies are directives to those involved in the review of projects to
do certain things. Some stand alone as directives, but others require that additional actions be
taken by the City. These additional actions are enumerated in "programs."
• Programs are actions the City intends to carry out , or which the City is cooperating with
other agencies to carry out. Programs translate goals and.yolicies into action.
Page 2
Enumeration of San Luis Obis}io's Housing Goals, Policies & Programs
Goal 1: 53-Le-ty. Provide safe shelter for all residents. �?
Policies
• Assist those citizens unable to obtain safe shelter on their own.
• Maintain a level of housing code enforcement sufficient to abate unsafe conditions
and maintain safe housing.
• Support fair housing laws and programs which allow equal housing access for all
city residents.
Programs
• As staffing and funding levels allow, code enforcement will be expanded from
dealing with emergencies to resolving chronic building safety problems and to
.preventing demolition through neglect.
Goal 2: Affordability. Encourage housing production whose affordability fits the income
profile of the city's present population.
Definition: What is "affordable housing?" For purposes of this Housing Element,
affordable housing is housing that is affordable both initially and in the long term to a
liollSChOld with a particular income level. Income levels are defined as follows:
• Very low income: 50% or Iess of mediall household inconie.
• Low income: 50% to 80% of median household income.
• Moderate income: 80% to 120% of median household income.
• Above moderate income: 120% or more of median household income.
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 77011seholds, not more than 30% of i77onthly income.
• For 0i?0Z'C HIMCrate i1?C0117C hoasebolds, i70 illdel'.
Thcse indices may be modified or expanded if the State of California explicitly modifies or
expands its definition of affordability for these income groups.
For a project to qualifiy as "affordable housing"for purposes of this Element or any
programs intended to implement this Element's purposes,guarantees must.be presented
that the housing units will remain affordable for as long a period as is legally permissible,
but in no case for Iess than 50 years. For affordable housing projects that use any
I
Page 3
lnunicipnlly-graalted fi)la)ICial benefit or special privilege (i.e., subsidies, below market
interest mortgage bonds, reduced-cost land,fee waivers, development star)dard waivers,
:i i1Slt y b0i111SC5, C7" Other 1neaS111-CS With fina)ICial bewflt 10 the pl'0)ect'S developer not
available to all other housing developers)', the affordability guarantees must be structured to
keep the units permanently affordable at below market rental or purchase cost.
Policies
• The City will adopt measures to encourage creating housing that's affordable to all
its citizens, and to prevent loss of existing affordable housing.
• Preserve and expand the City's supply of affordable rental housing.
• Housing production city-wide should provide housing affordable to all financial
strata of the city's population in the same proportion as those strata are found in the
city's population. For the planning period of this Element, the proportions shall be
those of the 1990 census: veru low income, 31%; low income, 18%; moderate income
17%; above moderate income, 34%.
• Housing projects of 50 or more units, whether built at one time or phased according
to a master plan, shall accommodate at least the city-wide percentages of low and
moderate income units, and one-half the city- Nide percentage of very low income
units; however, projects that are exclusively for population groups with special
housing needs (See Goal 8: Special Housing Needs), or provide all their units at levels
i
affordable to moderate or lower income households, are exempt from this requirement.
• In major annexation areas, where the bulk of new housing production will take
place, housing production must include provisions to accommodate the city-wide
percentages of very low, low, and moderate income units, except that up to one-half
the required number of very low income units may be transferred into low and
moderate income categories.
• In major annexation areas, aright of first refusal shall be extended to the City or its
Housing Authority to purchase, at market value,land adequate to construct at least
five percent of the number of dwellings allowed within the major annexation area.
• The City should take steps that encourage households or living groups of modest
means to create their own living environments in an affordable manner.
• The Cite shall discourage the replacement of existing lower cost housing by new
higher cost Housing, unless, (1) the lower cost units at risk can either be conserved, or
(2) an equivalent number of new units comparable in affordability and amenities to
those being replaced are created as part of the new project.
