Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/19/2002, L-1 - SLOCOG/SLORTA MEETING WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2002 M, 1NG AGENDA DATE a-1P-o ITEM # 4- LIAISON REPORT February 10, 2002 ff C9UNCIL ❑ CDD DIR WC I ; ❑ FIN DIR RlQko ❑ F CHIEF To: Council collea �RNEY W DIR From: Ken Schw CLERK/ORIG C7 POLICE CHF ODEPT HEADS ❑ REO DIR Copies: Ken Hampian, en y George,Lee Price, Mike McCluskey 9L-L ❑ UTIL DIR � ❑ HR DIR Re: SLOCOG/SL RTA meeting Wednesday, February 6, 2002 12 R b pFw The most significant segment of this COG meeting was the provision of time for citizens to comment on`unmet transit needs and unmet bikeway needs." The major need voiced by most of the speakers was more frequent bus runs and extended nighttime service. I don't remember a single request for anew route. Cyclists were concerned about extensions of planned bikeways and separation of bikeways from highway shoulders especially on two lane roadways in rural areas. Benches, shelters and improved signing were other issues. Often, those who make requests for improved.services are very critical of existing efforts to provide public transit services so it is refreshing to receive a letter that is appreciative of these services. Mr. Steve Kobara of SLO wrote one of those rare complimentary letters. I have attached Steve's-letter which also appeared recently as a Letter to the Editor in the Tnb." The major"good news"item(in my opinion)was the unanimous endorsement by the COG Board nominating the Highway 1 corridor from Highland Ave. in SLO to the Monterey County lime for the Federal ALL AMERICAN National Scenic Byway status. I was pleased to make this endorsement motion which was seconded by North Coast Supervisor Shirley Bianchi. Budget and personnel items consumed the remainder of the meeting. No startling news here except to observe that David Lilly our Regional Transit Manager appears to have taken hold of his job and.is doing very well I have also attached a communication from Steve Devencenzi to Supervisor Katcho Achadjian regarding Regional Housing Needs Assessment for your information. 1 1 1 0- F 4•ca.�% �• Itso 4•dee �, l' 2o2 JAN 2 8 .row o- ,�, ''te,, .tom 2 /G ^U"X4400 A46 aCG 4,,.x,.,6 -moo ce+.Iip��j,�p T� � �1++- .�-�....sfa-,Q�.,G� a�'VU,•,�,,,�/ a.o . ..•• / ;/e',j,rz . , 04" A . A -J 3 Iire.•o .a«+w at�i ,oe,�el•�7�V a ,�,A.l�l- .�o rw,�.af�, a,.,,aG�,,�,,i,C e•.. • •� i . Aor ��:b•t.(�. � �/ewe-".�'`e ��.t,�"`� .d o- .a i,.` ce,+.��..,�t'' .e..,,eG 9,C ,Q,�,,,,,,k�, A.t.�•..,..aL -7 PM. A. �woC .d /K/w;,,�i OLi.�.,.,e,,,o dw.� .,,,..y,` ��. .cNf�✓ 410 woo A, &4440" 60k, VO4* br.%&, ,y�,a.bahea4.e/-04, aft m4e� ;94 +•tri lei A.oa AOM • San Luis Obispo Council of Go-. ernments Arroyo Grande Regional Transportation Planning Agency Atascadero Grover Beach Metropolitan Planning Organization Morro Bay Census Data Affiliate Paso Robles Pismo Beach Service Authority for Freeways and Expressways San Luis Obispo Ronald De Carli,Executive Director San Luis Obispo County DATE: 2-01-02 TO: Supervisor Katchof_Ac`h'a�dlji�an FROM: Steve Devencen24—W ' SUBJ: Regional Housing Needs Assessment(RHNA) Your assistant Vicki Jansen recently requested that we clarify the issue of the legality of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) process. Apparently there has been some confusion regarding this process and the impacts associated with the evaluation procedure and the application of the "numbers"for the housing units that will need to be addressed by member jurisdictions in their respective Housing Elements. At the last SLOCOG meeting references were made by a delegate to the effect that the state's Office of Housing and Community Development (HCD) was requiring local jurisdictions to "...break state law..." in the application of the RHNA process. Unfortunately, other delegates repeated this assertion during the Board's discussion of the issues surrounding the RHNA and the notion of this process "breaking the law" began to take on the mantel of being a "truth". Staff did comment to the Board that we do not see the process as"breaking the law" as the RHNA is applied under state statutes with guidance from HCD's legal counsel. The confusion seems to arise from the nature of this program identifying the "need" for housing in this region in excess of what is identified in the member jurisdictions' existing Housing and Land Use Elements — each adopted in accordance with the various state statutes governing these processes. The inherent conflict between this forecasted "need", (required to be incorporated into revised Housing Elements that are due to the state by December of 2003), and the existing levels and intensity of development accommodated by the current plans has led some to conclude that this requires their jurisdiction to "break the law". In point of fact this is not the case. It may be difficult to accommodate the new estimated housing need given the various limitations that may exist. Some are policy or legislatively based - such as limitations on the number of permits allowed in a given year, and some are physical in nature - such as the existing supply of water, sewage capacity, roadway service levels or school enrollment, etc. The position of HCD is that these limitations are not valid reasons to simply not plan for anticipated growth — but to identify needed improvements or expansion to these systems and undertake efforts to provide them where needed. A significant aspect of the debate is whether this approach is warranted or