Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/30/2004, PH1 - DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE council Mm-b"D. 3-30-04 j acEnaa uEpont 1�N. I CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: John Mandeville, Director of Community D I pment E., . Prepared By: Jeff Hook, Associate Planie" SUBJECT: DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE CAO RECOMMENDATION Review the Final Draft Housing Element to confirm final Council edits from the March 16, 2004 meeting, and approve a resolution which: 1) approves a negative declaration of environmental impact, 2) amends the General Plan Land Use Element to ensure consistency with the Housing Element, 3) and approves the 2004 Housing Element. DISCUSSION Overview On March 16th Council completed its review of the Draft Housing Element and directed staff to incorporate Council's changes and to bring back a final draft for adoption at tonight's meeting. Those changes have been made and are summarized below. The Draft Housing Element is now ready for final Council action. Public Participation Updating the Housing Element is a major community effort, involving extensive public participation. The Draft Housing Element is the product of two and one-half years of work, with 15 public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council, and 18 meetings by the Housing Element Update Task Force over seven months. Its policies and programs represent a wide range of community perspectives on housing, including neighborhoods, housing consumers, developers, environmental groups, Downtown businesses, and many others. Final Draft Housing Element Council directed staff to make several edits to Chapter 3 and the Glossary, Appendix M, in addition to those made at the March 15` meeting and shown in the Ch. 3 Legislative Draft on March 16th. Those changes are shown in Attachment 2. In addition, Vice Mayor Schwartz provided a list of detailed edits on Chapter 3 and suggested wording for the term "underutilized." Those edits have been made (with a few exceptions as noted) and are summarized below. 1. Inclusionary Housing Requirement, Tables 2 and 2A (Attachment 2). Council directed that the Planning Commission's version be included, raising housing in-lieu fees for commercial development from 2% to 5% of building valuation and increasing the production requirement for commercial development from 1 to 2 affordable dwellings per acre. The in- lieu housing fee for residential development in expansion areas will increase from 10% to 15%. Table 2A, which Council amended on March 16th by lowering the average floor area threshold for the smallest units from 1,200 to 1,100 square feet, is included to provide - � \ J Draft Housing Element Update, March 30,2004 Council Meeting Page 2 incentives for the development of smaller, compact housing to help achieve "affordability by design." Larger housing at lower densities will have a larger affordable housing requirement. The inclusionary housing requirement adjustment factor created in Table 2A is determined by density and average house size (square feet of floor area). Higher density and smaller units reduce the inclusionary housing requirement. This table will apply to housing developments of 5 or more homes. Most of these types of housing developments will occur in the expansion areas (Margarita and Orcutt). The density in the Margarita Area is tightly prescribed by the land use compromise between the City and the Airport Land Use Commission; however,the Specific Plan still provides density ranges that allow Table 2A to function. For example, the "medium" density range (8 to 13 du/ac) and "high" (19 to 34 du/ac) districts overlap several density categories in Table 2A. While the Orcutt Area specific plan is still in preliminary preparation, it is expected to have a comparable or slightly greater range in potential residential density. In addition, developers can still reduce their inclusionary housing requirements by producing smaller homes in any density category. All residential development will be required to produce at least one deed-restricted affordable dwelling unit per project. Residential projects of 4 units (or lots) or less, and non-residential developments of 2,500 square feet or less will continue to be exempt from the requirements. Examples of how Tables 2 and 2A are used will be included in the adopted Housing Element. Developers continue to have several ways to meet the requirements, including producing the affordable housing on site, off-site, dedicating property of equivalent value, or rehabilitating housing units. Development incentives, such as density bonuses, flexible development and parking standards, permit streamlining, and financial assistance will be available to help developers produce affordable units. 2. Chapter 3 — Goals, Policies and Programs. As shown in Attachment 2-, most of the changes are relatively minor grammatical changes. "Figure 1 — Areas to be Considered for Possible Rezoning" was deleted, although Council agreed that this information be used by staff in explaining underlying methodology to HCD staff. In addition, wording changes proposed by Neighborhoods North of Foothill were included, as modified by Council (specifically, Policies 8.2.4 and 8.2.7). 3. Glossary. The terms "infill" and "underutilized" were modified as shown in Attachment 2. Infill is defined as the development of vacant land (with underutilized land left out). Underutilized is defined using Vice Mayor Schwartz' definition(Attachment 3). 4. Vice Mayor Schwartz' Recommended Edits. These are described in Attachment 3, and focused on the Housing Element Purpose (Section 1.10), the Glossary, and editorial changes throughout Chapter 3. Vice Mayor Schwartz' recommended additional `-`bullets" to the Purpose section are as follows: � - a 1 1 i Draft Housing Element Update, March 30, 2004 Council Meeting Page 3 A. To review the basic human needs that housing is expected to satisfy. B. To understand and to improve upon the relationship of housing with other land uses that comprises the increasingly complex City of San Luis Obispo. C. To understand how tax policies encourage or thwart housing supply and maintenance. While these issues are relevant and have important implications for housing, they fall outside the original scope of work for the Housing Element. The basic human needs that shelter satisfies (e.g. protection, socialization, nurturing) are not directly addressed in the current draft of Housing Element, nor is the effect of tax policies on housing supply and maintenance. The relationship of housing with other land uses is already addressed in the Land Use Element (primarily in Chapter 2 of the LUE). To include these new bullets in the Purpose section of the Element would imply that they are substantially addressed elsewhere in the document. New sections would need to be analyzed and drafted. To the extent that policies of programs regarding these topics would be requested, State law requires additional public hearings by the Planning Commission. Council may choose to: 1) decline to pursue these issues; 2) direct staff to add these bullets and the additional text to support them; or 3) include in the element a program to amend the element to address these topics in the future. Alternative 3 should be chosen only if the Council wishes to invest the added time and resources required to study these issues. General Plan Consistency At the March 16u' meeting, staff noted that the main consistency issue involves minor wording differences between adopted and proposed policies in the Draft Housing Element and Land Use Element (LUE) that have the same intent. There are two LUE policy changes recommended to achieve internal General Plan consistency, as shown in the matrix below, and in legislative text in Attachment 4.. Draft Housing Element Adopted General Plan Policy Amendment Policy or Program or Pro ram_in Conflict Program 3.3.5 — "No Net Loss" LU 4.2.2 — Dwellings and Offices. LU 4.2.2 is revised to call in Downtown Calls for onsite replacement of for a no net loss housing housing and creation of R/O zone.. strategy in the Downtown Core and Planning Area Program 6.3.3 — Downtown LU 3.1.6—Building Intensity LU 3.1.6 is revised to allow Housing Incentives, flexible the possibility of residential density. density to exceed 36 units per acre Downtown What's Next After approval of the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (Attachment 1) and adoption`of the Housing Element, staff will add the necessary graphics, revise the General Plan Digest LUE sections noted above, make these available to the public, and send the adopted Housing Element to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Our submittal will include a response to HCD's preliminary evaluation of the Draft Housing - 3 4 Draft Housing Element Update, March 30, 2004 Council Meeting Page 4 Element, noting how the adopted element responds to HCD's comments and State law. HCD has 90 days to review and certify the Element as meeting State law, or return it with suggested changes. If changes are necessary, those would return to the Planning Commission and Council for consideration. HCD's preliminary evaluation identified program areas needing additional information or clarification, however HCD did not identify any significant policy conflicts or problems. The additional information will be forwarded with the adopted element and State certification is anticipated. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Initial Study and Negative Declaration(ER 33-02) 2. Council changes to the Housing Element Chapter 3 Legislative Draft, 3/16/04 meeting 3. Vice Mayor Schwartz' Proposed Editorial Changes 4. Land Use Element Amendments—Legislative Draft 5. Draft Council Resolution Enclosure: 2004 Final Draft Housing Element JAMOOMHousing Element Update\CAR3-30-04HEadopt.doc I Attachment . 1 . INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM For ER#33-02 1. Project Title: General Plan Housing Element Update 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Community Development Department City of San Luis Obispo- 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Jeff Hook(805) 781-7176 4. Project Location: Throughout the City of San Luis Obispo. 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Community Development.Department City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 6. General Plan Designation- Project applies to all General Plan land-use designations. 7. Zoning: Project applies to all zones in the City. 8. Description of the Project: The project consists of the August 2003 Draft Housing Element Update, a seven and one-half year plan which explains the City's housing goals, policies, and programs. It updates the current Housing Element which was adopted in 1994. Once adopted, the Housing Element becomes part of the City's General Plan and will guide public and private decisions regarding housing, including city development review, land use decisions, city budgets and capital improvement programs. The Draft includes policies and programs intended to increase housing opportunities for very-low, low- and moderate-income households, while accommodating growth in a manner consistent with goals and policies contained in the Land Use Element and other elements of the General Plan. The content of housing elements is prescribed. under state housing law, and this Draft has been prepared to include the required sections and information. The Draft Housing Element Update contains many of the same policies and programs found in the 1994 Housing Element. State, regional and local housing costs, supply and needs have changed since 1994, as evidenced by the 2000 Census and current information on real estate prices, affordable housing, and the widening "gap" between rental and purchase housing costs and consumers' incomes. The Draft Housing Element Update also .includes new policies and programs to address these changes to the City's housing situation. Attachment'f� 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: The City of San Luis Obispo is a community of about 44,000 persons, is home to Cal Poly State University, and is separated from other communities in the County by agricultural and open lands. It is the County seat and the County's largest incorporated city with about one-fifth of the County's total population. San Luis Obispo is a charter city and began as one of a chain of 21 missions founded by Spanish missionaries in the late 1700s. The City is the retail, employment, and cultural center of the County, and is notable for the many scenic hillsides and "morros" that ring the City, and many creeks that wind through the community. The City is also noteworthy for the many historic homes and commercial. buildings located downtown and in four other historic districts. 10: Project Entitlements Requested: Council adoption of the Housing Element. 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: The Draft Housing Element Update must be referred to the California Department of Housing and Community Development for a determination of consistency with state housing law.. 1111111C�A CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 Attachment If ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact'as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Geology/Soils Public Services Agricultural Resources Hazards&Hazardous Recreation Materials - -- Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Transportation&Traffic Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Utilities and Service Systems, Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance Energy and Mineral Population and Housing Resources FISH AND GAME FEES There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish g and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Assuch, the project qualifies for a de minirnis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees. The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, Califoinia Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than.30 days (CEQA Guidelines 15073(a)). A CITY OF SAN Luis OBispo 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEcKusT 2003 DETERMINATION: Attachment On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ---- I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a"potentially significant" impact(s) or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect(1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the_proposed project, nothing fiu-ther is required. August 19, 2003 Je ciate Planner Date —OK-C�I For: John Mandeville, Michael Draze,Deputy unity Development Community Development Director Direct tea/ CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 3 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 Attachment f EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved(e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants,based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. The explanation of each issue should identify the significance criteria or threshold, if any,used to evaluate each question. 3. "Potentially Significant.Impact'is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more"Potentially Significant Impact"entries when the determination is made,an EIR is required. 4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from"Potentially Significant Impact" to a"Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis,"may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analysis may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process,an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D)of the California Code of Regulations. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate,include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached,and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. In this case,a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent . to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. M� CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 Issues, Discussion and Support,,._ Information Sources Sources Po:..r .,y Potentially Less Than No GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#33-02 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Attachment./ 1.AESTHETICS. Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not limited X to,trees,rock outcroppings,open space,and historic buildings within a local or state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of 1,2 X the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would X adversely effect day or nighttime views in the area? (Text references in parentheses refer to a General Plan Digest policy or program, e.g. LU 2.2.8 refers to Land Use Element policy 2.2.8,or the 1994 Final Environmental Impact Report for Land U-se.and Circulation Element Updates) Policies in the Draft Housing Element Update encourage the development of housing in urbanized areas and in expansion areas planned and phased to accommodate residential growth. It follows Land Use Element (LUE) policies in directing growth into those areas and sites that can accommodate residential development based on size,shape,topography,zoning and environmental sensitivity. New residential development would be guided by existing development standards regarding building height,creek and property line setbacks, and avoidance of important site and environmental features such as historic features or buildings, rock outcroppings, open space, and heritage trees. Draft policy 11.2.2 precludes new housing on sites subject to natural or manmade hazards, incompatible land uses, or on sites that should be preserved for dedicated parks or open space. New residential development may alter the visual settings of suburban and rural areas outside of the City's Urban Reserve. These areas primarily consist of major expansion areas and minor annexation areas that require either specific plans or development plans showing force, layout and integration of new buildings with the site. As noted in the 1994 Final EIR Land Use/Circulation Element Updates,accommodating a reasonable share of the anticipated regional growth will result in change from rural to urban character in some areas. This change was anticipated in the FEIR and a finding of overriding considerations was made(p.11, FEIR). Most new development will be subject to further environmental review under CEQA and architectural review for residential projects of five or more units,or where a sensitive or historically significant resource may be affected. These additional review steps focused on individual project designs should adequately address potential aesthetic concerns. Under the proposed Draft program 6.3.14,the construction or relocation of four or less dwellings would be exempt from architectural review. Such projects would still be required to be consistent with the Residential Project Objectives(LU2.2.12)that address privacy and overlook,views,usable outdoor space,use of natural ventilation,sunlight and shade for environmental comfort with reduced energy use, security and safety, design features to facilitate neighbor interaction, and noise and visual buffers from roads and incompatible uses. Policies in the Draft are intended to prevent housing on sites that are often scenic, including dedicated open space or parks, sites subject to natural hazards such a floods or seismic risks,or steep hillsides with wildfire susceptibility. Conclusion: No impact. 2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of X Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps 1,2,3 pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural rue? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a X Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to X their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural rue? The City of San Luis Obispo is in the County's central coastal agricultural region. San Luis Obispo City is,for the most part, urbanized with only a few small farms still engaged in agricultural production. In 2003,about 33 acres remain in agricultural 4 ��d CITY OF SAN Luis OBIsPo 6 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 200 Issues, Discussion and Suppo...,. ,nformation Sources Sources t__ y Potentially Less Than No GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#33 02 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ac men .l use within the City. The most intensive agricultural activity in the San Luis Obispo area is located in the Edna Valley,just south of the City. The Housing Element follows the General Plan Land Use Element(LUE)in terms of where housing should be developed, and is intended to promote compact urban form and reduce sprawl and loss of productive agricultural lands outside the City's Urban Reserve. Agricultural and Conseryation/Open Space lands allow limited residential use at very low densities, appropriate for rural housing. The Draft Housing Element Update will not result in the conversion of prime or unique farmland or involve other changes that would lead to conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. A land inventory done in connection with the. Housing Element Update identified approximately 49 acres of vacant or underutilized Interim Open Space within city limits. This includes.three properties: the 25 acre Sunset Drive-in property,and two parcels totaling about 11 acres between Los Verdes Residential Condominiums and San Luis Obispo Creek(off Los Osos Valley Road) that are farmed in 2003. These parcels are located within a 100-year flood zone and are not suitable for residential development until the flood hazard is mitigated without significant harm-to-San Luis Obispo Creek. Because this land is not yet suitable for residential development and provides open space benefits, it is considered a lower priority for development and is not included in the Draft Element's summary of residential development capacity. Development of Interim Open Space requires approval of a development plan or specific plan, showing how these flood hazards would be mitigated. Conclusion: No impact. The project is located primarily in an urban or suburban area. Agricultural resources would not be significantly affected. 