HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/14/2004, PH1 - HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENTS council 12_Ia-oa
j ac Enna REpoRt
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: John Mandeville,Director of Communit elopment
Prepared By: Jeff Hook, Senior Pl
SUBJECT: HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENTS
CAO RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Planning Commission, adopt a resolution amending the General Plan
Housing Element.
DISCUSSION
Overview
On March 3e , Council adopted the Housing Element Update. As required by State housing
law, staff submitted the adopted element to the State Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) for review. Recently, after several months of coordination with City staff,
HCD has determined the Housing Element meets State law, provided that additional information
and clarification is included by formally amending the Housing Element. HCD has assured the
City that once the amendments are adopted and resubmitted, HCD staff will "certify" the City's
Housing Element as being in compliance with State law. If the City achieves certification by the
end of this year, San Luis Obispo will qualify for a Workforce Housing Reward Grant.
Advisory Body Recommendation
The Planning Commission is scheduled to review the proposed amendments at its December 8`s
special meeting. At the time of this writing, the Commission had not yet reviewed the
amendments. The Commission's action and comments will be forwarded to the Council as soon
as they are available.
Coordination with HCD
The City received HCD comments on the adopted Housing Element on August 2°d. Staff
responded with a detailed letter (Attachment 1), including proposed changes (Attachment 2) to
address HCD comments. The proposed changes — or "amendments" -- are contained mainly in
Appendix C—Housing Constraints and Resources. Minor graphic and editorial changes are also
being made to Chapters 1-4 and the Appendices for clarity and visual interest, as the Council was
assured during the adoption hearings. The changes in Appendix C provide additional
background information or clarification to meet State requirements; they do not change adopted
policy or programs.
On November 12'', HCD notified the City that the draft revisions address the statutory
requirements described in HCD's previous review (Attachment 3). The letter states our Housing
Element will be in full compliance with State housing element law once it is adopted with the
revisions and resubmitted to HCD. Although relatively minor, the revisions do constitute an
- t.
Draft Housing Element Update,March 30,2004 Council Meeting Page 2
amendment to the General Plan and require Planning Commission review and City Council
action to take effect. Timely action is essential if the City is to be eligible for the 2004
Workforce Housing Reward Program.
Workforce Housing Reward Program Grant
The Workforce Housing Reward Program (WFH) is a relatively new State grant designed to
encourage cities and counties to approve affordable housing for low-income households. It
rewards communities retroactively based on the number of affordable, low- and very-low income
dwellings that received final land use approval and building permits during the grant year
(calendar year 2004). WFH funds are not awarded on competitive basis — all cities and counties
that meet eligibility requirements will be funded to the extent state funds are available. A total of
$23 million is available in 2004. Staff estimates the City will be eligible for$60,000 to $100,000
in grant funding in recognition of affordable dwellings recently approved and built in San Luis
Obispo. Grant applications are due in March 2005 and award announcements are anticipated in
June 2005. To be eligible for WFH funding, the City must have a State-certified housing
element by December 31St, 2004.
Proposed Amendments
HCD's questions and comments focused on housing needs, resources and constraints. The
State's main concern was that the Housing Element identify adequate sites and/or capacity to
accommodate the City's share of the regional housing need (RHNA) for all income levels. As
explained in staff's letter (and in Appendix D of the adopted Element), the City's residential
capacity exceeds its RHNA number as reflected in the Quantified Objectives, Chapter 3.
Consequently, the City meets State law in this regard. Note that the City is not responsible for
actually providing the number dwellings shown in our Quantified Objectives, but rather, to show
that the City has enough appropriately zoned land to accommodate our RHNA allocation for
lower-income households. HCD now concurs that the Housing Element adequately does that.
The changes are of such a minor, non-substantive nature that the Director has determined they do
not change the project description or the previous negative declaration of environmental impact
approved by Council (Resolution No. 9543, 2004 Series). Thus, no further environmental review
is required.
What's Next
Following Council's action, staff will forward the Council's resolution adopting the
amendments, and the revised Housing Element, to HCD. According to Don Thomas, the HCD
staff member who has worked closely with the.City, we could then anticipate receiving written
state certification by December 31st, 2004.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. City Response to HCD's August 2, 2004 Comments on the Adopted Housing Element
2. Draft Changes to General Plan Housing Element, Appendix' C.
3. HCD Letter,November 12, 2004
4. Draft Council Resolution
Council Reading File: Draft Amended 2004 Housing Element
WHOOKViousing Element Update\CARI2-14-04HEamend.doc
1 _ �
Attachment 1
A city of
san Luis OBISPO
August 31, 2004
Department of Housing and Community Development
1800 Yd Street, Room 430
Sacramento, CA 95814
Attnc Don Thomas, Housing Policy Analyst
Subject: August 2,2004 Review of San Luis Obispo's Adopted Housing Element
Don:
Thank you for the constructive comments on San Luis Obispo's adopted housing element,
provided in your Department's letter of August 2nd, as well as the many hours you've spent
helping the City achieve certification. It is truly appreciated. I've reviewed the letter and as we
discussed on July 28th, have prepared draft changes to the housing element for your "informal"
review, along with a"response to comments" which notes changes and clarifications.
The proposed housing element changes are attached. I believe they resolve the remaining issues
identified in the letter. The changes provide additional background information or clarification
to meet state requirements; they do not change adopted policy or programs. Once you've had a
chance to review this, let's review and finalize the changes. I will then revise the Housing
Element and resubmit it for certification. .
This effort culminates an unprecedented, two and a half year community effort involving some
33 public meetings. We believe that effort has produced an innovative and comprehensive
document that will provide the tools the City needs to address its housing needs. In addition to
undergoing extensive public review, the Draft Housing Element originally reviewed by HCD
was significantly revised to address community suggestions and comments and to respond to
your agency's comments. The result, we believe, is a housing element which will significantly
expand housing opportunities for all income groups and which meets state housing law.
Please contact Jeff Hook at(805) 781-7176 if you have questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
Michael Draze,Deput for
Community Develop nt
1
HCD Review of Augur. ., 2004
Page 2 Attachment 1
Attachments:
1. Response To Comments
2. Excerpts from Housing Element showing proposed revisions
Previously Sent: Residential Development Capacity survey, Residential Growth Management
Ordinance and Residential Phasing Plan, and Draft Margarita Area
M./housing demcnt updawbcdlena8-31-04
HCD Review of August 2004 '-?
Attachment 1
ge 3
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM HCD'S AUGUST 2,2004 REVIEW
(HCD comments are paraphrased below, followed by City responses in italics. Page numbers
refer to the Housing Element adopted March 30, 2004, as amended in draft.)
A. Housing Needs,Resources,and Constraints
1. Permit Processing Procedures: While the adopted element now describes the typical review and
approval process for single-family uses, it still must describe and analyze the approval process for multi-
family and mixed use developments, including level of review and an indication of the typical conditions
of approval that are imposed on multifamily projects.
Response: Refer to revised page 119, paragraph g). This section has been expanded to address
the review process for multi family and mixed use developments.
2. Residential Growth Management Regulations: The element was not revised to address this
requirement. The element still needs to describe how the City's growth management provisions are
implemented and assess the potential impacts on the costs and supply of housing.
Response: Refer to revised page 106, paragraph d). This section has been expanded to describe
how the growth management system operates, including how permits are allocated whether
unused permits "rollover" to future years, and the impact of the phasing plan. On page 108 the
Element explains why growth management regulations will not prevent the City from
accommodating its share of the RHNA, and the proposed revision further clarifies this point.
3. Housing Constraints for Disabled Persons: The element indicates the City enforces the ADA, is
committed to removing barriers, and uses CDBG funds to assist developers of projects that are accessible
to persons with disabilities. The Element still needs to include an analysis of governmental constraints on
housing for persons with disabilities and describe the City's procedures for approval of group homes,
ADA retrofit efforts, and an evaluation of the zoning code for ADA compliance or other measures
providing flexibility in the development of housing for persons with disabilities. Also indicate whether
City has taken steps to modify the definition of a"family" unit so as not to preclude the establishment of
group homes in residential zones and whether City imposes a fee for "reasonable accommodation"
requests and whether these requests are limited to the person with the disability.
Response: Refer to revised page 117, section entitled "Americans with Disabilities Act." This
section has been expanded to address the issues listed above.
4. On-and Off-Site Improvements: While the cover letter that accompanied the submittal of the adopted
element includes a listing of on- and off-site improvement requirements for infill and expansion areas,
this information was not incorporated into the element. As discussed, this information should be included
in the element.
Response: Typical on- and of -site improvement requirements have been added on pages 116
and 117 under "Site Improvement Requirements."
HCD Review of August-.r.,'2004
Page 4 Attachment 1
B. Housing Programs
1. To identify sites to accommodate the City's share of the regional housing need for all income levels,
the following programs still need to be revised and strengthened:
A. While the inventory of sites listed in the Residential Development Capacity Survey is sufficient to
accommodate the City's total regional housing need, there is a shortfall of appropriately zoned
and suitable sites to accommodate the new construction need for lower-income households of
2,239.
State law requires local governments to show they have enough appropriately zoned land to
accommodate their RHNA allocation for lower-income households. Vacant or underdeveloped
sites with adequate services and zoning to allow at least 18 dwellings per acre are counted
toward meeting the City's quantified objective for new lower-income housing. The City's
Quantified Objective for new lower-income housing, as shown in Table 7, is 2,167 dwellings
(1,390 very-low plus 777 low- income dwellings).
In San Luis Obispo, ten zones allow residential densities of at least 18 dwellings per acre.
Table 1 below lists those zones, the amount of vacant and underdeveloped acreage available,
and the maximum number of dwellings possible in each zone. Residential acreage figures
include Margarita Specific Plan Area, slated for annexation in 2005.
Table 1. Potential Maximum Number of Lower-Income Dwellings, 2004-20091
Zone Type Allowed Density, Acres Max.No.of Total
Density Units/Acre Vacant Under- Dwellings/Acre' Dwelline
Utilized=
R-2 Medium Density 12 47 20(10) 18.75 1,069
Residential
R-3 Medium-High 18 10 6(3) 28 364
Density
Residential
R-4 I-Tigh Density 24 2 8(4) 37..5 225
Residential
O Office 12 22 10(5) 18.75 253
C-R Retail- 36 1 8(4) 56.25 141
Commercial
C-C Downtown 36 0 10(5) 56.25 141
(C-D) Commercial
C-N Neighborhood 12 3 2(1) 18.75 38
Commercial
C-S Service- 24 24 28(14) 37.5 713
Commercial
C-T Tourist- 12 7 29(14.5) 18.75 202
Commercial
M Manufacturing 24 30 24(12) 37.5 788
Total 3 934
HCD Review of August 2,2004
Page 5 Attachment 1
Footnotes:
1. Table 1 shows maximum possible numbers of actual dwellings—not"density units"based on zones,
acres,and maximum allowed residential densities. They assume vacant and underutilized sites will be
developed to the maximum extent allowed by law. The numbers do not,however, include density
bonuses. Projects that include at least 20% of the dwellings for very-low, low-or moderate income
households are eligible to receive a 25%density bonus by right.
2. Figures for underutilized parcels conservatively assume a 50% redevelopment potential;that is,that y2
of the site area can be fully redeveloped at the maximum allowed density.
3. Maximum number of units per acre assumes a mix of studio, 1-bedroom and 2-bedroom units
averaging 0.64 Density Units per dwelling. Maximum number of dwellings is derived as follows:
(allowed Density Units per net acre)(total acres)/0.64. Use acreages in parentheses to reflect 50%
site utilization for underutilized parcels.
4. In non-residential zones,the maximum number of dwellings is reduced by 50% to allow for mixed
residential and commercial uses.
As shown in Table 1 above, the maximum number of dwellings that could be developed at
densities of 18 dwellings per net acre or greater equals 3,934 dwellings. This significantly
exceeds the City's quantified objective for very-low and low income housing. This number
differs from residential capacities listed in Housing Element Appendix D because it is based on
the maximum number of dwellings possible under current zoning (as opposed to site-based
estimates), assumes a shift to higher average residential densities in multi:family and mixed-use
developments, and assumes 10 acres of underutilized land in the C-D zone (formerly C-C) zone.
The previous survey identified only 1 acre of underutilized C-D zone land, although most lots in
the 46-acre zone could accommodate significantly more development under current zoning
standards.
B. According to Table 2 in the Survey, sites in the C-C; C-R, and R4 zones appear appropriate to
accommodate the City's regional housing need, but these sites only have a maximum capacity of
389 units. This leaves a remaining need of 1,850 for lower income units.
As noted above, ten City zones can accommodate residential densities appropriate for lower-
income housing, not just C-C, C-R, and R-4. It is the City's intention through Housing Element
programs to broaden the range of housing types, tenure and cost by promoting more compact,
higher-density housing, and mixed-use, workforce housing in commercial zones.
Also note that Table 2 in the survey lists Density Units. It's important to differentiate between
Density Units and Dwelling Units. In San Luis Obispo, development capacity is typically stated
in "Density Units." One density unit is equivalent to a two-bedroom dwelling. A studio
apartment is equivalent to 0.5 density unit, and a one bedroom unit is equivalent to 0.66 density
unit. Dwellings with three or more bedrooms are equivalent to two density units. To determine
the maximum number of dwellings that could be built, the maximum number of Density Units
allowed is first determined based on zone, site area and slope. Density Units are then divided
by the total density unit equivalencies for the types of.units to be built. For example, 2 Density
c — �
i 1
HCD Review of August-.&�;2004 Attachment 1
Page 6
Units would accommodate one 4-bedroom dwelling, or two 2-bedroom dwellings, or three 1-
bedroom dwellings, or four studio dwellings, or any combination of unit types not exceeding 2
Density Units..
C. To demonstrate City can provide development opportunities for its remaining regional share of
lower-income households, Programs 6.3.5 and 6.3.6 should be expanded and strengthened,
describing the specific acreage of high-density zoned land to be designated within the Margarita
and Orcutt Specific Plan areas along with minor annexations listed in Tables D-3 and D-4.
When potential dwelling units are considered, there is sufficient, appropriately zoned land within
the City and in the planned Margarita Specific Plan Area to accommodate the City's regional
share of housing for lower-income households. The Housing Element contains a number of new
programs aimed at preserving and increasing lower- and moderate income housing
opportunities, including 2.3.1 (expanded inclusionary housing), 3.3.5(no net loss housing), 6.3.1
(exempting housing affordable to very-low, low-, moderate-income households and Downtown
housing from growth management regulations), 6.3.3 and 6.3.4 (incentives for Downtown high-
density housing), 6.3:5, 6.3.6, and 6.3.7 (accommodating higher density and workforce housing
in expansion areas and in commercial, manufacturing or public facility areas), 6.3.11 (multi-
family housing standards for streamlined processing) and 6.3.14 (architectural review
exemptions for small residential projects). These programs are expected to significantly
increase housing opportunities in San Luis Obispo. No additional programs are proposed
D. If annexations along will not be sufficient to accommodate regional needs, modify Program 6.3.7
to describe specific acreages, densities and timeframes for rezoning/up-zoning to meet such
needs.
See comments under C. above.
E. Available acreages and buildout projections for vacant and underutilized sites listed in Tables D-1
(page 135), D-4 (page 140) and those listed in the Residential Development Capacity Survey
conflict. Expand the element to reconcile these differences.
Minor differences are noted between Table D-1 of the Housing Element and Table 2, "In-City
Development Capacity by Zone" in the February 2004 Residential Development Capacity
Survey. Development Capacity in Acres for vacant land in the C-C and C-R zones should read
"<1.." Otherwise, the tables are internally consistent. Note that the figures in Table D-1 include
Blighted properties (see footnote 1). Table 2 breaks out Blighted properties separately. This
may account for the minor differences.
2. As noted previously, the City's housing element requires a more thorough analysis of its permit
processing procedures and other potential government constraints. Depending upon that analysis,the
City may need to add programs to remove of mitigate any identified constraints.
Potential and actual governmental constraints have been analyzed and are discussed starting on
p. 96. Additional discussion of permit processing and potential constraints has been included, as
noted in Section A., Housing Needs, Resources and Constraints, above. Efforts to remove or
modify requirements that might hinder San Luis Obispo from meeting its share of the regional
housing need are evidenced in several programs in Chapter 3, including: 2.31 (modifies
� � b
HCD Review of Auguse,., 2004 Attachment 1
Page 7
Inclusionary Housing Requirements to provide incentives for compact, higher density housing),
2.3.3 (policy review), 2.3.4 (permit streamlining), 2.3.5 ("green" building technology), 2.3.6
(impact fees assistance), 2.3.7(development review fees assistance),pages 26 and 27.
AILAousing cica=t updaulhcdlurer8-31-04
City of San Luis Obispo Housing Element Attachment 2
Appendix C
Housing Constraints and Resources
a®rorm �. _ c�er.�r\...,..,--..,:;cs..o;:K•,.:.nxN->.:.<c�....�..;..vr..c»„n4x ti.cr—.:/ _:-�.��':..,
1. Governmental Constraints
Governmental constraints are the policies, standards, requirements, actions or fees imposed by
local, State or Federal governments to guide land use and development. Their purpose is to
ensure that communities are well planned,and to protect the health, safety and well being of all
residents. Within the City of San Luis Obispo, local building and zoning regulations are the
primary regulatory tools guiding development. Some regulations, such as the Uniform Building
Code and the California Environmental Quality Act, are State-mandated policies and standards
implemented at the local level. Although State and Federal agencies do play a role in the
imposition of government constraints, these agencies are generally beyond the influence of local
government and are not analyzed in this document.