•.The City shall discourage conversion of affordable rental housing to condominiums
or to other forms of tenure and occupancy..
Page 4
i
• The City shall avoid governmental actions which remove affordable housing units.
Programs
• The City will amend its regulations to require that new development projects
include affordable housing units, with guarantees that they remain permanently
affordable, or pay an.in-lieu fee to assist in the development of affordable housing
citywide, as described in Table A.
TABLE A: Affordable Housing Requirement
Residential Non-Residential
Projects Under 50 Units
Build 5% low or 10%.moderate cost ADUs* Build 1 ADU per acre,but
but not less than 1 ADU per project, OR not less than 1 ADU per
Pay housing fund in-lieu fee equal to 5% project, OR Pay housing
of building value. fund in-lieu fee equal
to 5% of building value.
Projects of 50 Units or more, and Major
Annexation Areas
Build according to city-wide income level *ADU=affordable housing unit
percentages as described in-Policies.
.I
• The City will establish a housing trust fund to be used to develop affordable
housing units and acquire land for affordable Dousing projects. To qualify for such
public assistance, housing must include guarantees that it will remain affordable in
perpetuity. Affordable housing in-lieu fees will be placed in this fund.
The City will periodically review its building regulations to see if there are changes
that could assist the production of affordable housing while not conflicting with
other General Plan policies. Such periodic review will aim to remove regulations that
are no longer needed.
The City will adopt procedures to speed the processing of applications and
construction permits for affordable housing projects that do not involve significant
planning issues or entitlements such as rezoning. City staff and commissions should
be directed to oive such projects priority in allocating N,,-ork assignments, scheduling
conferences and hearings, and in preparing and issuing reports.
• The City will review its building regulations to find ways to allow construction by
owner-builders of personalized, unconventional housing types that reduce cost
and/or energy and materials consumption, provided that residential quality and
safety can be maintained.
i
Page 5
• The City � ill amend its regulations to exempt certain affordable housing projects
from payment of development review, construction permit, server and water hook-
up fees. Affordable housing units which are to he:administered through the City's
Housing Authority, n6t-for-profit housing organizations, the County of San Luis
Obispo or other government agencies, and which guarantee permanent affordability
for low-and moderate income households, should be eligible to seek exemption from
such fees.
• The City will revise its condominium conversion regulations to discourage or .
prevent the conversion of affordable rental units to condominiums unless permanent
affordability guarantees are incorporated into the conversion.
• The City ivill help coordinate public sector and private sector actions to encourage
the development of housing affordable to low and moderate income households.
• The City gill enable issuance of mortgage revenue bonds for (1) below-market
financing for assisted rental units and (2) subsidized mortgages for low-income and
middle-income, first-time homebuyers.
• The City will avoid permit approvals, municipal actions or public projects which
remove or adversely affect existing affordable housing. The City will develop
affordable housing conservation standards that should include the following
provisions to come into effect if affordable housing is removed: (1) 1-Then the City
finds affordable unit removal is necessary for public health and welfare, or in
connection with a municipal project, it shall assist displaced residents with relocation
costs and provide affordable.replacement housing. (2) When the City permits private
development projects that displace affordable housing, it will require the developer
to assist displaced residents with relocation costs and provide affordable
replacement housing.
Goal 3: Housing Conservation. Conserve existing housing supply and prevent
displacement of current occupants.
Policies
The City shall discourage the demolition of sound or rehabilitable existing housing.
• The City shall discourage the conversion or elimination of existing housing in office,
commercial and industrial areas.
• Since older dwellings can often be relocated and refurbished for considerably less
cost than a comparable new dwelling can be constructed, and since older dwellings
may offer spatial and material amenities unavailable in new dwellings, the City, in the
interest of both economy and housing variety, will encourage recycling such dwellings
rather than their demolition.
• The City shall encourage seismic upgrades of older dwellings to reduce the risk of
Page 6
bodily harm and the loss of housing in an earthquake.
