HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/28/1992, M - DRAFT MINUTES - JANUARY 13, 1992January 28, 1992
city of sAn tuis.oBispo
990 Palm Street /Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 -8100
TO: City Council
John Dunn
Ken Hampian
Jeff Jorgensen
Arnold Jonas
FROM: Pam Voges
SUBJECT- Draft Minutes - January 13. 1992
MEETING AGENDA /it
DATE '4-942.- ITEM #
Attached are the draft minutes from the last study session on the Land Use Element
Update held on January 13, 1992. These minutes are scheduled to come before the Council
for formal approval at the Regular meeting of February 18, 1992.
PV:klc
c: Telegram- Tribune
File
a
m "TING AGENDA
DRAFT D�,� -�FrEM �. Z
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
MONDAY, JANUARY 13,1992 - 7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS - CITY HALL - 990 PALM STREET Draft elirutes
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA j. -
to e a. + roycd
ROLL CALL of C.c:u:cii'Meeting
Councilmembers
of A -18 -9;L
Present: Councilmembers Peg Pinard, Penny Rappa, Jerry Reiss, Bill Roalman, and Mayor
Dunin
Absent: None
City Staff
Present: John Dunn, City Administrative Officer, Ken Hamptan, Assistant city Administrative
Officer, Jett' Jorgensen, City Attorney, Pam Voges, City Clerk, Arnold Jonas,
Community Development Director Bill Hetland, Utilities Director
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
P.C.I. Brett Cross. 1217 Mariner's Cove, expressed concern. about the proliferation of signage within City
limits.
STUDY SESSION
1. LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE (File No. 463)
Council continued its consideration of the draft Land Use Element update (continued from 7/31/90,8/28/90,
9/25/90,1/22/91,5/6/91p 7/g/91,7/29/91,8/5/91,9/16/91, and 10/21/9L)
Glen Matteson. Associate Planner, reviewed the agenda report with the recommendation that Council review
and inform staff of any changes that should be made to the document before it becomes the subject of the an
environmental report and the public hearing leading to adoption.
Mayor Dunin requested the Council listen to public comment and proceed page by page through the document
with suggestions for amendments. (Please see File No. 463 for spec changes.)
Keith Gurnee. 108 Broad Street, stated that he was appearing as a private citizen and as a representative of
RRM. He did not feel sufficient time had been made available to review the document and requested a 24 week
review period prior to Council taking action.
Eva J. Hill requested clarification to the language on Page 7 -7 regarding the Perfuma Creek area.
Upon question, staff agreed that the change should be made consistent with previous Council direction.
Vic Montgomery, 3026 S. Higuera St. and representing various property owners, questioned whether the
comments made this evening would be forwarded to the consultant. He felt it was important that the comments
being made tonight would be addressed and part of the EIR. If it was not going to be considered, then he did
not believe that the document was going to be worth much.
Specifically, he requested that agriculture clustering be included. He also had concerns on Page 10 - E3
regarding the inclusion of voter approval.
City Council Meeting Page 2
Monday, January 13,1992 - 7:00 P.M.
Gil Hoffman. 987 Capistrano Court, stated that as an Open Space Committee member and Planning
Commissioner responded to Mayor Dunin's earlier concern that the open space definition was fairly clear in
the document and urged the Council to accept it as stated. Also, he expressed concern on page 26 regarding
density calculations, that any portion of the property that cannot be built on, should not be counted in the
density calcs.
Dave Garth. Executive Director of the Chamber of Commerce, did not believe that most of the concerns
previously expressed regarding the economic issues had been adequately addressed in the draft document.
Charles Senn. El Cerrito Court and speaking on behalf of the Property Owners Association, urged the Council
provide sufficient review time for them to comment on the document.
Rob Strong expressed concern that the draft document was only recommending a 1% growth rate when the
County was growing at a 2.5% rate. He did not feel this would support the City as the regional shopping area
for the County. He also reviewed concerns about residential clustering from 5 -10 acre to 10 -20 acres; that
statements on pages 34 & 35 of the document concerning what was considered a flood plain would make it
almost impossible to build anywhere within the City relative to required setback requirements. Regarding Page
42 Public Facilities Area, he thought this should have been rejected; Page 51 Maino /Madonna Area, the Marsh
Street interchange, these policies should not be endorsed. Page 64, he felt there was a lack of alternatives.
Lynn Block BIA Administrator -1108 Garden Street, (page 39) urged the Council to allow two- stories in the
downtown area and felt that the non - density growth mangement rate was too low.
Carla Sanders felt that this plan would allow excessive build out. She was also concerned that the City protect
clean air and open space; that this document could provide annexation of 1,000+ acres and supported voter
approval of any annexations.
9:05 P.M. Mayor Dunin declared a recess.
9:20 P.M. City Council reconvened; all City Councilmembers present.
Don Smith urged change on Page 20 regarding Air Quality.
Charles Senn, again representing the airport area, felt that the growth rate needs to be accumulative; that there
needs to be more visionary statements relative to the economic base; and overall encouraged that staff be
directed that when interpreting this document, let common sense prevail.
'Dottie Connor. representing Neighborhoods for Quality Preservation, thanked the Council and urged them to
leave the wording as indicated on page 30.
Dana Lily representing County Planning, stated the County was planning to hold a Joint Meeting with the
County and City to review each other's drafts within the next couple of months.
Mayor Dunin expressed concern that the minutes and the synopsis from previous meetings had not been made
available for this meeting.
After various discussions, Council continued this item for further discussion to a future study meeting.
City Council Meeting Page 3
Monday, January 13, 1992 - 7:00 P.M.
2. INFORMATIONAL MEETING - STATE WATER (File No. 1124)
Council considered the City's co-sponsorship of an informational meeting of the State Water Project (continued
!from 11/19/91).
After discussion, moved by Rappa /Reiss to support an educational meeting set for Wednesday, January 15, 1992
at 7:00 P.M. as proposed by staff. Motion carried unanimously.
Upon general consensus, Council also supported a second meeting inviting an opposing viewpoint on the State
Water Project with meeting date and time to be determined.
There being no further business to come before the City Council, Mayor Dunin adjourned the meeting at 11:05
P.M.
APPROVED BY COUNCIL:
Pam Voges, City Clerk
PV-cm
►►���►►�►►►►�►►ii►►�Illillilll 1111111 @f ° °1 °�� �i
cit y of sAn luis oBispo
MOORMA
990 Palm Street /Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100
January 24, 1992
TO: City Co"cil
FROM: Pam ges
SUBJECT: UN CIAL DRAFT MINUTES
Attached are unofficial draft minutes prepared by Donna Wendle representing RRM
Design of the Council LUE meetings held Monday, July 8, Monday July 29, and Monday
August 5, 1991. She requested these be provided to the Council for your meeting when
discussing the Land Use Element scheduled for Tuesday, January 28. They have not been
reviewed by Arnold or myself but are being forwarded to you as we would any
communication from the public.
c: John Dunn
Ken Hampian
Arnold Jonas
Jeff Jorgensen
Telegram- Tribune
File)
PV:klc
AEETING AGENDA
DATE - •9L? �/�
SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOTES
July 8, 1991
Those present:
Bob Kitamura
Dave Garth
Maggie Cox
Janet Kouralds
Richard Schmidt
Dana Lilly
David Eddy(T.T.)
