HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/20/1993, 3 - STATUS REPORT ON THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, INCLUDING STATE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (HCD) COMMENTS, AND A COMPARISON OF GOALS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS IN THE APRIL 1992 AND JUNE 1993 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENTS. I}IN�lylll�lllll��l0j;�ll�lll f MEETING DATE: _9
city of san tuts ogispo ITEM NUMBER:COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
FROM: Arnold Jona, `Cpi� unity Development Director; By: Jeff HookfAj( ciate Planner
J
SUBJECT: Status report on the Housing Element update, including State Department of
Housing and Community Development (HCD) comments, and a comparison of goals, policies
and programs in the April 1992 and June 1993 draft Housing Elements.
CAO RECOMMENDATION: 1) Review HCD comments and direct staff to respond as
appropriate; 2) Refer the new goals, policies and programs in the Council's June 1993 Hearing
Draft (as well as any new policies or programs responding to HCD's comments) to the Planning
Commission; and 3) Receive and discuss the attached report on the CDBG "self-certification
process."
SITUATION
This report discusses three related aspects of the City's Housing Element update process: 1)
HCD's recent comments on the Council Hearing Draft Housing Element; 2) referral of goals,
policies and programs which were not in the April 1992 Draft Housing Element to the Planning
Commission, as required by State law; and 3) an overview of self-certification as it relates to
qualifying for State CDBG funds.
On May 4, 1993 the City Council reviewed the Draft Housing.Element and directed staff to send
an amended version of the draft to the State Department of Housing and Community
Development (minutes attached). The changes were made and the June 1993 Draft Housing
Element was sent to HCD on May 28th. The Department formally received HCD's comments
on July 8th, during preparation of this report. Staff has included preliminary responses as a
starting point for Council discussion under Discussion, Part I.
Discussion, Part II highlights the main differences between the June 1993 Council Hearing Draft
Housing Element ("CC draft") and the April 1992 Planning Commission recommended Draft
Housing Element ("PC draft"). Staff has identified the new goals, policies and programs to
facilitate Council's referral of these to the Planning Commission. New policies or programs
added to respond to HCD's comments should also be referred to the Planning Commission.
After the Planning Commission makes a recommendation, Staff will revise the draft as
appropriate, resubmit the revised draft to HCD, and return to the City Council for public
hearings on the revised draft. September 1993 is the target for adopting a revised Housing
Element. The Planning Commission has requested an update on the Housing Element and HCD
comments on July 14th.
BACKGROUND
The most recent Draft Housing Element is the third version prepared since the update process
began about two years ago. The first version, distributed in April 1992, was the result of
approximately one year of public review, including two public workshops and five public
r
�IIIII�I. �IIBIU city of San lu, OBISpo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 2
hearings held during late 1991 and the first half of 1992. On May 13, 1992, the Planning
Commission completed its review of the April 1992 Draft Element and proposed a number of
revisions. The Commission's most significant revision dealt with the City's response to
"regional housing need" as determined by the San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council
(COG) following State rules. Commissioners felt that COG's housing need allocation was
unrealistic, and that the updated housing element should reflect the City's current growth
management policy allowing a 1 percent annual increase (about 180 dwellings) in the City's
housing stock. This policy direction was then incorporated into the subsequent May 1993 and
June 1993 City Council hearing drafts.
DISCUSSION
Part I. HCD Comments
Attached is a letter from Tom Cook, Deputy Director of HCD, listing changes and additional
information needed to bring the draft element into compliance with State law. The appendix lists
over 25 specific changes or additions to the Draft Element based on specific sections of the
housing law. For example, HCD cites the City's Residential Growth Management Ordinance
as a constraint to housing law compliance. It also cites the inclusionary housing program in the
Draft Housing Element as another potential constraint on the production of housing due to the
relatively high percentage of affordable housing required (33 percent very low and low income,
plus 17 percent moderate income). Following is a summary of HCD's comments and a brief
staff response.
A. Housing Needs, Resources and Constraints.
1. Identify the City's projected regional housing needs for all income groups.
I
Here, HCD differentiates between the City's housing need as determined by COG, and the
City's housing production target as specified in Table 9 of the Draft Element. HCD wants the
City to include COG's regional need allocation of 5,128 new dwellings by July 1997, broken
down by income group, even though it recognizes that resource constraints will preclude the City
from actually accommodating this number of additional dwellings.
Modifying the Draft to meet this requirement poses at least two issues: 1) staff believes that'
COG's estimated housing needs were based on inaccurate assumptions, and are not a valid basis
for determining housing need; and 2) COG's numbers would then be used by HCD to determine
whether the City has adequate residential-zoned land now or in .the near future to accommodate
this need. Under existing land use and housing policies, the Draft Element projects that 1,185
dwellings will be added during the period covered by the Regional Housing Needs Plan, January
1991 to July 1997. An addendum discusses this issue relative to housing element certification.
3-
11111%1IIIII1I1I011city of San LUIS osispo
jjS COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 3
2. Clarify availability of land suitable for residential development.
Additional details on infill and redevelopment potential, density, and annexations can be added.
Some additional work will be required to describe redevelopment potentialbased on historical
development patterns and rates.
3. Expand the analysis of City land use controls and government constraints.
The information is available. Some of this information was included in previous drafts and
deleted from the June 1993 version for brevity.
4. Expand the analysis of private constraints, including availability of financing.
The information is available. Some additional research will be necessary.
S. Expand the analysis of special housing needs of the homeless.
Most of the requested information on the homeless is available. Some additional research will
be necessary.
6. Analyze household and housing characteristics.
Much of this information was in the earlier drafts, and can be reinstated.
B. Quantified Objecdves.
HCD questions the City's basis for projecting housing needs based on income level. The Draft
Housing Element sets housing production objectives based on: 1) the 1 percent annual growth
rate identified in the General Plan; and 2) the relative percentages of housing construction needs
for each income group established by the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan.
In other words, the City is saying it will accommodate new housing construction for all income
levels in the same proportion identified by COG; however the total number of dwellings
accommodated is about 1/5th of the need projected in the RHNA Plan. Unless advised
otherwise by the Commission or City Council, staff feels the strategy for allocating housing
production based in the same percentage identified in the RHNA Plan is appropriate and
consistent with City policies and State law.
C. Programs.
1. Identify adequate sites to accommodate housing needs for all income groups.
Again, HCD emphasizes that the Draft should identify sufficient sites within the City (or in areas
3-3
�1111JqJJJJJJJ1N11� city of San tui, OBispo
11iis COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 4
to be annexed) to meet housing needs identified in the RHNA Plan. HCD indicates that there
does not appear to be enough R-2, R-3, R-4 and certain commercial-zoned land to accommodate
very-low, low, and moderate-income housing needs in the RHNA Plan.
The City could meet this requirement by outlining an accelerated schedule for annexing lands
in the Urban Reserve within the 5-year horizon of the Draft Element to accommodate the
theoretical housing needs, even though, availability of water and other constraints will preclude
the actual construction of more than about 1/5th of COG's projected housing need. Policies in
the City's draft Land Use Element would allow such an accelerated annexation schedule;
however accelerated development would not actually occur primarily due to water supply
constraints. Nevertheless, modifying the Housing and Land Use Element policies to
accommodate State-mandated growth targets would represent a fundamental policy shift, since
both the current and Draft Land Use Elements encourage gradual development outward from the
City center, accommodating about 5,000 additional dwellings in 25 years.
2. Remove government constraints to housing.
HCD identifies the City's Residential Growth Management Ordinance as a governmental
constraint to housing which prevents the City from meeting its assigned share of, regional
housing needs. Consequently, HCD says that the Ordinance should be removed or amended to
meet State law. The suggested modification is to allow an annual growth rate approximating 5
percent, consistent with the RHNA Plan.
The proposed inclusionary housing program is also cited as a potential constraint. HCD claims
that, as the program is now structured, it would impose too high an inclusionary requirement,
thereby discouraging most new housing development. Staff agrees with HCD that the
inclusionary requirements in the CC draft may be too high, given the findings of the 1991
Mundie & Associates Report on affordable housing requirements. The lower inclusionary
housing requirements in the PC-recommended draft were based on that study's findings.
3. Provide speck timetables for program implementation.
Staff anticipates that the revised programs in the CC Draft will, with Planning Commission and
additional City Council review, be further revised and implementation details added.
4. Include specific implementation actions and demonstrate a greater commitment toward
housing element programs.
More specific information on program implementation can be added. It is not clear what HCD
would consider an acceptable demonstration of commitment toward implementing housing
programs; however staff feels this issue can be resolved by providing additional information.
HCD suggests that the City establish a system for monitoring progress in meeting regional
3-
►�► ►��►IIII p II81N city of san "tins o8i spo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 5
housing needs.