3. AIR QUALITY. Would theproject: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an 1,2,3, X existing or projected air quality violation? 6,7,8 b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air X quality plan? c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations? d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of X people? e) Result in a cunwlatively considerable net increase of any criteria X pollutant for which the project region is non-attaininent under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? The Draft Housing Element Update includes policies and programs to accommodate up to 2,909 in-city dwellings during the planning period from January 2001 to July 2008. Of these, approximately one-half of the units are planned for very-low and low-income households. An additional 1,178 dwellings are anticipated on state-owned land, to be developed by Cal Poly University Foundation for students, faculty and staff. As discussed under Housing and Population, Section 12, this level of growth is consistent with the residential growth anticipated in the General Plan Land Use Element and evaluated in the 1994 FEIR on the Land Use and Circulation Element Updates. The anticipated population number within the planning period,and the rate at which it is attained,is within growth projections of the San Luis Obispo County 2001 Clean Air Plan(CAP). Residential growth adds to local and commuting automobile trips, a primary factor affecting air quality. As a"job rich" community, a key component of vehicle trips is employees commuting into jobs in San Luis Obispo. The Final EIR for the CAP based its air quality assumptions in part,on an estimated San Luis Obispo population of 52,684 by 2008. The estimated city population in 2008, assuming development of up to 2,909 in-city dwellings is 50,766. The Final EIR also identified transportation control measures to reduce transportation-related emissions that affect air quality. The Draft Housing Element. Update incorporates several of these measures as part of its overall"smart growth"strategy, including: 1)Planning Compact Communities, Mixed Use Development, and Improving Jobs/Housing Balance. The Draft has 28 policies or programs designed to promote compact urban growth, encourage mixed residential and commercial use,allow employees to live within walking or biking distance of their jobs,and to encourage downtown housing close to jobs,services,government,recreational and cultural opportunities. CITY OF SAN Luis OBIsPo 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 . I_ti, Issues, Discussion and Suppo ...._ information Sources Sources I .y Potentially Less Than No GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#33-02 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Attachment Conclusion: No impact. The Draft Housing Element Update is consistent with General Plan growth policies and with prevailing countywide assumptions regarding air quality. To the extent the updated Housing Element helps produce more "workforce" housing, that is, housing affordable to very-low, low and moderate income working people,many of whom now commute into the City, it may help improve the Jobs/Housing balance, promote use of alternative transportation, and help reduce traffic congestion. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or indirectly or X through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a 1,2,3 candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department -of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect,on any riparian habitat or X other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies,orregulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting X biological resources;such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance(e.g.Heritage Trees)? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident X or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation X Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? f) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected X wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including,but not limited to,marshes,vernal pools,etc.) through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or other means? The General Plan Land Use and Open-Space Elements guide the preservation of biological resources. These include creeks and adjacent riparian corridors,vernal pools,marshes,endangered species or species of special concern,hillsides,open space and park areas, and Laguna Lake. The Draft Housing Element Update is consistent with those documents, and anticipates new dwellings only in those areas suitable for residential development, with adequate guarantees to preserve natural and biological resources as part of new development. It says housing should be prevented on sites that are unsuitable for development due to open space values, or natural or tnatimade hazards. Individual development projects will be subject to environmental review and development review by staff and City advisory bodies to assure compliance with pertinent policies. All new residential development must comply with the Creek Setback Ordinance and must avoid sensitive site resources. "Green Building Technology"is encouraged to reduce energy consumption,promote development that is well-integrated with the natural features and environmental processes of its site, and.to encourage personalized, unconventional housing that reduce costs,energy or materials consumption,and site disturbance. Conclusion: No Impact Residential development anticipated in the Draft.Housing Element Update is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Eleraent and was evaluated as part.of the 1994 General Plan Land Use Element Update EIR 5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a X historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an X archaeological resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 8 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 Issues, Discussion and Suppi:ii, ., .nformation Sources Sources P y Potentially Less Than No GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#33-02 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Inco orated I c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource X or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of X formal cemeteries? Preservation of cultural resources is a key General Plan goal. Policies in the Land Use Element (LUE 6.6) provide that historically and architecturally significant buildings should not be demolished or substantially changed in outward appearance. unless necessary to remove a threat to health or safety and no other means exist to avoid the threat. They also encourage the preservation of archaeological resources and archaeological sites, and say that changes to historic buildings and new development in historic districts should reflect the design and materials of the original building and contribute to a neighborhood's historic pattern and architectural character. Meeting the community's housing needs is also a key community goal, and the Draft Housing Element Update seeks to balance these sometime competing needs. It contains eight policies addressing the need to rehabilitate and preserve basically sound housing, protect-diatoric housing and residential districts, including downtown hotels, ensure new residential development is compatible with designated historic resources, promote seismic safety upgrades,and the use of state or federal funds to protect and improve existing neighborhoods. As new housing is developed,those features or characteristics that create or reinforce San Luis Obispo's"sense of place"are to be preserved. Individual residential development projects will be evaluated for site-specific cultural resources and where necessary, appropriate mitigation included to protect those resources. Conclusion: No impact. 6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 1,2,3 X b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient X manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource X that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? The General Plan Land Use and Energy Conservation Elements include policies to use land, water, and energy resources wisely. The Draft Housing Element Update is consistent with these documents in that it promotes housing design that uses energy and materials wisely, and encourages higher density, infill housing that by its nature,uses land more efficiently than conventional detached, single-family housing. The draft includes quantified objectives that summarize the number of dwellings the City plans to accommodate,by income group,within the planning period from January 2001 to July 2008. The Draft assumes that 60 percent of new housing will be multi-family and 40 percent will be single-family housing,including both attached and detached dwellings. 'through development incentives, selected land use changes (i.e. rezoning), and flexible development and architectural review standards, multi-family housing would be encouraged where appropriate to help meet affordable housing needs, avoid inefficient land use which can contribute to urban sprawl, and to use energy and materials wisely. The Draft also advocates flexible planning and building standards to encourage "Green Building Technology" such as hay bale construction, passive and active solar energy design,and use of appropriate siting and energy- saying features in new housing. Planning and building staff and city advisory bodies that review new housing would,under the Draft Element's new programs,receive special instruction in encouraging housing design that conserves energy. Conclusion: No impact. 7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would theproject: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse 1,2,3 X effects,including risk of loss,injury or death involving: I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated in the X most recent Alquist-Paolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area,or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? II. Strong seismic ground shaking? X III. Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? X �� CITY OF SAN LUIS OsisPO 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 Issues, Discussion and Suppornrt; ,riformation Sources Sources Po. , ..y Potentially Less Than No GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 33 02 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation incorporated ac men ,r IV. Landslides or mudflows? X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that X would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in on or off site landslides,lateral spreading,subsidence, liquefaction,or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the X Uniform Building CodgJ 1994),creating substantial risks to life or property? The Draft Housing Element Update policies would prevent new housing on sites with natural hazards, such as geological or seismic risks, including soil erosion, landslides, or liquefaction. City policies and development standards encourage housing where appropriately zoned land exists with the necessary public services and infrastmcture(or can be served), and where the land is physically and environmentally suited for residential development. The Draft is consistent with these policies and standards. Conclusion: No impact. 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the pro'ect: a) Create asignificant hazard to the public or the environment X through the routine use,transport or disposal of hazardous 1,2,3 materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment X through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely X hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Expose people or structures to existing sources of hazardous X emissions or hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances,or waste? e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous X materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result,it would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? f) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within X two miles of a public airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for the people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of�or physically interfere with,the X adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lose,injury, X or death,involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are intermixed with wildlands? The General Plan Land Use and Safety Elements are the primary policy documents addressing hazards and hazardous materials. The Draft Housing Element Update is consistent with these documents in that it includes polices to prevent new residential developments from being located on sites subject to natural or marunade hazards. Potential airport hazards are of special concern, since much of the City's additional residential capacity is located in the southern part of the City, near take off and landing approaches for the San Luis Obispo County Airport. The Airport Land Use Commission adopted a Land Use Plan to guide where and what types of land uses are compatible with airport operations. Generally,residential development is not appropriate in flight approach and take-off areas,and where safety or noise considerations dictate greater spacing between A� CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO t 0 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 1 'EJ`- Issues, Discussion and Support„y Information Sources Sources PO._. _qty Potentially Less Than No GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#33 02 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation . Inco orated Attachment housing and airport activities. City land use policies are generally consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan, and individual developments are evaluated for their consistency with the Plan. The anticipated residential growth is located outside of airport hazard areas, or within areas where residential use is conditionally allowed with appropriate design and safety considerations. Conclusion: No impact. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the roject: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste:discharge. X requirements? 1,2,3 b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere _ X substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the Local groundwater table level(e.g.The production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the X capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide additional sources of runoff into surface waters (including,but not limited to,wetlands,riparian areas,ponds, springs,creeks,streams,rivers,lakes,estuaries,tidal areas,bays, ocean,etc.)? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage patten of the site or X area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation onsite or offsite? e) Substantially alter the existing drainage patten of the site or X area in a manner which would result in substantial flooding onsite or offsite? f) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on X a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would X impede or redirect flood flows? h) Will the project introduce typical storm water pollutants into X ground or surface waters? i) Will the project alter ground water or surface water quality, temperature,dissolved oxygeA or turbidi New housing development must comply with existing city,regional and state standards for the protection of surface water and ground water quality. In major expansion areas, where large residential subdivisions will occur (Irish Hill, Margarita, and Orcutt expansion areas),specific project-related effects on runoff,siltation, flooding,water quality are or will be addressed in required specific plans and environmental review documents. Residential development anticipated in the Draft Housing Element Update is consistent with residential growth policies in the General Plan Land Use Element, and Hydrology and Water Quality impacts were addressed in the Final EIR for the 1994 Land Use Element Update. That document found that impacts of city development and growth on Hydrology and Water Quality were not significant provided that the following, mitigation measures were implemented: expanded wastewater collection and treatment capacity, bufferstsetbacks along waterways in residential development areas, provisions for natural drainage areas and porous paving, and Regional Water Quality Board oversight for projects disturbing more than five acres. The City is complying with these requirements in its capital improvement programs, in specific plans for major expansion areas and as part of development review. Conclusion: No impact 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would theproject: �� CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 Issues, Discussion and Support ,y Rormation Sources Sources Po. ,;,y Potentially Less Than No GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#33-02 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation loco o a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of X an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the 1,2,3 purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? b) Physically divide an established community? - X c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural X community conservationplans? The Draft Housing Element Update includes numerous programs, or implementation "tools", to implement its goals and policies. Most of these programs require subsequent discretionary approvals or follow-up actions to take effect. Proposals to .change adopted plans, zoning designations, development or land use standards or regulations will require environmental review. For example, policies in the Draft encouraging higher density, infill housing close to jobs and employment centers would be implemented, in part, through changes to the General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning map. Sites that may be appropriate for multi-family housing are identified in the Draft, with subsequent review and action needed to evaluate and implement the change. At a broad policy level, such rezoning to accommodate dwellings close to jobs and schools, along major transportation routes, and where compatible with adjacent uses, is consistent with General Plan goals and policies. Individual programs' impacts on City plans, policies, resources, and services will be evaluated for consistency and potential environmental effects once specific sites and land use changes are identified. Conclusion: No impact. 11.NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of people to or generation of"unacceptable"noise X levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise Element,or general noise levels in excess of standards established in the Noise Ordinance? b) A substantial temporary,periodic,or permanent increase in X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome X vibration or groundborne noise levels? d) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within X two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The General Plan Noise Element establishes standards and procedures for protecting noise-sensitive uses from stationary and mobile noise sources. Noise attenuation measures such as land use limitations, distance separation between land uses (i.e. noise buffers), earth bemis, and where appropriate and no other feasible measure exists, noise walls. New residential development must be consistent with the Noise Element and Noise Ordinance standards. The Draft Housing Element Update encourages the production of affordable housing through development of non-conventional housing, including mixed residential-commercial housing,"work-live"and"live-work"housing,and high-density downtown housing above commercial uses. In these types of housing, special attention must be paid to use compatibility,of which noise is a key factor. Land use and design measures, such as building design and construction, types of adjacent commercial uses and hours of operation, environmental control systems, and location of building entries and exits will be considered on an individual project basis to assure compliance with adopted noise standards. Conclusion: No impact. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly X (for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or 1,2,3, indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people X CITY OF SAN LUIS OstsPO 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 `I Issues, Discussion and Suppot inL, Information Sources Sources F. ..ly Potentially less Than No GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#33-02 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Inco o j necessitating the construction of replacement housing. I elsewhere? General Plan policies seek to achieve a sustainable level of growth through the City's planned buildout in 2022. The Plan says the city housing supply should grow no faster than one percent per year, averaged over a 36-month period. This is to assure population growth does not exceed the City's ability to assimilate new residents and to ensure municipal services are available for new and existing residents. Under the General Plan Land Use Element(LU 1.11.2)and the Residential Growth Regulations(SLOMC Ch. 17.88),dwellings affordable to persons with very-low or low incomes are excluded from the City's one percent growth target. As required by state law, the Draft Housing Element Update includes Quantified Objectives showing the number of units the City expects to accommodate in each income group during the planning period from January 1, 2001 to July 1, 2008. The City's proposed Quantified Objectives are shown in Table 1, below. Under tfii;-Draft Update, the City would expect to accommodate up to 4,087 new dwellings. Of these, 2,167 units will be targeted for very-low and low-income households. An additional 1,178 units will be located on state-owned land, outside city limits and not subject to city land use controls. Consequently,during the Housing Element planning period,(4,087—2,167- 1,178=742), 742 non-exempt dwelling units are expected to be developed. The resultant annual average residential growth rate during the planning period is 0.51 percent This is within the allowed average residential growth rate of one percent per year. Table 1 Regional Housing Need Allocation,January 2001-July 2008 City of San Luis Obispo Income:Group Number of New. Quantified Objectives Dwellings Allocated Very Low 1,484 1,390 Low 844 777 Moderate 870 817 Above Moderate 1,185 1,103 TOTAL 4,383 4,087 Source: City of San Luis Obispo,Community Development Department According to the Regional Housing Needs Plan adopted by the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments, San Luis Obispo's Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) during the planning period is 4,383 dwellings. .However state housing law (Article 10.6, Section 65583(b)(2) of the.California Government Code) recognizes that total housing needs identified for a jurisdiction may exceed available resources and the ability of the jurisdiction to satisfy this need within the context of state and local General Plan requirements. Under these circumstances, a jurisdiction's quantified housing objectives need not be identical to the total housing needs. San Luis Obispo has evaluated its ability to accommodate the RHNA number of 4,383 dwellings by July 2008. Limited water supplies prevent the City from achieving the RHNA number within the planning period. The problem is chiefly one of timing, since there is sufficient land suitable for residential development to accommodate the RHNA number within the planning period;and additional water supplies are planned which would allow this number of dwellings to be achieved over a longer period. As shown in Table 1,the City's quantified objectives are less than the RHNA number. The Quantified Objectives include: Dwellings built and granted occupancy during the period from January 1, 2001 through July 31, 2003; Dwellings expected to be built and receive occupancy between August 1, 2003 and December 31, 2003; potential residential development between January 1,2004 and July 1,2008,based on anticipated water supplies;and construction of up to 1,178 dwellings on state-owned land for Cal Poly University students,faculty and staff. Achieving the Quantified Objectives is contingent upon the City having adequate funding to undertake the necessary capital improvements for the expanded water conservation and groundwater programs in 2005 and 2006, adding water resources to serve 2,276 additional households, and upon private development decisions and economic factors outside of city control. And while the attainment of these housing objectives is theoretically possible given available land resources and expected lir CITY OF SAN Luis Ofnspo 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 20`03 1�1� Issues, Discussion and SuppoiL.,._ .nformation Sources Sources P, _ , .ly Potentially Less Than No GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#33-02 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporatepk,,M1 Liachr*n-t ' water and sewer capacity, it is highly unlikely this number of dwelling units will actually be produced without significant local,state or federal assistance. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. The Draft Housing Element Update and Quantified Objectives are consistent with the residential growth anticipated by the General Plan and allowed by the Residential Growth Management Regulations. Achieving residential growth projections are contingent upon availability of water supplies and adequate funding to secure water resources,and on private development decisions and economic factors outside City control. 13.PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result insubstantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision,or need,of new or physically altered government facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times,or other performance objectives for any of the public services: - a) Fire protection? 1,2,3, X 4,5 b) Police protection? X c) Schools? X d) Parks? X e) Roads and other transportation mfiastructure? X Other public facilities? X The 1994 Final-EIR on the Land Use and Circulation Element Updates noted that Public Services, including schools,police and fire services, parks, and general City administration were considered "marginally adequate" to meet current needs. In 2003, demands for public services continue to expand and municipal resources available to meet those demands face new challenges due to national economic factors and state fiscal policies. While purely economic or social effects are not considered environmental impacts under CEQA unless there are related physical effects, City-policies do require that adequate facilities and services be in place before new development is approved. City policies call for new development to "pay its own way",and for costs of new development not to be shifted to existing residents. As noted above,public assistance may be needed to achieve affordable housing objectives, meet expanded needs for public services, and not increase costs to existing residents. City Utilities,parking facilities,recreation facilities and programs,and to a limited degree,public schools, are enterprise-funded in that they provide services that are, at least in part, funded by service users and new development. Other public services, like emergency services, general city administration, capital improvements, like roads, bridges, and public buildings, rely on city General Funds for operation, maintenance and improvement. City fees on new development, including water, wastewater, traffic, park, and affordable housing fees; and school fees are collected with most new development to offset added costs and service needs created by the project. The City monitors the adequacy of its public services and evaluates each major new residential development in terms of its ability to serve new residents. If additional service capacity is needed, new development will be responsible for providing finding or facilities in proportion to the increased need. Draft Housing Element Update policies and programs call for the City to solicit new funding sources to assist in the development of affordable housing and to work with other jurisdictions in the County to establish an Affordable Housing Fund to help produce affordable housing. The City of San Luis Obispo already has an Affordable Housing Fund that can be used to offset costs to provide additional infrastructure or services for new affordable housing developments. This and other funding sources will be needed to meet the Quantified Objectives. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. New residential development will be required to provide or help fund its proportional share of the cost of additional public service or facility needs. 14.RECREATION. Would theproject: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or X other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or X expansion of recreational facilities,which might have an adverse CITY OF SAN LUIS CIBISpo 14 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 t' Issues, Discussion and Suppol, iformation Sources Sources P, Potentially Less Than No GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 33 02 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation incorporated physical effect on the environment? AttaffMM-e-nr ' Same as above. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would theproject: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the X existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service X standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads and highways? c) Substantially increase hazards due to design features(e.g.sharp --`- X curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g. farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? X f) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative X transportation(e.g.bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? g) Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County Airport Land X Use Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards,noise, or a chane in air trafficpatterns? Refer to Section 3,Air Quality. Conclusion: No impact. 16.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the roiect: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable X Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water X treatment,waste water treatment,water quality control,or storm drainage facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project X from existing entitlements and resources,or are new and expanded water resources needed? d) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider X which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitment? e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to X accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? f) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations X related to.solid waste? - - The Draft Housing Element Update includes Quantified Objectives that take into account service capabilities of existing and planned water and wastewater treatment facilities. New development is contingent upon the availability of adequate water supplies and water treatment capacity. Based on the 2003 Water Resources Status Report prepared by the City's Utility Department,the City can reasonably expect to have up to 1,084 acre feet of water available to support new housing during the planning period - enough water for up to approximately 2,276 new dwellings. Draft Housing Element Update policies assume the development of up to 2,909 planned in-city dwelling units during the planning period will use up to, but not exceed, the 1,084 acre feet expected to be available. This also assumes funding is available to provide the necessary capital improvements,and may hinge on the availability of state or federal funding to achieve the Objectives. tllllL�a CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPo 15 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST2003 `` l .-V-1. Issues, Discussion and Suppor, iformation Sources Sources P, J Potentially Less Than No GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Signaicant Significant Significant Impact ER# 33-02 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Inco orated - Attachmpnt I Conclusion: No impact. Based on planned service capacities and assuming adequate public funding is available,the.City will be able to serve up to the number of in-city units anticipated in the Draft Housing Element Update. If funding is not available through local,state or federal sources,the Quantified Objectives may not be achieved during the planning period. 17.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the X environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species;cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of ----- the major periods of California history or prehistory? Individual development projects' impacts on natural and cultural resources will be evaluated and mitigated regardless, consistent with CEQA and with City General Plan policies.The proposed Update will not affect City policies on protecting and enhancing biological or cultural resources or preclude the Ci from achieving reservation goals. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but X cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable futureprojects) The Draft Housing Element Update would accommodate up to 2,909 in-city dwelling units in a 7 %i year period. Over 1/2 of these units are targeted to be affordable to very-low and low-income households and exempt from Residential Growth Management Regulations. Consequently, the Draft Element is consistent with General Plan Land Use Policies regarding residential growth. Cumulative implications of General Plan policies are addressed and mitigated in the Land Use Element Final EIR. It also found identified sign ficant, adverse impacts of cumulative growth factors, despite mitigation, for which findings of overriding considerations were made with regard to conversion of agricultural land to urban uses,accommodating a regional share of anticipated regional growth within the urban reserve line, and increases in population, employment and housing. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause X substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or CITY OF SAN Luis OslssPo 16 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 UL 18.EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion should identify the followring items: ftachmpnt a Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. Final Environmental Impact Report, Land Use and Circulation Element Updates; available at the Community Development Department,990 Palm Street,San Luis Obispo,CA 93401. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. See attached Resolution No. 8332 excerpt, summarizing environmental impact, mitigation, monitoring and overriding considerations from the 1994 Land Use Element update. e) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and theextentto which they address site-specific conditions of the project. The Draft Housing Element Update is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element and must also be guided by the mitigation that applies to that document. 19. SOURCE REFERENCES. I• General Plan Digest, City of San Luis Obispo. 2. Final Environmental Impact Report, Land Use Element/Circulation Element Updates, City of San Luis Obispo,August 1994. 3. Draft General Plan Housing Element Update,City of San Luis Obispo,August 2003. 4. 1999 Guide to the Environmental Quality Act,Solano Press Books, October 1999. 5. 2003 California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA Guidelines, Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors of California. 6. 2001 Clean Air Plan, San Luis Obispo County, San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District. 7. Final Environmental Impact Report, Clean Air Plan, SLO County, San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District, November 1991. 8. Getting to Smart Growth— 100 Policies For Implementation, International City/County Management Association ICMA , March 2002. 9. General Plan Safety Element, City of San Luis Obispo,July 2000. _ 10. General Plan Noise Element and Noise Guidebook, City of San Luis Obispo, May 1996. Attachments: 1. Draft Housing Element Update 2. Excerpt,Resolution No. 8332 approving the Land Use/Circulation Element Updates and summarizing environmental impacts,mitigation and monitoring, and overriding considerations. JW V HOUSPIGELEMENTUPDATE/INITIALSTUDYER33-02 Y Attachment, l RESOLUTION NO. 8332(1994 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL MAKING ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATIONS, ADOPTING A REVISED LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN, AND APPROVING A GUIDE TO ZONING CONSISTENCY The Council of the City of San Luis Obispo resolves as follows_: 1. Record of Proceedings The City Council has reviewed and considered the Planning Commission recommendation, the staff recommendation, correspondence, and public testimony concerning the revised Land Use Element. Council also has received the Planning Commission recommendation, the staff recommendation, and background material for the Circulation Element update. The Council has reviewed.and considered the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), EIR Supplement, and comments and responses on them. These environmental documents covered both the Land Use Element update and the Circulation Element update. These items are on file in the office of the City Clerk. The City Council conducted eleven public hearings during April through July 1994 concerning the Land Use Element update. The minutes of those hearings indicate Council members' votes on particular components of the revised element which may differ from the vote on this Resolution. 2. Public.and Agency Review Drafts of the revised Land Use Element have been widely available for review and comment by interested agencies and individuals. Copies have been provided to the San Luis Obispo City-County Library and the Cal Poly Library. Copies have been provided to agencies whose jurisdiction is related to planning within the area, including the County of San Luis Obispo, the County Airport Land Use Commission, the Local Agency Formation Commission, the Council of Governments, and California Polytechnic State University. 