As further described below,land use,development and construction standards can affect the type,
location, number and cost of new dwellings. In general, these standards are intended to protect
public health, welfare and safety and are necessary to carry out state, federal or local law. In
achieving these public purposes, government rules may serve to constrain the construction rate,
amount or design of new housing. State law requires that governmental constraints on housing
be addressed in the Housing Element, with the goal of removing or modifying such constraints
where possible to encourage suitable housing. Program 3.3.3 calls for the City to evaluate code
requirements and development standards to remove unnecessary constraints to housing while still
protecting public health, welfare and safety. _ Such evaluation is on-going, as part of the
preparation, review, or amendment of local development regulations, or as needed to address
specific issues raised by decision makers or the public.
a) Land Use Controls
General Plan
By State law, all California cities must have a general plan to guide land use, transportation,
housing and other important facets of the community. The general plan is the foundation of all
local land use controls,and embodies the community's vision for an environmentally sound,life-
sustaining future. Seven mandated elements,or chapters,make up the general plan,plus optional
elements adopted by the jurisdiction to address special community concerns. Among these
elements, the land use element identifies the location, nature,distribution and character of land
uses in the City.
To implement the General Plan, the City uses a number of planning tools including Zoning
Regulations, Specific Plans, Subdivision Regulations, Community Design Guidelines, Historic
96
City of San Luis Obispo Housing Element Attachment 2
Preservation Program Guidelines and Parking and Driveway Standards: Property owners,
developers, architects and others use these standards in designing new housing developments.
The standards help explain the City's requirements and expectations, and are used by the City
when reviewing development proposals.
Policies outlined in the land Use Element stipulate the amount, type and location of housing.
They also help establish the prevailing housing patterns and population density. Residential
zones account for over 40 percent of total zoned land area within City limits. The San Luis
Obispo General Plan provides for four residential zones, plus nine zones where housing is
allowed with special approval. Table C-1 shows the land use zones that allow housing, their
existing acreage and the ranges of density allowed.
Table C-1
Land Use Categories Allowing Residential Uses
Cityof San Luis Obispo
x7me` bs; �Descappan. � s Acres in 2003` �'` o ed>Densz c
' c: rrcc r e v , Rf tYrtDerfs_y`
� ... ^��,�5 �"
R-1 Low-density Residential 1,672 7
R-2 Medium-density Residential 497 12
R-3 Medium-high-density 166 18
Residential
R4 High-density Residential 72 24
1
C-C Community Commercial 91 36
C-D Downtown Commercial 45 36
formed "C-C"zone
C-R General Commercial 166 36
C-N Neighborhood Commercial 51 12
C.T Tourist Commercial 205 12
C-S Commercial Service 461 12'
M Manufacturing 186 t
O Office 169 12
GOS Canservation/Open Space - 1.812 one dwelling/fin acres
A Density Unit is equivalent to a two-bedroom dwelling. Other sized dwellings: Studio dwelling,0.3 DU;
bedroom dwelling,dwelling,0.66 DU;three-bedroom, 1.5 DU;four or more bedrooms,2.00 DUs. Net acre refers to site
area minus dedicated right-of-way.
97
c — c (
Attachment 2
City of San Luis Obispo Housing Element
ZCommunity Commercial is a new zone in 2003,and consists of large shopping centers.
3 I combination with Mixed-Use(MU)overlay zone,up to 24 DU/acre allowed. 12 DU/acre considered likely
average density achieved.
General Plan policies encourage infill development to avoid sprawl, and also designate major
residential expansion areas outside city limits and within the Urban Reserve, the City's
anticipated urban limits at build out. The policies seek to balance residential development with
open space preservation and availability of urban services. According to the General Plan land
Use Element, a total of 24,300 dwellings is anticipated within the City by the year 2022,
accommodating approximately 57,200 persons. As of January 2003, the State Department of
Finance reported 19,558 dwellings in San Luis Obispo,housing a total of 44,359 persons.
b)Zoning Regulations and Development Standards
Zoning Regulations implement the City's General Plan land use policies. They establish specific
development standards, allowable land uses, performance standards and the permit process
necessary for the City's orderly development. Zoning regulations control development by
regulating allowed uses, and by development standards that set density, building setbacks,
building height, lot area and parking requirements. The regulations apply equally to mobile
homes, manufactured and site-built housing. Table C-2 summarizes residential zoning
development standards for San Luis Obispo. The standards are comparable to other
communities' requirements and ensure a quality living environment for all households,
regardless of tenure or income group.
Secondary Residential Units
Secondary residential units, or "granny flats", are permitted on legal, conforming lots in any
residential zone. Such units allow property owners to provide modest,affordable studio units by
right on legal, conforming residential lots. Also, several exceptions or variance procedures
possible in the"planned development"and"specific plan"zones allow flexibility in site planning
and building design to encourage the development of housing for special needs groups, and to
provide density bonuses for projects which include affordable housing which meets or exceeds
City standards. Table C-3 lists some of the City's Flexible Development Standards to encourage
housing.
Enerev Conservation
Compliance with Title 25 of the California Administrative Code on the use of energy efficient
appliances and insulation has reduced energy demands resulting from new residential
development- The City's Energy Conservation Element, Subdivision and Zoning Regulations
promote energy-conserving design and placement of buildings, and Pacific Gas and Electric
offers public information and technical assistance to developers and residents on ways to
conserve energy in the home. City policies encourage alternative building designs that conserve
98
l 1 �
Attachment 2
City of San Luis Obispo Housing Element
energy through passive and active solar features,"green"building technology and appropriate use
of landscaping to help reduce heat gain,preserve solar access,and provide windbreaks.
99
t1 [3
Attachment 2
Table C-2
Summary of Residential Development Standards,2003
City of San Luis ObisPo
Zane Midamor Ma:Lot Max. Bldg Mia Street Min,Other Car 3'aridng Required UK
Lot Area Coverage aetEht Yard' Yard' Reqs
Dv
R-1 6.000 40% 25' 20' 5-10' 2 spaces/dwelling;I of which
M
ust in or..+IR sp n
R-2 6.000 50% 25' W. 5-10, 1.5 sp/i'bdrnfor herb
add].bedrmJuniC plus Ispl5 units
in pmjwts of 6 or more units
R-3 61000 60% 35' 15' 5-10' Same as R-2
R4 6.000 60% 35' 15' 5-10' Same as R-2
C-C 3.000 75% 35' 0' 0' %that required in other zones
C-D 3.000 75% 50' 0' 0' 'A that required in other zones
C-R 9.000 100% 45' 0' 0' Same as R-2
C-N 6100 75% 35' IO' 5.10' Same as R-2
C-T 9,000 75% 45' 10' 0' Same as R-2
CS 9,000 75% 35' 10'-15' 0' Same as R-2
M 9,000 75% 35' I0'-15' 0' Same as R-2
O 6.000 60% 25.35' IS' 5.10' Same as R-2
C/OS 5 Acres(A) 5%-parcels< 35' 20' W. 2 spacWdw Umg;1 of which
or more 10 A:3%for must in garage or carport
>10 A
Source: City of San Iris Obispo.Community Development Department
'in the C-C.C-D and C-R zones,the street yard and Other Yard are equal to that required for the adjacent lot. If adjacent Int does not haw
sum yard is required. In CS and M zones.Other yard is 0'or as required for the adjacent lot.
235'height requires Adminisua ive Use Permit approval.
'Dwellings located above ground floor allowed by right;Administradve use permit required for dwellings on the ground floor.
City of San Lois Obispo Housing Element
Attachment 2
tin-Work and Work-Un units requite Administrative use Permit approval.
Table C-3
Selected Flexible Residential Development Standards,2003
City of San Luis Ob'
-=;�llevdo`-_"Feetifro-- 1.-, ..,�Ffa+Wastanaaca ,.,. `.;::rotenaaltudes:, �
Where Reudeaud Uses Allowed Dwellings allowed in combination w/snyothcr-—. Mixed-ale developments,affordable or mad
use with Mind Use zone ho
Residmtial Density Bonuses 25%density Douus anlamatically allowed if 20% Very-low.low.and moderate income bousin
ofpmjeer units aftardable or for elderly.OWcr elderly housing.
stadard and negotiable density boouva Possible
NonConfowing lots lata that wee legally totaled bra do nes meet Residential Ids less than 6A00 square four
curt sire o,AimcosioU standards may be
individually developed
Nonconforming Structures Dwellings that an,mnc nonning in temp of Legal.nouconfmming single-and multi-fan.
density,yards,coverage or parking may be¢built d"Hur a that are legal,ooucodbnnurg and
aparviouslye ' ' ifinvehurrarrilydesuroyed involuntaril or destroyed
Density Transfer Residmid density may be transferred within raw Hillside orcreekside las wbee devdopmen
covered by a planned de trensfesred to cluster devellopurent
SbmorOtber YardSerhatb Stree yards may be idnrod tol0'fabuiWmgL Additiomhrmodels oflegal.ooncenformin;
and Other Yards reduced to O'with CUP approval dwellings;zoo4ot line dee
Tandem Kiting .One unenclosed tandem parking space may be Dwellings with garage conversions and for S
located in—I Soot Yards fordesigoamd BesidmtiW unite and 6m tl hiatal pocking
single delliop dniedwelhw
Shard and Mixed Uan larking - wboe2ormoeu0sharepsding,a30% Mixed use developments wbere omopatibbe
patio teduai®u possible with CUP approval residential and commercial uses spare parkir
ekhiig for Elderly and Lo luazme Housing NfpsoAma mgauedfarelderlyhwsiog;lcar 1ocom" ion with emwy boom allows a
spae,Eicyek sporAmit be verybw/bvr income u ilirsdon ofaire for special needs housing
Parking and Driveway ReWhtmomts Parking and driveway standards(width.design. Allows mom creative design ofhounq:cap
msunials)variable with Dikator approval usefid on wall sites or for older neudrborho
Building Height Cou"acuesofnlarenergy,systems,chimneys. Hosing with War energy systems.roof-mor
meet Equipment,veal,steeples,and antenna mechanical equipmmt.ortelaor®unieetio
may exted up to 10 h.beyond Wowed building facilities.
bright
101
� - l�
Attachment 2
Mixed Residential and Commercial Uses
Mixed residential and commercial uses are encouraged to allow for more housing in areas close
to jobs and employment centers,to exploit affordable infill housing opportunities and to promote
a compact, pedestrian- and transit-friendly urban structure. Dwellings are permitted in all
commercial zones with either a conditional use permit or Mixed-Use (MU) rezoning, including
office, service-commerciaLtlight industrial and manufacturing zones. The application of an
"MU" overlay to any other zone requires a mix of residential and non-residential uses on either
residentially or commercially zoned sites. Allowed density and other development standards
follow those of the site's underlying zone,except that the application of the MU overlay zone to
a site may include establishing a higher height limit than the otherwise allowed to more
effectively accommodate the residential component of the mixed-use development. Mixed-use
development is an emerging development trend.in San Luis Obispo,and while there are no recent
examples locally,it is anticipated that residential densities of 24-45 density units per acre acre are
possible with this form of housing, particularly on suitable sites in the Downtown Core or in
Commercial Service areas. Establishing new mixed uses requires use permit approval. In 2003,
the City revised its zoning regulations to allow livelwork apartments in the C-S zone, and
work/live apartments in either the C-S or M zones. Previously, only caretaker quarters were
allowed in these zones. Program 6.3.3 calls for additional incentives to encourage mixed-use
developments in the Downtown Core, including flexible density, use, height or parking
provisions.
Parking Requirements
San Luis Obispo's car parking requirements are shown in Table C-2. The type and number of car
parking spaces varies by zone. Flexible parking requirements and design standards allow
developers to reduce parking by up to 30 percent for mixed-use developments. Flexible
standards also allow variety in parking locations, layouts and design in order to promote more
efficient and attractive use of residential sites. Bicycle and motorcycle parking also is also
required for multi-family housing at the rate of one motorcycle plus one bicycle space per 20 car
spaces.
Parking requirements indirectly constrain housing, especially in the Downtown Core where
parking is very limited. Because the Zoning Regulations require that parking be provided on the
same site as the use, this reduces the amount of land available for residential development.
While excessive parking requirements can unduly constrain housing, insufficient parking can
adversely affect residents' safety, quality of life and neighborhood compatibility. The City's
standards seek to establish a balance by allowing flexible requirements that can be tailored to
specific site conditions where necessary. Program 6.32 calls for amendments to City parking
regulations to allow flexible parking regulations for housing, especially in the Downtown Core
(C-D zone). Allowing reduced or no parking requirements for development of housing for
people who either do not own or need on-site parking will be considered..
Much of the City's Downtown Core was developed in the late 19th and early 20th century when
( ' r Lo
City of San Luis Obispo Housing Element Attachment 2
automobile parking was not required. Many parcels in the C-D and C-R zones lack onsite
parking. The Downtown Core is the most intensively developed area of the City, and
development standards encourage 100 percent site utilization and a mix. of commercial,
residential,cultural and governmental uses. In the C-D zone, parking is half of what is required
for residential use in otherzones,and may be met by locating parking off site, within 500 feet of
the use,or by paying a fee in lieu of providing parking. The long-term strategy has been to build
public parking facilities on the edges of Downtown to encourage infill and intensification,use of
public transit and a more"pedestrian friendly"Downtown Core.
The C-D zone allows the highest density housing in the City. However, housing is difficult to
build,in part,because of the difficulty in providing parking. Downtown hotels(Anderson Hotel,
Granada Hotel, Wineman Hotel, Blackstone Hotel) were developed with little or no. parking,
while providing housing for tourists or residents without cars. 2000 Census figures show that
about seven percent of San Luis Obispo householders did not own a car. For those without cars,
or those who use cars infrequently, Downtown provides an alternative housing choice near
schools,shopping,nightlife,jobs and services.. For those who do need cars,the possibility exists
for shared use of private or public downtown parking facilities. For example,some parking may
be available for rent in Downtown public parking facilities during evenings,when times of peak
parking demand do not coincide. Additional flexibility to allow very low or no parking
requirements for residents without cars and with adequate guarantees tied to occupancy, could
help expand housing opportunities in this important and desirable location.
Subdivision and Grading Reutulations
Subdivision regulations determine how land is subdivided and set requirements for facilities such
as public streets and utility lines that serve the new subdivisions. Specific requirements for
materials and construction are adopted as policy by the City, according to recommendations by
the City Engineer. Special limits and requirements are often set by the City Council when
approving individual subdivisions. The minimum lot size in residential zones is 6,000 square
feet, with minimum widths of 50 or 60 feet; however, exceptions to lot size and dimensions are
possible with City Council approval. As a special type of attached, ownership housing, the
Condominium Regulations set minimum standards for open-space,recreation, laundry facilities,
solar heating and storage that are higher than those applied to rental housing. The City s Grading
Regulations set limits and procedures for earth moving, generally to prevent mass recontouring
and erosion and to assure stable building sites.
Lot Size. Lot sizes and established neighborhood patterns influence the types of housing within
a community. Historically,most residential lots in San Luis Obispo ranged in size from 5,000 to
7,500 square feet, with about 6,000 square feet being common in newer subdivisions. The
subdivision of land into parcels of 6,000.10,000 square feet, regardless of allowed density, has
encouraged the development of low-density,detached housing. Reducing the minimum lot size
is often recommended as a means of increasing housing density and thereby reducing land cost
per unit of housing. It does not necessarily follow, however, that small lots will result in more
103
Attachment 2
City of San Luis Obispo Housing Element
affordable housing. There are many coastal resort communities in California with high-priced
cottages on small lots. In high-density residential areas, small lots may encourage the
construction of detached, rather than multi-family housing. Large parcels in medium-high and
high-density residential zones offer the best opportunities to encourage affordable housing.
Larger parcels in San Luis Obispo, even in low-density residential zones, are suitable for
apartments and condominiums.
San Luis Obispo allows relatively small lots of 6,000 square feet in all residential zones,and has
the second highest residential density of the County's cities (after Grover Beach) with about
4,500 persons per square mile. It remains,however,one of the most expensive housing markets
in the County. Clearly, market demand strongly influences housing costs. And while the City's
lot pattern has been established in most areas, lot patterns in expansion areas are yet to be
determined,allowing the opportunity for a mix of residential densities and lot sizes.
Land is a major component of housing costs in San Luis Obispo. In many of the City's older
neighborhoods, lot sizes of less than 6,000 square feet are common. While many housing
consumers prefer single,detached houses on 6,000-square-foot or larger lots, there also appears
to be a market for smaller,detached homes on relatively small (e.g.4,000 to 4,500 square feet)
lots. Reducing lot areas, with a concomitant reduction in house size,.is one strategy to reduce
housing costs for those desiring "starter housing," such as working couples and small families
just entering the housing market.In 2003 such development would require approval of a variance
or aplanned development(PD)rezoning.
c)Specific Plans
As the name implies, specific plans guide the development of a defined area to implement the
general plan. Such plans can vary widely in terms of geographic area covered, degree of
specificity,and land uses addressed. As shown in Table C-4,the City has four expansion areas
Table C4
Estimated Housing Capacity in Ex anion Areas 2003
anion-Area_ . DwellftitVrifts .
Orcutt 979
Margarita 868
Edna-Islay West 54
Minor Annexation Areas and Cal Poly' 2,091
TOTAL 3,992
(Foothill Saddle,Luneta,CDF,Highland,Miossi.Alrita,Maino,Cal Poly,and other residential areas).
Includes approximately 900 student apartments on the Cal Poly Campus.
104
r - cg
i
Attachment 2
City of San Loris Obispo Housing Element
that, when annexed and fully developed, could potentially add 3,091 dwellings; plus student
apartments being developed on the Cal Poly University campus. Most of the City's large
residential developments will be located in designated expansion areas located outside the 1993
City limits but inside the Urban Reserve Line. Figure C-1 shows the location of future
residential areas outside the 1994 City limits. City policies require the preparation of specific
plans for each of the major expansion areas, with provisions for phased housing development.
