HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/19/2010, PH 4 - DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE (GPA 120-08) council M,fi,Dit, 1/0
j acEn0A uEpont . ,wmNum //��
CITY OF SAN LUI S O B 1 S P 0
FROM: John Mandeville, Director of Community Developm t
Prepared By: Kim Murry and Jeff Hook W
SUBJECT: DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE (GPA 120-08)
RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Planning Commission, adopt a resolution approving the Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact and the November 2009 Draft Housing Element of the
General Plan.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
Updating the General Plan Housing Element is a key step in the City's efforts to expand
affordable housing opportunities and is required by California Government Code Section 65580-
65589.8. Once adopted, the 2009 Housing Element will replace the current Housing Element
adopted and certified by the State in 2004 and guide City housing actions through 2014.
The updated Housing Element builds on the strong foundation created during the previous update
by the Housing Element Update Task Force. It carries forward many policies and programs that
are still needed or those that have yet to bear fruit. Following six public hearings and three
public workshops, the Planning Commission has referred the Update to Council for final action,
along with a recommendation for a Negative Declaration of environmental impact. The
November 2009 City Council hearing draft includes changes made by the Commission, and
addresses comments from citizens and the State Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD). The Draft has also been reviewed by the Human Relations Commission
and endorsed by the County Airport Land Use Commission.
Last May, Council authorized staff to submit an early draft housing element to HCD for
preliminary review to meet the State's August 31, 2009 deadline. From that initial review, the
City received a detailed letter from HCD describing changes and additions needed to achieve
State certification. In November 2009, staff submitted a revised draft—the November 2009 City
Council Hearing Draft Housing Element before the Council this evening — which addressed
HCD's comments. State officials have acknowledged our hearing schedule and advised staff
they intend to review and comment on the revised draft before the Council hearing. Staff will
review any comments received from HCD with the Council at the hearing. Once the Housing
Element is adopted, State law allows HCD up to 90 days to review the element and certify
compliance.
Once adopted, Chapters 1-4 of the Draft will comprise the Housing Element, with the
Appendices to be available as a separate Housing Element supplement. Chapter 3 is the policy
/ a P
Council Agenda Report-Draft Housing Element Update
January 19,2010
Page 2
section of the document and as such, has been the focus of community interest and Planning
.Commission work.
DISCUSSION
State Requirements
By law, housing elements must be updated every five years. The update process is a tool to
update housing policies and programs to reflect the changing needs, resources, and conditions in
the community, and to respond to changes in housing law. Much of the content of the Housing
Element is prescribed by State law and reviewed by HCD to ensure compliance, however local
jurisdictions must also address local housing conditions in their Housing Elements. Once HCD
determines a city or county housing element meets requirements, it "certifies" that locality's
housing element.
The process leading to adoption of the 2004 Housing Element Update was intensive. For that
update, the City assembled a task force of community members and conducted a lengthy and
extensive outreach and analysis process to develop the City's first Housing Element to achieve
HCD certification. The current update process has not been as intensive because most of the
policies and programs in the 2004 Element are still relevant. The 2009 Update builds upon the
2004 Housing Element by carrying forward policies and programs that are still needed or those
that have yet to bear fait. The Planning Commission's efforts focused on 1) evaluating whether
there had been substantial changes in the community or local housing needs, 2) determining
whether existing policies and programs are meeting housing needs, and 3) identifying new
policies and programs to meet unmet housing needs or changes in housing law.
The updated Draft has been revised and expanded to address citizen and HCD comments. Table
1 on pages 13 and 14 of the Draft Housing Element provides a brief checklist on how the
document meets housing element requirements. In addition, Attachment 2 includes HCD's
comments on the preliminary draft element and an explanation of how the Council Hearing Draft
responds to those comments.
While some real estate values have declined during the recession, housing costs still outpace
incomes of most San Luis Obispo residents, forcing many prospective homebuyers who rent or
work in San Luis Obispo to seek affordable housing elsewhere. Now, more than ever, state and
federal grants are critically needed to help make housing "affordable" for moderate and lower
income households. By once again achieving housing element certification, the City can
continue to compete for State housing grants and other forms of housing assistance which would
not otherwise be available. Since 2004, the City has received over $600,000 dollars in grant
funds due to having a certified Housing Element. In addition, affordable housing projects
proposed by the Housing Authority and by ROEM development have been eligible to apply for
state grants and tax credit financing that would otherwise not be available if the City's Housing
Element was not certified.
PN �f-a
Council Agenda Report-Draft Housing Element Update
January 19,2010
Page 3
Updating the Housing Element began in August 2008. Staff worked with the San Luis Obispo
Council of Governments, the County, the other cities in the.County, and the State to determine
the City's "fair share" of housing production. Table 1 shows the Regional Housing Need
Allocation or"RHNA"for each jurisdiction in San Luis Obispo County.
Table 1-San Luis Obispo County Regional Housing Need Allocations
Revised RHNA Allocation - Oct 2008
RCD 9-26-2008 Revision (Formula derived by applying SLOCOG proportions to Revised Totals)
Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Total
Alloca- Alloca- Alloca- Alloca- Alloca-
Jurisdiction % tion % tion % tion % tion tion
Arroyo Grande 23.0% 16.0% 19.0% 42.0%
84 59 67 152 362
Atascadero 1 23.0% 107 16.0% 75 19.0% 86 42.0% 194 462
Grover 23.0% 17.0% 19.0% 42.0%
Beach 44 32 36 81 193
Morro Bay 23.0% 41 17.0% 30 18.0% 33 42.0% 76 180
Paso Robles 23.0% 151 16.0% 105 19.0% 120 42.0% 270 646
Pismo 23.0% 16.0% 18.0% 43.0%
Beach 36 25 29 68- _ 158
San Luis 23.0% 370 16.0% 259 19.0% 295 42.0% 665 1,589
Obispo
Un-
Incorpor- 23.0% 303 16.0% 211 19.0% 241 42.0% 540 1,295
ated
Total 23.3% 1,136 16.3% 796 18:6% 907 41.9% 2,046 4,885
Each jurisdiction's housing element must, under law, show sufficient residential capacity in
terms of adequate zoned land to accommodate its RHNA. Compared to the City's 2004 RHNA
of 4,383, our 2009 allocation of 1,589 can more realistically be accommodated within the
housing element's five-year planning period.
What's New in the Draft Housing Element?
The foundation from the previous Housing Element is a strong one. The City is just now feeling
the results of many of the programs implemented in the existing Element. The recommended
Draft builds upon housing incentives and requirements in the current Housing Element to
increase production of both affordable and market-rate housing over the next five years. Like
most small cities with only limited public funds for housing, the City has relied on the private
sector to meet a substantial portion of its affordable housing needs. Increasingly, local
PH q-3
I
Council Agenda Report—Draft Housing Element Update
January 19,2010
Page 4
governments are finding it necessary to assist developers if adequate housing is to be built at
prices that citizens. can afford, and most effective housing programs involve cooperative
public/private efforts. Accomplishing even a portion of the City's housing objectives will
require the City to continue to take an active role in planning, funding and promoting affordable
housing. The draft update includes most of the policies and programs from the 2004 Housing
Element and includes several new policies and programs. New policies and programs are
identified as "new" in the page margins in Chapter 3 — Goals, Policies and Programs. Many of
the changes are necessary to bring the City into compliance with several housing laws adopted
since 2004, and require local governments to:
1. Provide for the development of housing for households iri a new income category referred
to as extremely low income earning 30% or less of the median income in the area;
2. Identify at least one land use zone where emergency shelters are allowed by right;
3. Strengthen legal protections for affordable housing projects within the discretionary
review process;
4. Conduct a parcel-specific land inventory to determine residential development capacity;
5. Identify a reasonable accommodation process for households with disabled residents;
6. Treat transitional and supportive housing like a residential use for purposes of zoning and
land use entitlements, and to allow them wherever residential uses are allowed.
In addition, new programs have been added to address community needs, such as increased
recognition of mobile home parks through "MH" overlay zoning, and consideration of possible
re-zonings to encourage housing, where appropriate. Most of the new housing programs are
found under Goal 6: Housing Production.
Public Input
Methods and Types of Outreach
In its work on the Draft, the Commission retained or added programs needed both to meet
community housing needs and to meet State law. In addition to the scheduled public hearings,
various segments of the community were invited to contribute to and participate in the update
process. To gather information from residents, builders, non-profits, and service providers,
several different outreach methods were used, including public hearings, workshops, interviews,
and staff presentations/discussions with various civic, neighborhood and housing stakeholder
groups.
For example, in addition to posting legal ads in the Tribune (larger size), staff maintained an
email list of persons interested in the housing update and housing update website. The list was
started with contacts from the 2004 housing element update and augmented with contacts from
Peoples' Self Help Housing, Housing Authority, Home Builders Association, The Tribune
Government Affairs, SLO Chamber of Commerce, Community Action Partnership, Workforce
Housing Coalition, League of Women Voters, Mission Community Bank, Residents for Quality
Neighborhoods, SLO Property Owners' Association, Downtown Association, Habitat for
Humanity, Superintendent of Schools, San Luis Coastal Unified School District, New Times,
Council Agenda Report—Draft Housing Element Update
January 19,2010 }
Page.5
SLO Council of Governments, WestPac, Northern Chumash Council, ECOSLO, Economic
Vitality Corporation, County of San Luis Obispo, SLO Senior Center, 33 mobile home park
residents, and an apartment owner who expressed interest.
The distribution list is used to send emails describing upcoming public hearings and workshops.
The email notifications contain links to the City's website and to staff reports for the associated
hearings so that interested parties can access information being presented and have been able to
review the draft Housing Element as it was revised and developed.
Public workshops were held to gather input about three key issue areas: Housing Needs in the
Community, Development and Resources; and Neighborhoods and Sustainability. Staff used
flyers and posters to inform the public about workshops and posted these at public and business
locations. While many of the chain stores would not allow posters to be placed due to corporate
rules, some allowed flyers to be left for public review and several locally-owned and operated
stores agreed to place posters in their windows in addition to having flyers available for viewing.
Staff attended meetings or interviewed key members of several interest groups in order to
understand issues specific to each. These meetings and interviews have included:
Homebuilders' Association, Chamber of Commerce Economic Subcommittee, Housing Trust
Fund Executive Director, SLO Property Owners' Association, Workforce Housing Coalition,
Mobile Home Park Resident representative, RQN, Transitional Food and Shelter representative,
and the Supportive Housing Consortium. A summary of input received and ways the Draft
Housing Element was updated to respond to that input is included in the next section.
- Input Received
The workshops included an opinion survey with several standard questions and several questions
unique to the focus of the specific workshop. In addition, a Mobile Home park residents' group
representative took survey forms to her group meeting and many surveys were returned from that
meeting. The input from outreach efforts to date, along with staff response to the information, is
summarized in the Draft and below.
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
Input
Several people asked that Table 2A, part of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, be re-evaluated
to improve its effectiveness. Commentors suggested that the adjustment of the inclusionary
housing requirement based on average dwelling unit size was problematic — either because the
unit sizes (floor areas) were too large to result in affordable housing or too small to incentivize
housing development. Other comments indicated that the City's inclusionary requirement is
well below others in the State and should be changed to increase affordable housing production.
Program 2.5 calls for consideration of changes to Table 2A to provide more ways for commercial
development projects to meet the requirements (such as by providing land to accommodate the
required number of inclusionary units or by converting off-site units to affordable units through
deed restrictions). This change generated support in the development community but concern in
other groups. Several non-profit organizations expressed concern that converting existing units
TH+5
Council Agenda Report—Draft Housing Element Update
January 19,2010
Page 6
to affordable units would not result in additional housing being created and would evict existing
tenants.
Response
New Program 2.16 calls for an evaluation of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (IHO) and the
effect of Table 2A on the City's ability to provide affordable housing in the proportions shown in
the Regional Housing Needs Allocation. An in-depth analysis of the Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance and Table 2A will provide information regarding the program's effectiveness, how it
compares to other examples in the State, and how Table 2A has impacted the production of
affordable units, allowing Council to make informed changes to the IHO as appropriate.
New Program 2.5 directs staff to bring forward amendments to Table 2A to develop more ways
for commercial development projects to meet inclusionary requirements. Converting off-site.
units to affordable units is one possible approach; however, further analysis may indicate this is
not an appropriate avenue.to pursue. The program calls for a more comprehensive look at
options for commercial development and will involve developing criteria and pros and cons of
which approach to use under different site or project considerations. Conclusions about
appropriateness of approaches to consider will be aided through the evaluation which adoption of
Program 2.5 will trigger.
Funding Affordable Housing
Input
Severar sources indicated that the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requirements should not be
the sole source of funding for affordable housing. Some believed new development carries an
undue burden to affordable housing, while others focused on the need to generate supplemental
housing funding to augment the City's inclusionary housing requirements. Other input
characterized affordable housing as a community-wide benefit that should be supported by more
segments of the community to make sure affordable housing gets constructed.
Response
As part of the implementation of Program 2.16 which calls for the evaluation of the effectiveness
of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, there will be an opportunity to look at how different
communities find funds to help support the production of affordable housing. In addition,
Program 6.14 States the City will actively seek new revenue sources and financing mechanisms
to assist affordable housing development for extremely low, very low and low or moderate
income households and first time homebuyers. Historically, the City has also brought other
financial resources to bear when supporting affordable housing developments including State and
Federal grants such as Community Development Block Grant funds, BEGIN and First Time
Homebuyer Funds.
Densi
Input
Community opinions on residential density vary widely. Several sources provided input on the
policies that address infill and density. Some expressed concerns about the changes to R-1 and
R-2 neighborhood character if additional density were to be supported in these established
Council Agenda Report—Draft Housing Element Update
January 19,2010
Page 7
neighborhoods. Others indicated strong support for infill in the form of "granny units" and
creative subdivision design, and other comments focused on possible sites for where new
housing could or should occur. Some suggested that existing manufacturing zoned areas would
be appropriate to consider for mixed use housing, while others indicated that R-3 and R-4 zoned
areas near Cal Poly could accommodate greater densities.
Response
The Draft Housing Element contains several programs that address infill and density. Some of
the public comments related to density are discussed under "Neighborhood Concerns" below.
Program 6.7 supports redevelopment of public and private utility properties for housing, where
appropriate. Program 6.12 calls for the City to consider rezoning of identified manufacturing,
public facility, or commercially zoned properties for mixed use or housing development, where
appropriate. New Program 6.25 directs the City to evaluate increasing residential density
allowed in CN, O and CD zoning districts. New program 6.28 indicates the City should consider
changes to the Secondary Dwelling Unit Ordinance to include possible incentives. New program
6.29 indicates the City will evaluate Subdivision and Zoning Regulation changes to support small
lot subdivisions, ownership bungalow court development and other alternatives to conventional
subdivision design. Any program that specifies changes to ordinances or regulations will require
separate public and environmental review which will provide ample opportunity for community
members to provide additional input.
Neighborhood Concerns
Input
Much of the input received in the public workshops focused on the effects of rental housing,
tenants and non-resident landlords on neighborhoods, including issues of parking, noise, trash,
and lack of property maintenance. Other inputs related to concerns about allowing PD zoning on
properties less than one acre in size due to issues of parking and incompatibility with the
neighborhood character; as well as encouraging housing development on Cal Poly and Cuesta
campuses for students. Specific requests included requiring business license approval and a
rental inspection program for all rentals; and making it easier to form residential parking districts.
Response
There are a variety of existing programs in the Housing Element that address neighborhood
issues. Specifically, Program 7.8 recommends finding ways to involve residents in decisions
affecting their neighborhoods. To this end, staff is in the early stages of describing neighborhood
boundaries and characteristics. To accomplish this, staff will solicit neighborhood comments and
use the information to better understand, and help craft programs to meet neighborhood needs.
Program 7.11 indicates the City will continue to develop and implement neighborhood parking
strategies including parking districts. The primary parking concern expressed was the amount of
area the district needed to cover and receive resident support before a parking district request
could be processed. Several participants found this process to be difficult; however, the City's
noticing requirements ensure unintended consequences are anticipated and avoided, where
possible. Larger areas are considered as part of the residential parking district program to make
sure parking issues for a limited area are not merely "pushed oT' to surrounding residential
Council Agenda Report—Draft Housing Element Update
January 19,2010
Page 8
areas. The larger area is considered as part of a more comprehensive approach to a neighborhood
parking issue.