3. Certification of Environmontal Impact Report A draft Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 92101006) and an EIR Supplement have been prepared and circulated for public and agency comment, and responses to substantial environmental issues have been prepared, all pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the State and City CEQA Guidelines. n.R 1'27 f Attachment Resolution No. 8332 Page 2 The final EIR consists of the following parts: A. The draft Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"), January 1991, B. Comments and responses. for the draft EIR, as presented to the Planning Commission May 5, 1993, including evaluation of an alternative corresponding with build-out of the previously adopted Land Use Element; C. The draft Environmental Impact Report Supplement("Supplement"), September 1993, concerning certain land use alternatives; D. Comments and responses for the draft EIR Supplement, as presented to the Planning Commission December 1, 1993. Council hereby finds that it was not necessary to recirculate the draft EIR with the alternative of building out the adopted Land Use Element, because the impacts of that alternative were of the same in Idnd, and within the range of severity, of impacts associated with other alternatives evaluated in the draft EIR, as demonstrated in the response to comments. Council has considered how changes to the Land Use Element proposed during the hearings may affect the environment, and has determined that further environmental review is not needed because the adopted element corresponds with the project and alternatives evaluated in the draft EIR and Supplement. Council finds that the final EIR addresses all potential environmental impacts in sufficient detail. Mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to a level of insignificance will be implemented, or overriding considerations exist which justify approval of the project despite potentially significant impacts, as fully set forth in Part 4 below. Council hereby certifies the final EIR. A copy of this Resolution, indicating the approved mitigation and monitoring program, shall be published as part of the final EIR. 4. Status of Environmental Impgas Mitigation and Monitoring. and Overriding Considerations Council hereby determines that the status of impacts is as follows, for the Land Use Element. Council finds that certain standard mitigations, mainly in the form of adopted City policies and standards, and the requirements of other agencies, will not be changed by adoption of the revised Land Use Element, and will remain in effect to help reduce impacts resulting from development consistent with the Land Use Element. These standard mitigations have been summarized under the discussion of "regulatory environment" within the EIR. Attachment Page 3 Resolution No. 8332 The draft EIR, Supplement, and comments and responses covered the Land Use Element update and the Circulation Element update. The Circulation Element update is to be adopted by separate Council action. When the revised Circulation Element is adopted, Council will make additional determinations concerning that element. Any changes to the Circulation Element, which would result in potentially significant impacts not adequately addressed in the EIR hereby being certified, will require supplemental environmental review. Likewise, any changes to the Circulation Element which would reduce the effectiveness-of mitigation for circulation-related impacts will require further determination by the City Council when that element is adopted. A. Not significant with project as proposed; no special monitoring of mitigation measures required or proposed:: (1) Street character; (2) Park land availability; (3) Wildland fire hazard; (4) Electrical power service; (5) Natural gas service; B. Not significant with mitigation as recommended by the draft EIR or EIR Supplement: Note: Monitoring of approved mitigation measures will be provided through the annual report on implementation of the General Plan, in addition to any other reports noted below. (1) Pedestrian obstruction by sound walls Mitigation summary: Policy 2.2.12.H modified. Monitoring: City will avoid noise walls in major expansion areas, and review plans for sound walls in other developments. (2) Landuse at Vachell Lane extension: Circulation Element issue (extension recommended to be eliminated). (3) Land use at.South Street extension: Circulation Element issue (Planning Commission recommends extension be eliminated; Public Works Department recommends that it be included; see item D:9 below). Attachment /, Resolution No. 8332 page G 1 (4) Transit service not adequate for expansion areas Mitigation summary: City will adopt, update, and implement Long Range Transit Plan. Monitoring: City will consider transit, plan when preparing specific plans for expansion areas. (5) Fire protection service demands and response time Mitigation summaryCity will make more efficient use of existing resources than assumed in EIR, hire additional personnel as needed, collect impact fees for new facilities, add/relocate fire station if needed, obtain County airport fire station (or reciprocal response PE agreement). Monitoring: City will consider progress on mitigations before adopting budgets and specific plans. (6) Police protection service demands Mitigation summary: City will hire additional personnel as Imn needed, collect impact fees for new facilities, add Um substation if warranted. Monitoring: City will consider progress on mitigations before adopting budgets and specific plans. ow (7) General City governmental service demands (excluding utilities) Mitigation summary: City will improve productivity, and hire additional personnel as needed. Monitoring: City will review service levels before adopting budgets and specific plans. (8) School facilities adequacy Mitigation summary: School District will use "Measure A" bond funds and impact fees, and specific plans for expansion areas will provide for dedication of school sites. Monitoring: City and School District will consider progress on. mitigations before adopting specific plans and budgets. Attachment,"I R(--solution No. 8332 Page 5 (9) Wastewater (sewage) collection and treatment demands Mitigation summary: City will expand treatment capacity, funded by impact fees; collection system will be expanded, with developer installation, impact fees, or special assessments. Monitoring: City will consider progress on mitigations before adopting specific plans and development approvals. (10) Construction noise Mitigation summary: City will limit construction hours, require equipment maintenance and operation limits, and portable noise barriers. Monitoring: City will establish or revise standard contract provisions for its own projects and. conditions of approval for other projects. (11) Traffic noise levels - existing and new streets Mitigation summary: City will reduce traffic speeds through limits or physical features, and require developments to attenuate noise through setbacks, berms, or walls. Monitorings City will conduct project-level environmental assessments and check development plans. (12) Stationary (commercial, industrial) noise sources (See also C(3) below] Mitigation summary: City will require developments to attenuate noise through site arrangement and setbacks, walls, limits on hours of operations or loading/delivery. Monitoring: City will conduct project-level environmental assessments and check development plans. (13) Indoor noise levels from airport operations Mitigation summary: City will require developments to attenuate noise as provided in Noise Element design standards. Monitoring: City will conduct project-level environmental assessments and check development plans. oil Attachment,,'( Resolution No. 8332 Page 6 X11 (14) Construction air pollution Mitigation summary: City and Air Pollution Control District (APCD) will require developments to control dust and combustion emissions. Monitoring: City will conduct project-level environmental assessments, check development plans, inspect work in progress. --- (15) Santa Rosa park carbon.monoxide (CO) concentration Mitigation summary: City will relocate existing play equipment PI closer to parking area when it needs to be replaced. Monitoring: City will request APCD to measure CO at proposed play equipment location to verify acceptability PI before relocating. (16) Construction water quality impacts, and (17) Oil/grease in urban runoff Mitigation summary: Regional Water Quality Control Board will administer permits for projects disturbing more PI than five acres; City will require buffer along waterways in expansion areas. Monitoring: No separate monitoring required. 1/(18) Flooding in expansion areas Mitigation summary: City will establish adequate creek setbacks in expansion areas. Monitoring: Adequate setbacks will be determined in specific plans. (19) Biological resources (excluding Sacramento Drive extension) Mitigation summary: City will implement (1) "biological resource protection program" for proposed development sites, (2) riparian and wetland mitigation, (3) sensitive flora taxa preservation, (4) coastal sage scrub restoration and limited fire hazard fuel modification, and (5) revised landscaping.guidelines to include native plants and exclude invasive nonnative plants. Monitoring: City will conduct CEQA project review and implement Open Space Element; include tally of habitat types and amounts lost or restored in annual report on General Plan. Attachment 'I Resolution No. 8,332 Rage 7 (20) Aesthetics: noise walls, street facades, street & parking landscaping Mitigation summary: City will revise architectural review guidelines for public and private projects, concerning noise walls, landscaping; and entry presentation; specific plans will establish setbacks in expansion areas. Monitoring: General plan annual reports and Community Development Department two-year work programs. (21) High voltage power lines field exposure Mitigation summary: City will establish program for notification of owners .within 250 feet of power transmission line, and assure that specific plans for Margarita and Orcutt areas show school site separation in accordance with State standards. Monitoring: General plan annual reports and environmental determinations for expansion area specific plans. (22) Growth inducement of road extensions in open space areas Mitigation summary: Generals policy 1.7 and 1.8 modified; Specific: some road extensions proposed to be eliminated. Monitoring: Project-level environmental review. (23) Human health hazards - evacuation routes. Mitigation summary: County annual review and update of emergency response plan will include evacuation points and routes as development occurs in southern part of City. Monitoring: Environmental review And plan approval for specific plans: :Airport, Margarita, Orcutt. (24) Seismic and other geological hazard exposure : warehouse store merchandise in area of high ground shaking. Mitigation summary: Assessment of shelf and merchandise stability and restraint system recommendations at time of building permit. Monitoring: City plan check. Attachmc- .,-,I , Resolution No. 833-2 Page 8 C. Not significant with mitigation revised from that recommended by draft EIR or Supplement; revised mitigation measures are found to address the same concerns to the same level as recommended, but in a manner more consistent with other City policies: (1) Water usage in San Luis Obispo area ---- Mitigation summary: Development of additional water supplies; no net increase in water use from new development until adequate supplemental supply is available(safe yield basis for planning); water conservation programs. Monitoring: Annual water operations plan, quarterly and annual water allocation/offset report; project-level environmental review. (2) Land use - airport safety and outdoor noise exposure Mitigation summary: Changes reflected in adopted Land Use Element Map; City will include protection in Airport Area, Margarita Area specific plans. Monitoring: Specific plan environmental review; project-level environmental review, in case Airport Area Land Use Plan changes. (3) Noise exposure - commercial & industrial development Mitigation summary: City will revise Zoning Regulations and Architectural Review Guidelines, with reference to Noise Element design standards. Monitoring: City will conduct project-level environmental assessments and check development plans. (4) Water quality & flooding - natural drainage Mitigation summary: Policy modified to reflect.Open Space Element. Monitoring: Project-level environmental review. (5) Water quality & flooding - porous paving Mitigation summary: Modified policy (6:4:7) added to Land Use Element. Monitoring: Project-level environmental review. Attachment,,[` Resolution No. 9332 Page 9 (6) Cultural, archaeological resources Mitigation summary: Modified policy (6.6.4) added to Land Use Element. Monitoring: Project-level environmental review. (7) Aesthetics - scenic corridor standards Mitigation summary: Adequately addressed by modified Land Use Element policies (1.7.5, 1,.9.4; 6.0.3, 6.2.5) Monitoring: Project-level environmental review. (8) Aesthetics - downtown building heights Mitigation summary: Policy of draft Land Use Element retained. Monitoring: Project-level environmental review. (9) Human health hazards - hazardous material routes Mitigation summary: Modified policy (2.2.12.J) added to Land Use Element. Monitoring: Project level environmental review. (10) Utilities & resources - landfill capacity Mitigation.summary: Modified policy 1.15 added to Land Use Element. Monitoring: Project-level environmental review. (1.1) Pedestrian safety Mitigation summary: Draft Circulation Element policies revised to address concern. Monitoring: City will review development projects, design its own facilities in conformance, and consider policies during preparation of capital budget. (12) Traffic- Highway 227 high occupancy vehicle lane Mitigation summary: City will advocate that lanes added to regional highways be for high occupancy vehicles. Monitoring: City will participate in Regional Transportation Plan updates. (13) Land use conflicts Mitigation summary: Changes to Land Use Element map to minimize adjacency of residential and nonresidential uses in the Airport Area. Monitoring: General plan annual reports and environmental determinations for expansion area specific plans. Attachment Resolution No. 8332 Page 10 ll U D. Significant,adverse impacts, despite proposed mitigation, for which findings of overriding considerations are hereby made (numbered items below). Throughout these findings, reference is made to "a reasonable share of anticipated regional growth." The determination of a reasonable share is based on the following facts. Determination of a reasonable share follows consideration of sometimes conflicting State policies and mandates, including protection of air quality and open space (including- prime agricultural land), responding to the Regional Housing Needs Assessment, and following the intent of the California Environmental Quality Act. Additional population and economic activity can have adverse environmental impacts wherever they occur. Generally, those impacts are less severe if the growth is within or adjacent to an existing urban area, compared to growth in rural areas. State and County populations are projected to increase between one percent and two percent annually for the next thirty years, based on recent trends. The City alone cannot change those trends. The City's planned residential and nonresidential growth rates --slightly more than one percent— are at the low end of the range projected for the State and the County. The City's share of projected State and County growth is determined to be reasonable because the increase is not significantly higher or lower than the State or County increases. Growth rates which are higher or lower than planned by the City could attract to San Luis Obispo, or deflect from it, adverse environmental impacts associated with growth. (1) Prime agricultural land conversion to urban use Overriding consideration: Accommodating a reasonable share of anticipated regional growth within the urban reserve line, contiguous to existing development, while preserving land outside the urban reserve line. (2) Street widening land-use impact: Higuera Street, High to Marsh Overriding consideration: Accommodating projected traffic levels (due to reasonable share of anticipated regional growth), at acceptable level of service, and providing a bike lane connection. _U'3t Attachment ,'; Resolution No. 8332 Page 11 (3) Street widening land-use impact: Santa Rosa Street, Olive to Foothill Overriding consideration: Accommodating projected traffic levels (due to reasonable share of anticipated regional growth) at acceptable levels of service. (4) Statewide (cumulative) water usage increase Overriding consideration: Accommodating a reasonable share of anticipated regional growth within the urban reserve line. (5) Aesthetics -. change from rural to urban character Overriding consideration: Accommodating a reasonable share of anticipated regional growth within the urban reserve line. (6) Traffic - unacceptable levels of service at certain major intersections and along most arterial streets Overriding consideration: Accommodating projected traffic levels (due to reasonable share of anticipated regional growth), while avoiding significant land-use and aesthetic impacts that.would follow from adding or widening roadways and changing intersections, and the City's inability to substantially change people's individual travel choices. (7) Biological and aesthetic impacts in riparian area - Sacramento Drive extension Overriding consideration: Providing alternate traffic route (reduced arterial roadway congestion) and emergency access in a location where. riparian impacts can largely be mitigated through on-site, in-kind enhancement of degraded riparian area. Note: Council .previously approved road extension in concept when acting on developmentplan for adjacent business park.. (8) Population; employment, and housing - number of workers likely to increase more than number of residents, resulting in additional commuting, with secondary impacts to energy consumption, air pollution, and traffic levels of service. Attachment `( Resolution No. 8332 Page 12 Overriding consideration: Maintaining San Luis Obispo's fiscal health and hub role, and avoiding further expansion of residential development into open space areas. (9) Land use impacts at South Street extension Overriding consideration: Providing emergency access to the Johnson Avenue area if the main fire station is located at Broad and South Streets. and the Laurel Lane station is closed. 5. Internal Consistency Council hereby determines that the revised Land Use Element and the proposed revision of the Circulation Element are consistent with all elements of the General Plan. 6. Conformance with.State Law and Guidelines Council hereby determines that the revised Land Use Element conforms with requirements of the California Government Code and the advisory General Plan Guidelines of the State Office of Planning and Research. 7. Regional Housing Opportunities Council hereby finds that the revised Land Use Element does not contain a policy or P program limiting the number of dwellings which may be constructed on an annual basis. However, by phasing the development of residential expansion areas in conformity with growth management goals, the revised Land Use Element may operate to limit the number of housing units which may be constructed within a period of years. In fulfilling the intent of California Government Code Section 65302.8, Council hereby makes the following findings: A. Regional Housing Needs. The City has determined that approximately 5,300 additional dwellings can be accommodated by the land use designations and allowed densities contained within the Land Use Element, and that the intended growth rate will allow this capacity to be used. within about twenty-five years. The City has further determined that the "Regional Housing Needs Assessment" a assignment for San.Luis Obispo of 5,128 dwellings by July 1, 1999, was based on inaccurate data and is neither appropriate nor achievable within the identified time frame. _x -33 _ r Attachment.-J_ Resolution No. 8332 Page 13 The rate of population growth on which regional housing need allocations were based is not likely to be achieved, because of San Luis Obispo County's recessionary economic conditions from 1991 through 1994, State population projections, and resource constraints. Through its General Plan, the City intends to manage residential and commercial growth so that new development occurs in an orderly-manner and can be adequately served by utilities and public services like police, fire, schools, parks and recreation, and general government for the health, safety and welfare of its citizens. Modification of the Housing Element and Land Use Element policies to accommodate State-mandated growth targets would represent a fundamental policy shift, since both the previous and revised Land.Use Elements encourage gradual development outward from the City center. Accommodating the City's assigned share of regional housing need by 1999 would exhaust the land and water resources designated in the General Plan to meet the City's residential needs over the next 25 years. B. City Actions to Expand Housing Opportunities. The City is undertaking programs and activities to expand housing opportunities for all income groups and for those working within the City, as specified in the draft Housing Element scheduled for adoption September 6, 1994. Further, the revised Land Use Element contains policies and programs which will expand housing opportunities for all income groups and for those working within the City, through provision of sites for additional multifamily housing within identified expansion areas and through density bonuses linked to transfer of development credits. C. Public Health Safety, and Welfare. Adoption of the revised Land Use Element will promote the public health, safety, and welfare.by; (1) Strengthening the City's long-term fiscal health so that the City can provide adequate levels of service; (2) Assuring that adequate resources and services needed for new development will be made available.concurrent with that development; (3) Protecting the natural environment and air quality to the extent possible within a region where population increase is expected; (4) Maintaining or enhancing the relatively high level of services enjoyed by City residents; Attachment �. Resolution No. .9332 Page 14 I (5) Assimilating new residents at a pace which preserves the community's l social fabric, safety, and established neighborhoods; (6) Promoting residents' opportunities for direct participation in City government and their sense of community. D. Limited Local Resources. There are limited fiscal-and environmental resources available to the City which can be devoted to meeting demands of additional residential development. Programs to remove or mitigate these constraints are discussed in the Housing Element and the Water and Wastewater Management Element. However, several constraints to housing production remain which cannot feasibly be overcome within the time frame of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment. These are: (1) Availability of Water. The City's growth projections assume that adequate resources and public services are available. Housing growth beyond the relatively small number of dwellings which can be built through the water offset (retrofit) program depends on successful City efforts to secure additional water supplies. (2) Public Facilities and Services. Schools, police and fire services, parks, and general City administration are currently considered marginally adequate to meet current needs, according to the EIR. To meet the City's assigned share of regional housing need would require 15 additional fire fighting personnel, 19 sworn police officers, and approximately 88 other full-time City staff; would generate demand for an additional 76 acres of neighborhood and district parks; and require additional faculty and classroom space to accommodate 2,364 students, assuming services are maintained at current levels. The capital costs of meeting these public services needs under the plan would exceed the City's and school district's financial resources, and result in significant financial hardship and public safety impacts. (3) Environmental Impacts. According to the EIR, significant adverse impacts to circulation, agricultural land, and aesthetics are likely to result from accommodating the proposed residential growth. Although growth impacts cannot be entirely mitigated, the 25-year planning time frame allows development of additional mitigations or adjustments to the planned development capacity if proposed mitigations prove to be inadequate. Accommodating an equivalent amount of residential growth within the compressed time frame of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment would s Attachment,,, Resoiution No. 8332 Page 15 result in significant adverse impacts and threaten public health and safety due to inadequate public facilities and services. (4) Local Conditions Affecting Land Use. Unique physical characteristics, including steep topography, the need to preserve prime agricultural lands within and adjacent to the City, and the unique visual qualities of the City's volcanic morros and open spaces have guided the City's land use and planning policies. 