• The City shall encourage the preservation, rehabilitation and expansion of residential
hotels and other types of single-room occupancy dwellings.
• The City shall preserve landmark and historic residential buildings.
[See also Goal 11: Suitability]
Programs
• 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. __N4anv of the City's older housing units in the R-1 and R-2 zones provide
housing for those on fixed-incomes, and provide rental housing for those who
cannot afford to purchase a house. By providing a limited number of low-interest
loans according to need and affordability criteria, the City will help preserve safe,
adequate housing for these citizens.
• To maintain housing in the residential/office portions of downtown,* the City will
consider adopting a "no net loss of housing" policy, requiring that housing units
either be maintained, or, in the case of office conversion of existing housing, be
replaced on site or nearby. "[Defirritioii: As in the Land Use Element, "downtown" in
this Element means the area bounded by Highway 101, the railroad, and High Street.]
• Revise office zoning regulations in the "downtown ring" office district to provide
more support for maintenance of-residential uses. Consider rezoning
predominantly
residential portions of the office zone to residential use, and mixed office/residential
portions to a mixed-use designation that permits offices but discourages further
residential displacement.
• The City will adopt a "no net loss" policy for existing housing units in the
downtown Central Business District by revising the downto„n housing conversion
permit process.
• The City will remove regulatory obstacles to the-relocation and rehabilitation of
dwellings that ivould 'otherwise be demolished because of redevelopment of their
sites.
• In the past, subdivision CC&rs and seller restrictions have blocked the relocation
and rehabilitation of dwellings by denying access to new sites. The City will adopt
regulations to prohibit such discrimination against-relocated dwellings.
• The City will 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. .
Page 7
• To assist lower income households undertake seismic upgrades to protect their
dwellings from loss in an earthquake, the City will create a financial assistance
program.
• The City will rescind existing regulations that make housing a non-conforming use
in certain zones.
• Evaluate, and where necessary, revise building, zoning and fire code requirements
which discourage housing and encourage conversion to other uses.
Goal 4: Mixed-Income Housine. Encourage the development of mixed-income
neighborhoods and housing rather than housing that is segregated by economic.status.
Policies
• Within newly developed neighborhoods, housing affordable to various economic
strata should be intermixed rather than segregated into separate enclaves.
• Within apartment or condominium projects incorporating both market-rate and
affordable units, the types of units should be intermixed and the affordable units
should not stand out as being special or inferior.
• For subsidized very low income housing projects, such as those developed by the
City Housing Authority or non-profit groups, projects should be scattered throughout
the city rather than concentrated in one district. In general, 20 units should be the
maximum number of subsidized very low income units developed on any one site.
Programs
• Review City regulations and revise as needed to implement the mixed-income
policies.
Goal 5: Mixed-Variety and Tenure. Provide variety in the location, type, size, tenure,
cost, style and age of dwellings to accommodate the wide range of households desiring
to live within the city.
Policies
• The City will encourage the integration of appropriately-scaled special user housing
into developments or neighborhoods of conventional housing.
• Where housing can be compatible Nvith offices or other businesses, mixed-use
projects should be encouraged.
• To provide housing opportunities close to activity centers and to make better use of
its land, the City will encourage infill housing above lower level retail uses in -
neighborhood shopping districts and in the dovrntown core.
Page 8
• Large housing developments should provide a variety of dwelling types, sizes and
forms of tenure.
I,
e In City expansion areas, specific plans shall incorporate opportunities for individuals
or small groups, other than the specific plan developer, to build homes or create
personalized living environments suited to individuals, families, small groups or to
accommodate those with special needs.
[See also Goals 3: Housing Conservation and 6: Housing Production]
.Programs —
• Review City regulations and revise as needed to implement mixed-variety and
tenure policies.
Goal 6: Housing Production. Construct new housing to fulfill the needs of, first, city
residents, and second, those who work in the city and who would like to live there.
Policies
• Consistent with the growth management portion of its Land Use Element and the
availability of adequate resources, the City will plan to add up to 960 units to its
housing supply between 1992 and 1997.