5. Include additional programs to meet low- and moderate-income housing needs.
HCD suggests that additional programs be added to assist low- and moderate-income residents,
including the possibility of an "equal housing opportunity program" to prevent housing
discrimination. The draft Housing Element is already "program rich"; however additional
programs are possible. For example, a housing counseling/education program, possibly handled
through the City's Housing Authority, would qualify for future HUD CDBG funding and would
address the State's desire to see an affirmative housing opportunity program.
D. Preservation of Subsidized Housing.
1, 2, 3, and 4. Expand the analysis of costs of preservation, financing sources, and
quantified objectives, and include programs for preserving units at risk of
conversion during the planning period.
Some of this information was in earlier drafts and deleted for brevity. However since the
previous analysis indicated that the City did not have any "at-risk assisted units," it should not
be difficult to provide the requested information.
Part II. Comparison of Draft Goals, Policies and Programs.
Many of Council's recommended goals, policies, and programs are similar to those
recommended by the Planning Commission. For brevity, this discussion focuses only on those
areas.where significant differences exist. It is these differences that, by law, require Planning
Commission review and recommendation. For example, following guidelines in the 1991
Mundie Report, the Planning Commission (PC) recommended that developers build: 1) at least
3 percent of new, in-city dwellings to be affordable to low-income households, or 2) at least 5
percent as affordable to moderate-income households, or 3) pay an in-lieu fee equal to 5 percent
of building valuation.
Incrusionary housing policy in the CC draft sets a higher standard for building affordable units
than the PC draft. It would require that developers of less than 50 units build at least 5 percent
for either low or moderate residential units. For projects of 50 dwellings or more, developers
would be required to build affordable housing in approximately the same percentages of
household income levels that exist citywide. To illustrate the difference, in January 1991 the
City had the following breakdown of households by income group:
�S
��iin��p��l�lll�ln ► city of san tui, osispo
j*�I�l1►
Mii COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 6
Income Level % of City Households % of County Households
Very Low 31 26
Other Lower 18 16
Moderate 17 21
Above Moderate 34 37
'Source: Regional Housing Needs Plan, SLO Area Coordinating Council, November
1991.
This policy would require that developers build about 18 percent of the units in developments
of 50 units or more as affordable to low-income households, and about 17 percent affordable to
moderate-income households, plus one-half the percentage of very-low income units, or 15.5
percent, resulting in about 51 percent of the new units being sold or rented as affordable, below
market units. The PC draft recommended an inclusionary requirement of 10 percent low- and
20 percent moderate-cost affordable housing, for a maximum of 30 percent below-market sales
or rental in City expansion areas.
Goals
The CC draft includes 11 goals, including objectives that the Community will attempt to reach
during the element's five-year term. The PC draft included nine goals. In terms of goals, the
differences between the two drafts are not significant since the two drafts share similar policies
and programs which are sometimes listed under different goals.
The CC draft includes the following goals which were not expressly stated as goals in the PC
draft:
1) "Safety": Promotes safe shelter for all residents.
2) "Mixed-Income Housing": Encourages development of housing and neighborhoods of
mixed-income households rather than housing separated by economic status.
3) "Neighborhood Quality": Encourages preservation of the quality of existing neighborhoods
and neighborhood-oriented planning in expansion areas. This goal shares some policies with a
goal from the previous draft called "Public Participation."
4) "Energy and Water Conservation": Encourages the production of housing which is
economical to occupy due to energy- and water-saving features. This goal restates residential
energy policies in the City's Energy Element.
5) "Suitability": Encourages the development and retention of housing on sites suitable for
3-
A city Of San tins OBISpo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 7
residential uses, and discourages redevelopment of sites where sound or rehabitable housing
affordable to low-income households would be removed. This goal shares some policies with
two goals in the earlier drafts.
In addition, under Goal 1.22 - Affordability, a new policy sets a 50-year minimum term for
residential projects to qualify as "affordable". Current ordinance sets a minimum 30-year term.
For projects receiving some City-granted financial incentive, such as fee waivers or density
bonuses, affordable units must remain so permanently. This ordinance would need to be
changed to be consistent with this policy if it were adopted.
Policies
The CC draft contains 53 policies, compared with 26 policies in the earlier draft. Again, in
terms of housing policy there is considerable overlap between the two versions. While all of
the new policies are subject to Planning Commission review and recommendations, listed below
are the more significant new policies which were not in the PC draft (listed by policy number
in text). The new policies:
1.22.3 Provide that housing production citywide should provide housing for all income
levels in the same percentage as those household income levels exist in the total
City population. (middle of p. 5)
1.22.4 Tie inclusionary housing requirements to citywide percentages of very-low, low
and moderate income housing for residential projects of 50 or more dwelling
units, with the exception that projects which provide all their units at affordable
levels are exempt from this requirement.
1.22.5 Specify that in major annexation areas, new housing projects (size not specified)
must include very-low, low, and moderate income housing at the same
percentages that exist citywide, except that up to 1/2 of the very low income units
may be transferred to the low and moderate income categories.
1.22.6 Provide that the City or the Housing Authority should have the right of first
refusal to purchase, at market value, land adequate to build "at least 5 percent of
the number of dwellings allowed within the major annexation area prior to
development."
1.22.8 Discourage the replacement of existing lower cost housing by new higher cost
housing, unless 1) the lower cost units at risk can either be conserved or, 2) an
equivalent number of new units comparable in affordability and amenities to those
being replaced are created as part of the new project.
3-
�un��►►�Illll�llnu ►,d�N city of San 1W.3 OBISpo
- COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 8
1.23.1 Discourage the demolition of sound or rehabilitable existing housing.
(middle of p. 8)
1.23.2 Discourage the conversion or elimination of existing housing in office,
commercial, and industrial areas, and encourage recycling of dwellings rather
than demolition.
1.23.3 Encourage the seismic retrofitting of older dwellings.
1.23.4 Encourage the preservation of landmark and historic residential buildings.
1.24.1,2 Encourage intermixing of housing affordable to various economic levels within
new neighborhoods, new apartments and condominium projects. (top of p. 10)
1.26.1 Set a residential growth target of 1,091 dwellings between 1993 and 1998, and
'exempt very-low and low income housing from Residential Growth Management
limits. (middle of p. 11)
1.27.1 Provide that within established neighborhoods, new residential development must
be of a size, character, density and stability that preserves the City's
neighborhoods and maintains the quality of life for existing and future residents.
(top of p. 13)
1.27.4 Prohibit the development of "walled-off residential enclaves" or separate,
unconnected tracts.
1.31.3 Prevent new housing development on sites that should be preserved for open
space or parks, and on sites subject to natural hazards or unacceptable manmade
hazards. (middle of p. 17)
1.31.4 Discourage redevelopment of sites where sound or rehabilitable existing housing
is well suited to the needs of low income households, or to households with
special needs, such as families with children, the elderly, or the handicapped,
unless an equivalent number of new units comparable in affordability and
amenities to those being removed are created as part of the new project.
pl'Og1Q711S
Programs give action and form to policies. They are specific actions to be undertaken by the
City, sometimes in conjunction with other parties, to implement the goals and policies of the
General Plan. Following direction by the Mayor and City Council based on the Mayor's
suggestion, the CC draft element contains 56 programs, compared with 37 in the PC draft. One-
3 �
city of san"lues oBispo
Nii% COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 9
half of the programs are new, and one-half of the programs were in the earlier draft. Following
are new programs included in the CC draft which were not in the PC draft (listed by program
number in text).
1.22.18 The City will help coordinate public sector and private sector actions to
encourage the development of housing affordable to low and moderate income
households. (top of p. 8)
1.23.8 To maintain housing in residential/office portions of downtown, the City will
consider adopting a "no net loss of housing" policy, requiring that housing units
either be maintained, or, in the case of office conversion of existing housing, be
replaced on site or nearby. (2nd paragraph, p. 9)
1.23.9 Revise office zoning regulation in the "downtown ring" office district to provide
more support for maintenance of residential .uses. Consider rezoning
predominantly residential portions of the office zone to residential use, and mixed
office/residential portions to a mixed-use designation that permits offices but
discourages further residential displacement.
1.23.10 The City will adopt a "no net loss" policy for existing housing units in the
Central Business District by revising the downtown housing conversion permit
process.
1.23.11 The City will remove regulatory obstacles to the relocation and rehabilitation of
dwellings that would otherwise be demolished because of redevelopment of their
sites.
1.23.12 In the past, subdivision CC&Rs and seller restriction have blocked the relocation
and rehabilitation of dwellings by denying access to new sites. The City will
adopt regulations to prohibit such discrimination against relocated dwellings.
1.23.13 The City will create an educational campaign for owners of older residences
informing them of ways to reduce the seismic hazards commonly found in such
structures, and encouraging them to undertake seismic upgrades.
1.23.14 To assist lower income households undertake seismic upgrades to protect their
dwellings from loss in an earthquake, the City will create a financial assistance
program.
1.23.15 To encourage the preservation and rehabilitation of older housing, the City will
consider amending existing regulations that make housing a non-conforming use
in certain zones.