8. Reneal of Previous Element The 1971 General Plan Urban Land Use and Growth Management Element, as amended, is hereby repealed, on the effective date of the revised Land Use Element. 9. Adoption of Revised Element The revised Land Use Element, consisting of a text and maps dated August 1994, on file in the City Clerk's Office, is hereby adopted. 10. Publication and Availability The Community Development Director shall cause the newly adopted element to be published and provided to City officials, concerned agencies, and public libraries, and to be made available to the public at a cost not to exceed the cost bf reproduction. 11. Effective Date The newly adopted element shall be effective on the thirtieth day after passage of this Resolution. 12. Zoning.Consistency The Council intends, within a reasonable tinie of adopting the revised Land Use Element, to make the Zoning Regulations and the official zone map consistent with the revised element. Because some names of land use districts are being added or changed, Council hereby approves the following as a guide to zoning consistency, pending a comprehensive revision of the Zoning Regulations and official zone map. ATTACHMENT 2 CHANGES TO THE DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT CHAPTER 3 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT, FROM THE MARCH 16, 2004 COUNCIL MEETING Note: This Attachment shows the Ch. 3 Legislative Draft and Glossary that Council reviewed on March 16th. Council's changes from the March 16`h hearing, and Vice Mayor Schwartz' suggested changes from his_ 3/17 memo to staff(Attachment 3), are shown in bold Italics. Attachment 2 San Luis Obispo City Council Draft Housing Element, March 16,2004 ways to reduce the seismic hazards commonly found in such structures, and encouraging them to undertake seismic upgrades. Goal 2.1 Affordability. Accommodate affordable housing production that helps meet the City's Quantified Objectives. 2.2 Policies 2.2.1 Income Levels For Affordable Housing. For purposes of this Housing Element, affordable housing is that which is obtainable by a household with a particular income level, as further described in the City's Affordable Housing Standards. Housing affordable to Very-low, Low, and Moderate-income persons or households shall be considered "affordable housing." Income levels are defined as follows: Very low: 50% or less of County median household income. Low: 51%to 80%of County median household income. Moderate: 81%to 120%of County median household income. Above moderate: 121% or more of County median household income. 2.2.2 Index of Affordability. The Index of Affordability shall be whether the monthly cost of housing fits within the following limits: ❑ For very low-and low-income households, not more than 25% of monthly income. ❑ For moderate-income households, not more than 30% of monthly income. ❑ For above-moderate income households, no index. These indices may be modified or expanded if the State of California modifies or expands its definition of affordability for these income groups. 2.2.3 For housing to qualify as "affordable" under the provisions of this Element, guarantees must be presented that ownership or rental housing units will remain affordable for the longest period allowed by State law, or for a shorter period under an equity-sharing or rehabilitation agreement with the City. 2.2.4 Encourage housing production for all financial strata of the City's population, in the proportions shown in the Regional Housing Needs Allocation, for the 2001 — 2009 planning period. Oke These proportions are slime: very low income, 34 %; low income, 19 %; moderate income, 20 %; above moderate income, 27 %. 26 q San Luis Obispo City Council Draft Housing Element,March 16,2004 23 Programs 2.3.1 Amend the Inclusionary Housing Regulations to require that new residential subdivisions and residential development projects meet the inclusionary requirement by 1) building the required affordable housing on- or off-site, 2) dedicating real property, or 3) rehabilitating units with guarantees the units remain affordable, pursuant to the Affordable Housing Standards, as shown in Tables 2 and 2A, and as further described in the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. Table 2 Inclusionary Housing Requirement Type of Development Project' Residential- Adjust base requirement ger Table 2A Commercial Build 3% low or 5% moderate income eese Build 2 ADUs per acre, but not less Affordable Dwelling Units (ADUs'), but not less than than 1 ADU per project; E 1 ADU per project; or' Or C) pay in-lieu fee equal to 5% 10 3% of building valuation.' pay in-lieu fee equal to 5% 10 3% of building valuation. 0 m Build 5% low-.and 10% moderate income eesE Build 2 ADUs per acre, but not less ADUs, but not less than 1 ADU per project; than 1 ADU per project; e .y or or pay in-lieu fee equal to 15% of building valuation. pay in-lieu fee equal to 5% 10 3% c of building valuation. 'Residential developments of four or less dwellings, and commercial developments of 2,500ro@ ss square feet of floor area or less are exempt from these Inclusionary Housing Requirements. 'Affordable Dwelling Units must meet City affordability criteria listed in Goal 2.1. 'Developer may build affordable housing in the required amounts, pay in-lieu fee based on the above formula, or dedicate real property, or a combination of these, to City approval. '"Building Value" shall mean the total value of all construction work for which a permit would be issued, as determined by the Chief Building Official using the Uniform Building Code. 27 l -0 AI Attachment 2 San Luis Obispo City Council Draft Housing Element,March 16,2004 TABLE 2A Project Inclusionary Housing Requirement Density Adjustment Factor-2 (Density Units/Net Average Unit Size (sq. ft.) Acre)' Up to 1,101- 1,501-2000 2,001-2,500 2,501- >3,000 1,100 �A4-1,500 3,000 x-,489 36 or more 0 0 .75 1 1.25 1.5 24-35.99 0 0 .75 1.25 1.25 1.5 12-23.99 0 .25 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 7-11.99 0 .5 1 1.5 1.5 1.75 <7 0 .5 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 'Including allowed density bonus,where applicable. 'Multiply the total base Inclusionary Housing Requirement (either housing or in-lieu percentage) by the adjustment factor to determine requirement. At least one enforceably-restricted affordable unit is required per development of five or more units. 2.3.2 Maintain a city housing fund to be used to develop affordable housing units and acquire land for affordable housing projects. To qualify for such public assistance, the development of affordable units must include guarantees the units will remain affordable for the longest period allowed by State law. Inclusionary housing in-lieu fees will be placed into this fund. 2.3.3 Review existing and proposed building and planning policies regulations to determine whether there are changes possible that could assist the production of affordable housing but that do not conflict with other General Plan policies. Such periodic reviews will seek to remove regulations that are no longer needed. 2.3.4 Adopt permit streamlining procedures to speed up the processing of applications and construction permits for affordable housing projects. City staff and commissions should give such projects priority in allocating work assignments, scheduling, conferences and hearings, and in preparing and issuing reports. 2.3.5 Review existing and proposed building and planning policies and regulations to encourage "green building technology", and to allow construction of personalized, unconventional housing types that reduce cost and/or energy and materials consumption relative to conventional construction, provided that residential quality and safety can be maintained. 28 ` r _ Attachment 2 San Luis Obispo City Council Draft Housing Element,March 16,2004 2.3.6 Pursue outside funding sources for the payment of City impact fees so that new dwellings that meet the City's affordable housing standards can mitigate their facility and service impacts without adversely affecting housing affordability. 2.3.7 To the extent outside funding sources can be identified to offset impacts on Ike City funds Genere Fwd, exempt dwellings that meet the moderate income, Affordable Housing Standards from planning, building and engineering development review and permit fees, including water meter installation fee. Retain current exemptions for very-low and low-income households. 2.3.8 Help coordinate public and private sector actions to encourage the development of housing that meets the City's housing needs. 2.3.9 Assist with the issuance of bonds, tax credit financing, loan underwriting or other financial tools to help develop or preserve affordable units through various programs, including, but not limited tw (1) below-market financing and (2) subsidized mortgages for very-low, low- and moderate-income persons and first-time home buyers, and (3) self-help or"sweat equity"homeowner housing. 2.3.10 Amend Affordable Housing Standards to modify the method for calculating maximum moderate-income rental costs, so that moderate-income rents are proportionately consistent with rental costs for very low- and low-income renters, to the extent allowed by State and Federal law. 2.3.11 In conjunction with the Housing Authority and other local housing agencies, provide on-going technical assistance and education to tenants, property owners and the community at large on the need to preserve at-risk units as well as the available tools to help them do so. Goal 3.1 Housing Conservation. Conserve existing the housing ste&and prevent the loss of safe a€ r-dable housing and the displacement of current occupants. 3.2 Policies 3.2.1 Encourage the rehabilitation, remodeling or relocation of sound or rehabitateable housing rather than demolition. Demolition of non-historic housing may be permitted where conservation of existing housing would preclude the achievement of other housing objectives or adopted City goals. 29 Attachment 2 San Luis Obispo City Council Draft Housing Element, March 16,2004 3.2.2 Discourage the removal or replacement of housing affordable to very-low, low- and moderate income households by higher-cost housing, and avoid permit approvals, municipal actions or public projects that remove or adversely impact such a€ r-dable housing, unless such actions are necessary to achieve General Plan objectives and: (1) it can be demonstrated that rehabilitation of lower-cost units at risk of replacement is financially or physically infeasible, or (2) an equivalent number of new units comparable or better in affordability and amenities to those being replaced are provided, or (3) the project will correct substandard, blighted or unsafe housing; and (4) replacement will not adversely affect a designated historic resource. 3.2.3 Encourage seismic upgrades of older dwellings to reduce the risk of bodily harm and the loss of housing in an earthquake. 3.2.4 Encourage the construction, preservation, rehabilitation or and expansion of residential hotels, group homes, integrated community apartments, and other-types e€single-room occupancy dwellings. 3.2.5 Preserve historic homes and other types of historic residential buildings, historic districts and unique or landmark neighborhood features. 3.2.6 Preserve the fabric, amenities, setbacks and overall character and quality of life of established neighborhoods. 3.3 Programs 3.3.1 When the City finds affordable unit removal is necessary in connection with a municipal project, it shall help displaced residents find affordable replacement housing and assist with relocation costs. 3.3.2 When the City permits private development projects that displace affordable housing, it will require the developer to assist displaced residents find affordable local replacement housing. Such measures may include: first priority in purchasing or renting new affordable dwellings to be developed on-site, assistance with relocation costs, or other financial measures. 3.3.3 Evaluate, and where necessary, revise building, zoning and fire code requirements which discourage housing and encourage the conversion of housing to other uses. 3.3.4 Using State or Federal grant funds such as Community Development Block Grants, or 30 i attachment 2 San Luis Obispo City Council Draft Housing Element,March 16,2004 insprgsti­p Rei , . (move to LUE 2.2.12) 7.3.4 Continue to develop and implement neighborhood parking strategies, including parking districts,to address the lack of on-and off-street parking in residential areas. Goal 8.1 Special Housing Needs. Encourage the creation and maintenance of housing for those with special housing needs. 8.2 Policies 8.2.1 Encourage housing development that meets a variety of special needs, including large families,single parents,disabled persons,the elderly,students,the homeless,or those seeking congregate care, group housing, single-room occupancy or co-housing accommodations,utilizing universal design for accessibility,where appropriate. 8.2.2 Preserve manufactured housing parks and support changes in this form of tenure only if such changes provide residents with greater long-term security or comparable housing in terms of quality,cost,and livability. 8.2.3 Encourage manufactured homes in Expansion Areas by: a) Encouraging developers to create owner-occupied manufactured home parks with amenities such as greenbelts, recreation facilities, and shopping services within a master planned community setting. Such parks could be specifically designed to help address the needs of those with mobility and transportation limitations. b) Establish lot sizes, setback, and parking guidelines that allow for relatively dense placement of manufactured homes within the master planned neighborhood. c) Locate manufactured home parks near public transit facilities or provide public transportation services to the manufactured home parks to minimize the need for residents to own automobiles. 8.2.4 Encourage Cal Poly University and Cuesta College to continue to strengthen faculty and staff housing on State land (such as that along State Highway 1). to pursue on- camnus student housing programs (to lessen pressure on City housing supply and transportation systems), and to meet both existing and future housing needs, and to lessen pressure on the City housing supply and transportation systems. eexslstew� 8.2.5 Strengthen the role of on-campus housing by encouraging Cal Poly University to 38 t -�3 Attachment San Luis Obispo City Council Draft Housing Element,March 16,2004 6.3.4 Amend the Parking Management program to promote housing in the Downtown Core by allowing flexible use of city parking facilities by Downtown residents, where appropriate. Such use may include requirements for parking use fees, use limitations and enforcement provisions. 6.3.5 Specific plans for designated Expansion Areas shall include appropriately zoned land to meet the City's regional housing need for dwellings affordable to very low- and low-income households, including R-3 and R-4 zoning. These plans shall include sites suitable for subsidized rental housing and affordable rental and owner-occupied units. Such sites shall be integrated within neighborhoods of market-rate housing and shall be architecturally compatible with the neighborhood. 6.3.6 Specific plans shall shetdd designate sufficient -areas at appropriate densities to accommodate the types of dwellings that would be affordable in the percentages called for by this Element. Also, specific plans will include programs to assure that the affordable dwellings actually will be produced. 6.3.7 Consider Frame amendments to the General Plan to aFA rezone commercial, manufacturing or public facility zoned areas for residential use, to promote higher- density, infill or mixed-use housing where erewdk-�land development-patterns are no longer valid and where impact to Low Density Residential areas is minimal apprepriate For example, areas to be considered for possible rezoning include, but are not limited to the following sites (shown in Figure 1): a) Little Italy district and portions of Broad Street corridor b) Mid-Higuera corridor, between Fontana Avenue and Prado Road c) 791/861 Orcutt Road d) West Both side of Ferrini Road, between Cerro Romauldo and Felton Way e) 3730 South Higuera Street f) 1642 Johnson Avenue and 1499 San Luis Drive (rezone vacant and underutilized school district property) g) 1030 Southwood Drive 6.3.8 Support regional efforts to establish a countywide affordable housing fund to be funded through a countywide, dedicated revenue source rather than diverting existing affordable housing trust funds. The City should manage its Affordable Housing funds generated through the Inclusionary Housing Program to assist affordable housing development in the City. 6.3.7 Adopt opt s4 ib e zeniag .,a subdivisien staaa.,ias to be ....lied to d ..tom-in fes t—the-pf,87:jsie.. Of rr a ,.,e , ..si�tg-te�s�43Eed uses. Suet flexible , , 34 Attachment 2 San Luis Obispo City Council Draft Housing Element,March 16,2004 A-Rdl Should-alle-A,planned developmeRts of less than 1 aere PA,heFe etheRAARP.Fallevied. 6.3.9 Balance City efforts to encourage residential development by focusing as much on infill development and densification within City Limits as on annexation of new residential land. The C-i", will meemplish this by eensideFing ameadments to the CaTUnWt FIGURE I DELETED , � i / ` d 1 r a � e b 4 r ' i A 35 San Luis Obispo City Council Draft Housing Element,March 16,2004 Attachment 2 entering freshmen students to live on campus during their first year. 8.2.6 Locate Fraternities and sororities should be leeated on the Cal Poly University campus. Until that is possible, they should be located in Medium-High and High Density residential zones near the campus. 8.27 Encourage Cal Poly University to develop faculty and staff housing, such as that designated as sites H-8 and H-9, located on State-owned land along Highway 1, and consistent with the General Plan. 8.2.8 Encourage Cuesta College to explore opportunities and strategies for the development of student housing on the GuesM Gampwsto meet both existing and future needs to lessen pressure on City housing supply and transportation systems. 8.1.9 Disperse special needs living facilities shouN be diWemed throughout the City rather than concentration them in one district 83 Programs 8.3.1 As funding allows, support local and regional solutions to meeting the needs of the homeless and continue to support, jointly with other agencies, shelters for the homeless and for displaced women and children. 8.3.2 Continue the mobile home rent stabilization program to minimize increases in the cost of mobile home park rents. 8.3.3 Identify sites in specified expansion areas suitable for tenant-owned mobile-home parks, cooperative housing, manufactured housing, self-hell) housing, or other types of housing that meet special needs. 8.3.4 Advocate developing non-dormitory housing on the Cal Poly University campus and refurbishing existing campus housing and its associated programs to make campus living more attractive and affordable. 8.3.5 Work with Cal Poly University Administration to secure designation of on-campus fratemity/sorority living groups. 8.3.6 Jointly develop and adopt a student housing plan and "good neighbor program" with Cal Poly University, Cuesta College and City residents. The program would seek to improve communication and cooperation between the City and the schools, set on- campus student housing objectives and establish clear, effective standards for student housing in residential neighborhoods. 