• To add to the city's residential land base, the City will encourage the production of
infill housing above compatible street-level commercial uses in various commercial
zones.
• New downtown commercial projects should include housing.
• Encourage new and crative uses of existing structures for residential purposes.
• If City service capacity must be rationed to new development, residential projects
will be given priority over nonresidential projects.
• The costs to the City of housing development will be minimized and equitably
distributed. The City will not make new housing more affordable by shifting costs to
existing housing.
[See also Goal 2: Affordability]
Programs
• The City will amend its regulations to encourage mixed residential and
commercial uses on commercial properties, subject to use permit review by the
Planning Commission.
Page 9
J
• The City will consider applying the mixed-use zone citywide to the CN
(Neighborhood Com=.nercial) Zone to require residential development above street
level as new neighborhood commercial facilities are developed. Allowed uses in the
zone should be reviewed to preclude.commercial uses incompatible with housing.
• The City will amend its regulations to require that at least one floor of new multi-
story commercial buildings in the downtown core shall be for residential use.
Parking regulations may be modified, if necessary to make this use feasible. The
housing use should require no separate level of review beyond that required for the
project of which it is a part.
• For major residential expansion areas,the City will adopt specific plans. These
plans will include sites suitable for subsidized rental housing and affordable rental
and owner-occupied housing. Such sites shall be integrated within.neighborhoods
of market rate housing, and shall be architecturally compatible with the
neighborhood. The specific plans will designate sufficient areas at appropriate
densities to accommodate the types of dwellings which would be affordable, in the
proportions called for by the affordable housing policies of this Element. Also,the
specific plans will include programs to assure that the affordable dwellings will
actually be produced. As the capacities of city services become sufficient to support
development of one or more of the major residential expansion areas named in the
Land Use Element, the expansion area proposing the highest proportion of dwellings
affordable to low-income households, together with the best public amenity package,
will be considered first for actual development.
• The Edna-Islay Specific Plan guides development of 446 acres in the southern
portion of the city. Adopted in 1953, the plan includes only lore- and medium-
density housing. About two-thirds of the area has been developed. By amending the
specific plan to include a mix of residential zoning that approximates the mix of
residential densities citywide, additional housing units are possible in the Edna-Islay
specific planning area. The City should initiate amendments to designate a portion of
the specific planning area for medium-high density housing.
• The City will adopt and adhere to policies to provide that if public services,
including water and sewage capacity, must be rationed to new development,
residential projects will be given priority over nonresidential projects, and affordable
projects will be given priority over market-rate projects.
Goal 7: Neighborhood Quality. Preserve the quality of existing neighborhoods, and
develop new areas in a manner that creates neighborhoods of high quality.
Policies
• Within established neighborhoods, new residentiaLdevelopment must be of a
character, size, density, and stability that preserves the city's neighborhoods and
maintains the quality of life for existing and future residents.
Page 10
• Within established neighborhoods, infill housing should be located on appropriate
sites, but not on sites designated or suitable for parks, open space, or similar uses of
neighborhood importance.
• Within city expansion areas, new residential development should be planned so that
it either becomes an integral part of an existing neighborhood, or else establishes a new
neighborhood.
• The creation of walled-off residential enclaves, or of separate, unconnected tracts,is
prohibited since physical separations prevent formation of functioning neighborhoods.
• Housing shall be designed to enhance safety along neighborhood streets and in other
public areas.
• Encourage residents to play a larger role in supporting and improving '
neighborhoods and in addressing housing issues.
Programs
• The City will establish procedures to encourage neighborhood involvement in the
planning and development review processes. Where necessary, the City will identify
specific neighborhood needs, problems, trends, and opportunities for improvement.
City departments will designate staff to work directly with neighborhood groups
and individuals.
i
• Earmark the business tax on rental housing to fund neighborhood improvements.
• Revise planning standards to require that all housing in new neighborhoods, and
infill projects in existing neighborhoods, provide surveillance of streets and public
areas.