Each area's phasing will be determined,in part,by the affordability of the dwellings,and by other
public benefits such as open space. The specific plan area committed to producing the largest
number of dwellings affordable to very low-or low-income residents generally will be developed
first. As of the adoption date of this element,the Margarita and Orcutt Area Specific Plans have
not been adopted. Descriptions of the planned zoning and permitted uses in these areas,
including land available and suitable for higher density, multi-family rental and ownership
housing,are included in Appendix.K.
Figure C-1
Major
Expansion
Areas,2003
Margarita Specific
Plan Area. The
Margarita Specific
Plan Area, stated for
about 870 new
dwellings, will be
the next major
expansion area to be
developed. The
Margarita Area
contains about 418
acres in the south-
central part of the
City's urban area.
The City has
counted on the
Margarita Area to
provide a large share
of the City's future
^�Lkban aeswe Una housing needs and to
city of san Luis oeispo tosiderod balance projected
skmartrrte"t l owrrmrad&In tttrw job owth: A draft
®lke To Be leterriirieo N
Specific Plan and
105
L
Attachment 2
City of San Luis Obispo Housing Element
EIR were made available for public review at the start of 2002. City action on the long-awaited
Margarita Area Specific Plan and Draft EIR is anticipated in 2004, with construction starting in
2005.
Orcutt Expansion Area. The Orcutt Expansion Area covers about 231 acres in the southeastern
part of the urban area. Almost half of the area would be open space or parks. The rest would
accommodate up to 979 dwellings of various types,according to the specific Plan Draft prepared
in 2002 by a consultant retained by some of the property owners. During 2002, that consultant
and City staffers spent considerable time and effort working with all the Orcutt Area property
owners. In October 2002 the City Council endorsed a conceptual land use layout for the Orcutt
Area,and directed staff to proceed with preparation of a Specific Plan and Environmental Impact
Report. A major issue emerging in planning for future residential development in the southern
part of the city is how additional elementary school enrollment will be accommodated,if a school
cannot be located in either the Margarita Area or the Orcun Area, under policies adopted by the
independent Airport Land Use Commission.
d)Residential Growth Management Regulations
The General Plan targets a Population growth rate not to exceed one percent annually, averaged
over a three year period. The Residential Growth Management Regulations implement that
policv through the timing of building permit issuance. In 1999 the City significantly revised its,
growth management regulations to apply to new residential construction within the City's
designated expansion areas. The regulations include a phasing plan showing the number of new
dwellings to be.built in residential expansion areas, while the.timing of infill proiects is not
regulated. Table C-5 shows the phasing plan adopted in 2002. The phasing plan will be updated
in 2004 to reflect the status of the major expansion areas. As of August 2004, residential
construction in the Margarita and Orcutt areas has not vet begun.
The phrasing schedule is based primarily on the readiness of the identified expansion areas to
proceed with subdivision and development. This in turn was largely a consequence of-where the
areas were in the Process of adopting development plans and specific Plans, and annexation.
The phrasing identifies the anticipated number of new dwellings for each expansion area and the
anticipated time frame in .which thev will be built. The phasing plan.addresses allocations
among expansion areas, not to different owners within them.
New dwellings affordable to residents with very-low, low-or moderate incomes,as defined in the
General Plan Housing Element, and new dwellings in the Downtown are exempt front growth
management. The re¢ulations .are .implemented through the annual General Plat: review
process. The City Council annually reviews the status of residential construction in expansion
areas compared with the phasing schedule. As part of its review, the Council may consider
changes to the total number of dwellings built within a phasing period, changes to allow
allocations to be shifted among areas, or changes to the phasing intervals to accontntodate
planned buildout of expansion areas. If there is an unused allocation of dwellings in one
phasing period, the Council typically applies the unused balance to. future Years to achieve
106
C - �0
1
Attachment 2
City of San Luis Obispo Housing Element
housing production goals. if housing construction exceeds nluisine plan allocution. Council
pray temporarily limit the issuance of new building permits in expansion areas or modify the
plan to achieve residential growth targets.
Quantified objectives anticipate the construction of 4,087 dwellings during the planning period.
Of these, 73 percent, or about 2,984 units will be for very-low, low- and moderate income
households following the percentages of housing affordability in the City's RHNA number.
Very-low, low, and moderate income dwellings are exempt from the residential growth
regulations, as are infill housing, second dwelling units, and other residential development
outside designated Expansion areas..
Figure C-2
General Plan Anticipated Housing and Population Growth
City of San Luis Obispo
Table 2: Anticipated CSt}•Population Growth
60,000 54MO P.200
sz,2�
�e.roo
50.000 a eoo ®Approximate
40,000 Maximum Number
30.000 of Dwellings
20 CODIQ
21' zs�oo ❑Anticipated
Number of People
10.000 (1}
0 — - -
1992 1997 2002 2047, 2012 2017 2022
Source: City of San Luii Obispo General Plan Land Use Element
Estimated urban reserve capacity:57,700(2)
Notes:
(1)Includes residents of group housing.
(2)Includes Cal Poly campus residents,who are inside the urban reserve but who were outside the City limits in
1994.
107
AILlachnnent 2
City of San Luis Obispo Housing Element
(2)Includes Cal Poly campus residents,who are inside the urban reserve but who were outside the City limits in
1994.
Consequently, the Residential_Growth Management Regulations_will not prevent the City_ from___ --(Deleted;T
achieving its quantified objectives because they do not set a numeric cap on all housing. New
housing that is affordable to very low-, low-,and moderate-income households,and new housing
in the Downtown Core (C-D)and on the Cal Poly campus are exempt from the Regulations and
do not count toward the total number of dwellings built during phasing plan intervals. The total
number of dwellings allowed under the Phasing Plan during the planning period, plus the
projected number of exempt dwellings totals over 4.800 dwellings --significantly higher than the
City's RHNA number.
figure G2 shows the housing and population growth anticipated in the General Plan. General_ Deteted:9
Plan policies promote a balance of land uses to create a healthy, sustainable and resilient
economic basis,protect the natural environment and promote housing that can accommodate all
income groups. The General Plan States that population growth should not increase more than
one percent per year,averaged over a 36-month period, until it reaches a buildout population of
57,200 persons in 2022.
To accomplish this objective,the City amended its Residential Growth Management Regulations
in 2000. The new regulations emphasized development phasing in major annexation areas as the
means to manage long-term residential growth. The regulations include a phasing plan showing
the number of new dwellings to be built in residential expansion areas during three-year
intervals, while the timing of infill projects is not regulated. New dwellings affordable to
residents with very-low, low- or moderate incomes are not counted toward the one percent
average growth rate. The regulations are administered through the annual General Plan review
process. The City annually reviews the status of residential building in relation to the adopted
phasing schedule. Revisions are then considered which would allow allocations to be shifted
among areas,or the phasing intervals modified to better achieve housing goals. .......________ beteted:Tabic c5 straws de phasing
pLm adopW in 2002.The pig plan
win be updued in 2003-2004 to maga the
In 2003 plans for the Margarita and Airport areas are nearing completion with approval expected sawis of the rn lw expansion ams. As of
Ap,in 2004. Plans for the other major residential expansion project,the Orcutt Area, is in the early M&WAtaa o mial otyathe
stages of preparation. Housing construction in the Margarita Area is likely to start in 2005,with b*=
the Orcutt Area expected to follow no sooner than 2008. Expansion areas that provide the most
affordable housing and other community benefits, such as open space protection, will receive
development priority.
The Airport Land Use Plan
The San Luis Obispo County Airport has a major influence on the community, particularly the
southern part of San Luis Obispo's urban area where most of City's residential growth is
planned. Under State law, a countywide, independent Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC)
adopts a plan identifying land uses that are compatible with present and future airport noise and
108
Attachment 2
City of San Luis Obispo Housing Element
safety conditions. The area subject to this Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) extends beyond the
City's designated airport specific plan area, and includes land under City and County
jurisdictions. Proposed specific plans and amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Map or
Regulations are referred to the ALUC for a compatibility determination.The ALUC uses its plan
as a basis for those determinations.A four-fifths vote of the City Council and certain findings are
required for the City to override a finding of incompatibility. The City's General Plan calls for
consistency with the Airport Land Use Plan.
In June 2002,the ALUC adopted major amendments to its 1970s-vintage plan.The amendments
significantly reduced the number of residential units that could be built in the areas subject to the
plan. In most areas, the plan limits overall residential density to six dwellings per acre, well
below densities targeted by City plans. For example, the number of units planned for the
Margarita Area had to be reduced from 1,100 dwellings to 870 dwellings. Following the
ALUC's action, the City began to amend the Airport, Margarita and Orcutt Expansion Area
Specific Plans to reflect the amended ALUP,and also amended the Zoning Regulations (as part
of the proposed commercial zoning update). Under State law, the City's General Plan must
conform to the amended ALUP, unless the City Council overrules the ALUC's consistency
determination by a two-thirds majority vote.Planned amendments are expected to extend through
2004.The main issues are anticipated to involve infill housing,uses that concentrate on young or
elderly occupants(such as schools and residential care facilities),and the provision of level,open
areas that can serve as emergency landing sites.
Table C-5
Major Expansion Areas Phasing Plan,2002
Source: City of San Luis Obispo,Community Development Department,August 2002
Notes:
Number of Dwellings Permitted(a,b)
-Comdaryc= 2002- 2005- 2008- 2011- 2014- 2017- 2020-
2004 2007 2010 2013 2016 2019 2022
Total
Assumed Demolitions -40 -30 -30 -30 -20 -20 -10 -180
Assumed New in-city(c) 110 100 100 100 100 100 100 710
Allowed Dalidio 0 180 0 0 0 0 0 180
Allowed Irish Fills North 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 80
Allowed Irish Fills South 86 0 0 0 0 0 0 86
Allowed Orcin 70 90 215 235 30 0 0 640
Allowed Margarita 264 235 310 303 0 0 0 1,112
Assumed Other annexations 20 30 30 30 30 30 1 30 1 200
Calculated Interval total: 590 605 625 638 140 110 120 2,828
Average annual%change(d) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.22 0.17 0.18 0.69(e)
(a)Dwellings affordable to residents with very low or low incomes,as defined in the Housing Element,are exempt.
109
I
Attachment 2
City of San Luis Obispo Housing Element
(b)This is a simple count of dwellings and is not meant to reflect the Zoning Regulation's method for calculating
fractional dwellings.
(c)Includes the incorporated area in 1994 and certain annexations during 1994-1998(Stoneridge;Prefumo Homes;
and the El Capitan,Goldenrod and Fuller Road parts of the Edna-Islay.Specific Plan,which has its own growth
management provisions).
(d)A calculated result:dwellings permitted(new construction minus demolitions),divided by three,divided by the
total number of dwellings projected to be in the city at the middle of the interval;times 100;assumes that the
maximum amounts are achieved in previous intervals.
(e)A calculated result:the compound growth rate that over 24 years would result in the total net increase.
Density Bonus
The Affordable Housing Incentives allow a residential density bonus of at least 25 percent for
developers who build five or more dwellings with at least 20 percent of those units sold or rented
at prices affordable to low- or moderate income people, or at least 10 percent of the units for
those in the very-low income category. Housing developments with at least 50 percent of the
units targeted for persons 62 years or older also qualify for a density bonus. Additional
incentives, including density bonuses greater than 25 percent,are available on a negotiable basis
in return for adding a Higher percentage of affordable units.
Secondary Dwelling Units
In 2003, in response to changes in State law, the City adopted new standards for secondary
residential units, or "granny flats." The new law requires local governments to allow these
secondary units administratively, without a public hearing or discretionary approval.
Additionally, the bill requires cities to create standards that will prevent adverse impacts on
historic resources. Cities may,however,create a detailed set of property development standards
including, but not limited to, parking, height, setback, lot coverage, architectural review,
maximum size and standards to prevent adverse impacts on historic preservation sites.
San Luis Obispo's secondary dwelling units (SDU) ordinance modifies or eliminates the
previous use permit requirement and discretionary review for SDUs, and allows attached or
detached SDUs on any legal,conforming and residentially zoned lot. Under the new provisions,
SDUs require only one parking space, and are reviewed by the City's planning staff to ensure
architectural compatibility. SDUs must conform to applicable zoning regulations such as height,
yards, parking and building coverage, and are limited to a maximum floor area of 450 square
feet. Performance standards to ensure neighborhood compatibility also were included in the
amended SDU regulations. SDUs are treated as an additional unit but are not taken into
consideration when calculating total allowed density on a site. Beginning in 2003, SDUs are
charged development impact fees as a "multi-family dwelling." Rental costs for SDUs are not
listed separately in local classified ads and rental listings, however SDUs are likely to rent at
prices similar to or slightly higher than studio apartments in multi-family developments.
Manufactured and Modular Housing,Mobile Homes and Mobile.Home Parks
110
-' Attachment 2
City of.San Lais Obispo Housing Element
Manufactured, modular and mobile homes offer economical alternatives to conventional, "stick-_,, tieiefed:Y
built" housing. Manufactured homes are those built entirely in a factory under Federal building
codes administered by the U.S. Department Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Manufactured homes are then transported to the site as single- or multi-section homes and
installed on site. On-site additions,such as garages,decks and porches,add to the attractiveness
of the homes and must be built to local building codes. Modular housing describes factory-built
homes manufactured specifically to the State, local or regional construction code requirements
wherever the home will be located. As with manufactured housing, the modular homes are
transported to their sites and installed. Mobile home is the term used for factory-built housing
produced before June 15, 1976, when the HUD construction codes took effect. Other types of
manufactured housing include panelized and pre-cut homes, in which factory-built homes are
shipped to the site in panels or as pre-cut"kits"for site assembly.
Industry advances in quality and design, as well as affordability, dramatically increased the
popularity of these housing types in the late 1990s. In 2000, according to the Manufactured
Housing Institute, 22 million Americans (about eight percent of the U.S. population) lived
fulltime in 10 million manufactured homes. In 2001 the industry shipped over 193,000 homes
from 275 manufacturing facilities nationwide. A manufactured home can cost anywhere from
one-third to one-half the cost of a conventional house. Architecturally, manufactured homes
include details and features that make the homes compatible with most residential neighborhoods
and communities.
In 2003 California Department of Finance figures show that San Luis Obispo had 1,501 mobile
homes, or about 7.6 percent of the City's housing stock. Mobile homes, placed on permanent
foundations and located outside mobile home parks, and manufactured (modular) housing are
treated the same as conventional site-built housing under the City's zoning, subdivision and
architectural review requirements. Therefore, all residentially zoned land is available for some
type of manufactured housing. Mobile-home parks are allowed with use-permit approval in all
residential zones. The City has few areas suitable for new, large mobile-home parks or for the
expansion of existing parks. However,expansion areas could accommodate mobile home parks
once they are annexed.
e)Architectural Review
Architectural review is required for all residential developments, except individual built, single-
family dwellings. The exception for single-family dwellings does not apply: (1) when
architectural review is required as a condition of a subdivision,use permit or other discretionary
entitlement;(2) when a developer proposes to construct three or more units;(3) when the City's
Community Development Director determines the site is sensitive as set forth in the procedures
document ("sensitive sites" shall include, but not be limited to, open space zoning areas
designated by resolution of the planning commission, architectural review commission or
council); (4) where the scale or character of a proposed dwelling contrasts significantly with
adjacent or neighboring structures; and (5) where any required parking spaces that are covered
are converted to another use and replacement parking is proposed.
ru
1 ^ �
4��
City of San Luis Obispo Housing[]emrnt l��LLaCl print 2
San Luis Obispo has adopted Community Design Guidelines that describe the community's
expectations and preferences for the quality and character of new developments. The Guidelines
encourage design variety and innovation, and are intended to preserve San Luis Obispo's
distinctive character and sense of history. Depending upon the type and scale of the project,
architectural review can add,on the average,from two to four months of review time, including
study, public hearings and revisions. The additional holding time, from a development
standpoint, adds to development costs (interest costs, design/architectural fees, construction
delays) that are then passed through to housing buyers. For large residential projects, this cost
impact on an individual dwelling is lessened; however, on small projects, the cost can be a
significant factor in the overall purchase price of a home.
Most of the City's neighborhoods are an eclectic mix of architectural styles and character. In
many cases, small residential infill projects of four units or less can be integrated into
neighborhoods,on lots already zoned for residential use, without posing significant architectural
design or compatibility issues. The housing would need to comply with all zoning standards,
including setbacks, building height and lot coverage. By exempting small residential projects
from architectural review, the City could help reduce development costs and improve the
economic feasibility of constructing small detached or attached dwellings. On historic
properties, or where site constraints such as creeks, steep hillsides or lot shape required special
consideration, architectural review of the "sensitive site may be appropriate. To help reduce
development costs,this Element calls for an amendment to the Municipal Code to exempt small
residential projects (four or less dwellings not on a sensitive site).from Architectural Review
Commission review. Most of these developments would be eligible for less costly and time-
consumting staff level architectural review.
f)Building and Zoning Code Enforcement
Code enforcement focuses mainly on zoning or building code violations that adversely affect
public health or safety, and on preserving neighborhoods. The code enforcement program
includes education, mitigation and prosecution issues, and has two components: 1) building and
zoning code enforcement,and 2)neighborhood services.
In addition to ensuring that new development is designed and constructed in conformance with
City standards for quality and safety, the Community Development Department also ensure that
property and land uses conform to those standards over time. The Department enforces the
City's land use, development, building and sign regulations through its Code Enforcement
Program. The Code Enforcement Coordinator is responsible for the resolution of any violations.
Table C-6 summarizes Code Enforcement complaints received in 2001.
