HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/15/2010, PH6 - AMENDMENTS TO THE CITYS RESIDENTAIL GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICIES & ORDINANCE - CHANGES TO LAND USE ELEMENT POLICIES council - M`cftD� is
j acEnda RepoRt Nmo6e.
C I TY OF SAN LU IS O B I S P 0
FROM: John Mandeville,Community Development Directo?�
Prepared By: Philip Dunsmore,Associate Planner �v//�
SUBJECT: AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S RESIDENTIAL GROWTH
MANAGEMENT POLICIES AND ORDINANCE INCLUDING
CHANGES TO LAND USE ELEMENT POLICIES 1.10.2, 1.10.39 AND
TABLE 2 AND TO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 17.88.(GP/ER-133-
09)
RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt a resolution to amend General Plan Land Use Element Policies 1.10.2,
1.10.3, and Table 2 and to adopt a Negative Declaration.
2. Introduce an ordinance to amend MC 17.88, the Residential Growth Management
Regulations.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
The 2008 General Plan Annual Report included an update on the status of the City's Residential
Growth Management regulations. In response, Council directed staff to explore options to
address the anticipated convergence of development in the Margarita (MASP) and Orcutt Area
(OASP) Specific Plans; specifically the idea of vesting allocations. Staff has worked with
stakeholder groups and the.Planning Commission to determine the amendments that are needed
to accommodate development within the specific plan areas while continuing to honor the intent
of the City's "Gradual Assimilation" policy (Land Use Element policy 1.10.1) and the 1%
average annual residential growth rate(Attachments 1-5).
The proposed changes will retain the 1% average growth rate, allowing it to be averaged over a
five-year period instead of three years. Table 2 of the Land Use Element(LUE)would be updated
to start at 2009, with each 5 year interval illustrating a 1% annual dwelling unit increase. The
policy change utilizes Table 2 as a growth monitor, setting thresholds for each five year period
that may not be exceeded. The new policy language would allow unbuilt allocations to be carried
forward, creating a virtual "bank" from years in which residential growth was less than I%. This
bank of units could help projects secure lending for larger residential projects and help to pay for
the larger up-front infrastructure costs. Since each of the specific plan areas are independently
regulated by required infrastructure improvements and internal phasing plans, the need for a
separately metered phasing schedule is no longer necessary and the recommendation includes
eliminating the separate phasing schedule.
Although these changes may contribute to a sense of assurance for future housing development in
the specific plan areas, further changes may still be needed in the Margarita Area Specific Plan in
order to accommodate residential development. In the Orcutt Area, the phasing schedule matches
the timing of infrastructure installation with the fees collected so that funds are available to pay
Council Agenda Report
Residential Growth Management Policy update(GPI 133-09)
Page 2
for those infrastructure costs. This potentially reduces the need for any single development to
provide long term financing for area-wide infrastructure costs or for formation of an assessment
district to install improvements. In the Margarita Specific Plan however, the infrastructure
requirements associated with the first residential projects, especially the construction of Prado
Road, involve costs that far exceed the available fees. Local financial stakeholders indicate that
this type of financing is no longer available and probably will not be available into the
foreseeable future. Therefore, the next task will be to examine options to improve infrastructure
financing options so the initial housing projects may become feasible. Staff will be exploring
these options and returning to Planning Commission and City Council in the future with a
recommendation to address infrastructure timing and financing.
BACKGROUND
Since 2006,. the City Council has discussed various options to. modify the implementation of
growth management policy to ensure that production of much needed housing was not being
unduly constrained by City policy. The Council also asked that any recommendation being
proposed would take .into account timing and availability of water resources (Water Reuse Project,
Nacimiento Pipeline project), sewer collection capacity (Tank Farm Lift Station project),
transportation infrastructure requirements(Prado Road construction, including the status of the Prado
/ 101 interchange), expected population growth and the comparative impact on park facilities, City
recreation programs and service organizations and whether changes would result in high levels of
construction activity that might pose concerns for air quality or traffic operations.
The Nacimiento pipeline project will be completed by the end of 2010 and will provide 3,380 acre
feet of water per year. This water will be used to supplement the current water supply and allow more
water to be retained at Whale Rock and Santa Margarita Lake reservoirs. Furthermore, other
supplemental city water supply projects have positioned the City to be able to meet the projected
water supply needs of the General Plan. In addition, the Tank Farm Lift Station project has been
completed, which will resolve capacity issues in the wastewater collection system for the southeast
portion of the City.
The timing for continuing the Prado Road extension and interchange is still uncertain.
Because of the changing assumptions regarding construction in the Margarita Area and development
financing, staff recommended additional stakeholders' meetings to obtain information regarding
development timing before a recommendation was finalized. These meetings were intended to
capture a more complete understanding of how various options might impact the timing of the larger
developments in process (OASP, MASP and Dalidio Ranch).
Staff continued to evaluate and report on growth management during the intervening years' annual
reports, however, the urgency felt in 2006 to address the issue seemed to ebb with the economic
recession, depressed housing market, and slowed timing of the adoption of the Orcutt Area Specific
Plan resulting in staff resources being assigned to higher priority projects.
In September 2008, Council direction continued to support accommodating concurrent development
in both Margarita and Orcutt Specific Plan areas and Council directed staff to evaluate a "vesting
option" for growth management allocations so that the units would not expire at the end of the
phasing interval in the event construction had not started. Council also recommended other
alternatives such as an increased time interval for averaging the 1% growth rate, possibly 8-years
PK 6-�
Council Agenda Report
Residential Growth Management Policy update(GPI 133-09)
Page 3
instead of the current 3-years. Utilizing a series of alternatives, staff conducted stakeholder meetings
and brought forward several proposals for both stakeholder and Planning Commission consideration.
History of Residential Growth Management
The City has had some form of growth management since the 1970's. During the 70's and 80's
rapid growth and emerging planning policies coincided to create the policy basis for growth
management. The subsequent adoption of the Land Use Element (LUE) in 1994, established
specific goals and policies to guide future residential growth in the City. In order to implement
community desires to mitigate the impacts of growth in San Luis Obispo, the Council included
LUE Policy 1.10.1 which outlines the intent of growth management and illustrates the City's
desire for"gradual assimilation".
1.10.1 Overall Intent
Growth rates should provide for the balanced evolution of the community and the
gradual assimilation of new residents. Growth must be consistent with the City's
ability to provide resources and services and with State and City requirements for
protecting the environment, the economy, and open space.
While Policy 1.10.1 describes the intent, Policy 1.10.2 sets the one percent growth cap. The
policy established residential growth rates by limiting the annual increase in the number of
dwellings to one percent, averaged over a three-year period, excluding housing affordable to low,
very-low and extremely-low income households.
1.10.2 Residential Growth Rate
The City's housing supply shall grow no faster than one percent per year, averaged
over a 36-month period, excluding dwellings affordable to residents with very low or
low incomes as defined in the Housing Element. This rate of growth may continue so
long as the City's basic service capacity is assured. Table 2 shows the approximate
number of dwellings and residents which would result from the one percent maximum
average annual growth rate over the planning period.
Table 2 of the LUE demonstrates how the 1% growth rate was envisioned to accommodate
housing and population growth over the intervening years between LUE adoption in 1994 and
anticipated build-out of the land use plan. Because the City can only regulate housing, not
population growth, the implementation of the anticipated growth focuses on housing. Table 2.as
it currently exists, as established with the 1994 Land Use Element:
TABLE 2: ANTICIPATED CITY POPULATION GROWTH
Approximate anticipated
Year Maximum Number
of Dwellings Number of People.'
1992 18,200 42.800
1997 19,100 45,000
2002 20,100 47.300
2007 21,000 49,700
2012 22,200 52,200
2017 23,300 54,900
2022 24,300 57,200
Estimated urban reserve capacity- 57,700"
Includes residents of group housing.
Includes Cal Poly campus residents,who are inside the urban /I
reserve but who were outside the Citv limits in 1994. Pn 6 3
Council Agenda Report
Residential Growth Management Policy update(GPI 133-09)
Page 4
The final policy in the series is 1.10.3 which speaks to the phasing requirements of specific plan
areas and the fact that the City prefers that one specific plan be completed before another is
started. At the time the policy was developed, work had not yet been started on either specific
plan and it was envisioned that the Margarita Area Specific Plan would be well underway prior to
the start of development in the Orcutt Area Specific Plan. Since that time, each specific plan was
planned to incorporate public facilities to serve the new neighborhoods, including parks, water
and wastewater infrastructure, roads and open space dedications that are appropriate for their
respective locations and the community's unmet needs. New development each plan area must
bear major infrastructure costs and make contributions to city-wide infrastructure costs. Much of
the new infrastructure must be.constructed to serve initial development. This creates high up-
front costs to get development started. The high up-front costs have slowed initial development
in the Margarita area. As a result, the policy direction to prioritize development of one specific
plan over another may no longer be valid.
In addition to growth management tools that specifically limit development of new housing, the
City has other General Plan policies and programs along with Zoning Code regulations that serve
to meter development of housing. These policies direct the City to acquire and protect open
space, to preserve creek areas, to restrict development on slopes; to support densities that are
compatible with airport operations, density limitations, site coverage and height limits, and so on.
Therefore, as shown by the average growth rates within the City over the past 10 years(averaging
.5% or less) the potential for rapid spurts in growth are unlikely. Historically, the number of new
homes has averaged approximately 100 to 200 units per year.
The Municipal Code; Implementation of Growth Management
Residential growth management policies are implemented by the Residential Growth
Management Regulations, SLOMC 17.88 and via a phasing schedule that the City Council
adopted by resolution. The schedule implements the City's policy to substantially complete one
neighborhood before beginning another, with some overlap permitted. The phasing schedule
assumes development of the Margarita Area would have occurred between 2005 and 2016, and
the Orcutt Area between 2008 and 2019.
The phasing schedule provides for three year increments that start in 1999, when the Council
adopted the schedule.
Growth Management Phasing Schedule
Number of Dwellings Permitted a b 2002- 2022
calendar ears: 1999-2001 2002-04 2005-07 2008-10 2011-13 2014-16 2017.1-9 2020-22 Total
assumed . demolitions _-40 _ -40 -60 -75 -80 -50 -50 -50 -445
assumed new in-cit c) 290 k =0 350140 140 100 100 1 370
allowed Dalidio 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 60
allowed Irish Hills North 190 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 270
allowed Irish Hills south 53 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 123
allowed 0FCUtt 0 0 0 170 200 360 270 0 1 000
allowed trlar0arita 0 .. 0 80 368 300 120 0 0 868
assumed other annexations 5 10 5 5' 5 5 5 5 45
calculated Interval total: 496 230 375 608 625 575 325 55 3,291
average annual% change (d) 0.85 0.40 0.64 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.50 0.08 0.55 (e)
PE-46-`f
Council Agenda Report
Residential Growth Management Policy update (GPI 133-09)
Page 5
Currently, units allocated in one three-year interval are not carried over to the next three-year
interval if building permits are not issued. The dwelling units that were "lost" as the interval
changed can be added back in by the City Council in future intervals as long as doing so will not
cause the growth rate to be exceeded in any three-year interval and will not reduce allocations
assigned to other annexation areas. This has created some risk for housing developers who may
rely on funding and construction timing that does not neatly correspond to the Growth
Management schedule or situations where building permits are not ready to issue prior to
expiration of an interval. In addition the number of units allocated to a particular area in one
three-year interval may not be enough to generate the revenue needed to pay the up-front
infrastructure costs.
Experience has shown that new housing construction does not occur at a steady 1% gradual
growth rate. Housing construction typically follows market cycles and construction efficiencies
which results in some years that produce a larger number of units and other years that produce
small numbers of units. The three-year increments are shorter than the housing market
production cycles and would not allow multiple residential expansion areas to simultaneously
benefit from demand and financing available during housing production cycles.
DISCUSSION
Where are we now?
Table 2 (page 3) clearly demonstrates that development of housing in the City has not kept pace
with the expectations present when the Land Use Element was updated in 1994. As of 2009, the
City's actual unit count is approximately 20,222 residential units while based on the 1%
estimated growth in Table 2; the City could have had as many as 21,600 units, nearly a 1,400 unit
difference. In summary, the City has not kept pace with estimated growth, even though the City
has continued to plan for infrastructure and service.
Since adoption of growth management policies in 1994, both the Margarita Area and Orcutt Area
Specific Plans have been adopted. Based on the adopted phasing schedule, it was envisioned that
substantial numbers of housing units would be developed in the Margarita area by 2010 (up to
450 units), and that we would be starting housing development in the Orcutt area (170 units by
2010). Through the phasing schedule, each of these areas were to be developed consistent with
City's 1% growth rate. Based on LUE Policy 1.10.3 the major components of development
between these areas would not overlap. In large part because of the economic recession, housing
has not been built in the Margarita Area as was expected following the adoption of the specific
plan and annexation. There is now an inventory of residentially zoned land in the area, with
three major subdivisions approved in 2007. If the applicants are pro-active in seeking time
extensions, these tentative map subdivisions may be valid for several more years.