` Program 3.9 calls for the City to "correct unsafe, unsanitary, or illegal housing conditions".
Program 1.6 is intended to help accomplish this. Like Program 3.9, Program 1.6 is carred
forward from the 2004 Housing Element and calls for the City to enact a rental inspection
program to improve the condition of the City's housing stock. To date, this inspection program
has focused on Fire/life-safety issues associated with multi-unit rentals. Developing a program to
review every rental in the City would have a large staffing impact and is probably not feasible for
the entire City without budgeting additional resources. However, the City's code enforcement
and neighborhood services teams work on maintenance and behavior issues within the
neighborhoods. In addition, the City Council recently directed staff to bring forward stronger
ordinances to address noise and party impacts to neighborhoods which may help alleviate some
of the behavioral concerns.
Programs 8.14, 8.15, and 8.16 address cooperation between the City, Cal Poly, and Cuesta
College to address."good neighbor" programs, and student housing and fraternity/sorority living
group needs on campus. A staff proposal to include a program to work with Cuesta College to
develop on-campus housing was recommended for removal by the Planning Commission due to
concerns of environmental sensitivity of the Chorro Valley and the lack of neighborhood-serving
facilities on or near campus.
Mobile home parks
Input
`Mobile home park residents have supported the creation of a new, separate zoning category for
mobile home parks. Information provided by the residents distinguishes mobile home parks
from traditional neighborhoods and describes their unique maintenance, service and financing
challenges; and indicates that these differences may support the need for a new "MH" zone to be
applied to existing mobile home parks.
Response
Mobile home parks provide one of the City's most affordable housing types. Existing policies
and programs recognize this affordable housing resource by reflecting support for mobile home
rent stabilization (Program 8.12), funding for rehabilitation of mobile homes (Program 1.4), and
support for mobile home development in the expansion areas (Program 8.13). Policy 8.2
indicates the City should preserve manufactured housing or mobile home parks and support
changes in these forms of tenure only if such changes provide residents with greater long-term
security of comparable housing in terms of quality, cost, and livability.
The issue of establishing a new Mobile Home park zoning needs further exploration. Several
California communities (i.e. Santa Maria, Capitola, Carlsbad, Goleta, Santa Barbara County and
Sonoma County to name a few) have used zoning designations to identify existing mobile home
parks through overlay zones or single-purpose zones or use restrictions.
�N��
�1
Council Agenda Report—Draft Housing Element Update
January 19,2010
Page 9 _.
Having a single purpose zone category for mobile home parks may work to provide constructive
notice regarding applicable requirements, but it will not prevent the parks from converting to
another use. The City has adopted rent stabilization and a mobile home park conversion
ordinance that better address long-term affordability for the residents and the protection available
to tenants in the event the-owner decides to redevelop the mobile home park. In addition, a
zoning category 'specific to mobile home parks will not address the unique challenges
experienced by park residents related to maintenance. Health and Safety Code sections 18605
and 18610 provide that HCD's rules govern park maintenance and operations. City zoning will
have no impact on these issues.
Mobile home parks have developed in locations that are covered by a variety of zoning categories
including R-2, R-2-S, C-R-MU, C-S, C/OS40, and R-4. Anew zoning category separate from
the City's existing categories might not be equally appropriate for all of the existing mobile home
park sites. For example, the mobile home park on South Street is identified in the Mid-Higuera
Enhancement Plan as appropriate for redevelopment to a higher density residential development.
Evaluation of existing land uses and future potential would be most appropriate during the Land
Use Element update, especially in light of SB 375 direction and the associated Sustainable
Communities Strategy being developed. An overlay zone for existing or new mobile home
parks might be a more appropriate method to indicate that other requirements (rent control and
conversion requirements) apply to these developments. In response, the Planning Commission
supported Program 8.24 calling for the City to consider addition of an overlay zone to existing.
mobile home and trailer park sites to provide constructive notice that additional requirements
(such as rent stabilization and a park conversion ordinance) apply.
County-owned Property behind former General Hospital
Input
City staff met with the County to discuss possible development of County-owned property
behind the former General Hospital. The County is considering development concepts that may
include densities of seven to 15 dwellings per acre on property now zoned R-1 (allowing up to
seven dwellings per acre), and estate sized lots on the property that is within the City limits but
outside of the Urban Reserve Line. The County is also considering working with adjacent
owners of several of the larger lots to the south to transfer development rights from lots higher on
the hillside and more difficult to develop to the lower lots that could be created behind the former
General Hospital.
While County development ideas for this property are still very preliminary, the draft Housing
Element contains a new policy, Policy 6.6, and a new program, Program 6.23, that address the
former General Hospital site and indicates the City should consider assigning a "Special Design
Area" overlay with guidance to direct any future development to slopes of 20% or less, to include
open space dedication; and to note that an additional water tank may be required. In effect, this
program raises the level of City scrutiny for development proposals to address slope, drainage, .
access and land use compatibility. This proposed policy and program elicited a strong response
from some of the neighbors in the Flora Street and Wilding areas who were opposed to the
developments proposed as part of the eastside annexations. They acknowledge that R-1
-P N11— I
1
Council Agenda Report—Draft Housing Element Update
January 19,2010
Page 10
development is already possible under current zoning and believe an S overlay zone would
encourage residential development, possibly at densities higher than the seven units/acre allowed
under the R-1 zone.
Response
The Commission supported Policy 6.6 and Program 6.23 to guide development proposals and
address the site's specific conditions and opportunities. The Special Design Area overlay does
not change the underlying zoning, which is R-1 and C/OS on the County's property within the
City limits. Several lots in adjacent neighborhoods exist at higher elevations than the area
addressed with this policy and program. The intent is to require additional planning review for
development beyond what would be required under current zoning, while retaining Council
flexibility to consider residential proposals that are compatible and that provide a substantial
community benefit, such as affordable housing, open space dedication, historic preservation of
Sunny Acres, and infrastructure improvements. If adopted as proposed, the policy and program
calls for evaluation and consideration of applying the"Special Design Area", and such an action
would require separate public review and hearings before it could take effect.
RHNA Credit for Cal Poly Housing
The City's 2004 Housing Element credited housing built on the Cal Poly campus towards
meeting its Regional Housing Needs Allocation, and HCD and the County of San Luis Obispo
did not object to that approach. Cal Poly is outside City limits but inside our Urban Reserve and
plays a key role in the City's housing supply and demand. For this update, however, HCD has
disallowed claiming 690 dwellings recently developed at Bella Montana and Poly Canyon
Village, Phases 1 and 2 toward meeting RHNA because they are located outside City limits.
Staff has revised the Draft accordingly. The change does not affect the City's ability to meet its
RHNA requirement (See Tables 4 and 5, pp. 56 and 57 of the Draft Housing Element).
The Commission accepted HCD's exclusion of the apartment units constructed at Cal Poly with
the understanding that, based on HCD's assurances, the City may yet be able to apply recently
completed on-campus apartments toward meeting the City's RHNA. Accordingly, in the next
Housing Element update cycle, if Cal Poly is annexed and the County has not counted those units
in their RHNA performance (which they did not), the City could negotiate an agreement as part
of the annexation process to count those units that were built within the appropriate time frame
as part of the City's performance toward meeting the Regional Allocation for the current Housing
Element(2009-2014).
Planning Commission Action
The"City Council Hearing Draft" incorporates changes from the working draft presented in May
2009. Staff incorporated changes in response to HCD's review, public input, and the Planning
Commission's review and revisions. Overall, the Planning Commission's recommended changes
provide more specific guidance on the city housing objectives, particularly with regard to flexible
development standards and creative housing products to include small lot subdivisions,
bungalow court development and other alternatives to conventional housing designs.
Council Agenda Report—Draft Housing Element Update
January 19,2010
Page 11
The Commission also provided input on the five year work plan. While all of the housing
programs are important, the Commission was interested in identifying those programs that
seemed to have the most critical timing. Appendix F of the Housing Element contains the five-
year implementation plan. Table A lists the proposed programs sorted by priority and Table B
shows all of the programs with additional information related to primary person responsible for
implementation, priority, and includes potential resources that might assist with implementation.
State Review
HCD staff works individually with each jurisdiction and closely reviews draft housing elements
for conformance with State housing law. Staff received initial HCD comments on the Draft
Housing Element in August 2009 and the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed changes
made in response to HCD's initial review. Most comments were generally favorable and several
of the comments reflected the need for the City to provide the background information to "show
its work". Staff resubmitted the revised Planning Commission recommended draft to HCD staff
on November 19`x'. The City's HCD analyst, Melinda Coy, indicated that she would most likely
be able to provide comments back by early January. Assuming State comments and requirements
do not change markedly, it appears promising that the City will be able to satisfy HCD concerns
and achieve certification based on the structure and content of the current Draft Housing
Element. If comments are received prior to the City Council hearing, staff will bring those
comments forward for Council review.
Once the Draft Housing Element is adopted, staff will incorporate any changes into a final
Housing Element, along with graphics and all necessary attachments, and forward the adopted
Element for HCD's mandatory final review. HCD then has up to 90 days to review the Element
and certify the element or respond with additional comments. Staff will continue to work with
HCD to achieve certification. This may include providing additional information or clarifying
adopted policies and programs. Any substantive changes would come back to Council; however
staff does not anticipate that major changes will be required since HCD's initial comments are
typically the most extensive, with HCD's final review consisting mainly of checking for
compliance with earlier comments.
Council Review
Due to State requirements, housing elements are often lengthy. The Housing Element is both a
policy document and a community reference on housing and demographics. Since this Draft
Housing Element updates and closely follows the 2004 Housing Element, Council's review can
be more focused than was necessary for the comprehensive rewrite of the Housing Element in
2003. Given the Commission's detailed review of the Draft, it may be possible for Council to
complete its review in a single meeting. However, if multiple meetings are needed, staff
recommends Council focus on Chapter 3 — Goals, Policies and Programs for this first meeting.
This is the core of the Housing Element and is the main part of the document that will guide
housing decisions.
Council Agenda Report—Draft Housing Element Update
January 19,201.0
Page-12
The Housing Element is a policy and program "rich" document. It is, however, generally not
necessary or desirable to include highly detailed program implementation measures. Most
programs will require some type of follow-up action and return for public hearings before the
Planning Commission and City Council. These actions may include General Plan; Zoning map
or text amendments, new or amended ordinances regarding housing incentives and standards,
development approvals, and new capital improvement projects. Consequently, most program
details need not be finalized in the Housing Element. Council members are dealing primarily
with policy direction, and in so doing, balance the need for clear; concise policymaking with the
need for sufficient guidance in the element's text to enable implementation.
Environmental Review
Community Development Department staff prepared an initial environmental study to evaluate
the potential environmental effects of the Draft Housing Element Update (ER 120-08). Based on
an analysis of 17 environmental factors, the initial environmental study concluded that adoption
of the Update would not result in any new, significant environmental effects not previously
considered in the Final EIR for the 1994 General Plan Land Use (LUE) and Circulation Element
Updates. Accordingly, the Community Development Director determined the proposed project
could not have a significant effect on the environment and directed that a Negative Declaration of
environmental impact be prepared.
In 1994, the Final EIR evaluated Draft Land Use Element (LUE) policies that anticipated a total
of up to 24,300 dwellings and a total population of up to 58,200 persons by 2022. It included 37
mitigation measures and identified nine significant adverse impacts for which the City Council
made findings of overriding considerations. In particular, Council noted that the LUE update
could result in conversion of prime agricultural land to urban use, that various street widening
projects would be necessary, that there would be a change from rural to urban character, and that
unacceptable levels of service at certain major intersections and along most arterial streets could
result. The need to accommodate a reasonable share of anticipated regional growth was cited as
the primary overriding consideration.
On November 12, 2009, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing to review
the project's initial environmental study to determine whether, based on the goals, policies and
programs in the October 2009 Draft Housing Element, the initial study adequately addressed the
project's potential environmental effects. Based on its review of the initial study, the
Commission adopted Resolution No. 5536-09 (2009 Series) as shown in Attachment 3, and
supported preparation of a negative declaration of environmental impact. In supporting a
negative declaration, Commissioners determined the Draft was consistent with the General Plan
and was in compliance with State law.
Quantified Objectives in the Draft Housing Element Update
The Draft Housing Element Update includes Quantified Objectives showing the number of
dwelling units the City will be able to accommodate in each income group during the planning
r.
Council Agenda Report—Draft Housing Element Update
January 19,2010
Page 13
period from January 1, 2007 to July 1, 2015. The Quantified Objectives anticipate up to 1,589
new dwellings - the full Regional Allocation. The City has sufficient zoned land and
infrastructure to accommodate its assigned RHNA. .The City's ability to achieve its Quantified
Objectives is contingent upon developer interest in building below-market rate housing, and
securing local, State or federal funding to help fund the provision of very-low and low income
housing. It is also contingent upon private development decisions and economic factors outside
of City control. While achieving these housing production objectives is theoretically possible
given available land resources and expected water and sewer capacity, it is highly unlikely this
number of dwelling units will actually be produced without significant local, State or federal
assistance.
FISCAL IMPACT
Adopting a Housing Element that can be certified by the State Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD) makes the City eligible to receive certain grants, and enables
affordable housing developments to qualify for additional grant and tax credit financing. To the
extent that these outside funding sources are available, the City is able to leverage the City's
Affordable Housing Funds more effectively to assist development of affordable housing projects.
ALTERNATIVES
State law calls for cities and the unincorporated County to update their housing elements by the
end of 2009. While the City has not met that deadline, the State Department of Housing and
Community Development staff has assured City staff that there is not a significant problem with
the proposed timeframe to complete the Housing Element.
Council may choose alternative review strategies, and may choose to schedule additional
meetings at which to consider the Draft. It may also, but is not required to, refer the Draft back
to the Planning Commission for additional changes, as appropriate.
Attachment:
1. Initial Environmental Study(ER 120-08)
2. Response to HCD initial review
3. Planning Commission Resolution 5536-09 (2009 Series)
4. Council Resolution Approving Housing Element
5. Council Resolution Adopting Negative Declaration of Environmental Effect
Transmitted separately:
2009 Council Hearing Draft Housing Element Update
GACD-P LAND KMURMHousing Element Update 2009\Staff reportACAR I-19-10.doc
-?Nq-I3
- Attachment 1
���iiiii��llllllll (Ilii II l
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
For Eft# 120-08
1. Project Title: General Plan.Housing Element Update
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Community Development Department
City of San Luis Obispo
-919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Jeff Hook(805)781-7176
4. Project Location: Citywide;no specific address
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Community Development Department
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
6. General Plan Designation: Project applies to all General Plan land-use designations.
7. Zoning: Project applies to all City zones.
8. Description of the Project: The project consists of the September 2009 Draft Housing Element
Update, a five-year plan which explains the City's housing goals, policies, and programs. It
updates the current Housing Element which was adopted in 2004. Once adopted, the Housing
Element becomes part of the General Plan and will guide public and private decisions regarding
housing, development review, land use, City budgets and capital improvement programs. The
Draft includes policies and programs intended to increase housing opportunities for extremely
low,very-low, low-and moderate-income households, while accommodating growth in a manner
consistent with goals and policies contained in the Land Use Element and other elements of the
General Plan. The content of housing elements is prescribed under state housing law, and this
draft has been prepared to include the required sections and information.
This draft update addresses changes in State housing law and in regional housing needs. State,
regional and local housing costs, supply and needs have changed since 2004, as evidenced by
current information on real estate prices, affordable housing, and the widening "gap" between
rental and purchase housing costs and consumers' incomes. Although the update retains many of
the same policies and programs in the 2004 Housing Element, there are also new policies and
programs that address these changing conditions. Some of the 2004 Housing Element policies
Attachment 1
and programs that were accomplished have been removed, as discussed in more detail in the
body of this Initial Study.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: The City of San Luis Obispo is a community of about
44,000 persons, home to Cal Poly State University, and separated from other communities in the
County by agricultural and open lands. It is the County seat and the County's largest
incorporated city with about one-fifth of the County's total population. San Luis Obispo is a
charter city and began as one of the chain of 21 missions founded by Spanish missionaries in the
late 1700s. The City is the retail, employment, government and cultural center of the County,
and is notable for the many scenic hillsides and "morros"that ring the City,and many creeks that
wind through the community. The City is also noteworthy for the many historic homes and
commercial buildings located downtown and in four other historic districts.
10. Project Entitlements Requested: General Plan Amendments approving the 2009 Housing
Element.