Review City regulations and revise as needed to implement neighborhood quality
policies.
Goal 8: Special Housing Needs. Encourage.the creation and maintenance of housing for
those with special housing needs.
Policies
• Provide housing that meets the special needs of families with children, single
parents, disabled persons, the infirm of body or mind, those desiring congregate or co-
housing lifest�,les, the elderly, students,and the homeless.
• Support maintenance of existing mobile home parks and support changes in form of
tenure only if they provide mobile home residents with greater long-term security.
Seek sites in city expansion areas for new mobile home parks.
Page 11
• Encourage development and strengthening of housing programs on the Cal Poly and
Cuesta campuses to lessen pressure on city housing supply and transportation
systems.
• Fraternities and sororities should be located on the Cal.Poly campus. Until that is
possible, they should be concentrated in high-density residential zones adjacent to the
campus rather than dispersed throughout the city.
• Special needs living facilities should be scattered throughout the city rather than
concentrated in one district.
Programs
• The City will support local and regional solutions to meeting needs of homeless
persons, and will continue to support,jointly with other agencies, shelters for the
homeless and for displaced women and children..
• The City will continue its mobile home rent control program to moderate mobile
home rent increases.
• The City will identify sites in expansion areas' specific plans for trnant-owned
mobile-home parks, cooperative housing, manufactured housing, or other types of
housing that meet special needs.
• Advocate development of non-dormitory housing on campus and refurbishing
existing campus housing and its associated programs to make campus living more
attractive.
• Work with Cal Poly towards designation of on-campus locations for
fraternity/sorority living groups. In the shorter run, City policy on in-city locations
suitable for.fraternities and sororities need refining. Zoning regulations will be
revised to restrict the locations of new fraternities and sororities to high density
residential zones adjacent to campus,and to discourage their expansion in other
neighborhoods.
• The City will jointly develop and adopt a student housing plan and "good
neighbor program" with Cal Poly. Purposes of the program are to improve
communication and cooperation between the City and Cal Poly, set student housing
objectives, and to establish dear, effective standards for student housing in
residential neighborhoods.
Goal 9: Ems}' and Witer Conservation. Produce housing that is economical to occupy
because it incorporates energy-saving and water-saving features.'
Policies
Page 12
• In order to promote energy conservation and a clean environment, the City will
encourage development of dwellings with energy efficient design, utilizing passive
and active solar features, and employing energy saving techniques that exceed the
minimums prescribed by Title 24 compliance.
• In order to lessen the need for capital intensive water source development, which
will considerably raise the cost of occupying housing within the city, the City will
vigorously promote conservation as an alternative.
Programs
• Educate planning and building staff and citizen review bodies in energy
conservation issues, including the City's Energy Conservation Element, and direct
that they `vork with applicants to achieve the City's energy conserving housing goal.
• Expand the current solar hot water requirement to cover new apartments and
houses as well as condominiums.
e Assemble a blue ribbon committee of energy experts to advise the City on cost-
effective approaches to increasing residential energy conservation for both new and
existing housing units. Disseminate this information to the public, and incorporate
its key features into city energy conservation policy.
• Evaluate present solar siting and access regulations to ascertain if they provide
assurance of long-term solar access, and revise if they are found inadequate.
• Continue, and expand, the City's subsidized plumbing retrofit program until all
existing dwellings have been retrofitted.
• Make plumbing retrofits available free of charge to low income households.
• Make water conserving landscape education and retrofit a priority co-equal with
plumbing retrofits.
Goal 10: Demand Management. Moderate the growth of external housing demand to
maximize housing opportunities for present city residents, and for those who ivork here.
Policies
• The City will discourage activities which aggravate the imbalance between
residential and employment opportunities among the communities in the housing
market area.
• The City will minimize expansion of housing demand caused by commercial and
industrial development.
• The City will seek to minimize expansion of housing demand and escalation of
Page 13
i
housing costs due to persons being enticed to move from other areas.