Now that we are mid-way through 2010, and no residential construction permits have been issued
in the Margarita area, and the Orcutt area still needs to"secure subdivision map approval, it is
estimated that substantial growth in either specific plan area is still several years away. This has
created concern that a separate phasing schedule and a growth management policy that doesn't
match the timing of economic trends, housing demand, or infrastructure financing would make
developing either area difficult in the future. Each specific plan includes their own phasing
PN �-s
Council Agenda Report
Residential Growth Management Policy update(GPI 133-09)
Page 6
schedule to match infrastructure financing and development.
Average Growth Rates
During the 12-year period between 2010 and 2022, the assumed residential growth anticipated by
the Margarita and Orcutt area Specific Plans, and infill development will not exceed the growth
anticipated in the General Plan Land Use Element illustrated in the existing Table 2. The
existing Table 2 illustrated that the City could have had as many as 22,200 units by 2012.
However, by the end of 2010 the actual number of units will be approximately 20,300, almost
1,600 units below what we had anticipated. The City's residential growth rate has been
significantly lower than anticipated during this decade. For example, during the 2007 through
2009 phase of the Growth Management Schedule the average annual growth rate was 0.25
percent, and in 2009, the single-year growth rate was 0.24 percent (See Table 1 below).
Furthermore, each of the specific plan areas is internally regulated to be consistent with the
City's growth management regulations. The Orcutt Area phasing schedule is consistent with the
City's 1% limit and only allows a fixed number of units per each 5-year interval. The Margarita
Area Plan does not limit numbers of housing units but instead relies on completion of
infrastructure. With complete buildout of each specific plan area and completion of anticipated
infill development the City will still be below the I%thresholds illustrated in the existing table 2.
Table 1
Year Number of Net Annual Growth Rate
units* for 1 year Averaged over 3 years
1996 93 0.49
19971 151 0.79 0.51
1998 142 0.74 0.67
1999 55 0.28 0.60
2000 59 0.30 0.44
2001 104 0.54 0.37
2002 94 0.48 0.44
2003 195 .99 0.67
2004 286 1.44 0.97
2005 58 .29 0.91
2006 30 .15 0.64
2007 120 .61 0.35
2008 29 .15 0.30
2009 481 0.33
Notes:
The total number of dwellings at the start of 1996 was 18,379.
The total number of dwellings at the end of 2008 was 20,174
.*Numbers do not include affordable units that are exempt
from growth management.
Council Agenda Report
Residential Growth Management Policy update(GPI 133-09)
Page 7
Policy Direction: Why we need to accommodate housing production
Housing Element Policy
The Housing Element establishes goals for housing production over the five year time periods
established by the State. SB 375 directs the State to coordinate preparation of the Housing
Element with the Regional Transportation Plan and to align these two planning efforts on an
eight year cycle. The City's growth management three year intervals differ from the time periods
for housing production established by the State and could limit the City's ability to achieve the
housing production targets identified in the adopted Housing Element depending on future
regional housing needs allocations approved by the state. Developing housing in the specific
plan areas is key to the City's ability to meet the housing production targets of the Housing
Element. The 2009 Housing Element quantifies new housing construction objectives for 2010
through 2014. Amendments to the growth management policy will help to meet these objectives
if they are successful in removing obstacles to constructing the initial phases in either residential
specific plan area. Policy 6.1 of the Housing Element is as follows:
6.1 Consistent with the growth management portion of its Land Use Element and the
availability of adequate resources, the City will plan to accommodate up to 1,589 dwelling
units between January 2007 and December 2014 in accordance with the assigned Regional
Housing Needs Allocation.
To help achieve the quantified objectives in Housing Element Program 6.1, amendments to the
Growth Management Ordinance are necessary to amend language that prevents the overlap of
specific plan areas and to eliminate the need for a separate phasing schedule.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendments on March 24, 2010 and May 12,
2010. The staff recommendation was developed after discussing various options at two
stakeholder meetings. The meeting invitation was extended to developers, banking
representatives, the Home Builders Association (HBA), Workforce Housing Coalition, the
Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo (HASLO), ECOSLO, Sierra Club and Residents for
Quality Neighborhoods (RQN). The stakeholder meeting was attended by the primary applicant
and engineer in the Orcutt Area Specific Plan, several owners in the Margarita Area Specific
Plan, the HBA, and two representatives from RQN..
On March 24, 2010, the staff recommendation to amend growth management included a vesting
option, however, the Planning Commission did not support the recommended changes to Land
Use Element policies due to concerns about unclear language and a desire to see the intent of the
City's gradual assimilation policy more clearly reflected in the proposal. The Planning
Commission voted to continue the item with direction to staff:
1. Continue to meter residential growth at I%per year averaged over some time period.
2. Avoid inhibiting development in specific plan areas that require large numbers of new
housing units to be built in the initial phases of development in order to pay for the large
up-front costs of extending infrastructure into the expansion areas.
3. Outline the mechanism for metering new growth.
4. Potentially, re-evaluate the program with respect to actual growth after a period of time,
POC -7—
Council Agenda Report
Residential Growth Management Policy update(GPI 133-09)
Page 8
possibly several years.
In response, staff worked with a subcommittee of two Planning Commissioners to more fully
explore this direction. As a result, the subcommittee recommended vesting growth management
allocations at the time of vesting tentative map approval and extending the phasing schedule to
reflect five year intervals or longer, with monitoring of the situation yearly in conjunction with
the Annual Report.
Staff again invited a stakeholder group comprised of developers, banking representatives, the
Home Builders Association, Workforce Housing Coalition, the Housing Authority of San Luis
Obispo (HASLO), ECOSLO, Sierra Club and Residents for Quality Neighborhood
representatives in order to get feedback to the Planning Commission sub-committee option. The
development community represented in the stakeholder group supported a temporary suspension
of the growth management provisions or an unlimited bank of units that could be pulled from at
the time development was ready.
n
Staff prepared a report to the Planning Commission which laid out several options with
information as to advantages and disadvantages. Ultimately, the Planning Commission voted to
recommend the City Council approve amendments to LUE Policy 1.10.2, 1.10.3, and
amendments to the Growth Management Ordinance (MC 17.88) to remove the requirement for a
separate phasing schedule (Attachments 1-3). The amendments to Policy 1.10.2 were the focus
of the discussion since this is the policy that sets the 1% growth rate. Recommended changes will
remove the language that averages growth over a 3-year period, instead allowing growth to be
regulated by a revised Land Use Element Table 2, allowing averaging over a 5-year period.
Details of the amendments are discussed on page 9.
Staff's presentation to the Commission included two options for modifying LUE Table 2. Option
1 was to reset LUE Table 2 to start with actual dwelling and population numbers from 2009,
projecting a 1% growth rate forward in 5-year increments. Since Table 2 becomes the regulator
of growth in each 5-year interval, if one 5 year interval did not see an average of 1% growth, any
leftover dwelling units could be used in the next interval, thus allowing a "bank" of units to
potentially build. The Commission's vote was 5-2, with dissenting Commissioners disagreeing
on how Table 2 should be treated in the future, not disagreeing with the overall intent of the
policy change. The dissenting commissioners felt that this bank could eventually grow to the
point to allow a larger growth spurt which would be inconsistent with the City's gradual
assimilation policy.
Option 2 to this alternative also included an update to Table 2 to.start in 2009 as shown above;
however option 2 included a requirement to reset Table 2 every five years to reflect the new
starting point for the subsequent five years of growth at 1%, thereby erasing any potential bank.
During the hearing, all of the public testimony was supportive of Option 1 (not resetting Table
2). Although staff included representatives of the environmental community and-neighborhood
groups in the public outreach, public testimony appeared to be primarily from those associated
with the development community including financial institutions, land owners, and private
planning and engineering firms. Public testimony on this issue stressed the importance of giving
additional confidence to lenders that construction entitlements wouldn't be restricted by the
ordinance, should larger numbers of residential units need to be financed in the early stages of a
pk-6 -R-
j
Council Agenda Report
Residential Growth Management Policy update(GPI 133-09)
Page 9
large residential project. Resetting Table 2 in 2014 could result in the elimination of unused
housing unit allocations at a time when the housing market might be on the upswing.
Commissioners that supported option 1 felt confident that Council's annual review of housing
growth with the General Plan Annual Report in addition to limits established by Table 2 will be
enough to ensure consistency with the City's gradual assimilation policy and allow for
modifications should housing development occur in greater numbers than is comfortable for the
community.
Proposed Changes
The recommended change to LUE Policy 1.10.2 allows Table 2 to become the guide for
residential growth, allowing a I% growth rate, averaged over a 5-year period. This change would
allow a better match of housing development to the installation timing of required infrastructure
improvements, coinciding with improved economic conditions anticipated to begin in 2012.
New language is also added to support the annual review of residential growth that normally
occurs in conjunction with the General Plan annual report. The annual review will allow the
Council to monitor the actual growth rate to ensure consistency with the gradual assimilation
intent expressed in Policy 1.10..1.
Proposed Changes to Policy 1.10.2
1.10.2 Residential Growth Rate
The City's housing supply shall grow no faster than one percent per year, on
average, based on thresholds established by LUE Table 2, ayer&ge 36-
eientlrperied, excluding dwellings affordable to residents with extremely low, very
low or low incomes as defined in the Housing Element. This rate of growth may
continue so long as the City's basic service capacity is assured. Table 2 shows the
approximate number of dwellings and residents which would result from the one
percent maximum average annual growth rate over the planning period. Approved
specific plan areas may develop in accordance with.the phasing.schedule adopted
by each spec f c plan provided thresholds established by Table 2 are not exceeded.
The City Council shall review the rate of zrowth on an annual basis in
coniunction with the General Plan .annual report to ensure consistency with the
City's -radual assimilation policy.
Proposed amendments to LUE Table 2
Land Use Element Table 2 is based on an anticipated 1%growth rate. The table is not intended to
provide a growth estimate, but rather a maximum growth limit at certain points in time for
purposes of setting sustainable growth limits, and infrastructure planning consistent with Policy
1.10.1. Since more current data is available than the data used to create the existing Table 2, an
update to the.table is needed to reflect a more accurate starting point for growth projections. The
starting point for the table is based on the existing population and dwelling unit.count from 2009,
projecting a 1% rate of growth per year, shown in five year increments. As recommended by the
Planning Commission and stakeholder group, the dwelling estimates shown in each 5-year
interval in Table 2 would become the thresholds for maintaining a 1% growth cap. However,
since the table would not be reset at each 5-year interval, it is possible that unbuilt units could be
I-NO _q
Council Agenda Report
Residential Growth Management Policy update(GPI 133-09)
Page 10
carried forward to a subsequent interval, allowing for market demand to dictate when the peaks
in residential development should occur, with the long term growth staying within 1% averaged
over time.
Each 5-year interval would allow for approximately 1,100 dwelling units to be constructed. This
number increases for each.5 year interval as the 1% threshold is based on the total number of
existing units. This number of units should provide the flexibility for simultaneous;development
of both the Margarita area and Orcutt area, while also providing for infill development. For
example, if the Margarita area were to request.300 development permits between 2012 and 2013,
and the Orcutt area requests 300 permits between 2013 and 2014, while each year infill
development totals approximately 80 units, we would still be within the thresholds of Table 2
allowing Orcutt, Margarita.and infill to continue as the interval shifts forward in 2014. Although
market cycles typically run in cycles that exceed 5 years, extending the cycle to 8 years to more
closely match the market cycle may not'be necessary since units not developed during slower
intervals can be added to later intervals. A longer interval, such as 8-years, would allow up to
1700 units to be developed in one interval which would potentially allow spikes in growth to be
inconsistent with the City's gradual assimilation policy.
Approximate Anticipated
Year Maximum Number Number of People
of Dwellings Based on 2.3 persons
____ per dwelling
2009 20,222' 44,521
2014 21,253 48,881
2019 22,337 51,375
2024 23,477 53,997
2029 24,674 56,750
*Actual Number from 2009 Housing Element, remaining
#'s based on 1%annual growth maximum.
'*
Dwelling count of 24,300 would be reached in 2028.
Proposed amendments to Policy 1.10.3
1.10.3 Phasing Residential Expansions
"Before a residential expansion area is developed, the City must have adopted a
specific plan for it. Such plans for residential expansion projects will provide for
phased development, consistent with the population growth outlined in Table 2, and
taking into account expected infill residential development
Bnn#s.
„rte„a, aL- Fesidents i fnederate ineemes weu>a be
PN-6 -la
Council Agenda Report
Residential Growth Management Policy update(GPI 133-09) -J
Page 11
Ae anti.fated€oervalB i—the maY amas' development are.-fir
area-i-99 26,03, area, 2004 2019; M rd ar-ea, 20112017.2
The recommended amendments are consistent with the City's gradual assimilation policy. The
City's 1% growth limit will be-retained; however the amendments will result in more felxibility
on the exact timing of residential development within each specific plan area. This allows
property owners, developers and lenders to be more responsive to the 'specific plan's own
phasing, the market's demand, and available financing.