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: The Draft Housing Element Update must
be referred to the California Department of Housing and Community Development for a
determination of consistency with State housing law.
JMbMVA- CITY OF SAN Luis Osisao 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2009 ,
. . . .... . . .. . .. .. . ..
Attachment 1
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,involving at least
one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Geology/Soils Public Services
Agricultural Resources Hazards&Hazardous Recreation
Materials
Air Quality Hydrology/water Quality Transportation&Traffic
Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Utilities and Service
Systems _
Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings of
Significance
s VIM mss.
Energy and Mineral Population and Housing 'z, .
Resources
FISH AND GAME FEES
There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish
X and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such,the project qualifies for a
de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees.
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish
and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has been
circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
This enviromnental document must be submitted'to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more
X State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and
Communiry Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines
15073(a)).
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL C'HECKUST12009
i
r Attachment 1
DETERMMATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prqpar4 x
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment;
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and
agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is:required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" impact(s) or"potentially
significant unless mitigated"impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION,including revisions
or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,nothing further isTeguired.
October 15,2009
Caitlin Morici Date
Kim Murry,Deputy c6maunity Development for John Mandeville, Community
Director Development Director
CITY OF SAN Luis OBISFo 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMItNTAL CHECKLIST 2009
_ .I
Attachment t.
EVALUATION OF ENV RONWNTAL EWPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except"No Impact"answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A "No Impact" answer is adequately
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not-apply to projects like the one
involved(e.g.the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A"No Impact"answer should be explained where it is
based on project-specific factors as well as general standards(e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to
pollutants,based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved,including off-site as well as on-site,cumulative as well
as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.The explanation of each
issue should identify the significance criteria or threshold,if any,used to evaluate each question.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact'is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are
one or more"Potentially Significant Impact"entries when the determination is made,an EIR is required.
4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measureshas
reduced an effect from"Potentially Significant Impact" to a"Less than Significant Impact" The lead agency must
describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level
(mitigation measures from Section 17,"Earlier Analysis,"may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process,an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D)of the California Code of
Regulations. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,
where appropriate,include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached,and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion. In this case,a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent
to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
CITY of SAN Luis OBISPo - 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2009
Attachment 1
Issues, Discussion and Supporting information Sources Sources Potentia„y Potentially Less Than No
2009 GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Significant Significant Significant impact
ER # 120-08 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Inomol-Ated
1.AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a}T'
.. a substantial adverse effect oa a xeate v�stxt 17 X
b) $ubstanit3llydamagascentciesourceg m�ltidifig,butaotlifiltted; 1 X
to trees,rockouteroPPtngs oPetispace,a�tdlu§jatncbwldus
K4 ”"
Y $
jk1lhl},a local
or., sceralc.htgtl9Vayh
G
$ubsrantaIly degrade the extsUug vt5t�a)v1Szacter Ar'gttallty o£ 8 X
' 'the srte and its srnxoundmgs7
W
d Create a n8w source osubstantlal hghtbr glare that would 7,12 X
advemc. effeGtiis orni"" "ttinte views,tn tlte'area?
a) Policies in the Draft Housing Element Update encourage the development of housing in urbanized areas and is expansion
areas planned and phased to accommodate residential growth. It follows Land Use Element (LUE) policies in directing
growth into those areas and sites that can accommodate residential development based on size,shape,topography,zoning and
environmental suitability. New residential development would be guided by existing development standards regarding
building height,creek and property line setbacks,and protection of important site and environmental features,such as historic
features or buildings,rock outcroppings,open space,and heritage trees. Conservation and Open Space Element,policy 9.2.1
addresses views to and from public places,including scenic roadways. This policy guides the City towards actions that will
preserve and improve views of important scenic resources from public places. When proposed projects may include impacts
to scenic resources,these impacts are routinely identified in the associated environmental documents and mitigation measures,
including increased setbacks are lower buildings heights, are required to reduce potential impacts to less than significant
levels.
b)New residential development may alter the visual settings of suburban and rural areas outside of the City's Urban Reserve.
These areas primarily consist of major expansion areas and minor annexation areas that require either specific plans or
development plans showing form, layout and integration of new buildings with the site. Growth management policies, _
including Land Use Element Policy 1.0.1,state that the City should manage its growth to protect the natural environment and
air quality. New development is subject to environmental and architectural review„ particularly where a sensitive or
historically significant resource may be affected. These review steps help ensure that individual projects are modified through
required conditions of approval or mitigation measures, as necessary,to meet General Plan policies and Community Design
Guidelines that require the protection of important viewsheds.
c)The General Plan contains goals and policies that address the visual character and quality of new development. Within the
Community Design Guidelines, General Principle 2.1, Site Design, states that each project should be designed with careful
consideration of the site character and constraints and minimise changes to natural features rather than altering a site to
accommodate a stock building plan. The Architectural Review Commission uses this policy, among others, to determine if
new development is acceptable as proposed or needs modification. The Community Design Guidelines include other
principles that require new development to be designed in a manner that is consistent with its surrounding structures and
environment. The Architectural Review Commission(ARC) and the development review process ensure, through required
project modifications, conditions of approval or mitigation measures, that development plans are consistent with visual
character and quality guidelines prior to project approvals.
d)To minimize potential light and glare impacts,residential development projects will be required to comply with all policies
governing light and glare outlined in the City's Municipal Code. In 2009, the City's night sky ordinance was adopted
regulating development to prevent new sources of visual glare and light pollution. Within the Conservation and Open Space
Element, Policy 9.2.3 says that outdoor lighting shall avoid operating at unnecessary locations, level and times; spillage to
areas not needing or wanting illumination; glare (intense line of sight contrast); and frequencies(colors) that interfere with
astronomical viewing.
Conclusion: No impact. The City's adopted policies,standards and guidelines in the Community Design Guidelines and the
General Plan will avoid or mitigate the potential aesthetic impacts of new residential development to less than significant
levels.
CITY OF SAN Luis OBtsPo S WIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKUsT 2009
1 �� Attachment 1
Issues, Discussion and Supporting-Information Sources sources So=es Potennaliq Potentially Less Than No
2009 GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless bilpact
ER # 120-08 Mitigation
Incorporated
2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would thegroject:
Faratla ' LX
....... ..........
.......t4nKT1W`Z0*..'0
pm61,2
..............M!,
..w. ......
X
X
ther3lobatton or nature, aiild, S7LIR
i- qxiri
a)The City of San Luis Obispo is in the central portion of the County coastal agricultural region. The City is,for the most
part,urbanized with only a few small farms still engaged in agricultural production. Land Use Element Policy 1.8.1 calls for
the preservation of economically viable agricultural operations and Land within the Urban Reserve and City limits. The
Housing Element follows the General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) in terms of where housing should be developed and
promotes compact urban form to reduce urban sprawl and loss of productive agricultural lands outside the Urban Reserve.
Agricultural and Conservation/Open Space designated lands allow limited residential use at very low densities of one
dwelling per five or more acres,which is only suitable for rural housing. The Draft Housing Element Update will not result in
the conversion of prime or unique flumland or involve other changes that would lead to conversion of farmland to Don-
agricultural uses because it does not identify any new land that is subject to urbanization, rezoning from agricultural use to
residential use or expansion of the City's Urban Reserve Line beyond that already anticipated in the General Plan.
A residential development capacity inventory done in connection with the Housing Element Update identified approximately
146 acres of vacant or underutilized Interim Open Space within city limits, with a potential development capacity of 266
density units. This includes three properties: the 25 acre Sunset Drive-in property, and two parcels totaling about I I acres
between Los Verdes Residential Condominiums and San Luis Obispo Creek(off Los Osos Valley Road)that were farmed in
2008. These parcels are located within a 100-year flood zone and are not suitable for residential development until the flood
hazard is mitigated without significant harm to San Luis Obispo Creek. Because this land is not yet suitable for residential
development and provides open space benefits, it is considered a lower priority for development and is not included in the
Draft Element's summary of residential development capacity. Development of Interim Open Space requires approval of a
development plan or specific plan,showing how these flood hazards would be mitigated.
b) The City has established an Agricultural land use designation (Ag) in its General Plan to help preserve important
agricultural land. No land within the current City limits is designated Ag. The General Plan has allocated sufficient land for
urban uses to achieve the City's housing goals and meet the RHNA numbers without expanding the current Urban Reserve
Line into agricultural lands in the unincorporated County area. Draft Housing Element Policy 6.14 states that the City will
encourage residential development focused on infill development and densification within City Limits and designated
expansion areas over new annexation of residential land to maximize housing potential in the City.
c)No changes to land use or zoning designations on agricultural land or prime agricultural soils are anticipated with adoption
of the draft Element.
Conclusion: No impact. The Draft Housing Element prioritizes infill residential development and densification within the
existing City Limits.Agricultural resources will not be significantly impacted by development that is carried out in a manner
consistent with the policies and programs contained in the Draft Housing Element.
3. AM QUALITY. Would the project:
-7- i-7w TM-77-777-ir -7- '77-77
n'th-bute -
io ate:,44y.air qua, t r c 124
, , . 1.: 5y�tihdard 0 q substantially X
"T
a 6M
, 0 t,i bb s ft U a l6m,p n='-6 i i 2,4 X
gably plea?6U:;of k
tlt -Olt
Mitt
X
l,ti NMI
till
CITY OF SAN Luis Oaispo 7 INITAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEcKusT 2009
Attachment 1
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentiang Potentially Less That, No
2009 GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Significant Significant Significant impact
ER # 120-D8 Issues Unless impact
Mitigation
Inco mated _
�.
4).. Create 015dationable odois affecting a subsfanttal numbei of X
�]'_. ReUlt_i a�tutiulatrvety considerable:nermcrease a1 any cirtetl .` 2,4 X
pollutantfor vi*4 the project region snbR attainment un$eF�A'.
applrcableederaEorstate ainBient air quality standard
(mchrdmg_re. Mg emtssions tivbrch exceed-q�ialuatrve
v T
a) The Draft Housing Element Update includes policies and programs to accommodate up to 1,589 in-city dwellings during
the planning period from January 2009 to July 2015. Of these,794 units will be affordable to extremely low,very low, low
and moderate income households. As discussed under Housing and Population,Section 12,this level of growth is consistent
with the residential growth anticipated in the General Plan Land Use Element and evaluated in the 1994 General Plan Land
Use/Circulation final EIR. Based on added number of in city dwelling units and the average number of occupants per
household(2.186 persons), the City can anticipate a maximum increase of 3,607 persons during this planning period. This
anticipated population number within the planning period,and the rate at which it is attained,is within growth projections of
the San Luis Obispo County 2001 Clean Air Plan(CAP).
b) and c)The 2009 Housing Element Update will not conflict or obstruct implementation of the Clean Air Plan(CAP). The
CAP calls for building compact communities to limit urban sprawl, mix complementary land uses, such as commercial
services with higher density housing, increase residential and commercial densities along transit corridors, and increase
pedestrian—friendly and interconnected streetscapes, helping to make alternative means of transportation more convenient
The Draft Housing Element Update is consistent with this plan. Policies 9.4 through 9.9 promote sustainable development
that will help reduce green house gas emissions. Housing Element policies 7.4, 7.5,and 7.7 support walkable and bilceable
neighborhoods,connected to shopping,schools and other neighborhoods. Community Design Standards and Noise Element
Policies require setback buffers and HVAC systems for residences located along high traffic corridors. These mitigations also
serve to separate residences from potential exposure to vehicle-related pollutants.
d)New development within mixed-use projects are subject to impacts from odors generated by restaurants and other business
activities. The City of San Luis Obispo routinely confers with the local Air Pollution Control District regarding the
acceptability of adjacent land uses and routinely prohibits certain odor-producing uses from mixed-use developments,
including coffee roasters and nail salons. Limits on hours of operation also reduce conflicts between residents and customers
in mixed-use developments. The City's use permit requirement and performance standards for mixed-use development enable
the City to establish conditions of approval to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels.
e) The proposed project will not result in a significant impact to air quality. The Housing Element Update anticipates less
population and housing growth than allowed under the General Plan Land Use Element, and as evaluated earlier based on
household size and maximum dwelling unit potential for this planning period. This is because average household size has
been treading downward in the City, and because housing production has been significantly lower than anticipated
Residential growth will add to locall and commuting automobile trips,a primary factor affecting air quality,but in lower levels
than previously attributed to new housing development As a "job rich" community, a key component of vehicle trips is
employees commuting into San Luis Obispo for jobs. The City's trip reduction plan has increased efforts to include
incentives for employees and businesses which utilize and promote rideshare,alternative transportation options and subsidies
for students who use public transportation. Lower vehicle trip rates will cut the amount of auto emissions. The CAP based its
air quality assumptions in part,on an estimated San Luis Obispo population of 48,499 by 2015,a 22%growth increase since
1995. However,current population projections account for an annual growth rate of.49%a significantly lower percentage.
Specific control measures to reduce transportation-related emissions that affect air quality were also identified. The Draft
Housing Element Update incorporates several of these measures as part of its overall "smart growth" strategy, including:
Policies 4.1—4.4 as well as 5.3 and 5.4 that promote planning compact communities and mixed use development The Draft
has numerous policies or programs designed to promote compact urban growth,encourage mixed use,promote housing within
walking or biking distance of employment,and encourage downtown housing close to jobs,services,government,recreational
and cultural opportunities.
i 9 CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO $ INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2009 j
pl* J
Attachment 1
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentiaay Potentially Less Than No
2009 GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Sign ues significant significant to pact
I ssues Unless Impact
ER # 120-08_ Mitigation
turn orated
Conclusion: No impact. The Draft Housing Element Update is consistent with General Plan growth policies and with
prevailing countywide assumptions regarding air quality, including APCD's Clean Air Plan. To the extent the updated
Housing Element helps produce more housing that is affordable to extremely-low, very-low, low and moderate income
working people, many of whom now commute into the City, it may help provide additional density to support alternative
transportation,and help reduce traffic congestion.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the ro'ect:
a} ave a su¢"stga�. vers�eecf ertbgpci�rect�y br mdtreatLy bF 1,2,7 X
tluoda ut4Saany s
pe9A .j gafified anti a
candr�afe,sens>t;te,or special staprs s�ecteocal orreWgronal
plans,policies,ar eegnlanonspr by the Caltfomsp pep—
r-�rtrue�K .
o£Fish and Game or�7 S F h snit Wii3hfe Sere c
b fat e a snb5�ltaTt�vsg ef)ec�bnpy hanatt flabrtat of` 9 X
�-�othg>`senstitve fial�at-cgmzovlrtty tdentilied m.localorregional'
-�'_�la�,p'olict�tfr r�egnlattons�or#�y the Caltfo�D'e_'pmrtmeai �'
_ of Frsh:aitd�e or U S Fts�t,ani}�dhfo,,�ervsce?
c}'Conflrctwnth any 1pcalpghc>es or grdvnaucespxotectm1 X
biglogica�resrnue zs,sucl�as a tree gre$exvaugD poltcy kt
ordmanee(e gerrtage3rees)r
d) fnterferesubstanhailywrththemovernenfofangnatrveresr�e 3,7 X
• or uugratoryfisiror�vtldh�cs�secies`orwdh establtshed native
zestdent;or mrgratory wtldh Lc comdors,orunpede the use 9MMM,
of
_ wrldbfi nursir�ysites'� X� �
e)'_ConflrcyYtth Elie pTov3stops 4£anadoptedliabttat.Consetvauon 18 X
Plan,37atural Cptttpttptty Ccusezv�ttoA Flan,or other�proued
Iotlal regwnai,6f statc habitat cbnser aIIon plant
substanusl adverse effect on Fed`erallgprotectedM X
t yvetlands;asdefiaedm Section 04 o thiF ean.-aferAct '
(mclndm butbtlmntedto,marshes tenial pools,etc).
thmYtgh tizcmaval�fil)mg,hydmlogtcal mtemtnt,-h of
;,otliermeans�
a) The General Plan Land Use and Conservation and Open Spare Elements guide the preservation of biological resources.
