HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/04/1993, 1 - DOCUMENTS FOR MAY 4 COUNCIL REVIEW OF DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT ETING AGENDA
DATE ITEM #
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Department
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 28, 1993
TO: John Dunn, City Administrative Officer
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director �o
BY: John Mandeville, Long-Range Planning Manages qr�_
SUBJECT: Documents for May 4 Council Review of Draft Housing Element
Staff has been proceeding using every available resource to provide the Council with a revised
draft Housing Element which incorporates the modifications directed by the Council at their
April 6 meeting. Staff will be able to provide the Council.with a revised draft prior to their
May 4 meeting (April 29 or 30).
The State Government Code requires any significant change to the Planning.Commission's
recommendation regarding a General Plan amendment that was not previously considered by the
Commission to be referred back to the Commission for a recommendation. Staff will prepare
a comparative analysis of the Planning Commission's recommended goals, policies, and
programs and the revised goals, policies, and programs directed by the Council. Staff will not
be able to have this analysis available at the May 4 Council meeting because of the extent of the
revisions required to the draft Element.
However, State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) review of the
Council's modified draft Housing Element can proceed concurrently as the Council compares
the Planning Commission's recommendation. Staff recommends sending the revised draft
Element to HCD immediately for review and comment. A future meeting to discuss the State
comments and staff evaluation of the amended document will be scheduled upon reciept of HCD
comments. Final Council action can be taken at that time.
HEmemo.jm
1- 1
MEETING DATE:
�uN�i�►���II11111�pial�Illl city of San Luis osispo .� -
Wii% COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER: �
f=or:
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Dir or; By: Jeff H 'ate Planner
SUBJECT: Review of the revised draft Housing Element.
CAO RECOMMENDATION: 1) Give direction to staff regarding changes or additions to the
Housing Element; and 2) By motion, authorize the Community Development Director to submit
the May 1993 revised draft Housing Element incorporating City Council comments to the State
Department of Housing and Community Development.
SITUATION
At its April 6th hearing, councilmembers directed staff to revise the draft housing element, and
bring the revised draft back for City Council review at its May 4th hearing. The size, format,
and content of the revised draft have been modified to address councilmember's comments, as
explained below.
Once the revised draft is ready, staff intends to send the draft to the Housing and Community
Development Department (HCD) to allow review of the draft for compliance with State law.
Completion of the HCD review process should allow the City to be in "procedural" compliance
with State housing law, whether or not the City chooses to accommodate the Regional Housing
Needs Allocation (RHNA) set by the San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council (COG).
ADVISORY BODY RECOMMENDATION
At its May 13, 1992 meeting, the Planning Commission completed its review of the Draft
Housing Element update and recommended several changes to the text. The most significant
revision dealt with the City's response to "regional housing need" as determined by the COG.
Commissioners felt that COG's housing need allocation was unrealistic, and that the updated
housing element should reflect the City's current growth management policy which allows for
about a 1 percent increase (about 180 dwellings) in the housing stock per year.
DISCUSSION
The Council directed staff to: acknowledge the RHNA numbers and to reject them, substituting
the City's 1 percent growth limit(in keeping with the Planning Commission's recommendation);
exclude very-low and low income housing from growth management limits; incorporate Mayor
Pinard's goals, policies and programs and Vice-Mayor Roalman's "three points" for housing law
compliance; to exclude reference to Ferrini-Foothill neighborhood; and to include only
information required by law.
The revised housing element is less than one-half the length of the April 1,992 Planning
Commission hearing draft that councilmembers reviewed on April 6th. It focuses on goals,
policies and programs; and analysis is limited to those topics required by state law.
i11N11XNIIVIIIII�u���� ���lf MY Of San tins OBISp0
WIMMOM COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 2
Previous discussions of "housing issues and challenges" and city demographics are deleted.
Housing production targets now reflect the City's 1 percent growth limit, with qualifying
affordable housing exempt from those limits. A section on "quantified housing objectives" has
been added, with additional information to explain why the City cannot accommodate the
housing need allocation adopted by the COG.