3-9
city of san tui, oBispo `
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 10
1.23.16 Evaluate, and where necessary, revise building, zoning, and fire code
requirements which discourage housing and encourage conversion to other uses.
1.26.8 The City will consider applying the mixed-use zone Citywide to the C-N
(Neighborhood Commercial) Zone to.require residential development above street
level as new neighborhood commercial facilities are developed. Allowed uses in
the zone should be reviewed to preclude commercial uses incompatible with
housing. (top of p. 12)
1.26.9 The City will amend its regulations to require that at least one floor of new multi-
story commercial buildings in the downtown core shall be for residential use.
Parking regulation may be modified, if necessary, to make this use feasible. The
housing use should require no separate level of review beyond that required for
the project of which it is a part.
1.27.9 The City will help fund neighborhood improvements. (bottom of p. 13)
1.27.10 Revise planning standards to require that all housing in new neighborhoods and
infill projects in existing neighborhoods provide visibility of streets and public
areas.
1.27.11 Review City regulations and revise as needed to implement neighborhood quality
policies.
1.29.3 Educate planning and building staff and citizen review bodies in energy
conservation issues, including the City's Energy Conservation Element, and direct
that they work with applicants to achieve the City's energy conserving housing
goal. (middle of p. 15)
1.29.4 Expand the current solar hot water requirements to cover new apartments and
houses as well as condominiums.
1.29.5 Assemble a blue ribbon committee of energy experts to advise the City on cost- .
effective.approaches to increasing residential energy conservation for both new
and existing housing units. Disseminate this information to the public, and
incorporate its key features into City energy conservation policy.
1.29.6 Evaluate present solar siting and access regulations to ascertain if they provide
assurance of long-term solar access, and revise if they are found inadequate.
1.29.7 Continue and expand the City's subsidized plumbing retrofit program until all
existing dwellings have been retrofitted.
�,�n�►�H►�Illll p �d�ll city Of San WIS OBISp0
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 11
1.29.8 Make plumbing retrofits available free of charge to owner-occupied, low-income
households. (top of p. 16)
1.29.9 Make water conserving landscape education and retrofit a priority coequal with
plumbing retrofits.
1.30.7 Request developers of housing projects to promote their projects only within the
housing market area (SLO County). (bottom of p. 16)
1.30.8 Make City promotional practices, economic development efforts, and other City
actions consistent with the policy of not enticing persons from elsewhere to move
here.
1.30.9 Advocate the establishment of a linkage between enrollment growth and the
expansion of campus housing programs at Cal Poly and Cuesta College to reduce
pressure on the City's housing supply.
1.30.11 The City will consider amending its growth management regulations to address
non-residential growth as a method for moderating the long-term demand for
housing. (top of p. 17)
1.31.5 The City will review its land use designations on vacant land and reclassify any
sites that should be set aside for open space or parks. (bottom of p. 17)
1.21.6 The City will adopt regulations to prevent new housing development on sites that
should be preserved as open space, and on sites subject to natural hazards, like
geological or flood hazards, or wild fire hazards. The City should also adopt
regulations to prevent new housing development on sites subject to unacceptable
levels of manmade hazards or nuisances, including severe soil contamination,
airport noise or hazard, traffic noise or hazard, odors, or incompatible
neighboring uses.
Part M. Self-Certification
At its July 6th meeting, the City Council asked staff to provide additional information on the
self-certification process in connection with the Women's Shelter grant. The attached issue
paper explains the process, the difference between substantive and procedural compliance, and
concludes that the City does not have a sound basis for self-certification.
3-1
MY Of San 1%..6 OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 12
ALTERNATI TS
1. Continued City Council Study. Continue the items for additional council study to
evaluate differences between the PC draft and CC draft housing elements, and to discuss
new or modified policies and programs. This would allow additional time to review
HCD comments and to determine an appropriate response.
2. Focused Referral to the Planning Commission. Refer only the new policies and
programs in the CC draft to the Planning Commission for the legally required review and
recommendation, and do not significantly add or modify policies and programs to address
HCD comments.
Council may determine that given the type and number of HCD comments on the draft,
it is not feasible to modify City policies or programs to the.extent necessary to fully
comply with HCD comments. The Council should then direct staff to add information
and make relatively minor changes where feasible, consistent with existing City growth
and land use policies, and adopt the draft following Commission review of the changes.
At the time of adoption of the Housing Element, the City Council would need to make
findings explaining non-compliance with State requirements, such as the Regional
Housing Needs allocation.
Attachments:
■ HCD comments
■ Excerpt from April 1992 Draft Housing Element: Goals, Policies and Programs
■ City Council Minutes, May 4 and May 11, 1992
■ Self-certification for CDBG funding
■ HCD self-certification form
Enclosed: June 1993 Draft Housing Element (with Addendum)
U�3:hegco�.ryt
3-/A
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS.TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY PETE WILSON. Governor,
^EPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ASION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT a_+ 3
1500 THIRD STREIET, Room 430 '°'..,.�`•S.
P.0 BOX 952053
SACR.4d1EN'TO.CA 94252-2053
(916) 323-3176 FAX(916) 323-6625
RECEIVEL
July 1, 1993 JUL - 6 1993
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
COMMUNITY DEYELOPWN-
Mr. John Dunn
City Manager
City of San Luis Obispo
San Luis Obispo, California 93403
Dear Mr. Dunn:
RE: Review of San Luis Obispo' s Draft Housing Element
Thank you for submitting San Luis Obispo' s draft housing
element, received June 1, 1993 for our review. As you know, we
are required to review draft housing elements and report our
findings to the locality (Government Code Section 65585 (b) ) .
Identified concerns were reviewed in a telephone
conversation on June 24, 1993 with Jeff Hook, the City' s Project
Planner. This letter and Appendix contain a summary of that
discussion.
The draft element contains much useful information about the
City' s housing environment and outlines an extensive array of
policies and programs. However, revisions are needed for the
element to comply with State housing element law (Article 10 . 6 of
the Government Code) .
In particular, the element should clarify the availability
of adequate sites to accommodate the City' s regional housing
needs, include programs to address the City ' s constraints on
housing development, and include more specific program actions .
The Appendix to this letter outlines these and other revisions
needed to bring the element into compliance:_
We appreciate the City ' s efforts to work cooperatively with
the Department to bring its housing element into compliance with
state law. We remain committed to helping the City develop a
housing element which addresses all of its housing needs and
enables the City to receive Community Development Block Grant
Funding to address those needs. We will be happy to meet with
the City again to provide additional direct assistance to the
City in revising its programs and policies to comply with State
law.
3-13
Mr. John Dunn
Page 2
We hope our comments are helpful to the City and we
appreciate the assistance of Mr. Hook during the course of our
review. If you have any questions concerning our comments, or
would like assistance in revising the element, please contact
Gary Collord of our staff at (916) 327-2644 .
In accordance with requests pursuant to the Public Records
Act, we are forwarding copies of this letter to the persons and
organizations listed below.
Sincerely,
V
Thomas B. Cook
Deputy Director
Enclosures
cc: Assemblymember Andrea Seastrand
Senator Gary Hart
Peg Pinard, Mayor, City of San Luis Obispo
Debbi Hosli, Administrative Analyst, City of San Luis Obispo
Arnold Jonas, Director of Community Development, City of San
Luis Obispo
Jeff Hook, Project Planner, City of San Luis Obispo
Jeanette Duncan, Peoples ' Self-Help Housing
Kathleen Mikkelson, Deputy Attorney General
Bob Cervantes, Governor' s Office of Planning and Research
Dwight Hanson, California Building Industry Association
Kerry Harrington Morrison, California Association of
Realtors
Marc Brown, California -Rural Legal-Assistance Foundation _
Rob Wiener, California Coalition for Rural Housing
Susan DeSantis, The Planning Center
Dara Schur, Western Center on Law Poverty
,3-1
APPENDIX
City of San Luis Obispo
The following changes would bring San Luis Obispo' s housing
element into compliance with Article 10. 6 of the Government Code.
Following each recommended change or addition, we refer to the
applicable provision of the Government Code. Where particular
program examples or data sources are listed, these suggestions
are for your information only. We recognize that the City may
choose other means of complying with the law.
A. Housing Needs , Resources and Constraints
1. Identify the City's projected regional housing needs for all income groups
(Section 65583 (a)(1)).
The City' s projected housing needs , as reported in the
1991 Regional Housing Needs Plan for the San Luis
Obispo City Rection, for the planning period (January 1, .
1991 to July 1, 1997) are as follows:
Very Low 1, 333
Other Lower 820
Moderate 11077
Above Moderate 1 . 898
Total 51128
2 . Clarify the availability of land suitable for residential development for all
income groups, including vacant sites and sites having potential for
redevelopment, and describe the relationship of 70rting and tine availability of
public services and facilities to the sites (Section 65583(a)(3)).