Resources include creeks and adjacent riparian corridors, vernal pools, marshes, endangered species or species of special
concern,hillsides,open space and park areas,and Laguna Lake. General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element Policy
7.3.3 says that wildlife habitat and corridors that provide continuous wildlife habitat shall be preserved, The Draft Housing
Element Update is consistent with those documents,and anticipates new dwellings only in those areas suitable for residential
development, with adequate guarantees to preserve natural and biological resources as part of new development. It says
housing should be prevented on sites that are unsuitable for development due to the presence of open space resources, or
natural or manmade hazards.
b), and f)Individual development projects will be subject to development review by staff and City advisory bodies to ensure
compliance with pertinent creek and wetland policies. Zoning Regulation 17.16.025 Creek Setbacks requires projects to be
consistent with the General Plan and requires the protection of scenic resources, water quality and natural creekside habitat
including opportunities for wildlife habitation, rest and movement; therefore, all new residential development must comply
with the Creek Setback Ordinance and must avoid sensitive site resources. New projects are routinely evaluated for
compliance with the City's Creek Setback Ordinance and modifications are required through the development review process,
conditions of approval or mitigation measures,as appropriate to insure that any potential impacts are less than significant.
c) Conservation and Open Space Element Policy 7.5.1 states that significant trees making substantial contributions to natural
habitat or to the urban landscape due to their species, size or rarity shall be protected and their removal will be subject to
specific criteria and mitigation requirements. Any housing projects proposed on sites with significant trees will be subject to
this policy and mitigation.
'• � CIT/of SAN LUIS Oeispo 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2009
l � '0
-� Attachment 1
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentuny Potentially Less Than No
2009 GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Significant Significant Significant impact
ER # 130 08 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
d)Development is subject to applicable City standards and guidelines,the State and Federal Endangered Species Act(ESA),
the Clean Water Act (CWA) and other local, state and federal regulatory programs to ensure significant impacts have
mandated mitigation measures. Conservation and Open Space Element Policy 7.7.8 of the General Plan ensures the
protection of wildlife corridors. The City shall condition development permits in accordance with applicable mitigation
measures to ensure that important corridors for wildlife movement and dispersal are protected. Important featured corridors
include riparian corridors,wetlands,lake shorelines,and protected natural areas with cover and water.
e) The Draft.Housing Element does not conflict with any existing Habitat Conservation Plans, as determined by the City's
Natural Resources Manager.
Conclusion: No Impact Residential development anticipated in the Draft Housing Element Update is consistent with the
General Plan Land Use Element and Conservation/Open Space Element Proposed development projects will be evaluated
for their potential to impact biological resources and modified,if necessary,to avoid significant impacts in accordance with
local,State and Federal law and Conservation and Open Space Element policies.
5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would thero'ect-
subsiatitial14-yMech.... to tTiq.,i tt$_atice oda 1,2,16 X
`histone resourpe7(See CY( AGmdeltne$15pC+
�b) :Causes nbstaniral wa,0a- clthng8 m the srgnifieanca ofan 2,7,]5 X
arcbaeoftcFescttttCe b( eeE( A es,lOG4 5)
Directly ar andirecfiX d M _au15 X
oFsrte ar umquregeolagtc ---------
is
istttr aay reariams;melt;drag tliosamterreti autstde of. 3{
__;`formalcertietexies?:W
a) Preservation of cultural resources is a key General Plan goal. Land Use Element Policy 6.6 says that historically and
architecturally significant buildings should not be demolished or substantially changed in outward appearance unless
necessary to remove a threat to health or safety and no other means exist to avoid the threat. Draft Housing Element Policy
3.1 encourages the rehabilitation,remodeling or relocation of housing rather than demolition. Changes to historic buildings
and development in historic districts should reflect the design and materials of the original building and contribute to a
neighborhood's historic pattern of development and architectural character.
b) The City has established criteria to identify significant archeological resources and encourage the preservation of these
archaeological resources and sites. The City's Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines will be the driving force in
determining significant resources. These guidelines implement General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element Policy
3.5.1, which requires the City to protect known and potential archaeological resources. Meeting the community's housing
needs is also a key community goal, and the Draft Housing Element Update seeks to balance these sometime competing
needs. It contains eight policies addressing the need to rehabilitate and preserve basically sound housing,protect historic
housing and residential districts,including downtown hotels,and ensure that new residential development is compatible with
designated historic resources,promotes seismic safety upgrades,and the use of State or Federal ftmds to protect and improve
existing neighborhoods. According to the Guidelines, as new housing is developed, those features or characteristics that
create or reinforce San Luis Obispo's"sense of place"are to be preserved Individual residential development projects will
be evaluated for site-specific cultural resources and where necessary, project modifications to avoid resources or other
appropriate mitigation measures will be included to protect Archeological resources.
c) and d) The City's Archeological Resource Preservation Guidelines include specific criteria that address the discovery of
unique resources or human remains during construction excavation. Development that is proposed on sensitive sites,which
are mapped,requires a Phase 1 study to determine the likelihood of discovering resources during construction. These existing
measures,which are in place for development city-wide,are sufficient to prevent impacts to archeological or paleontological
resources,or any discovered human remains.
Conclusion: No impact The Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and the Archeological Resource Preservation
CRY OF SAN LUIS OsisPO 10 :INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2009
Attachment I
Issues, Discussion and Supporting'lnforrnation Sources Sources Potentij4 Potentially Less Than No
2009 GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Significant Significant Significant impact
ER # 120-08 Issues Unless impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Guidelines include specific criteria and steps that must be taken to protect and preserve cultural resources, including
archeological or paleontological resources,or human remains discovered during construction.
6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proiect:
Cogthct jE j -trio 1,2 X
plans?'s?'
b) Use ngn
bi a:w'a-s an.me aAeAV
2 X
----------
ava Aility.ol'alciiovvn.,mi,ndrw"r"esourc�d:, 7 X
Named the:Ypg,ton and the
resideiifs.:p..rheq.
a) In compliance with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, the use of energy efficient appliances and insulation
reduces energy consumption associated with new residential development projects. The Land Use and Conservation/Open
Space Elements include policies to use land, water, and energy resources wisely. The Draft Housing Element Update is
consistent with these documents in that it promotes housing design that conserves energy, water and materials wisely, and
encourages higher density,infill housing that uses land more efficiently than conventional,detached,single-family housing.
Through development incentives,selected land use changes(i.e.rezoning),and flexible development and architectural review
standards,multi-family housing will be encouraged to help meet affordable housing needs,to avoid inefficient land use which
can contribute to urban sprawl, and to use energy and materials wisely. The Draft also advocates flexible planning and
building standards to encourage"Green Building Technology"such as hay-bale construction,passive and active solar energy
design, and use of appropriate siting and energy-saving features in new housing. Planning and building staff, and City
Advisory Bodies that review new housing projects would,under the Draft Element's programs,encourage housing design that
conserves energy and resources.
b) Draft Housing Element Policy 9.1 states that residential developments should promote sustainability in their design,
placement and use. This can be achieved by incorporating renewable energy features into new homes,including passive solar
design,solar hot water,solar power,and natural ventilation and cooling.Policy 9.1 will promote efficient design practices.by
encouraging the use of construction materials and methods that maximize the recyclability of building elements.
c)Conservation and Open Space Element Policy 4.2,Sustainable Energy Use,and Policy 4.3.1 both promote the use of best
available practices in energy conservation,procurement and use and production. With policies to guide new developments
the City can ensure the protection of non renewable resources by conditioning a project to eliminate potential environmental
effects.
Conclusion: No impact.
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) _:Expose people �
.. -4 . --- - -1 1..''...1.- I
q4��o,pqtehtial substantial adviiii 1,2 X
effects,uiel{ g ri,`sk of 9ssilpiury,or,death involving
Rupture of a known earthquake fadltw elaatie 11h,the X
mtsfr ..........
Ah -Z
hiiike,fault T a
-A I .— - ;--, '.z.
b the•S b`
-V.wg y .". I.
JAfor fie -or.. oii:6
nce
X
Lg gismtc reUted ground Failutm7"ific g i' g' ili"q-ue&a
qqoh?4 , X
64
IVB Landslides X
or.iiNdAdivs'?
X
$ian or fhu loss of topsoils
e,
.cri ,.that X
instable,aisa-result'6fthepIpje
t;an ntia Y,
......t..M.
m...oro..
prea pg
subsidence'
hquefactrgn,-or collapse "
0f&,
a 16 184:�B` -
APOO 0a
CITY OF SAN Luis Osispo INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2009
Attachment 1
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources sources Potet lam' Potentially IxssThan No
2009 GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Significant significant SigncImpact
ER # 120-08 Issues unless Impactt
Mitigation
Incorporated
a),b),c)and d)The Draft Housing Element Update includes policies to prevent establishing new housing on sites with natural
hazards,such as geological or seismic risks,including soil erosion,landslides,or liquefaction. Draft Housing Element Policy
3.3 encourages seismic upgrades of older dwellings to reduce the risk of bodily harm and the loss of housing in an earthquake.
Policy 11.2 states that the City will prevent new housing development on sites subject to natural hazards such as unmitigable
geological or flood risks, or wild fire dangers. City policies and development standards encourage housing where
appropriately zoned land exists with the necessary public services and infrastructure(or can be served),and where the land is
physically and environmentally suited for residential development.The Building and Safety Division has designated a Seismic
Coordinator to assist in the implementation of mitigation programs to prevent unreinforced masonry hazards. The City's
Construction Regulations regarding grading and drainage include specific erosion control measures to ensure the safety of all
residents. Building Permit issuance and development review of projects will ensure projects are developed in a manner that is
safe and consistent with City standards,guidelines and policies.
Conclusion: No impact The Draft is consistent with these policies and standards.
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the Pro'ect:
a Creafaa'st` cant hazard fd"311e ublicorthe eavuonment`- X
throngEtpesot .use;traasportorchposaloFhazardolts 12,5
r
-_'�tatet7al3� -
512.Create a sigmfisanf�iazard xo tfle Qufihpof the erlvugnment 5 X
' �thron -rea�'onah7}foreseeable upset and accideklt.Fondt3tons
. �mvolZitig'th��"release oFhazacdous ulater�c1ls�nt9 the
-� m envrronmrnt�
e ,Fmtthazardtyus emtss>ons orhandleliazardous or acutely 1 X
zhazaidays zaatt tials>substances,or waste within nae quattes
_mileo'�an or�roposedschool2 ,,� s : ;i
�d Erose eople.Or SAmGtpres tq eacastm s9ucceg 1)f li zaY�lOUS 2 X
emtssroas gr"ha�azi',1ous or aatttely�tazardaLia zltatq�a�s, F
+e ,sBubsren�es,or waste?- , ,
] e lova#ed�n a stte wlnc vs iuclnded oil a)tst of Hazardqus 2 X
matenalssttes compiled pursdantto Governmenf.Code Seciton
-639���anki,as a'zesult,tt uvuld crew#e astgntficant'hazard"to `
tie pu8li On&eiivtrgtuneiit7 -.:.
f}' Fgra project located vittthm an atruport lana useplan�qr aptthm, 1,10 X
twovtiles ol'apubLaauport,,woi9ii the pro ect:result m a:safety
haz§r$iQ ttl Pegple restdtng orworkmg mthe.;pjpRt areae
47 Imlatr Impleme>xtauoA of,or phyStcall}*mterfer et yi ttfi,the X
ado�ttedem�rgeacyresponScplanoremergency.evaauanon- '
h) -Expose people orstftictt3re�fo a stgri>6cartt risk of}ase,mltuy, 5 X
or,deathz}nvolVmg:vnld{lapid 6tesy sgclu�tng whez,C wllfiIanGis ora':
a jaeea tosurbazuaed areas or w�e�e residep s ire mtptm>ated ` :
a)The General Plan Land Use and Safety Elements are the primary local policy documents addressing hazards and hazardous
materials. Within the Safety Element, Policy 5.2 states that new residential projects should minim ze people's exposure to
hazardous materials and substances. The Draft Housing Element Update is consistent with these documents in that it includes
polices to prevent new residential developments from being located on sites subject to natural or manmade hazards. Policy
11.4 states that the City will implement a construction and demolition debris recycling program(as described in Chapter 8.05
of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code)to ensure disposal of hazardous materials are displaced properly.
b)Safety Element Policy 5.3 says the City should avoid using hazardous materials in its own operations to the greatest extent
practical and will follow all established health and safety practices when they are used. The protection and safety of
MCITY OF SAN Luis Owspo 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLtsT 2009 -
pf�-a�'
Attachment 1
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources PotcnL4 Potentially Less Than No
2009 GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Signi scant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 120 OS Issues Unless impact
Mitigation
incorporated
community members is also evaluated in development applications and plans by the Building and Safety Division.
Construction codes ensure hazards are taken into consideration and mitigated accordingly.
c) Schools within the City are safely located within residential developments,close to parks and transit stops. Any proposed
development that may result in upset or accident conditions near schools is routed to San Luis Coastal School District for
comments. The City's Fire Marshall has the authority to require changes to proposed projects or existing uses where
hazardous materials usage is proposed or ongoing.
d) Draft Housing Element Policy 9.1 states that residential developments should promote sustainability in their design,
placement and use by avoiding the use of building materials that may contribute to health problems through the release of
gasses or fibers into indoor air. New development projects are reviewed for consistency with this policy and changes to
proposed projects are required through conditions of approval or mitigation measures where potential impacts may occur.
e) Draft Housing Element Policy 11.2 states that the City will prevent housing development on sites subject to unacceptable
levels of man-made hazards or nuisances, including severe soil contamination,odors or incompatible neighboring uses. New
development projects are reviewed for consistency with this policy and changes to proposed projects are required through
conditions of approval or mitigation measures where potential impacts may occur.
1) Airport compatibility issues are of special concern because much of the City's vacant residential land is located in the
southern part of the City,near the San Luis Obispo County Airport. The Airport Land Use Commission adopted the San Luis
Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan to guide where and what types of land uses are compatible with airport operations.
Generally, residential development is not appropriate in flight approach and take-off areas, and where safety or noise
considerations dictate greater spacing between housing and airport activities. City Land Use policies are consistent with the
Airport Land Use Plan, and individual developments are evaluated for their consistency with the Plan. The anticipated
residential growth is located outside of airport hazard areas, or within areas where residential use is conditionally allowed
with appropriate design and safety considerations. For instance, the Margarita Area and Orcutt Area Specific Plans both
include chapters that deal specifically with airport compatibility and ensure that future development is consistent with the
Airport Land Use Plan.
g) Fire Code compliance is checked with all new residential development to ensure the safety of the community by the Fire
Marshall and the Building and Safety Division.
h) Safety Element Policy 3.0 requires adequate fire services and Policy 3.1 requires housing in interface areas to address
wildland fire safety. It is the City's policy to only approve development when adequate fire suppression services and facilities
are available. Maintaining consistency with Fire Department standards will ensure the safety and well being of community
members and prevent development from occurring in areas of high or extreme wildland fire hazards.
Conclusion: No impact. Existing City standards and General Plan Policies from the Safety Element and Housing Element
ensure that potential impacts from hazards and hazardous materials are entirely avoided, or mitigated to less than significant
levels,before new development is permitted.
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the ro'ect:
a) Violate any water quahty standards or waste drSchaPge X
[edutremetuts '` ;, , 11,13
b)'-Substantially cleple {grousYdwater supplies bt tntttirfre ' X
substantially>nnth gmundwatef recharge such that.ihere would be4
a netldelictt m aquifer voLixne
ora lowering oVocal'
groundwafer fade levet(e g The prodiicuon rate,of pre-exfstmg-
ueaFby wells}voulrQp to a,Igvelw)uch ygouldnofi support i.
y,e=pft anduses for which ernatts have beenYgranted�? a
rrreateorcgntt�ibpfQrtutofivalerwhtchv�onl�le�teeedthe 3,9,10 X
acty of exustvnorlawied st�tnwaterdramage;sste�s br i,; '
Crry of SCAN Luis OsisPo 13 INITIAL STUDY ENYatoNMENTAL CHEmisT 2009
Attachment 1
Issues, Discussion and Supporting'Information Sources Sources PotentiauyFInc
Less Than No
2009 GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE SignificanSignificant Impact
ER # 120-08 issues Impact
Provzdcaddihonalsources9fhmtifffii utrfaceiwaters 4-
-(ci;
d(ob:mntlands;:rzpa.. 8reas,ponds,
sr{ngszeks,Streams,nuers,lakes,:estuanes,tidal areas;hays
o4ean,gCc}? '
d)y"SdbstatttaHy;iter the e7nstutg ndramas pattemnf tha site ai X
91
area id iaanarti&—h , woulds esult rn substantial efoston or
stlt8uononstte.ax<affs><te��,; �
e) Slstantiailp alrktfi4ttit �1 g8p..............
ttern bf the Site bt X
afea xn milntleF gur woufd ult to subsfanttal ffondm :.:
onsite o4itsrte -
f} Place 8oi5sra-g"'51thin a 104 Y r#lbod ls`azar ares laS tnailR10 oxo X
aFederal Elpo3Ha?ard Bortudaty of-FT oodJ3�su�pce FaT Mug
Il 62 {ielrueli o mdp?
g):'�7>lcewztlna a 1QEYyea Y1oahaz`aid area stt�i{es would X
.1m�ede.ar redo ecYt7ood flows?^y r
Y
Al the project urtrodace typical storm wader pollutants mto 13 X
gronitd o;smfaeewate�ta? 3
t) ':V�ill The:proleet alter�_qund mater orsurfaes water quality,._
tune.dissblued.ax' ea.onturli`dr
a) and b) The General Plan Water and Wastewater Element states that the City will 'maximize the yield and long-term
reliability of all water resources, and will minimize overall costs for meeting urban water demand, (Water and Wastewater
Element Policy 1.0.3). To ensure there is not a water deficit,the City abides by a safe annual yield amount,per Policy 1.0.2.