The program is complaint-driven and handles about 400 cases per year. Upon receipt of a
complaint, a building inspector makes a preliminary site visit to verify the existence of a
violation, and informs the Code Enforcement Coordinator about conditions at the site. If a
Ill
C - �
'Attachment 2
City of San Luis Obispo Housing Element
violation exists,a"Notice of Violation"is issued and the necessary steps are taken to resolve the
problem. More complicated cases are set for abatement proceedings or,in some cases, criminal
prosecution.
Complaints about neighborhood overcrowding and illegal construction have accounted for the
majority of City building and zoning code enforcement cases. The illegal conversion of garages,
sheds, attics and shops to rental housing has contributed to substandard housing, parking
violations, property maintenance complaints and other housing concerns. The City notifies
property owners in writing of specific conditions that must be addressed, and provides clear
direction on how to correct the violations. City staffers work with property owners to determine
whether the illegal construction can be upgraded and remain in place,or if steps are necessary to
remove any illegal or unsafe construction. Of these enforcement actions, less than one percent
actually resulted in displacing the current occupant.
Table C-6
Code Enforcement Cases,2001
City of San Luis Obispo
OFiCOMP.LAINTS=�� _ �. 5 Number of Cases �u,-•.>
Garage Conversion 31
Substandard Housing 30
Fligh-Occupancy Residential Use 9
Other 98
Signs 112
Converted living Space 10
Horne Occupations 15
Fence Height 12
Animals 2
Trailer 0
Noise 4
Fratemides/Sororities 4
Use In Wrong Zone 3
Building Coda Violations 68
No Building Permit 78
113
-� Attachment 2
/A`tc:Chil?ei;t L
City of San Luis Obispo Housing Element
TOTAL COMPLADM RECEIVED 476+
Source: City of San Luis Obispo,Community Development Department.
*Established cases may have multiple complaints.
Neighborhood Services. In 1995 the Office of Neighborhood Services (ONS) was established.
It is administered through the San Luis Obispo Police Department, and enforces Noise
Regulations, residential parking districts and Property Maintenance Standards. These standards
preserve the quality,character and condition of neighborhoods, and address the following issues
related to residential and neighborhood preservation: screening of storage and recreational
vehicles, front yard paving, use and maintenance of roofs, fencing, maintenance of buildings or
grounds and graffiti. In 2002 the ONS issued 2,777 noise violations and 504 notices for property
maintenance violations.
Through public information, community and educational programs, ONS works to improve
communications between students and other neighborhood groups, and sponsors special
neighborhood events, such as Good Neighbor Day and Neighborhood Cooperation Week. The
SNAP (Student-Neighborhood Assistance Program) and WIN (Working to Improve
Neighborhoods)Programs engage community volunteers, neighborhood groups and city staffers
in a working partnership to preserve and enhance neighborhoods.
Construction Codes
San Luis Obispo's construction codes are, with few exceptions, uniform codes enacted by the
State legislature and used throughout the State. They set forth health and safety standards for
structures,plumbing,electrical and fire prevention. The cost of meeting State construction codes
-- laws intended to make new housing safer, stronger, more energy efficient and resistant to fire
and earthquake hazards--is ultimately passed on to housing consumers. In the long term,many
building standards can reduce ongoing housing costs through lower utility bills and reduced
insurance premiums.
In some cases,San Luis Obispo has adopted more stringent construction codes than mandated by
the State. Local Building Code amendments that could affect housing cost include the following:
1. Seismic Strengthening of Unreinforced Masonry (URM) Buildings. There are 126
urzeinforced masonry buildings in San Luis Obispo, many of them historic. Of these, 10
include dwellings. All URM buildings have undergone structural analyses as required by
State law. City regulations require all URM buildings to be seismically strengthened by
2017. Strengthening involves improvements to building foundations, walls and roofs to
resist catastrophic damage and loss of life during an earthquake. Such improvements can be
expensive, ranging in cost from $50-$65 per square foot in 2003. Construction permit and
planning fees for URM replacement buildings are waived,and fees spent on seismic analysis
are credited toward architectural review, plan review or building permit fees for URM
strengthening projects. Pursuant to Council Resolution No. 8663 (1997 Series)establishing
114
2
City of San Luis Obispo Housing Element Af:4chrrie,nt
an incentive program for URM strengthening, City offered to provide technical assistance in
forming a"voluntary assessment district"to assist financing of URM improvements and fire
sprinkler installation. Due to a lack of sufficient property owner interest, the volunteer
assessment district approach was not implemented.
URM strengthening or replacement costs may exceed property owners' financial capacity
and/ or force closure of buildings that do not generate sufficient income to support the
improvement costs. Affordable downtown housing may be particularly vulnerable in this
regard. Additional financial assistance and/or incentives may be necessary to meet the 2017
deadline and to preserve or provide affordable downtown housing. The City intends to seek
State and Federal grants as part of its 20042009 housing program initiatives to address this
important issue.
2. Construction in the downtown commercial fire zone must be of 5/8-inch Type X gypsum
wallboard, unless the building is equipped with an automatic fine extinguishing system
throughout. Additional material cost of the wallboard is not significant.
3. Due to expansive soils in the San Luis Obispo area,all residential foundations and slabs must
meet more stringent requirements,unless a soils report is provided to show that such upgrades
are not needed. The estimated cost for the foundation upgrade is approximately $2500 per
dwelling.
4. Wood shake and shingle roofing materials are prohibited, unless the material is listed as a
Class A Assembly. Adopted by ordinance in 1983,this law is intended to reduce fire hazards
and the potential for loss of life and property from a major fire in the City. The ordinance
differs from State and County regulations in that they allow wood-shake roofing that meets a
minimum Class-C rating. Additional construction costs,if any,would depend on the builder's
choice of a roofing material.
5. An automatic fire extinguishing system is required in all new buildings except most buildings
that are 1,000 square feet or less. Initially adopted in 1990, the ordinance requiring fire
sprinklers in all residential occupancies is intended to reduce fire hazards to life and property,
to allow development where fire-flow, access or setback deficiencies might otherwise
preclude it, and to reduce ongoing public costs of fire suppression. The fire sprinkler
requirement adds about $3.00 per square foot to the cost of construction, or $6,000 for a
2,000-square-foot home. The added cost of fire sprinklers may be offset or recovered in the
long-term since:
1) Most insurance companies have reduced homeowner fire insurance rates for homes with
fire sprinklers.
2) Fire sprinklers add value to a home,and all or a portion of the costs can be recovered
upon resale.
115
L - �
i
Attachment 2
City of San Luis Obispo Housing Element
3) During development,additional cost-saving allowances are made for buildings with fire
sprinklers(e.g.,longer distances between fire hydrants serving a development;reduced
vehicle access requirements).
4) Fire-flow requirements are reduced by 50 percent,allowing the use of existing water
mains in most cases. This allows infill development where infrastructure deficiencies
might have otherwise prevented it.
Site Improvement Requirements
The City may require on- or off-site improvements such as streets, utilities, traffic signals and
landscaping as a condition of use permit, variance, subdivision or other land-use approval.
Dedication of right-of--way, public transit facilities, easements or access rights also may be
required These improvements add costs that are usually passed on to the housing consumer.
This Housing Element includes policies which require the City to consider and minimize the
costs of imposing additional requirements on housing projects beyond those required by State
law, or necessary for public health, safety or welfare, and to periodically evaluate these
requirements to determine if they are necessary to protect the public's health,safety or welfare.
Typical site improvement requirements are listed in Table 'C-7 Specific design
requirements vary depending upon site conditions and the project's size Small residential
proiects of less than five dwellings typically require the minimum on-site improvements
necessary for health and safety. Large residential developments including subdivisions
typically require on- and off-site improvements to address traffic safety,drainage transit
environmental Preservation to mitigate potential environmental impacts and/or provide the
necessary infrastructure to serve the development.
Table C-7
Typical Site Improvement Requirements
City of San Luis Obispo Formatted:centered
Improvement Infill areas Exogmsion areas
Street widths Alleys:min 20' Alleys:6m
Cul-de-sac:min 32'-36' Local streets:8.5m
Hillside cul-de-sac:24'-28' Residential collector: 10.6m
Residential minor:40' Principal collector: I I m
Hillside residential minor:36' Commercial collector: I I m
Residential collector:72'
Commercial/industrial minor:44'
Arterial:24'
Thorou eh-fare(hwv):56'
44'-60'
Sidewalks 6'- 10'alon both sides 1 1.5m w/o trees-5m w trees
116
� tt hmpnt,,2
City of San Luis Obispo Hoasing Element
Curbs&Gutters Concrete alone both sides -To be inciymentally installed at the
time of development and road
construction.
Lightin2 Utility Company standards aw. Energy-efficient,minimal glare.
maximum 0.5 foot-candle illuminating
property not intended to be illuminated,
prevent illumination toward the sk .
L,andscaoing Planting enhances building architecture: Planting is attractive.aromatic and
reflects local climate is water suited to function and environmental
conserving,low maintenance provides conditions;turf is used only in areas of
seasonal or year mund shade: high demand flexible nlav space,
emphasizes native species while otherwise native,drought-tolerant,low
orovidinghotanical and visual diversity. £round covers should be used.
Irlieated turf areas shall not exceed 20%, Reclaimed water may he used in many
of total site area except in special areas for irrigation.
circumstances.
Americans.with Disabilities Act: Hotisina for Persons with Disabilities
The Fair Housing Act of 1998 and the-Americans_with Disabilities Act(ADA)are Federal laws__- Deleted:y
intended to help provide safe and accessible housing. The City is responsible for enforcing State
accessibility regulations (California Building Standards Code,Part 2, Title 24) when evaluating
new construction. Accessibility requirements of the California Building Code are similar to
Federal regulations and mandate that new developments be designed to ensure full accessibility
and use by the physically disabled. Single-family houses are exempt from these regulations.
San Luis Obispo is committed to removing architectural barriers to persons with disabilities in its
building and planning programs. The City actively enforces compliance with California Disabled
Access Requirements which, in most respects, require a higher level of adaptable or accessible
building design than federal standards. Since 1994,the City has used approximately$3 Million
in Community Development Block Grants to remove architectural barriers in City streets and
facilities, and provided an additional $2.5 Million in CDBG funds to support the private, non-
profit development of housing that is both accessible and affordable to very-low income elderly
or disabled residents. Compliance with building code requirements may increase the cost of
multi-family housing production and rehabilitation. However, these regulations provide the
minimum standards that the City roust comply with in order to ensure safety and the appropriate
levels of accessibility in new developments. Difficult compliance situations may be reviewed by
a city advisory body appointed by the City Council to consider such matters.
Under state law, housing elements must analyze the potential and actual government constraints
on the development of housing for persons with disabilities They must also demonstrate efforts
to remove governmental constraints on the development of housing for persons with disabilities _ - Formatted:ront.itauc
such as accommodating procedures for the approval of group homes The City has analyzed its
development standards.and procedures to identify possible constraints such as policies local
building and planning requirements. City General Plan policies and building and planning
117
f � 1
,
City of San Luis Obispo Housing Element
procedures strongly encourage accessibility in new and remodeled housing In general City
Permitting procedures do .not differentiate between housing for disabled persons and non-
accesssible housing,and City procedures encourage retrofitting existing housing for accessibility_
For example, retrofitting most single-family dwellings with basic accessibility improvements
such as access ramps, path-of-travel widening, kitchen and bathroom modifications can he done
with approval of an expedited"over the counter'building permit subject to a building permit fee
based on the value of the work done. This-reduces the time and cost involved in retrofitting for
accessibility,since plancheck routing and fees are waived. No planning approvals are required.
More extensive retrofits to bring multi-family dwellings into compliance with the Americans
with Disabilities Act typically would require only a building permit and where possible are also
approved "over the counter' by the City's permit coordinator. Significant exterior changes to
multi-family housing or to a historically designated property to provide accessibility, such as
exterior ramps or building facade changes typically require architectural review, adding about
four to six weeks to the approval process..
Several group housing developments in San Luis Obispo provide accessible housing for very-low
and low income persons with disabilities. City zoning regulations allow residential care facilities
by right in eight zones, and in an additional four zones with a conditional use permit These are
single or multi-unit dwellings that are licensed or supervised by any Federal State or local
health/welfare_agency that provides non-medical life supportive services in a family-like
environment. Residential care facilities in San Luis Obispo are not subject to residential density
limits, and are treated like.single-family homes in setting their narking requirements They
require a building nermit and must comply with the usual development standards such as
building setbacks, height lot coverage and require architectural review.
Single dwellings occupied by up to five adults and which are not specially licensed or
supervised,are also used as group homes-for low-income or disabled person These group homes
are allowed by right in any residential zone and treated as single-family housing for purposes of
residential density and parking. These uses must comply with all building and planning codes
but are routine and typically do not require City approval other than approval of a building permit
for new construction or retrofitting.
Housing Element Policy 82.1 encourages development which meets special housing needs,
including disabled and elderly persons. Under Program 8.3.7 the City will prepare and
disseminate public information how to improve accessibility through Universal Design in new
construction.
Deleted 9
Non-conforming Uses and Structures
Some dwellings are subject to premature deterioration and demolition because of their legal,non-
conforming status. A legal, non-conforming use or structure is one that was established with
permits,but is no longer allowed and could not be replaced under the current zoning regulations.
118
I � J�
Attachment_ 2
City of San Luis Obispo Housing Element
Examples include housing as a principal use in a manufacturing zone. Traditionally, lenders-and
insurance carriers avoid lending or insuring project improvements for such non-conforming
dwellings.
An estimated 175 dwellings are considered non-conforming because of their location in the
manufacturing or service-commercial zones. Housing Element programs address this issue by
encouraging the conservation of non-conforming housing,and through programs that enable low-
income homeowners to rehabilitate substandard housing through low-interest loans or grants.
g) Processing and Permit Procedures
The development review process, when required, adds time and costs to a building project. The
City's development review procedures are designed to protect public health and safety, to
simplify and expedite the review process whenever possible,and to ensure that new development
meets State and local development standards within time limits set by State law. The Permit
Streamlining Act requires final City action within three months of adopting a negative
declaration or categorical exemption for a project, and within six months of the date a final
Environmental Impact Report(EIR)is certified for a project.
For minor or relatively simple items which are exempt from environmental review, such as
administrative use permits, variances minor or incidental architectural review, minor
subdivisions, and lot line adjustments, the processing time from submittal to final action lasts
approximately two to six weeks. More complex planning items requiring initial environmental
studies such as architectural review of new_commercial industrial and residential oroiects
conditional use permits (Planning Commission) planned development/rezoning or standard
subdivisions typically reouire eight to 12 weeks.
Complex planning items, including general plan amendments rezonings annexations and zoning
regulations text amendments require more detailed review and may require preparation of an
environmental impact report. Consequently these items can take from six months to one year
from the date an application is filed to final City action. Development review procedures such
as public notices,hearings and environmental reviews-are mandated by State law and also add to
the time needed for the approval of new housing oroiects Since 1994 the City has revised its
zoning and. subdivision requirements to simplify and speed up development approvals For
housing developers, time is money. Efforts to reduce the time required to process development
applications can result in lower costs to the housing consumer. Examples of permit streamlining
actions the City has taken.include:
• Development exceptions typically follow an administrative use permit process taking---- Formatted:Bullets and Numbering
two to three weeks,rather than the more time-consuming variance process
• Clear development standards, guidelines and checklists available conveniently on-line
• House relocation no longer requires a conditional use permit
• Demolition or relocation of most buildings 50 years or older, but not historically listed
119
t - 33
Attachment 2
City of San Luis Obispo Housing Element
no longer requires Cultural Heritage Committee historic significance review.
• Minor housing additions, remodels and seismic retrofits may he approved by City staff
as"minor or incidental"architectural review.
• Revised procedures to allow City Architectural Review Commission to act on both
design and development exception requests at the same time
Individually-built single family dwellings are allowed by right in all residential zones and in
Agriculture and Conservation/Open Space zones. These need only building permit approval
prior to construction—typically an eight to 12 week approval process for such projects. They are
also allowed in Office, Neighborhood Commercial and Retail Commercia z_ones_with approval___- Deleted:certain commeo;al
of a conditional use permit. To encourage small residential projects and infill development,
Program 6.3.14 exempts the construction, relocation, rehabilitation or remodeling of up to four
dwellings of 1,200 square feet floor area from Architectural Review Commission (ARC). Such
housing may be allowed with "minor or incidental' architectural review, a less costly and
expedited review process taking about four to six weeks for approval. Single-family house
additions and remodels generally require only a building permit averaging about two to three
months from application to permit issuance Developments in historic districts and on
historically-designated properties also require historic preservation review by the Cultural
Heritage Committee. The Committee provides recommendations to the ARC or oche_r decision-
making body regarding historic significance and preservation strategies
Single-family residential developments of more than four units typically require more extensive_ deleted:R
planning review, including environmental review, architectural review, and subdivision or land Deleted:W mag
use review. Such-residential proiects are allowed by right in all residential zones subiect to Citv
development standards,state and local subdivision standards and compliance with the California
Environmental Ouality Act.. Residential subdivisions require three levels of review: design
review by the Architectural Review Commission tentative tract (or parcel) map review by the
Planning Commission, and environmental study/tentative/Final map approval by the City
Council. Average permit processing time for a 100-lot residential subdivision is about six
months to one year for planning approvals plus six months for building plancheck and permit
issuance. Smaller residential developments can complete Planning review and permit processing
in one Year or less if an environmental impact study is not required
Multi-family residential developments are allowed by right in the R-2, R-3, and R-4 zones and
are conditionally allowed in office and most commercial zones Apartments are also
conditionallY.allowed in Commercial-Service and Manufacturing zones as part of live-work or
work-live developments. Such proiects require environmental and architectural review.