The intent of the amendment to Policy 1.10.3 is to remove language that creates a "beauty
contest"between development areas and to allow approved specific plan areas to be regulated by
the carefully planned components inherent to each plan. Since each specific plan area is designed
to accommodate the maximum number of housing units allowed under Airport Land Use Plan
along with infrastructure improvements, open space, and affordable housing units. Because there
is no way to accurately predict five year housing market activity, some overlapping development
in the residential specific plan areas may be the only way for more housing to be produced in the
City.
Proposed Municipal Code amendments
The proposed amendments to MC 17.88 remove the language that references the requirements
and administration of a separate phasing schedule, consistent with the proposed changes to LUE
1.10.3. Instead, MC 17.88 will require each specific plan to adopt a comprehensive phasing
schedule, consistent with the City's Growth Management Policies. Since the policy amendments
are designed to remove the uncertainty and competition for building allocations that exist within
the current policy, the need for closely regulating and administering allocations every three years
will be replaced with an annual review as part of the General Plan Annual Report. The complete
text of these amendments can be found in the attached draft Ordinance(Attachment 8).
Other Obstacles to Housing Production
The proposed growth management policy update may contribute to a sense of assurance for
future housing development in the specific plan areas, however additional financing options may
be needed in the Margarita Area Specific Plan in order to facilitate the envisioned residential
development. While the phasing schedule in the Orcutt Area stages the required infrastructure
improvements to correspond to timing of fee collection so that fees are available to cover those
infrastructure costs (thus avoiding the potential that financing gaps will occur that would require
costly financing scenarios or formation of a financing district), the phasing of infrastructure in
the Margarita Area was developed in a different manner..
In the Margarita Specific Plan, the infrastructure requirements associated with the first residential
projects involve costs that exceed the available fees collected at the point the infrastructure must
be constructed. Construction of Prado Road requires financing early on in the development of the
specific plan before fees to reimburse this cost are available. In addition to the regional slump in
housing demand and financing, the owners in the area have indicated that this is one of the most
P14 6 -/l
Council Agenda Report
Residential Growth Management Policy update (GPI 133-09) J
Page 12
significant factors that has delayed the commencement of housing projects in the Margarita Area.
Testimony offered at the Planning Commission also expressed concern with timing of
infrastructure requirements and the inability to attain financing for these types of improvements.
The Workforce Housing Coalition (WHC) prepared a letter that specifically identifies this
financing problem (Attachment 5) as a barrier to housing production.
Based on direction from Council on this matter, staff will be returning to Planning Commission
and City Council with a recommendation to develop options for the facilities financing and
infrastructure phasing in the Margarita Area to address this concern.
CONCURRENCES
The project proposal was routed to various City departments, including Public Works and
Utilities and comments received have been incorporated into the staff recommendation. The
Utilities Department concurs with the proposed change to the policy and has determined that the
changes will not alter the timing of the City's planned upgrades to the wastewater treatment
plant. The Utilities Department utilizes past growth trends to plan upgrades to City facilities.
Currently, the wastewater treatment plant is scheduled to reach capacity in approximately 5 years.
However, based on recent slowdowns in residential growth and increased water conservation
efforts, upgrades to water and wastewater treatment facilities may be postponed. The Utilities
Department is currently planning infrastructure improvements to accommodate General Plan
supported residential growth and the accompanying wastewater discharge increases. Since
amendments to the proposed growth management policy will not alter the basis for future
infrastructure improvements, no impacts are anticipated to occur to the City's ability to
accommodate these future improvements in a timely fashion.
In addition to interdepartmental referrals, the City has invited the public to provide input on the
proposed amendments. Interested parties of the development community, including the
Homebuilder's Association, the Chamber of Commerce, Residents for Quality Neighborhoods
(RQN), Sierra Club, ECOSLO and many others were invited to two interactive sessions to gather .
feedback on proposed amendments. The amendment was also presented to the Chamber of
Commerce. At these meetings, the general consensus expressed was that the City should consider
amendments to the growth management regulations as a potential stimulus towards future
housing development. Representatives from the development community expressed the need to
see this change in addition to other potential development incentives in light of the current
economy.
Members of RQN expressed the desire to see the city's gradual assimilation policy maintained
and expressed concern that peaks of housing production could create alarm that the City was not
maintaining an average growth rate. However, the members in attendance at the stakeholder
meetings did not offer alternative proposals.
FISCAL IMPACT
No direct significant fiscal impacts are likely to result from the proposed changes since the
development of the expansion areas has already been approved and carefully analyzed in terms of
potential fiscal impacts. Development of the land uses envisioned in the General Plan Land Use
Council Agenda Report
Residential Growth Management Policy update(GPI 133-09)
Page 13
Element was found to be fiscally balanced. There are no changes to land uses proposed as part of
these amendments.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The City Council should refer to the attached Planning Commission staff report from
May 12`h (Attachment 3)which examines a series of alternatives in detail.
2. The Council may wish to consider the option discussed at the Planning Commission
(option 2) that includes resetting Table every 5 years, thereby eliminating the potential
bank of units that may not have been constructed. As noted in the report, the stakeholder
group did not prefer this option.
3. The Council may wish to consider alternative time intervals for averaging 1% growth
based economic cycles. The recommendation recommends a 5 year interval, however
economic cycles may have even greater time spans.
4. Any alternative to be considered should balance the City's growth restrictions with the
anticipated length of time it will take for the recession to ease and housing production to
continue. The downturn in the housing production market has exceeded the City's growth
management phasing schedule and it is difficult to determine the amount of overlap that
may occur in development of the Margarita and Orcutt Specific Plan areas in the future.
5. The Council may continue review of the proposed changes, if more information is
needed. Specific direction should be given to staff.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1. Planning Commission meeting minutes March 24, 2010
Attachment 2. Planning Commission meeting minutes May 12, 2010
Attachment 3. Planning Commission staff report May 12, 2010
Attachment 4. Letter from Workforce Housing Coalition
Attachment 5. Letter from Mid-State Properties, LLC
Attachment 6. Initial Study of Environmental review
Attachment 7. Council Resolution to amend GP Policies
Attachment 8. Draft Ordinance to amend MC 17.88
G:\CD-PLAN\Pdunsmore\LR\Growth Mgmt\133-09 CC rpt 6-15-10Q.doc
L3
Attachment 1
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 24, 2010
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Michael Boswell, Michael Draze, Eric Meyer, Airlin
Singewald, Vice-Chairperson . Michael Multad, and Chairperson
Charles Stevenson
Absent: Commissioner Mary Whittlesey
Staff: Community Development Director John Mandeville, Deputy
Community Development Directors Doug Davidson and Kim Murry,
Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore, Utilities Conservation Manager Ron
Munds, and Recording Secretary Janet Miller
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented.
MINUTES: Minutes of September 23, 2009, were approved as amended.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 355 Mira Sol rive. AP-PC 132-09: Appeal of the I learing Officer's decision
denying a setbz ck exception for a 9-foot and 6-inches tall pergola in the street
yard; R-1 zone; Marilyn Kinsey, appellant. (To be cor tinued to June 9, 2090)
(James David)
Doug Davidson, Depi ity Director, recommended the item be ntinued to a date certain:
June 9, 2010.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments from the p lic..
COMMISSION COM ENTS: There were no comments from he Commission.
On a motion by Comr. Draze, seconded by Vice-Chair Mult d, to continue the item to
a date certain of Jun 9, 2010.
AYES: Comm . Boswell, Draze, Meyer, Singewald, M Itari, and Stevenson
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commr. hittlesey
The motion passed on a 6:0 vote.
V
Planning Commission Minutes 1 Attachment 1
March 24, 2010
Page 3
The ion ss on
3. City-Wide. GPA 133-09: Update to the Growth Management Policy; City of San
Luis Obispo — Community Development Department, applicant. (Continued from
March 10, 2010, meeting) (Phil Dunsmore)
Phil Dunsmore, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending the
Planning Commission adopt a resolution, recommending the City Council adopt a
Negative Declaration (ER 133-09) and amend the residential growth management
policy of the General Plan (LUE Policy 1.10.2 and 1.10.3) with amendments to Table 2
of the Land Use Element, based on findings which he outlined.
Vice-Chair Multari asked how the recommended policy language in 1.:10.2 and the
adopted phasing schedule would address un-built units. Staff discussed the language
of 1.10.2 and the intended implementation.
Commr. Meyer requested clarification of language and phasing referring to proposed
language, "un-built units will be added to the housing allowed in the subsequent 36
month period."
John Mandeville, Community Development Director, discussed the phasing schedule
and the method for averaging as the basis for language in 1.10.2.
Commr. Draze questioned whether the proposed language resulted in a 72-month
interval rather than a 36-month period. Staff replied that it was not,and explained the
continuous rollover option.
Commr. Boswell suggested language be reviewed to consider "grow no faster than 1%
per year"which would be subservient to the controlling language of Table 2.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
John Evans, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the owner, applicants, and
developers of the Orcutt Area development. Mr. Evans noted concern that future
housing projects in the Orcutt Area not be constrained by the Growth Management
schedule. He discussed issues for developers concerning financing of infrastructure
and ability to support loan repayments. He recommended using a bank of unused
allocations that could be made available to the specific plan areas.
Mr. Mandeville provided information on the phasing schedule and information related to
how an allocation becomes vested by issuance of a building permit under the current
application of requirements
Jeanne Helphenstine, representing the Righetti Property, spoke in support of flexibility
in requirements so that neither the Orcutt Area nor the Margarita Area would be
precluded from developing.
There were no further comments from the public.
A
PMarch 24, 2010 lanning Commission Minutes Attachment
I
Page 4
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Draze noted the long-term, state-wide trend of fewer persons per household
and how, even with housing construction, the City experiences a more gradual increase
in population. He supported flexibility for phasing in the development schedule. He
suggested using a percentage of banked allotments for use in the specific plan areas or
a longer interval in which the 1% average growth is measured.
Vice-Chair Multari noted concern for the proposed focus on developer.flexibility during a
difficult economy when the City has a history of gradual growth at a metered rate. He
suggested changing the schedule to begin now. Vice-Chair Multari supported
maintaining a staggered schedule for the specific plans rather than allowing use of
banked units or a provision that vests units so that they do not expire.
Commr. Draze suggested expanding Table 2 and increasing the interval to 1% growth
averaged over a 72-month/6-year period. He recommended that the growth
management table be amended to address only the two speck plan areas and
consider securing allocations by approval of a tentative map versus needing to obtain a
building permit.
Commr. Boswell noted that it is important to provide developers in the speck plan
areas with some certainty. He expressed concern that if allocations are tied to approval
of a tentative map, there needs to be some mechanism in place to recapture the
allocation for use elsewhere in the event development of that map does not occur.
Commr. Boswell suggested that the current phasing plan should be extended to reflect
a longer time period based on the units that have yet to be built and that adjustments to
Table 2 be made.
Vice-Chair Multari suggested that specific plans could be amended to provide a different
growth rate-than that addressed under the City's growth management ordinance. He
also indicated that the City should retain some ability to meter growth.
Chairperson Stevenson noted that the detailed planning for infrastructure and the
increased costs associated with specific plans argue for their exemption from the growth
management ordinance. He supported using the threshold of tentative map approval as
a method for securing allocations in order to address developer financing concerns.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
On motion by Vice-Chair Multari, seconded by Commr. Boswell, to continue the item to
the Planning Commission meeting on April 28. 2010, with direction to staff to: 11
Develop recommendations that address.meteringof growth at a I% average over-some
period of time: 2) Address concern that the growth management ordinance does not
unreasonably inhibit growth in the specific plan areas: 3) Outline a mechanism for
metering growth — through building permits or tentative map approval or other option;
and 4) Be willing to consider an option that requires the schedule to bere-considered by
Planning Commission and/or Council in several years.
Planning Commission Minutes Attachment 1March 24, 2010 1
Page 5
AYES: Commrs. Boswell, Draze, Meyer, Singewald, Multari, and Stevenson
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commr. Whittlesey
The motion passed on a 6:0 vote.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
4. Staff
a. Agenda Forecast— Staff provided an agenda forecast for the April 14th and 28th
meetings.
5. Commission — No comments.
ADJOURMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Janet Miller
Recording Secretary
Approved by the Planning Commission on April 14, 2010
r',1 n
Ryan Kr etz
Supervising Administrati sistant
SAN LUIS OBISPO
Attachment 2
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
May 12, 2010
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Michael Boswell, Michael Draze, Eric Meyer, Airlin
Singewald, Charles Stevenson, Vice-Chairperson Mary Whittlesey,
and Chairperson Michael Multari
Absent: None
Staff: Deputy Community Development Director Kim Murry, Associate
Planner Phil Dunsmore, Natural Resources Manager Neil Havlik,
Transportation Operations Manager Jake Hudson, and Recording
Secretary Janet Miller
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented.