The adopted safe annual yield from Salinas and Whale Rock Reservoirs,and groundwater resources for 2008, is 7,460 acre-
fee per year(AFY). Water allocated from the Nacimiento pipeline will provide an additional 3,380 AFY by 2010 for new
developments,increasing the safe annual yield amount to 11,090,which is above the projected demand of 9,290 acre feet at
General Plan build-out In major expansion areas, where large residential subdivisions will occur (Margarita and Orcutt
expansion areas), specific project-related effects on runoff siltation, flooding, and water quality are addressed in required
specific plans and environmental review documents. Housing development must comply with City, regional and State
standards for the protection of surface water and ground water quality.Compliance with these regulations is mandated by the
City's Storrawater Management Plan permit under the RWQCB program,and ensures that significant impacts will not occur
with new development anticipated by the Housing Element.
c),d),e),f),h)and i)Newly proposed developments shall be in accordance with City, State,and Federal standards relating to
development within flood zones. The City's established environmental review process will help to ensure future residential
developments will be evaluated on an individual basis for potential violation of water quality standards. For example, the
Prefiuno Creek Commons EIR and Orcutt Area Specific Plan EIR have substantial guidance and mitigation required to
comply with RWQCB standards and address impacts to drainage,flooding and erosion.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact. Hydrology and water quality impacts are avoided in new construction,including
the new housing anticipated by the Draft Housing Element Update,through compliance with existing City,State and Federal
water qualify guidelines implement by the RWQCB.
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would theproject:
a) Conflict with app'RON Ittdd*-P an _ollcy, or regulation of; X
an agency with jwTs3tctton over the pro)ect adoote� for the 1,2
�'PA9ge if avox�itmg ur tnthgatt»g an elvtrctt ental
#b) ?Physically divide an established commiinrt}I? X
e) :'Cbttflrct tvtth any applicable tiabttaVeorlsen+apon plan or it8;tural X
r;ciinimuiu
. conserxatKot%? lans7 '.„.:
',.
a), b), and c)The Draft Housing Element Update includes numerous programs, or implementation"tools", to implement its
goals and policies. For example,policies m the Draft encouraging higher density,infill housing close to jobs and employment
centers are consistent with existing policies in the Land Use Element that encourage compact urban form. A few programs
am CITY OF SAN LUIS OSISro 14 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2009
PH a
Attachment 1
Issues, Discussion and Supporting information Sources Sources Potentia,ry Potent ally Less Than No
2009 GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Significant Significant SigaiSnnt bmpact
ER # 120-08issues MitiUnlessgaItion bmpact
I
Incorporated
that identify non-residential sites as potential areas to consider residential zoning would be implemented, in part, through
changes to the General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning map but do not involve activities that would conflict with a regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding an environmental effect. Sites that may be appropriate for multi-family housing are
identified in the Draft, with subsequent review and action needed to evaluate and implement the change, however, no
circumstance can be envisaged where an encouraged project would physically divide an established community. No Habitat
Conservation Plans are in effect on any of the sites identified in the Housing Element as suitable for residential development
Conclusion: No impact. The Draft Housing Element does not conflict with any plan,policy or regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding an environmental effect, will not divide an established community and does not conflict with any
applicable habitat conservation plan. If during the implementation of any Housing Element policy or program,such an impact
is found to have a potential effect,then appropriate mitigation would be adopted prior to permit issuance to insure compliance
with existing City policies and State environmental thresholds.
11.NOISE. Would the project result in:
S:Ios>ire 0fl�e`ople to or geneYaYton off`tmaeceptatila'itoise = 2,6 X
�eve1�as defpaesl by the sap; ails Olns�raGeAe �1"31 1 "1-1
-
emen,or gcnera]no leYel§mexecs§of§tagdards°
y
�: estab�,iSh�m`-the;LYougtk�tr}aacc7 , ;.
b) = A stihstanttal temporaryrpenodtc or permanent uicrease to X
amEtt nors�3eu lsurheP%lecf tabovelevergx1so>7g
cgtthl3t�tt the p%feet? b
c) ExEosure ofpersons to os-pederarion,of a cessbve grouDd�iome X
vtbra?ton-or�rotindlrotnenoiseievels�
d) _For a pm�ect Iocatpd within amairport land uselrfan;qr wttb, 10 X
t vomtlesrofa bI., anporl or ptYbliruse'au�oi wquld t(ib ;;
Proleclt,exposepeople zestdtngttr worktngm tlieproieciitiea to
- excessive acise�levels� - a..; ,:.
a), b),and c) The General Plan Noise Element establishes standards and procedures for protecting noise-sensitive uses from
stationary and mobile noise sources. Noise attenuation measures identified in the General Plan include land use limitations,
separation between land uses (ie. noise buffers), earth berms, and where appropriate and no other feasible measure exists,
noise walls. New residential development must be consistent with the Noise Element and City Noise Ordinance standards.
Noise Element Policy 1.1 says that the City will work to minimize noise exposure based on the established numerical noise
standards, or thresholds, contained in the document. The Draft Housing Element Update encourages the production of
affordable housing through development of non-conventional housing, including mixed residential-commercial housing,
"work-live"and"Iive-work"housing,and high-density downtown housing above commercial uses- In these types of housing,
special attention must be paid to use compatibility, of which noise is a key factor. The City of San Luis Obispo routinely
evaluates proposed development projects to ensure compliance with applicable Noise Element policies and Noise Ordinance
Standards. The City also publishes a Noise Guidebook, which includes prescriptive compliance techniques where noise
attenuation through building design is determined to be necessary.
d) The City's General Plan and Zoning ordinance are consistent with the standards contained in the SLO County Regional
Airport land Use Plan. The Airport Land Use Plan includes standards to insure that uses proximate to the airport are
developed in a manner that is safe and compatible with aircraft operations. Noise levels are one of the key considerations in
the Airport Land Use Plan, and all development within the Plan area must be developed in a manner that eliminates noise
exposure in excess of the standards,including through the imposition of noise attenuation measures where necessary.
Conclusion: No impact. The City's Noise Element, Noise Ordinance, Noise Guidebook and the Airport Land Use Plan
include existing standards,policies and procedures to ensure that new development does not expose people to excessive noise
levels.
42. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the p,ro'ect:
a ' IntTuee sub"stanhal o ulaugn gam:tth-jn are.. etter;.. "ec X
i CITY of SAN Luis OstsPo $ INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2009
i
Att"uhnnent 1
Issues, Discussion and Supportirig lnformation Sources Sources Potentia„y Potentiany Less Than No
2009 GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 130 08 issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Inc raterL
example by-_proposing 90 1,2,12
Igdirzctly (for:exampter^ilsiough=eicteatston of loads or othee:
infrastructurerl
�)`'Displasg substant►21 numbers o extsnng y�toti stng or people: 3 X
#e ess}taang the: ronsrucuon ,af 'rtplace�ent housing;
e
...- ..:', lSew er
a) General Plan policies seek to achieve a sustainable level of growth through the City's planned build-out of 24,300
dwellings and 57,200 persons,anticipated to occur by 2022. Land Use Element Policy 1.10.2 says the City's housing supply
should grow no faster than one percent per year, averaged over a 36-month period.This will assure population growth does
not exceed the City's ability to assimilate new residents and ensure municipal services are available for new and existing
residents. Affordable housing is excluded from the City's one percent growth limit, which is established by General Plan
Land Use Element Policy 1.11.2 and the Residential Growth Management Regulations(SLOMC 17.88).
As required by State law,the Draft Housing Element Update includes Quantified Objectives showing the number of units the
City expects to accommodate in each income group during the planning period from January 1,2007 to December 31,2014.
Under the Draft Update,the City would expect to accommodate up to 1,589 new,in-ity dwellings. Of the total,58%,or 922,
units will be affordable to extremely low, very low, low and moderate income households. The remaining units can be
constructed within the allowed average residential growth rate of one percent per year and will be credited towards meeting
the City's Regional Housing Need Allocation of 1,589 added units by 2014.
According to the Regional Housing Needs Plan adopted by the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments, San Luis Obispo's
Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) during the planning period is 1,589 dwellings as shown in table 1. However,
State housing law(Article 10.6, Section 65583(b)(2)of the California Government Code)recognizes that total housing needs
identified for a jurisdiction may exceed available resources and the ability of the jurisdiction to satisfy this need within the
context of State and local General Plan requirements. Under these circumstances, a jurisdiction's quantified housing
objectives need not be identical to the total housing needs. The City's proposed Quantified Objectives are shown in Table 1,
below.
Table 1
Regional Housing Need Allocation,January 2007-December 2014
City of San Luis Obispo s�r � r m euro eu nb� c”
1L`2
s 'X 1 an R.. �Sq� ^ ^¢'
Y " o- 2�� g�73e gF oda �t c IL q
+.5 r ^�°,
r.3.a..3�lr"rn r. ate.
Very Low 366 366
Low 254 254
Moderate 302 302
Above Moderate 668 668
TOTAL 1589 1589
Sources City of San Luis Obispo,Community Development Department
b) San Luis Obispo has evaluated its ability to accommodate the RHNA number of 1,589 dwellings by December 2014 and
determined it has sufficient zoned land and infrastructure to accommodate its assigned regional housing need allocation.
There is sufficient land and water supplies for residential development to accommodate the RHNA number within the
planning period. New State housing laws have placed greater responsibility on local government to address housing needs
even in the face of reduced financial resources. The updated Housing Element includes new information, policies and
programs to address these legal requirements. Such proposed statewide and regional changes include the approval of SB 2,
SB 575,AB 2348 and AB 1866.
Conclusion: No impact. The Draft Housing Element Update and Quantified Objectives are consistent with the residential
growth anticipated by the General Plan and allowed by the Residential Growth Management Regulations. Population and
., CITY OF SAN Luis 081spo 16 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2009
-P -a�
Attachment I
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentia,ry Porentauy LessTtum No
2009 GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Significant Sign f ant Significant Lnpact
ER # 124-08 Issues Unless impact
Mitigation
Inco orated
Housing growth anticipated in the General Plan were evaluated in the 1994 General Plan Land Use/Circulation Elements
Final EIR,and the growth anticipated in the Draft Housing Element is consistent with growth levels evaluated in the FEIR.
13.PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision,or
need,of new or physically altered government facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental
impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times,or other performance objectives for any of the
public services:
aj 1 ire�irtectron� = 5 X
b� =Eoitce pzotechon?; X
SCho977 r 2 X
a}_: Parks2 17 X
e)_ Roads aad other transportatton mfratluGture? 2 X
Othetr bad f totes ..- 2 X
a) and b) Safety Element Policy 3.0 states that adequate facilities and services shall be in place before new development is
approved. Section 9.3 of the Safety Element includes specific response performance standards. For fire protection, the
standard is a response-time objective of four minutes. The Police Department has set a 30-pereent available-time objective
for patrol response. When new development is proposed,the location and size of the development is considered to determine
if they will impact the adopted response performance standards. In addition, the ability of each Department to meet these
standards city-wide is monitored and evaluated on an annual basis as part of the General PIan Annual Report and the City's
budgeting documents. When resource deficiencies are identified, the City Council routinely allocates funding for new
personnel or facilities to insure compliance.
c) The Draft Housing Element update estimates that one, or possibly two, additional school sites will be needed to serve
planned residential growth in the southern part of the City. The Orcutt Area Specific Plan includes one potential elementary
school site. Development projects will be required to pay construction permit school fees to offset costs of developing new
schools.
d.)The Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan requires new development to allocate 10 acres of developed park
land for every 1000 residents to ensure that sufficient parkland is developed along with new residential development.
e)Draft Housing Element policies encourage connectivity between residential developments. Policy 7.5 discourages walled-
off residential developments because physical separation prevents the formation of safe, walkable and enjoyable
neighborhoods, and reduces convenient access to transit routes. Draft Housing Element Policy 7.4 says that residential
developments should be an integral part of an existing neighborhood with pedestrian and bicycle linkages that provide direct,
convenient and safe access to adjacent neighborhoods and commercial areas. As new development is proposed, projects are
evaluated to ensure consistency with these policies.
f) Draft Housing Element Update policies and programs call for the City to solicit new funding sources to assist in the
development of affordable housing.The City of San Luis Obispo has an Affordable Housing Fund that can be used to offset
costs and provide new infrastructure and services to new affordable housing developments. This and other funding sources
will be needed to meet the Quantified Objectives. City Utilities,parking facilities,recreation facilities and programs,and to a
limited degree,public schools,are funded by service users and new development. City fees on new development, including
water, wastewater, traffic,park, and affordable housing fees,and school fees are collected at the time of construction permit
issuance to offset the costs bome by the City to meet the service needs of new development
Conclusion: Less than significant impact. Residential development will increase demands for public services, however, as
provided in State law and local ordinances, new developments are required to fund a proportional share of the cost of
additional public service or facility needs.
14.RECREATION. Would theproject:
CrrT OF SAN Luis Oaispo 17 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2009 !
Attachment 1
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentlnay Potentially t.ess'Man No
2009 GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Significant Significant Significant impact
Eft # 120-08 Issues Unless impact
Mitigation
Inco orated
a) ncrsase;ihettseofmilttngerghborhaodnrregtonalpaz]csor 17 X
4tberrecreatt§-0-d facilrttes such that substantut)physrca�
detenoratmn of the ficthtp�vould occtu orbe aCcetrated�
lid Include r leafional litcrlrhes vrrequtrelh�cons W(h%4'of 2 X
e ansron f tronal.faerhtaes ivhtc�t mlghhave ar>adyersa,:
� 1c..;effecCAa the enviioamEnL?, : j '
a)The General Plan Parks and Recreation Element Policy 3.13.1 of the General Plan says the City shall develop and maintain
a park system at a rate of 10 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. The City monitors the adequacy of its recreational
facilities and evaluates each major new residential development to determine if additional service capacity is needed.
Specifically, all new residential expansion areas are required to develop neighborhood parks at the rate of 5 acres per 1,000
residents. Additional parkland is acquired and developed by the City as fees become available through the City's parkland in-
lieu fee program to insure compliance with City policies regarding the total amount of parkland that should be maintained
New development is responsible for providing funding or facilities in proportion to the need generated by the development
project. This will help to ensure sufficient open space and recreational areas are allocated for the community. Generally,new
subdivisions with 50 units or more are required to dedicate the required parkland,however, smaller subdivisions may pay a
fee in lieu of dedicating land for parks.
b) Housing development,including recreational facilities required as a condition of that development,will be allowed only in
areas'suitable for such development. Moreover,the Draft Housing Element Policy 11.2 states that the City will prevent new
housing development on sites that should be preserved as dedicated open space or parks.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact. Implementation of existing City policies and programs ensures that there will be
adequate developed parkland available to serve new City residents.
15. TRANSPORTATIONfrRAFFIC. Would the project.
au , . X
fhseetastmgffi4. tern?ro ¢ n
b�a Excetidr`eithas v)dtvrduailY qK i ma*&iviq ;a leve�af servree - 14 X
standaYd hs)teN y fire couuty'congestion management `
agency for desrgnaYed krsads and hrgways
i) upstfinhaliy---:a-e-hazards due to:destgn.features(eyg sharp X
cttryesordangerousmiersec7 prancdintikfii des�e g.