Conditional use permit review may he required if exceptions to City development standards are
necessary. In historic districts or on historically-designated properties Cultural Heritage
Committee is also required. Average permit processing time is about six to eight months for
planning approvals. Plus six months for building plancheck and Permit issuance Mixed Use
developments are allowed by right in six commercial zones and are conditionally allowed in the
Service-Commercial and Manufacturing zones. Their processing and permit procedures are
120
I '
City of San Luis Obispo Housing Element ttacaAa
similar to multi-family housing developments.
.. .
Deleted:For most mina a relatively
fees
h) Developmentsimplems whin are exempt from
. . .. . - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . mitems
review.such as
administrative use permits,minor or
Application and it fees incidental ambateamal review.minorP subdivisions,and la tine adjustments.the
processing time from submittal to final
Local governments levy fees and assessments to cover the cost of processing development
action
Ma�roxima ply fain i rix
compiu planinirag items
applications and permits, and to cover the cost of services. These fees help ensure high-quality requiring ioitu mvirmmcatal omies aamn
as nmcmetreview afraw m®aoal.
housing development and the provision of adequate public facilities and services. Development imusuia
am residential projeers,
fees are typically passed through to the consumer in the form of higher rents or sales prices for cmdmmal use permits and variances
(plpinnmyl
new housing. Consequently, City fees increase development costs and affect housing gor siarilard
affordability. One method of evaluating whether San Luis Obispo's fees are excessive or pose subdivisions typically require eight to 12
barriers to housingdevelopment is to compare its fees to those in other nearby jurisdictions.
weeks.I
P P Y j •nm Drys most complex ptaoning items
include geoaal plan ammdmmrs,
trzomaIn 2003 the City surveyed development fees for.the County's seven cities, and for San Luis r s un ta��•Any
Obispo County. The City also compared fees that the various jurisdictions would charge for a development lrq=that reyuaes an ER
ran take six momhs a longer fram the dam
commercial development and two residential development scenarios: a new 2,000-square-foot an appy is film m final city action
house with a 500- square-foot garage, and a 10-lot, single-family residential subdivision. The Development review procedrtma,such as
public noting,hearings and mvir®tnal
survey showed that for most development fees, San Luis Obispo is significantly higher than the reviews,are mumbawd by Stam law and
other county jurisdictions. Development fees are summarized in Table C-7, and comparative also add to the time nmdm for the
approval of new housing projects. since
development fees are shown for the development scenarios in Figure C-3. 1994 the City has revised its ming and
subdivisim rgmremmts to simplify and
In most cases, Cit development fees assume full cost recovery for actual costs to deliver the sped &-mlo pm,timirovals For
Y P ry hoasing ae.dwas.time is money. Efforts
planning, building and engineering services. Development review fees are updated annually, to reduce the time required to process
in
based on changes in the Consumer Price Index. Iowa hoomiinng am�
Survey results show that San Luis Obispo development fees are generally higher than those of Examples of permit sncmimhag anion
the City has taken Wad4
other jurisdictions in San Luis Obispo County. However,the City waives most development fees I
for affordable housing. City policies already exempt very low- and low-income housing from `#>House relocation nes longe`require'a
mndifimal ase Petmit4
most development review and permit fees. Housing Element Program 2.3.6 and 2.3.7 call for the <1nD®olitim orrelocation of most
City to seek additional funding sources to help offset development-related City fees for buildings 50ya¢a olds,bm nm
historically listed.no longer requires
residential projects that include affordability guarantees for very-low, low-and moderate income Q.1tomi tiaiagecommitnm hismdo
households. sigoificivia 1CY1Cw.J
daMimr housing additions,remodels and
scismic retrofits may be approved by City
staff as"minor or meidenral"aseLimmaal
revmw.I
121
Attachment 2
City of San Luis Obispo Housing Element
2
Table C-7
Com pa rative Developanent Fee Summa ry,2003'
R�� 4
Annexation Cost+24% 2,500 3,000 Cost: 7,243
Prezoning +cost hrly.chg
Appeals to 195 200 150 50%fee 100 500 0 484
Council/Board
Architectural 415 362 2,197
Review,Full
Architectural 220 951
Review,Minor or
Incidental
Certificate of 650 150 513 200 1,239 796
Compliam
Condominium 2.205 1,075 4.000 3.593
Conversion +hdy fee
EE[t Contract 15%of EBR 25%of Cost Cost+ 25%of
+hely fee +hely fee EBR +hely fee 30% EBR
+hrly fee I +hrly fee
Environmental 15%Of 312 1.500 520 1,994 25%of
Review/initial EBR EBR
Study +hriy fee +hrly fee
General Plan 1.370 850 613 lin goo 6" 5,462 4,000
Amendment +cost +cost note'
instoric 0
Preservation
Review(CHC)
W Line 900 325 398 539 200 1,140 600
Adjustment I
Lot Mager 605 55 41 199
Planned 1.155 512 1= 3.295 6,793
Development
Permit/
F&Adadment 1,155 492 600 LAW
specific Plan— 4=
Residential
swine Phut 1.155 cost goo cost 4000
Amendment +24% I +hrly fee I note
Street 550 200 4223' 400
Abandonment
Tentative Parcel 1.000 965 521 1.282+ 1300 1.1100 5,321+ 2.200
Map 10'2 per 177 per lot note
lot
Tent.Parcel Map IAW 50% 7,070
Amendment
Tentative Tract 1.000 965 521 1.539+ 1.300 1.905+ 6,999+ 2.900
Map 205 per 115 per lot 177 per lot note
IM
Use Permit, 150 190 295 235 6%
Administrative I
Use Permit, 1.205 550 548 1.200 2,503 1,450
Major(PC)
122
„tiwchment 2
City of San Luis Obispo Housing Element
Source: City of San Luis Obispo.Community lkvelopment Departmeni
Notes:
'Table does not list all planning fees. Only those fees applicable to residential development are included. Fees have
been rounded.
245%of full cost of time and materials
With Initial Study
Figure C-3
Comparison of Development Fees for a 2,000-Square-Foot,
Single-Family House,20031
A.GW
j9M AMM
i4B77
fS00B
NpGC
pAao
AABe
SM=
y o
la
Afeanewa Nmyo Gn Pao Rodes PY Beam Oow Se Omq d SLO Mono Bey Sen L OMVo San L Cdou
2
Source: City of San Ldis Obispo,Community Development Department
ISan Luis Obispo 1 shows fees existing in April 2003;San Luis Obispo 2 reflects fee increase that took effect July
2003.
Development fees include planning application fees, building plan check and permit fees, and
Fire Department and Public Works Department plan check and inspection fees. For a 2,000-
square foot-house with a 500-square-foot garage and a construction value of $168,000,
development fees,in San Luis Obispo in July 2003 totaled $7,496, or about 4.4 percent of
construction value. For the 10-lot, single-family residential subdivision, development fees
totaled$110,864,or 6.6 percent of construction valuation. By comparison,development fees for
the same hypothetical developments in the County of San Luis Obispo were$3,531 and$32,590,
respectively,plus hourly costs.
123
I — �
A achment 2
City of San Luis Obispo Housing Elemwt
Development impact fees
Like many California cities,San Luis Obispo levies impact fees to help pay for the public costs
of new development. San Luis Obispo policies State that existing residents should not bear the
costs of new development. Impact fees ensure that new development pays its fair share of the
cost of constructing the water and sewer facilities,streets and other improvements necessary to
serve it. Impact fees are based solely on the capital costs attributable to new development. In
2003 the impact fees and approximate costs are shown in Table C-8.
Table C-8
Residential Development Impact Fees per Dwelling Unit,July 2003
City of San Luis Obispo
,`_+
1§ogll..S~ ..I er�}CIIAuxArea°Su
�_ yelo inent4 " EDU*`' Cltywl$e Aisport,�a�' DgIld10,{� Irks I11W, `�+0[Cut6
�fW
swA ' t� y ,: * a�"dd>"Fdna� VlcBdde w
�7 hr ro .r� +�'� b,�y�'� '�'! ryq:•..�.sJ x?:7 Y§F ''� �45uG 1� � `.n r Y �
iL�%��.."aY-.`�3...�.F Tu�_.,a T.-✓."'�ir S .�.IS18� Y�'Sl M1';�}°,f"`ci�7`�� �'`C� ,•"=n^;`i^�r��r�Er:.;i
Water
Single-Family 1.0 $8,259 $ 764 — — —
Multi-Family 0.8 6,607 1 611 -- --
Mobile Home 0.6 4,955 1 458 —
wastewater
Single-Family 1.0 $3,314 $746 $212 $376 $1,730
Multi-Family 0.8 2,651 583 170 301 1,384
Mobile Home 0.6 1,988 448 127 226 1,038
Transportation
Single-Family 1.0 $1,491 — -- --
Multi-Famfly 1 1.0 1,323 — — — —
Sour= City of San Luis Obispo,Community Development Depfr m
*EDU mesas Equivalem Density Units,multiplied times impact fee.
„Water surcharge does not apply m Edna-Islay Area
1) Infrastructure
The City is committed to living within its resources, while planning to meet the future resource
needs of its citizens. Residential development requires that adequate roads, drainage, water,
sewer, fire protection and other public services be available. Generally, the developer provides
facilities within or next to the development site, while the City is responsible for the facilities
that serve a larger area. For example, the City provides arterial streets, a sewer treatment plant
and main collection pipes, and water reservoirs,a treatment plant and main pipes. When an area
124
l - �
htta%chment 2
City of San Luis Obispo Housing Element
is subdivided, the subdivider installs local roads and utility lines. Historically, the costs of
extending municipal services to support new development were offset by utility customers and
taxpayers. Like many cities, San Luis Obispo requires developers to pay for the increased
capacity of citywide facilities needed to serve new development. The developer's costs for
installing public facilities within a development and for funding citywide facilities are passed on
to occupants of the new housing units.
Most sites within the City have streets and utility lines nearby,so they can be developed without
significant extensions. However, expansion areas at the edge of the City will need service
extensions. A specific plan is required for each major expansion area, and a development plan
for each minor expansion area. These plans will address phasing of development and services,
subject to availability of additional water resources.
Increased water service capacity and transportation network improvements are needed before
housing can be built in major expansion areas. The Land Use Element requires that before land
is annexed to accommodate new development, the City should adopt a plan for how the
necessary public services and utilities will be financed and provided. For major expansion areas,
actual development can occur only when the City is able to provide adequate services for the
annexed area as well as for existing and potential development elsewhere within the City.
Water Sources
The City of San Luis Obispo utilizes three water supply sources to meet the community's water
demand:Santa Margarita Lake(also referred to as Salinas Reservoir),Whale Rock Reservoir and
groundwater. The adopted safe annual yield from these three sources for 2003 is 7,510 acre-feet.
To achieve the planned build-out population, the City's projected water demand is 9,096 acre-
feu per year(afy). An additional 1,806 acre-feet is needed to achieve the City's planned build-
out population of 57,200 persons. Table C-9 shows water available for new residential
development in 2003, based on present per capita water demand for all uses and safe_ annual
yield.
Table C-9
Water Available for Residential Development,2003
City of San Luis Obispo
Year ftulatIon Present Water Demand Safe Anmial Yield t Water Available In
6145 ow 2003 for Allocation
2003 44,359 7,204 a.f. 7510ad. 306 a.f.
soder.City of San Luis Obispo Utilities tkp punct
'hw4 des re&tts=due to siltation to daze
According to Water Management Element Policy 8.1.3, one-half of the water available for new
development will serve intensification and infill development within existing City limits as of
July 1994,and 153 acre-feet is available to serve development in expansion areas.
One of the Council's major goals is to secure additional long-term water supplies to meet future
125
t1i� Cf sill' i 1i
City of San Luis Obispo Housing Element
population needs. The City is proceeding with the Water Reuse Project, which has the potential
to be accomplished soonest. Projected water deliveries will begin in late 2004. Following initial
construction, recycled water will offset approximately 130 acre-feet per year of current potable
water used for irrigation. The project has a total potential yield of 1,200 acre-feet per year.
Possible new water sources that the City is actively pursuing are summarized in Table C-10.
Table C-10
Possible New Water Sources,2002- 2022
City of San Luis Obispo
SourceEarliest Date Potential Added
Available Yield Dwellings'
Water Reuse 2 2004 130 273
Water Conservation 2005 340 714
Additional Groundwater 2006 500 1,050
Additional water 970 afy 2,037
potentially available in
planning period
Balance of Water Reuse 2008 1,070 2,247
Nacimiento Pipeline 2008 3,380 7,098
Salinas Reservoir 2010 1,650 3,465
Expansion
Desalination 2008 n/a n/a
TOTALS - 7,070 14,847
source: City of San Luis Obispo,Utilities Department
'City is pursuing multiple water projects through preliminary design stages. Not all will be implemented.
Implementation will depend upon feasibility,needs and cost.
=130 acre-fed available initially through recycling to augment potable water supply; additional amounts
possible up to 1,200 afy,depending upon use of recycled water in Margarita/Airport areas.
'New water sources dependent upon funding availability.
'Amounts in acre-fed per year. One acre-foot equals 325,851 gallons.
SOne acre-foot will serve three dwellings per year in San t.uis Obispo;assumes 70%of new sources used
for residential development,30%for commercial uses.
Wastewater Treatment(Sewer)
The City's current wastewater treatment facility has a design capacity of 16 million gallons per
126
( - 4D
AI'laCtl(Tlel-iZ
City of San Luis Obispo Housing Element �-
day(mgd). According to the City's Utility Department,this is adequate capacity to meet current
needs,plus residential growth anticipated during the planning period. The City is planning fora
major plant upgrade in 2008, which will expand water treatment capacity to handle the General
Plan anticipated growth,or a population of 57,200 by the year 2022.
j) Public Services
Police and Fire
In 2003, Police Department staffing level is slightly below the standard set by the City of San
Luis Obispo, as measured by the percentage of available time for sworn officers to respond to
calls. The standard is for officers to have 30 percent of their On-Duty Time available for patrol
response.According to San Luis Obispo Police Department,the percentage of available time has
averaged 25 percent for the previous quarter,and while Cal Poly University is in regular session,
typically stays well below the 30 percent standard.
According to the National Fire Protection Association,the ratio of emergency services personnel
(firefighters and emergency medical services) should not be less than I/1,000 residents to
maintain public safety. San Luis Obispo's peak emergency service population, due to daytime
employment (including Cal Poly University) is estimated to be 70,000 persons, requiring 70
firefighter/EW personnel to meet the desired service ratio. The maximum number of city
firefighters/EMTs is 45,or a daytime service ratio of about 0.6 emergency personnel per resident.
Increased residential development will increase the demand for emergency services and raise city
costs for police and fire services. Community needs for increased police and fire services
resulting from residential growth will be met through, development impact fees, environmental
impact mitigation imposed at the time of development,or through user fees.
k)Schools
Grade school enrollment in San Luis Obispo has declined in recent years. San Luis Coastal
Unified School District's enrollment in San Luis Obispo schools, as of June 2003, is 4,317
students. Enrollment is down by 176 students from last school year. According to District
studies, new residential development generates 0.65 school child per dwelling. The District
estimates that one or possibly two additional school sites will be needed to serve planned
residential growth in the southern part of the City. The Margarita and Orcutt Area Specific Plans '
are expected to include potential elementary school sites. Due to district budget constraints,new
dwellings will have serious adverse consequences for school staffing, facilities and programs
unless new development adequately mitigates the adverse impact on school facilities.
117
l —t
Attachment 2
City of San Luis Obispo Housing Element
2. Non-governmental Constraints
a) Land Costs
Land is the second largest component in the cost of new housing,accounting for over 20 percent
of development costs. Because land costs are so high,it is difficult to build affordable housing if
the project involves purchasing land at today's prices. Land costs directly affect the cost of
housing. In turn, land values are determined by a number of factors. In terms of residential
constraints,the most important of these is land availability and permitted residential density. As
land becomes scarcer, its price increases. Other factors being equal, the more residential units
allowed,the higher the land value.
In.2003 the cost of an undeveloped,average-size,single-family residential login San Luis Obispo
was estimated by members of the Board of Realtors multiple listing service to be between
$250,000 and$375,000,depending on its size and location. By contrast, in 1992 the cost of a
typical single-family residential lot in San Luis Obispo ranged from $140,000 to $200,000, an
increase of about 88 percent when compared to the 2003 figures. The average land cost per
square foot for 10 vacant,single-family(R-1 zone)lots sold in San Luis Obispo in 2002 was$31,
and ranged from a low of about $17 to a high of$41 per square foot. In 1993 the cost for
undeveloped land suitable for housing ranged from$8 to$12 per square foot.
The situation for vacant,multi-family zoned residential land is similar. Between 2000 and 2003,
sales prices for vacant land suitable for multi-family housing ranged from $8 to $43 per square
foot,averaging about$23 per square foot.
Buoyed by record-low interest rates, the demand for residential real estate has continued to be
very strong since 2000, despite a slowdown in other city and county economic sectors. Land
suitable for residential development within City limits and in expansion areas adjacent to the City
is typically priced to reflect its"highest and best use."
b)Construction Costs
Technological advances in home building have increased efficiency and reduced the proportional
costs of labor and materials. Nationally,labor and materials accounted for 69 percent of the cost
of a new home in 1949. By 1989, that percentage had dropped to 53 percent (National
Association of Home Builders). Reduced construction costs have, however, been more than
offset by increased land costs.
According to the City's building official, the construction value of an average Type V - wood
frame residential construction in 2003 is$83 per square foot, up from$64.80 per square foot in
1993. For a typical, 1,850-square-foot detached house with a garage on a standard-sized lot in
San Luis Obispo,total development cost in 2003,-including land,construction,and city fees—is
approximately $354,275. Estimated land cost accounts for 53 percent of the total cost,
construction about 43 percent,and city fees around four percent.
