HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/04/2002, 1 - IMPLEMENTATION OF GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT POLICIES REGARDING DOWNTOWN HOUSING CONSERVATION. (E i
counat M.°,*°�
-04-02
j ac En bA REpoRt H
C I T Y OF SAN LUIS O B I S P O
FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development.D' ect
Prepared By: Jeff Hook,Associate Planne
SUBJECT: IMPLEMENTATION OF GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT
POLICIES REGARDING DOWNTOWN HOUSING CONSERVATION.
(ER AND GPI 197-00)
CAO RECOMMENDATION: Postpone implementation of the "no net loss" housing_ program
for consideration as part of the Housing Element update during 2002-2003.
DISCUSSION
Background
At its February 19, 2002, meeting the Council considered the Planning Commission's
recommendation, the Downtown Housing Workshop comments and staff's suggestions regarding
implementation of the "no net housing loss" program in the General Plan Housing Element.
Council members suggested possible changes and areas for further study, and continued the
discussion to another study session in spring.
Since then, staff has met with various stakeholder groups,,including realtors,Downtown property
and business owners, Chamber of Commerce, and the Downtown Association for additional
input. The discussion has focused on incentives to encourage preservation and development of
Downtown housing, and on suggested changes to the draft ordinance. Several key General Plan
policies that staff based the proposed implementation program on were not strongly supported by
stakeholder meeting participants.
On April 24', the Planning Commission approved the draft work scope for the City's update of
the General Plan Housing Element. One of the key steps in the update process will be to
evaluate previous policies, their results, and determine whether the policy should be continued
with or without changes. Community Development staff have begun the update process and
required environmental review, expected to last about eighteen months. The process will involve
extensive public participation and cover a wide range of housing issues. State law requires the
update to be completed by December 2003.
Draft Downtown Housing Ordinance Review
Preserving Downtown Housing is one of many actions the Housing Element calls for to address
housing needs. Although the goal of conserving the existing housing supply was seen as
appropriate by the stakeholders, the program of "No Net Housing Loss" in the Downtown
brought to the surface several policy issues:
1-1
Council Agenda Report—Housing Element Implementation
Page 2
1. Should housing be required or even encouraged in the downtown core? Given the small
size of the downtown core, it may be unnecessary to encourage housing there and it may
not be as good a fit for the occupants.
2. Is there any issue with displacing housing in the downtown core to the outer portions of
the downtown? The program defines the "Downtown" as the area bounded by 101, the
railroad, and High Street.
3. How do we balance the need for relatively small offices, Land Use Element policies
encouraging such offices in and around the downtown core, City parking and
development standards, and the desire to retain the housing?
These issues can clearly be resolved, although the solutions are no longer as straight forward as
staff had believed. In terms of timing, implementation of this program is probably not so urgent
that it needs to lead the Housing Element update. High housing rental costs and a somewhat
overbuilt market for office floor area has reduced conversion pressures. Permit requests to
convert housing to offices in the Downtown have slowed in 2001-2002, although a resurgent
economy could once again trigger conversions. In the interim, the existing Downtown Housing
Conversion ordinance applies to conversions of four or more dwellings in the C-C zone.
Housing Element Update
Consequently, staff believes the most appropriate strategy for addressing downtown housing
preservation is to address it as part of the Housing Element update. This will allow more
comprehensive analysis of the issues, allow a broad range of public input, and allow us to focus
limited staff resources on the time—sensitive update process.
The Housing Element update will require the City to look at housing with a new, fresh
perspective. Exploring strategies for housing preservation, rehabilitation, infill and production
will be critical in our efforts to help meet the community's housing needs. The Downtown
Housing Conservation Ordinance is one of the strategies that logically fit within the broader
context of the update process. At the February 19th meeting, Council members suggested an
additional study session to reach a consensus on possible ordinance changes. Preliminary
Council suggestions included:
1. Need to clearly define Downtown's future in terms of density, architectural character and
land use.