.farm egtnpment)? ` , � ,
a) �tesulJf in inadequate emergency access2 5 X
e} ResulYm id wtquatepa h` g CagaX
f) Conflte[wrth adopted polrcres supgo;ticig altetnattve 14 X
.i.transgvrtauon(e g:bus.tymou%bwy le nc�ks)?
g) _C4 4 i tl eyw,tth San Luis Obispo County'-A'i'r-por t LsndA 10,14 X
Use Pl ti reg on'g m rsd6stamtal safety risks from h zards,7tAise�.
,or chorine in atr:tic atteins�
a) Circulation Element Policy 16.1.4 states that the City will evaluate potential transportation impacts created by new
development projects; development proposals to the City will include displays of the proposal's interfaces with nearby
neighborhoods,and indicate expected significant qualitative transportation effects on the entire community. Traffic load and
circulation impacts must be mitigated prior to development plan approvals. This information is routinely used by decision
makers and planners to ensure that appropriate mitigation measures,including required off-site improvements,are established
as part of any approved residential development project.
b) Circulation Element Policy 8.0.1 says that the City will manage the use of arterial streets and regional routes/highways to
accommodate increases in traffic levels limited to and permitted by the City's adopted growth management plan so levels of
traffic congestion do not exceed the peak hour level of service standards. To maintain levels of service,traffic management
plans will be established,alternative forms of transportation will be established and minor changes within existing roadways
will be made to improve pedestrian and bicycling safety while improving traffic flow.
CITY OF SAN Luis Oatsvo $ INmAL STUDY ENv1RommENTAL CHECKusT 2009
Attachment 1
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Poteniiaay :PotentiaUy Less Than No
2009 GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Significant ant Significant Impact
ER # 120.08 6sues s Impact
ioaated
c) The City routinely evaluates proposed development projects to insure that hazards due to design features are reduced or
eliminated The proposed Housing Element update will not change the City's process for evaluating new development
projects to ensure that vehicle circulation is accomplished without creating design hazards or conflicts with incompatible uses.
d) Emergency access to new development will be taken into consideration during early phases of the development review
process. Safety Element Policies 9.20 through 9.23 list the precautionary measures the City will take when evaluating a
development plan. The City conducts safety inspections for fire safety,including enforcement of fire lanes,for multi-family
residential developments.
e) Circulation Element Policy 13.0.1 encourages people working in the commercial core to use alternative forms of
transportation to get to and from work Workers who do drive individual vehicles should use parking structures or common
facilities rather than curb parking,which generally should be reserved for short-term parking.
f) Using alternative means of transportation is a key way to minimize congestion, and reduce health and environmental
impacts. The General Plan discusses transportation with goals that are supported by specific policies to encourage alternative
modes of travel throughout the City. Community Trip Reduction Policy 2.0.1, supports county wide and community
programs geared to substantially reduce the number of vehicle trips and parking demand. Through this and many other
transportation-related policies, transportation impacts due to level of service, road damage and traffic capacity can be
successfully mitigated.
g) The General Plan is consistent with the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport Land Use Plan and the Draft Housing
Element will be reviewed by the Airport Land Use Commission as a mandatory referral. The draft Housing Element cannot
be adopted unless the Airport Land Use Commission determines that it is consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan.
Conclusion: No impact Existing policies and procedures ensure that new development is evaluated during the development
review process so that any potential circulation impacts are mitigated as part of the development project. The proposed Draft
Housing Element is consistent with the City's Circulation Element and the FEIR for the Circulation Element and does not
propose substantially new housing development increment that was not previously anticipated. Overall,total housing in the
City remains below the projections made in the Final EIR for the Land Use and Circulation Elements.
16.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would theproject:
E:teed_,9tew#tectreatmeutrequrementsof'theappTtca6le 2 X
:,13egronal Water�aZm���troYBoaLi� N
t3)' Requrre orresttlt inita eonstrucuotcor,exparisroix of nevy water X
.. r
treatment waste water tieatrnent,yvaPei.quralily conlrol;pr storm'''
dxauaage£acrtitues'the coristiactrorz o£whuacouxd du>$e
srgm$cant,
envuonmentai effects?
Have sufficte wafer sngglies available to serve the pro3ecf 13 X
from existtng entitlements and resources or are new and
expanded waterreSotuces needed
d):"Resultiira determinahon bythe wastewater treatmerrtprovrder X
whmch selves on may s"'. the project .adeguate
{ _? capa9M_, 5.efve`the project's prole ted demand in
the
'ad'dmanTp
= �mr4vide s ekrsttng`ctrmgYrtmgnt
� 1 1
e) `Baserved by a landfill Wath suifficrent peutted c`aac�ty to X
accommodate
thte_. sposal�'n.e.eeprjes sohwas
fCyhfiafsaed lalora
ds?
,fel Xomplyw ;anWtesdg
Fa;, and b) The. Draft Housing Element Update includes Quantified Objectives that can be accommodated by existing and
nned water and wastewater treatment,distribution and collection facilities. :.
INKS CRY OF SAN LUIS OeisPO 19 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2009
p4 Z
Attachment I
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources SourcesrPotenithay Potentially [lssTiran No
3009 GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE cant Significant Significant impact
fR #.130 08 es Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
c) Based on the 3009 Water Resources Status Report, prepared by the City's Utility Department, the City can reasonably
expect to have up to 1,828 AFY of water available to support new housing during the planning period—enough water to
accommodate San Luis Obispo's projected population growth through 2022. Draft Housing Element Update policies assume
that the development of up to 1,589 planned in-city dwelling units during the planning period will use 1,084 AFY,which is
less than the amount available to allocate to new development.
The table below represents the water available for development based on water demand of 145 gallons per person per day.
Projected City population of 57,200 at General Plan build-out results in a projected water demand of 9,290 acre-feet per year
(excluding demand from the Cal Poly campus,which has separate entitlements),which is within the City's Safe Annual Yield
of 11,080 acre feet.
Table 4:Water Available for Develo ment
Year Population Present Water Safe Annual Yield Water Available for
Demand @ 145 gpcd Allocation based on
General Pian
2009 44,750 7,268 of 11,080 of 1,828 of
d) The City of San Luis Obispo provides wastewater treatment for City residents. The capacity of the Water Reclamation
Facility is adequate to accommodate project population growth and new commercial development in the City. The
Wastewater Master Pian is updated from time to time to identify when additional capacity at the facility will be regitired. The
planned expansion of the Water Reclamation Facility is funded by rate payers and through impact fees collected from new
development.
e), f) The City's Construction Debris Diversion and Recycling Ordinance requires that all new development include a
recycling plan to reduce the amount of debris disposed of at the Cold Canyon Landfill, which serves the City of San Luis
Obispo. Cold Canyon Landfill has sufficient capacity to accommodate the City's anticipated build-out population.
Conclusion: No impact. Based on planned service capacities, the City will be able to serve the increased water demand
resulting from the additional population and housing anticipated in the Draft Housing Element Update. The increase in
service demand is within the City's projections for available water and wastewater treatment resources,and within the growth
limits established in the General Plan Land Use Element.
17.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
aj,woes rhe proaecthave the poten tat to degrade the:t�ttalttybfrhe s X
environment sulistn[tallyreducetEe'ha(�ttatofafshorwrldltfe':
spectes;cause a fisYrorwildi fePpR_j flop".0: p%17e'iow$elf
sustatpuip levels,,ttueaten to eluntnate aplant or azurttak
community,reduc. th numb'er ornstric6.t the singe' farare qr
r endangered plant.or atiumal or eluntnate unportaute:taviples ors
the nla Qr 6r10d5_b'f Cal&riia histo OL xehistii
Individual development projects' impacts on natural and cultural resources will be evaluated and mitigated,consistent with
CEQA and with General Plan policies. The proposed Update will not affect City policies on protecting and enhancing
biological or cultural resources or preclude the City from achievingresource protection goals.
b)"';Does the project hate unpxcts.tb4are mdtvtdualty l tnttezlz bvt X
l.It S kA'P, .�'_,
cumulatively ct�nsY ierable t ("Cumulatively cbfisyderabYe"r
means that the mcementaleffects of a project sire Contderable
xvhen viewed iuq with the effects ofthe. UN."
_the effects of otfter current protects,and the effects of prgliable
6.a .fuAiie iolects;
The Draft Housing Element Update would accommodate up to 1,589 in-city dwelling units in a five year period. Over'ri of
these units are targeted to be affordable to very-low and low-income households and exempt from Residential Growth
Management Regulations. Consequently, the Draft. Element is consistent with General Plan Land Use Policies regarding
CITY OF SAN LUIS OelsPo 20 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2009
(.�r
Attachment 1
Issues, Discussion and Supporting information Sources Sources Potentiauy Potentially LessTlnn No
2009 GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Significant Significant Sibip ct dmpact
ER # 120-08 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation '
Incorporated
residential growth. Cumulative impacts of General Plan policies and anticipated growth are addressed and mitigated in the
Land Use Element Final EIR. It also found identified significant, adverse impacts of cumulative growth factors, despite
mitigation,for which findings of overriding considerations were made with regard to conversion of agricultural land to urban
uses, accommodating a regional share of anticipated regional growth within the urban reserve line, and increases in
population,employment and housing.
c) .;T]oe�the,p%lect have envrztinmental'effeots tvbCh vzuzJl'ctise X
Substanrial a+ivetse. ffects on lwman beings,0tther dubctly or
The Housing Element update will meet a portion of the City's housing needs for all income groups. There is no evidence that
the Element's policies and programs will have significant,adverse impacts on humans either directly or indirectl .
Cmr OF SAN Luis OBISPO 21 INITIAL STuny ENVIRONMENTAL CNEcKLIST 2009
Attachment I
18.EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysts Itia�be used'Where,pursuant[o'lhq tierSfi$,�!'ograt4t F,IR;qr other'CEQ,Q prgcgsrs,,onq or more effects havb
been adequately 2na1 ed m an tar.les Tn tjtls case 4. iKm-iorf
n
shouldId` .thefollowin""°itcdse
—=
-a) $arhe, sts used=Id earhet:anaL ..e$.andstate';�v ere tlfe :�re,SJa latile fox review
Final Environmental Impact Report, Land Use and Circulation Element Updates; available at the Community Development
Department,990 Palm Street,San Luis Obispo,CA 93401.
b ' I01PMF-s adggaately ad7ressed Ldentify w ttcl►effects roAn t)Le above ehecklis£were vmthm the sco re ofanii 8detltiately
analyzed�n an ea_rher document ptSrsuaztt tq aggltgable legal*San clLR;, whethef sucb effects were a3dressed byr
_::_:mitt ati�xAtoasui�s]aasr�nn3lz��adter_sttal 'iso_
r
See attached Resolution No. 8332 excerpt, summarizing environmental impact, mitigation, monitoring and overriding
considerations from the 1994 Land Use Element update.
_cj Mibl ahon meastnesi -of.df icls that are"Y ess tltati 5tgtnfican�with Mrttgatton Igcfl�oratedilescrtbe the ttlmg iSbrc
ttitasssres which'w6re t�corporated or;efined froin. earlier document end the extent tq yhtcli they addre§s sifiFW6cfic;
cdndrtionso£t5e' ect
The Draft Housing Element Update is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element and must also be guided by the
mitigation that applies to that document
19. SOURCE REFERENCES.
1 Unified General Plan, City of San Luis Obispo.
2. Drafi General Plan Housing Element Update,City of San Luis Obispo,September 2009
3. 1003 California Environmental Quality Act CEQA Guidelines, Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors of
California.
4. 2001 Clean Air Plan,San Luis Obispo County, San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District.
5. General Plan Safety Element, City of San Luis Obispo,July 2000
6. General Plan Noise Element and Noise Guidebook,City of San Luis Obispo,May 1996.
7. General Plan Conservation and Oen Space Element,City of San Luis Obispo,
8. Community Design Guidelines, City of San Luis Obispo,May 2003
9. Zoning Regulations,City of San Luis Obispo,August 2009
10. Airport Land Use Plan, City of San Luis Obispo,May 2005
11. Draft Orcutt Area and adopted Margarita Area Specific Plans,City of San Luis Obispo,October 2004
12. Municipal Code,City of San Luis Obispo
13. Water Resource Status Report,City of San Luis Obispo,July 2009
14. General Plan Circulation Element, City of San Luis Obispo,July 2000
15. Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines,City of San Luis Obispo,October 1995
16. Historic Preservation Guidelines,City of San Luis Obispo,April 2008
17. General Plan Parks and Recreation Element, City of San Luis Obispo,July 2000
18. Conservation Plans;Cerro San Luis,September 2005,Bishop Peak Natural Reserve,July 2004,Irish Hills
Natural Reserve,Johnson Ranch,January 2008,South Hills,July 2007,Draft Stenner Springs Natural Reserve,
July 2009
Attachments:
1. Draft Housing Element Update July 2009
2. Excerpt, Resolution No. 8332 approving the Land Use/Circulation Element Updates and
summarizing environmental impacts,mitigation and monitoring, and overriding considerations.
Car)Docs/Gs4atAL PLAN/Houswc ELEMENT is
-,�5
Attachment . 2
November 18,2009
City of San Luis Obispo
Housing Element Update
SUBJECT: November 2009 Council Hearing Draft—Response to HCD Comments
Following are HCD's comments and a summary of how the 2009 Council Hearing Draft
Housing Element responds to those comments:
Staffs responses are in italics.
The following changes would bring San Luis Obispo's housing element into compliance with
Article 10.6 of the Government Code. Accompanying each recommended change, we cite
the supporting section of the Government Code.
A. Housing Needs, Resources,and Constraints
1. include an analysis of population and employment trends and documentation of
projections and a quantification of the locality's existing and projected needs for all
income levels, including extremely low-income households(Section 65563(a)(1)).
While the element quantifies existing and projected extremely low-income(ELI)
households,pursuant to Chapter 891, Statutes of 2006(AB 2634), it must also include
an analysis of their housing needs. The analysis of needs should consider tenure and
rates of overpayment and overcrowding and is helpful in formulating specific policies and
programs to assist in the development or maintenance of housing for ELI households.
To assist the analysis,see the enclosed Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy
(CHAS)data and Departments sample analysis from the Building Blocks website at
htto://www.hcci.ca.00v/hod/housina elenment2/EHN extremelvlowincome.ohp.
The Draft was revised to address extremely low income households, including an analysis of
their housing needs (p. 102-105).
2. Include an inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites
and sites having the potential for redevelopment; and an analysis of the relationship of
zoning and public facilities and services to these sites(Section 65583(a)(3)). The
inventory of land suitable for residential development shall be used to identify sites that
can be developed for housing within the planning period(Section 65583.2).
Since the adoption of San Luis Obispo's 2004 housing element, Chapter 724,
Statutes of 2004(AB 2348), amended housing element requirements relating to the land
inventory. To address the City's regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) of
1,589 housing units, the element relies on vacant sites, redevelopment and mixed-use
opportunities, and sites within new Specific Plan Areas. However, to demonstrate the
adequacy of these sites and strategies to accommodate the City's RHNA, the element
must include complete analyses:
P N -36
Attachment 2
Response to HCD Comments-November 2009 Council'Hearing Draft Housing Element
Page 2
Progress in Meeting the-RHNA: The element credits 621 units constructed on the
Cal Poly Campus towards the City's RHNA. However, according to the Department of
Finance's (DOF) Demographic Research Unit,these units will be attributed in their
periodic updating of housing stock to the unincorporated County as the Cal Poly
Campus is outside the City limits and within the unincorporated County and DOF was
unaware of any formal agreement between the City, County, and/or University which
would provide a basis for allocation to the City. The RHNA plan adopted by SLOCOG
(page 10) also indicates.thatadjustments were not made in the allocations for the new
housing development on the Cal Poly campus. Accordingly, as the RHNA methodology
incorporates housing estimates as reported by DOF,the element cannot credit the units
built on the Cal Poly campus against its RHNA.
Staff has revised the Draft accordingly. The change does not affect the City's ability to meet its
RHNA requirement. (Tables 4 and 5,pp. 55 and 59, and discussion on pp. 121-122).
Sites Inventory: The parcel-specific inventory (Appendix N) must also include a listing of
sites by general plan designation and identify existing uses on underutilized and non-
vacant sites. In addition, to demonstrate the availability of the following sites,the
element must address the following:
• Specific Plan Areas: The element relies on capacity within the approved Margarita
and proposed Orcutt Specific Plans (Survey Areas 18 and 21) to accommodate a
portion of the City's RHNA(page 153). As phasing is required for future development
within these areas (page 129),the element.should describe the development
potential of the identified sites within the Planning period, and include a description of
any requirements for unit types or affordability that could impact development
potential.