It is not possible to determine whether the City has
sufficient sites available to accommodate its housing
needs for all income groups from the analysis provided
in the element (pages 38-44) . While Table 14 clearly
illustrates the amount of vacant residential land in
each zone, it is not clear how much land having infill
(i.e. , sites which are underdeveloped) or recycling_
(i.e. , sites with older or decaying uses) potential is
also available in each zone. To clarifv this, Table 14
could include a separate column which identifies the
amount of land having infill or recycling potential in
each zone.
The inventory should also specify the permitted
development density range of each zone permitting
residential development and indicate expected
development densities based upon recent development
trends or on the basis of identiL'ied slope constraints.
This information should be provided for vacant sites
and sites having infill or recycling potential.
3-/5
Since it appears the City will need to rely upon sites
having redevelopment potential to accommodate some of
its housing needs, the element should also demonstrate
this potential by indicating the net number, type, and
density of units historically created (e.g. , during the
last five years) through infill, recycling of underused
or older residential sites, mixed-use developments, or
the element should estimate future potential based on
programs to encourage and promote such development.
The inventory should also clarify which sites are
located within the City (or are propose(T for annexation
within the planning period) and have, or will have,
access to all of the essential facilities and services
necessary to support development within the planning
period.
According to Table 6 of the element, the additional
water supplies needed to accommodate the City' s
regional housing needs are expected to be available
towards the end of the current planning period. As a
result, the City could include sites in the expansion
areas in the inventory provided the element includes
specific programs to annex and facilitate the
development of such sites within the planning period.
3 . Expand the analysis of the City's land use controls, permit fees, and permir
processing procedures; and analyze the City's building codes and enforcement
procedures as potential and actual governmental constraints upon the
maintenance, improvement, and development of housing for all income groups
(Section 65583(c)(4)).
a. The analysis of land use controls should be
expanded to describe and analyze zoning and other
land development regulations such as building
setback and height standards, on-site open space
and parking requirements, and design review
requirements for single and multifamily
residential zones.
b. The analysis of permit fees and exactions should
be expanded to describe and analyze permit fee
costs- for various residential development ---
applications--(e:g:— tract map, conditional use
permit, zone change, environmental reviews, etc. )
C. The analysis of permit processing procedures
should be expanded to describe and analyze
discretionary review requirements and typical
processing timelines for various residential
development applications (e.g. , tract maps,
planned developments, conditional use permits,
site plan reviews, environmental reviews, etc. )
2 3-l�
d. The analysis of building codes and enforcement
procedures should describe and analyze any local
amendments to the uniform building codes and the
city's procedures for identifying and resolving
residential code violations.
Where constraints are identified, the element should
include programs to mitigate them or, where appropriate
and legally possible, remove them (see item C-2 , below)
(Section 65583 (c) (3) ) .
4 . Fxpand the analysis of the availability of financing and the cost of
consmtction as a potential or actual nongovernmental constraint upon the
maintenance, improvement, or development of housvng for all income groups
(Sectio: 65583 (a)(5)).
a. The analysis of the availability of financing
should describe whether financing is generally
available in all regions of the City and whether
there are mortgage deficient areas in the City for
purchase, new construction, or rehabilitation
loans.
b. The analysis of residential construction costs
should describe typical developer costs for land,
fees, materials, labor and financing for typical
single and multifamily developments.
5. Expand the analysis of the special housing needs of the homeless (Section
65583(a)(6)).
The analysis of the City' s homeless population should
include an estimate of the daily average number of
persons and families in the City lacking permanent
shelter. Where possible, the analysis should describe
the characteristics of the local homeless population
(e.g. , single males, single females, families, mentally
ill, substance abusers, etc) .
The analysis should also include a count of the number
and type of shelter beds, motel vouchers, or
transitional housing available in the City to establish
whether there is a need for additional shelter
facilities and the types of facilities needed.
6 . Analyze and document household and housing characteristics including
overpayment and housing stock condition and expand the analysis of
overcrowded /touring units (Section 65583 .(c)(2)).
The analysis of overpayment should identify the number
and proportion of lower-income renter- and owner-
occupied households overpaying for housing. For
3 3_ /-7
example, according to the 1990 Census, 89 percent of
all renter households with incomes less than 20 , 000 per
year are paying 30 percent or more of their income for
housing (see enclosed data) .
The analysis of overcrowding should be expanded to
identify the number and proportion of renter- and
owner-occupied housing units which meet the Census
definition of overcrowding ( i. e. , one or more persons
per room) . For example, according to the 1990 Census,
6 . 5 percent of the City ' s renter households are
overcrowded compared with 1. 4 percent of owner-occupied
households (see enclosed data) .
The analysis of housing stock conditions should
identify the number of units in need of repair
(rehabilitation) and replacement (demolition) .
Where housing needs exist, the element should identify
potential solutions and resources to address the need.
B. Ouantified Objectives
Establish the maximum number of housing units that can be constructed,
rehabilitated, and conserved by income category during the planning period of the
element (Section 65583 (c)(3)).
Chapter 889 , statutes of 1991, requires that quantified
objectives for new construction, rehabilitation, and
conservation now be estimated by income category (i. e. , very
low-, low-, moderate-, and above moderate-income) . This .
information may be illustrated in chart form; for example:
QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE
Income Level New Construction Rehab Conservation
Very Low-Income
Low-Income
Moderate-Income
Above Moderate
4
3-/ S
i
While Table 7 summarizes the City ' s total housing production
objective for the planning period, the element does not
clearly establish the City ' s construction objectives for
each income group. While Table 9 is labeled "Projected
Housing Construction by Income Group" the text explaining
the table indicates that the figures represent housing
construction needs for each income group proportionate to
the allocation used in the RHNA plan, rather than the City' s
construction objective for each income group.
C. Programs
1. Identify adequate sites which will be made available through appropriate
zoning and development standards needed to facilitate and encourage the
development of a variety of housing types for all income groups, includuig
multifamily rental housvtg factory-built housing mobilehomes, and emergency
shelters and transitional housing. Where the inventory of sites does not identify
adequate sites to accommodate the need for all household income groups
pursuant to Section 65584, the program shall provide for sufficient sites with
zoning that permits owner-occupied and rental multifamily residential use by
right, including density and development standards that could accommodate
and facilitate the feasibility of housing for very low- and low-income
households. (Section 65583(c)(I)).
A development density of 25 or more units per acre is
typically needed to accommodate lower-income housing
needs (i. e. very low- and low-income households) . The
development densities of the City ' s R-4 and certain
commercial zones (e.g. , C-R, C-C, ICU) provide
appropriate opportunities for lower-income households.
However, from Table 14 , there does not appear to be
enough vacant sites available in these zones to
accommodate the City' s total lower-income need for
2 , 153 units.
A density of 10 or more units per acre is typically
needed to provide opportunities for moderate-income
households . The City' s R-2 and R-3 zones appear
appropriate for accommodating this need. According to
_- Table 14 , there appears to be sufficient vacant sites
- - "- to accommodate approximately 460 to 770 units (one- and
two-bedroom units) , compared with the total need for
1, 077 moderate-income units.
Table 14 does appear, however, to identify sufficient
sites to accommodate the City' s. total need for above
moderate-income households. The R-1 zone contains
enough vacant land to accommodate a maximum of 1, 900
units, compared with the need for 1 , 898 units .
5
.�-Iq
Therefore, the element should include programs to
increase the availability of sites, which are
appropriately zoned, to accommodate the City ' s lower-
and moderate-income housing needs.
2 . Address and, where legally possible, remove goventmental constrailtts to the
mauttenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income groups
(Secrion 65585(c)(3)).
The city' s Residential Growth Management Ordinance
prevents the accommodation of additional residential
development commensurate with the city ' s assigned share
of the regional housing need (see item A-1, above) .
According to the element, the Ordinance ' s one percent
annual growth allowance will allow the City to
accommodate 1, 185 additional units during the planning
period. The city estimates that approximately 190
additional units could also be accommodated through
replacement housing construction and by proposed
exemptions for affordable housing units. The City' s
projected housing need for the planning period (January
1991 through July 1997) , however, totals 5, 128 units.
Therefore, the Ordinance is serving as a governmental
constraint which should be removed or mitigated. For
example, the City could mitigate or remove the adverse
effects of the ordinance by annexing additional sites
in the expansion areas for residential development and
exempting development on these sites from the
Ordinance. The City -could also align the annual growth
allowance of the Ordinance with the housing production
and population growth projections prepared for the City
by the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (i . e. , an
annual growth rate approximating 5 percent) .
The City' s proposed inclusionary housing rectuirements
(Program 1. 22 . 11) also presents a potential
governmental constraint to the development of large-
scale residential projects and should be removed or
mitigated. As -structured, the program, woul.d impose a
50 percent--inclusionary -requiremen, (i. e. , . 33 percent
lower-income and 17 percent moderate-income) on
residential development projects of 50 Or more units.