Arnold Jonas
Glen Matteson
Suzanne Lampert(Economic Consultant)
Penny Rappa
Bill Roalman
Mayor Ron Dunin
Peg Pinard
Jerry Reiss
Mr. Densey
Mr. Jorgenson
Ken Hampran
Carla Saunders
Mr. Smith
July 29 (Monday)
• Auto Sales Area
• Airport
• Affordable housing
August 5
• Rural settlement (adopted growth management ordinance)
• Neighborhood planning section
• Agriculture designation within city; sustainable community
• Invite APCD, traffic person, and environmental person to meeting for input.
Commercial growth - voted 18 months ago 1% in 90's.
Saunders - for 1% growth cap
1
le
Matteson - Jobs/housing balance. Housing hasn't kept up with employment growth, p. 1-
5. Both students and workers demand housing and bring in dollars. Cannot compare
these numbers with other communities without universities. Tried to screen out students
who work part or full time to avoid double counting.
Dunin - Is there an overlap between student and worker?
Matteson - Yes, but students who work were screened out as much as possible.
Roalman - Are we able to factor in two workers per household as opposed to one worker
per household (husband /wife).
Matteson - counted jobs, not workers.
Lampert - Can't forget about households with no workers (elderly) - who balance out the
two workers/household to equal approximately 1:1 balance.
Lilly - County wide average = 1.1 (1991) and projected into future the number wouldn't
go up past 1.2 -1.3 workers/household.
Pinard - Concerned about the resident population of 40,000, and day time population of
707000 = 30,000 daytime influx.
Matteson - 30,000 # = workers, shoppers, students, tourists, jury duty, etc., not just
workers.
Lampert - (Gave a hand out to Council members justifying the concern for jobs/housing
imbalance). U.S. Census, 1980 - Was used for every city except SLO who use 1990 data.
The difference in 10 years would skew the results. Also, only SLO includes students in the
final numbers. SLO was up there with Palo Alto. Numbers don't include students except
SLO. 5 students SLO would be about 2.0.
Pinard - We have an indication of imbalance - what are we going to do about it.
Matteson - Closer balance up housing, down jobs.
PC - Recommending growth rate residential 1 %; commercial 0.75 -0.5 %. Commercial
growth rate would not use the full building capacity under land use designation and allowed
densities.
Rappa - What about two workers in a household traveling in opposite directions? Use
planning area vs. city limits because country club area also impacts jobs/housing.
2
-716111
Reiss - Is the planning area realistic? When is a commute too long? Are our sights too
narrowed? Look at actual time vs. distance.
Pinard - (Look at other cities' mistakes and learn from them - LA, San Jose). Down
commercial rate significantly, up housing rate.
Roalman - Is commercial development the principal way of generating economic wealth?
Rezone commercial to residential. Are there ways to find alternatives to residents covering
their costs?
Lampert - Very high cost housing with high property taxes or high scale of use charges.
Police /fire calls (difficult to do), recreation, etc.
Dunin - Mixed use development addresses commuting, residential, and retail.
Rappa - Nonresident - Rezone (to mix use and intensify housing with proper design and
locational consideration.
Smith - Restrict commercial on newly annexed land because there is enough available city
land for commercial. Each community wants to be independent north county and south
county, aka national market forces will impact us.
Pinard - SLO is not going to remain the main city in the county. Are we trying to
compete with other cities who have a greater potential to grow?
Dunin - How can we augment loss of ability to provide services commercial, and who's
going to pay for it.
Garth - Lots of business people want to locate in SLO.
Pinard - SLO = definable boundaries with agriculture or O.S. surrounding. Decide what
you want in that boundary.
Garth - No one is proposing unlimited growth, but rather what the limit should be.
Pinard - Residential 1% and commercial at .75% doesn't cover half of what can be built.
(Cal Poly, federal government, school district, city, county, state = 48% - see p. 2.5, and
we have no control over them).
Rappa - Can we reduce air quality impacts through transit, etc? Easy to make policy
3
-7/8fI
statements, but difficult to implement. Key element to afford housing is a large subdivision
with a percentage of affordable housing.
Lampert - Development outside city shows the effects of market demands without
capturing services. Is it housing or commercial or both that is a spill over that the City
isn't taking care of.
Roalman - Airport area = light industrial, office.
Reiss - Would like control over airport area and other county areas with growth.
Carla Saunders - This is a theoretical discussion that shouldn't be confused with context.
1% was voted in and needs a good reason to change it.
Dunin - Don't confuse commercial with light industrial. Look at other areas within city
limits but outside downtown core for mixed use and other in fill.
Garth - Use other types of TSM or TDM strategies instead of limiting commercial growth.
Pinard & Roalman - Keep 1 %.
Dunin - Encourage smaller, more affordable units at higher densities.
Roalman - Change type of unit, without altering rate of growth is open to discussion.
Reiss - Average wage earner cannot even afford to buy a lot without a house.
Supply has a lot to do with -price.
Pinard - Other areas have shown that ample supply does not reduce cost.(see handout)
Dunin - Separate commercial from manufacturing/light industrial.
Commercial: Office, retail, professional services
Manufacturing/Light Industrial: including services for them
Pinard - P.C. was more conservative than Dunin's last statement.
Dunin - Downtown is in trouble, and can go into recycling program.
Lampert - Look carefully at types of commercial sales taxes, 1/2 of SLO's tax revenue is
from retail, but retail does not pay high wages enabling the worker to pay for housing.
4
7/�(qi
Rappa - Job/housing balance is the discussion and we have steered away from it.
Matteson - No city controls, no services, and no annexations would look better to many
county land owners than annexation with city controls and services.
Rappa - Key focus - Decrease impacts of net in communities and strive to improve
job/housing balance and encourage people to live near where they work.
Council agrees with this.
Pinard - OK then, commercial growth rate has to be 1% or less since residential is at 1 %.
Matteson - Can improve job/housing balance and also have an increase in future
commuting. Do you want that? Do you want fewer people commuting in or a smaller
percentage of the total commuting in.
Roalman - Reduce number of people who live here and work elsewhere. Wants to
provide housing for everyone in the city.
Dunin - Disagrees with above - that is an absolute and the G.P. does not discuss absolutes.