128
— 4a
`-Ca
- Attachment 2
City of San Luis Obispo Housing Element 2
b) Availability and cost of financing
Mortgage interest rates significantly affect housing affordability. As interest rates increase,fewer
buyers can afford to purchase a home. As rates decrease, the number of potential homebuyers
increases. In 2003 mortgage interest rates for a conventional,30-year fixed loan range from 5.50
to 5.9 percent, and 15-year and adjustable rate mortgages are 5.25 percent and 4.75 percent,
respectively.
A wide variety of loan packages and terms are available; making financing accessible for most
home buyers with good credit and moderate-to above-moderate incomes. Although low interest
rates in 2003 have made housing more affordable than in recent years, the necessary down
payment still can pose an insurmountable obstacle -= particularly to first-time homebuyers.
Lenders typically prefer a 20-percent down payment on a mortgage loan. Prospective buyers who
might be able to support an 80-percent loan,often do not have the financial resources to make the
required down payment. A median-priced home in San Luis Obispo costs$442,500(SLO Board
of Realtors, May 2003), requiring an$88,500 down payment to get into a new house. Lenders
will sometimes loan up to 90 percent of the asking price,but an applicant's credit is much more
closely scrutinized, and monthly payments and monthly income requirements are significantly
higher. Consequently, financing can pose a major obstacle for first-time or moderate income
homebuyers,even for those who might otherwise qualify fora conventional loan.
Interest rates are determined by national economic policies and conditions,and there is little that
local governments can do to affect interest rates. Cities may,however,offer interest-rate buy-
downs,gap financing or other programs to expand home ownership opportunities for low-and
moderate income and first-time homebuyers. Although mortgage interest rates have remained
relatively low since 2001,rates can change quickly. In mid-2003 interest rates are rising slowly
and appear likely to return to more normal levels as the national economy rebounds in 2004.
d)Insurance Costs
Insurance costs have become an important constraint to building affordable housing.
Construction liability insurance,needed by builders and required by lenders,has become difficult
to obtain in California and when available, is extremely expensive. According to the
Homebuilders Association of the Central Coast, liability insurance costs can equal about two
percent of a unit's selling price,or$6,000 for a$300,000 condominium. In part, insurance cost
increases resulted from unprecedented construction defect litigation, particularly in California,in
the 1990s. Most of that litigation focused on residential condominiums. Condominium
construction, a major type of new housing in San Luis Obispo in the 1980s, is one of the most
effective approaches for providing higher-density, ownership housing for moderate income
buyers. Condominium construction fell dramatically in the 1990s. According to local builders,
this was due in part to construction defect litigation and to high insurance costs. In 2002 Senate
Bill 800(Burton)was signed into law,clarifying the grounds for construction defect lawsuits and
limiting builder liability for such actions. In 2003 there appears to be renewed builder and
129
Attachment 2
City of San Luis Obispo Housing Element
=, `a�: l "i18i It c
consumer interest in residential condos,and city housing policies promote this housing type.
e)Design Expectations
Housing preferences have changed dramatically in the last generation,as shown by a comparison
of tract housing built in town around 1960 and tract housing built today. Detached homes are
generally larger and include more built-in features and amenities. Even many attached
condominiums, which have become owner-occupied"starter" houses, include more indoor space
and amenities than older,detached housing.
Those seeking homes today are children of the generation that experienced the greatest increase
in real house buying power,and they often prefer large,detached homes similar to those in which
they were raised. These expectations are often unrealistic given the high cost of living in
California when compared with other States, and the relatively high cost of living in San Luis
Obispo when compared with other areas. Homebuyers moving to San Luis Obispo from urban
areas often enjoy higher median incomes and arrive with substantial equity from selling another
home elsewhere. Their buying power, together with the desire for a better life in a smaller city,
has fueled the demand for larger,detached homes.
f)Investment expectations
Investment expectations also can add to the cost of housing. Nationally,Americans place a high
value on home ownership because it provides a hedge against inflation and allows us to build
substantial equity in a relatively short period of time. Ironically, the favorable tax treatment
established to protect home ownership has helped push the cost of housing beyond its value as
shelter alone, and has created a competitive market for real estate as a commodity or financial
investment. Home ownership has become an elusive goal for many first-time buyers, as prices
increased in response to market expectations. Renters find themselves paying a larger and larger
share of their income for housing,as rental properties are resold to a succession of landlords.
Many home owners and owners of rental property benefit from significant tax advantages. In
2003 mortgage interest on loans for both a principal home and a second home is usually
deductible for taxpayers, and interest on home equity loans also is usually deductible. In
addition, homeowners can defer capital gains resulting from the sale of a house so long as
another home is purchased at the same or higher cost, and may avoid paying taxes on capital
gains from the sale of a home after the age of 55. Owners of rental property can deduct expenses
such as property taxes, mortgage interest payments and maintenance costs. Also, since rental
property theoretically depreciates in value over time,owners can deduct part of a property's value
each year from their taxable income. While depreciation allowances provide an investment
benefit for each successive property owner,they also offer a strong incentive to resell a property
once the largest share of depreciation has been taken. The new, higher sales price is then offset
by increased rents. Sales commissions, typically ranging from four to six percent of the sales
price,also affect housing costs.
130
f - �
City of San Luis Obispo Housing Element Attachment 2
3. Regional Housing Need Allocation and Quantified Objectives
The City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation(RHNA)as determined by the San Luis Obispo
Council of Governments is shown in Table C-11.
Table C-11
Regional Housing Need Allocation,January 2001-July.2009
Cityof San Luis Obispo
Income Group, Numb'ec of New Quantified
_Dw Allocated Objectives
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
State housing law (Article 10.6, Section 65583(6)(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 2009. 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.
Planned water supplies will allow this number of dwellings to be achieved over a longer period.
As shown in Table C-11, the City's quantified objectives are less than the RHNA number. The
quantified objectives include:
1) Dwellings built and granted occupancy during the period from January 1, 2001 through
July 31,2003;
2) Dwellings expected to be built and receive occupancies between August 1, 2003 and
December 31,2003 based on current construction inspections;and
3) Potential residential development between January 1, 2004 and July 1, 2009, based on
anticipated water supplies;
4) Construction of up to 1,178 dwellings on Cal Poly University-owned land for students,
faculty and staff.
131
l ` �
City of San Luis Obispo Housing Element :n:tta c h i-I i s(";t 2
a) Residential Growth Implications of Achieving Quantified Objectives
During the Housing Element planning period, the City could accommodate up to 4,087 new
dwellings, as shown in Table C-11. Of the total, up to 1,178 units will be located on State-
owned land, plus another 2,167 units will be targeted for very-low and low-income households.
These units are exempt from the one percent growth target in the Residential Growth
Regulations. During the planning period, at least 742 non-exempt units will be developed. The
resultant residential growth rate during the planning period is 0.51 percent. This is less than
General Plan anticipated residential growth rate of one percent per year.
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 that will add 840 acre-feet and the capacity to serve
1,764 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 water and sewer capacity, it is highly
unlikely these numbers of units will actually be produced without significant public subsidies.
In 2001,Department of Finance figures estimate the total number of city housing units at 19,355.
The construction of 742 moderate and above-moderate units would represent about 15% of the
City's planned growth capacity between 2001 and 2022 (4,945 units), the anticipated build out
date. As shown in Figure C-4,residential construction is cyclical following regional and national
trends. Between 1980 and 2003, city housing production averaged 196 units per year. This
average rate could increase to up to 225 units per year after 2004,and the City could still expect
to reach buildout in the anticipated timeframe. During the 7 Vi year planning period,the City will
grow at a rate of about 99 non-exempt units per year..
The City recognizes its responsibility to reduce constraints to achieving housing needs and to
expand housing opportunities for all income groups, to the extent physical, environmental and
financial limits allow. The City intends to help residents secure safe, good-quality, affordable
housing, and to meet regional housing targets in the same percentage allocations by income
group as prescribed in the RHNA Plan. To help achieve this goal,the City intends to encourage
housing production by zoning adequate sites for future housing, securing the necessary water
resources and sewer capacity to accommodate new development, and by exempting moderate
income housing from residential growth regulations to encourage affordable housing.
b) Water Supply Constraints
In 2003 the City's safe annual yield is 7,510 acre-feet. Estimated water demand for 2003, based
on an adopted per capita water use rate of 145 gallons per person per day, was 7,204 acre-feet,
leaving 306 acre-feet per year (afy) available for new development. With completion of the
initial phase Water Reuse Project expected in 2004, an additional 130 afy will be available
initially for new development.Based on past water use, it can be anticipated that seventy percent
132
A"'l zc.,irnLTt 2
City of San Luis Obispo Housing Element 1 !?• '
L.
of available water supplies will be used for residential development, and 30 percent for
commercial uses.
Table C-12
Maximum Residential Development Potential Based on Anticipated Water
Supplies,January 2003—July 2009
City of San Luis Obispo
Source Earliest Acre Feet/Year Potential Dwellin
Available
Difference between current 2003 306 643
use and safe annual 4eld
Water Reuse Projece 2004 130 273
Water Conservation 2005 340 714
Additional Groundwater 2006 500 1,050
Supply
Subtotals n/a 1,276 2,680
Water required for housing
built between 1/01/03- n/a [1921 n/a
12/31/034
Available Water Supply for
Residential Development, n1a 1,084 2,276 maximum#of
1/1/047/1/08 units possible
Source: 2003 Water Resources Status Report,City of San Luis Obispo,Utilities Department
City is pursuing multiple water projects through design stage. Implementation depends on cost and need.
2130 acre-feet available in planning period. Up to 1,070 afy additional as Margarita/Airport Areas develop and can
use recycled water.
570%of available water used for housing:30%for commercial uses. One acre-ficet/year will supply enough water
for three dwellings.
Between 1/1/03 and 12/31/03,583 in-city dwellings are anticipated,@.33 afy/dwelling=192 afy.
51,084 afy X 0.7%X 3=2,276 dwelling units possible between I/l/04 and 7/1/08.
Steps the City has taken to secure additional water supplies include:
• Water reuse became economical in 1994 after the City completed a$25 million upgrade of
the Water Reclamation Facility to comply with requirements for discharge to San Luis
Obispo Creek. The tertiary treatment required for discharge to the creek produces recycled
water that can be used to irrigate parks, playgrounds, agricultural crops and landscaping.
The recycled water also may be used for industrial processes,construction and many other
non-potable uses.
• In 2003 consultant proposals were evaluated for the engineering work necessary to increase
the use of groundwater resources. The schedule for the project envisions this new source
133
Attacl�mnrjt 2.
City of San Luis Obispo Housing Element
fully available in the summer of 2005. The goal of the project will be to increase
groundwater production by approximately 500 acre-feet per year.
• The 2003-05 Financial Plan includes an expanded Water Conservation Program to be
implemented beginning in the 2003-04 fiscal(does everyone know what your fiscal year is
— i.e., ends Dec. 31 or June 30?) year, with the potential to reduce overall water use by
approximately 340 acre-feet per year, making this amount available for additional
development.
• The County of San Luis Obispo is administering the Nacimiento Pipeline Project. The City
has requested 3,380 acre-feet for planning purposes. In July 2003 the revised
Environmental Impact Report is being evaluated, and the document is scheduled for
certification by the County Board of Supervisors in late 2003.
• The City of San Luis Obispo has been pursuing the Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project for
over 11 years. The decision to go forward with project development is on hold, pending a
judgment by the participating jurisdictions (County of San Luis Obispo, Paso Robles,
Atascadero and San Luis Obispo)on developing the Nacimiento Pipeline Project.
c) Land Resources and Development Rate
The City is actively pursuing annexation of two major expansion areas that will, upon
completion,add approximately 1,850 dwellings to the housing stock. Before these areas can be
annexed,City policies require preparation of a Specific Plan. The Draft Margarita Area Specific
Plan has been completed and a Draft EIR circulated for public comment.Annexation is likely in
2004,followed by subdivision processing and development review. At the earliest, new housing
would be ready in late 2005. The Orcutt Area is earlier in planning stages. A Draft Orcutt Area
Spec Plan has been prepared, with some revisions underway in 2004 to reflect higher density
and innovative design approaches for this new neighborhood. Allowing for completion of the
Specific Plan and the EIR process to follow,the Orcutt Area is expected to begin construction no
earlier than 2007.
During the Housing Element planning period, housing needs primarily will be met through in-
city infill and intensification,and through development of the Margarita Area. A 2003 inventory
of vacant and underailized land showed an in-city development capacity of 3,149 additional
density units. Under City standards,a density unit has the following equivalencies:
Studio Unit —0.50 Density Unit
One-Bedroom Unit —0.66 Density Unit
Two-Bedroom Unit — 1.00 Density Unit
Three-Bedroom Unit — 1.50 Density Units
Four or More Bedrooms —2.00 Density Units
134
AUa�,'hinent 2
City of San Luis Obispo Housing Element
This development capacity is equivalent to 3,149 additional two-bedroom dwellings, or 2,099
three-bedroom dwellings, or a combination of different dwelling types with density unit values
totaling 3,149. And while theoretically possible under City standards, actually achieving this
development potential is highly unlikely. This rate of development, 3,149 dwellings (assuming
two bedroom dwellings) in 7.5 years,averages 420 units per year. As shown in Figure C-4, this
rate of construction has been achieved in only about nine of the 44 years between 1955 and 1999.
Residential construction averaged only 83 dwellings per year between 2000 and 2002.
Figure C-4
Residential Construction, 1955-1999
City of San Luis Obispo
Net Increase In Dwellings(Permits Issued)
700
800
500
e 400
300
200
100
0
1 1
0eh� e59 �1 N * 41e1, e"A51`' e'0 450CPee10 # ep191° Z40c1
Years
Source: City of San Luis Obispo,Community Development Department,2000
Between 1980 and 2003, an average of 196 dwellings was added each year. Residential growth
management rules began in 1982, following General Plan policies targeting a two- percent
population growth rate during the 1980s and a one percent growth rate thereafter. Growth
Management rules were revised in 1996 to exempt very low- and low-income housing. In 1987
Growth Management Regulations were suspended when the City adopted Water Allocation
Regulations. In 1999 the City Council adopted new regulations(Municipal Code Chapter 17.88)
and a phasing schedule to manage growth. The new regulations emphasized scheduling of
development in the major annexation,while the timing of infill projects would not be regulated.
New dwellings affordable to residents with very low or low incomes were exempt from the one-
percent growth policy and the regulations. Across these policy changes, the cyclical
construction pattern continued.
Population changes are shown in Table C-13. These also tend to correspond to regional and
national economic cycles,and show an average annual growth rate of 1.02 percent during the 26-
year period from 1977 to 2002. Future growth rates are likely to follow this trend.
135
( - 4q
.Attach-n tt 2
City of San Luis Obispo Housing Element
Table C-13
Population Change, 1977-2002
City of San Luis Obis o
3-YEAR 5-YEAR
YEAR'S ANNUAL ANNUAL
YEAR POPULATION CHANGE AVERAGE AVERAGE
96 96 96
1977 34,282
1978 33,756 -1.5
1979 1 34,143 1.1 -0.2
1980* 34,252 0.3 0.0
1981 34,759 1.5 1.0 0.4
1982 35,239 1.4 1.1 0.6
1983 35,660 1.2 1.4 1.1
1984 36,407 2.1 1.6 1.3
1985 37,378 2.7 2.0 1.8
1986 38,205 2.2 2.3 1.9
1987 38282 0.2 1.7 1.7
1988 39,858 4.1 2.2 2.3
1989 41,207 3.4 2.6 2.5
1990* 41,958 1.8 3.1 2.3
1991 42,178 0.5 1.9 2.0
1992 42,922 1.8 1.4 2.3
1993 43,397 1.1 1.1 1.7
1994 43,919 1.2 1.4 1.3
1995 41,295 -6.0 -1.2 -0.3
1996 41,404 0.3 -1.5 -0.3
1997 41,807 1.0 -1.6 -0.5
1998 42,201 0.9 0.7 -0.5
1999 42,446 0.6 0.8 -0.6
2000* 44,174 4.1 1.9 1.4
2001 44,218 0.1 1.6 1.3
2002 44,426 0.5 1.6 1.2
26-year Avaage 1.02% 1.03% 0.95%
Source: City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Dep==t
-U.S.Census figures;all others California Department of Finance.
136
SIATEPErai if[1RNIA.AI slggae 7Rn g AT10N ANG HatjSING AGENCY yRNOLO SCMp(pR7p�R-,P.Rt G, a ,
DEPARTfi TENT OHOUP-1110 AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPM. .f
Division of Housing policy Development :
1800 T Id sweet smm 430
P.O.Boz 952053
82CW anW.CA 94252-2053
(418)32131771 PAX(918)327-2843
nraiw.IrcQ.Cd.(iov -
Attachment 3
November 12,2004
Mr. John Mandeville
Community Development Director
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo,CA 93403-8100
Dear Mr.Mandeville:
RE: Review of the City of Sam Luis Obispo's Revised Draft.Housing Element
Thank you for submitting revisions to San Luis Obispo's housing element received for the
Department's review on September 15,2004. As you know,the Department is required to review
draft housing elements and report our findings to the locality pursuant to Government Code
Section 65585(b). A series of telephone calls over the past few months with Mr Jeff Hook,Project
Planner,facilitated the review.
The Department is pleased to find the draft revisions address the statutory requirements described in
the August 2,2004 review. The element will be in full compliance with State housing element law
(Article 10.6 of the Government Code)when adopted with all revisions and submitted for review
pursuant to Government Code Section 65585(g).