MINUTES: Minutes of April 28, 2010, were continued to the next meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS: There were no comments.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 12165 Los Osos Valley Road. GPS 34-10: Acquisition o a portion of the Froom
Ranch for pen Space; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. (Neil Havlik)
Neil Havlik, Natu al Resources Manager, presented the staff re ort, recommending the
Planning Commi sion determine, and report to the City Cou cil, that the proposed
property acquisiti n conforms with the General Plan.
PUBLIC COMME TS: There were no comments made from thepublic.
COMMISSION CO MENTS:
The Commission mmended the work Mr. Havlik has done o implement the City's
greenbelt program.
There were no furth r comments made from the Commission.
On motion by Com r. Meyer, seconded by Commr. Boswell the Commission does
determine and re rt to the City Council that the ro os d Droperty acquisition
conforms with the G neral Plan.
AYES: Commr . Boswell, Draze, Meyer, Singewald, Stev nson, Whittlesey, and
Multari
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: None ��(6 4
Planning Commission Minutes_"
Attachment 2
May 12, 2010
Page 3
sooner rather than Iter— through the Circulation Element upd e if this will occur in the
near future.
Commr. Draze voi ed concern for the timeline of the pr jects discussed in the
presentation and recommended the plan line be established th ough the Land Use and
Circulation Elements update.
There were no furthE r comments made from the Commission.
NO ACTION WAS I REQUIRED BY COMMISSION AND S AFF WILL FORWARD
COMMISSION COMMENTS TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
3. City-wide. GPA 133-09: Update to the Growth Management Policy; City of San
Luis Obispo — Community Development. Dept., applicant. (Continued from April
28, 2010)
Phil Dunsmore Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending adoption
of the attached resolution which recommends that the City Council adopt a Negative
Declaration (ER 133-09) and amend the residential growth management policy of the
General Plan and Growth Management Regulations of the Municipal Code consistent
with alternative 2 (LUE Policies 1.10.2, 1.10.3, Table 2 and MC 17.88, based on
findings and subject to conditions which he outlined.
Chairperson Multari requested information on options 1 and 2 in the year 2014. Mr.
Dunsmore provided clarification on options in 2014.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Lenny Grant, Pismo Beach, indicated that future growth will be more limited by the lack
of good paying jobs. He encouraged production of workforce housing and flexibility in
the process. Mr. Grant supported Option 2 without the alternative to reset Table 2 of
the Land Use Element every five years.
Clay Appleton, San Luis Obispo banking industry, supports alternative 2, option 1 with
no reset to Table 2. Mr. Appleton indicated that a developer needs a long term
commitment for the housing allocations in order to get financing.
Jim Smith, San Luis Obispo, supports alternative 2, option 1 with no reset of Table 2 in
order to secure enough dwelling units to help pay for infrastructure costs.
Steve Delmartini, San Luis Obispo Workforce Housing Coalition, supports the Staff
recommendation and allowing each specific plan to develop according to their internal
schedule rather than staggering phasing of specific plan areas. He also noted that the
City should consider other fee alternatives and infrastructure costs for major
improvements such as Prado Road.
P� b-
Planning Commission Minutes�`� ' 2
May 12, 2010 -Attachment
Page 4
Alan Volbrecht, County Builders' Exchange, supports alternative 2, option 1 with no
reset of Table 2 at five year intervals. He indicated that this provides additional certainty
for funding while maintaining metered growth.
John Evans, San Luis Obispo, thanked staff for stakeholder inclusion in process. Mr.
Evans supported flexibility and certainty for builders and banking institutions. Mr. Evans
supports alternative 2, option 1 with no reset.
Travis Fuentez, County Resident, supported flexibility and certainty for builders and
banking institutions. Mr. Fuentez supports alternative 2, option 1 with no reset of Table
2. He suggested that if the Commission wants to reset Table 2 at certain intervals,
lengthen the interval to 7-10 years to reflect the building cycle.
Jeanne Helphenstine, San Luis Obispo, supported flexibility and certainty for builders
and banking institutions. Ms. Helphenstine supports alternative 2, option 1 with no reset
to Table 2. She indicated that the specific plans need this flexibility to accumulate
building permits to ensure infrastructure costs can be covered.
Jon Goetz, San Luis Obispo, supported flexibility and certainty for builders and banking
institutions. Mr. Goetz supports alternative 2, option 1 with no reset. Mr. Goetz
indicated that the amendment was an effort to understand economic realities while
maintaining the community value of metered growth.
Robert Dowds, San Luis Obispo, supported alternative 2, option 1 with no reset.
Richard De Blauw, Margarita Area Specific Plan owner, supported alternative 2, option
1 with no reset. He indicated that home builders need City support to make building
permits available for approved maps.
There were no further comments made.from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Meyer supports alternative 2, option 1 proposed by staff. He indicated that first
time homebuyer units are needed and the approved specific plan areas will supply this
housing.
Commr. Draze supports certainty and flexibility which backs the 1% growth goal. He
expressed concern about lumpiness of development that could occur in some years, but
doesn't support reset of Table 2 of the Land Use Element every five years
Commr. Singewald indicated that good land use policies have been effective in
preventing surges in population growth and that the Growth Management provisions
have functioned as a sort of"circuit breaker". Commr. Singewald supports alternative 2,
option 1 as presented by staff.
Planning Commission Minutes � Attachment 2May 12, 2010
Page 5
Commr. Boswell supports alternative 2, option 1, as presented by staff as an interim
solution. He indicated that the City should review flexibility and certainty through the
land use element update and hoped that this effort would be starting soon.
Chairman Multari does not support option 1. Chairperson Multari notes that affordable
housing is exempt and therefore could be developed at any time. Chairperson Multari
noted that bankers and developers have been driving this effort and wondered if the
community at-large would support option 2. Regarding fiscal 'impacts, he said that,
since housing does not pay its own way for services, the City may not want to
encourage more rapid housing development given its dire fiscal circumstances. He
further indicated that the recession shouldn't drive these changes in policy and that, if
housing is wanted by the community, we should be asking the community to assist with
the infrastructure costs. Chairman Multari indicated he is an advocate for housing and
would support option 2 with a reset at five-year intervals.
Commr. Whittlesey does not.support the plan. She does not believe the "five-year" time
limit supports the general plan.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
On motion by Cornmr. Draze, No Second, Commr. Draze made a motion to support
recommended changes but base the growth rate on an amended Table 2 which would
show 1% growth as yearly numbers and begin the Table in 2005.
Motion died for lack of a second.
On motion by Commr. Draze, seconded by Commr. Stevenson..the motion was made to
support the staff recommendation to adopt.a resolution recommending the City Council
adopt a .Negative Declaration (ER 133-09) and amend the residential growth
management policy of the General Plan and Growth Management Regulations of the
Municipal Code consistent with Alternative 2. Option 1Code consistent with Alternative 2. Option 1.
AYES: Commrs. Boswell, Draze, Meyer, Singewald, and Stevenson
NOES: Commrs. Whittlesey and Multari
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: None
The motion passed on a 5:2 vote.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
4. Staff
a. Agenda Forecast — Staff provided a forecast of the May 26th and June gth
Planning Commission meetings.
5. Commission — None.
Ni6 fa-I
Planning Commission Minutes
Attachment 2
May 12, 2010
Page 6
ADJOURMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Janet Miller
Recording Secretary
Approved by the Planning Commission on May 26, 2010.
—&Jt� " —
Ryan Nffetz
Supe sing Administrative As ist t
0H "�-
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
Attachment
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM#3
BY: Philip Dunsmore, Associate Planner(781-7522)�y DATE: May 12th, 2010
FROM: Kim Murry, Deputy Director of Community Development W
FILE NUMBER: GPA 133-09 Residential Growth Management Policy Update
PROJECT ADDRESS: Citywide
SUBJECT: Continued review of amendments to the City's residential growth management
policies.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the attached resolution which recommends that the City Council adopt a Negative
Declaration (ER 133-09) and amend the residential growth management policy of the General
Plan and Growth Management Regulations of the Municipal Code consistent with alternative 2
(LUE Policies 1.10.2, 1.10.3, Table 2 and MC 17.88).
DISCUSSION
Previous Review
The Planning Commission reviewed staff's proposal to amend Land Use Element Policy 1.10.2
on March 24, 2010 (Attachments 1 and 2). The staff report prepared for that hearing includesan
in-depth General Plan discussion and an introduction to the issue while this report focuses on the
analysis of specific alternatives. Staff's original recommendation proposed modifying the City's
residential growth management policy to allow unused dwelling unit allocations from one
interval to roll forward into the subsequent 3-year phasing interval. Citing the need for a more
simple policy revision, the desire to not stymie housing development and the need to respect the
intent of the 1% growth cap, the Commission discussed several scenarios before concluding that
a more comprehensive amendment to the growth management policies, phasing schedule and
municipal code may be needed. Rather than provide staff with specific language for policy
revisions, the Commission unanimously voted to continue the item with the following direction
to staff:
1. Continue to meter residential growth at 1%per year over some time period.
2. Avoid inhibiting development in specific plan areas that require large numbers of new
housing units to be built in the initial phases of development in order to pay for the large
up-front costs of extending infrastructure into the expansion areas.
3. Outline the mechanism for metering new growth.
4. Potentially, re-evaluate the program with respect to actual growth after a period, possibly
several years.
Staff invited members of the Commission to form a subcommittee in order to further clarify
Planning Commission direction, and on April 5th, staff met with Commissioners Draze and
Stevenson to develop specific recommendations for amending the growth management policies
in a manner consistent with City Council direction. This discussion resulted in a recommendation
PP � -a3
GPA, ER 133-09 Attachment 3
Growth Management Policy Amendment
Page 2
to extend the time period in which growth is averaged from the current policy of three years to
five years and to issue allocations at time of tentative parcel map.
Since staff had previously met with a stakeholder group to develop the recommendation
considered at the Planning Commission hearing, a subsequent meeting with the same focus group
was arranged to review the details of various growth management amendment options. Utilizing
the subcommittee's recommendation and feedback gathered at a previous public informational
meeting, staff drafted a series of alternatives for consideration. These alternatives were presented
to the group of stakeholders at a public informational meeting on April 14th. Representatives
from the development community, neighborhood groups, the environmental community, and
lending institutions were invited to the meeting. Approximately 15 people representing a variety
of interests contributed to the meeting where each alternative was discussed and analyzed. In
summary, the development and financial stakeholders in the group supported the City's efforts to
amend the regulations and stressed the importance of developing a system that adds certainty to
the process so that housing developers have a better chance of securing financing. At the same
time, the neighborhood group representatives expressed support for developing a system that will
maintain the intent of the City's policy for metered growth. All attendees seemed to share the
outlook that the City will not experience rapid residential development given the current
economic conditions regardless of the City's policies and regulations.
In summary, the group disagreed with modifying the Municipal Code to issue residential
allocations at time of tentative parcel map. Attendees expressed that tying growth to tentative
map approvals might lead to a situation where a developer could potentially tie up allocations
and prevent other developers who might be ready to build from being able to secure allocations.
Also expressed was the thought that this approach might create a more complex process that
would create less certainty rather than more. There appeared to be general support for the idea of
utilizing a longer growth interval and/or utilizing a bank of unused housing units, possibly
looking back several years and ultimately maintaining a I% growth limit over the long term with
rates updated in Land Use Element Table 2.
Implementation Alternatives
Based on City Council direction, Planning Commission direction and discussion from the
subcommittee and public informational meetings, staff has analyzed the following four
alternatives for the Planning Commission to consider.1 One or a combination of these alternatives
could be further detailed in order to craft a recommendation to the City Council. Common to all
of the alternatives, amendments would be made to LUE Policy 1.10.3 to delete outdated language
in paragraph 2 that discourages the overlap of development of specific plan areas, and Table 2
would be updated to reflect current housing and population data for a starting year of 2009.
Alternative 1: (PC Subcommittee recommendation): Vest allocations with tentative subdivision
map approval. Modify the growth management phasing schedule to reflect 60 month intervals.
Reset five year intervals every year with consideration of General Plan Annual Report, based on
number of allocations issued. Table 2—update for 5 year intervals.
Changes required: PN 6—oAY
GPA, ER 133-09 ~- J
Attachment 3
Growth Management Policy Amendment
Page 3
1. Update 17.88.020 C to change implementation from building permits to tentative map
approval.
2. Change LUE Policy 1.10.2 to reflect 60 month interval.
3. Modify Table 2 to show population estimate starting in 2011 and reflect 60 month
intervals.
4. Develop system to track tentative map allocations and expire the allocation reservation
for subdivisions that do not result in building permits within established timeframe.
Pros: Vesting of allocations with tentative map may provide increased certainty for developers
as they assemble financing for projects.