2. Consider modifying development standards to encourage Downtown housing.
3. Consider possible higher densities or parking discounts to encourage housing.
4. Consider making housing mandatory for multiple-story Downtown developments.
5. Address other types of housing in the ordinance in addition to low-income housing.
6. Close loophole in the current ordinance that exempts conversions of less than four units.
7. Preserve historical housing.
1-2
Council Agenda Report—Housing Element Implementation
Page 3
These, other issues raised by stakeholders, and issues yet to be raised during the next few months
must be addressed before this Housing Element program can be implemented.
As shown in the attached Housing Element Update Workscope, the Planning Commission
expects to work on the Housing Element from June 2002 through June 2003, with public
outreach meetings at key junctures. Staff will also be proposing the formation of an ad hoc
committee of stakeholders as we enter the Policy and Program Development phase. This will
add to the information and ideas we've received from the roundtable discussions held with the
various groups. Council review of the Housing Element is expected to follow Planning
Commission review, with final adoption by mid-December. Staff will keep Council members
informed through updates on the Commission's work and on the results of outreach meetings.
Attachments:
1. Council Minutes
2. Housing Element Update Work Scope
j h/UDowntownhousing/Ccreport6-4-02
1-3
Jeff Hook-02-19-62--
2-19 02 min.DOC -_ . Page 1
i
Attachment 1
City Council Meeting Page 1
Tuesday,February 19,2002-4:00 p.m.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 19,2002-4:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBER,990 PALM STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA
ROLL CALL:
Council Members
Present: Council Members John Ewan,Christine Mulholland,Ken Schwartz,
Vice Mayor Jan Howell Manx,and Mayor Allen.K.Settle
City Staff:
Present: Ken Hampfan,City Administrative Officer,Jeff Jorgensen,City
Attorney; Lee Price,City Clerk;John Mandeville,Community
Development Director, Bill Staffer,Finance Director,Jim Gardiner,
Police Chief; Bob Neumann, Fire Chief;John Moss, Utilities Director;
Mike McCluskey, Public Works Director,Jeff Hook,Associate
Planner,Shelly Stanwyck, Economic Development Manager,Jill
Syfvain, Human Resources Analyst and Gary Henderson,Water
Division Manager.
INTRODUCTIONS
Fire-Chief Neumann introduced Fire Inspector Tracy Bowe.
STUDY SESSION
1. STUDY SESSION ON GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT POLICIES REGARDING
DOWNTOWN HOUSING CONSERVATION (ER AND GPI 197-00).
Community Development Director Mandeville introduced the item. Associate Planner Hook
presented the staff report.
Vice Mayor Manx recommended that the City try again for grant funding to assist with the
rehabilitation of the Blackstone Hotel.
Public Comments:
Mary Beth Schroeder,2085 Wilding Lane,urged the Council to consider rehabilitating the
Blackstone and Wmeman Hotels. She argued that Cal Poly should provide housing for
students on the campus. Finally,she implored the Council to not mix development in the
downtown, but rather keep it for shopping.
Tom Swem, President of the Downtown Association,encouraged the Council to review
closely the results of the focus group and addressed concerns regarding the downtown
core(Subarea A). He encouraged the addition of residences in the downtown but argued
1-4
Jeff Hook 02-19-02 min DOC Page 2 j
Attachment 1
City Council Meeting Page 2
Tuesday,February 19,2002-4:00 p.m.
that the ordinance will have a"chilling"effect on property owner ability to redevelop or convert. He
suggested that the Council give thought to a complete rezoning and then let the public know up front
what the rules are. In closing,he proposed that Council keep in mind that the downtown
core is the place for business and discouraged the over-emphasis on residential use.
Steve Barash(representing SLO Property Owners Association)225 Prado Road,Suite H,
asked the Council to create an incentive for affordable rental housing in the downtown. He
reported that the Association objects to the formation of a new agency to collect fees and
argued that costs to create new affordable housing is too great. He proposed modest
upzoning for parts of the City outside the downtown and incentives for constructing higher
density units.
Deborah Holley,Downtown Association Administrator,recommended that the no net loss
policy may be better achieved on a case-by-case basis, rather than by a blanket ordinance.
She noted that there are very few opportunities to develop new housing in the downtown
and proposed that the Blackburn and Wineman Hotels are perhaps the only opportunities.