The Department commends San Luis Obispo for its leadership and commitment to develop a meaningful
and compliant housing element. The revised element contains a more thorough iescription and analysis
of permit processing procedures, as well as stronger programs to establish highe-density zoning
designations within the designated Expansion Areas(Margarita and Orcutt Specific Plan areas), as
described in Programs 6.3.5 and 6.3.6. Other laudable programs include: (1)adapting permit
streamlining procedures(Program 2.3.4); (2)providing technical assistance to dt:velopei(s of affordable
housing(Program 2.3.12);and,(3)providing incentives to encourage mixed-use development in the
downtown area(Program 6.3.3). Effective implementation of the element's policies and programs will
ensure the City of San Luis Obispo can successfully address its existing and futtre housingneeds.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65400,the City should report on the effectiveness of its
housing element,with an emphasis on strategies to facilitate multifamily develol►ment in the Margarita
Specific Plan and downtown core areas, along with other actions that will assist the City in
accommodating its regional share need. The annual implementation reports are required to be
submitted to the local legislative body and this Department by October 1 of Back year.
Mr.John Mandeville Attachment 3
Page 2
The Departme-y t'.r determination that San Luis Obispo can accommodate its share of the regional
housing reed for lower-incorie households is based on the availability of siTfficie it sites allowing
2g�w:lli,g i�.its pe;awe(or 18 dens+_ty„nits; as described in Table 11. Pursuan� to GoveTmnent
Wut ScGtiGil v�°v�i�,t+a Ci j�f 53n T.`=1� QZ):�p0 miict Pnc�tre itg supiply of adegiu ate sites is
maintained tiiruughuut the piauuiT. perl'cd. Fi:ith:r, Sec*.io^.65$ 3:!'1 grpl,;hits Inca] governments
• a o:r>�.,,der its h,t,cino Qletttent
from lowering a residential density Wcu Lr,dctw—�n::.i:agµ....,1.%..t,....•-.-
unless the locality makes certain findings. Saiz Luis Obispo s :;gid TaaaO:litor t'ae s:=il•'-b'�'*j ^f
appropriately Zoned sites and the final development density of approved projects :o cases a cowF1'w"•c=
with these requirements.
In closing.the Department appreciates Mr.Hook's expertise, hard work,and cooperation throughout
the review proce*s. We looks forward to receiving the City's adopted housing el.ment(as amended).
if we can be Cf f',Vher assistance;oryou have any questions,please contact Don Thomas, of our staff
at(916% Y,5-S854.
In accordance with requests pursuant to the Public Records Act,we are forwarding copies of this letter to
the persons and organizations listed below.
Sincerely,
ell
�� rr
ieputy a"iu'i'c".C•tor ,
cc: Jeff Hook,Project Planner,City of San Luis Obispo
Mark Stivers,Senate Committed on Housing&ComATramV Development
Suzanne Ambrose,Supervising Deputy Attorney General, AG's 0115ce
Teary Roberts,Governor's Office of Planning and Researau
Nick Cammarota, California Building Industry Association
Marcia Salkin,California Association of Realtors
Marc Brown, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
Aob Wei^.er,ral;forn;a cnatitian for Rural Housing
J Dvjgla ATTrp r;vii 4.golL nnc
v $ i
iuea-afa ',LOU .1m ,este n, enter on Law and Poverty
J..L.Ynn 1�!laCl LWI,w'e�aCila l Y�lLVA Un Taw and.Poverty
Alexander Abbe,Law Firth of Richards,`vh atson&Gemsl'.on
Micbael G. Colantuono, Colantuono,Levin&RoZclI, APC
Ilene J. Jacobs,California Rural.Legal Assistance, Inc.
Richard Marcantonio,Public Advocates
r -� a
Attachment 4
RESOLUTION NO. (2004 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING THE 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 Housing Element of the San Luis Obispo City General Plan was
adopted on March 30, 2004 in compliance with State law; and
WHEREAS, the adopted Housing Element was forwarded to the State Department of
Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review, as required by State law; and
WHEREAS, in response to HCD comments, the City submitted draft amendments to the
State that provide additional information and clarification to meet State housing law but that do
not change adopted housing goals,policies or programs;
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined the proposed
amendments are non-substantive in nature, do not constitute a "project" as defined in California
Environmental Qualify Act Section 21065, and do not require environmental review beyond that
already completed under an initial environmental study prepared by the City (City File Number
ER 33-02), and as provided in the Negative Declaration approved by Council Resolution 9543
(2004 Series); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo held a public
hearing on December 8, 2004, in which it considered public testimony; comments from the
California Department of Housing and.Community Development, proposed amendments to the
adopted 2004 Housing Element, the staff report and pertinent correspondence; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after said public hearing, endorsed the
amendments to the General Plan Housing Element as shown in the Draft Amended 2004 Housing
Element and adopted a resolution recommending the City Council approved the amendments as
proposed; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on December 14; 2004 to consider
public testimony, Planning Commission recommendations, comments from the California
Department of Housing and Community Development, proposed amendments to the adopted
2004 Housing Element,the staff report and pertinent correspondence.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. This Council, after considering the proposed amendments to the 2004
Housing Element, the Planning Commission's recommendations, staff recommendations, public
testimony and correspondence, and reports thereon, makes the following findings: I s�
Attachment 4
Resolution Na (2004 Series)
Page 2
1. The proposed amendments, contained mainly in Appendix C, "Housing Constraints and
Resources", provide additional. background information or clarification to meet State
requirements; they do not change adopted policy or programs. Other minor graphic and
editorial changes to Chapters 1-4 and to the appendices are intended for clarity and to add
interest.
2. The proposed amendments are consistent with the General Plan and with the City
Council's actions and intent in adopting the 2004 Housing Element (Council Resolutions
9543, 9344, and 9545, 2004 Series).
3. The proposed amendments are appropriate and necessary to ensure that the City's
previously adopted Housing Element meets State law.
4. Achieving Housing Element certification will promote affordable housing opportunities
and help achieve adopted housing goals by making the City eligible for various housing
grants and financial incentives, and will foster cooperation among local and state agencies
in addressing an urgent need for affordable housing in San Luis Obispo.
SECTION 2. Environmental Determination. Council hereby determines the proposed
General Plan Housing Elements amendments are non-substantive in nature, do not constitute a
"project" as defined in California Environmental Quality Act Section 21065, and do not require
environmental review beyond that already completed under an initial environmental study (City
File Number ER 33-02), and hereby affirms that the Negative Declaration approved by Council
Resolution 9543 (2004 Series) still applies and that no further environmental review is required.
SECTION 3. Approval of Amendments to the 2004 Housing Element. Council hereby
approves the Amendments to 2004 Housing Element, as set forth in Exhibit A.
SECTION 4. Publication and Availability. The Community Development Director shall
cause the amended Housing Element to be published and made available to City officials,
concerned agencies, public libraries, and to the public. The Director shall also transmit a copy of
the amended Housing Element theStateDepartment of Housing and Community Development.
SECTION 5. Effective Date. The Amended 2004 Housing Element shall become effective
immediately upon adoption of this resolution.
Upon motion of , seconded by ,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:.
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 14th day of December, 2004.
i -s4
I
Resolution No. (2M Series) Attachment 4
Page 3
David F. Romero, Mayor
ATTEST:
Audrey Hooper
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Jon han . Lowell
City Attorney
Exhibit"A": Draft Amended 2004 Housing Element
Jh/LAmsingcI=cntnpdatdccm 12-14-04
council MR�D� 12-14-04
acenba Pepont 1w.N.�,
CITY OF SAN LUIS O B I S P O
FROM: Ken Hampian, City Administrative Officer
Bill Statler, Director of Finance & Information Technology
SUBJECT: GOAL-SETTING PROCESS FOR 2005-07
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Approve the goal-setting process for 2005-07.
DISCUSSION
Background
On August 17, 2004, the Council approved the goal-setting and Financial Plan schedule for
2005-07, including the conceptual approach to Council goal-setting as part of this process.
Under this approach, we will continue using a multi-year budget that begins with the Council
setting goals for the most important things for the City to accomplish over the next two years. Based
on our experience over the past fourteen years, this has been a successful process in assuring that the
fundamental purpose of the City's budgetary process is achieved: linking what we want to
accomplish for our community over the next two years with the resources necessary to do so.
Summary of Significant Changes
Building on our past successes, we plan to follow a similar approach to the one we used two
years ago. However, there is one notable change in the proposed goal-setting process for 2005-
07:
Combination of Public Comment and Small Group Discussion at the Community Forum.
This is an effort to give the best of both worlds. Some people like to provide public comment.
Others want to learn and interact in a smaller group around their topic. The proposed format
offers both as well as opportunities for attendees to participate in a "straw" prioritization process
at the end of the meeting..
We believe that the proposed improvements in the Community Forum will enhance the breadth
and quality of public involvement.
Two-Step Approach
With the November 18 and December 14 budget workshops as the foundation, we again recommend
using a "two-step" approach to the Council goal-setting process. As previously approved by the
Council,Don Maruska will serve as our facilitator at both workshops.
1. Community Forum. Held on the evening of Wednesday, January 12, the purpose of this forum
is to solicit suggested goals and work programs from Council advisory bodies, community
Goal-Setting Process for 2005-07 Page 2
groups and interested individuals. In notices sent to these groups, we have requested that written
suggestions be provided to us by January 3, 2005. To ensure that adequate space is available for
this workshop, it will be held at the Ludwick Community Center.
2. Council Goal-Setting Workshop. Following the receipt of written and oral comments at the
January 12 Community Forum, the Council goal-setting workshop will be held on Saturday,
January 29, in the City/County Library Community Room.
Goal-Setting Process
Exhibits A, B and C describe the proposed objectives, guidelines, schedule and roles for both the
community forum and goal-setting workshops, summarized as follows:
Community Forum
The January 12 community forum is intended to solicit suggestions from Council advisory bodies,
community groups and interested individuals on proposed City goals and fiscal issues. City staff
will summarize the results of the forum and distribute them to the Council by Tuesday, January
18, 2005.
Council Goal-Setting Workshop
At the all-day January 29 workshop, the Council will review the consolidated summary of goals
presented by Council members to ensure clarity, completeness and understanding; and then
narrow the list to finalist goals that are supported by at least three Council members. After this
step, the staff will prepare a final listing that the Council can use in prioritizing goals. In 2003-
05, the Council used a ranking system of 5 through 0 for each candidate goal, summarized as
follows:
5 Most important, highest priority for City to achieve over the next two years.
4 Very important goal to achieve.
3 Important goal to achieve.
2 Address if resources are available.
1 Defer to 2007-09 for consideration.
0 Not a priority goal.
Depending on the number of candidate goals, total points available to individual Council
members have ranged in the past from 50 to 75—about 3 points per candidate goal. For
example, if there are 15 goals in the final listing, then 50 points might be about right; if there are
25, then 75 might be appropriate.
Staff will summarize the results of the Council's ranking during a break at the workshop. Based
on our past experience, it is likely that three priority "tiers" will emerge from this process:
1. Major City Goals. These represent the most important, highest priority goals for the City to
accomplish over the next two years, and as such, resources to accomplish them should be
included in the 2005-07 Financial Plan. If the work program approved by the Council for a
l— oL
Goal-Setting Process for 2005-01 Page 3
Major City Goal is not included in the CAO's Preliminary Financial Plan, compelling
reasons and justification must be provided as to why resources could not be made available
to achieve this goal.
2. Other Important Goals. Goals in this category are important for the City to accomplish,
and resources should be made available in the 2005-07 Financial Plan if at all possible.
3. Address As Resources Permit. While it is desirable to achieve these goals over the next
two years, doing so is subject to current resource availability. (Note: None of the goals from
the 2003-05 process fell into this category).
The goal-setting process also will elicit the Council's interests in potential revenue enhancement
and service reduction possibilities in order to support desired goals, especially in light of the
very tough fiscal outlook facing the City.
If needed, continued consideration of goals for 2005-07 is scheduled for the next regular Council
meeting following the workshop (February 1, 2005).
Council Homework Assignment
Provided in Exhibit D is the Council's "homework assignment" for the January 29 workshop. It
requests that Council members prepare and submit up to seven candidates for Major City Goals
by Friday, January 21. Finance will then compile a verbatim, composite list organized based on
common topics, without identifying who submitted the particular statements. We recommend
that Council members refrain from releasing their personal lists so that each Council member has
flexibility to review all of the submissions and discuss them at the goal-setting workshop before
staking a position.
This consolidated listing will distributed to all Council members on Tuesday, January 25, for
review and consideration before the workshop.
Major City Goal Criteria
Provided in Exhibit E is the suggested "criteria for major City goals" which have been used by
the Council for the past twelve years.
Extensive Notification
We have made extensive efforts to invite community and advisory body participation in this
process, including:
1. An extensive series of briefings and follow-up reminders with advisory bodies on their
important role in the process in providing the
2. Notices to about 200 community groups and interested individuals inviting them to submit
written suggestions and participate in the community forum.
� - 3
Goal-Setting Process for 2005-07 Page 4
3. "Community Budget Bulletin' inserts in our utility bills requesting goal suggestions from our
citizens and inviting them to participate in the community forum. This will reach about
14,000 households.
4. Display ads will be run in January in The Tribune and New Times.
Goal-Setting Workshop Notebooks
To help organize all the background information that Council members will receive as part of
this goal-setting process, notebooks will be distributed by January 4, 2005 with the following
twelve sections:
Agendas
1. Agendas for the January 12 community forum and January 29 goal-setting workshop.
Goal Recommendations
2. Suggested goals received from Council advisory bodies.
3. Suggested goals from the "Community Budget Bulletin' survey as of January 4 (additional
submissions received after this date will be distributed to the Council in a three-hole punch
format for inclusion in the notebook, along with an updated summary)..
4. Suggested goals received by January 4 from community groups and interested individuals
(additional submissions received after this date will be distributed to the Council in a three-
hole punch format for inclusion in the notebook).
5. Summary of results from the January 12 Community Forum (to be distributed by January
18).
6. Consolidated Council member goals (to be distributed by January 25).
Background Materials
7. Status reports from the November 18 budget workshop: 2003-05 Goals and Objectives;
Current CIP Projects; General Plan Programs; and Long-Term CIP.
8. Goal-setting process for 2005-07.
9. Results from the August 2003 citizen survey.
10. Five-Year Fiscal Forecast (presented to the Council on December 14, 2004).
11. Other background information such as the 2005-07 Financial Plan schedule, Budget-in-Brief,
Financial Plan policies and public notifications.
12. Notes and space for other supplemental materials that the Council may receive.
Council Goal Work Programs: Major City Goals
After the Council finalizes goals and objectives for 2005-07, the staff will prepare detailed work
programs for each of the Major City Goals. Based on past experience, it is important for the ' r.
I
Goal-Setting Process for 2005-07 Page 5
Council to reach consensus not only on the objective for Major City Goals, but also on the
program, action plan and resources that will be needed to accomplish it as well. Unless the staff
fully understands the scope and timeframe that the Council intended, we cannot identify needed
resources; and without this understanding, the Preliminary Financial Plan may significantly over
(or under) fund the desired work effort.
In short, before the staff begins to build the Preliminary Financial Plan around Major City Goals,
it is essential that we have a clear understanding of what the Council hopes to achieve with each
Major City Goal over the next two years. Accordingly, the purpose of each work programs is to:
1. Define and scope the adopted goal.
2. Ensure that there is a clear understanding of the goal so appropriate resources are allocated,
and progress can be measured in achieving it.
This is especially important in the case of objectives where fully achieving the goal is likely to
extend well beyond the two-year Financial Plan period. However, we can measure progress—
and our success in accomplishing the goal—by clearly defining the specific actions we plan to
undertake over the next two years.
We plan to present the work programs for Major City Goals to the Council on April 12, 2005.
As discussed above, programs and projects related to goals in the other two priority categories
will be reflected (and highlighted) in the Preliminary Financial Plan.
Goal-Setting Calendar
The following summarizes key dates leading to the January 29 goal-setting workshop:
Council Goal-SeUing Calendar
When whit
Friday,January 3 Finance receives suggested goals from advisory bodies,community
groups and interested individuals.
Tuesday,January 4 Council receives goal-setting notebooks.
Wednesday,January 12 Council holds community forum.
Tuesday,January 18 Council receives written results from community forum.
Friday,January 21 Council members submit goals to Finance.
Tuesday, January 25 Finance distributes consolidated goals organized by similar themes.
Saturday,January 29 Council holds goal-setting workshop.
Next Steps
The Financial Plan calendar approved by the Council on August 17, 2004 is provided in Exhibit
F. After the goal-setting workshop, key dates in the budget process include:
I Y
Goal-Setting Process for 2005-07 Page 6
Remainin Key Dates.A er Janua 29 Goal-Setting Workshop
When What
Tuesday,February 1 Follow-up to Council Goal-Setting, If Needed. Continued
Regular Meeting consideration of goal-setting at the next regularly scheduled Council
meeting following the February 1 workshop if needed.
Monday, February 15 Mid-Year Budget Review. Consider the City's fiscal status at the mid-
Regular Meeting point of the fiscal year and make appropriation adjustments as
necessary.
Tuesday, April 12 Major City Goal Work Programs. Review and approve detail work
Special Budget Workshop programs to accomplish major City goals;provide other budget direction
as needed.
Thursday, May 19 Preliminary Financial Plan. Receive 2005-07 Preliminary Financial
Plan and Appendices A & B: Significant Operating Program Changes
and Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Projects.
Thursday, May 26 Budget Workshop. Review the Financial Plan and consider General
Special Budget Workshop Fund operating programs.
Tuesday, May 31 Budget Workshop. Consider General Fund CIP projects.