Consistent with the 1 percent population growth limit, the Housing Element would accommodate
about 1,100 additional dwelling units during the five-year period (1993-1998) covered by the
element, and about 1,185 units during the overlapping period covered by the RHNA plan
(January 1991 to July 1997). Limited water supply, adequacy of public facilities, and
environmental impacts are cited as constraints to the City meeting the COG numbers.
Council Review Strategy
At this stage, broad council direction on overall housing policies, programs, and housing element
format and focus would be most helpful, given the council's desire to expedite HCD review.
State law provides for a mandatory 45-day State review period, although HCD officials haye,said
they would try to expedite review of the City's element at the City's request. HCD's review
will focus primarily on quantified housing needs and housing objectives, especially for special
groups (ie. handicapped, elderly, homeless, etc.), possibly resulting in the need for additional
analysis and or changes to policies or programs to comply with State law. Concurrent with
HCD review, staff will bring the goals, policies and programs back to the Council (and possibly,
the Planning Commission) for additional study and public hearings. Staff anticipates that a
revised council hearing draft which addresses HCD comments will return for Council in early
Summer.
Attachment: -Planning Commission minutes
Enclosure: -Council Hearing Draft Housing Element, May 1993
A02
P.C. Minutes
May 13, 1992
Page 4
The motion passed.
Cindy Clemens explained that if t City was pursuing an
enforcement action against the appli ant , the City would have to
prove the use was illegal . Howeve , because the applicant is
asking the City to grant him a permit, the applicant had the
burden of proving to the Cit at the previous use was legal .
DISCUSSION ITEMS
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Item 2 Draft Housinc Element . The commission will continue to
review and comment on the draft Housing Element .
Jeff Hook presented the staff report and explained the Commission
started reviewing the Draft Housing Element on April 27, 1992 , at
a meeting focusing on regional housing needs . He said the
Commission had directed' staff to use a one percent growth factor
to . establish city housing needs because the local Council of
Governments ' (COG' s) determination of housing needs was
considered too high to achieve due to resource limits. He asked
i for comments on the goals, policies , and programs of the Draft
Housing Element , with the Commission' s focus on consistency with
city needs and priorities. He said the City Council would see
the draft after the Commission finished its review, and suggested
that the Commission take public comment at this meeting. Mr.
Hook explained the State deadline for adoption of a Housing
Element is July 1 , 1992, and although the Housing Element is not
expected to be adopted by that date, staff hopes that the
Commission will conclude its review by the end of June so that.
the draft can be submitted to the State as soon as possible. He
said San Luis Obispo . is the closest to meeting the time deadline
of all the major cities between Monterey and Santa Barbara.
However, he said the other cities are either stating they intend
to grow at the rate set by the State, or are including the growth
rate set by the State in their housing elements but adding
statements. that the growth rate will probably not be met. He
said he has been in contact with Ernie Silva, a lobbyi.st for the
League of California Cities. He explained developers, non-profit
housing agencies, governmental agencies, architects , and planners
were invited to two public meetings for input on the draft.
Commr. Gurnee felt the document was well organized. He expressed
concern about sanctions from the State hitting home and mentioned
a city in Northern California that is facing losing Park and
Recreation funding from the State. He believed contacting the
League of Cities was an excellent place to start , especially in
October when the League meets regularly. He agreed that not
enough was being done to meet housing. needs , but felt the State' s
numbers were unrealistic and impossible to achieve.
e�
' Y
f
P.C. Minutes
May 13 , 1992
Page 5
Commr. Williams said she did not want to wait until October and
suggested that State representatives from the State Housing and
Community Development Department and legislative leaders be asked
to come to San Luis Obispo for a community forum. She said if
they refused to come to San Luis Obispo, the Commission,., along
with some concerned citizens, should go to see them.
Commr. Settle believed that a rejection of COG' s regional housing
need determination by San Luis Obispo would not affect possible
Federal block grant funding. He said he knew of other cities
that have said to comply with the rules from this State agency
will violate rules of other State agencies and the matter will
end up in litigation. He expressed concern that State
interference with the Housing Element was only the beginning and
the City Planning Commission- could become an agency of the State
. unless a pro-active approach is taken now through the .League of
Cities .