Cons: Changes require developing a system to track approved but not yet recorded subdivision
maps and associated allocations. More complex system to implement may pose resource
challenges during time of diminishing staff and monetary resources and uncertainty related to
transition to new permit tracking system (FoxPro replacement). The life of an allocation
associated with a tentative map may not correspond to growth interval because tentative maps
can remain valid for up to 12 years. Several subdivisions could be constructed at the same time,
creating an impression of significant growth. Changes may result in competing requests for
allocations between subdivisions that have tentative approval., subdivisions that are recorded and
are ready for building permit issuance, phased maps, and housing projects that are not associated
with subdivisions (i.e. apartment projects).
Alternative 2: Repeal the existing phasing schedule, monitor residential growth through the
yearly General Plan Annual report and modify Land Use Element Policy 1.10.2 to delete 3 year
averaging. Instead, all residential growth would be regulated by an updated Table 2. The
thresholds established by Table 2 (which shows five year intervals) would set the 1% growth
rate. Certain years would be able to exceed 1% growth rate when previous years saw less than
1% growth, however the total number of new dwellings shown in Table 2 for the five year period
could not be exceeded.
Changes required:
1. Resolution to delete growth management phasing schedule.
2. Zoning Code 17.88.20A amendments to delete or modify requirement to assign
allocations to each specific plan area.
3. Amendment to Policy 1.10.2 to read: The City's housing supply shall grow no faster than
one percent per year on average, based on thresholds established by LUE Table 2.
4. Update Table 2 to reflect actual dwelling unit numbers starting at 2009.
5. (Optional) Table 2 would need to be updated every five years to reset 1% growth for
subsequent five year interval. If Table 2 is not updated every 5 years, a potential "bank"
of dwelling units may continue to grow with each 5 year interval. This "bank" is the
preferred option of the stakeholder group. Initially, Table 2 would be set with a dwelling
count that reflects 2009 levels. Due to below average residential growth in 2009 (and
possibly 2010) this will start the table with a"bank" of approximately 200 to 300 units.
Pros: Simple approach with no changes to the policy language that supports gradual
assimilation. Intent of 1% growth is maintained through yearly monitoring and comparison to
growth envisioned by Table 2 (which will show updated 1% growth figures). Annual report can
include evaluation of approved subdivisions as well as report on issued building permits to
estimate anticipated growth rate within the Table 2 intervals. PH 'a-S
GPA, ER 133-09
Attachment 3
Growth Management Policy Amendment
Page 4
Cons: Lack of assigned allocations to each specific plan area may result in one specific plan
using more allocations than anticipated thereby reducing allocations available for the other
specific plan.
Alternative 3: Revise growth management interval schedule to reflect longer intervals: 60
months or 72 months.
Changes required:
1. Amend LUE Policy 1.10.2 to modify 36 month reference to longer interval.
2. Update growth management interval schedule to reflect new start date and extended
interval length.
3. Update Table 2 to reflect actual dwelling unit numbers starting at 2009.
Pros: Allows extended time for allocations to remain active and may better correspond to
market cycles for growth.
Cons: May not address concerns related to expiration of allocations and uncertainty this creates
in the process. Allocations would expire with each phase and interval as it currently does.
Current information from financial institutions indicates that uncertainty can affect financing for
projects. If early years of the schedule exceed 1% growth, later years will be limited to less than
1%growth.
Alternative 4: Suspend Growth Management implementation for period of time.
Changes required: Adoption of interim ordinance to suspend growth management for a
specified time period.
Pros: Would remove a potential constraint to residential development lending. Potentially
reduces competition for allocations between specific plan areas if there are no growth limitations.
Simultaneous development in specific plan areas could create a competitive sales environment
that could moderate housing costs.
Cons: This alternative conflicts with General Plan policy and would require amendments to
policy to acknowledge need for suspension. Furthermore, it does not respond to community value
of metered absorption of new housing if new housing construction occurs simultaneously in
specific plan areas. Since the Orcutt area has not yet been annexed or subdivided, this approach
could have disproportionate benefits to the Margarita Area depending on time period of
suspension. If rapid growth occurs, it may pose challenges to timing of upgrades to the City's
wastewater treatment plant. Changes to the policies, ordinance, and interval table will still be
required at the point that the suspension ends.
Recommendation
Alternative 2 closely follows Planning Commission and City Council direction and satisfies the
needs of the stakeholders while respecting the intent of the City's 1% growth limitations. This
alternative maintains the existing LUE Policy 1.10.1 but eliminates the Citywide adopted phasing
schedule and allows each specific plan area to develop in accordance with planned phasing
schedules internal to each specific plan. LUE Policy 1.10.2 would be amended to allow specific
plan areas to be regulated by the thresholds established in LUE Table 2 instead of the 1%
limitation averaged over 3 years. Land Use Element Table 2 would be updated to start at 2009.
P144 a�
GPA, ER 133-09
Growth Management Policy Amendment
Attachment
Page 5
LUE 1.10.3 would be amended to eliminate outdated language in paragraph 2. The draft
language of this amendment is as follows:
1.10.2 Residential Growth Rate
The City's housing supply shall grow no faster than one percent per year, on average, based on
thresholds established by LUE Table 2, excluding dwellings
affordable to residents with very low or low incomes as defined in the Housing Element. This
rate of growth may continue so long as the City's basic service capacity is assured. Table 2
shows the approximate number of dwellings and residents which would result from the one
percent maximum average annual growth rate over the planning period. Approved specific plan
areas may develop in accordance with the phasing schedule adopted by each speck plan
provided thresholds established by Table 2 are not exceeded. The City Council shall review the
rate of growth on an annual basis in conjunction with the General Plan annual report to ensure
consistency with the City's gradual assimilation policy.
Approximate Anticipated
Year Maximum Number Number of People
of Dwellings Based on 2.3 persons
per dwelling
2009 20,222* 44,521*
2014 21,466 49,371
2019 22,561 51,890
2024 23,711 54,535
2029 24,921 57,318
*Actual Number from 2009 Housing Element, remaining
#'s based on 1%annual growth maximum.
*" Dwelling count of 24,300 would be reached in 2027.
LUE Policy 1.10.3
"Before a residential expansion area is developed, the City must have adopted a specific plan for
it. Such plans for residential expansion areas will provide for phased development, consistent
with the population growth outlined in Table 2, and taking into account expected infill
residential development elsewhere within the City.;s4fhin Me 1994 Gh: -I-hnit-S.
ef the largest number of 6A�-egings affeFdabko te o;esidenfs with very, leit� lew, er meder-a�
ange6gated inten-als fer the I. I . Pt ai-ea:q' development are.-fir-si area, 1997 2VO-3-,-
=d ares, 2884 20419; third ares, 2011 2017.2'
PNS -a�-
GPA, ER 133-09 — Attachment 3
Growth Management Policy Amendment
Page 6
The recommended alternative (2) will simplify the approach to growth management while still
respecting the community value of metered growth. It may better align with the need of the
specific plan areas to construct larger numbers of residential units early in the phasing of
development in order to offset infrastructure costs. Updating Table 2 will provide a more
accurate view of population and housing development in the City and each of the specific plan
areas will have access to the units even if the timing of development were to overlap. If the future
resembles the past,the number of units that could be absorbed by the market would likely remain
below the growth management limits.
Detailed planning and environmental work is involved with adoption of each specific plan. Each
specific plan incorporates public benefits related to housing affordability, parks, infrastructure,
and open space dedications that were appropriate for their respective locations and the
community's unmet needs. The intent of growth management policy was not to make the
approved specific plans compete for access to housing units based on their respective attributes,
but rather to prioritize services where they may best meet the needs of the community in the
event of a scarcity. Since adoption of the LUE, water resources have been secured and sewer
service improvements have been constructed. The community would be better served by having
access to more housing and the other public benefits incorporated as part of each specific plan.
Because Alternative 2 suggests elimination of a prescriptive phasing schedule for residential
development in the specific plan areas, amendments to Chapter 17.88 of the municipal code
would be necessary to eliminate the references to such a phasing schedule. These amendments
have been included in the proposed resolution, Attachment 4. If the Planning Commission
chooses, the phasing schedule could be retained, however its purpose is reduced when Table 2 is
updated to provide the 1% growth thresholds for each five year interval. In addition, trying to
pre-determine which specific plan area will need allocations first is problematic at this time.
As an option, the Commission may wish to allow Table 2 to continue to reflect the 1% annual
growth rate from 2009 without resetting the table on a 5-year basis. This is the option that the
developer and financial participants in the stakeholder group prefers since this allows for unused
allocations to be carred forward permanently, continuing to build a bank. If the table is reset
every 5 years based on actual dwelling unit numbers, the "bank" will be eliminated at the start of
each 5 year interval. As proposed, if the table is reset beginning in 2009 up to 250 units could
already be in the bank by the end of 2010 depending on how many residential units are
completed in 2010. As of May 5, 2010, 18 units have been completed. Based on a total dwelling
count in the City, more than 200 units can be built in the City while remaining within a 1%
annual growth rate. At current rates, the City will be seeing another year of growth that is
substantially less than I%.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The Commission may recommend other alternative language to the City Council
including a combination of alternatives discussed in the report or a scenario yet to be
discussed. Any alternative to be considered should balance the City's growth restrictions6�a�
with the anticipated length of time it will take for the recession to ease and housing
production to continue. The downturn in the housing production market has exceeded the
City's growth management phasing schedule and it is difficult to determine the amount of
GPA, ER 133-09 — I Attachment `��
l
Growth Management Policy Amendment 3.
Page 7
overlap that may occur in development of the Margarita and Orcutt Specific Plan areas in
the future.
2. The Commission may continue review of the proposed changes, if more information is
needed. Specific direction should be given to staff.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Planning Commission Report March 24,2010
2. Initial Study(ER 133-09)
3. Draft Planning Commission Resolution
G:\CD-PLAN\Pdunsmore\LR\Growth Mgmt\133-09 PC Staff report(May 12 th).doc
- - Attachment 4
n1WHC*fSL0 CITY OF SAN LUIS 0BISPO
Workforce Housing Coalition ofSan Lulsoblw County
Board of Directors: May 7, 2010 MAY 12 2010
Dana Lilley-Chair
San Luis Obispo County
Department of City of San Luis Obispo COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Planning&Building
JerryRioux—Vice Chair Planning Commission
Satz Luis Obispo County 919 Palm Street
Housing Trust Fond SLO, CA 93401
Marguerite Bader
Health Care jor All
Jerry Bunin
Home Builders Association Dear Honorable Commissioners:
of the Central Coast
Citgohael San on
Lu SUBJECT: SLO CITY GROWTH MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE
City of San Luis Obispo
Steve Delmartim AMENDMENTS
...San Luis Obispo Realty
Charlie Fruit
Coast National Bank
Carol Hatley
Housing Authority of the City of During its meetings on April 1St and May 6th, 2010, the Workforce
San Luis Obispo Housing Coalition (WHC) discussed and considered theotentiall
Zeljka Howard P Y
Cal Poly City&Regional Planning negative effects of the City's Growth Management Regulations on the
EmmaKnrim development of housing during the economic recovery.
San Luis Obispo
Chamber of Commerce
Donna Lewis WHC supports the current staff recommendation to expand the
Central Coast
MortgageConsiliants growth-management interval from three years to five years. WHC
Morgan Rafferty also supports using the phasing requirements included in the specific
Environmental Center of
San Luis Obispo plans, rather than forcing staggered development in Margarita Area .
Bruce Silverberg and Oreutt Area.
SLO Green Build-
Scott Smith
Peoples'Selj--Help Housing Prior to our Growth Management discussions, WHC had reviewed
Vallerie Steenson
HalittatforHumanity the phasing schedule and public facilities financing plan included in
for San Luis Obispo County the Orcutt Area Specific Plan. This phasing schedule matches area
George Moylan in Memoriam infrastructure requirements with the number of housing units allowed
HouCity of San Luis Obispof o
to be built in each phase so that there are fees available to cover
City of San Luis Obispo
Advisory Board. these infrastructure costs. This approach has the potential to reduce
Carl Dadley financing costs and eliminates the uncertainties associated with
UslicHallsammuniryBank reimbursement agreements. We believe this approach represents a
Leslie Halls
San Luis Obispo County model for infrastructure planning in other City expansion areas.
Builders Exchange
Adam Hill
San Luis Obispo County Unfortunately, the infrastructure requirements associated with the
Board afSupervisors first residential subdivisions in the Margarita Area involve costs that
Steve Engels g
Century 21 Hometown Realty far exceed available fees. The improvement requirements, and
Annette Montoya associated costs -for Prado Road in articular- make housing
Peoples'Self-Kelp Housing p g
James Patterson development in the Margarita Area impossible to finance.
San Luis Obispo County
Board of Supervisors
Craig smith Up until now, the City's response to this concern has been to raise
AIA.California Central
Coast Chapteler the fees even higher, but this misses the point. If housing developers
cannot get financing for their development costs, then the City will
continue to fall behind its General Plan population estimates, as
WHC letter regarding SLO Ciiy trowth Management Ordinance A afle 2 4
provided in Table 2 of the Land Use Element, and will continue to
miss opportunities to provide housing for its citizens as called for in
the City's General Plan.