She reported that the Downtown Association does not feel confident that the draft
ordinance proposed will achieve the objective unless subsidies and incentives are
provided.
Mike Spangler, President of the SLO Property Owners Association,asked the Council to
consider exempting the downtown core from any conversion ordinance and,further,
provide incentives(as an alternative to regulations)on a voluntary basis. In addition, he
suggested that since the City owns a substantial amount of real estate,the Council should
direct staff to look at converting some of those properties to mixed use facilities.
Pierre Rademacher,882 Chuparossa,commented that the ordinance is too restrictive and
proposed the Council consider removing the 32-unit limitation. He pointed out that it would
be beneficial to see some of the office buildings converted back to housing and suggested
that not all the housing downtown should be affordable,but rather include some market
rate,quality projects. The affordability provision of the ordinance precludes options to do
more,he added,and that is a disincentive. In conclusion,he proposed that the Council
defer action and conduct amore comprehensive review during deliberations relevant to the
Housing Element update.
Dave Romero,2057 Skylark,discussed former attempts to renovate the Blackstone Hotel
and proposed that even with a subsidy it would not be feasible to develop the site as
affordable housing. He suggested that the building be demolished to make way for a new
structue. Finally,he argued that if the Council absolutely wants the Hotel to be used as
affordable housing,then it should provide some flexibility and exceptions.
George Movlan,Director of the SLO Housing Authority,argued that San Luis Obispo does
not have the economies of scale that many larger municipalities do and emphasize that a
small town with small structures has small opportunities. He pointed out that the
Blackstone Hotel rehabiliation would only net 15 units and advised that it would be too
difficult and too expensive to renovate,particuarly because the building is of low quality.
He urged the Council to take a look at the whole downtown housing issue as part of the
Housing Element update.
Virginia Griffin, 1436 Johnson Avenue,expressed support for the the concept of closing the
loophole that allows bungalows to convert to office space and incentives that allow for
higher densities. She agreeded that more than affordable housing should be allowed and
suggested that higher end,market rate housing be pennissable.
1-5
....................... --------- Page
Attachment 1
City Council Meeting Page 3
Tuesday,February 19, 2002-4:00 p.m.
Wes Burke 962 Mill Street,recommended that If the Council wants to stop conversions,
then there should be an effort made to rezone. If increased housing is the goal,he added,
then increase the allowed density. He argued that the proposed ordinance will not
accomplish the goal of creating new housing written as it is.
Steve Delmartmi(member of the focus group),962 Mill Street,commented in favor of
rezoning rather than the ordinance for a variety of reasons including the fact that there are
no lots for sale in the downtown and what's available nearby is not affordable. He
proposed that the Council consider changing provisions of the ordinance by removing the
word"shall"as it relates to affordable housing and eliminate the requirement to provide
reimbursement for relocation. He urged the Council to develop clear rules and to let people
know what's expected. He expressed a concern that a"second"downtown is being
developed because downtown businesses are relocating outside the core. In summary,he
suggested to Council that another focus group session be conducted to allow further
discussion and input.
--end of public comments—
City Administrative Officer Hampian recommended,given the complexity of the issues,that
the Council give consideration about the type of approach they wish to take in support of
the no net loss policy,which might include one or more of the following strategies:
Regulatory,rezoning or incentive-based. Additionally,he proposed that the Council
consider the policy as part of the comprehensive Housing Element update. Council
discussion ensued.
Council Member Schwartz indicated a need for more time to review and consider the matter
and suggested that the Council conduct a study session to develop direction to staff. He
stressed the need for the Council to define a downtown that represents the central sense of
citizen Wishes. He also mentioned that a distinction needs to be made between historical
housing that should be preserved,and other types of housing where a less rigid approach
would be appropriate.
Council Member Mulholland agreed that the matter should be deferred until the Council
considers the Housing Element update. She asserted that the town should not grow much
and what growth does occur should be housing. To preserve existing housing,she
suggested that the Council direct staff to look at increasing the height limitation and
density in Subareas A and B,but particularly in the downtown. She added that the loophole
that allows conversion should be closed. Other ideas she supports include requiring
declarations of"no car ownership"and"offsite storagelgarage".