• The City will seek to minimize growth of housing demand from campus expansion,
and from other governmental institution expansion.
Programs
• The City will require and consider an assessment of proposals to designate
additional city land for commercial or industrial use, to identify impacts on housing
demand, cost and supply.
• Work with the county to discourage significant expansion of employment in the.
unincorporated airport area south of the city.
• Request developers of housing projects to promote their projects only within the
housing market area (San Luis Obispo County).
• Make City promotional practices, economic development efforts, and other city
actions consistent with the policy of not enticing persons from elsewhere to move
here.
• Advocate enrollment ceilings at Cal Poly and Cuesta College. Advocate
strengthened campus housing programs to reduce pressure on the city's housing
supply.
• Advocate no further expansion of state institutions such as the Mens Colony.
• The City will consider amending its growth management regulations to address
non-residential growth as a method for moderating the long-term demand for
housing.
Goal 11: Suitability. Develop and retain housing on sites that are suitable for the
purpose.
Policies
• Where property is equally suited for commercial or residential uses, the City will
give preference to residential use. Changes in land use designation from residential to
non-residential will be discouraged.
• The City should not permit development of housing on a site if development
conflicts with other goals or policies of this Element, other General Plan Elements, or
other community goals.
• The City should prevent new housing development.on sites that should be preserved
for open space or parks, and on sites subject to natural hazards or unacceptable
manmade hazards.
Page 14
• The City should discourage redevelopment of sites where sound or rehabilitable
existing housing is well suited to the needs of low income households, or to
households with special needs, such as families with children, the elderly, artists and
writers, or the handicapped, unless an equivalent number of new units comparable in
affordability and amenities to those being removed are created as part of the new
project.
Programs
• The City will review its land use designations on vacant land and reclassify any
sites that should be aside for open space or parks.
• The City will adopt regulations to prevent new housing development on sites that
should be preserved as open space, and on sites subject to natural hazards like
geological or flood hazards,or wild fire hazards. The City should also adopt
regulations to prevent new housing development on sites subject to unacceptable
levels of manmade hazards or nuisances, including electromagnetic fields from
power lines, severe soil contamination, airport noise or hazard, traffic noise or
hazard,odors, or incompatible neighboring uses.
Page 15
CGP113 TO:
O-Den°tes Action ❑ FYIM .ING AGENDA
D'CA ECDDDP, . DATE ITEM# --�
CAO ElFnv.DIP,
Lif'ACAo ❑ FME O
T ❑ FWDR COMMENTS ON HOIISING ELEMENT
lJ CLERK/CiIG. ❑ POLICE CH.
'C FFAEA1
T4 C1 r.Ee ba
cHEADP31E ❑ UnLDIR By Dave Romero y/
Page 4Fa=nLQa&1LEaUdtLGDaJfiiusJng'
The policies are all geared toward "affordable housing," whereas, most of
them would be more appropriate if 'directed toward "housing that is
affordable." (Same problem throughout the report.)
Page 12 1.20.16 - City-owned Land
Do we really want to require,that affordable housing units be included as a
condition of sale, lease or redevelopment?
Page 19 1.20.33 - Institutional Growth
We have very little control since these are all outside the Cityand are not
subject to City control. But even if we could control them, do we wish to
limit the jobs and general prosperity these agencies bring to the City?
Page 19 1.20.34 - Commercial Growth
I don't even want to consider limiting our nonresidential growth in order to
moderate the long-term demand for housing. We should encourage more
housing, not discourage business expansion.
Page 29 Previous Policy 13
Results were due primarily to the City's restrictive growth management
policies for residential development.
Page 39 IN
I believe it is a serious error to add an additiondl burden on new commercial
development, that it include affordable housing or pay an in-lieu fee. New
commercial development doesn't necessarily create the need for affordable
housing, but may well fill the need for jobs for existing residents. Additional
fees may well send this new commercial development to another community
that is not so difficult to deal with.