In conclusion, while we support the current efforts to address
problems with the City's Growth Management Regulations— namely
that unit allocations can be taken away if construction does not occur
within the prescribed three-year intervals—we believe this is only a
first step towards addressing housing construction feasibility in the
expansion areas.
Additional efforts are needed, including (1) a program to reduce
infrastructure costs, (2) infrastructure financing strategies that allow
development to move forward with minimal initial infrastructure so
that a substantial fee balance can be accumulated to pay for larger
projects down the road, and (3) a commitment to expedited
processing of new housing projects when they do come forward.
These are steps we believe should be taken in the short term.
Thank you for your consideration of these important ideas.
Sin reiy,
Dana Lil C irperson
Workforce Housing Coalition of San Luis Obispo County
Support for the Workforce Housing Coalition does not imply support for the positions or activities of member organizations.
www.slowhc.org P.O. Box 293, San Luis Obispo CA 93406 (805) 546-2850
1
Attachment 5
MID-STATE PROPERTIES, LLC
1320 Archer Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 543-1500 - Fax (805) 543-1590
Email: dgraymidstate-cal.com
May 11, 2010
City of San Luis Obispo Planning Commission CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
C/o Phil Dunsmore
Associate Planner, AICP MAY 1 2 2010
City of San Luis Obispo Community Development
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Subject: City of SLO growth management
Dear Honorable Planning Commissioners,
After review of the City's staff report, I highly recommend the approval of Alternate 2
(staffs' recommendation) WITH THE OPTION OFFERED ON PAGE 6 to allow Table 2
to reflect the annual 1% growth rate without resetting on a S year basis.
If the resetting were to remain the number of units allowed to be built would be reduced
in 2014. This is will come at a critical time in the specific plan areas' need to construct
larger number residential units in order to offset large infrastructure costs.
By having Table 2 to reflect the annual I% growth rate without resetting on a S year
basis allows for the specific plan areas' to be able to afford the infrastructure costs
(which will benefit the city) while still remaining consistent with the intent of the 1%
growth policy.
Sincerely,
Mid-State Properties, LLC
David S. Gray
CADocuments and Settings\lthomas\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\0LK5D\GrwthManagemnt0rd Ltr to Planning
Commission.docx
Attachment6
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
For ER 133-09
1. Project Title:
Amendments to the City's Growth Management Policy of the General Plan (Land Use Element
Policy 1.10.2)and the City's Growth Management Ordinance(MC 17.88).
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Department
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Phil Dunsmore, Associate Planner
(805)781-7522
4. Project Location:
Citywide, City of San Luis Obispo
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Department
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
6. General Plan Designation: N/A
7. Zoning: N/A
8. Description of the Project:
The project involves the amendment of the City's Growth Management Policy, chapter 1.10.2 of
the General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) and update to LUE Table 2 to reflect current data.
The purpose of the amendment is to evaluate the concept of allowing residential growth to be
averaged over extended time periods (only for two approved, specific plan areas) taking into
account economic conditions and population growth trends. Therefore, the amendment would
�Nb'�
extend the 3-year growth windows that were anticipated when the expansion areas were
identified and simply allow those approved specific plan areas to develop in compliance with
Table 2 of the Land Use Element. The proposal includes allowing dwellingsanticipated during
the current growth window to roll over into a subsequent growth period.
The primary specific plan areas.affected are the Orcutt and Margarita Area Specific Plans. The
Orcutt Area is located along the southwestern edge of the city limits of San Luis Obispo. The
Orcutt Area encompasses 230 acres of land at the base of Righetti Hill. The City's Residential
Growth Management Ordinance allocates 1,000 residential dwellings to the Orcutt Area for
phased development. The Margarita Area is located north west of the San Luis Obispo County
Airport adjacent to the South Street Hills. Implementation of the project would result in the
potential future development of the area for residential, commercial, industrial,park, school, and
open space uses. This specific plan includes the development of approximately 868 residential
units.
The current policy limits residential growth to no more than 1% per year, averaged over a 36-
month period. However, the city has experienced a growth rate of less than .5% per year for the
past x years. The growth management regulations assumed that each of the residential expansion
areas would be developed in distinct seven to eight year periods. The Land Use Element
assumed development of the Margarita Area between 2004 and 2010, and the Orcutt Area
between 2011 and 2017. In large part because of the economic recession, housing has not been
built in the Margarita Area following the adoption of the specific plan and annexation of the area
to the City. The Orcutt Area Specific Plan is anticipated to be approved by Council within the
next several months which could result in a potential overlap of residential development with the
Margarita Area Specific Plan.
The basic intent of growth management is described in the General Plan Land Use Element (LUE
Policy 1.10.1):
"Growth rates should provide for the balanced evolution of the community and the gradual
assimilation of new residents. Growth must be consistent with the City's ability to provide
resources and services and with State and City requirements for protecting the environment, the
economy, and open space."
For both the Margarita and Orcutt Area Specific Plan areas, resources and public services have
been carefully planned and evaluated under CEQA, and a greater overlap in the construction
periods would not conflict with the intent of this policy. However, experience has shown that
new housing construction does not occur in a steady, gradual fashion. Housing construction
typically follows market cycles and subdivision activity.
During the 12-year period between 2010 and 2022, the assumed residential growth anticipated by
both the Margarita and Orcutt area Specific Plans, combined with infill development would not
exceed the growth anticipated in the General Plan Land Use Element. This is because the City's
residential growth rate has been significantly lower than anticipated during most of this decade.
T� ^3�
CITY OF SAN.LUIS OBISPO 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
-� Attachment 6
The recommended change to LUE Policy 1.10.2 would allow dwelling units to be constructed as
long as the units had been allocated within the current or previous 3-year window phasing
schedule. This change would allow a better match of housing development to the installation
timing of required infrastructure improvements, coinciding with improved economic conditions
anticipated to begin in 2010-2012.
Staff recommends that LUE Policy 1.10.2 be amended to read:
1.10.2 Residential Growth Rate
"The City's housing supply shall grow no faster than one percent per year, averaged over a the
36-month period in which the units are allocated. aveluding a ,e&KV ffe 'a' e te - ident-�
withve,-y, leis, er leis, ineemes as aeawea in the H-euskg N&nen If housing allowed during a 36
month period has not been constructed, the unbuilt units will be added to the housing allowed in
the subsequent 36 month period. This Dolicv shall not apply to dwellings affordable to
households with veru low or low incomes as defined in the Housing Element which are exempt
from these provisions. This rate of growth may continue so long as the City's basic service
capacity is assured and growth for target years listed in Table 2 of the Land Use Element is not
exceeded. Table 2 shows the approximate number of dwellings and residents which would result
from the one percent maximum average annual growth rate over the planning period. "
Proposed table 2
Approximate Anticipated
Year Maximum Number Number of People Based on
of Dwellings 2.3 ersonsper dwelling
2005 19,962* 44,522*
2008 20,222* 44,521*
2011 20,834 47,918
2014 21,466 49,371
2017 22,116 50,866
2020 22,786 52,407
2023 23,477 53,997
2026 24,188 55,632
2027"' 24,430 56,189
'Actual Numbers from 2009 Housing Element (note population decrease)
remaining#'s based on 1%annual growth maximum.
"Dwelling count of 24,300 would be reached in 2026-2027.
tot
CITY OF SAN LUIS CBISPo 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
Attachment 6
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:
Citywide
10. Project Entitlements Requested:
Text amendments to General Plan Land Use Element Policy 1.10.2 and an update to Table 2 of
the Land Use Element.
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
None.
CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
Attachment 6
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 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Noise
Agriculture & Forestry Hazards&Hazardous Population/Housing
Resources Materials
Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Public Services
Biological Resources Land Use/Planning Recreation
Cultural Resources Mandatory Findings of Transportation/Traffic
Significance
Geology/Soils Mineral Resources Utilities/Service Systems
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
no effect determination from Fish and Game.
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish
and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has been
circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more
State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and
Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines
15073(a)).
`� CITY OF SAN LUIS OHISPo 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
- Attachment 6
DETERNUNATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made. 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 the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment, because
all potentially significant effects have been analyzed adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, nothing further is required.
Signature Date
Kim Murry,Deputy Director of Community Development For:John Mandeville,
Printed Name Community Development Director
>o
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 6 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
Attachment 6
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact' answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A "No Impact' answer is adequately
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one
involved(e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A"No Impact'answer should be explained where it is
based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to
pollutants,based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well
as project-level,indirect as well as direct,and construction as well as operational impacts.
3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must
indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant.
"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. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" "applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from'Potentially Significant Impact' to a "Less than Significant Impact." .
The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than
significant level(mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis,"may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 ,(c) (3) (D) 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 the 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
addressed site-specific conditions for the project.
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.
_ P46 -31
�� CITY OF SAN LUIS Osispo 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
r-
Attachment 6
8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should
normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever
format is selected.
9. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold,if any,used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified,if any,to reduce the impact to less than significance
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 8 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2010
Affachment 6
Issues, Discussion and Supporfr..g Information Sources Sources Poter_.,ry Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 133-09 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
1.AESTHETICS. Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1 X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,but not limited X
to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic buildings
within a local or state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of X
the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would X
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Evaluation
a)b)c)d)Proposed policy amendments would not result in changes to aesthetics.The project involves amendments to General
Plan Land Use Element text, modifying language to meet the intent of City goals and policies to allow residential growth to
occur as it has already been anticipated within the Margarita Area and Orcutt Area Specific Plans. The modified text would
not directly result in aesthetic changes to the community. No significant changes to the existing intent of the City's Growth
Management ordinance is proposed, and there are no proposed changes to the adopted citywide property development
standards therefore,no impacts to aesthetics are anticipated.
Conclusion: No Impact.
2. AGRICULTURE & FOREST RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects,lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in
assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including
timberland are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including
the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon
measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would
theproject:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of 1,2,10 X
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a X
Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for,or cause rezoning of,forest
land(as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)),
timberland(as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526),
or timberland zoned Timberland Production(as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to
non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to X
their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland
to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
Evaluation
a)b)c)No impacts to agricultural resources would occur with implementation of the Land Use Element amendments relating
to growth management, since the amendments do not regulate land use alternatives, or specific project development. Any
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHE LIST 2010
P46 ,W
Issues, Discussion and SupporfiA. Information Sources Sources Potdi�-ry' Potentially LessTnan No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 133-09 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
potential impacts resulting from the development of agricultural property have been evaluated in specific project development
EIR's including the Margarita and Orcutt area Specific Plans.No direct impacts to agricultural resources are anticipated.
Conclusion: No Impact.
3. AIR QUALITY. Would theproject:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially loan 1,9 X
existing or projected air quality violation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air X
quality plan?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X
concentrations?
d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of X
people? -
e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria X
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozoneprecursors)?
Evaluation
a)b)c)d)e) Every development project is subject to air quality mitigation measures including construction and operational
standards that are designed to reduce air quality impacts:Modifications to the growth management policies of the city would
not result in changes to air quality or changes in the way air quality impacts are mitigated. Proposed changes to the growth
management policies would not contribute to air quality impacts since long term City growth would not exceed established
limits. A timing change and increase in the overlap of development projects may result in more substantial short term air
quality impacts due to the cumulative nature of short term construction dust and emissions. However, each of the specific
plan areas already provide for mitigation measures that are designed to address these potential short term air quality impacts.
Since the development timing cannot be accurately predicted at this time, and the likelihood of significant impacts occurring
from an overlap in both development projects is less than significant,no additional mitigation measures are recommended.
Conclusion: Less than significant Impacts.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Wound theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or indirectly or 1 X
through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive,or special status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect, on any riparian habitat or X
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting X
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance(e.g. Heritage Trees)? _
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident X
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation X
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
local,regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
ii CITY OF SAN Luis OBIsPO 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2009
Pff b-fl-I
Issues, Discussion and Support Information Sources Sources Poteii— Potentially Less' an o
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 133-09 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
f) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected X
wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marshes, vernal pools, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
Evaluation
a)b)c)d)e)f)No biological impacts would occur as a result of these text amendments.Specific project development plans such
as the Orcutt and Margarita area Specific Plans address impacts that may occur to biological resources with development of
these areas. Text modifications to this General Plan policy are not likely to result in any impacts to biological resources as
overall City development patterns, or regulations that guide technical aspects of development projects will not change.
Modifying the timing in which approved residential units may be completed will not result in specific impacts to biological
resources.
Conclusion: No Impact.
5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a 1,10 X
historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an X
archaeological resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource X
or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of --TX
formal cemeteries?
Evaluation
a)b)c) d)No cultural impacts would occur as no specific site is under consideration.Each development project would still be
subject to evaluation and mitigation as development occurs. Changes to the growth management policies would not alter the
way cultural resources are addressed.
Conclusion:No hTipact.
6. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 1 X
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient X
manner?
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource X
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
State?