Saunders - Remember services used by visitors and commuters (water, sewer, etc.). How
do you monitor them.
Rappa - Strive to improve the number who live and work in the city.
Pinard - Encourage people to live near where they work. Wants Council to set a
commercial growth rate now - Dunin says not enough information is available to make that
decision.
Rappa - Does not like separation of resident /nonresident. She would like total growth with
two basic components. (resident and nonresident at 1 %).
Lampert - To look at total growth rate is less than conventional, but can look at total
developed land or total day time or night time use.
Roalman - Have the economic consultant figure commercial at 0, 0.75, 1.0, 1.5, and 3 %.
Consultant should look at nonresident inclusive and noninclusive of government. Historical
nonresident is approximately 3.0 %, including government. 0 and 3% serve as parameters
only.
Lilly - Are you going to try to estimate the type of businesses that pay enough to allow
5
7 /ti91
their employees to live in San Luis Obispo.
PACKAGE OF POLICIES
Planning Commission
• Consider nonresident growth rates subject to input from the economic consultant's impact
study of different growth rates.
• Rezone commercial to residential.
• Priorities within nonresidential sectors (emphasize economic benefits and costs, eg. point
of sale type operations).
• Mixed use
• Alternate means for financing services
Closer Balance
• Change housing restrictions to include more,affordable housing without changing 1%
growth rate. (Reiss disagrees)
Recent Trends
• Mitigate job/housing through regional transit
*Key Focus: Decrease impacts of net in- commutes and strive to improve job/housing
balance. Encourage people to live near where they work.
6
-7f 81Rr
Agriculture - all Dalidio; most of Irish Hills, part of Frum; half of Margarita is shown as
Class A agriculture. The Planning Commission has recommended no growth in Class A
ag, but only shows Dalidio as being preserved.
Matteson - Rewrite text to focus on Dalidio area to clear up the P.C. contradiction.
Saunders - Wants preservation of Dalidio Farm. Allowing agriculture for a short while on
what is left over is not a good idea.
Smith - Need to define greenbelts around the City and should consider Dalidio a potential
greenbelt.
Garth - It is good to plan for O.S. and ag, but Dalidio is a logical space for expansion with
utilities and services in place.
Facilitator -
Reasons to Preserve: Ag activity; OS/buffer; location; land bank; sustainable
communities.
Ways to Preserve: Trade off; density transfer.
Roalman - Dalidio may be a high valued asset in the future because of the water below
the surface.
Matteson - City will need Dalidio, Irish Hills, Margarita, Orcutt, and City infill to continue
1% growth for next 30% years.
Rappa - OS helps the entrance to our city and thinks the same affect can be achieved
through clustering and transfer. Maintain 101 corridor.
Reiss - Madonna Malls needs Dalidio expansion and agrees with Penny's above statement.
Roalman - Dalidio remain intact as ag. in its entirety.
Pinard - Dalidio remain intact as ag. in its entirety.
Dunin - Ag was never a part of LU element. 3/2 majority - Dalidio should be developed
using clustering and /or desnity transfer and maintaining Hwy. 101 corrodor as OS.
Rappa - Look at text as class 1 and 2 soils. What is the criteria? Need to clean up text.
7
7 /ell
Lampert.- What about other two expansion areas?
Dunin - Move auto uses from downtown to Irish Hills.
Pinard - Dalidio hasn't reached process that Margarita area and can still be stopped.
Densey - Need to preserve 101 corridor.
Pinard - Need mutually adopted plans to preserve rural character outside City's UPL
Is there going to be agriculture in the community? How is ag to be treated in the City's
G.P.
Roalman - A precedent shouldn't set the stage for future growth (Dalidio).
Lampert - Feather densities out to urban service line - makes it illogical to extend services.
Roalman & Pinard - Wants agriculture as part of city zoning.
Smith & Saunders - Wants an environmental expert before document is written.
Agriculture Options:
1) Save agriculture, land within urban reserve
2) Save Dalidio (be selective); cluster development with /O.S. buffers.
3) Save outside urban reserve
4) Density transfer.
e /dw- coun.not
8
11C/9
SAN LUIS OBISPO
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JULY 297 1991
August 5
• Finish Airport discussion
• Response to non - residential growth rate questions from July 8
• Response to any affordable housing questions
• Neighborhoods
• Sustainable Community
• County Growth Management
• Traffic/Circulation
• Air Quality/Clean Air Plan
AFFORDABLE HOUSING:
Roalman: What is the future status of housing contracts? Could some areas be rezoned
to maintain mobile homes?
Pinard: Overall, how does zoning affect housing supply?
Dunin: Mobile homes are losing to the housing market.
Roalman: (p. 1 -5) What other cities have inclusionary programs? How successful are
they, and what are their requirements? Clarify low - interest mortgage revenue
bonds, inclusionary housing.
Dunin: (p. 2) What is modest housing?
Lampert: Larger houses have more amenities so smaller houses with less amenities
will reduce housing prices.
Dunin: Small to Moderate; What exactly does this refer to?
Matteson: Affordable housing units refer to manufactured units, mobile homes, and
condo's.
Dunin: We should look at zoning to allow for mixed use housing.
Matteson: S.L.O. is considered a M.U. neighborhood, but we can do better in the
major expansion areas. All commercial zoned area allow for housing. The
Planning Commission is talking about a M.U. zone.
Dunin: What about student housing?
Matteson: We didn't separate out student housing at this stage of the report.
Dunin: Are we doing to discuss student housing in the housing document?
Matteson: We don't have anything specific right now.
Roalman: How are the financial Institutions reacting to M.U. projects?
Lampert: Financial institutions in Sacramento won't consider anything out of the
ordinary (i.e. M.U.). The housing Authority should provide loan
guarantees.
Reiss: Initiative by the banking industry.
Pinard: • We might have to do something independently, and put pressure on the
banking institutions. We should hold up those developers who want to take
pioneer steps. The downtowns that have survived are mixed use.
Commercial zones have the highest amount of crime on the police blotters.
• What happened to Stoneridge? The original envelopes had small houses
and setback exemptions were allowed that created larger houses. Once
exceptions to goals and guidelines are made, it changes the whole picture.
• With the city's expansion areas land values are low when zoned for
farming and grazing. When the city re-zones the property, owners are given
a fortune. The community then has a right to ask for what they ;want in
return. There is an inverse relationship here. The City has strong needs and
we want to see them through. If we require 50% (hypothetical number)
affordable housing, that contributes to the final land value.
• What are the M.U. implications? What directions are we heading? Should
we lose housing and add commercial, or add housing to commercial areas? I
think we should add housing into commercial areas.
Reiss: We have alot of high price affordable housing, and we want to counteract the
market place. Stoneridge is all occupied even with the high prices. With free
enterprises in an open market it is difficult to counter that open market
Artificially controlling free enterprise is like swimming uphill. When we
increase the gap between low cost and open market housing it creates two
distinct classes.