Page 62 1 believe definition of Safe Yield is inaccurate. Safe Yield refers to the"worst
drought of record." Current demand (around 5300 AFY) is far below Safe
Yield (7357 AFY + 1500 AFY groundwater), and will probably remain there
fore some years to come. This entire portion of the report needs to be
updated to reflect current information.
AGENDA
DATE -q3 ITEM #
City of San Luis Obispo
I i
Community Development Department
MEMORANDUM -; L 1;19 j
DATE: March 28 1992
copitSTd
TO: John Dunn, City Administrative Officezf;)� O'Denotes Action
CCDD DR
�° 0 ��FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Directoio r �
TTOR'VEY ❑ FW DIR
BY: John Mandeville, Long-Range Planning Manager cL>iixl c. ❑ POLICE C3
MCMT.TEA.M ClEECDIR
❑ DFILE E3 UTiLDIR.
SUBJECT: Housing Numbers in Housing Element Update
The desire to respond to .the State's Regional Housing Needs Assessment and to prepare a
housing element that is safe from punitive actions by the State, and legal challenge from other
parties has added complication to an otherwise complicated process. The following comments
are provided in response the Mayor's questions contained in your March 16 memo, and
hopefully provide a sense of the efforts made to respond to the State's requirements and respond
to the direction provided through the planning process.
1) What are the numbers (contained in the April 1992 Draft Housing Element) and what do they
reflect?
The number of housing units to be provided contained in the April 1992 Draft Housing Element
represent staff's downward revision of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA)
requirement to reflect the more realistic growth trends of the late 80s rather than the boom times
of the mid 80s. These numbers were developed by staff utilizing the San Luis Obispo Council
of Governments methodology, but based upon the most current data available. They were
utilized in our appeal of the numbers assigned to the City by the COG and the State. The
Planning Commission reviewed the revised regional housing need numbers along with a letter
to the COG and the State. Our request to have the RHNA numbers revised downward was
unsuccessful.
The Planning Commission completed its review of the Draft.Housing Element on May 13, 1992
with a recommendation that the Draft Element be revised to incorporate the 1% growth rate.
The Draft was brought before the Council on August 4, 1992 to review the regional housing
need policy options and to give direction to staff before revising the document and beginning
Council hearings. The Council directed staff to defer work on the Draft Housing Element
pending resolution of work being done on other General Plan element updates and possible
reform of State housing law in progress at that time (see attached action minutes). The attached
chronology details the efforts staff, the Planning Commission, and the Council have made to
recognize State housing law while trying to have the State requirements reflect more reasonable
goals for San Luis Obispo.
2) What was stes authority to use other than the 1% growth rate numbers in the Draft
Housing Element?
The numbers used in the April 1992 Draft Housing Element were a staff recommendation based
upon the City's direction at the time to pursue a strategy that would allow the City to comply
with State requirements. As such, the numbers do not represent an exercise of authority, rather
they represent a step in the planning process.
As is similar to the process of preparing other plans, preparation of the draft Housing Element
involved identifying issues, gathering data, preparing recommendations, and review of
recommendations by advisory or decision making bodies along the way to direct the process.
The numbers contained in the April 1992 Draft represent the initial Draft Housing Element
recommendation made to the Planning Commission. Consistent with that process, and with the
COG/State denial of the City's request to lower the RHNA numbers, the Planning Commission
reviewed the Draft Housing Element and directed staff to replace the recommended revised
RHNA numbers with numbers reflecting the 1% growth rate (May 92). The Draft Housing
Element was then forwarded to the Council to confirm the policy direction on the RHNA
numbers (August 92). The Council directed staff to pursue State legislative reforms to housing
element law and to defer work on the Draft Housing Element pending resolution of issues related
to other General Plan element updates in progress.
Please let me know if a further response would be helpful.
J
memohaus.jm
i
HOUS.4.4G ELEMENT UPDATE CHRONV-BOGY
July 17, 1991 RHNA adopted by SLOCOG, requires 4,100 new dwellings between 92-97 (still
^'y requires state approval).