Evaluation
a)b)c)The project will not conflict with adopted energy conservation plans or promote the use of non-renewable resources in
an inefficient manner. No changes are proposed to the policies that regulate energy and mineral resources.
Conclusion: No impact.
7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would theproject:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,either directly or indirectly, X
that may have a significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted X
for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
CIT'OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 1 1 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2009
PH -`
At
Issues, Discussion and Supportk.--J Information Sources Sources Potel:-,__�y Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 133 09 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Evaluation
a)b)c) The purpose of the growth management amendment affects only the timing of project development instead of type of
development, or how each development may contribute to greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). The Margarita Area Specific
Plan was approved prior to the 2006 passage of the Global Warming Solutions Act by the California State Legislature (AB
32). However, the Orcutt area specific plan EIR discusses the potential of impacts due to greenhouse gas emissions,consistent
with AB 32. The Orcutt area EIR utilizes analysis based on the guidance from the CAPCOA in their CEQA and Climate
Change white paper (January 2008). The CAPCOA document provides the technological methodologies to assess GHG
emissions. The information provided in this section is based on recently established California goals for reducing GHG
emissions as well as a project-specific emissions inventory developed for the Specific Plan. The City of San Luis Obispo, as
the lead agency, has no duty to establish a significance threshold for GHG emissions. Therefore, the analysis of the Orcutt
area expansion is specific to the proposed Specific Plan and does not establish thresholds for the City or set precedence for
the type of analysis in a climate change analysis. However, the Orcutt area EIR establishes mitigation measures to achieve
performance standards for the development project. These performance standards are consistent with the intent of AB 32 and
help to minimize potential impacts. Changes in the development timing of either specific plan area is not likely to result in
impacts to GHG emissions. Instead, the overlap in development timing, including associated construction,may result in slight
increases in air pollution associated with particulate matter and construction vehicle emissions.
Conclusion: Less than significant. Mitigation measures incorporated into the Orcutt Area Specific Plan EIR will help to
reduce GHG emissions.
8. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would theproject:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse 3,10
effects,including risk of loss, injury or death involving:
I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated in the X
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area,or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault?
U. Strong seismic ground shaking? X
III. Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? X
IV. Landslides or mudflows? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that X
would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially
result in on or off site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the X
Uniform Building Code(1994), creating substantial risks to life
or property?
Evaluation
a)b)c)d) The project will not expose people to geologic hazards because it will not modify City policies related to
development in areas with high geologic sensitivity.No policy changes related to geology and soils are proposed.
Conclusion: No Impact.
9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the pro'ect:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment 3,10, X
through the routine use, transport or disposal of hazardous 11
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment X
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2009
P 6 �
- V
Issues, Discussion and SupporC,-. Information Sources Sources PoteiY_:y terdftIip
S
Significant Significant igniftcant Impact
ER # 133 09 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely X
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school? .
d) Expose people or structures to existing sources of hazardous X
emissions or hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances,or waste?
e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous X
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, it would create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
f) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or within X
two miles of a public airport,would the project result in a safety
hazard for the people residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, the X
adopted .emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lose, injury, X
or death,involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are intermixed
with wildlands?
Evaluation
a)b)c)d)e)f)g)h) No hazardous impacts would occur as no specific site is under consideration. Both the Orcutt area and
Margarita area Specific Plans have been evaluated in detail in regards to airport land use plan compatibility.The rate at which
these planned areas will develop are not anticipated to have any significant impact to existing airport safety zones.
Conclusion: No Impact.
10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the ro'ect:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge 1,4 X
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere X
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level(e.g. The production tate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses for which permits have been granted)?
c) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the X
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or
provide additional sources of runoff into surface waters
(including, but not limited to, wetlands, riparian areas, ponds,
springs,creeks,streams,rivers,lakes,estuaries,tidal areas,bays,
ocean,etc.)?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X
area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or
siltation onsite or offsite?
e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X
area in a manner which would result in substantial flooding
onsite or offsite?
0 Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on X
a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2009
1piq 16 '
AftIssues, Discussion and Supporti:.3 Information Sources Sources Poten- :y" Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 133-09 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Inco rated
or other flood hazard delineation map?
g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which X
would impede or redirect flood flows?
h) Will the project introduce typical storm water pollutants into X
ground or surface waters?
i) Will the project alter ground water or surface water quality, X
temperature, dissolved oxygen,or turbidity?
Evaluation
a)b)c)d)e)f)g)h)i)No impacts to water resources will occur as the project does not involve modifications to the City's policies
on water and drainage and no specific site is under consideration.
Conclusion: No Impact
11. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would theproject:
a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of 1-7 X
an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
b) Physically divide an established community? X
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural X
community conservationplans?
Evaluation
a)b)c)The text amendments will ensure that the planned residential projects grow in a manner that is consistent with the intent
of the General Plan Housing Element and Land Use Element Policies. If the existing growth management policy is not
amended, it may act as a barrier to allow the logical development of residential projects and their accompanying
improvements. This is because the current rate of residential growth is far below the rate of growth that was anticipated with
the existing growth management policies (.35% compared to an anticipated 1%). Therefore, potentially extending the time
frame of residential growth for approved specific plan projects is not likely to result in conflicts to land use policies. Instead,
the policy change recognizes the cyclical demand for housing development that normally occurs in California. Although the
timing of certain improvements such as the construction of new roads, infrastructure, utilities and other features is crucial to
the logical and orderly development of the City's expansion areas, extending the time frame in which particular(previously
approved)residential expansion areas are developed will not alter the pattern in which crucial infrastructure is constructed.
LUE Policy 1.10:2 further defines the City's residential growth rates by limiting the annual increase in the number of
dwellings to one percent,averaged over a three-year period,excluding housing affordable to low,very-low and extremely-low
income households. However, the three-year increments are shorter than the housing market production cycles and do not
allow multiple residential expansion areas to simultaneously benefit from housing production cycles. To help achieve the
quantified objectives in Housing Element Program 6.2, amendments to LUE Policy 1.10.2 are necessary to allow each of the
specific plan areas to develop as approved,with more flexibility to have housing constructed according to market forces.
The Margarita Area and Orcutt Area Specific Plans include EIR's that analyze specific development impacts and provide for
mitigation measures that address potential environmental impacts. The proposed amendments to the growth management
policies do not alter the requirements of these EIR's or the implementation of required mitigation measures. No additional
mitigation measures are necessary to accommodate a change in the timing of these development areas.
The proposed changes are not likely to result in conflicts to land use policies that are designed to mitigate environmental
effects.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact.
11.NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of people to or generation of "unacceptable" noise 7 X
�alevels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBispo 14 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2009
Issues, Discussion and Supporiir.g Information Sources Sources potet_.:y-' Potential
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 133-09 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated]
Element, or general noise levels in excess of standards
established in the Noise Ordinance?
b) A substantial temporary, periodic, or permanent increase in X
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome X
vibration or groundbome noise levels?
d) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or within X
two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
Evaluation
a)b)c)d) Implementation of the text amendments to the Residential Growth Management Policies are not related to exposure
of people to noise. It is possible that the development of individual residential development projects will result in slight
changes to noise levels, however the growth management ordinance amendments do not allow for the approval of individual
residential projects without a separate environmental review.Therefore,the project would not result in specific noise impacts.
Conclusion: No Impact.
13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly 2,6 X
(for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people X
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Evaluation
a) b) c) .Amending the growth management regulations will not result in substantial population growth or changes beyond
what has already been evaluated in terrors of new residential units,infrastructure or commercial businesses.This is because the
amendments will not result in changes to the amount of population growth that may occur, it only extends the amount of time
in which approved residential projects may be constructed. These approved residential projects (i.e. Orcutt area and
Margarita area)have been carefully evaluated for their independent impacts to population growth.Although the amendments
may result in a City wide growth rate that exceeds 1% for an individual year, the amendments will not allow unregulated
growth or growth that has not already been anticipated in the Land Use Element and approved Environmental Impact Reports
associated with these projects. The change in growth timing will result in less than significant impacts to population and
housing.
Conclusion: less than significant impacts.
14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision, or need, of new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fre protection? X
b) Police protection? X
C) Schools? X
d) Parks? X
e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? X
Other public facilities? X
Evaluation
CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 15 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2009
PN 6 -��
Issues, Discussion and Suppori,—.- Information Sources Sources Potat*;Iy ' Po teritlaV"-Wlli3ii- (;
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 133-09 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a)b)c)d)e)f) Each residential development project is responsible for providing impact fees to offset potential impacts to
public services.The primary issue here is timing.Extending the time frame to allow the completion of residential dwellings in
specific plan areas is not likely to impact the provision of public services. The development of each of the applicable specific
plan areas has already been considered in terms of the provision of necessary public services.Although the timely completion
of road improvements and other infrastructure will be important to ensure the logical development of specific plan areas,this
issue is not an impact-instead,it is a timing and coordination effort.
Conclusion: Less than significant Impact.
15.RECREATION. Would theproject:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or 8 X
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or X
expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
Evaluation
a)b) No impacts to recreational facilities and programs will occur with implementation of the amendments. Each residential
development is responsible for evaluating and supplying recreation facilities, and changes to the timing of growth rates is not
likely to conflict with the provision of additional recreational facilities.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact.
16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would theproject:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy 2,5 X
establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the
circulation system, taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel
and relevant components of the circulation system,including but
not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways,
pedestrian and bicycle paths,and mass transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, X
including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel
demand measures, or other standards established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads acid or
highways?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to design features (e.g. sharp X
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.
farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? X
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding X
public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise
decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
Evaluation
a)b)
The Orcutt Area and Margarita Area Specific Plan EIR's each provide for a detailed set of traffic and transportation
mitigation measures that accommodate potential traffic impacts. Any future specific plans will also include a detailed analysis
of potential traffic impacts.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPo 16 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2009
Issues, Discussion and Support,.-4 Information Sources Sources Potefi,_.., Potrnt,l j
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER </ 133-09 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Inco orated
The timing of road improvements is crucial to the orderly development of residential expansion areas in ensuring that
infrastructure and roads are completed to accommodate traffic increases as each expansion area develops. In this scenario,the
Margarita Area was planned to be develop prior to the Orcutt Area, and the extension of Prado Road is the primary road
improvement associated with the Margarita Area expansion area. Since Prado Road will accommodate some traffic from the
vicinity near the Orcutt expansion area, its completion may be warranted prior to substantial development of the Orcutt Area.
However,this issue is simply a timing issue which can be resolved by ensuring that road and infrastructure improvements are
completed by each residential expansion area at key intervals. Modifying the overall timing rate at which the City will allow
these expansion areas to develop is not likely to impact traffic beyond the load capacity of the street system since each
expansion area is already required to complete road improvements that specifically mitigate the increase in traffic volumes.
Conclusion: Less Than Significant Impact.
17.UTEL=S AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would theproject:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable 4 X
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water X
treatment, wastewater treatment, water quality control, or storm
drainage facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
c) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project X
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and
expanded water resources needed?
d) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, X
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to
the provider's existing commitment?
e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to X
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
f) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations X
related to solid waste?
Evaluation
a)b)c)d)e)f)
The Margarita Area Specific Plan EIR included the evaluation of a water and wastewater master plan. These master plans
evaluated the potential impacts of growth in the Margarita Area and Airport areas, and included mitigation measures which
included upgrades to water and wastewater infrastructure. Regardless of development timing, development of the Margarita
area with additional housing units will require construction of new utilities infrastructure.The buildout of both the Margarita
and Orcutt Specific plan areas can be accommodated by existing water supplies and by the existing wastewater treatment
plant.
The City Utilities Department bases water and wastewater needs on historic residential growth rates. Over the past 10 years,
these rates have averaged .5%. Current rates are less than .5%. With proposed changes to allow the specific plan areas to
extend the timeframes anticipated with their respective developments, average growth rates will still not exceed anticipated
growth when viewed on a 5-10 year scale, even though certain years may exceed 1% (just as it may under current
regulations). Therefore, the proposed growth management revisions will not create significant impacts to utilities and service
systems.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact.
18.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the X
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 17 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2009
pp& `{
Issues, Discussion and Support�_4 Information Sources sources Potei , Potentially t
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 133-09 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or prehisto 7
Implementation of the text amendments will not degrade the quality of the environment.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but X
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects,
the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable
futureprojects)
No cumulative irMacts are expected to occur from implementation of the text amendments.
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause X
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly? -T-1
Implementation of the text amendments will not create environmental effects that will have an adverse impact on human
beings.
19.EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program E1R, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion
should identify the following items:
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
N/A
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
N/A
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation
measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific
conditions of the project.