Lampert: Every city regulates the free market by growth limits and zoning. A supply
and demand imbalance enables developers to charge higher prices (When
supply is less than the demand). Livermore was successful when they gave
bonus points to developers with low income housing.
Pinard: Reserve some of the developers profit for the community.
Reiss: Many developers over the last year have gone out of business. It is a
tremendous risk that they are taking.
Rappa: • We must have strong policies to preserve existing housing. It will be
difficult, but worth the effort, to have a mechanism for affordable housing.
• The number of units allowed in incorporated vs. unincorporated areas.
• Look at the connection between what we want to achieve and how to
achieve it
• Mobile homes are worth considering.
Reiss: We must protect existing affordable housing.
Roalman: (p. 1 -7,1 -8 Environmental and economic questions; #2) Is it true that certain
land requirements will lower land costs?
Pinard: If we require affordable housing, the land values will be affected because the
developer will only accept a price that allows him to make a reasonable
profit Inflated land values will not allow the developer to do that
Lampert: The value of land derives from the value of improvements. It is the City
Council and Planning Commission's responsibility to chart a vision for the
future and not worry about the profits of the land owners.
2
?(2glq I
Saunders: Reiss has development expertise so I'm sure he knows what he is talking
about, but I also agree with Pinard. A windfall is given to the developer.
Also, the supply and demand theory is incorrect (look at Orange Co.).
Long: (Charles Long - resident) I sold a piece of property and 49% was taken
from various government agencies. Also, rent control for mobile homes is
unfair.
Price: There are two corporations that deal with low cost housing. Grants are
available, but if you don't adhere to their requirements, the funds are gone.
Builders can be subsidized for low income housing. Charters mandate that
banks loan a certain amount to lot - moderate income housing.
Smith: (Dave Smith - resident) If the city had land then they could have low income
housing.
Lampert: Growth limitations are set higher than demand
Roalman: (p. 1 -8, Questions for staff guidance, #1, 1A, and 1B) Could we get on
with the questions?
• All agree with #1 but Reiss who wants an idea of the affects on the
housing stock. What are the implications.
Question 1 A
Rappa: What criteria did the Planning Commission use?
Matteson: State requirements, current housing element, increments, etc.
Rappa: Do we want long term obtainable and sustainable goals, or short term
moderate components? Wants implementation measures and not just goals.
%'s are meaningless if they are not implementable.
Pinard: That's why we have the L.U. general plan with the housing component.
Dunin: I hear the term developer being used as if they were criminals, and I would
be careful of that.
Pinard: But the city is giving this windfall out, and the city deserves to reap some
benefits. Are we separating the new expansion areas from the existing city
limits?
Dunin: Windfall is a poor term.
Rappa: Yes, but we don't have anything to base the percentages on. What did the
Planning Commission use?
Matteson: The Planning Commission had criteria, but not a formula.
Pinard: A couple of years ago Mike Multari gave recommendations according to
standards in accordance with the builders that were similar to the Planning
Commissions recommendations. Where is that?
Dunin: The figures that Multari gave were only suggestions.
-712-ct/qr
Pinard: But they were working with builders and-developers. Perhaps Mike should
come back and give that talk again.
Rappa: It's better to have something more restrictive than less, so we can later
modify if needed.
Pinard: (Chart p. 1 -9) Go with the Planning Commissions recommendations and
later we can amend it if further information suggests a need to do so.
(Annexation areas only)
Matteson: You want 1) Feasibility (all aspects); 2) Fiscal Consequences on the city; 3)
Impacts on other housing costs. Looking at the Planning Commissions Ws,
a lower %, and a higher %.
Roalman: How long would it take to work this stuff out?
Lampert: 4 -6 weeks.
Roalman: Go with the Planning Commission numbers and evaluate them with the EIR
(In advance of the EIR or after the EIR ?) Should be before the ML
Lampert: Go with a working hypothesis and we will give you a set of alternatives.
(higher and lower numbers to choose from)
Reiss: Be careful to taking other people's residential property.
Pinard: Count non - residential property in expansion area and in the city gives us four
categories. New expansion (res. and non - res.), and existing city (res. and
non -res.)
Question #2 R. 1 -8 (Questions for staff guidance)
Pinard: Community of San Francisco has this plan in effect and it has been a
success.
--- - - - - -- (other sources say that San Francisco is watering it down because it isn't
working out as well as they planned.)
Rappa: Must get it all together before we release our final report We need to
schedule a 4th meeting.
Question #3 p. 1 -8 (Questions for staff guidance)
Pinard: What do we spend now?
Dunn: The City deals with developers and housing authorities, but we have not
directly contributed to affordable housing. Other cities have set aside money
in their general fund for affordable housing (20% or so). Federal funds have
declined and we can't depend on them as much as we could before.
Pinard: But banks'must also loan to a % of low income housing. The city does
provide for low income housing. We have helped the women's shelter, land
for the housing authority, and the elderly project on Laurel Lane.
Roalman: We need to identify the full range of options and costs. What does more get
us?
4
-7 j2 -rl1 ,1 (
Uunin: Where is it going to come from?
Reiss: Are fees charged distributed through the residents or do they come out of the
general fund? Are we driving a big wedge through housing in the
community via subsidies?
FINAL NOTES ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING:
• Identify sites within the city limits.
• Land values are affected by local government action
General Goal: Preserve/Protect/Increase existing supply of affordable housing.
• What % contribution for affordable housing?
• Could some areas be rezoned to maintain mobile homes? (Mobile homes are now
under rent control).
• What is the potential for M.U. to affect affordable housing? (tie into facilities and
services, for example, schools).
• How are financial institutions addressing this? (lobby /advocate for state action; Put
pressure on financial institutions).
• Overall, how does zoning affect housing supply?
• What is the future status of housing contracts?
• Look at how other cities have done. (re: inclusionary programs) Examples of how
things remain affordable.
• To what extent do city requirements affect markets ability to provide affordable
housing?
• Student housing details?
• Low interest mortgage bonds, how successful?
• Use market forces to affect housing prices. To what degree does supply really
influence price?
• Set up programs to enable the city to get grants, financial assistance.
5
71 *14 ji
AIRPORT AREA
Matteson: City and County plans show different things for this area.
Pinard: Put up a map and tell us what the area encompasses.
Matteson: Shows the Airport LU. Plan with various zones. Airport L.U. commission
1.5 years ago came up with an update that is still being revised
Pinard: Some of these numbers are difficult to follow. The approach and take -off are
in zone 3 and are the most hazardous. Why aren't they in zone 1?
Matteson: The runway and control tower are zones one and two.