• Sites within the Urban Reserve: Should the element need to rely on sites within the
Orcutt Specific Plan, it must include a program committing to the annexation of those
sites pursuant to the February 2010 timeframe (page 126).
The additional site inventory information has been provided in Appendix N, p. 286, and
additional information provided on specific plan areas (pp.131-135) to address development
phasing and these areas' readiness for development. Program 6.17 was added (p. 35) calling
for annexation of the Orcutt Specific Plan Area by December 2010.
Pl4�- 3
Attachment 2
Response to HCD Comments-November 2009 Council Hearing Draft Housing Element
Page 3
Realistic Capacity: While the element describes the methodology for determining
capacity based upon required site improvements, physical constraints, and the City's
density unit criteria (Appendix N, pages 10-12), for sites within mixed-use zones,
capacity estimates must also account for potential non-residential uses including any
performance standards mandating a specified portion of a mixed-use site as non-
residential (i.e.,first floor,front space as commercial). For non-vacant sites, the element
should estimate potential residential capacity considering not all non-vacant sites will
redevelop within the housing element planning period. For example, the element could
base estimated capacity on those sites determined to have the greatest potential for
redevelopment. The element should also describe any existing or proposed regulatory
incentives and standards to facilitate housing development in the mixed-use or
commercial zones and on the identified non-vacant sites.
The methodologyfor determining residential capacity is described in Appendix D (p. 164) and in
Appendix N. An evaluation of residential density capacity and a discussion of "realistic"
residential development capacity was added (p. 180). Capacity calculations apply a 25 percent
reduction to each property's allowed residential density, so that capacityfigures are adjusted to
75 percent of allowed density after adjusting for lot zoning, size and slope. Staff also expanded
the capacity inventory to include descriptions of property status and likelihood to redevelop
within the 5-year timeframe. Properties without reasonable potential for residential
development or redevelopment were not included in the capacity totals. Existing and proposed
regulatory and financial incentives to encourage housing development are included(p. 181)
Suitability of Non-Vacant Sites: The element relies on redevelopment potential of
blighted and underutilized sites throughout the City to accommodate a portion of the
RHNA. To demonstrate the suitability and feasibility of non-vacant sites, the element
must analyze the extent to which existing use may impede additional residential
development. The element could include information such as the condition of the
structure, whether the use is operating, marginal or discontinued, recent development
trends, and/or interest from owners or developers. For sites with residential uses,the
inventory should generally describe structural conditions or other circumstances and
trends demonstrating the redevelopment potential to more intense residential use. For
further information on meeting this requirement, refer to the Building Blocks' website at
httoJ/www.hcd.ca.ciov/hpd/housing element2/SIA zoningphp#nonvancant.
The requested information has been provided in Appendix N, Residential Capacity Inventory,p.
286.
Small Sites: Given the element's reliance on small sites to accommodate housing
affordable to lower-income households, it should evaluate the realistic potential for
additional residential development on smaller residential infill parcels. For example,
while it may be possible to build housing on a very small parcel,the nature and
conditions necessary to construct the units often render the provision of affordable
housing infeasible. Most assisted housing developments utilizing State or federal
financial resources typically include at least 50 to 80 units. For further information on
meeting this requirement, please refer to the Building Blocks'website at
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/housing element2/SIA zoning pho.
A discussion of residential development potential of small sites is discussed starting on page 176.
Anticipated residential development during the planning period relies on a range of housing
-PH 3'�Y
Attachment 2
Response to HCD Comments-November 2009 Council Hearing Draft Housing Element
Page 4
sources, including infill development on vacant sites, redevelopment of underutilized or blighted
properties, mixed use development and development within expansion areas (Margarita and
Orcutt specific plan areas). It does not rely solely on small sites to meet lower-income housing
needs. Zoning provisions are flexible in allowing development of small residential sites. For
example, Zoning Regulations allow legally-created, residential lots of any size to have a single
dwelling unit, irrespective of density standards, provided they can otherwise meet development
standards (e.g. setbacks,parking, lot coverage and building height).
Zoning Appropriate to Facilitate and Encourage Housing for Lower-Income Households:
The element identifies some sites zoned at densities greater than 20 units per acre;
however,to accommodate a portion of the housing need for lower-income households, it
appears to rely on sites zoned R-3, C-N, and M,which have densities under 18 units per
acre(Table C-1). Should the element need to rely on sites within these zones to
accommodate a portion of the FiHNA for lower-income households,the element must
demonstrate the adequacy of these zones to encourage and facilitate development of
housing affordable to lower-income households. The analysis should be based on
factors such as market demand;development experience within zones,and specifically
address the impacts of density on financial feasibility. For communities with densities
that meet specific standards(at least 20 units per acre for San Luis Obispo),this
analysis is not required(Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B)).
Pursuant to the City's density standard formulas(see Table C-1),densities are based on
the number of bedrooms in the units. For example,densities in the R-3 zone(18
du/acre)could range from 9 to 32 depending on the number of bedrooms. The element
must demonstrate the typical densities or other estimates of likely densities achieved in
the R-3,C-N, and M zones(i.e.,based on development trends),are appropriate to
encourage housing affordable to lower-income households.
From this comment it appears that allowed density (in "Density Units') is being equated with
the maximum possible number of dwelling units (i.e.front doors). Staff has provided additional
explanation of density units relate to residential development potential in terms of dwelling units
(p. 173). For example, 18 density units per net acre (allowed density in R-3 zone) could allow
up to 36 studio apartments on an acre. New programs 6.25 and 6.26 regarding residential
density also address this comment.
Environmental Constraints: The element did not address this requirement. The element
must include a general description of any environmental constraints to the development
of housing within the jurisdiction. This information need not be identified on a site-
specific basis.
Environmental constraints are described on p. 158.
Attachment. 2
Response to HCD Comments-November 2009 Council Hearing Draft Housing Element
Page 5.
Sites with Zonina for a Variety of Housing Lmes
Emergency Shelters: Program 8:19 must be revised pursuant to Chapter 633,
Statutes of 2007 (SB 2),to identify which zone(s)the City is considering to allow
emergency shelters without discretionary approval,demonstrate the appropriateness of
the zone and describe the available capacity.
Singe-Room Occupancy(SRO): The element did not address the requirement. In
accordance with AS 2634, the element should identify which zoning districts allow the
use and whether development standards and permit procedures encourage and facilitate
these housing types.
Staff added a section describing how the City met SS 2 requirements, p. 115. City Zoning
Regulations allow emergency shelters in the PF zone. It also describes appropriateness of the_
zone and the available capacity.
A section explaining SROs was added, p. 120. The Wineman Hotel remodel in the Downtown
core is an example of this type of development.
3. Analyze potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance,
improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of
housing fdentirred in paragraph(t)of subdivision (c), and for persons with disabilities as
identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), including land use controls, building
codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of
developers, and local processing and permit procedures. The analysis shall also
demonstrate local efforts to remove governmental constraints that hinder the locality
Mom meeting its share of the regional housing need in accordance with Section 65584
and from meeting the need for housing for persons with disabilities, supportive housing,
transitional housing, and emergency shelters identified pursuant to paragraph (7)
(Section 65583(a)(5)).
Fees and Exaction: While the element describes some typical planning fees in
relationship to surrounding cities and total fees for typical single-family developments, it
did not include a complete description of processing and impact fees for multifamily
development nor analyze their cumulative impact on the cost and supply of housing.
Recent market conditions make this analysis particularly important. For further
information, refer to the Building Blocks'website at
http:/twww.hcd.ca.aov/hpd/housina elementWCON fees nho.
Multi family fees have been included,pp. 148-151.
Local Processina and Permit Procedures: While the element generally describes
processing procedures for single-family development, it must specifically describe and
analyze the City's permit processing and approval process for typical multifamily
projects. The analysis provided in the previous element could assist in addressing this
finding (page 117). As the City is relying on residential potential on sites within the
C-S and M zones to accommodate a portion of the RHNA,the element should describe
use permit requirements and analyze the conditional use permit(CUP)process for
impacts on the cost and supply of housing.
Multi family processing and permit procedures are addressed, p. 147, and Tables C-1, C-2, and
C-3 (pp. 124-129).
Attachment 2
Response to HCD Comments-November 2009 Council Hearing Draft Housing_ Element
Page 6
Inclusionary Housino: While the element generally d6scribes the City's inclusionary
implementation framework(page 27), it should also evaluate those requirements for their
potential impact on the cost and supply of housing. For example, the element should
discuss options for meeting the requirements, analyze in-lieu fees and describe how the
City promotes compliance with inclusionary requirements, including any incentives or
regulatory concessions. This is particularly important given current market conditions
and the cumulative impact of local regulations. The City could engage the development
community to facilitate this analysis.
Inclusionary housing section was added (p. 154-155), explaining the program's implementation
framework and how "Table 2A " works to promote smaller, higher density housing. It also cites
previous studies (Mundie and Associates) on the economic effects of inclusionary housing
requirements. New Program 2.5 expands flexibility in how builders can meet inclusionary
requirements.
Constraints on Persons with Disabilities: The element notes local compliance with the
federal Fair Housing Act (page III-19) and includes a program to adopt a formal
procedure for reasonable accommodation requests. However, the element must include
a complete analysis of zoning and development standards for the development of
housing for persons with disabilities. The analysis provided in the previous element
could assist in addressing this finding (page 113). For further information, refer to the
Building Blocks'website at http://www.hod.ca.aov/hi)dlhousino element2/CON disabilities.ohp.
The section on constraints to persons with disabilities was expanded, pp. 144-146. City Zoning
and Development standards are consistent with Americans With Disabilities Act requirements;
housing for persons with disabilities is subject to the same zoning requirements as other housing
types; however all residential projects must meet Title 24 Code requirements to provide housing
accessible to disabled persons.
4. Analyze the opportunities for energy conservation with respect to residential
development(Section 65583(a)(8)).
The element states the City addresses energy conservation goals through enforcement
of the Califomia Energy Building Code(page 122). According to staff,the City has
adopted a number of energy and climate change strategies including those in other
elements of the general plan. The element could reference and describe these efforts
and consider how housing and land-use policies or programs could further support
energy or climate change objectives. For example,the element could include incentives
to promote higher density housing along transit,encourage green building techniques
and materials in new and resale homes, promote energy audits and participation in utility
programs, and facilitate energy conserving retrofits upon.resale of homes. Additional
information on potential policies and programs to address energy conservation are
available on the Building Blocks website at
httpY/www.hed.ca.ciov/hpd/housing element2/SIA .conservation.php.
Energy conservation goals are addressed in the Draft Element on p. 129. The City's full range
of energy and materials conservation goals, policies and programs are addressed primarily in
the Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan. Draft Housing Element Policies
9.1, 9.2, 9.4 and 9.5; and Programs 9.6, 9.8, 9.9, and 9.10 already address energy- and
resource-saving strategies in the placement and design of housing..
�t� � -41
� 4 Attachment 2
Response to HCD Comments -November 2009 Council Hearing Draft Housing Element.
Page 7
B. Housing Programs
I. Include a program which sets forth a rive:year schedule of actions the local government
J undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals
and objectives of the housing element through the administration of land-use and
development controls,provision of regulatory concessions and incentives,and the
utilization of appropriate federal and state financing and subsidy programs when
available. The program shall include an identification of the agencies and officials
responsible for the implementation of the various actions(Section 65583(c)).
Chapter 3 contains the programs, policy, and goals for the 2009 and 2013 housing
element and Appendix F contains the timeframes for the implementation of those
programs. However, as acknowledged in the element,Appendix F must be updated to
incorporate the new programs contained in Chapter 3 and include timeframes within the
current olanning period for all programs. In addition,the following programs require
revision: --
Program 3.14: Describe how the City will work with housing providers to rehabilitate
residential,commercial, or industrial building to expand housing opportunities to lower-
income households.
Program 6.27: Describe how the City will support residential infill development and
promote higher density residential development.
Programs 1.4.2.12. 6.10.6.18. and 8.12: The element could quantify the number of
households served or housing units anticipated to be rehabilitated or constructed in the
planning period through the implementation of these programs.
Implementation is addressed in Appendix F,p. 209. Pages 181-183 address how City will assist
housing developers to achieve housing.goals and implement incentive programs. Discussions of
residential density and how the City encoavrages infill is located in several places in the
document; including: 125, 137, 154, and 180-181. Table 7 on page 62 summarizes
rehabilitation and constriction objectives.
= Attachment 2
Response to HCD Comments-November 2009 Council Hearing Draft Housing Element
Page 8 `
2. identify adequate sites which will be made available through appropriate zoning and
development standards and with public services and facilities needed to facilitate and
encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels,
including rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, and emergency shelters
and transitional housing. Where the inventory of sites,pursuant to paragraph(3)of
subdivision (a), does not identify adequate sites to accommodate the need for groups of
all household income levels pursuant to Section 65584, the program shall provide for
sufficient sites with.zoning that permits owner-occupied and rental multifamily residential
use by right, including density and development standards that could accommodate and
facilitate the feasibility of housing for very low-and low-income households
(Section 65583(c)(1)).
As noted in finding A2, the element does not include a complete site analysis and,
therefore,the adequacy of sites and zoning were not established. Based on the results
of a complete sites inventory and analysis,the City may need to add or revise programs
to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing
types.
For your information,where the inventory does not identify adequate sites pursuant to
Government Code Sections 65583(a)(3)and 65583.2,the element must provide a
program to identify sites in accordance with subdivision (h)of 65583.2 for 100 percent of
the remaining lower-income housing need with sites zoned to permit owner-occupied
and rental multifamily uses by-right during the planning period. These sites must also be
zoned with minimum density and development standards that permit at least 16 units per
site at a density of at least 20 units per acre. Also, at least 50 percent of the remaining
need must be planned on sites that exclusively allow residential uses.
The Residential Capacity Survey Appendix N(p. 286) now includes additional site analysis (site
status, existing use, area and likelihood of redevelopment). The City housing capacity (p. 174-
176) exceeds its RHNA number (Table 6, p. 61). After crediting units built, permitted or under
construction since January 1, 2007, the City's remaining housing need is 985. As described in
Table D-5 (p. 176), this is within the City's housing capacity within the planning period. It is not
necessary to provide an additional program as described in the above paragraph, since the City
has identified adequate sites to meet housing needs. Programs 6.25, 6.26 and 6.27 address City
efforts to promote higher density housing where appropriate.
3. The housing element shall contain programs which "assist in the development of
adequate housing to meet the needs of extremely low-, low-and moderate-income
households(Section 65583(c)(2)).
Pursuant to AB 2634, existing programs should either be expanded or new programs
added to specifically assist in the development of a variety of housing types to meet the
housing needs of ELI households. To address this requirement,the element could
revise programs to prioritize some funding for the development of housing affordable to
ELI households, and/or offer financial incentives or regulatory concessions to encourage
the development of housing types, such as SRO units,which address the needs of this
income group.
Extremely Low Income households are now specifically addressed in policies and programs 2.1,
2.2, 2.4, 2.18, 4.3, 6.18, and Table 5—Quantified Objectives.
-p A+ 3
�\ Attachment 2
Response to HCD Comments-November 2009 Council Hearing Draft Housing Element
Page 9
4. The housing element shall contain programs which "address, and where appropriate and
legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement,
and development of housing"(Section 65583(c)(3)).
As noted in finding A3; the element requires a more detailed analysis of potential
governmental constraints. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may
need to revise or add programs to address and remove or mitigate any identified
constraints.
The analysis of potential government constraints has been expanded,pp. 123-155.
C. Public Participation
Local governments shall make a diligent effortto achieve public participation of all economic
segments of the community in the development of the housing element,and the element
shall describe this effort(Section 65583(c)(7)).
While the element includes a summary of the public participation process for the previous
planning period(Appendix G,J, l.}, it does not demonstrate how the City has or will make a
diligent effort to achieve the involvement of all economic segments of the community
through the current housing element update process. The element should be revised to
specifically describe the City's efforts to circulate the housing element among low-and
moderate-income households and organizations that represent them and to involve such
groups and persons in the development of the element.
Appendix L,p. 259, has been updated to describe public outreach efforts for the current Housing
Element Update. More information will be added as necessary.
