HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/24/2004, COMM - HOUSING ELEMENT FEB-10-2004 00:44 J." 8055412239 P.01/02
- Rftn tft docuffwd for
-- - future Council
SJRRRA SaM Cuda Chapter
P.O.CLUB P. Box 15755 Date,c
1204 Nipomo Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 ktY� ( ld c
February 9,2004
Dear San Luis Obispo City Council:
The Housing Committee of the Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club has
recently approved this correspondence,which is respectfully submitted into the
record regarding the proposed draft of the Housing Element,
City Council is being pressured to rubber stamp this draft of the proposed
Housing Element The Council needs to step back from the morass of detail and
look at the big picture. The proposed"Housing at Any Cost"Element goes far
beyond what is required to satisfy the state housing requirements. As proposed, it
would degrade quality of life in the neighborhoods,harm the environment, spend
down the General Fund and undermine the city's long-treasured Growth
Management policies. The voters are looking to Council to draw on your own
expertise and knowledge of the community and to assert proactive leadership..
The Council could successfully address the state housing requirements and
protect the neighborhoods and environment by doing the following"Ten Simple
Things To Save The Housing Element:"
1. Exempt established residential neighborhoods from`retroactive
remniW,leave them as theyme,and continue to require owner-
occupancy of granny units.
2. Require infill projects in established neighborhoods to be compatible
with character of surrounding neighborhood and to meet the sane
development standards as the Test of the neighborhood Use current
definition of"infill"finm the Land Use Element,not the new one
proposed.
3 Prior to making any decision on any draft,obtain a complete list from
staff of all General Plan changes that would be made necessary if that
version proposed Housing Element were adopted,ie. a"General Plat
impact"Mort.
4. Use the money y budgeted to prepare an EIR with mitigation measures
and thorough economic analysis our all those changes and all new
policies and programs proposed by army draft. Permanently snarled traffic
is not an acceptable trade off for densification.
5. Concentrate;densification only on newly annexed meas and on
commercially zoned land(mixed use).
6. Increase ft present ratio of parkland to households and do not"relic"
open space requirements. Parks and open space are important
mitigations for densification.
FEB-10-2004 00:44 J•=r 8055412239 P.02/02
i
7. Require the building of MORE homes affordable to low and very low
income households than rogWred by the present element,not fewer as
proposed by this dtai% and keep them affordable as long as possible.
8. Do not provide General Find subsidies for moderate-income housing
and do not exempt it from anythm&including the 1%growth cap, impact
or hl lielu fees. histoid, encourage employers to provide equity sharing
or assistance programs to moderate-income employees.
9. Do not eliminate or reduce the inclusionary Housing in-hen fees,and
make commercial projects pay 15%in lieu fees m the expansion areas,as
must residential_
10. Plan new ordinances and amend old ones in order to mitigate impacts
which will,result from densification, such as a"night sky"ordinance.
A basic premise of this draft of the proposed Rousing Element,which is flawed,
is that more housing equals more affordable housing. This draft element actually
provides for FER'ER homes affordable to low and very low-income households than
the old element.The quest for affordable housing cannot be satisfied by simply building
MORE houses. We cannot build our way out of this dilemma.The market determines the
price because demand comes from outside the area,where homes are much more
expensive than they are here. This has been recently affirmed by Bill Watkins of UCSB
in the Tribune. Small lots will not necessarily result in lower prices. For instance,the
17 new houses on McCollum off Grand were(briefly)marketed at$650,000 each. They
have almost no backyards. The owner pulled them off the market,hoping to get more
later for them. Maybe he will. The Devaul Ranch homes were going to be sold for
$350,000 when the project began,lett now are going for$650,00 and up.All these new
houses on the market have made the market RISE,not fall.Why? Because houses here
are still a good deal to potential buyers, i.e. people from outside our area and real estate
investors.
All the City Council members campaigned on being a friend of the neighborhoods
and the environment. But,real.friends would not place the quest for housing"at any
cost,"as this Housing Element draft asks the Council to do. The residents of the city are
depending on you to keep your campaign promises,protect their quality of life and create
a positive vision for our community's future.