Pinard: The county has made mistakes regarding the airport area As we plan the
future LU. we are entering legal territory. (lawsuits) I want clarity of the
number system. Other Counties have had to buy back property when they
put homes in dangerous zones.
Lilly: Zone 3 does not allow any housing. The airport noise contour map will be
used for compatible L.U.'s
Roalman: The County is in the process of updating the LU. plan. The last 10 years
have had more strict development standards. What is the County planning?
Lilly: Conceptual LU. plan. We are going to incorporate that into our LU.
elgment with some modifications. A final EIR will be out by around next
summer.
Pinard: It costs the city to implement this ?. The city is providing water and sewage
to this area
Matteson: Either 1) The city wants those uses to happen, and wants development to
pay, or 2) Should form a district
Roalman: Planning Commission recommendations map. What is Rural Industrial.
What are the differences between C.C. and P.C. plans?
Matteson: Planning Commission would not have a business park. Discussion draft
shows Edna Islay and Margarita area as expansion areas.
Pinard: Why are residential uses in the airport zone 4?
Matteson: Zones 4b and 4c were not inconsistent with residential uses, and that is were
the homes are. Zone 4a is much less compatible with residential uses. Noise
levels less than 60 CNEL are considered acceptable for residential uses.
Roalman: (p. 1 -26) An increase in jobs capacity of 7,150? Is the county going with the
conceptual plan?
Matteson: Assuming the business park is developed at a high level, 7,150 jobs is
feasible. Assumes everything builds out and includes water and sewer.
Dunin: Should we annex this or not?
Matteson: Urban uses should be annexed.
712Li1 'I ►
Dunin: Develop two general plans with negotiations.
Rappa: Less intensive commerce park.
Victor M. Intent is to preserve larger parcels, but within the last eight years many of the
business parks have developed One -half of each of the two largest are
gone. Holding in larger parcels gives it a campus look
Dunin: Where does the Garcia/Rodriques site fit in?
Victor M: They are inside the planning area, and outside the assessment district.
Dunin: Garcia and mobile homes? This land could be developed with affordable
housing in mind
Facilitator: Are you looking for one plan that both city and county can agree on?
Dunin: Yes.
Pinard: (Top of pg. 1 -26) What does "In effect, the city would have to give up more
control than it would gain in order for property owners to support
annexation." mean?
Matteson: The City's objective is to minimize congestion. This means not alot of
growth. But with jobs/housing balance the city should annex the area and
allow more intense development.
Pinard: I thought intense development was not what we wanted
Matteson: I don't know that parcel size really dictates the size of the building. Wells
and septic tanks may not extend into the future.
Regoway: The city and county must agree on what the roll of the airport will be before
they decide the LU.'s around it. The city sees the airport as a disgruntle
neighbor they have to put up with. Many of the L.U.'s are necessary to keep
the airport viable.
Matteson: Need more direction regarding business parks.
Roalman: The City wants to control this so the county won't decide for them later. But
what is the County planning south of this area? We want the County's long
term plan.
Airport Planning Objectives:
1) Safety
2) Noise
3) Compatible LU.'s
• Favorable economic benefit to cost.
• Determine present and future roletfunction of the airport with the County.
• Formulate the city's plan for airport region. Then mesh with Co. plan to try to achieve
one plan with the city and county in concurrence.
7/2--If q 1
SAN LUIS OBISPO
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AUGUST 5, 1991
Those in Attendance (partial list)
Ken Hampian, Assistant CEO
John Dunn, City Administrator
Bill Roalman
Ron Dunin
Jerry Reiss
Peg Pinard
Penny Rappa
Arnold Jonas, City Planning Director
Glen Matteson
Suzanne Lampert, Economist
Dave Smith, SLO Resident
Erik Greening, Atascadero Resident
Janet Kourakis, Chairman P.C.
David Eddy, Telegram Tribune
Ray Ball
Mike Harmon, SLO Area Council
John French
Charlie Fruit
George Moylan
Ned Regoway
Dana Lilly
Terry Sanville
Dave Marshall, Traffic Consultant
Next Meeting: Monday, September 16, 1991
Air Quality
Sustainable Community
County Growth
Neighborhoods
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Lampert Several approaches to assess affects.
1) Survey of other cities. What are their requirements ?, how successful are they?
(Planning staff will pursue)
2) Cash flow simulations of development projects (simulated pro formas), will
show a range of housing types. Residential and non - residential. (Economist
will pursue)
Pinard Concerned that data from other cities is irrelevant.
Rappa Will an annual percentage be figured in?
Lampert No
Rappa Time limits are important. A development can become infeasible if time limits are
not honored.
Lampert Stretching out a project increases costs and uncertainty for development. If
developers were allowed to build as they wanted, they could do more affordable
housing. A time element will be figured into the formula.
Rappa Will up front costs (infrastructure etc.) and financing costs will be figured out first?
Lampert Yes. We will figure for residential and non - residential in both the major expansion
area and the city.
Dunin What are the factors that govern land costs. Time factor has a significant impact on
the cost
Lampert For each of the four cases we will evaluate a range of affordable housing. We will
bring back a set of figures that would not shut down housing production or push the
market up.
Reiss Are you going to talk about the impact on existing houses, because prices will be
increased artificially? Are we providing a small amount of new affordable housing,
while taking away current alternatives in the existing market?
Pinard New development in the expansion areas are now agriculture. Since the community
is giving the owners a windfall the community has a right to a piece of that profit.
By focusing so much on the new development we are forgetting about the existing
city potential.
Roalman The development community would prefer not to have affordable housing. If we go
to them to find out a good alternate rate this information would be biased.
Lampert Yes, but knowing that will help us to account for it Look at relative impacts versus
actual numbers.
Reiss We need to actively pursue the cutting edge of lower cost housing. We need to do a
search of what is going on in the community.
Pinard You are using what is in the market place, and a new project has already done that
Rappa If we think we have the information we don't need to do it We have to re-evaluate
our goals.
Reiss Two things:
1) Do not artificially inflate costs of communication.
2) No children should grow up in this community thinking they are in the low cost
development.
Dunin We are not catering to the poor in the community. We are trying to find a way that
our people can stay here without others moving from the outside. We are not
concentrating on conversion. To have purchasable houses (rather than low cost) we
will have to decrease the size of the lot and decrease setbacks etc. If we are only
talking about inclusionary housing we are not solving problems, but rather creating
problems.
Facilitator Review:
• Use Mike Multari's study to avoid duplication of effort.
• Evaluate the impact on land costs.
• Connection to total allocation of residential and non - residential units/year.
- in the city
2
016111
- in the expgnsion area
• Show /evaluate impact of time to develop in cost and affordability analysis.
Dunin The loss of affordable housing is not addressed.
Matteson That was already addressed in an earlier report given by the P.C. last summer. Do
you see a need for more information, or do you want an update on the report?