Unless much stronger financial incentives or regulatory
incentives are provided, the exceptionally high
inclusionary requirement proposed under this program is
likely to constrain the development of housing in the
expansion areas proposed for annexation.
6
3�0
The City should modify its 'inclusionary ordinance
and/or other development standards. For example, a 25%
inclusionary requirement (with 15% lower-income and 10%
moderate-income) , combined with density bonus or other
development concessions would be less likely to
constrain residential development.
The existence of other potential or actual governmental
constraints, and the adequacy of City efforts to
mitigate them, cannot be determined in the absence of a
complete discussion and dete a, inaticn of potential
constraints (see item A-3 , above) .
3 . Programs should include specific timelines for implementation and identify the
City department or individual responsible for implementation (Section 65583
(c))•
All of the City' s programs lack this information.
4 . Most of the programs should include more.specific implementation actions
and demonstrate a greater commitment toward implementation to ensure that
the City can meet housing element program requirements (Section 65583(c)(1-
6))
All program descriptions should be as detailed as
possible, specifying the objectives of the program,
funding sources and costs, and the steps to be taken by
the locality to implement the programs. Example,
include but are not limited to:
Program 1.22 . 14 : When will the City adapt procedures
to expedite development permits?
What amount of reduction in average
processing time is expected? How
many projects or units are expected
to be assisted during the planning
period? What kinds of affordable
housing projects are eligible; does
it include development projects
_ .._ subject to Program 1. 22 . 11?
Program 1. 23 . 7 : When will the City establish a
housing rehabilitation program?
What amount of CDBG funding will be
allocated for this purpose? How
many units does the City expect to
assist during the planning period?
The evaluation of the previcus. housing element ' s
programs (pages 59-61) indicates that the City was
unsuccessful in implementing many o= the programs.
7 �-a 1
Several programs were not fully implemented or failed
to meet intended objectives (e.g. , programs 2 , 4 , 51 8 ,
and 11) . Many other programs (programs 13-32) are not
included in the evaluation and, therefore, it is not
possible to determine whether these programs were
successfully implemented. Development of strong
programs which clearly articulate the City' s policies
and commitment to address local need and State law will
ensure that San Luis Obispo will be more successful
during the current planning period.
As you may know, Government Code Section 65400 requires
each city and county planning agency to provide an
annual report to its legislative body on the status of
the local general plan and the progress in its
implementation. Chapter 1441, Statutes of 1990 added
that this annual report must also include the
. locality' s progress in meeting its share of regional
housing needs (for each income group) determined
pursuant to Section 65584 . Chapter 889 , Statutes of
1991 now requires that a copy of this report be
submitted to the Department of Housing and Community
Development within 30 days of its receipt by the local
legislative body.
The City should establish a system for monitoring the
City's progress in meeting its regional housing needs
and implementing housing element program actions. The
City' s ability to effectively monitor program progress
during the planning period, and make appropriate
modifications, depends upon clear and measurable
program objectives. Therefore, the City should ensure
that its programs contain sufficient information to
make annual monitoring possible.
To assist the City in revising all of its programs, we
have enclosed excerpts of successful programs with
clear objectives and commitment from other localities .
We would also be happy to provide assistance to City
staff to facilitate program revisions .
-
5 . Include additional programs which assist the dei.elopment of adequate housing
to meet the needs of low- and moderate-income hocrseholds (Section 65583
(c)(3)), and conserve and improti�e the condition of the existing affordable
housing stock (Section 65583 (c)(4)).
Following clarification of the City ' s commitment to
implement proposed housing element programs and program
objectives (see items C-3 and C-4 above) , the City may
need to include additional programs to assist the
development and conservation/rehabilitation of
affordable housing.
8 3-ate
6 . Include an equal housing opportuun program (Section 65583 (c)(5)).
A local equal housing opportunity program should
provide some means for the resolution of housing
discrimination complaints and should be promoted
throughout the community. In smaller localities, this
may be limited to distributing information on fair
housing laws, and referring complaints to the district
office of the State Department of Fair Employment and
Housing or other public or nonprofit agencies equipped
to handle housing discrimination complaints.
D. Preservation of Subsidized Housing
Pursuant to Chapter 1451, Statutes of 1989 , expand the
analysis of assisted multifamily housing developments that
are eligible to change to non-low-income housing uses within
ten years of the housing element update (July 1, 1992) due
to termination of subsidy contracts, mortgage prepayment, or
expiration of use restrictions (Section 65583 (a) (8) ) .
1. Include a cost analysis of the following:
• The cost of preserving all of the project units at
risk of losing affordability controls; and
• The cost of producing or replacing the units with
new rental housing with compatible unit size and
rent levels (Section 65583 (a) (8) (B) ) .
Costs can be combined for all of the units at risk
within the planning period; detailed cost analysis or
project appraisals are not necessary. If it is not
possible to reliably estimate preservation costs, it is
permissible to describe whether such costs are
anticipated to be higher or lower than replacement
estimates, and the magnitude of the difference between
preservation and replacement costs .
2 . Expand-the analysis of financing sources which could be
used to preserve units at risk of conversion during the
planning period. The analysis should identify the
amount of funding which could be made available from
the funding sources identified. (i . e. , CDBG funds,
mortgage revenue bond proceeds , or the housing trust
fund) (Section 65583 (a) (8) (D) ) .
3 . Establish quantified objectives for the number of at-
risk units to be preserved during the planning period
of the element (Section 65583 (b) ) .
9 3-a3
Ideally, preservation objectives will equal the number
of units at risk, however, the statute acknowledges
that when a locality has determined that the potential
preservation need exceeds available resources,
objectives may be less than anticipated needs . Under
these circumstances, the element should include the
analysis used to establish the maximum preservation
objective.
4 . Identify program actions for preserving units at risk
of conversion during the planning period. Program
actions should utilize the funding sources identified
in item D-2 , above, except where the City has
identified other (more urgent) needs for these funding
sources (Section 65583 (c) (6) ) .
The element should include programs which clearly
describe the specific actions or stens the City will
take to preserve at-risk projects, including timelines
and the funding sources to be used. Actions might
range from regulatory and technical assistance measures
to providing direct financial participation
(loans/grants for acquisition and rehabilitation) to
preserve the at-risk units. Program actions should be
appropriately tailored to the kinds of projects at risk
(e.g. , local versus federal projects) .
It is also appropriate to describe the City ' s
responsibility for reviewing plans of action submitted
for LIHPRHA-eligible projects and advising tenants of
available assistance (see pages 23-25 of the enclosed
technical assistance paper: Housing Element Analysis:
Preservation of Assisted Units .
10 3-a�
Planning Commission Hearing Draft
April 28, 1992
GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT
This element was adopted on ,
San Luis Obispo City Council Resolution No. (1992 Series).
SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
Ron Dunin, Mayor
Peg Pinard
Penny Rappa
Jerry Reiss
Bill Roalman
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
Gil Hoffman, Chairman
Brett Cross
T. Keith Gurnee
Barry Karleskint
Fred Peterson
Dodie Williams
"PC draft" Goals, Policies & Programs
1
■ accommodating up to 3,700 new dwellings between 1991 and 1997 if planned water
sources become available;
■ setting up a housing trust fund using in-lieu fees, grants, and other funding sources to
encourage more affordable housing;
■ designating sufficient land which is properly zoned and located to meet housing needs;
■ waiving or deferring certain fees for affordable housing projects.
■ providing greater certainty to the development process;
■ planning for. the annexauon of land within San Luis Obispo's urban reserve to
accommodate the needed housing as resources are available to serve new residents;
and
® amending the growth management regulations to allow the City to meet its regional
housing needs.
1.10 HOUSING GOALS AND POLICIES
Goals are desirable conditions which the City will try to- reach over the long term.
Although the goals may not all be reached within this element's planning period (1992
through 1997), they will be the basis for City actions in this period.
Policies are statements of City intent. Most policies have a time frame for completion
within five years after adoption of this element. They are carried out through the programs
listed in the Summary Matrix at the end of this section. The City uses these policies when
reviewing new development, in forecasting community needs and trends, and in its preparing
its own budget and capital improvement program.
Goal 1 Housing Cost: The City will encourage the production of affordable, quality housing
to meet the needs of low- and moderate-income households. To reach this goal, the
City will:
Policies
1.10.1 Reevaluate and modify City standards and procedures to remove unnecessary
impediments to the production of affordable housing, and provide incentives to
encourage production of affordable housing, particularly in expansion areas.
1.10.2 Require a portion of new housing in expansion areas to be affordable to low-
and moderate-income persons as specified in the City's affordability standards
(Appendix F).
1.10.3 Preserve and expand the City's supply of affordable rental housing.
4
1.10.4 Avoid government actions which will remove affordable housing units.
1.10.5 Develop informational and financial assistance programs for those who are
unable to obtain any type of housing in the market due to circumstances beyond
their control.
1.10.6 Promote energy-efficient housing programs and projects which reduce the cost
of owning or renting a home in San Luis Obispo.