Attachment 3
RESOLUTION NO. 5536-09 (2009 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT
AMENDMENTS TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN
(GPA/ER 120-08)
WHEREAS, State law requires cities and counties to adopt a general plan. The general
plan includes seven required elements, one of which is the housing element. The housing
element must be updated every five(5)years or as otherwise provided by State law; and
WHEREAS, the Housing Element of the San Luis Obispo City General Plan was last
updated on March 30, 2004, in compliance with State law; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo has prepared an updated Draft General Plan
Housing Element to address community-wide housing needs, challenges and opportunities, and
to meet State Law; and
WHEREAS, the draft Housing Element update was forwarded to the State Department
of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review, and modifications have been made
to address HCD comments; and
WHEREAS, the potential environmental impacts of the updated Housing Element have
been evaluated in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to an
initial environmental study (City File number ER 120-08) and the Community Development
Director has prepared a negative declaration of environmental impact; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, Human Relations Commission, and the City
Council have held nine public hearings on the updated Housing Element in accordance with the
Califomia Government Code, as well as three focused workshops, and numerous meetings with
stakeholders in the community; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at the hearing on November 12, 2009,
considered the amendments to the General Plan Housing Element as shown in the October 2009
Draft Housing Element and proposed Negative Declaration of Environmental Effect.
NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The Planning Commission, after considering the proposed 2009
Planning Commission Hearing Draft Housing Element, environmental determination, staff
recommendations, public testimony and correspondence, and reports thereon, makes the
following findings:
1. The proposed draft housing element, including amendments contained in the October
2009 draft Housing Element Update and as further revised by the Planning
Commission, are consistent with the General Plan. /
Attachment 3
Resolution No. 5536-09(2009 Series)
Page 2
2. The proposed amendments are appropriate and necessary to ensure that the City's
Housing Element meets State law.
3. Achieving Housing Element certification will promote affordable housing opportunities
and help achieve adopted housing goals by making the City eligible for various housing
grants and financial incentives and will foster cooperation among local and state
agencies in'addressing an urgent need for affordable housing in San Luis Obispo.
SECTION 2. Environmental Determination. The Planning Commission has reviewed the
project's initial environmental study and determined that the proposed General Plan Housing
Element amendments will not create a substantial environmental effect as defined by the
California Environmental Quality Act and supports approval of the initial environmental study
(City File Number ER 120-08) and associated Negative Declaration prepared by the Community
Development Director.
SECTION 3. Action. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
of the City of San Luis Obispo approval of the 2009 Draft Housing Element, subject to the
amendments described in the Commission's November 12, 2009, minutes being incorporated
into. the Draft Housing Element, and approval of the project's Negative Declaration of
environmental effect.
Upon motion of Vice-Chairman Multari, seconded by Commissioner Boswell, and oil the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Boswell, Meyer, Singewald, Whittlesey, Multari, and
Stevenson.
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Draze
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 12thday of November 2009.
hilt'l
Kim Murry, Secretat
Planning Commission
Exhibit "A'` November 2009 City Council Hearing Draft Housing Element
Attachment 4
RESOLUTION NO. (2010 Series),
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ADOPTING AN UPDATED HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN
WHEREAS, State law requires cities and counties to adopt a general plan. The general
plan includes seven required elements, one of which is the housing element. The housing
element must be updated every five(5) years or as otherwise provided by State law; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo has prepared an updated Draft General Plan
Housing Element to address community wide housing needs, challenges and opportunities, and
to meet State law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council have held public hearings_
on the updated Housing Element in accordance with the California Government Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the input of diverse community interests
and housing stakeholders in the preparation of the updated Housing Element to identify
community needs and to recommend housing policies and programs; and
WHEREAS, the potential environmental impacts of the updated Housing Element have
been evaluated in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to an
initial environmental study (City File Number ER 120-08), and the Community Development
Director has granted a negative declaration of environmental impact, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the
negative declaration of environmental impact and the updated Housing Element.
WHEREAS, by a separate resolution the City Council found that there is no evidence
from which it can be fairly argued, that the project will have a significant, adverse effect on the
environment; and consequently certified and approved the negative declaration of environmental
impact for the Updated Housing Element
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Record of Proceedings. The City Council has received and considered the
Planning Commission recommendations, public testimony and correspondence, and the staff
reports on the Housing Element Update. Copies of these items or testimony are on file in the
office of the City Clerk and in the Community Development Department. The Planning
Commission held seven public hearings to consider the Housing Element Update and related
matters..The Human Relations Commission held two public hearings and the Airport Land Use
Commission held one public hearing to consider the Housing Element Update and related
matters. In addition, staff conducted three public workshops and attended numerous meetings.
with stakeholder groups to consider the Update and related matters. The minutes of those
hearings indicate Commission member comments on the Housing Element Update and are on
file in the office of the City Clerk. ^
R
Attachment 4
Resolution No. (2010 Series)
Page 2
SECTION,2. Public and Agency Review. Drafts of the proposed Housing Element Update
have been made widely available for review and comment by interested agencies and individuals.
Copies were posted on the City's website and were distributed to the San Luis Obispo City-
County Library and to the California State Department of Housing and Community Development
("HCD") as required by law, and to governmental and non-profit housing agencies whose
jurisdiction includes housing issues within the San Luis Obispo Area. An email list of interested
parties has been kept abreast of hearings, proposed changes and updates to the Housing Element
in addition to distribution required by law.
SECTION 3. Findings. This Council, after considering the 2009 Final Draft Housing Element,
the Planning Commission's recommendations, staff recommendations, public testimony and
correspondence, and reports thereon, makes the following findings:
1. The Housing Element Update, as contained in the document titled "Council Hearing
Draft General Plan Housing Element", dated November 2009, Exhibit "A" on file in the
Community Development Department (hereinafter "the Update"), is consistent with all
elements of the General Plan.
2. The Update will promote public health, safety, and welfare by: preserving housing that is
affordable to extremely-low, very-low, low- and moderate income households;
encouraging variety in housing types, sizes, cost, and tenure; establishing programs to
ensure that most new development incorporates affordable housing, pays an "in-lieu" fee
toward the development of affordable housing, or otherwise contributes to the production
of affordable housing; establishing incentives to encourage and help defray the costs of
affordable housing development; affirmatively furthering fair housing opportunities; and
by setting quantified objectives for housing production, rehabilitation, preservation and
conservation.
3. Consistent with provisions of California Government Code Section 65583 (b)(2), San
Luis Obispo has evaluated its ability to accommodate its Regional Housing Need
Allocation (RHNA) number of 1,589 dwellings by July 2014 and has adopted quantified
objectives that are the same as the RHNA number. There is sufficient land suitable for
residential development to accommodate the RHNA number within the planning period.
4. The November 2009 Draft Housing Element was submitted to HCD for its review, as
required by State law. The Update includes additional information and analysis in
response to HCD comments. The Council has determined that the Update conforms to
the statutory requirements of State housing element law (Article 10.6 of Government
Code).
5. Council hereby finds that the Update will not operate to directly limit the total number of
dwellings which may be constructed on an annual basis, since dwellings affordable to
extremely-low, very-low, low-, and moderate income households, and dwellings
constructed in the Downtown Core (C-D Zone), are exempt from Residential Growth
Management Regulations.
t"n14
q
Attachment 4
Resolution No. (2010 Series)
Page 3
SECTION 4. Approval of the 2009 Housing Element. Council hereby approves the 2009
Housing Element, as set forth in Exhibit A.
SECTION 5. Publication and Availability. The Community Development Director shall
cause the updated Housing Element to be published and provided to City officials, concerned
agencies, public libraries, and to the public. The Director shall also transmit a copy of the
Update to HCD for its final review, as required by State law.
- .SECTION 6. Effective Date. The 2009 Housing Element shall become effective immediately
upon adoption of this resolution.
SECTION 7. Repeal of Previous Element. The Housing Element adopted March 30, 2004 and
as subsequently amended, is repealed upon the effective date of the 2009 Housing Element.
Upon motion of , seconded by ,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 19th day of January, 2010.
David F. Romero, Mayor
ATTEST:
Elaina Cano
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
!
R�fi
I
stine Dietrick
City Attorney
Attachmant 5
RESOLUTION NO. (2010 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
APPROVING AND CERTIFYING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR THE UPDATED HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE
GENERAL PLAN
WHEREAS, State law requires cities and counties to adopt a general plan. The general
plan includes seven required elements, one of which is the housing element. The housing
element must be updated every five(5) years or as otherwise provided by State law; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo has prepared an updated Draft General Plan
Housing Element to address community wide housing needs, challenges and opportunities, and
to meet State law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council have held public hearings
on the updated Housing Element in accordance with the California Government Coded and
WHEREAS, the potential environmental impacts of the updated Housing Element have
been evaluated in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to an
initial environmental study (City File Number ER 120-08), and the Community Development
Director has granted a negative declaration of environmental impact; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the
negative declaration of environmental impact and the updated Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, The City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in
the initial study and the negative declaration for ER No. 120-08 prepared for this Housing
Element Update.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. This Council, as a result of its deliberations,
Planning Commission recommendation, the initial environmental study, and the evidence
presented at hearings on this matter, determines that as required by the California Environmental
Quality Act ("CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines, a negative declaration adequately
addresses the potential environmental impacts, of the Housing Element Update, On the basis of
this review, the City Council finds that there is no evidence from which it can be fairly argued
that the project will have a significant, adverse effect on the environment, and hereby certifies
and approves the negative declaration of environmental impact for -the Updated Housing
Element.
SECTION 2. Effective Date. The approval and certification of the negative declaration of
impact shall take effect immediately. ^H
.E..J -5D
R
Attachment 5
Resolution No (2010 Series)
Page 2
Upon motion of , seconded by
and on the following roll call vote: -
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 30th day of March, 2004.
David F. Romero, Mayor
ATTEST:
Elaina Cano
City Clerk
APPROVED S TO FO
i;
stine Dietrick
City Attorney
�N-y-sl
J `
a -
84° Community Development Department
Memorandum RECEIVED RED FILE
JAN 1. 5 2010 MEETING AGENDA
January 15,2010
SLO CITY CLERK DAT 1 a I°ITEM # N
TO: City Council
FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Director
SIR
VIA: Shelly Stanwyck, Assistant City ManagerouNCIL TCDD DIR
VCAO VFIN DIR
B� ACAO &B-FIRE CHIEF
SUBJECT: Housing Element Update ! l�'ATTORNEY B PO IR CHF
Response to HCD Comments and
DEPT HEADS P AEC DIR
Proposed Review Strategy for Council Hearing pry' fp UTIL DIR
- rOuu� 8 HR DIR
Response to HCD Comments
� eLa2«
Staff sent the November 2009 Housing Element draft to the State Department of
Housing and Community Development (HCD) for additional review, and staff
received verbal comments from the HCD analyst last week. The review yielded a
much shorter list of requested changes and additions than HCD's review of the first
draft. With relatively minor changes, the Draft can be amended to address latest
HCD's comments following Council adoption and prior to sending the approved
Housing Element to HCD for its final certification review. With the exception of item
3 below, the requested information will be included in appendices. Following is a
summary of HCD's most recent comments and how staff proposes to address these in
the final element.
1. Revise the Residential Capacity Inventory, Appendix N, to more clearly
differentiate between vacant or underutilized sites and those sites that are under
construction and partially developed. Projects with planning approvals (but not
building permits) must be counted under "Capacity" rather than dwellings if not
yet fully built out.
Response: This is a minor technical change affecting how residential capacity is
counted. It affects only a few properties (e.g. Laurel Creek development off Orcutt
Road), and has no affect on housing policy, programs or the City's ability to meet its
regional housing need(RHNA).
2. Provide a breakdown of how many dwelling units in the Margarita and Orcutt
specific plan areas are likely to be multi-family dwellings, and how much land is
zoned for densities of at least 20 dwelling units per acre (HCD uses this density
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401-3218
(805) 781-7171 FAX:(805) 781-7173
' Housing Element Update Page 2
Council Hearing January 19. 2010
threshold to determine feasibility of developing dwellings affordable to lower
income households.
Response: Staff will provide the information. Both specific plan areas propose
residentially-zoned land that would accommodate densities of 20 dwellings/acre or
higher.
3. Provide a program to give priority to residential projects that include housing
affordable to Extremely Low Income households.
Response: Staff proposes modifying Program 6.18, page 35 as follows (added
language underlined):
6.18 (3.1212) Financially assist in the development of housing affordable to extremely
low, very-low, low- or moderate income households during the planning period using
State, Federal and local funding sources, with priority given to proiects that produce
the maximum number ofhousing units that meet the lowest income levels.
4. Include typical City fees (development review, permit, and impact fees) applying
to multi-family housing.
Response: Staff will include this information in Appendix C, section h) Development
Fees,page 148.
5. In addition, the Planning Commission recommended that an additional property be
considered for possible rezoning under Program 6.12. The Commission
recommended inclusion of the parcel located at 12165 Los Osos Valley Road,just
south and across Los Osos Valley Road from the Prefumo Creek Commons project
site. This is consistent with Council direction provided during hearings on
Prefumo Creek Commons.
Response: Staff will add parcel 067-241-023 (12165 Los Osos Valley Road) to the list
of parcels to consider for mixed use or residential development under program 6.12
and to the map shown under Figure 1.
Council Review Strategy
Staff is recommending the following review strategy for Tuesday's Council meeting.
The Housing Element is organized as four chapters followed by appendices. Chapters
1 and 2 provide a summary of the appendices; Chapter 3 contains the policies and
programs; and Chapter 4 contains the quantified objectives. The appendices contain
the demographic and other data that support the primary focus of the Housing
Element: the policies and programs that describe the City's approach to housing over
the upcoming five year period.
Housing Element Update Page 3
Council Hearing January 19. 2010
Staff recommends that Council members review the appendices and Chapters 1 and 2
of the draft element to determine if there are any questions to which staff can respond.
If the Council does not have questions regarding the data, the review can move to the
more impactful discussion of Chapter 3: Goals, Policies and Programs and Chapter 4:
Quantified Objectives, since these are the core of the Housing Element.
After hearing public testimony, Council members may wish to proceed by considering
Chapter 3 by each goal section (e.g. Goal 1 Safety, Goal 2 Affordability, etc.), and to
poll Council members to determine if there are any programs or policies members
would like to discuss or change. If no policies or programs are identified, the Council
may move on to the next goal, and so on. The discussion of Chapter 4: Quantified
Objectives can follow.
Good evening.
My name is Joan Harper. I live in Laguna.Lake Mobile Estates, and I speak for the 500+
residents of our park, as well as for all park residents in the City who otherwise have no formal
representation. My comments are therefore directed toward those segments of the Housing
Element specifically addressing mobilehome parks.
The city's Housing Element clearly includes language that recognizes the part that mobilehome
parks play in providing homes for lower-income citizens. These people range from
—young service workers in the City and their families who can't afford any other
housing,
--disabled seniors trying to make ends meet on social security, and
—retired seniors, who provide untold hours of volunteer work to City hospitals, police
stations, schools, and charitable organizations.
Sections of the Housing Element draft, so very important to us in MHParks, are those that
address
—the need for sufficient affordable housing
—the need to conserve, rehabilitate, and improve the City's existing affordable housing,
and to find the financial assistance to do so
--the need to continue the mobile home rent stabilization program
--and the need for a new zoning designator for mobilehome parks
These needs have been included in the Housing Element in the following sections:
Goal 1: Program 1.4
Goal 8: Policies 8.2, 8.3
Programs 8.12, 8.13, and 2 new ones, 8.21, 8.24
I question Program 8.21 (p. 39)that states"Identify properties [mobile home parks in the list]
that can be acquired and converted to affordable permanent housing and permanent supportive
housing for homeless persons and families." Most of the 1500 MH spaces in the city do
provide affordable permanent housing, so the New part is "permanent supportive housing for
homeless persons and families." I do support this program, but only if it can be accomplished
without evicting existing MH residents.
On the other hand, I acknowledge the fact that a few older parks in the city are in tough shape.
They need redevelopment work, not destruction, as, for the residents living there, those parks are
the only housing they can afford. To close or convert the park would literally put them on the
street.
I ask you tonight to accept the draft sections pertaining to MHParks as they currently appear.
I'd like to thank Kim and Jeff for their outstanding efforts and dedication to providing an
excellent Housing Elements document for the City. Good job!
Thank you.