Pinard An update
Rappa Would like to see a copy of that report
Roalman What is the cost of the economic study?
Lampert $15,000- 20,000 and will include the simulated pro formas, development feasibility,
and land prices.
Moylan Generic Comment: The City Council and staff should keep in mind that affordable
housing is a community problem and not the developers problem The banking
industry is a key component
Specific Comment: The survey should develop something for SLO's problems and
not focus on other cities with different problems and different solutions. Focus on
community's our size with our problems. Personally, I don't think this survey will
help.
Greening Book recommendation: The Production of Housing by Christopher Alexander.
Ball I don't hear any social component No CC &R's that sustain something in the
community.
Facilitator The housing element will go into that
NON - RESIDENTIAL GROWTH RATE
Lampert Over a 20 year time frame:
1) Fiscal impacts of growth
2) Impacts of growth on jobs/housing balance and number of net -in commuters
3) Types of non -res. growth for wages paid to jobs located within the city.
Fiscal impacts are not the only thing to look at Also look at quality of life,
traffic, air quality, jobs/hsg. balance, types of jobs with new development, etc.
Our report represents our best estimates using the best knowledge we have
today. But we do not know what will happen in the future.
Growth
J/H Balance
In- Commute
City Budget
Cumulative surplus thru 2010
int of sale Der ca ita
0%
1.0511.45
3,8001149300
0.8 M
9.9 M
1 %
1.30/1.66
9,100/199600
12.8 M
10.6M
3%
1.90/2.18
229300/329800
42.8 M
13.3 M
1990
1.29/1.72
7,250/17,750
5.0 M this yr.
2.6 M this y
* Bold numbers represent the planning area.
N6141
Rappa I thought we should be looking at a larger area (regional approach). I think we are
below standards.
Matteson Whatever we do will be confined to city limits. We should be aware of what is
going on outside the city limits. Most of the additional housing will be within
future city limits.
Lampert 64% of SLO revenues were from taxes and 2/3 of those were sales taxes.
Roalman Concerned with 0% having a decrease in commute. What if jobs were intensified
with longer hours?
Lampert Did not figure intensification into the scenario.
Roalman New development pays for itself in capital development. What if the wastewater
treatment facility needed to be updated?
Hampian Development impact fees should take care of that problem.
Matteson Decide in LU how much land to develop, what impact fees, etc. How much cost is
recovered depends on the fees you set.
Rappa In non - residential uses, if the square footage is restricted to'X' amount Could we
do what we wanted to do? Could we have a growth rate that includes both res. and
non -res. to allow greater flexibility?
Reiss Are you saying commercial could use up all the residential allotment in one year?
Rappa Yes, and visa versa
Matteson It's better to keep them separate. A one year period is difficult to deal with. Rather
say, over the next five years we will allow 'X' amount of square footage and when
it's used up it is gone.
Reiss If we are going on a five year cycle, a large commercial use could come in and use
up all the commercial allotment, then the smaller commercial land would be
rendered useless for five years.
Matteson Yes, but there are ways to avoid that situation.
Dunin If a May Co wanted to develop on the fourth year will you tell them to wait for two
yam?
Matteson Maybe.
Dunin You'll never see them again.
Pinard Were trying to develop a guideline for commercial. It seems we are getting stuck
on whether a large company wants to come in. Why don't we address that as a
separate issue. Don't redesign a goal for that one exception.
Roalman We don't have to chase Santa Maria We should look at what we have and try to
make it better. If we build a big shopping center on the Dalidio property, then what
will happen to the downtown?
4
0145111
Reiss I don't want to draw Santa Maria residents to SLO, but rather keep SLO residents
shopping here.
Pinard Santa Maria is in worse shape now than before the new buildings were in place.
Lampert But there are other factors at work there.
Matteson I have the numbers for cumulative addition of retail square footage allowed under
the P.C. recommendation of 0.75% growth rate. It assumes services,
manufacturing and government grow along with retail.
Year Square Footage Total
2000 250,000 662,000
2010 514,000 79318,000
2020 703,000 1,802,000
Other Retail:
MaDonna Road Plaza:
Central Coast Plaza:
French Pavilian
Uncle Toms Toys (infill)
Wallmark Store
Court Street
320 K Square Footage
220 K
400 K
9K
160 K
100 K
Roalman Building a 160 K square foot Wallmark will increase tax revenues there, and
decrease tax revenues at other small stores selling competitive items. I think we
should maintain and improve what we have now.
Rappa You're making an assumption that negative affects occur with new commercial
growth. More competition can be better for everyone.
Dunin Large department stores are not competing with small stores. They are helping
them. Since Ross opened many people are coming into downtown that have never
been there before. There is a trickle down affect.
Lampert True
Matteson There are lots of behavioral, marketing, and pricing that could occur without adding
square footage.
Facilitator Goals:
• Maintain sales tax, prevent leakage
• Maintain downtown viability
• Provide needed goods and services for SLO residents
• We have three choices:
1) no growth rate
2) growth rate
3) growth rate with special over -ride
i.e. Major attractor (May Co), MU with housing in downtown
(define downtown area).
Reiss 0% growth rate looks good, but would probably backfire later on, so I'm favoring
the rate + special over -ride.
5
8/5147 c
French Concern with special circumstances with downtown (compartmentalized rate)
second and third story in downtown is not usually retail. Building in the
downtown is difficult as it is. Look at the adverse impact of regulations on
downtown.
Harman Concerned with two layer res. and commercial. SLO is tourist oriented, and there
should be a separation of rates for tourist oriented and resident oriented items.
French Development in downtown is very difficult and maybe incentives (special bonus,
etc.) that favor downtown would help.
Lampert Within non - residential growth rate if you allocate it specifically for commercial than
you have problems with mixed use.
French Encourage MU in downtown by being careful.
Reiss MU could be another over -ride
Pinard Be careful about taking every special thought and making it an over -ride.
Reiss Agrees with Pinard. Need to establish where downtown is and isn't. Do we want
to include downtown in the percentage? We have earthquake, sprinkler, etc.
retrofits coming up. Many buildings need to be intensified to make that feasible.
The downtown must remain unique, and artificial controls put on the whole
community may hurt downtown.
Pinard Allow downtown to have first priority.
Facilitator Or have a 1 % growth rate, and allow downtown to have 0.25, and the rest of the
community could have 0.75.
Lampert Realistically, how much impact will the downtown have on commercial growth?
Assume 1/2 of the building space is in downtown. Take Reiss' position of no
restrictions. What would happen?
Pinard Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume it would double.
Dunn No
Reiss Be careful of how we define downtown.
Roalman I am uncomfortable with rate loopholes. Wouldn't support a blanket exemption for
downtown.