Commr. Cross said Kathy Krustwel.l , from the State Housing and
Community Development Department said she would be willing to
come to San Luis Obispo. He expressed concern that a private
citizen could sue the City in court , and the City would be in
trouble if the Housing Element was not in conformance.
Commr. Peterson agreed with Commr. Williams that action needs to
get underway immediately.
Chairman Karleskint opened the public hearing.
Carla Sanders , 660 Oakridge Drive; said her main concern was that
the housing element draft could change San Luis Obispo' s long
term growth management planning. She said the State quota of
4,000 is five times the community' s stated goal . She said she
had called Mr. Maddy, California State Community Development ,
and was referred to a Bill Murphy, head of the Public Policy
Division, and was told state funds are contingent upon cities
accepting state housing needs assessments. She said the State
does not consider resources such as water for cities to meet the
reasonable share of growth. . She said Dana Lilly, a planner with
San Luis Obispo County, told her that San Luis Obispo was
designated an urban place last year by the Census Bureau, which
will make it eligible for federal entitlement block grants. She
quoted the follow response from Mr. Lilly, "If San Luis Obispo is
. entitled to federal block grants, there is no longer a linkage
between block grants and the housing element . It is only a
problem if you get small city block grant funds. There is no
linkage if a city receives federal entitlement block grants. '
When she asked about the women' s shelter and the homeless shelter
funds being tied to the housing element , ,',she said she was also
told, "The housing element is not a requirement for award of ESP
funds because the emergency shelter is not a housing.program
it is emergency intervention. There is an attempt to keep it
i
P.C. Minutes
May 13, 1992
Page 6
from regular housing programs. " _ She made the following comments
on goals: on Page 3 , third paragraph from the bottom she felt it.
would be important to state that existing urban services should
be maintained, not just adequate services so that it would be
clearly stated that San Luis Obispo does not want a decrease in
the level of services . She suggested the following wording:
"The present level of urban" services and air quality will be
maintained or improved for the City' s residents . Urban services
include water, sewer, schools, police, fire, and road services. "
She suggested that the same wording be used on Page 6. She
expressed concern about mansionization, large homes going into
existing neighborhoods, and asked if they were in the housing
element .
Jeff Hook said those types of issues were discussed under
neighborhood plans and community relations such as on Pages 16 &
18.
Carla Sanders felt it would be appropriate to have that type of
issue addressed in the General Plan or Land Use Element, rather
than relying on neighbors to object to developments .
Commr. Settle felt that Ms . Sanders suggestion that current
levels of services be mentioned in the housing element draft was
important .
Arnold Jonas said the State' s position is that restriction in
services are only a matter of time. For example, he explained
that if a city' s only scarce resource was water, the State would
say it was the City' s responsibility to pursue other sources of
water.
Jeff Hook suggested that clarification of existing services in
the Land Use Element , such as emergency response time in July
1992, could also be incorporated into the draft . He said that
the' .one percent growth rate .is primarily based on a quantitive
judgment the community has made about its desired character.
Irl answer- to a question by Commr. Williams, Jeff Hook explained
_that the State wants to see programs in place for cities to
achleve the regional housing needs , but if market needs change
and those homes are not built, the State cannot penalize cities.
Commr. Gurnee said the housing need requirements originated under
previous Governor Jerry Brown to counteract a city' s ability to
control growth. at the expense of other communities . He felt the
State' s message was not bad, but he believed the numbers set by
the' State were unreasonable. He warned that sanctions are
becoming real in the Bay area. ' He expressed concern that 28 of
the 37 policies in the draft depend on General Fund financing.
He supported the idea of asking the council to invite or demand
the state representatives to explain the requests and possible
Ad
P.C. Minutes
May 13, 1992
Page 7
sanctions. He said providing adequate housing cannot be
dismissed simply because the City says it cannot do it .
In answer to a question by Commr. Settle, Jeff Hook said the 37
programs in the draft are not prioritized.
COMMENTS ON DOCUMENT
Page 3, No. 1 . 0 : Commr. Williams suggested adding land costs and
the availability of residentially zoned land.