Special Budget Workshop
Thursday,June 2 Budget Workshop. Consider Enterprise Fund operating programs, CIP
Special Budget Workshop projects,revenue requirements and rates.
Tuesday, June 7 Budget Workshop. Continue to discuss and receive public comment on
Regular Meering the Preliminary Financial Plan.
Tuesday,June 21 Public Hearing. Continue to discuss and receive public comment on
Regular Meeting the Preliminary Financial Plan; adopt the budget.
SUMMARY
Council goal-setting is an important "first step" in the City's Financial Plan process.. In fact, it is
important to stress just this fact—it is the beginning of the budget process, not the end. Setting
goals—and subsequently approving work programs for major City goals—is not adoption of the
budget. As reflected in the budget schedule above, this will not occur until June 2005, following
issuance of the Preliminary Financial Plan and extensive budget workshops and hearings.
EXHIBITS
A. Outline for Community Workshop (January 12)
B. Outline for Council Goal-Setting Workshop (January 29)
C. Guidelines for Council Members During the Goal-Setting Process
D. Form for Council Members to Submit Candidate Goals
E. Criteria for Major City Goals
F. Financial Plan Schedule Summary
G:Finance/Budget Foldersr2005-07 Financial Plan/Council Goal-Setting/Council Agenda Reports/Goal-Setting Process rr A
��1
1 f-
i
Goal-Setting Process for 2005=07 Page 7
Community Forum
6:30 PM to 9;30 PM, Wednesday, January 12, 2005
Ludwick Community Center
6:30 Welcome Mayor
6:35 Process, Current Goals and Fiscal Outlook CAO
7:00 Public Comment—Members of public who desire to speak complete public comment card
indicating topic. Mayor calls upon a speaker and identifies topic. Department Head in the budget
area for the topic steps up to write the idea on a flip chart sheet and then posts it in the budget
discussion area.
8:10 Group Discussions by Budget Topics– 1) Department Heads and staff facilitate a discussion of
proposed goals in their respective areas, 2) City staff discusses links with current programs, and
3) participants explore alternatives and potential funding possibilities.
8:40 Brief Report from Each Group (with individual comments where desired for clarification)
9:10 Participants Vote on Top Priorities with Dots
9:20 Participants Complete Summary Feedback Form(which includes potential revenue enhancements
and expense reductions)
9:30 Participation Prizes and Close
Preparation
• Prepare handouts on budget process and fiscal forecast to expedite review.
• Provide poster boards for each of the major budget categories with current and continuing
program activities and budget allocations..
• Set up the room with a gathering area for each of the budget categories.
• Assign staff members to facilitate group discussions.
• Provide 5 adhesive dots per attendee
• Prepare summary feedback form for attendees to note suggested priorities and recommendations.
• Give participants coupons for final prize drawings (City t-shirts, mugs, etc.) to reward those who
stay to discuss issues with their neighbors.
Outline of Summary Feedback Form
• Identify desired level of attention (less, same, or more) for budget categories
• Indicate which revenue increases, if any, deserve further consideration
• Identify potential areas to consider expense reductions, if needed, to balance the budget.
L- �
Goal-Setting Process for 2005-07 Page 8
Council Goal-Setting Workshop
8:30 AM to 4.30 PM
Saturday, January 29, 2005
City-County Library Community Room
8:30-9:00 a.m. Refreshments
9:00- 9:05 a.m. Welcome and Introductions Mayor
9:05 -9:10 a.m. Purpose, Process & Guidelines Facilitator
9:10—Noon Review Goals by Category Council
Discuss Relationship of Goals to Current Activities
Formulate and Select Candidate Goals
Discuss Revenue Enhancement or Service.Reduction Possibilities
[staff writes candidate goals on flip charts]
Noon— 12:15 p.m. [Council may accept further comments from the
public that have not been previously presented]
12:15 — 1:15 Lunch Break [staff compiles candidate goals]
1:15 - 2:15 p.m. Discuss and Weight the Goals Council
Clarify Goal Statements
Each Member Prepares a Written Ballot Ranking the Goals
2:15 - 3:15 p.m. Tabulate Results Staff
3:50-4:00 p.m. Review and Identify Major City Goals Council
4:00-4:30 p.m. Discuss Next Steps Council/Staff
Preparation
• Staff compiles and distributes composite list of candidate goals to Council members
• Staff prepares a template for Council ballot sheet
• Assign staff to record goal statements as Council formulates them
Goal-Setting Process for 2005-07 Page 9
EXHIBIT C
Suggested Guidelines for Council Members
During the Goal-Setting Process
1. Encourage advisory boards, community groups and citizens to submit
written comments about desired goals.
2. Invite citizens to participate in Community Forum and to listen and learn
from their neighbors.
3. Receive comments from community and acknowledge their input without
prematurely expressing your point of view.
4. Assure the community that you are willing to listen openly to all
perspectives.
5. Focus your submission of suggested goals on a short list of key priorities to
target City resources.
6. Avoid publicizing your submission of suggested goals. Let staff compile
your submissions verbatim into a composite list of goals by category without
identification of who made each suggestion. This enables you to see the
whole picture.
7. Give yourself flexibility by not publicly staking positions in advance of the
January 29, 2005 Council Goal-Setting Workshop.
8. Use this process as a way to learn from citizens and Council colleagues
about what's important.
9. Explore areas where the Council can come together for positive action.
10. Recognize that this is an important step, but only the first step, in the
planning and budgeting for the next two years.
Goal-Setting Process for 2005-07 Page 10
EXHIBITDA
Council Member Candidate Major City Goals
Please write up to 7 candidates for Major City Goals below and submit them to Finance by January 25;
2005. Finance will then compile a verbatim, composite list by topic without identifying who submitted
the particular statements. Please refrain from releasing your personal list so that each Council
member has flexibility to review all of the submissions and discuss there at the Council Goal-Setting
Workshop before staking a position. Electronic versions of this form will be provided to you.
0
0
0
HO
� 1
Goal-Setting Process for 2005-07 Page-11
EXHIBIT D.2
Possible Measures to Achieve the Goals and Balance the Budget
Potential Revenue Enhancements for Further Consideration. Please list any revenue
enhancement opportunities (fee increases, tax measures, etc.) that you would like the Council to
discuss at the January 29, 2005 goal-setting workshop.
Potential General Fund Service Reductions for Further Consideration. In the event that
expense reductions become necessary to balance the budget, in which areas would you like the
staff to assess the possibilities? Please check off any that you'd like considered.
Public Safety Community Development
❑ Neighborhood and Crime Prevention ❑ Planning: Development Review:
❑ Police Investigations ❑ Planning: Long-Range Planning
❑ Police Traffic Safety ❑ Building and Safety
p Police Patrol ❑ Engineering: Development Review
❑ Fire Emergency Response ❑ Engineering: Capital Projects
❑ Fire Hazard Prevention ❑ Natural Resource Protection
0 Disaster Preparedness ❑ Community Promotion
Transportation ❑ Economic Development
Transportation Planning General Government
❑ Pavement Maintenance ❑ General Administration
❑ Sidewalks ❑ .Human Resources/Risk Management
❑ Traffic Signals and Signs ❑ Financial Management
❑ Street Lights ❑ Information Technology
❑ Creek and Flood Protection ❑ Building Maintenance
Leisure, Cultural & Social Services ❑ Fleet Management
❑ Recreation Programs Other Services
❑ Park Maintenance ❑
❑ Swim Center ❑
❑ Trees ❑
❑ Cultural Services ❑
❑ Social Services ❑
i
Goal=Setting Process for 2005-07 Page 12
Criteria for Major City Goals
1. Be legitimate to our genuine beliefs (real, supported).,
2. Agreed upon by a Council majority.
3. Focused in number for comprehension, communication and focus.
4. Set forth in one document—the Financial Plan.
5. Be clear and understandable.
6. Established as a high priority and a real commitment.
7. Reflect major goals that cannot be achieved without Council support.
8. Translated into the objectives of employees at all levels of the organization.
9. Created within a supportive atmosphere where participants are not afraid to
state their suggestions for improving goals or objectives.
10. Reflect genuine consensus: while unanimous agreement is not required, they
should be accepted to the point where resistance to them is reduced or
eliminated.
t - cam
Goal-Setting Process for 2005-07 V Page 13
2005-07 Financial Plan Schedule Summary
When What - - - - - - --
August 17, 2004 s Council approves Financial Plan process and schedule.
November 18,2004 a Special Budget Workshop. Council holds study session on the status of
General Plan programs; long-term capital improvement plan (CIP); status
of Major City Goals, other objectives and CIP projects;general fiscal
outlook for 2005-07; and"pantry item" follow-up.
December 14, 2004 ■ Special Budget Workshop Council considers Financial Plan
organization and policies; reviews annual financial report for 2003-04;
considers results of five-year fiscal forecast; and finalizes goal-setting
process..
January 12, 2005 6 Special Budget Workshop. Council holds community forum.
January 29, 2005 a Special Budget Workshop. Council holds goal-setting workshop:.
discusses candidate goals presented at January 12 workshop; discusses
Council member goals distributed on January 25; prioritizes and sets
major City goals.
February 1,2005 ® If needed,Council finalizes goals and priorities.
February 15, 2005 ■ Council considers mid-year budget review.
March to May 2005 IN Departments submit budget requests.
■ Budget review team analyzes requests and meets with departments.
■ CAO finalizes budget recommendations.
April 12, 2005 ■ Special Budget Workshop. Council approves major City goal work
programs and sets strategic.budget direction in preparing the 2005-07
Financial Plan.
May 19,2005 ■ CAO issues preliminary budget.
May 26, 31 and ■ Special Budget Workshops. Council holds evening budget workshops:
June 2, 2005 . May 26: Financial Plan overview and General Fund operating
programs.
0 May 31: General Fund CIP projects.
• June 2:Enterprise Fund programs, CIP projects and rates.
May 25,2005 ® Planning Commission reviews CIP for General Plan consistency.
June land 21,.2005 ■ Council holds continued hearings; adopts budget.
Council Meeting Dates in Bold
r
p council MCMORAnbum
DATE: December 10, 2004 RECEIVED
DEC 10 200
TO: City Council
SLO CITY CLERK
VIAc Ken Hampian, CA
FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Director_ DFvI jq
BY: Michael Draze, Deputy Director of Community Developmenr',_-
SUBJECT: Planning Commission Action on Housing Element Amendment
At the Planning Commission's December 8, 2004 special meeting, the Commission voted 5-0
(Commissioners Aiken and Osborne absent) to recommend City Council approval of
amendments to Appendix C of the Housing Element. There was no public comment at the
meeting. Commissioners received a brief presentation on the City's planned application for
State Workforce Housing Reward Program Grant and other possible grant opportunities once the
City's Housing Element was state-certified. Commissioners thanked staff for its work on
housing element certification and housing grants.
Council will consider the Planning Commission's recommendation at its Tuesday,December
14th special meeting. A copy of the amended Housing Element, including the revised
appendices and new graphics in Chapters 14, is available in the Council's Reading File. The
draft Planning Commission minutes are attached.
p-COUNCIL _TCDD DIR
AO _ZFIN DIR
RED FILE CACAO _FIRE CHIEF
M ING AGENDA LERK'O I Z'pO DIR
CL�RK'ORIG .LTPOUCE CHF
DAT 1 16�1TEM #2_ ❑ D T EADS REC DIR
_ UTR DI IR
(]�1R DIR
CC Mem 12-10.04.doc
Draft
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
DECEMBER 8, 2004
CALL TO ORDERIPLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on
Wednesday, December 8, 2004, in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street,
San Luis Obispo.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commrs. Andrea Miller, Michael Boswell, Alice Loh, Carlyn Christianson,
and Chairperson James Caruso
Absent: Commrs. Orval Osborne and Jim Aiken
Staff: Housing Programs Manager Doug Davidson, Deputy Community
Development Director Michael Draze, Senior Planner Jeff Hook, Deputy
Public Works Director Tim Bochum, and Recording Secretary Irene Pierce
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
There were no comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
1. Citywide. GPA 33-02; Amend background information in Appendix C of the
General Plan Housing Element to address State Housing and Community
Development Department comments; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant.
Senior Planner Jeff Hook presented the staff report recommending the Commission
recommend to the City Council, approval of the draft amendments to General Plan
Housing Element, Appendix C: Housing Constraints and Resources.
Housing Programs Manager Doug Davidson gave an overview of the Housing Element
draft.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Draft Planning Commission, .,,finutes
December 8, 2004
Page 2
Vice-Chair Boswell moved the staff recommendation. Seconded by Commr. Loh.
AYES: Commrs. Loh, Boswell, Miller, Christianson, and Chairperson Caruso
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commrs. Osborne and Aiken
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carried on 5 : 0 vote.
BUSINESS ITEM:
2. 1049 Orcutt Road. GPC 42-04; General Plan conformity determination for property
acquisition for future infrastructure improvements; R=3-S zone; City of San Luis
Obispo, applicant.
Deputy Public Works Director Tim Bochum presented the staff report requesting the
Planning Commission determine and report to the City Council that the proposed
property acquisition is in conformance with the General Plan.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Loh moved to recommend that the City Council find that the proposed property
acguisition.is.in conformance with the.General Plan. Seconded by Vice-Chair Boswell.
AYES: Commrs. Loh, Boswell, Miller, Christianson, and Chairperson Caruso
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commrs. Osborne and Aiken
ABSTAIN: None.
The motion carried on a 5 : 0 vote.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
3. Staff:
A. Agenda Forecast:
Deputy Director Michael Draze gave an agenda forecast of upcoming items.
4. Commission:
ADJOURMENT:
Draft Planning Commission,-,minutes
December 8, 2004
Page 3
With no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 7:40
p.m. to the next regular meeting scheduled for January 12, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. in
Council Chamber.
Respectfully submitted by
Irene Pierce
Recording Secretary
_1
C RECEIVED
JOHN DUNN DEC C 9 200
PO BOX 2479 AVILA BEACH CA 93424
RED FILE Email: johnodunn@aol.com Telephone: 805.595.2804 SLO CITY CLERK
M G AGENDA
DAITEM #_k&Cf UZ60cpDecember 6, 2004
I
_21
COUNCIL CDD DIR
Mayor Dave Romero and City Council Members cAo FIN DIR
City Hall 2�ACA0" 7FIRECHIEF
990 Palm Street -�A70RNE! raw DIR
0 CLERK/0R13 OLICE CHF
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ZREC DIR
Z.UTIL.DIR
�HR DIR
Dear Mayor Romero and City Council Members:
I want to be among the first to extend holiday greetings to all of you and to give some
preliminary thoughts on your 2005-07 City Council Goal Setting. I do so with humility for I
understand the value of a former CAO's opinions to the City Council (but I'm doing it
anyway.)
I understand that the City continues to live under severe financial pressures and that it is
difficult to do great things for the community under such conditions. However, it is during
the tough times when it is most important to keep the dream alive for what you hope to
accomplish for your community in the longer term. It was during those tough times of
1993, that we had to make the gut-wrenching decision to lay off City employees, when we
made the decision to continue on with the Performing Arts Center project. Had it not been
for that decision this City would have no Performing Arts Center in which to celebrate our
sense of community
Protection of the city's excellent services and the quality employees who provide those
services should also be a priority of the City.
My specific suggestions for your consideration are:
1) Strengthen and extend the downtown
Experience has shown the most immediate and pragmatic way to do this is to plan for
the next parking garage. Whether it is to be the Palm/Nipomo or the Wells Fargo, or
the north of Santa Rosa location is your decision. I hope that decision is based on the
concept of leveraging economic gain as well as an assessment of parking needs.
Other ways to increase the strength and attractiveness of the downtown are:
A. Work with property owners/developers to create a major high-quality
conference facility in or on the edge of the downtown.
B. Install bulb-outs, widen sidewalks, increase outdoor restaurant seating, to offer
European-style ambiance which has appeal and increases vitality.
C. Build on the old tum-of-the-century charm to increase it's subliminal appeal and
charm (cleanliness, lighting, furnishings, decor, etc)
D. Strengthen the"cultural center" concept on Monterey/Broad Streets, and
implement specific elements of the plan
E. Support downtown public art
2) Improve the attractiveness and function of the major entrances into the downtown
A. Continue work and implement the South Broad Street Corridor Plan. It's pretty
homely (since the "g"word has been eliminated) out there right now; yet the
area has great potential to be more attractive and to better serve the
community.
B. Continue to improve Santa Barbara Street by widening the unfinished,portion
and by encouraging quality design/development in the area.
C. Widen lower Higuera Street and implement the mid-Higuera Plan. This area is
not only a major entrance way into the downtown and a major exit from the
downtown, it is the interconnection between the two major commercial areas of
the City and it currently looks gr. . . er, homely. The improvement of this area is
a necessity if the City is to allow further growth in the Madonna area and at the
same time entice those shoppers into the downtown as the City's economic
report assumes.
3) Return to a more vigilant open space preservation program.
For this program to work at it's best, maximizing OPM (other people's money), it
requires using City money for leveraging. This programs potential for the long-term
improvement of the City's surroundings is too important to let this past City initiative
wither on the vine. Enticing pedestrian paths, bicycle paths, nature appreciation
programs, etc., are all part of this equation
While dozens of other things could be added to the above list, my overall suggested
approach, hopefully balanced, could be summed up as"jobs, housing, and land" (as in
higher paying, affordable and preservation of).
The overall thrust of the above three suggestions is to enhance the quality, attractiveness
and the economic vitality of the City. A place that is attractive and fulfilling to the
residents of the City is also an enticing attractive place for our guests.
Thank you for taking the time to read this and have a wonderful holiday season.
And, congratulations to Christine, Paul, Dave, and John and "hello"to Allen.
Best,
John
CC: Ken Hampian