Facilitator It wouldn't be a blanket exemption, but instead would be a priority for downtown.
Roalman Opposed to rate + special over -ride.
Dunin Supports goals and rate + special over -ride.
Pinard Leaving an over -ride category open is uncomfortable. Including MU housing
downtown. I am open to a rate + a one time major attractor (eg. May Co). Priority
given to development that includes housing downtown.
S151a1
Reiss I am for the rate + special over -ride of major attractor.
Rappa
I am for the rate + special over -ride of major attractor.
Dunin
Flexibility is key with MU
Roalman
Don't think we should give a rate increase for MU housing.
Pinard
There isn't a rate increase, but merely special consideration for MU.
Dunn
What rate is this discussion geared to?
Roalman
.75%
Dunin
1 %
Reiss
1%
Pinard
1%
Rappa
1%
AIRPORT
Concept Plan
7
SIs1� i
City
Count
Rural Industrial
Keeps G.P designation.
Community Service
(Possibly allow fewer uses)
- few people
Designation
- on -site disposal
- non -res.
- on -site disposal
- office
- publishing
- apparel
Visitor Facilities
Does not specify
Private owned visitor
"arrow 1 " entrance
Parks
Not shown
four parks
(Emphasize transit oriented
- Western (near HC)
design and development)
- (S. of HC in CS)
- ? deadline allow limits
uses.
- after deadline allow
more uses.
Garcia Ranch
Interim Designation
Hills -O.S.
(City and Co are similar)
Recreation
Residential
Golf Course
Rural Design (incl. rec.)
Central area
(provide other rec. facilities
to service p=le in the area
Tank Farm
Rural Industrial
Tank Farm
7
SIs1� i
Rappa Will the airport area be annexed, and who will service it?
Lilly Concept plan based on the whole area is being phased into the city. The Margarita
Expansion area, Broad Street, and two business parks are planned for the city, and
we are placing strict interim development standards on them. South of the Margarita
area will remain in the County including the proposed water.
Roalman How are you planning to use the area south of the Specific Plan area?
Lilly Will stay the same. Agriculture zoning, residential rural, Los Ranchos Country
Club. 20 acre parcels may go to 10 acre parcels.
Dunin Do we want industrial development within the County? I see a policy conflict under
the business park category.
Pinard To make transit work, a large number of people need to go to one destination. How
are you going to service mass transit with items spread out. Industrial development
should be intensified as opposed to rural development.
Dunin Do you mean clustering?
Pinard At a minimum.
Lampert There are some kinds of uses that need more land (truck loading, etc.)
Pinard I don't think any industry should be exempt from mass transit requirements.
Lilly The county agrees with that, and we have tried to direct development along the major
roads instead of in the interior.
Pinard New developers should be responsible for hooking into mass transit.
Rappa The county has asked us for a long time to decide what we intend to do with the
specific plan area, and now we should at least include our decision into the draft.
Roalman Annexing in reaction to another government agency, fearing they will develop the
land if we don't annex it is wrong.
Dunn Do you want the kind of development the county is proposing, or do you want to put
in the draft what you want?
Reiss I would rather be in control of it, and have a final say of how the area is developed.
Roalman We should work with the county to see what should be there. We should not annex
because I am concerned about the intensity of development impacts on water and
sewer, and we still have land in other areas more appropriate for development.
Rappa But we should be prepared to answer where we want the Urban Reserve Line (URL)
to be.
Pinard This area is already within the URL.
Lilly The URL is tied to a 10 -20 year horizon
8
g151a
Dunin As I see it we should progressively annex or annex the whole lot and then figure
buildout.
Matteson City annexation doesn't always mean higher intensification, but why would a land
owner want to be annexed for lower intensification.
Dunin Annexation does not mean automatic buildout. We can build as the concept plan set
out.
Pinard If it doesn't get served by mass transit, it doesn't get built. We should have good
design between the city and county based on the same goals. (Air, water traffic etc.)
Dunin (talking to Lilly) If the Council would reconfirm the reserve line, would you
consult our staff and build to the city standards?
Lilly We can't put a blanket statement that we will follow the city requirements to the letter
because sometimes they may conflict with county standards.
Dunin Would you be sympathetic to our cause?
Lilly Yes.
Pinard The county should also show us that they are preparing the way for us with roads,
sprinkler ordinance, etc.
Rappa Council should give to staff a zoning designation.
Dunin 1) Re -affirm work on concept plan - ran jointly with city and county.
2) Work out differences in design standards (infrastructure requirements)
TRAFFIC ICIRCULATION
Pinard Growth doesn't have to stop to improve air quality. Traffic and air quality is tied
together.
Reiss Traffic, air quality, and parking go together. Make transit more convenient.
Marshall Between incentives to use transit, and disincentives to use the auto, disincentives
work much better.
Facilitator • Changes in LU to include MU
• Employee programs
• money for transit
• Use cities similar to SLO for transit/non -auto mode program ideas.
Pinard We compare San Francisco to us because they are one of few areas who have come
up with alternate modes of transit that work.
Facilitator • Pedestrian oriented site and street design (safety for pedestrians)
• Explore use of alternative vehicle fuels.
• Build into capital improvement plan - schedule the programs, etc.
• Must plan ahead to make this work - tie into long range transit plan.
9
8 /s/ R r
City Council Meeting - October 21, 1991
Those in attendance:
Ron Dunin, Mayor
Penny Rappa
Bill Roalman
Jerry Reiss
Peg Pinard
John Dunn, City Administrator
Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director
Glen Matteson, Associate Planner
Dana Lilley, County Planner
Carla Saunders, Citizens Planning Alliance
Ken Hampian, Assistant CEO
Janet Kourakis, Planning Commission
Alan Settle
David Eddy, Telegram Tribune
John Smith
Bob Kitamura
Alan Cooper, Central Coast Chapter AIA, President
Suzanne Lampert, Economist
John French, Developer
Andrew Merriam
Dennis Moresco
Charlie Senn, Property Owners Association Representative
Bob Roundtree
Terry Sanville
County Growth Management
Pinard: p. 1 -10 first paragraph, This is a document talking about how we are going to get worse, and
not how to get better. Can we accept deteriorating levels of service standards?
Rappa: These levels need to be taken seriously.
Pinard: Water, Circulation, Air Quality, etc. has declined. If the current county program has been on
the books for 10 years, how has it helped?
Rapper We want to encourage the county to continue to work on this.
Pinard: Sure we will encourage it, but I don't see the teeth for making it work.
Facilitator. (To Pinard) What change would you recommend?
Rappa: We will not participate in the county's meetings and the process, where we have never done
before.
Pinard: How bad does it get before someone steps in?
Rapper I would like the "levels" language consistent with the current county program.
Pinard: We must be pro - active with this issue.