Sincerely,
aanHowell lvlarx
Chair,Housing Committee
Santa Lucia,Chapter
TOTAL P.02
Allen Settle-Housing Task Force
a�,r,�aWC-41L)ft fi(a7,c-i 11�u Q
U1 Wxpq COC as aftfthrw
From: "Richard Straight"<getstraight @charter.net>
To: <dromero@slocity.org>, <cmulholland@slocity.org>, <jewan@slocity.org>,
<asettle@slocity.org>, <kschwariz@slocity.org>
Date: Thu, Feb 5, 2004 3:09 PM Resift this document
Subject: Housing Task Force ftAuf9 Coundl rtlwdng
Dear Council Members AJ ,,,,,(,
c7n
I have followed the housing element update process since the Council wi d�'�
appointed the Housing Task force. I am a part of a group represented by
a community organization including the Police Department, Fire
Department, Nurses, Home Builders, Realtors and the Chamber of Commerce.
This group has been working for months with the Planning Commission to
help bring forth a reasonable draft of the Housing Element Update. A
draft that would not only help protect and preserve our community but
also encourage the creation of affordable homes for the working people
in our town, such as the nurses.
It has come to my attention that some groups,that did not participate
in the process during the Planning Commissions review, have come out to
criticize the work of the Planning Commission. We believe the existing
draft put forth by the.Planning Commission will encourage the creation
of affordable homes without detriment to R1 zones. Claims that these
recommendations would encourage uncontrolled development or growth are
unfounded. The Planning Commission, Staff and the community groups
worked long and hard, together,to create a document that made good
sense and incentivized affordable housing.
Please do not disregard the long hours that have been spent in
collaboration to put forth a quality plan. I urge you to adopt the
Planning Commission's recommendations!!!!
__
Allen Settle- Housing Element Discussic Feb 2004 'L_ ' Pag_JA
e 1]
From: macsar<macsar99@earthlink.net> ���
Date: Wed, Feb 4, 2004 7:03 PM 1rJNre �
Subject.: Housing Element Discussion, 3 Feb 2004 Oew�NA
Mr. Mayor, City Councilmembers,
A couple of years ago I retired (after 32 years)from a very large
organization. During this time I functioned both in staff and
leadership positions. When functioning in a staff or advisory role I
was often tasked to put together studies or proposals of various kinds.
Sometimes all of the information I compiled was used,sometimes only
part of it was used, and sometimes my boss decided not to use any of it.
He/she was the decision-maker;this was his/her right and
responsibility.
When I was in decision-maker positions, I tasked others to assemble
information and recommendations for me. Sometimes the product was
exactly what I was looking for, sometimes it was close, and sometimes it
was way off the mark. In the latter two cases, I thanked them for their
work, said it was not quite (or not at all) what I was looking for and
then proceeded to make the necessary revisions. In this case, I was the
person who was responsible; I was the decision-maker.
Individuals in advisory positions should not expect that the work
they do is a substitute for the Council's deliberations and decisions.
Nor should they be so fragile as to be upset when the product they
assembled is changed. If staff members or commission members think
they should be the final decision-makers on city policies and programs,
they should run for office.
You as City Council members are the final decision-makers.. You each
expressed your position on various issues when you ran for office. The
votes were cast, and now you represent the residents of this city. The
residents have expressed their desires on a number of issues-growth,
owner occupancy for"grannies," and various other neighborhood issues-
and they look to you,their elected representatives, to ensure the
Housing Element is what THEY want.
As for the Planning Commission's concern that their product will be
changed: That's the political process . . . in fact, that's life.
Speaking of the political process,thank you for reading my emails
and listening when I speak.