Jeff Hook suggested that Commissioners not become involved in the
detailed wording of the document , but rather focus comments on
policies and programs . He added that staff would welcome notes
from Commissioners requesting items to be added or deleted from
the document .
Page 4 , 10 . 2 : Commr. Gurnee expressed concern that some of the
policies require affordable housing rather than encouraging it by -
incentives .
Jsff' Hook explained that staff tried to present a balanced
approach because there is a presumption that the City will -
require some affordable housing with certain types of new
developments . He said if the Commission feels that the City
should not have mandatory. affordable housing provisions , that
direction should be given to staff.
Commr. Settle expressed concern that the elimination of mandatory
affordable housing could make other City policies irrelevant and
eliminate an opportunity for municipal government to require
affordable housing as part of a major development.
Commr. Karleskint agreed with Commr. Settle.
Commr. Gurnee said he disagreed with Commrs . Settle and
Karleskint . He favored eliminating the requirement for
affordable housing.
10 . 12: Commrs . Hoffman and Karleskint felt that more detail was
need to clarify the types of serv.ices it is important to provide
such as schools and fire stations. Commr. Hoffman said those
same restrictions should be discussed in 10 . 14 .
In answer to a question by Commr. Cross,- Jeff Hook said low and
very low income have been lumped together as low income.
In answer to a question by Commr. Williams, Jeff Hook said Mr.
French had submitted a letter suggesting that duplexes be allowed
on corner lots to provide affordable housing. . He explained that
although the idea has not yet been researched, it would be
considered ..
P.C. Minutes
May 13 , 1992
Page 8
Commr. Gurnee suggested that a policy stating the City will work
with the San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council (COG) and keep
up to date on State requirements should be added under housing
supply policies. 1
Commr. Settle expressed concern that other communities see San
Luis Obispo as part of the problem. He said he had no objection
to working with other cities, but did not believe San Luis Obispo
should be linked to other communities ' policies.
10. 14: Commr. Hoffman questioned why a city housing element
should address meeting regional county needs as referred to in
10. 14 .
Commr. Cross suggested including manufactured housing and mobile
homes parks as possible affordable housing alternatives .
Jeff Hook said it would be appropriate to include it as a goal if
the Commission agreed.
Commrs. Cross and Hoffman disagreed with the statement about
balancing housing supply under housing demand. Commr. Hoffman
said balance needs to be defined because San Luis Obispo is a job
center for the County.
._; Jeff Hook explained that that issue was discussed later in the
.document and suggested the statement be reworded to state that
the City will prevent a further imbalance between jobs and
-housing, by linking housing increases with job growth.
The. Commission discussed the reference to a joint land use and
housing element between the City and the county.
Carla Sanders said Dana Lilly told her the City could decide
whether to keep its federal entitlement block grants or share the
wealth with the county and other cities through joint agreements,
which would entitle the county and other cities to federal
entitlement block grant funds.
" .Commr. Hoffman said it- would be helpful if the Housing Program
titles were the same titles as those for Housing Goals.
PROGRAMS -
' Exclusionary Housing, Appendix E, Page 125: Commr. Hoffman asked
what constituted a project .
Jeff Hook said it covered new units and new .commercial space. He ,
said it could cover so called "granny units ."
Commr. Hoffman said that definition was not clear and could be
construed to mean any addition to a current building. He
P.C. Minutes
May 13 , 1992
Page 9
expressed concern a 5 percent tax would be required for building
a granny unit inside the City and a 15 percent in-lieu housing
fee would be required for the same granny unit in an expansion
area of the City. Commr. Hoffman asked that the term expansion.
areas be defined.
Commr. Gurnee said the 15 percent in-lieu fee would discourage
annexation and encourage development in the county.
Commr. Karleskint also felt the housing impact feeswere high.
Jeff Hook said it maybe appropriate for the City to exempt some
projects . For example, he said the City could exempt commercial
project under 5, 000 square feet , residential developments under
. 10 units, and affordable housing projects from providing housing
or paying the in-lieu .fee. He said at this point the fees apply
to all new developments , commercial and residential .