39 I Attachment 2 San Luis Obispo City Council Draft Housing Element March 16,2004 9.2 Policies 9.2.1 Residential developments should promote sustainability in their design, placement, and use. Sustainability can be promoted through a variety of housing strategies, including the following: a) Maximize use of renewable, recycled-content, and recycled materials, and minimize use of building materials that require high levels of energy to produce or that cause significant,adverse environmental impacts. b)Incorporate renewable energy features into new homes,including passive solar design,solar hot water,solar power,and natural ventilation and cooling. c)Minimize thermal island effects through reduction of heat-absorbing pavement and increased tree shading. d)Avoid building materials that may contribute to health problems through the release of gasses or glass fibers into indoor air. e)Design dwellings for quiet, indoors and out,for both the mental and physical health of residents. f)Design dwellings economical to live in because of reduced utility bills,low cost maintenance and operation,and improved occupant health. g)Use construction materials and methods that maximize the recyclability of a building's parts. h) Educate public,staff,and builders to the advantages and approaches to sustainable design,and thereby develop consumer demand for sustainable housing.. i) City will consider adopting a sustainable development rating system,such as the LEED program. 9.2.2 Residential site,subdivision,and neighborhood designs should be coordinated to .make residential sustainability work. Some ways to do this include: a) Design subdivisions to maximize solaraccess for each dwelling and site. b) Design sites so residents have usable outdoor space with access to both sun and shade. c) Streets and access ways should minimize pavement devoted to vehicular use. 40 2 San Luis Obispo City Council Draft Housing Element,March 16,2004 Attachment Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program. Fraternity House(or Sorority House). A Residence for college or university students who are members of a social or educational association,and where such a&an association holds meetings or gatherings. Granny Flat. See"Second Residential Unit." High Occupancy Residential Use. Any dwelling other than a Residential Care Facility as defined in the Zoning Regulations,that is located in the R-1 or R-2 zones and is occupied by six or more adults. Historic Property. A property, including land and building, determined by the City to have archaeological, historical, or architectural significance as described in the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, and listed on the Contributing Properties List or Master List of Historic Resources. Household. All persons, including those related by birth, marriage or adoption and unrelated persons,who occupy a single dwelling. Housing or "Dwelling" Unit. A building, a modular home, a mobile home, a cooperative, or any other residential use considered real property under State law and on a permanent foundation, with provisions for sleeping,cooking and sanitation,and with permanent connections to utilities. Infill Housing. Development of housing on vacant or wmderxdke lots within the City limits on property zoned for such uses. Jobs-Housing Balance. A ratio describing the number of jobs compared with dwelling units in a defined geographic area, and a measure of the adequacy of the housing stock to meet community needs. Live-Work or Work-Live Unit. An integrated housing unit and work space, occupied and utilized by a single household in a structure, either single-family or multi-family, that has been designed or structurally modified to accommodate joint residential occupancy and work activities,and which includes: 1) Complete kitchen and sanitary facilities in compliance with City building code,and 2) Working space reserved for and regularly used by one or more occupants of the unit. The difference between"live-work"and"work-live" units is that the work component of a live- work unit is secondary to its residential use, and may include only commercial activities and pursuits compatible with the character of a quiet residential environment, while the work component of a work-live unit is the primary use, to which the residential component is 195 San Luis Obispo CityCouncil Draft Housing Element,March 16,2004 Attachment 2 such as historic significance, creekside location, or visual prominence, requiring more detailed development review than would otherwise be required for other similarly zoned lots nearby. Single-family Dwelling,Detached. A dwelling occupied or intended for occupancy by only one household,and that is structurally and physically separate from any other such dwelling. Single Room Occupancy(SRO)Unit. A single-room dwelling,typically 80-250 square feet in floor area,with a sink and a closet,with communal facilities for cooking and sanitation. Tenure. The mode or status of residency,whether by renting or owning real property. Transitional Housing. Housing provided to homeless persons, abused women or children, or other persons with special housing needs for a temporary period, and generally integrated with other social services and programs including counseling, education, and training to assist in the transition to self-sufficiency through gaining stable income and permanent housing. Underutilized. An underutilized site is a site that has the land area capacity to accommodate additional dwelling unuls)while meeting all zoning regulations including setbacks,building height and lot coverage requirements without the application of variances. 197 '41 MEMO Attachment 3 March 17, 2004 To: John Mand From Ken S= Copies: Council Co Hampum, and Planning Commissioner Carlyn Christianson( all w/o attachments) Re: Housing Element As requested by the City Council I have attached pages 6-3 through 6-26 from last evening's Council agenda These pages contain Jeff Hook's latest re-write of Chapter 3 of the HE as well as some editorial changes I propose be made. For the most part these are minor changes with the possible exception of the definition of"Underutilized"found on 6-26. I read my suggested modification during the meeting and my sense was that the suggestion was OKed by the Council. But here it is in case you can't read my scrabbling: Underutilized: an underutilized site is a site that has the land area capacity to accommodate additional dwelling unit(s)while meeting all zoning regulations including setbacks,building height and lot coverage requirements without the application of variances. (Edited slightly from last night's reading.) With respect to proposed additions to Chapter One for which the Council showed little enthusiasm for pursing due to the late hour,here are the three bullet statements I proposed be addressed under 1.10 Purpose Bullet 1 (to be bullet 2 in the listing): To review the basic human needs that housing is expected to satisfy. (Parenthetical observation: What is it that we use to measure whether our decisions are "right"regarding housing design and/or the location of housing?) Bullet 2(to be bullet 3 in the listing): To understand and to improve upon the relationships ofhousing with other land uses that comprise the increasingly complex City of San Luis Obispo. Bullet.3 (to be bullet 5 in the listing): To understand how tax policies encourage or thwart housing supply and maintenance. At the risk of sounding like an academician and being repetitive, I remain perplexed by how we can write,rewrite, edit and publish a document that purports to be a Housing Element when it doesn't even discuss or define what a"house"is—or in the case of mithiple housing,what a dwelling unit is. I find it slightly amusing that the only use of the word"home"is in conjunction with the words `less' or `owner,' e.g. homeless and homeowner. If the business commimity and our staff and our Council are surprised by the reaction of RQN representatives to the original Task Force and Planning Commission drafts ofthe 1 r� 7 MEMO: page 2 Attachment 3 HE, I think we need look no fiuther than our failure to understand what a home is. RQN seems to understand;we(collectively)don't seem to get the picture. S1 I r Draft Housing Element Update,March 16,2004 Council Meeting Page 3 not intended as a development or growth objective. Attachment 3 Quantified Objectives in the Draft Housing Element Update As required by State law,the Draft Housing Element Update includes Quantified Objectives showing the number of new dwelling units the City will be able to accommodate in each income group during the planning period from Janua1, 2001 to July 1, 2009 (See Table 5, page 48 of the Council Hearing Draft. Of these, 2,167 units are targeted for very-low and low-income households. These objectives are based on the City's Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA), adjusted to reflect the City's water supply constraints during the planning period. The Quantified Objectives also set rehabilitation, preservation, and conservation objectives. These numbers are not tied to an allocation, but are based on a realistic assessment of available funding and development patterns. State HCD reviews the quantified objectives closely to determine whether a housing element meets State law. Although the City's Quantified Obiectives are theoreticallyossible,they are-nonspecific _development quotas: a raft Element emphasizes the City cannot guarantee these objectives will be met, given lu ted financial resources, economic uncertainty, and independent development decisions. Attainment of the obiectidevelopment decisions and the City's ability to leverage Federal, State or local funding to help meet very-low, low, and moderate income housing needs. Pr inary General Plan Consistency Issues Staff wil ovide the Council with a summary of General Plan consistency issues prior to the March I e meeting. t the time of this writing, it appears the main consistency issue involves wording differences ado ted and proposed policies that ve the same intent. Also, the existing e rtion o "infil '.in a Land Use Element iffers Draft.H sing Element. in that the LUE de mJ ion refers t e development of vacan arce whereas the-I)m-fLHousing, Element broadens the definition to u it both ac an underutilized in-ci arcels. This'is similar to de nition of"infill" at HC es. The broa er definition helps demonstrate to HCD t the City has the sufficient land resources to _ eoretically,meet our Regional Housing Needs _allocation and thus, achieve certo .ificatiIf the City's ion o m i is not expanded to include un - ilized parcels in the City, the Housing Element Update s d include explicit references to "underutilized parcels" to address the issue that HCD is looking for. urthermore,the Genera should have one, inclusive glossary to avoid differences between individual elements. ff will ;I consolidate all of the General Plan glossaries into one as a part of the final resolution. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Revised Ch. 3 of the Council Hearing Draft Housing.Element 2. Excerpts from the Draft Housing Element Glossary,Appendix M J:UHooK\Housing Element Update\CAR2-24-04CHEupdate.doc Attachment 3 San Luis Obispo City Council Draft Housing Element,March 16,2004 • Providing special incentives to encourage downtown residential development,and instituting more flexible parking requirements for specified housing developments where alternative parking/transportation strategies exist. • Seeking new funding sources to help defray City development review and impact fees for developers of very low-,low- and moderate-income housing. e Reducing obstacles to the production of small residential projects by exempting the construction,remodeling or relocation of most developments of four dwellings or less from Architectural Review Commission review. • Promoting mixed-use development, infill residential development, and more compact, higher density housing where appropriate. This strategy combines requirements and incentives to increase production of both affordable and market-rate housing over the next four and a half years. Like many small cities with only limited-public funds for housing, the City has,relied on the private sector to meet a portion of its affordable housing needs. Increasingly, local governments . are finding it necessary to assist developers if adequate housing is to be built at prices that citizens can afford. Across the U.S., it has become apparent that the most effective programs involve cooperative public/private efforts to produce affordable housing. This requires that the City take a more active role in planning, funding and promoting affordable housing than has.been. its practice. This Housing Element update builds upon programs introduced in 1994 to promote affordable housing and expands incentives for affordable housing construction. For example, using Community Development Block Grant funds, the City has established a Housing Programs Specialist position to actively support affordable housing by soliciting grants, loans, and other forms of assistance. 3.30 Goals, Policies and Programs This chapter describes the City's housing goals, policies and programs, which together form the blueprint for housing actions during the seven and one-half year period covered by this Element. Goals, policies and programs are listed in top-to-bottom order,with goals at the top and being the most general Statements, working down to programs, the most specific Statements of intent. Here is how the three levels of policy differ: o Goals are the desired results that the City will attempt to reach over the long term. They are general expressions of community values or preferred end states, and therefore, are abstract in nature and are rarely fully attained. While it may not be possible to attain all goals during this Element's planning period, they will, nonetheless, be the basis for City policies and actions during this period. 24 - Attachment 3 San Luis Obispo City Council Draft Housing Element,March 16,2004 ways to reduce the seismic hazards commonly found in such structures, and encouraging them to undertake seismic upgrades. Goal 2.1 Affordability. Accommodate affordable housing production that helps meet the City's Quantified Objectives. 2.2 Policies 2.2.1 Income Levels For Affordable Housing. For purposes of this Housing Element, affordable housing is that which is obtainable by a household with a particular income level, as further described in the City's Affordable Housing Standards. Housing affordable to Very-low, Low, and Moderate-income persons or.households shall be considered"affordable housing." Income levels are defined as follows: Very low: 50%or less of County median household income. Low: 51%to 80%of County median household income. Moderate: 81%to 120%of County median household income. Above moderate: 121%or more of County median household income. 2.2.2 Index of Affordability. The Index of Affordability shall be whether the monthly cost of housing fits within the following limits: ❑ For very low-and low-income households, not more than 25%of monthly income. ❑ For moderate-income households,not more than 30%of monthly income. ❑ For above-moderate income households,no index. These indices may be modified or expanded if the State of California modifies or expands its definition of affordability for these income groups. 2.2.3 For housing to qualify as "affordable" under the provisions of this Element, guarantees must be presented that ownership or rental housing units will remain affordable for the longest period allowed by State law, or for a shorter period under an equity-sharing or rehabilitation agreement with the City. 2.2.4 Encourage housing production for all financial strata of the City's population, in the proportions shown i the Regional Housing Needs Allocation, for the 2001 — 2009 planning period. a proportions very low income, 34 %; low income, 19 %; moderate inc e, 20 %; above mo rate income, Y 26 t-S�= Attachment 3 San Luis Obispo City Council Draft Housing Element,March 16,2004 TABLE 2A P�o�ect Y ',y r Inclusionary Ho ' ' g Requ�reaent � "s.t ` k �, Densi r , = .3 �c . t entFactot, " a (Density 1 u y veritg g1 nrt Size Esq. .. r v 1 UrutsINet, t a - ht .y S { i ;Acre) Up to f 1,01 1 00 ' n 1 ,U 000 2,00 2,50U , Z 501 >3,OQ0;? •_ 4 L a 00�_ ;�;y, "'$ y {S s, f `` v r `* •v,♦ 00 _ 1 36 or amore _ 0 0 75 _1 1.25 1.5 24-35':99 0 0 .75 1.25 1.25 1.5 12- 3. 0 .25 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 7=1 L99 °• 0 .5 1 1.5 1.5 1.75 <7, v 0 .5 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 'Including allowed density bonus,where applicable. ZMultiply the total base Inclusionary Housing Requirement either housing or in-lieu percentagel,by the adjustment determine requiremen teas one en orceably-restricts a or a le unit is required per development o five or more units. 2.3.2 Maintain a city housing fund to be used to develop affordable housing units and acquire land for affordable housing projects. To qualify for such public assistance, the development of affordable units must include guarantees the units will remain affordable for the longest period allowed by State law. Inclusionary housing in-lieu fees will be placed into this fund. 2.3.3 Review existing and proposed building and planning policies regulations to determine whether there are changes possible that could assist the production of affordable housing but that do not conflict with other General Plan policies. Such periodic reviews will seek to remove regulations that are no longer needed. 2.3.4 Adopt permit streamlining procedures to speed up the processing of applications and construction permits for affordable housing projects. City staff and commissions should give such projects priority in allocating work assignments, scheduling, conferences and hearings, and in preparing and issuing reports. 2.3.5 Review existing and proposed building and planning policies and regulations to encourage "green building technology", and to allow construction of personalized, unconventional housing types that reduce cost and/or energy and materials consumption relative to conventional construction, provided that residential quality and safety can be maintained. 28 c -�S Artachmerlt San Luis Obispo City Council Draft Housing Element,.March 16,2004 3.2.2 Discourage the removal or replacement of housing affordable to very-low, low- and / moderate income households by higher-cost housing, and avoid permit approvals. ,V municipal actions or public projects that remove or adversely impact such e€ Friable housing, unless such actions are necessary to achieve General Plan objectives and: (1) it can be demonstrated that rehabilitation of lower-cost units at risk of replacement is financially or physically infeasible, or (2) an equivalent number of new units comparable or better in affordability and amenities to those being replaced are provided, or (3) the project will correct substandard, blighted or unsafe housing; and (4)replacement will not adversely affect a designated historic resource. 3.2.3 Encourage seismic upgrades of older dwellings to reduce the risk of bodily harm and the loss of housing.in an earthquake. 3.2.4. Encourage the construction,preservation, rehabilitation or e d expansion of residential hotels, group homes, integrated community apartments, and eche #Res a single-room occupancy dwellings. - , 3.2.5 2 Preserve historic homes and othe oric residential buildings historic districts and unique or landmark neighborhood f tures. �. ��ly�� 3.2.6 Preserve the fabric amenities setbacks d. overall character and quality of lik of established neishborhoods. t"A Of 3.3 Programs 3.3.1 When the City finds affordable unit removal is necessary in connection with a municipal project, it shall help displaced residents find affordable replacement housing and assist with relocation costs. 3.3.2 When the City permits private development projects that displace affordable housing, it will require the developer to assist displaced residents find affordable local replacement housing. Such measures may include: first priority in purchasing or renting new affordable dwellings to be developed on-site, assistance with relocation costs, or other financial measures. 3.3.3 Evaluate, and where necessary, revise building, zoning and fire code requirements which discourage housing and encourage the conversion of housing to other uses. 3.3.4 Using State or Federal grant funds such as Community Development Block Grants, or 30 Atla^hment 3. San Luis Obispo City Council Draft Housing Element,March 16,2004 the maximum number of very-low-income units developed on any one site. 4.2.4 In its discretionary actions, housing programs and activities, the City shall affirmatively further fair housing and promote equal housing opportunities for persons of all economic segments of the community. 43 Program 4.3.1 Review new development proposals for compliance with City regulations and revise projects or establish conditions of approval as needed to implement the mixed- income policies. Goal 5.1 Housing Variety and Tenure. Provide variety in the location,type, size,tenure, . and style of dwellings. 5.2 Policies 5.2.1 Encourage the integration of appropriately scaled, special-use housing into developments or neighborhoods of'conventional housing. 5.2.2 Encourage mixed-use residential/commercial projects to include live-work and work- live units where housing, offices or other commercial•uses are compatible. 5.2.3 Encourage the development of housing above ground-level retail stores and offices to provide housing opportunities close to activity centers and to use land efficiently. . 5.2.4 In general, housing developments of twenty (20) or more units should provide a variety of dwelling types, sizes or forms of tenure. 