Council Member Ewan agreed that a mixture of housing is needed and spoke in favor of
allowing the developer to do what is economically feasible. In reply to a comment made a
member of the public, he clarified that the Council is not entertaining the formation of a new
agency to manage this program. He voiced support for creating incentives like discounted
parking and a density bonus for affordable housing,and further,closing the loophole that
currently allows the conversion of residential property to commercial/office.
Mayor Settle voiced support for an incentive based program and a rezoning approach. He
also agreed that the Council should take this matter up as part of the Housing Element
update and encouraged the public to participate in the process.
Vice Mayor Marx commented in favor of increasing the density and height limitation in the
downtown,as well as developing incentives that will encourage more housing and home
occupation use in the downtown.
Jeff Hook 02-1 02 min.DOC PagqA'
Attachment 1
City Council Meeting Page 4
Tuesday,February 19,2002-4:00 p.m.
ACTION: By mutual consent,the Council directed staff to schedule a follow-up
study session before Summer 2002 to provide further direction on the policy,as part
of the Housing Element Update. Depending upon the outcome,staff may schedule
a follow-up focus group meeting.
PRESENTATIONS
Utilities Director Moss introduced San Luis Obispo County Utilities Division.Manager
Christine Ferrara,and Nancy Orson,Project Manager for the EIR for the project,who
presented an overview of the proposed pipeline alignment and current status of the
Nacimiento Water Supply Project Council questions followed.
Mayor Settle called a break at 6:17 p.m. The meeting resumed at 7:05 p.m.
PROCLAMATIONS
Mayor Settle presented a proclamation to Public Works Director McCluskey announcing
National Engineer's Week.
Mayor Settle proclaimed the month of February as"Scout Anniversary Month."
PUBLIC COMMENT
Jason Berg, President of the San Luis Obispo Police Officers'Association,expressed
ifopfcidiation to members of the bargaining team for recent efforts in negotiating a new
contract for the police officers association.
Sifu Kelvin Berming Harrison reiterated claims of harassment.
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Comments:
Mary Beth Schroeder spoke in opposition to Item C3.
--end of public comments—
At the request of the public,items CS and 6 Were pulled. Council Member Mulholland
indicated she would be casting a"No"vote no on Item C3.
ACTION: Moved by Schwartz/Marx to approve the consent agenda as recommended by the
City Administrative Officer,With the exception of CS,and 6; motion carried 5:0.Council
Member Mulholland voted No on C3.
C1. MINUTES OF TUESDAY,JANUARY 29,2002 AND TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 5.2002.
1-7
May 8, 2002 Attachment 2
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT WORKSCOPE
I. SET THE FRAMEWORK (by June '02)
A. Outline workscope
B. Draft schedule
C. Design Public Outreach Process
D. Planning Commission review of workscope and schedule
E. Set up Housing section on City Website
F. Identify staff and funding resources to do update.
(Outreach meeting)
II. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS (Sept-Oct '02)
A. Previous Element— Document implementation/results
1. Review results of previous programs, policies, objectives.
2. Analyze difference between projections and what happened.
3. Describe element changes to address what was learned.
B. Real estate market data
C. Housing Needs Assessment - local and HCD mandated
1. Existing Needs
a. Population and Employment trends.
b. Household conditions, overpayment, overcrowding.
c. Housing stock conditions.
2. Special Needs
a. Elderly
b. Disabled
c. Large Families
d. Female headed households
e. Farmworkers
f. Homeless
g. Students/faculty
3. Units at-risk of conversion from low-income uses.
4. Projected Housing Needs (Regional Housing Needs
Assessment) (Outreach meeting)
1-8
Housing Element Upaate— Draft Workscope
Page 2 Attachment 2
D. Resource Inventory
1. Land inventory
a. Vacant and redevelopable land
b. Analysis of corresponding zoning and dev. standards.
c. Analysis of public facilities and infrastructure.
2. Financial resources available for housing.
a. Redevelopment funds for housing.
b. Funds available for preserving units at risk of conversion.