Carla Sanders said at a City council meeting she attended,
Suzanne Lampert , author of a consultant report on affordable
housing strategies, presented a chart showing possible fee
schedules .
Jeff Hook said on April 15, the City Council discussed affordable
housing and the Mundie Report, which establishes four categories
for residential development in the City. The categories allow
the option of paying a set affordable housing fee or constructing
a percentage of low and moderate income housing which would
reduce the affordable housing fee., He began to discuss the
affordable housing fees required for commercial development.
Commr. Gurnee stepped down due to a conflict of interest and left
the meeting.
Jeff Hook explained that commercial development creates jobs
which in turn increases the demand for housing. He said between
1986 and 1990 , the requirement being discussed would have
generated 7 . 1 million dollars for affordable housing.
J Commr. Williams expressed concern that the source of funding for•
most projects was listed as coming from_ the City' s general fund.
Jeff Hook said that it is hoped that in-lieu fees held in a trust
fund and entitlement funds could also be used. He explained that
the rationale behind listing general fund money as the main
source, is that individual project requests would go before the
City Council for funding.
Commr. Settle said some housing elements in other cities mention
a fund set aside for disaster relief. He suggested the draft
could allow trust fund money as disaster relief .
9
1 i
P.C. Minutes
May 13 , 1992
Page 10
Commr.. Hoffman suggested the term time frame should be defined.
Commr. Cross questioned what was meant by development standards.
7'
Jeff Hook suggested design standards might make the meaning
clearer.
Page 8 : Carla Sanders asked for a rewording of the statement
that the City will amend regulation standards to protect the
health, safety, and welfare of residents . She said there are
some policies, such as hillside development , which are not
covered by health, safety and welfare that citizens value.
Jeff Hook explained that the intent was for the City to possibly
reduce development standards which were not essential to protect
public health, safety or welfare to avoid unnecessary impediments
to affordable housing. He suggested keeping language stating the
City shall review its regulations and adding "may modify" its
regulations : The Commission agreed.
Page 11 , 120 . 11 Commr. Hoffman felt this section should be
eliminated.
Jeff Hook explained the statement was needed to state that the
Land Use Element and the capital improvement program would carry
out mentioned policies . He said the word "investment" should be
=replaced with the word " improvement. "
: Commr. Settle_ suggested the words "will enable" be replaced with
' "may enable" because the goal might not be possible to reach. He
-said he preferred permissive wording to mandatory wording.
Commr. Hoffman believed the meaning of the statement was not that
the City would achieve' it , but would provide the climate in which
it would be possible for it to happen.
Commr. Settle preferred Commr. Hoffman' s wording.
Jeff Hook said the policies are designed to enable the City to
reach the goal , but whether that goal is actually achieved
depends on many other variables .
Commr. Hoffman suggested adding a sentence stating that providing
: the regulatory climate to meet regional housing needs does not
ensure that the City will achieve the goal .
Carla Sanders said she agreed with Commr. Settle.
Page 12, 120 . 14 : Commr. Settle suggested a rewording stating
"The City will review and may amend. "
P.C. Minutes
May 13 , 1992
Page 11
Commr. Karleskint suggested the Growth Management Ordinance be
referenced in the draft as guiding the growth rate.
Jeff Hook explained that the Land Use Element and the Housing
Element must , by law and by City policy, be consistent . 7'
In response to concerns of Commrs . Hoffman and Settle, Jeff Hook
explained the chart on page 14 was included to show a baseline of
housing units to coincide with city land zoned currently zoned
residential and areas in expansion areas to be zoned residential
in the future. He said the information in the housing element
was 'included to meet State law.
Commr. Settle suggested that a statement be included mentioning
that total buildout is not expected to occur during the next five
years.
_ Commr. Hoffman felt that the wording under Residential , which
addresses rezoning to a non-residential use as being only
approved as a comprehensive update of the LUE, could lead to the
assumption that general . plan amendments would only be evaluated
every 10 years .
Arnold Jonas suggested rewording the passage to state any
rezoning from residential to another use will require an analysis
of the City' s ability to provide housing throughout the City.
Commr. Hoffman said he agreed with the rewording.