Sincerely,
Sandra Rowley
- RECEIVED
t Lb i 2004
` Betsy Bertrando SLO CITY CLERK
267 Foothill Boulevard
COUNCIL CDD DIF San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
1X, CAO FIN DIR 805-543-7831/Email- betsvb(&thegrid.net
2 ACAO ,0 FIRE CHIEF
Z] ATTORNEY -Z PW DIR February 11,2004
Z!-� CLERK CRIG ,Z POLICE CHF REQ FILE
0 D PT HEADS ¢''REC-DIR
L7 1
- - DATE i1M #
To: Mayor Dave Romero, and Council; John Ewan, Christine Mulholland, Ken Schwartz,and
Allen Settle.
Soon you will be reviewing the General Plan Housing Element for the City of San Luis
Obispo. With that in mind I am providing you with information regarding the following changes
to my neighborhood this past year.
This R1 neighborhood has seen housing put everyplace there is a piece of ground
regardless of zoning. It doesn't seem to be housing for low income and hard working families
who serve our community, as we have up to six unrelated young adults and their friends in each
house all owning one to two vehicles. We don't need to hear the words about low income and
entry level housing for our nurses, teachers and policeman. I would welcome any hard working
family into our community. Our housing is being produced for and purchased by parents of
children attending Cal Poly and Cuesta College. It is no secret that by purchasing a house when
the child starts school, it will pay for the schooling and make a tidy profit when it is resold at
graduation. No one will choose to be in the dorms unless itis somehow mandated. The opening
of the new dorms made no change in my neighborhood.
As a result of the several additional housing units constructed on my block serving
unrelated young adults,I have been unable for some time to park in front of the house I pay taxes
on. I can live with that,but it does make garbage pick-up difficult and backing out of the
driveway onto Foothill Boulevard traffic is a blood curdling experience. You see all those
unrelated folks have large SUVs and pickups with darkened windows. Six in a row tight to your
driveway exit allows zero visibility.
The other major change to the neighborhood has been for the first time hearing the words
"I'm song there are no officers available at this time." Yes, there are so many"noise", "party",
"drunk"complaints that we do not have enough staffing to take care of the problem.
As we approach this year's annual Mardi Gras event, I remember last year when this area
was party central for most of the week.. Patrolling the downtown just sends party goers into the
streets of the neighborhoods. You can monitor your neighbor but when the yelling is so
pervasive you can't even call to complain because you don't know where it is coming from, life
takes on an added difficulty. The noise in the early hours of the morning that wakes you during
the work week is somewhere on the block, but where?.
RECEIVED
FEB 1 21GIG
SLO CITY COUNCIL
May I suggest the following:
• Allow only one parking place on the street in front of each residence that has a 50 foot
frontage,permitted for the household when requested by the owner.
• Commence after dark foot patrols within the Cal Poly impacted neighborhoods.
• Maintain neighborhood blocks with a cap on residential rentals not to exceed 10%.
Unfortunately,this will not really stop the parent purchaser but it might slow the exodus
of families. It is not a housing crisis that we have but a student crisis that impacts the
neighborhoods. Housing will never be less expensive in San Luis Obispo with a Cal Poly
parent on the horizon unless the city undertakes some social engineering.
• Decrease the amount of unrelated adults in a house originally designed for a family of
three or four.
• Please no more"IN FILL" in older neighborhoods that were not designed for that and
can't handle it. Do not change the meaning of RI into multi-family residential, it is not
the same thing. There should be an EIR produced prior to changes in existing
neighborhoods to address impacts.
• Owner occupiers can be encouraged by an annual rebate related to their property taxes
and conversely,extra fees for the additional services required for rentals houses.
• Finally,and this is the must important part of this long neighborhood review,the
students only live in the neighborhoods because drinking isn't allowed on campus. At the
very least, Cal Poly has to come up with a policy or extra law enforcement to control the
problem. Extra dorms by themselves is not the answer. Alcohol allowed on campus in
apartment style housing for 21 year old students, that the University law enforcement can
oversee, would be most helpful.
The reality of the community having input into the General Plan Housing Element is as
you know difficult. People attending the meetings to form the document almost never are the
people that are impacted by the results of the document. .These are.people with a family and both
parents working. Someone needs to speak for and represent them.
Thank you for your patience in taking the time to read this letter. I have had over 35
years experience on Foothill Boulevard. Let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Betsy Bertrando