E. Constraints on Housing
1. Governmental Constraints
a. Land use controls
b. Codes and enforcement
c. On/off site improvements
d. Fees and exactions.
e. Permit processing procedures.
f. Local efforts to remove barriers to housing.
g. Fiscal impacts of housing
2. Nongovernmental Constraints
a. Land costs
b. Availability of financing
c. Other constraints (e.g. insurance, legal)
III. POLICY AND PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT (Jan-Feb '03)
A. New Housing Policies_
(Planning Commission Workshop)
B. New Housing Programs
1. Identification of adequate sites for housing — Cal Poly and SLO
Sphere of Influence.
2. Programs to assist development for low/mod housing.
3. Conserve and improve affordable housing stock.
4. Promote equal housing opportunities.
5. Preserve units at-risk of converting to non-low income uses.
6. Remove governmental constraints to housing, where feasible.
C. Establish Quantified housing needs for very-low, low, moderate and
above moderate households.
1. Constructed.
2. Rehabilitated.
3. Conserved.
(Planning Commission Workshop)
1-9
Housing Element Upuate— Draft Workscope
Page 3 Attachment 2
D. Other recent legislative changes.
1. AB 438—flexible measures to meet housing need.
2. Meeting water and sewer needs.
3. Transfer of regional housing needs.
4. Meeting housing needs through infill and intensification.
5. Meeting housing needs thru military base closures.
6. Annual reporting to HCD.
7. Measures to meet Regional Housing Needs
(Outreach meeting)
IV. MEET OTHER REQUIREMENTS (by March `03)
A. Maintain Consistency with General Plan
1. Identify General Plan changes necessary for implementation
2. Identify fiscal implications
3. Establish time schedule for Housing Element implementation
a. Prepare.5-year schedule of program actions.
(Outreach meeting)
V. PREPARE AND PUBLISH DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT (April '03)
A. Refer draft to HCD for comment
VI. PREPARE ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY (4 months)
VII. START HEARING PROCESS (approx. April —June, 2003)
A. Planning Commission —3 hearings
B. City Council — 3 hearings
VIII. FINAL ADOPTION (Mid-December 2003)
Deadline for adoption for updated housing element is December 31, 2003.
jh/Uhousing/draftH EupdateworkscopeD
1-10
Richard Schmidt 4 544-4247 '([b6/3/2 02:04 PM 02/4
InNG
AGENDA
RICHARD SCHMIDT DATE ITEM #
112 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405-(805) 544-4247
e-mail: rschmidt9calpoly.edu
June 3, 2002
'ErCOUNCIL E:, CDD Dip
Er
City Council, City of San Luis Obispo G-`CAC0 C- FIN Dip
IA
2 AD
990 Palm St. VIA FAX ErATTORNEY C FIRE CHIEF,Pw Dip
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 i9 CLERK/OR19 0 POLICE CHF
0 DEPT HEADS C:1 pi.0 OIR
Re: Item 1, June 4 Agenda -- No Net Loss Housing Policy 0 U T!L Dip
DIR
Dear Council Members:
That this item has remained unimplemented for the past 8 years is a disgrace, and shows
how the city talks with forked tongue whenever the issue of housing collides with the city's
lust for commercial growth.
A no net loss policy was supposed to have been implemented as part of the 1994 Housing
Element. Why wasn't it? Why are we now talking about implementing it as part of the next
Housing Element update?
How many housing units will disappear in the interim? How many have disappeared since
adoption of the previous Housing Element with its promise there'd be no net loss?
And, rather than implement the policy, what has the staff been occupied with? Processing
shopping centers nobody other than the city financial gurus want. Processing huge
annexations. Putting the closeted Copeland project on the front burner. Planning parking
garages. Commerce has done very well by the council's direction. And what has been done
to stop the slow hemorrage of housing to business expansion? And now we're hearing the
solution is to be part of yet another long-term planning enterprise? What gives?
The time to implement this policy was yesterday. Don't put it off. Put it at the front of
staff's line of tasks.
Sincerely,
Richard Schmidt
RECIENJ�F-D
h N 13 2002
SLO CITY CLERK