desirable. Many have argued that simply accommodating the pressure to grow will ultimately destroy the nature and character of our communities and should not occur. The notion of this process forcing jurisdictions to "break state law" is also related to limitations on growth placed upon jurisdictions by other state or federal agencies such as the California Coastal Commission, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Fish and Game, Fish and Wildlife, etc. While these limitations and restrictions can be significant barriers there may be ways to address the RHNA identified need for housing that does not inherently "break the law" but rather challenges jurisdictions to work harder to evaluate and accommodate the need. 1150 Osos St. Suite 202, San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 ♦ Tel. (805) 781-4219 ♦ Fax(805) 781-5703 E-mail: .slocoeo..slonet.ora 0 Internet httt)://www.sionet.ore/—iDSlocoe Finally, the RHNA process allocates the identified need to the "region"—in this instance the unincorporated county area and the seven incorporated cities as represented by SLOCOG acting in its capacity as a Council of Governments. SLOCOG can allocate these anticipated new units among and between the member agencies— pretty much in any manner acceptable to the delegates and the jurisdictions they represent. Thereby having the opportunity (and responsibility) to allocate the units fairly and with due consideration of physical and regulatory constraints. The SLOCOG Board, at their January meeting, adopted a "formula"to allocate the number of units assigned to our region when the final number of units is agreed to with the state. We believe the adopted formula is a fair and equitable approach, however, each jurisdiction will have the opportunity to appeal their allocation to SLOCOG within 90 days of their assignment. Please note that.the allocation for the unincorporated county is made on a countywide basis and it will be up to the county to decide where, within the unincorporated area, these units may be located. You should also remember that it is only required that the anticipated number of units be"able to be accommodated" within the General Plan and Zoning requirements. This is something that the County may be able to accommodate under the existing land use designations. I would expect that some changes will be needed —especially in light of the changes to the Housing Element that are a part.of this process. We anticipate the need to continue detailed discussions with HCD regarding the number of units they have projected for our region. I have attached several of the recent reports on this issue for additional details that Vicky may need to address your constituents concerns. If you have any other questions please feel free to give me a call at 781-4662. C. SLOCOG Board members State Senator Jack O'Connell Assemblyman Abel Maldonado a Mr-91NG AGENDA ITEM #® liaison jzEpoizt CIL ❑ CDD DIR February 19, 2002 WtAO- ❑ FIN DIR ❑ FIRE CHIEF 09 TO: Council Colleagues W EY ❑ PO DIR CLERK/ORI4 11 POLICE CHF ❑ T EADS ❑ RE.0 DIR FROM: Council Member John Ewan 0. IL DIR ❑ HR DIR SUBJECT: Meeting of the 1-11-02 North County Water Purveyors Group The January 2002 meeting of the North County Water Purveyors Group again focused the bulk of the discussions on the Paso Robles Groundwater Basin. Paul Sorensen of Fugro provided a brief review of the key elements of the study for the group. In an effort to define subsequent phases of the study, the group discussed: what the agencies need to draw from the study, what questions need to be answered for each agency, to what degree does the current study answer those questions and what additional information is needed. The group continued to grapple with understanding the actual meaning of components of the study, i.e., perennial yield vs. safe annual yield, etc. The Atascadero sub-basin appears to be roughly in a state of balance with its perennial yield, with input roughly equal to output. However, this doesn't mean it is at its safe annual yield, which could be increased above the perennial yield of the basin through basin management, and is based upon the basin's ability to recover following a drought, rather than its average annual yield. Based on the results of the study, Paso Robles appears to have an adequate quantity of water. However, they continue to seek solutions to their difficulties with water quality in the form of salinity of their groundwater and its effects on wastewater discharge. Modeling the future effects on water quality in the basin is likely a key issue for Paso Robles as they struggle to define their participation in the Nacimiento project. There was concern expressed regarding possible inaccurate interpretation of the report and what it means to the various agencies, since clearly more than just quantity of water may be at issue. Beyond quantity and quality,the report should also be interpreted in relation to future growth and land use decisions, state housing mandates, `agricultural trends, etc. A working group of staff was appointed to begin development of a collective analysis and interpretation of the report. In addition to the Groundwater Report, a brief update on the Nacimiento project was provided. The group was advised that the EIR consultant had declared bankruptcy, however at this time the County is uncertain what, if any, impact this may have on the completion of the project. If you have any questions regarding this report,please call on me or John Moss at x205.