Goal 2Housing Supply: The City will increase housing production over production levels
experienced during the late 1980s and early 1990s to allow more people who work
in the City to reside here. To reach this goal, the City will:
1.10.7 Encourage innovative housing concepts like shared or cooperative-housing.
1.10.8 Revise zoning standards to encourage dwellings in combination with commercial
uses.
1.10.9 Help coordinate public sector and private sector actions to encourage the
development of housing affordable to low- and moderate income households,
for example: information sharing on housing needs and opportunities, consulting,
builders, housing agencies and advocacy groups in designing housing programs,
and by actively seeking grants and other outside support for housing programs.
1.10.10 Encourage small,starter-housing through flexible development standards,density
bonuses, or other incentives.
110.11 Where property is equally suited for commercial or residential uses, the City
will give preference to residential use.
1.10.12 Support annexation of land within the urban reserve, consistent with the Citv's
ability to provide utilities and services, for the development of affordable
housing. Of the total dwellings built on annexed land, at least ten percent (10
percent) should be affordable to low-income households, and 20 percent should
be affordable to moderate-income households.
1.10.13 Encourage replacement of nonconforming commercial uses in residential areas
to provide additional housing and improve neighborhood quality.
1.10.14 Accommodate new housing to meet regional housing needs, to keep pace with
employment growth, and to reduce energy consumption and air quality impacts
of additional commuting.
Goal 3Maintenance of Existing Housing: Maintain housing to provide safe, attractive
housing for renters and owners at all income levels. To reach this goal, the City
will:
5
1.10.15 Discourage conversion of downtown housing to non-residential uses.
1.10.16 Preserve, rehabilitate and expand residential hotels and other types of single-
room occupancy (SRO) dwellings.
1.10.17 Establish a housing rehabilitation program offering low-cost loans or other
rehabilitation assistance to those who cannot afford market-rate financing.
1.10.13 Encourage neighborhood efforts to maintain safe, attractive, and well-planned
neighborhoods through community awareness and involvement.
1.10.19 Maintain a high level of code enforcement in residential areas to abate unsafe
conditions and maintain safe housing.
1.10.20 Minimize the impacts of converting housing to offices in the O. zone by
conditionally allowing mixed-uses, transfer of density credits, and by establishing
"no net loss" provisions.
1.10.21 Evaluate, and where necessary, revise building, zoning and fire code
requirements which discourage housing and encourage conversion to other uses.
Goal 4Special Housing Needs: Encourage housing which meets the special needs of low-
and moderate income households, single parents, homeless, disabled persons,
students and the elderly. To reach this goal, the City will:
1.10.22 Support local and regional solutions to meeting needs of homeless persons by
supporting emergency and transitional housing programs.
1.10.23 Support programs that preserve housing opportunities for single parents, disabled
persons, and the elderly.
1.10.24 Support fair housing laws and programs which allow equal housing opportunities
for all City residents.
1.10.25 Encourage student housing on or near the Cal Poly University campus.
1.10.26 Minimize tenant/landlord conflicts through the establishment of a mediation
program with other City housing groups.
Goal SHousing Demand: Balance housing supply and demand within the community's
resources to support growth.
Goal 6Housing Diversity: Seek variety in housing types and tenure, including non-
traditional and "neo-traditional" housing concepts like cluster housing, cooperative
housing, starter housing, and boarding houses. The City's land use and development
review regulations will be applied in ways which maintain and encourage a variety
of housing and special living accommodations.
6
3-�8
Goal 711elationship with University: Work closely with Cal Poly State University and
Cuesta College to address "town and gown" issues and anticipate and resolve
problems before they occur.
Goal SRegional Cooperation: Coordinate City and County land use decisions to equitably
distribute housing opportunities and resources.
Goal 9Public Participation: Encourage residents to fulfill a larger role in supporting and
improving neighborhoods and addressing housing issues.
1.20 HOUSING PROGRAMS (REFER TO SUMMARY MATRIX 1 .30, attached)
Programs are actions which the City intends to carry out, or which the City is cooperating
with other agencies to carry out. Programs translate policies into action -- specific
community projects which help people find and keep adequate housing. Typically, they .
involve a commitment of staff and money. Each program includes a statement of the
action to be taken, the agencies or officials responsible for the action and, when possible,
a measurable objective to be attained by a certain date. The amount and anticipated
source of funding are also identified when known.
Program Group: Housing Affordability --
1.20.1 Inclusionary hous' g. The City will amend its regulations to require that new
development projects ii ude affordable housing units, or pay an in-lieu fee to assist in the
development of affordable housing citywide, as described in Appendix E.
Responsible agencies: ,�mmunity Development Department; City Council
Objective: To ensure--that residential and non-residential projects include
affordable housing or contribute fees toward construction of
affordable ho ing .
Funding: General Fund.
Completion date: June 1993
110.2 Housing Trust Fund. - City will establish a housing trust fund to be used to
develop affordable housing units, provide low-cost loans for first-time homebuyers, acquire
land for affordable housing projects, and to fund public improvements like utility extensions
or street improvements to accomm�ddte affordable housing projects.
Responsible agencies: Community Development Department; Finance Department; City
Council
Objectives: To encourage innovative housing projects and cooperative public-
private housing efforts.
7
�a9
1 .30 Summary Matrix: Housing Programs, 1992-1997
Reeponabic Funding Compl. Text
No. SUBJECT PURPOSE Agcacy' Sours' Date Rcf.
120.1 Indudoaary Adopt ordinance requiring new development CDD,PC, GF 6/93
bousing projects to include affordable housing or CC
pay an in-lieu fee
1202 Housing trust fund Establish city fund for affordable housing CDD,FD, GF 6/93
and assist low-and moderate income homebuyers CC
1203 Affordable housing Increase affordable housing production with CDD,PC, GF 6/93
incentives density bonuses or other zoning incentives CC
120.4 Assisted bousing Use block grants and other government funding CDD, CC, SF OG
to construct or rehabilitate affordable housing SLOHA
1205 City regulations Amend or repeal regulations which unnecessarily CDD, PC, GF 12/93
amendment increase cost of affordable housing ARC, CC
CAO
120.6 Permit Expedite affordable housing projects in CDD, PW, GF 1/93
streamlining development review and plancheck process PC,ARC,
CC
120.7 Regulatory impacts Consider cost impact on affordable housing before ALL DEFTS, GF 9/93
adopting new procedures and requirements CAO, CC
120.9 Fee waivers Reduce development costs for new affordable CDD, HTF 6/93
housing projects CAO, SF
CC GF
1209 Assisted financing Enable issuance of mortgage revenue bonds to CDD,FD, GF 9/93
assist low-income:enters and homebuyers CC
120.10 Affordable housing Reduce loss of affordable housing such as mobile CDD, PW, lI IF OG
conservation homes,apartments,older or legal non-conforming PC, CC SF
housing GF
120.11 Land use element Update Land Use Element to enable construction of CDD, PC, GF 3/93
3,700 units between 1992 and July 1997 CC
120.12 Infill site Evaluate vacant and underdeveloped commercially- CDD, PC, GF 3/93-
zoned for residential use CC
22
t Ton a.,....,: ,..e 4......w ..v„t,.:nne ,n 1 v ,. stc t• M.w:ng;,. his_ rr)r1 Pr Nie q�iot
ie
sorority housing density residential zones near Cal Poly,and to CC
discourage their expansion in other areas
12028 Student/community Adopt'good neighbor program' to improve CDD,M GF 9/93
relations communication and cooperation between the City, CC, CP SF
residents,students and Cal Poly
17n Tnndtioaal Assist other government agencies to develop CAO, HTF 1/94
housing transitional housing for women and children SLOCO, SF
PSNH
12030.Tenant/landlord Establish a tenant/landlord relations program CAO, GF 12/93
teladooc HRC,CC
12031 Mobr7c4home Continue to regulate mobile-home park rent increases CAO, CC GF OG
rent control
12032 Downtown housing Amend downtown housing procedures to discourage CCD,PC, N/A 9/93
conversion conversion of downtown housing to non-residential uses CC
LM33 Institutional Discourage expansion of State institutions which CDD, PC N/A OG
growth increase housing demand CC
1.2034 Commercial Evaluate commercial mornings to determine impacts CDD,PC, GF 3/93
growth on housing demand and supply and amend growth mgulationsCC
as necessary
L2035 Reodential service Give priority to residential projects in the event PW, CC GF 1/93
priority public services must be rationed to new development
12036 Airport area Coordinate with SLO County to balance commercial CDD, N/A OG
and residential grodth in airport area. SLOCO
12037 Regional Support regional cooperation to meet regional CD,CC, N/A OG
cooperation housing needs, including homeless,public transit, and SLOCO
housing for low-income households
Agency Key- SLOHA- Housing Authority
ARC-Architectural Review Commission
CAO - City Administrative Officer
CC- City Council
CDD-Community Development Department
CP- California Polytechnic State University
FD - Fre Department
HRC- Human Relations Commission
PC- Planning Commission
PSHH- People's Self-Help Housing
PW- Public Works/Utilities Departments
SLOCO- County of San Luis Obispo
24
3-31
1.711.13 Expansion areas Identify sites in expansion areas suitable for mobile CDD, PC GF 3/93-
home parks,cooperative or manufactured housing CC
developments
130.14 Growth Amend growth management regulations to CDD, PC, N/A 9/93
==nagicalc..r enable City to meet regional housing need CC
13x15 N i:ed-asc Amend regulations to conditionally allow residential CDD, PC, N/A 9/92
development and commercial activities on the same site CC
L2116 Gtgowned land Amend property management policies to requite that CDD, PW, GF 1/93
upon sale,lease or redevelopment,downtown City- PC, CC
owned properties will include affordable housing units
130.17 Specific Plans Adopt specific plans which designate areas and CDD, PC, N/A OG
sufficient densities to meet regional housing needs. CC
130.19 Amend Edna-Islay Amend specific plan to include a mix of medium- CDD,PC, GF 9/93
specific plan high and high-density housing CC
130.19 Residential zone Changes from residential to non-residential land- PC, CC N/A OG
changes use uses will discouraged unless part of LUE update
13030 Homing Provide low-interest city loans to help upgrade and CDD, HIF 6/93
rehabilitation loans preserve affordable housing. SLOHA, SF
CC
17!111 At-tisk affordable Prevent the loss of at-risk affordable housing CDD, HTF OG
housing SLOHA. SF
CC
13012 Code=forcemeat Enforce zoning and building codes to improve CDD, FD, GF OG
neighborhood safety,appearance,and compatibility. PW
1.2033 Downtown housing Determine feasibility of expanding downtown CDD, HTF 7/93
housing through rehabilitation of downtown hotels SLOHA, SF
CC GF
130.24 Coodomininm Regulate condominium conversions and adopt affordability CDD, PC, GF 6/93
conversions requirement for conversions CC
17D35 Neighborhood Establish proccdures to encourage neighbor input CDD, PW, GF 9/93
relations into planning and development review process PC, CC
13036 Student housing Assist Cal Poly and other housing groups to CDD, CC GF 9/93
encourage additional student housing on.and near
Cal Poly campus
23
3-3A
'Funding Source Ker
GF-General Fund
HTF-Housing Trust Fund
SF-Grants and special funding
OG -On-going
N/A-Not applicable
'Adoption of updated land Use Element
25
City Council Meeting Page 3
Tuesday, May 4, 1993 - 7:00 P.M.