N/A
20. SOURCE REFERENCES.
1. City of SLO General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element,May 2006
2. City of SLO General Plan Land Use Element,September 2004
3. City of SLO General Plan Safety Element,July 2000
4. City of San Luis Obispo Water and Wastewater Management Element,June 2004
5. City of San Luis Obispo Circulation Element,November 1994
6. City of San Luis Obispo Housing Element,May 2004
7. City of San Luis Obispo Noise Element and Noise Guidebook,May 1996
8. City of San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Element,April 2001
9. City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations,June 27 2008
10. CEQA Air Quality Handbook,Air Pollution Control District,2003
11. City of San Luis Obispo Land Use Inventory and Geographic Information System,current database
12. County of San Luis Obispo Airport Land Use Plan for SLO County ort,May 2005
13. Margarita Area Plan Environmental Impact Report
14. Orcutt Area Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report 2009
15. City of San Luis Obispo 2009 Water Resources Report
CRY OF SAN Luis OBISPO is INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKUST200/9
T2
/ I 6 '
Attachment 7
RESOLUTION NO. (2010 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE RESIDENTIAL
GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICIES OF THE GENERAL PLAN
GPA 133-09
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public
hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
March 24 and May 12, 2010 pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application GPA 139-09,
City of San Luis Obispo Community Development, applicant; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing
in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on June 15,
2010 for the purpose of considering Application GPA 133-09; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed and considered the Negative Declaration of
environmental impact for the project as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning
Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Council has duly considered all evidence, including the recommendation
of the Planning Commission, testimony of interested parties, and the evaluation and
recommendations by staff,presented at said hearing.
BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council finds and determines that
the project's Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of
the proposed project entitlements in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
and"the City's Environmental Guidelines, and reflects the independent judgment of the Council.
The Council hereby adopts the Negative Declaration.
SECTION 2. Findings. The amendments to General Plan Land Use Element Policies
1.10.2, Table 2 and 1.10.3 as shown on the attached Exhibit A, are hereby approved, based on
the following findings:
Findings.
1. The proposed General Plan Amendment/Growth Management Policy amendment is
consistent with General Plan Land Use Element policies to continue to provide for the
balanced evolution of the community and the gradual assimilation of new residents while
encouraging the timely completion of residential dwellings in approved specific plan
areas.
PiI6 -�/
Resolution No. 2010 Series _ -' Attachment
GPA 133-09 Residential Growth Management
Page 2
2. The proposed amendments to the Growth Management Policy will continue to maintain
consistency with the City's ability to provide resources and services, and with State and
City requirements for protecting the environment,the economy, and open space.
3. The proposed amendments to the Growth Management Policy are consistent with the
intent of the City's Housing Element Policy 6.1 which directs the City to continue to plan
for an adequate supply of housing to meet its regional allocation.
4. A Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community Development Department on
March 152, 2010. The Planning Commission finds and determines that the project's
Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental
impacts of the proposed project.
On motion of seconded by and on
the following roll call vote.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of 2010.
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST-
Audrey Hooper, City Clerk
APPROD AS T i F RM:
C stine Dietrick, City Attorney
GACD-PLAN\Pdunsmore\LR\Growth Mgmt\CC Reso GPA 133-09.doc
��16-5c-
Resolution No.2010 Series
GPA 133-09 Residential Growth Management
Page 3
Exhibit A
1.10.2 Residential Growth Rate
The City's housing supply shall grow no faster than one percent per year, on
average, based on thresholds established by LUE Table 2. ever ever•-�
mexMper4ed, excluding dwellings affordable to residents with extremely low, very
low or low incomes as defined in the Housing Element. This rate of growth may
continue so long as the City's basic service capacity is assured. Table 2 shows the
approximate number of dwellings and residents which would result from the one
percent maximum average annual growth rate over the planning period. Approved
specific plan areas may develop in accordance with the phasing schedule adopted
by each specific plan provided thresholds established by Table 2 are not exceeded
The City Council shall review the rate of growth on an annual basis in
coniunction with the General Plan annual report to ensure consistency with the
City's gradual assimilation policy.
Land Use Element Table 2
Approximate Anticipated
Year Maximum Number Number of People
of Dwellings Based on 2.3 persons
per dwelling
2009 20,221* 44,521
2014 21,253 48,881
2019 22,337 51,375
2024 23,477 53,997
2029 1 24,674 56,750
*Actual Number from 2009 Housing Element, remaining
#'s based on 1%annual growth maximum..
**Dwelling count of 24,300 would be reached in 2028.
1.10.3 Phasing Residential Expansions
"Before a residential expansion area is developed, the City must have adopted a
specific plan for it. Such plans for residential expansion projects will provide for
phased development, consistent with the population growth outlined in Table 2, and
taking into account expected infill residential development wkhk Me inns�
lfn94s.
""" 2003, seeen ai d s ee. 2 l 291
PH4-s.3
Attachment 8
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. (2010 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS,CHAPTER 17.88 OF
THE MUNICIPAL CODE; GPA 133-09
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on March 24, 2010,
and May 12, 2010 and recommended approval of the amendments; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing
in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on June 15,
2010, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application GPA 133-09, City of San Luis
Obispo Community Development, applicant; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony
of interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff,presented at said hearing.
BE IT ORDAINED,by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings.
1. The proposed Growth Management Policy amendment is consistent with General Plan
Land Use Element policies to continue to provide for the balanced evolution of the
community and the gradual assimilation of new residents while encouraging the timely
completion of residential dwellings in approved specific plan areas.
2. The proposed amendments to the Growth Management Policy will continue to maintain
consistency with the City's ability to provide resources and services, and with State and
City requirements for protecting the environment, the economy, and open space.
3. The proposed amendments to the Growth Management Policy are consistent with the
intent of the City's Housing Element Policy 6.1 which directs the City to continue to plan
for an adequate supply of housing to meet its regional allocation.
4. A Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community Development Department on
March 15t, 2010. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Negative
Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the
proposed project.
SECTION 2. Action. The Municipal Code, chapter 17.88 is hereby approved as
follows:
-rT� ���
Attachment 8
Chapter 17.88: Residential Growth Management Regulations
Sections:
17.88.010 Purpose and justification.
17.88.020 Allocations.
17.88.040 Periodic city council review and consideration of revisions.
17.88.010 Purpose and justification.
A. The regulations codified in this chapter are intended to assure that the rate of population
growth will not exceed the city's ability to assimilate new residents and to provide municipal
services, consistent with the maximum growth rates established in the general plan. Also, these
regulations are to assure that those projects which best meet the city's objectives for affordable
housing, infill development, open space protection, and provision of public facilities will be
allowed to proceed with minimum delay.
B. San Luis Obispo is a charter city, empowered to make and enforce all laws concerning
municipal affairs, subject only to the limitations of the city charter and the constitution and laws
of the state. Regulation of the rate of residential development is a reasonable extension of
municipal authority to plan overall development, in furtherance of the public health, safety and
general welfare.
C. According to the general plan land use element, the city should achieve a maximum annual
average population growth rate of one percent. The reserve of developable land within the city
and the capacity of proposed annexations could sustain growth rates which would exceed the
objectives of the general plan.
D. Goner-a! plan pelieies and the annexatien aFea phasing schedule rvquimd by-these regulatiens
r-eduee the likeli eed tl,et peit.. .:thin the e:ty might be de«,.:..ed e f bl
...,.....�. »... .�.�.. uavv�. uau. uiaj YavYvrc e
D-E. The growth rate policies of the general plan reflect the city's responsibility to accommodate
a reasonable share of expected state and regional growth.
EF. To avoid further imbalance between the availability of jobs and of housing within the city,
the general plan also manages expansion of growth-inducing activities. The burdens of growth
management are not being placed solely on the residential sector, since it largely responds to
demands caused by other sectors.
FG. Considering the likely levels of housing demand and construction throughout the housing
market area, nearly coinciding with San Luis Obispo County, these regulations are not expected
to affect the overall balance between housing supply and demand in the market area. These
regulations will not impede and may help meet the needs of very low-, low- and moderate-
income households. (Ord. 1459 § 3 (part), 2004: Ord. 1359 § 3 (part), 1999)
17.88.020 Allocations.
A. Each Spec f c Plan The e:ty eetmeil shall, by - elut:e. shall adopt a phasing schedule that
allocates timing of potential residential construction, including phasing of required
improvements, among apaexa4ien areas, consistent with the general plan and with these
regulations.
B. The limitations on residential development established by these regulations apply to new
residential construction within certain areas that have been annexed to the city or that will be
D4(e, SS'
Attachment 8
annexed to the city. Development in such areas is subject to development plans or specific plans,
which shall contain provisions consistent with these regulations .
C. ," Aallocations shall be
implemented by the timing of issuance of building permits.
D. These regulations shall net limit the issuanee ef building peffnits fer- leeatiens Whieh
phasing sehedule shows as ha-Ang an "
E. Dwellings affordable and enforceably restricted to residents with extremely low,very low, low
or moderate incomes, as defined in the city's general plan housing element, and new dwellings in
the downtown core (C-D zone as shown in the most official zoning map) shall be exempt from
these regulations. Enforceably restricted shall mean dwellings that are subject to deed
restrictions, development agreements, or other legal mechanisms acceptable to the city to ensure
long-term affordability, consistent with city affordable housing standards. In expansion areas, the
overall number of units built must conform to the city-approved phasing plan.
F. It shall not be necessary to have dwellings allocated for a particular time interval or location to
process and approve applications for general plan amendment, zone change or other zoning
approval, subdivision, or architectural review. (Ord. 1459 § 3 (part), 2004: Ord. 1359 § 3 (part),
1999)
phasing sehedule, so leng as the total mffnbef of dwellings fer- all eripansien aFeas within an
imtep.xal dees; fiet shange. The difeetet shall approve sush requests upon deteFminiag tha4 thffe
,
er-epen spaee pmteetiea as a result of the Aidstfflen4. (Ofd. 1459 § 3 (p�, 2994. QFd. 1359-"
= 9
17.88.03040 Periodic city council review and consideration of revisions.
A. The community development department shall provide status updates to the city council
concerning implementation of these regulations, coordinated with the annual report on the
general plan. The status update will describe actual construction levels and suggest if revisions
are necessary to maintain the City's one percent growth rate. and any adjustments te.alleea4iens
.
, ,
general plan. City eouneil appfeyal shall be FequiFed ie de any ef the f6119 i g
1. Change the tetal number-of dwellings that may be peffflk4ed.widiin an.intepiah;
2. Change the number e€ dwellings assumed €er-de���Bio; deyelepment-srsmall
alleeated in tetal.te expansion areas;
Z Deduee the ..., nbe'of dwellings preyieusl„alle..ated to n ee.+aia expansion area when there is
.�. nvvuwzixv
A Shift the year-s aever-ed 1.y 4AeFyaln
Q�w Befe the 't.. '1 t d..et hlie hearing Net:ee f the
C�czvzc a.p�pivynssc roiii,faxo SicTov�xcirziicac�miQaoc-a�am:c-zxomzrr�vcxcc�tcnc
hearing shall he n .ided At leant te.. but not », ., th n.. th:.t,. dn..n .. F to the hear:.... -by
+( - s�
Attachment 8
numbeF ef peFmiaed dwellings with the assufned fate ef permit issuanee. A%en the pieAetisly
,
;
SECTION 3. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council
members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage,
in the Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into
effect at the expiration of thirty(30) days after its final passage.
INTRODUCED on the day of , 2010, AND FINALLY
ADOPTED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the day of
2010.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
City Clerk Elaina Cano
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney Christine Dietrick
G:\CD-PLAN\Pdunsmore\LR\Growth Mgmt\CC Ord 133-09(MC 17.88).doc
Ji
From: Phil Gray[SMTP:PGRAY@MIDSTATE-CAL.COM] RED FILE
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 6:06:35 PM
To: Council, SloCity _— MEETING AGENDA
Cc: John.Evans@CannonAssoc.Com; onebluejeanne@gmail.com
Subject: Residential Growth Management PAT ITEM # Plfb
Auto forwarded by a Rule
Honorable Councilpersons:
As owners of one of the parcels comprising the Orcutt Area, we want to encourage you to
approve the Residential Growth Management Ordinance amendments as proposed in
your Staff's report.
Much study and discussion has gone into the crafting of these amendments, so that the
ordinance as revised will continue to honor the City's longstanding 1% annual growth
limit, while allowing builders to deal with today's financial realities in paying for
necessary infrastructure.
The key to these amendments is best summarized in the Staff report:
The new policy language would allow unbuilt allocations to be carried
forward, creating a virtual "bank"from years in which residential growth was less than
1%. This
bank of units could help projects secure lending for larger residential projects and help
to pay for
the larger up front infrastructure costs .
Thank you for your consideration.
rL
ADD DIR
g C3'�N DIR
Phil Gray a�IRE CHIEFDavid GraNEYNEY L'I'PW DIRY i7OLIC
E CHFJim Smith EE OR
UYIL-bIR
Mid-State Properties, LLC � ' bN
1320 Archer St. i �juc�rL
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Crt3t /KGS
(805) 543-1500; Fax 543-1.590; Cell 459-9700
RECEIVED
JUN 15 2010
SLO CITY CLERK