53 Program 5.3.1 Review new developments for compliance with City regulations and revise projects or establish conditions of approval as needed to implement the housing variety and tenure policies. Goal 6.1 Housing Production. Plan for Genstmet new housing to meet the full range of community housing needs ' 6.2 Policies 6.2.1 Consistent with the growth management portion of its Land Use Element and the availability of adequate resources, the City will plan to accommodate up to 2,909 32 San Luis Obispo City Council Draft Housing Element,March 16,2004 6.3.4 Amend the Parking Management program to promote housing in the Downtown Core by allowing flexible use of city parking facilities by Downtown residents, where appropriate. Such use may include requirements for parking use fees, use limitations and enforcement provisions. 6.3.5 Specific plans for designated Expansion Areas shall include appropriately zoned land to meet the City's regional housing need for dwellings affordable to very low- and low-income households, including R-3 and R-4 zoning. These plans shall include sites suitable for subsidized rental housing and affordable rental and owner-occupied units. Such sites shall be integrated within neighborhoods of market-rate housing and shall be architecturally compatible with the neighborhood. 63.6 / Specific plans shall sly designate sufficient areas at appropriate densities to / accommodate the types of dwellings that would be affordable in the percentages . V called for by this Element. Also, specific plans will include programs to assure that the affordable dwellings actually will be produced. 6 Consider bate amendments to the General Plan ead rezone commercial, manufacturing or public facility zoned areas for re ' ential use, to promote higher- density, infill or mixed-use housing wher d land develo ment attems.are no loneer valid and where impact to Low enstty'Residential areas is minimal eppfepr-iate. For example, areas to be considered for ssible rezoning include, but are not limited to the following sites(shown in Figure 1): f 1 a) Little Italy district and portions of Broad Street corridor b) Mid-Higuera corridor,between Fontana Avenue and Prado Road c) 791/861 Orcutt Road d) West Beth side of Ferrini Road,between Cerro Romauldo and Felton Way e) 3730 South Higuera Street f) 1642 Johnson Avenue and'1499 San Luis Drive (rezone vacant and underutilized school district property) g) 1030 Southwood Drive 6.3.8 Support regional efforts to establish a countywide affordable housing fund to be funded through a countywide, dedicated revenue source rather than diverting existing affordable housing trust funds. The City should manage its Affordable Housing Rinds generated through the Inclusionary Housing Program to assist affordable housing development in the City. 3.7 Adept Ae?dble zoning and subdivisien swadaF& te be applied te develepmefAs ki . Fev&va fef th &%r-dable housing units or- mixed uses. Seeh fleidble . ineliade fleer.aFea+a6es inedified fe a speeifie site, -eda ed let-sizes, s, , heights, er ifieFeased let eevemge, 34 _ - A -1—hment 3- San Luis Obispo City Council Draft Housing Element,March 16,2004 6.3.10 Seek opportunities with other public agencies and public utilities to identify, assemble, develop, redevelop and recycle surplus land for housing, and to convert vacant or underutilized public, utility or institutional buildings to housing. 6.3.1.1 Develop multi-family housing design standards to promote innovative, attractive, and well-integrated higher-density housing. Developments that meet these standards shall be eligible for a streamlined level of planning and development review. Developments that include a significant commitment to affordable housing may also be eligible to receive density bonuses, parking reductions and other development incentives, including City financial assistance. 6.3.12 Financially assist in the development of 90 new ownership or rental units affordable to very-low, low- and moderate-income households during the planning period using State,Federal and local funding sources. 6.3.13 Actively seek new revenue sources, including State, Federal and private/non-profit. sources, and financing mechanisms to assist affordable housing development and first-time homebuyer assistance programs. 6.3.14 Exempt the c 6struction, reloca ion, rehabilitation or remodeling of up to four dwellings of t 1200 s uare et each Fesideafi�el-faits from Architectural Review V Commission .r -unit housing may be allowed with "Minor or Incidental' or staff level architectural review, unless the dwellings are located on a . sensitive or historically significant site. ✓6 3:3 - t develepinewf housingf large t. •t a gs in 4he 6.3.15 Consider ate amendments to the Zoning Regulations to increase residential density limits in the Downtown Core(C-D Zone). 6.3.16 Assist in the production of long-term affordable housing by identifying vacant or underutilized City-owned property suitable for housing, and dedicate public property, where feasible and appropriate, for such purposes. Goal 7.1 Neighborhood Quality. Maintain, preserve and enhance the quality of V neighborhoods, encourage neighborhood stability, and improve neighborhood appearance and function ` 7.2 Policies 7.2.1 Within established neighborhoods, new residential development shall be of a character, size, density and quality that preserves the neighborhood character and 36 Altat:hment 3 San Luis Obispo City Council Draft Housing Element,March 16,2004 :7.3.4 n •a . , a , t ' y l d wel}cable y r F VZ , a .,..,.,—c (move to LUE 2.2.12) 73.4 Continue to develop and implement neighborhood parking strategies, including parking districts,to address the lack of on- and off-street parking in residential areas. Goal 8.1 Special Housing Needs. Encourage the creation and maintenance of housing for those with special housing needs. 8.2 Policies 8.2.1 Encourage housing development that meets a variety of special needs, including large families, single parents, disabled persons,the elderly, students,the homeless, or those seeking congregate care, group housing, single-room occupancy or co-housing accommodations, utilizing universal design for accessibility where appropriate. 8.2.2 Preserve manufactured housing parks and support changes in this form of tenure only if such changes provide residents with greater long-term security or comparable housing in terms of quality,.cost, and livability. 8.2.3 Encourage manufactured homes in Expansion Areas by: a) Encouraging developers to create owner-occupied manufactured home parks with amenities such as greenbelts, recreation facilities, and shopping services within a master planned community setting. Such parks could be specifically designed to help address the needs of those with mobility and transportation limitations. b) Establish lot sizes, setback, and parking guidelines that allow for relatively dense placement of manufactured homes within the master planned.neighborhood. c) Locate manufactured home parks near public transit facilities or provide public transportation services to the manufactured home parks to minimize the need for residents to own automobiles. 8.2.4ncourage Cal Poly University and Cuesta College to continue to strengthen faculty /and staff housing on State land (such as that along State Highway 1), to pursue on- mpus student housing programs (to lessen pressure on City housing supply and transportation systems), and to meet both existing and future housing needs, consistent with the Cal Poly Student Housing Needs Study recommendations. 8.2.5 Strengthen the role of on-campus housing by encouraging Cal Poly University to require entering freshmen students to live on campus during their first year. 38 VU - �' San Luis Obispo City Council Draft Housing Element,March 16,2004 9.2 Policies 9.2.1 Residential developments should promote sustainability in their design, placement, and use. Sustainability can be promoted through a variety of housing strategies, including the following: a) Maximize use of renewable, recycled-content, and recycled materials, and minimize use of building materials that require high levels of energy to produce or that cause significant, adverse environmental impacts. b)Incorporate renewable energy features into new homes, including passive solar design, solar hot water, solar power, and natural ventilation and cooling. c) Minimize thermal island effects through reduction of heat-absorbing pavement and increased tree shading. d)Avoid building materials that may contribute to health problems through the release of gasses or glass fibers into indoor air. e)Design dwellings for quiet, indoors and out, for both the mental and physical health of residents. f) Design dwellings economical to live in because of reduced utility bills, low cost maintenance and operation, and improved occupant health. g)Use construction materials and methods that maximize the recyclability of a building's parts. h) Educate public, staff, and builders to the advantages and approaches to sustainable design, and thereby develop consumer demand for sustainable housing. i) City will consider adopting a sustainable development rating system, such as the LEED program. 9.2.2 Residential site, subdivision, and neighborhood designs should be coordinated to make residential sustainability work. Some ways to do this include: a) Design subdivisions to maximize solar access for each dwellinf b) Design sites so residents have usable outdoor space with access to both sun and shade. c) Streets and access ways should minimize pavement devoted to vehicular use. 40 t - LpI San Luis Obispo City Council Draft Housing Element,March 16,2004 properties, and revise regulations found to be inadequate. 9.3.4 / Consider adopting street and access way standards that reduce the amount of paving ✓ i OfMesb-le sff-fe—ee devoted to vehicular use. Goal 10.1 Local Preference. Maximize affordable housing opportunities for those who live or work in San Luis Obispo while seeking to balance job growth and housing supply. 10.2 Policies 10.2.1 Administer City housing programs and benefits, such as First Time Homebuyer assistance or affordable housing lotteries, to give preference to: 1) persons living or working in the City or within the City's Urban Reserve, and 2) persons living in San Luis Obispo County. 10.2.2 Cal Poly State University and Cuesta College should actively work with the City and community organizations to create positive environments around the Cal Poly Campus by: a) Establishing standards for appropriate student densities in neighborhoods near Campus; b) Promoting homeownership for academic faculty and staff in Low-Density Residential neighborhoods near Campus; and c) Encouraging and participating in the revitalization of degraded neighborhoods. 10.3 Programs 10.3.1 Work with the County of San Luis Obispo to mitigate housing impacts on the City due to significant expansion of employment in the unincorporated areas adjacent to the City. Such mitigation might include, for example, County participation and support for Inclusionary Housing Programs. 10.3.2 Encourage residential developers to promote their projects within the San Luis Obispo housing market area(San Luis Obispo County) first. 10.3.3 Advocate the establishment of a link between enrollment gfewth and the expansion of campus housing programs at Cal Poly University and Cuesta College to reduce pressure on the City's housing supply. 42 Attachment 4 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENTS—LEGISLATIVE DRAFT (Text to be deleted is in s4fleeut text to be added is underlined) Amend the General Plan Land Use Element as follows: LU 3.1.6: Building Intensity The ratio of building floor area to site area shall not exceed 3.0, except that downtown sites which receive transfers of development credits for open space protection shall not exceed 4.0. The Zoning Regulations will establish maximum building height and lot coverage, and minimum setbacks from streets and other property lines, as well as procedures for exceptions to such standards in special circumstances. Architectural review will determine a project's realized building intensity, to reflect existing or desired architectural character in a neighborhood. With the exception of the Downtown Core, when dwellings are provided in General Retail districts,they shall not exceed 36 units per acre. Council may, by ordinance, establish flexible development standards for residential and mixed-use developments in the Downtown Core, including residential density that exceeds 36 units per acre. So long as the floor area ratio is not exceeded, the maximum residential density may be developed in addition to nonresidential development on a site. LU 4.2.2: Dwellings and Offices Residential uses within some downtown areas designated Office prior to this element's 1994 update should be maintained, or replaced as new offices are developed. The City should amend the Downtown Housing Conversion Permit process to preserve the number of dwellings in the Downtown Core (C-D zone) and the Downtown Planning Area by adopting a "no net housing loss" program by amending the Downtown Housing Conversion Permit ordinance. The amendment shall ensure that within each area the number of dwellings removed shall not exceed the number of dwellings added. TaerfcrrT should designate f- eFFee a tl,e areas w1geh aFe eeffipletely a al..,.,est a pletel.. deyeleped ;.44, eF4:seas. Ce- the Effeas whieh a a fnix e f-esi ential and e#:ee uses, tl.e City rt4d apply a " esYeTii'aQ ffi v�'n mixed use dc6iuxv. . ThiTzv�aaticcvn ieu.xa allowexisting e#;ees to be «.. .,taine.l and . pl eed• eH . 7, e..l.,-, iag an eFFee e-� e e 1 -63 Attachment 4 Land Use Element Amendments Page 2 sitLe=sefnewne?;e 44h—ifl t-he a �' �zene, er '—m-mhp dFIA..44w. ;err A nopvr Jh/UHousingElementUpdate/landuseelementamendments-legislative draft Attachment 5 RESOLUTION NO. (2004 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ADOPTING AN UPDATED HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN WHEREAS, State law requires cities and counties to adopt a general plan. The general plan includes seven required elements, one of which is the housing element. The housing element must be updated every five (5) years or as otherwise provided by State law; and WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo has prepared an updated Draft General Plan Housing Element to address community wide housing needs, challenges and opportunities, and to meet State law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council have held public.hearings on the updated Housing Element in accordance with the California Government Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the input of diverse community interests and housing stakeholders in the preparation of the updated Housing Element, including that of the Housing Element Update Task Force, an ad hoc committee of community members appointed by the City Council to identify community needs and to recommend housing policies and programs; and WHEREAS, the potential environmental impacts of the updated Housing Element have been evaluated in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to an initial environmental study (City File Number ER 33-02), and the Community Development Director has granted.a negative declaration of environmental impact; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the negative declaration of environmental impact and the updated Housing Element. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the initial study and the negative declaration for ER.No. 33-02 prepared for this Housing Element Update. This Council has, as a result of its deliberations, Planning Commission recommendation, the initial environmental study, and the evidence presented at hearings on this matter; determined that as required by the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines, a negative declaration adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the Housing Element Update. On the basis of this review, Council finds that there is no evidence from which it can be fairly argued that the project will have a significant, adverse effect on the environment, and hereby certifies and approves the negative declaration of environmental impact for the Updated Housing Element; and finds that the further amendments thereto, as contained in the 2004 Final Draft Housing Element are substantially consistent with the August 2003 Draft Housing Element on which the initial study was prepared, and do not pose any significant adverse impacts which were not previously considered as part of ER 33-02. R � ,� Resolution No. (2004 Series) Attachment 5 Page 2 SECTION 2. Record of Proceedings. The City Council has received and considered the Planning Commission recommendation, the Housing Element Update Task Force recommendations, public testimony and correspondence, and the staff reports on the Housing Element Update. Copies of these items or testimony are on file in the office of the City Clerk and in the Community Development Department. The Planning Commission held eight public hearings to consider the Housing Element Update and related matters. In addition, the City Council conducted seven public hearings to consider the Update and related matters. The minutes of those hearings indicate Commission and Council member comments on the Housing Element Update and are on file in the office of the City Clerk. SECTION 3. Public and Agency Review. ..Drafts of the proposed Housing Element Update have been made widely available for review and comment by interested agencies and individuals. Copies were posted on the City's website and were distributed to the San Luis Obispo City- County Library and the Cal Poly University Library, to the California State Department of Housing and Community Development ("HCD") as required by law, and to governmental and non-profit housing agencies whose jurisdiction includes housing issues within the San Luis Obispo Area SECTION 4. Findings. This Council, after considering the 2004 Final Draft Housing Element, the Planning Commission's recommendations, staff recommendations, public testimony and correspondence, and reports thereon, makes the following findings: 1. The Housing Element Update, as contained in the document titled "Final Draft General Plan Housing Element", dated March 30, 2004, Exhibit "A" on file in the Community Development Department (hereinafter "the Update"), is consistent with.all elements of the General Plan, as amended by this resolution. 2. The Update will promote public health, safety, and welfare by:. preserving housing that is affordable to very-low, low- and.moderate income households; encouraging variety in housing types, sizes, cost, and tenure; establishing programs to ensure that most new development incorporates affordable housing,. pays an ``in-lieu" fee toward the development of affordable housing, or otherwise contributes to the production of affordable housing; establishing incentives to encourage and help defray the costs of affordable housing development; affirmatively furthering fair housing opportunities; and by setting quantified objectives for housing production, rehabilitation, preservation and conservation. 3. Consistent with provisions of California Government Code Section 65583 (b)(2), San Luis Obispo has evaluated its ability to accommodate its Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) number of 4,383 dwellings by July 2009 and has adopted quantified objectives that are less than the RHNA number. Limited water supplies prevent the City from achieving the RHNA number within the planning period. The problem is chiefly one of timing, since, as documented in the Housing Element, there is sufficient land suitable for residential development to accommodate the RHNA number within the -0. Attachment 5 Resolution No. (2004 Series) Page 3 planning period. The reasons for the difference between the City's RHNA and its adopted Quantifed Objectives are further described in Appendix C, Section 3 of the Update, and said section hereby incorporated by reference. 4. The August 17, 2003 Draft Housing Element was submitted to HCD for its review, as required by State law. The Update includes additional information and analysis in response to HCD comments. The Council has determined that the Update conforms to the requirements of Government Code Sections 65580—65589.8. 