July 29, 1991 City receives RHNA numbers.
August 8, 1991 CDD staff reviews and prepares response.
September 10, 1991 Planning Commission hearing on draft Housing Element. PC concerned with RHNA
requirement. Staff indicates that City can propose a revision to COG's RHNA
numbers once they are approved by the state.
November 6, 1991 Mayor Dunin receives revised RHNA numbers from SLOCOG increasing City's
requirement to 5,128.
January 28, 1992 Staff returns to Planning Commission with an analysis of the housing need numbers
showing that (using the COG/state methodology for calculating, but basing the
calculations on trend sin the late 80's and early 90's rather than the mid and late
80's) the City's regional housing requirement should be 3,700 units. The commission
endorsed this approach and directs staff to appeal the COG/state RHNA.
January 30, 1992 Staff appeals RHNA to.SLOCOG.
February 6, 1992 Staff sends memo to Council outlining RHNA issues and staff's appeal of RHNA
numbers
April 8, 1992 SLOCOG denies City's appeal of RHNA.numbers and upholds City requirement for
5,128 units.
May 13, 1992 Planning Commission completes its review of Housing Element update,
recommending that the Housing Goals correspond to the City's 1% growthlimit-.
June 16, 1992 Council members, Planning Commissioners, and staff invited to meet with State
Housing and Community Development Department staff to discuss housing needs
issue. At the meeting, HCD staff agree that the number of required housing units
appeared high, but that the requirement could not be changed, even though it was
clear that 5,128 units could not be built in the 1992-1997 period.
July.1992 Housing needs issue scheduled for City Council review. Item continued to August
4th meeting.
August 4,' 1992 City Council postpones a decision on regional housing needs and directs staff to:
1. Pursue State legislative reforms to Housing Element law to revise RHNA
numbers; and
2. Defer work on the Housing Element pendingresolution of work on other
general plan element updates in progress.
i
City Council Meeting Page 5
Tuesday, August 4, 1992- 7:00 P.M.
2. TENTATIVE MAP- GEORGE STREET (File No. 411)
Council held a public hearing to consider the Hearing Officer's recomme ion to create four lots
from two with exceptions to the subdivision and grading standard r property located at 1105
George Street (MS 91-192); Devin Gallagher, applicant.
Moved by Raooa/Roalman. this Item was continued out discussion to date certain,' Tuesday,
August 18, 1992 at the request of the applicant. ion carried (5-0).
3. THURSDAY NIGHT FEES a No. 472)
Council held a public h ng to consider approving changes to the Thursday Night/Farmers Market
Rules and Regula ' sand tee structure.
Moved calman/Rappa, this item was continued without discussion to date certain Tuesday,
A 18, 1992 at the request of the BIA. Motion carried (5-0).
BUSINESS ITEM
4. REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS (File No. 462)
Council considered policy options regarding regional housing needs for the City of San Luis Obispo
(continued from 7/7/92).
Arnold Jonas. Community Development Director, briefly reviewed the agenda report requesting the
Council evaluate the regional housing policy options and by motion give direction to staff regarding
their preferred policy to incorporate in the city's draft housing element update.
After brief discussion, moved by Reiss/Dunin to deter decision pending resolution of the work now
underway to update other elements of the General Plan, and allow possible legislative action to
establish a more realistic process for determining fair share housing numbers. Motion carried (50).
After addition discussio , moved by R a oalp4n to Mayor was autho ' to write a letter
opposing the Housin lament Senate Bill 1589 opp), Motion carried (5-
8:ISP M.
5PM.Ma unin adjourned the me ng to closed session to cuss 3 pending litigated ' ms:
1) Serpa ity; 2) Carpenter vs. Po , and 3) Bali vs. City.
t8:40 .M. there being no furth usiness to come befo he City Council, Ma or nin adjourned
meeting.
APPROVED BY COUNCIL: 9/15/92
Pam Voges, City Clerk
PV:cm