Moved by Settle/Raooa to adopt Resolution No. 8164 reducing the Faithful Performance Surety to
$65,000 and the Labor & Materials Surety to $32,500 (after 35 days from filing a 'Notice of
Completion', to the satisfaction of the City Attorney) for Tract No. 2066; motion carried (5-0).
C-9 FREE TRANSIT DAY (File No. 542)
Council considered designating Wednesday, May 19, 1993 as"Free Transit Day'as a part of the City's
contribution to and recognition of the nationwide "Try Transit Week '934"
Moved by Settle/Raooa to approve'Free Transit Day°designated as May 19, 1993; motion carried (5-
o).
C-10 PERFORMING ARTS CENTER WORKING DRAWINGS (File No. 854)
Council considered approving final payment for working drawings of the Performing Arts Center.
Moved by Settle/Raooa to approve final payment for working drawings; motion carried (5-0).
COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS
There were no Council Liaison Reports.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. HOUSING ELEMENT (File No. 462)
Council held a public hearing to consider the Draft Housing Element (continued from 4/6/93).
Jeff Hook. Associate Planner, highlighted the changes to the staff report including the addition of
moderate-income housing units to the development exemption.
Council discussed apparent differences in programs from the first draft.
Mayor Pinard declared the public hearing open.
Carla Sanders. 660 Oak Ridge, representing Residents for Quality Neighborhoods, outlined their
support for specific goals to preserve neighborhoods. She spoke in opposition to the addition of
moderate income housing stating that it would translate into housing under$235,000 being excluded
from growth limitations.
Steve Nelson. Chair of the. Housing Authority, supported the concept of including unearned
increments in the housing element; asking that land owners donate land to the Housing Authority
based upon increased values received as a result of City annexation.
George Moylan, Director of the Housing Authority, outlined the need for land donation and echoed
support of the unearned increment concept.
Andrew Merriam,San Luis Obispo,stated that if free land was given at the time of annexation, it would
be counter-productive because of other city imposed fees.
Mayor Pinard declared the public hearing closed.
City Council Meeting Page 4
Tuesday, May 4, 1993 - 7:00 P.M.
Council held discussion of the concepts and reviewed the Housing Element,providing staff direction,
on a page by page basis through page a.
Moved by Roalman/Settle to lay the item on the table; motion carried (5-0).
Moved by Settle/Roalman to take the item from the table; motion carried (5-0).
Council held discussion regarding format and content changes, made suggestions and alterations to
page 36, discussed safe annual yield and current.demand for water, and the process for revision and
submission of the Housing Element to the state.
Moved by Roalman/Settle to continue discussion of the item to Tuesday, May 11, 1993 at 6:00 P.M.;
motion carried (5-0).
2. DOWNTOWN DESIGN PLAN (File No. 418)
Council held a public hearing to consider.approving'A Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center"
as design guidelines for both private and public development projects in the downtown.
Whitney Mcllvaine,Associate Planner,reviewed the process, highlighted the main features of the plan
and stated that the plan was conceptual in nature; that the footprints represented suggestions and
guiding principles.
Pierre Rademaker, member of the Downtown Design Committee, stated that the goals were to retain
business, San Luis Obispo as a cultural center and the County seat, and a major tourist draw. He
reviewed the process, and presented slides of the heritage park concept implemented in Oxnard.
Sherry Davis. Director of the Government Affairs for the Chamber of Commerce, spoke in favor of the
plan.
Dick Cleeves.President of the Business Improvement Association,stated his appreciation and support
for the plan.
Esther Rosenthal. 1024 Stephanie Drive, stated he owned property as part of the Rosenthal Trust at
443, 445, and 447 Higuera and stated that she was not notified that her property was going to be used
for public purposes.
Kathy Vargas spoke in opposition of a parking structure and the loss of neighborhood.
Andrew Merriam. San Luis Obispo, stated that the concept should be recognized as a long-range
vision and would be directed to the benefit of all.
Jeff Jorgensen. City Attorney, urged Council to proceed conceptually, but not utilize the plan for
regulation of land uses.
Whitney Mcllvaine,Associate Planner,stated that individual changes would come before Council,and
be properly noticed.
John Dunn, City Administrative Officer, stated that after plan adoption there would be phased
3-35
DRAFT
MINUTES
STUDY SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
TUESDAY, MAY 11, 1993 - 6:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBER - CITY HALL- 990 PALM STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA ;%raft Minutes
approvod
ROLL CALL Meeting
Council Members �D-/S -93
Present: Council Members Penny Rappa, Dave Romero,Allen K. Settle (arrived
at 6:08 P.M.), Vice-Mayor Bill Roalman, and Mayor Peg Pinard
Absent: None
City Staff
Present: John Dunn, City Administrative Officer; Jeff Jorgensen, City Attorney;
Diane Gladwell,City Clerk;Ken Hampian,Assistant City Administrative
Officer; Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director; Jeff Hook,
Associate Planner, John Mandeville, Long Range Planning Manager
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
P.C.1. Tom Fulks, Regional Rideshare Coordinator, presented an Award of Excellence from the
Southern California Chapter of ACT (Association for Commuter Transportation) for the regional/city-
wide alternative transportation program. He invited everyone to attend the Bike Fest to be held on
May 23 and 24, 1993.
P.C.2. Mayor Pinard and Vice-Mayor Roalman presented a proclamation recognizing Mayas National
Bicycle Month.
CONSENT AGENDA
Moved by Settle/Roalman to approve the Consent Calendar as recommended by the City
Administrative Officer; motion carried (5-0).
C-1 COUNCIL MINUTES
Council considered minutes of Tuesday, March 30, 1993 at 6:00 PM and 7:00 PM.
Moved by Settle/Roalman to waive oral reading and approve minutes; motion carried (5-0).
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ADD-ON 1. HOUSING ELEMENT (File No. 462)
Council held a public hearing to consider the Draft Housing Element (continued from 4/6/93 and
5/4/93).
Arnold Jonas. Community Development Director, briefly reviewed past and future processes for the
Housing Element.
3-3�
City Council Meeting Page 2
Tuesday, May 11, 1993 - 6:00 P.M.
Mayor Pinard declared the public hearing open.
Council asked that any new recommendations would be noted and sent to the Planning Commission
and discussed timing of scheduling State comments and the new revision for hearings before the
Planning Commission.