Dunn: p. 1 -10 bottom, We could easily get into a situation with significant county growth in the
periphery. I request that the county not approve development in the urban reserve areas.
Dunin: I want to show timetables for annexing county lands.
Reiss: p. 1 -14, What is the impact on housing costs?
Lampert: San Jose and S. Livermore Valley have been studies. The assumption used was the price to be
paid for development credits wouldn't exceed the price of the land It then shouldn't increase
the price of housing.
Roalman: 1) Under the county growth management the county should discourage future lot splits in the
URL.
2) There is a potential for 700 -1000 units on the Dalidio property. Maybe they could make
more profit with 700 homes, but the community may need more affordable housing instead.
Lampert: If you required a developer to do 1,000 units, could they do less.
Pinard: When the county has this strategy and is still doing lot splits, how is this program administered?
Have you mapped out the open space and agriculture?
Lilley: Yes, prime agriculture, habitat and viewsheds have been mapped out.
Pinard: If you have mapped out an area within out planning area and it is prime agriculture land, then
what happens? It is still being subdivided.
Lilley: It is still designated agriculture and not an urban designation, so it is only allowed lot splits of
20 to 320 acres.
Pinard: The larger the lot is, the more viable it is for agricultural uses. How are you helping agricultural
preservation by creating smaller lots?
Lilley: Sometimes agriculture owners have to subdivide a small piece of their property to pay for the
agriculture. Loosing a small amount is better that loosing the whole thing.
Dunin: What I would like to see for the Margarita Area is mobile homes, open space, agriculture, with a
density transfer plan. Property rights need to be respected.
Pinard: Once lots have been split this adds cost to the land at a later date.
Lilley: TDR's would be based on zoning classifications the property owner is in.
Rapper If TDR's are a tool worth considering, then how do we use them, and in combination with that
other tools?
Dunin: Areas contiguous with the city that are within or beyond the URL would be subject to the
specific plan developed by an agreement between the county, city and property owr °rs.
Matteson: Once there is an administrative draft out, then we may have a joint City Council/Board of
Supervisors meeting.
French: How do the growth management policies work with restrictions by ACD?
Consensus:
• Rappa, Roalman, and Dunin support TDR's,
• Pinard and Reiss also support TDR's as long as it works well with solid planning principles
11
AFFORDSBLE HOUSING
Dunin: To what market are we building?
Rappa: We need to focus in on whether this is the appropriate place for detailed numerical information.
What are our policy statements in the LUE?
Roalman: Put the housing numbers in both the LUE and the housing element.
Matteson: What kind of contributions should non - residential growth make to low income housing (inside
and outside the project).
Rapper If the level of performance doesn't equate with value, then it's not going to work. We have to
have a place to put the money. We can't have a fee program without a place to put the funds.
French: 1) Many housing needs (rental assisted to market rate rental to assisted purchase or other
subsidies to pure market rate housing) It would be a mistake to design a system that only deals
with a few of the housing needs. Above 40% rental to the bottom 60% of the for sale lots are
not being addressed, only subsidized housing is being addressed. I fear that the city council is
drifting into a straight subsidized housing program and are being unfair to the majority of home
buyers.
2) Annexation - If the county has zoned the property residential (not agriculture), and a 15% fee
is required, the property owner will not go to the city. The 15 % requirement should not be
required across the board.
Rappa: We must coordinate with the county.
Saunders: For four years we have heard about providing for low /mod income housing. The economic
expert was hired to do a real analysis, and she talked with developers in the area and came up
with real numbers that will work, and now you want to peddle away from it.
French: Not in the analysis. As you begin to change the capitol requirements for a project there are
problems. Your regulations need to take into account all the changes that take place. I am in
favor of providing affordable housing, but you must include the private industry in your
decisions.
Reiss: How do we make sure that we are filling the greatest need (as French said)?
Rappa: We should require affordable housing and take each project individually. When sorting out the
particulars I want to see options (eg. Bill LaRosa's project) for each project, so they can meet
the requirements individually.
Dunin: Purchasable housing must be flexible and used as an incentive vs. non - incentive. Fees
shouldn't be a controlling factor to discourage annexation.
Reiss: Ensure that we are providing affordable housing in the right area (Buying/renting)
Percentages are more difficult for come up with.
French: The Planning Commission thought rate control should be held forever. There is no difference
between that and rentals.
Rappa: An on -going revolving fund is the only way. We had a project with 10 -15 units of low -mod
housing that created a fund that is passed on to the next buyer.
�o�2i�gr
Build at least 1 du low /mod income, or 3% low, or 5% mod, whichever is greater.
IN CITY RES.<
Pay fee - 5 % building value.
Build at least 1 du low /mod income, or 1 du/ac of site area low /mod income housing,
NON-RE S .: whichever is greater.
Pay fee - 5 % building value.
Build at least 1 du low /mod income, or 10% low, or 20% mod, whichever is greater.
RES.
ANNEX Pay fee - 15% building value.
Build at least 1 du low /mod income, or 1 du/ac of -site area low /mod income housing,
NON -RES. W whichever is greater.
Pay fee - 5% building value.
A. 5,990 sf retail
In -City 12,400 sf office 0.16 acres 1.4 million 5% _ $70,000
-------------------------------------------- ------------- - - - - -- ------------------- - - - - -- ----------------------
B. 5,990 sf retail
11,950 sf office 0.16 acres 1.4 million 1 studio apt.
450 sf res.
Annex
A. 255,000 sf retail I 20 acres I 10.2 million I 5% _ $510,000
B. 255,000 sf retail 20 acres 10.2 million 1 /ac = 20 apts.
Either 60,000 industrial 4 acres 1.8 million 5% _ $90,000
A. 18 res. condos 1.79 acres 1.5 million 5% _ $75,000
In -City
B. 18 res. condos 1.79 acres 1.5 million 1 du afford/mod.
111 "custom" homes b. 20 apts X) .J million
Annex 134 tract homes 130 + /- ac 35.5 million 15 condos I low
88 condos 44 condos L
20 apts. 27 tr. houses I mod
Reiss: Over a period of time we lose affordable housing, and we forever have to increase the
affordable housing stock.
Lampert: Strategies for low income housing can be used to keep low income housing for years.
4
I0#419 I
Rapper We need an on -going program that allows some return for the homeowner, yet allows funds to
pass on to the next buyer.
Pinard: Renters lose all their money, but low income owners get their money back (plus inflationary
costs) which allows them to make a step up in the housing market.
Lampert I have very real concerns about this strategy. A person who gets their own money back (plus
inflation) can not take a step up in the housing market because housing in the same area has
gone up just as much.
Facilitator. Overall, 1) the City Council doesn't want to discourage annexation due to high fees, and is
willing to look as proposals case by case. 2) The City Council wants to look into how
affordability can be achieved over time.
5
�v�z� IqI