5. Council hereby finds that the Update will not operate to directly limit the total number of dwellings which may be constructed on an annual basis, since dwellings affordable very- low, low- and moderate income households .are .exempt. from Residential Growth Management Regulations. SECTION 5. Approval of the 2004 Housing Element. Council hereby approves the 2004 Housing Element, as set forth in Exhibit A. SECTION 6. Land Use Element Amendments. The General Plan Land Use Element is hereby amended to maintain consistency with the updated Housing Element, as shown in Exhibit B. SECTION 7. Publication and Availability. The Community Development Director shall cause the updated Housing Element to be published and provided to City officials, concerned agencies, public libraries, and to the public. The Director shall also transmit a copy of the Update to HCD for its review, as required by State law. SECTION 8. Effective Date. The 2004 Housing Element shall become effective immediately upon adoption of this resolution, with the exception of the provisions of program 2.3.1 (Inclusionary Housing Requirement), which shall be effective for all valid building permit applications submitted to the Community Development Department on or after July 1, 2004. Valid applications submitted prior to July 1, 2004 shall be subject to the.Inclusionary Housing Requirement in the 1994 Housing Element. Valid building permit application shall mean an application for a development project which has received all required planning approvals prior to the date of application. SECTION 9. Repeal of Previous Element. The Housing Element adopted September 20, 1994 and as subsequently amended, is repealed upon the effective date of the 2004 Housing Element, with the exception of program 1.22.10, which shall be repealed effective July 1, 2004. Upon motion of , seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ��tog Resolution No. (2004 Series) Attachment 5 Page 4 ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this 30th day of March, 2004. David F. Romero, Mayor ATTEST: Lee Price, C.M.C. City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: onath P. Lowell Clt3pAttorney EXHIBIT A: 2004 Housing Element EXHIBIT B: General Plan Digest Land Use Element Amendments Jh/Uhous ingelementupdate/councilresolution3-30-04 l � lY O CYDNEY HOLCOMB SOS 594 OSSS03/30/04 03:00pm P. 001 O // RECEIVED MAR 3 G 2004 RED FILE ��� _ (� LO CITY CLERK MEETING AGENDA Residents for Quality Neighborhoods DAT�ITEM #11EE P.O. Box 12604 - San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 DATE: March 30, 2003 TO: San Luis Obispo City Council VIA FAX: 781-7109 RE: Request for Consideration of Modifications to the Final Draft Housing Element Glossary (Appendix M). Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council, 1. At a previous meeting your council added the building concept of"universal design" to Draft Policy 8.2.1. (Page 38.] In this instance, the goal of universal design would be to build housing that meets the needs of the greatest possible portion of the community's population, as opposed to accessible design, which is primarily intended to meet the needs of people with disabilities. To clarify this point, we suggest adding the following definitions, provided by The Center for Universal Design, North Carolina State University, to the Final Draft Housing Element Glossary (Appendix M). Accessibi/itv: Accessibility means that a person using a mobility assistive. device, an orthotic or a prosthetic, a visually impaired person, a deaf person; or a hard of hearing person is, without assistance, able to approach, enter, and make use of an area, a building, and its facilities, or any of-them. Unfviersa/ Design: Universal design is the design of products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design. 2. At a previous meeting your council voted to remove a policy dealing with the 'High Occupancy Residential Use. Regulations 17.2.8]. Since there appears to be no other reference to that ordinance in the draft document we would favor removing the definition of"High Occupangy Residential Use" from the. Final Draft Housing Element Glossary (Appendix M, Page 197). I At your March 16, 2004 meeting Vice-Mayor Schwartz suggested a wording change to the definition of the term "Underutilized". We support his change. However, to insure that non-zoning issues such as historical significance, neighborhood character, etc, are preserved, we suggest including "general plan polices" in the definition so that it would read as follows: Underu ff/ized•Sine: A site that has the land area capacity to accommodate additional dwelling unit(s) while meeting all general plan policies and all zoning regulations, including setback, building height and lot coverage requirements without the application of variances. (Appendix M, Page 199). CYDNEY HOLCOMB BOS S94 03GS 03/30/04 03:00pm P. 002 l t March 30, 2004 Page 2 HOUSING ELEMENT In summation, we would like to compliment you on your very diligent analysis of this document. You have not only strived to protect our City's existing neighborhoods, but have also provided the opportunity for new neighborhoods to exist. And, on behalf of all of our members we thank you very much. Respectfully subm' .ed, dneyy Holcomb Chairperson, RQN COUNCIL ��DD DIR .Z"CAO 'FIN DIR .iJ ACAO --Z-FIRE CHIEF ATTORNEY -f PW DIR .0'CLERK/ORIG r?'POUCE CHF ❑ O TEADS ZREC DIR rL a UTIL DIR __ ,2'HR DIR Barbara.Ehrbar-Table 2A should be elim' ted - Page 1 RECEIVED From: "Phil Gray" <pgray@midstate-cal.com> MAR 3 �' 2004 To: <slocitycouncil@slocity.org> $LO CITY CLERK Date: 3/29/04 6:10PM Subject: Table 2A should be eliminated RED FILE MG AGENDA Mr. Mayor and Councilpersons, DAT�ITEM #ai Table 2A should be eliminated. It won't increase Affordable housing, but it will reduce the number of new homes built, making our housing problem worse. As you well know,Table 2A is a matrix of factors that are intended to multiply the 15% Inclusionary Housing Requirement (IHR) fee in Table 2, based on project density and home size.The factors increase with increasing home size until they double the IHR,to a confiscatory 30%.This is unjust, because it unfairly penalizes those needing larger homes. Homebuilders have no choice but to pass the IHR on to their homebuyers. Why should the buyer of a 3,100-sq-ft home pay a 30% IHR "tax"--twice what a 2,000-sq-ft home would pay, and perhaps eight times what a 1,500-sq-ft home would pay? Each home has already paid all the impact,water,sewer, school, park, and road fees that are intended to pay their fair share of community costs related to their home. And, statistically, the occupants of a large home, while paying more property taxes, will be less of a burden on community services (schools, police, fire, etc.)than the occupants of a smaller one. But this high IHR rate is also counterproductive;rates above 15%will result in fewer market-rate homes being built, and that will reduce the number of Affordable homes built.The net result will be fewer homes built, making our City's housing problem worse, not better. The answer is to eliminate the 'home size penalty. Charge the same IHR rate to all new homes that are not officially Affordable. Don't put a counterproductive 'penalty'factor on larger homes;they're not the problem. The problem is that Affordable homes aren't economically feasible. And that problem won't be solved by putting a greater burden on the backs of homebuilders and homebuyers. Thank you. `44- w Phil Gray 'COUNCIL TCDD DIR O-CAO ft FIN DIR Mid-State Properties, LLC eACAO FIRE CHIEF 1320 Archer St. ATTORNEY DPW DIR San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ZCLERK/ORIG �FOLICE CHF (805) 543-1500 Fax: 543-1590 ❑ p ZREC DIR TIL DIR 7�HR DIR iildersAssodafim RED FILE OF THE CENTRAL COAST MEETING AGENDA DATE Ln ITEM #4d / March 25,2004 Mayor Dave Romero and City Council members 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo,Ca. Dear Mayor Romero: The Home Builders Association of the Central Coast has spent considerable time in the last 10 days reviewing the draft Housing Element's proposed changes to your inclusionary housing program.Builder reaction ranged from opposition to suggested improvements. The opposition included Table 2A being too much social engineering—trying to control both the size of units and the density. And builders generally believe that inclusionary laws require new construction and home buyers to pay for affordable housing when the entire community should be responsible since everyone will benefit from creating a more diversified range of housing options.The housing affordability crisis is the result of neighborhood opposition to housing,particularly higher density projects,and to government land use policy that has favored commercial over residential development and single-family over multi-family housing projects. The suggested improvements mostly focused on Table 2A being confusing and how the inclusionary program isn't fully explained in the Housing Element.There is no reference in the Housing Element to the density bonus program if a builder builds more than the required number of affordable units or is required to build more than 20%of a project as affordable under Table 2A.Program 2.3.4 refers to permit streamlining,but doesn't set a goal for how much faster affordable projects would be approved. And several squares in Table 2A should be adjusted to be consistent.The square for 7-11.99 units of 2,001-2,500 square feetshould be 1.25 percent and the square for 24- 35.99 units of 2,001-2,500 square feet should be 1 percent. Otherwise,you will be encouraging building larger and fewer units since builders would have the same inclusionary requirements for larger units. Inclusionary housing laws differ from community to community.Their impacts on individual projects are equally varied.To give you more and better advice on Table 2A's impacts and applications,the builders need to analyze it in relation to specific projects.They generally don't think it will meet the city goal of encouraging smaller units,but we know you want to try this for a year.At that time,we would be interested in helping the city analyze how effective the program was at creating affordability by design and seeing if we both can benefit from improving it. I am sending you these comments in writing since I will be unable to attend the March 30 City Council meeting because of a prior commitment. I appreciated the work,time and care the city staff,Planning Commission and Council put into thoroughly examining the very important community housing issue. I appreciated having had numerous opportunities to comment on various issues and appreciated your indulgence when I might have gotten too enthusiastic with my comments. I can be reached at(805)546-0226 orjbunin@hbacc.org if you would like to further discuss our letter. Sincerely yours —7rCOUNCIL CDD DIR ErCAO FIN DIR Jerry Bunin LTACAO FIRE CHIEF Government Affairs Director ;;-ATTORNEY PW DIR Home Builders Association of the Central Coast ❑ etERKIORIG POUCE CHF ❑ DEP HEADS REC DIR pi /t UTIL DIR PO Box 13010 805.546.wa __...,� HR DIR 2078 Parker Street, Suite 210 805.546.0339:fax San Luis Obispo,California 93406-3010 www.hbacc.com:intemet RECEIVED P iAil 9 2064 March 29, 2004 FILE MEETING AGENDA SLO CITY CLERK � pA�ITEM # an Luis Obispo Council Members and Mayor, At the last San Luis Property Owners Association Board of Directors Meeting, we were given a presentation by a team from City staff led by Jeff Hook. The presentations focus was the new programs included in the final draft of the City's General Plan Housing Element (See Attached). After review of the presentation, the SLOPOA Directors have the following recommendations we urge you to strongly consider as you make your final decisions in this matter. We strongly support the following programs: A. Quantified Housing Objectives D. Pursue grantstassistance to reduce development fees E. Rezone C-S, M and PF where appropriate F. Flexible standards for Downtown housing development G. Exempt housing affordable to moderate income households I. ARC review exemption for developments under four units J. Increase the allowed density for downtown residential K Encourage Cal Poly and Cuesta to provide housing L. Sustainable housing and neighborhood design We feel, as a group, these programs will be productive for San Luis Obispo and provide effective tools to provide additional housing without dramatically changing the cultural landscape. We support program M (Preference to locals in affordable housing program participation) in concept, as long as this approach is used to accommodate our present workforce needs and not as a tool for what was previously called °Demand Management°. We are opposed to program H (No net loss of downtown core housing). If a building is zoned for a particular use, it should be allowed to realize it. This is a zoning issue, not a housing element issue. If H'is implemented, at least allow the definition of housing in the downtown core to include group housing units. Currently, group housing is not included because there is not individual kitchen facilities in each unit (i.e. Manse on Marsh). This would give credit for putting high-density housing downtown while allowing commercial properties to operate as zoned in the down town core. We had broad-based support for Table 2A of program C, but found most of the board in disagreement to increasing the in-lieu fees as a means to encourage affordable housing growth. Most felt density bonuses and offset allowances would be more effective tools to provide the incentives to,-p��vate ,lst VMJ v OUNCIL ` CED "'F'FiN DIR �`ACAO. FIRE CHIEF Q-ATTORNEY 1 Pw OIR [P£LERK/ORIaPOLICHF �EPT,yyEADs RECD I IR �'1►�--�— UTIL DIR �RDIa Program B (rental inspection program) had the strongest opposition from the board. We strongly oppose this program because we feel there are many downsides that stand in the way of overall effectiveness. it is an invasion of privacy, there are already programs in place to handle non-compliance issues, the fees in programs like this tend to rise and get out of control, the fees would merely be passed onto tenants in the form of increased rents, and the issues in San Luis Obispo are not similar to other areas where programs like this have been successful. Thank you for your consideration of our concerns with programs B, C, H, and M. We are interested in creating realistic solutions for San Luis Obispo housing. We appreciate being included in this lengthy, but worthwhile process. CRespectfull submitted, Paul Brown President San Luis Obispo Property Owners Association IIIIIIIIIIIII� I!I!lill) Clty Or MEN' San tins OBISPO fmaL 6Raft GEnERal plan housmG Element - new puoGRams A. Quantified housing objectives to accommodate up to 4,087 new dwellings between 2001-2009. Of these, 1,187 units for Cal Poly B. A rental inspection program to improve condition of housing stock C. Change Inclusionary Housing Requirement to increase in-lieu fees to encourage housing production; and new sliding scale to encourage smaller, more compact housing to achieve"affordability by design' D. Pursue grants and outside assistance to help reduce development fees for affordable housing and first-time homebuyers program E. Consider rezoning C-S, M and PF properties where housing use is more appropriate F. Provide flexible standards and incentives for Downtown housing development, including possibility of reduced or no parking required or use of City facilities to meet parking G. Amend growth management rules to exempt housing affordable to moderate income persons H. Amend Downtown housing conversion permit to ensure"no net loss of housing"in the Core and Downtown Planning Area I. Exempt residential developments of up to four units from ARC review/hearings. Simpler staff review instead J. Consider increasing allowed residential density Downtown from 36 units/Acre to for example,48—60 units/A. K. Encourage Cuesta and Cal Poly to produce on-campus student housing; encourage staff and faculty housing such as H-8/H-9 on Highway 1 L. Sustainable housing and neighborhood design (e.g. solar access, energy- saving,recyclable materials) M. Give preference to persons living or working in SLO City or living in SLO County for special affordable housing programs Allen Settle-Table 2A — --- Page 1 I From: <ANCARTER@aol.com> To: <asettle@slocity.org>, <cmulholland@slocity.org>, <kschwartz@slocity.org>, <jewan@slocity.org>, <dromero@slocity.org> Date: Thu, Mar 18,2004 9:54 PM Subject: Table 2A Dear Council Members: RECEIVED Here's an issue with Table 2A that hit me yesterday. Table 2A presupposes MAK 23 2004 that the residential developer/builder has control over density. In other words SLO CITY CLERK that he can build denser and have a greater number of smaller units if he wants in order to have a lower inclusionary housing requirement. The problem is this isn't the case in the south part of town where almost all of our build-out residential development is supposed to take place. Why's that? Because of the Airport Land Use Commission. I also wanted to make sure you are aware that,for all practical purposes, Table 2A only applies to residential development. So the inclusionary housing requirement in expansion areas will vary from 0%to 30%for residential development and will be a fixed 5%for commercial. Andrew Carter 1283 Woodside Drive San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805-594-1906 ancarter@aol.com CC: <Iprice@slocity.org>, <khampian@slocity.org> 4A -- ,2 COUNC L -.7=-CDD DiR CAO P'PIN DIR 2 ACAO Z FIRE CHIEF , RED FILE 'ATTORNEY Z PW DIR 0 CLERK/ORIG:.• ErPOUCE CHF ME ING AGENDA El DEPT HEADS ,P..+�REC DIR DA ITEM #�I_ I J Z UTIL DIR i 2/HR DIR Ai,�__, JAHNEE PRINCIPLE= for Resource-Efficient Communities Existing patterns of urban and suburban development seriously impair our quality of life.The symptoms are:more congestion and air pollution resulting from our in- creased dependence on automobiles,the loss of precious open space,the need for costly improvements to roads and public services,the inequitable distribution of economic resources and the loss ofa sense of community. By drawing upon the best from the past and the present,we can,first,infill existing communities and,second,plan new commu- nities that will more successfully serve the needs of those who live and work within them. Such planning should adhere to-these fundamental principles: Community Principles 1. All planning should be in the form of complete and integrated communities containing housing,shops,work places,schools,parks and civic facilities essential to the daily life of the residents. 2. Community size should be designed so that housing,jobs,daily needs and other activities are within easy walking distance of each other. 3. As many activities as possible should be located within easy walking distance of transit stops. 4. A community should contain a diversity of housing types to enable citizens from a wide range of economic levels and age groups to live within its boundaries. 5. Businesses within the community should provide a range of job types for the community's residents. 6. The location and character of the community should be consistent with.a larger transit network. 7. The community should have a center focus that combines commercial,civic,cultural and recreational uses. 8. The community should contain an ample supply of specialized open space in the form of squares,greens and parks whose frequent use is encouraged through placement and design. 9.. Public spaces should be designed to encourage the attention and presence of people at all hours of the day and night. 10. Each community or cluster of communities should haven well defined edge, such as agricultural greenbelts or wildlife corridors,permanently protected from development. 11. Streets.-pedestrian paths and bike paths should contribute to a system of fully- connected and interesting routes to all destinations.Their design should encourage pedestrian and bicycle use by being small and spatially defined by buildings,trees and lighting;and by discouraging high speed traffic. (continued on back) 12. Wherever possible,the natural terrain,drainage,and vegetation of the community should be preserved with superior examples contained within parks or greenbelts. 13. The community design should help conserve resources and minimize waste. 14. Communities should provide for the efficient use of water through the use of natural drainage,drought tolerant landscaping and recycling.. 15. The street orientation,the placement of buildings and the use of shading should contribute to the energy efficiency of the community. Regional Principles 1. The regional land-use planning structure should be integrated within a larger transportation network built around transit rather than freeways. 2. Regions should be bounded by and provide acontinuous system of greenbelt/ wildlife corridors to be determined by natural conditions. 3. Regional institutions and services(government,stadiums,museums,etc.) should be located in the urban core. 4. Materials and methods of construction should be specific to the region,exhibiting continuity of history and culture and compatibility with the climate to encourage the development of local character and community identity. Implementation Strategy 1. The general plan should be updated to incorporate the above principles. 2. Rather than allowing piecemeal development,local governments should take charge of the planning process.General plans should designate where new growth, infill or redevelopment will be allowed to occur. 3. Prior to any development,a specific plan should be prepared based on these planning principles.With the adoption of specific plans,complying projects could proceed with minimal delay. 4. Plans should be developed through an open process and participants in the process should be provided visual models of all planning proposals. Authors: Editors: Peter Calthorpe Judy Corbett Michael Corbett Peter Katz Andres Duany Steve Weissman Elizabeth Moule Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk Stefanos Polyzoides For more information contact the Center for Livable Communities 1414 K Street,Suite 250,Sacramento,CA 95814,916/448-1198 ©Copyright 1991,Local Government Commission,Sacramento,CA