By general consent, Council agreed tosend the draft to the State and to the Planning Commission,
then meet with the Planning Commission after the State replies.
Council began their review of.the Housing Element on page S.
Carla Sanders, representing the Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RON), reaffirmed that RON
supported encouraging students to live on campus.
The review continued through page 12.
8:05 P.M. Mayor Pinard declared a recess.
8:30 P.M. City Council reconvened; all Council Members present.
The review continued beginning at page 12.
Mayor Pinard declared the public hearing closed.
Moved by Settle/Roalman to forward the revised draft for State review and comment; motion carried
(5-0)-
1. SOURCE REDUCTION & RECYCLING ELEMENT (File No. 482)
Council held a public hearing .to consider the draft Source Reduction and Recycling Element
(continued from 4/13/93).
John Moss, Acting Utilities Director, reviewed the report.
Council discussed costs for the City to operate and prepare the program and rate increases
anticipated for citizens.
Steve DeVencenzi,Area Coordinating Council, stated that the anticipated increase would be $5.00 to
$10.00 per month by the year 2,000 and stated market development efforts were being pursued for
recycled products.
Council discussed City and regional requirements of diverting 25% to 50% of their solid waste.
Council Member Settle stated that San Luis Obispo has had a heavy effort in the past for recycling.
Council discussed issues relating to City rates to support regional efforts, the size.of the proposed
administrative structure, programs developed in the past and duplication of efforts.
Ruth Ibeve, consultant for Brown,Vence and Associates, stated that the proposed element identifies
existing conditions in San Luis Obispo and substantial programs in place as well as the cost already
encumbered in San Luis Obispo. The element also and proposes new programs using a baseline
3-3�
July 9, 1993
SELF-CERTIFICATION FOR CDBG FUNDING
Before the City can draw down the $444,000 Community Development Block for the Women's
Shelter, the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) requires that a
City official "self-certify" that the City's Housing Element complies with State housing law.
The City's inability to draw down on the already-awarded grant has posed difficulties for the
Women's Shelter, and has focused attention on HCD's policies and procedures. While the City
has assisted the Shelter with a $198,000 grant, the City Council and staff remain hopeful that
some compromise can be reached to break the impasse.
Councilmembers have asked about the process of "self-certification." This means that a City
official, typically the City Manager or City Attorney, certify in writing that the adopted Housing
Element is in "substantial compliance" -- that is, complies with major requirements of State law.
The current Housing Element, last amended in 1987, does not address many new requirements
which were, by law, to be incorporated into an updated housing element by July 1, 1992. Self-
certification would have the same effect as HCD certification in making the State CDBG funds
available, but could expose the City and City officials to legal action. For these reasons, staff
has maintained that self-certification is not warranted under the circumstances. Now that HCD
has reviewed and formally commented on necessary changes or additions to the City's Draft
Housing Element, staff believes there is even less latitude for self-certification.
California Government Code Sections 50829 and 50830 speak to this issue. Essentially, these
sections preclude cities from receiving State grants which: 1) have adopted growth control
measures which directly limit building permits; or 2) have adopted housing elements which do
not comply with State law (Article 10.6, Ch. 3, Div. 1 of Title 7 of the California Health and
Safety Code, commencing with Section 65580). There are some exceptions where: a) building
permit limits are due to a moratorium to protect public health and safety for a specified time
period, and based on special findings of necessity; b) the housing element was deemed by HCD
to be in compliance with Article 10.6 at the time a city applied for CDBG funds; or c) cities
with growth management that otherwise comply with State housing law use the funds solely for
"housing for persons of low or moderate income." At this time, none of the exceptions apply
to San Luis Obispo.
There has been some question whether "procedural compliance" (ie. following State-mandated
review procedures and including the necessary housing information, but not accommodating
Regional Housing Need numbers) would enable the City to legitimately self-certify and receive
the Women's Shelter grant. The answer is, probably not. The requirement to incorporate
regional housing needs into housing elements (Section 65584), as determined by the State and
the SLO Area Coordinating Council, is clear and is a principal feature of the Government Code
regulating housing elements. Procedural compliance would not have the same effect as HCD
certification or self-certification in terms of receiving State CDBG grants, but may, in the City
Attorney's opinion, provide some advantage to City in the event of legal challenges to the
validity of the Housing Element.
3-38
03-02-1993 10:38AM FROM PSHHC TO 7317109 P.04
elemenfwas adopted on and is in conformity with all
requirements of Article 10.6 et seg."
The certification for grantees not using CDBG funds to complete their
updated housing element includes the following language:
the City Attorney/County Counsel, Chief
Executive Officer, or official designated by the governing body for the
city/county of , have reviewed the updated housing
element of and hereby certify that this housing element,
which includes updated information and which conforms with all other
requirements of Article 10.6 (commencing with Section 65580) of
Chapter 3 of Division i of Title 7 of the Government Code, has been
prepared and was submitted to the Department of Housing and
Community Development on . The updated housing
element was adopted on and is in conformity with
all requirements of Article 10.6 et seo."
When the Department receives this certification. the grantee may draw down
both administrative and program implementation funds.
The Housing Policy Development Division of the Department provides
technical assistance to all jurisdictions desiring assistance regarding Housing
Elements, and will provide housing element status information to CDBG staff
people, or to localities, on request. Telephone (916) 445-4728 for more
information or assistance.
4. Growth Control
No city or county shall be eligible to receive funds pursuant to the State
CDBG Program if the city or county has adopted a general plan, ordinance,
or other measure which directly limits, by number: (a) the building permits
that may be issued for residential construction or (b) the buildable lots which
may be developed for residential purposes. However, this provision shall not
be applicable to:
1) an ordinance adopted by a city or county which does any of the
following: (a) imposes a moratorium to protect the public health and
safety on residential construction for a specified period of time if,
under the terms of the ordinance, the moratorium will cease when the
public health and safety is no longer jeopardized by the construction;
(b) creates agricultural preserves under Chapter 7 (commencing with
Section 51200) of Part 2 of Division I of Title 5 of the Government
Code; or (c) was adopted pursuant to a specific requirement of a State
or multi-state board, agency, department, or commission; or
22
3-�9
I• ll u I f u nrni ni�In III� I Inl'llll
III Iit I'I� Int III '' !i ! u
ff�IllpllilllillL��I jl�ll��llli� it I'fii�IiC�I �I' �I II ® is
nnmuulll �III!If. Csan luis
ity
"'ll �`l�lltl
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100
MEETING AGENDA
DATE - ? ITEM � ►�
Community Development Department
MEMORANDUM
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Director
DATE: July 7, 1993
SUBJECT: Addendum to Council Hearing Draft Housing Element, June 1993
Addendum: Replace P. 11 in the draft with the revised P. 11, attached to this memo.
This change adds a policy which would exempt very-low and low income housing from the
City's Residential Growth Management ordinance. At the City Council's direction, this
exemption was included as a program element and discussed as background in the June 1993
draft reviewed by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The
housing targets in the Draft reflected the exemptions, and HCD has acknowledged the exemption
in their comments.
To emphasize the City Council's intent to encourage affordable housing, this feature has been
added as part of Policy 1.26.1.
The City Council is tentatively scheduled to discuss the Draft Housing Element at its July 20,
1993 meeting, and further changes or additions are possible. If you have questions, please
contact Jeff Hook, Associate Planner at 781-7176.
.1 13 CDD DIR
I cl,0 Ci FIN.cilia.
n a :SO
CJ r x.
.GE 1a1.
n
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
v Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410.
forms of tenure.
1.25.5 In City expansion areas, specific plans shall incorporate opportunities for individuals
or small groups, other than the specific plan developer, to build homes or create
personalized living environments suited to individuals, families, small groups or to
accommodate those with special needs.
[See also Goals 1.23: Housing Conservation and 1.26: Housing Production]
Program
1.25.6 Review City regulations and revise as needed to implement mixed-variety and tenure
policies.
Goal 1.26: Housing Production. Construct new housing to fulfill the needs of, first,
City residents, and second, those who work in the City and who would like to live there.
Policies _
1.26.1 Consistent with the growth management portion of its Land Use Element and the
availability of adequate resources, the City will plan to add up to 1,091 dwelling
units to its housing supply between 1993 and 1998, and to amend the Residential
Growth Management Regulations to exempt the production of new dwellings
affordable to very-low and low income households.
1.26.2 To add to the City's residential land base, the City will encourage the production of
infill housing above compatible street-level commercial uses in various commercial
zones.
1.26.3 New downtown commercial projects should include housing.
1.26.4 Encourage new and creative uses of existing structures for residential purposes.
1.26.5 If City service capacity must be rationed to new development, residential projects
will be given priority over nonresidential projects.
1.26.6 The costs to the City of housing development will be minimized and equitably
distributed. The City will not make new housing more affordable by shifting costs
to existing housing.
[See also Goal 1.22: Affordability)
Programs
1.26.7 The City will amend its regulations to encourage mixed residential and commercial
11