Page 17 , Sororities and Fraternities: Commr. Hoffman suggested
adding a program whereby the City would work with Cal Poly to
dedicate a Greek Row on campus or neat Cal Poly.
Commr. Settle said that if housing for married students, faculty,
and handicapped individuals were included in the discussions
about housing for sorority and fraternity members, Cal Poly would
be more willing to negotiate with the City for housing on campus .
Arnold Jonas agreed with Commr. Settle. He added that Cuesta
College could also be included in discussions .
The Commission asked staff to prepare a map showing a one mile
radius "of Cal Poly.
Page 16 : Carla Sanders asked that the reference to neighborhood.
needs be consistent with the wording of neighborhood character
needs in the LUE.
Page 19, 20 . 3.3: Commr. Cross asked how this cost could be
accomplished.
I
P.C. Minutes
May 13, 1992
Page 12
Commr. Settle said it had been implemented regarding a past
proposal for expansion at the California Mens Colony.
Commr. Karieskint said a reference to Cuesta College should- be
included here, as well as everywhere else Cai Poly is mentioned
in the draft .
Page 26, 2. 10 : Commr. Cross asked that an increase for Cuesta
College be included.
Section 5, Page 5 : In, answer to a question by Commr. Settle,
Jeff Hook proposed that staff write a position paper to the City .
Council explaining the issues, presenting the Commission' s
recommendation, explaining the possible implications of not
meeting the State' s guidelines, -and explaining alternatives to be
considered for staff to receive direction from the City Council .
Commr. Settle said that because it was an election year and there
would be different in members on the City Council in the Fall , it
might not be beneficial to prolong the preparation process by
having the City Council review the draft before it is submitted
to the State. He expressed concern that the document could
become a campaign issue.
Commr. Karl.eskint agreed with Commr. Settle and felt that the
city Council. would want to know the .State' s response before
reviewing the document .
Commr. Settle felt that if the document was sent to the State
before review by the City council , the burden would be on the
State, not the City.
Jeff Hook said staff planned to propose sending the document to
the State before review by the City Council as an option to the
City Council . He said a City Council member had told him that
nothing should be sent to the State without the Council ' s review
and approval .
Commr. Settle suggested that the City Council be informed that
the Commission' s intention is to send the draft to the State
without City Council review, in time for the City Council to
overrule that decision.
Jeff Hook said that staff believed it was essential to provide
Councilmembers with the background behind the regional housing
needs issue and to provide possible alternatives. He also said
some planning commissions in other cities are sending drafts or
lists of programs to the State before review by their city
councils .
Arnold Jonas said there was no' usual;.:procedure regarding when
city councils review this type of draft . He explained that when
r 1
P.C. Minutes
May 13 , 1992
Page 13
planning commissions send drafts directly to the State, city
councils then have the benefit of the State' s response to the
documents, but other city councils prefer to review documents
before submittal to the State. He suggested giving the City
Council the option of reviewing the one percent growth rate or
postponing review until the State' s response. is received. -
Commr. Karleskint said it might be best for the City Council to
support the one percent growth rate before it is sent into - the
State. He expressed concern that if the Planning Commission sent
the document to the State and the State denied the requested one
percent growth rate, the City Council would not be able to say it
supported the one percent growth because it would no longer be an
option.
Page 138 , Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Jeff Hook explained
the chart illustrating percentages of low and very low incomes of
those needing housing.
Chairman Karleskint requested the other Commrs. to read through
the document and submit written corrections on errors and
omissions to Jeff Hook by Friday, May 22, 1992 .
In answer to a question by Commr. Settle, Jeff Hook said it would' f )
probably be about one month before changes are made and a
decision is reached by the City Council as to when it wishes to
review the document.
Commr. Settle felt it was important to find out the opinion of
the City Council..
Page 16, Program 23: Commr. Cross expressed concern that
conversions, particularly small motels near the freeway, should
have rent controls to keep them affordable.
Jeff explained that concern had only been addressed in the
downtown area, but it could be expanded.
Chairman Karleskint closed the public hearing.
COMMENT D DISCUSSION
The Pla ning Commission retreat was scheduled for Thursday, May
28, 1992 ft
om 7: 00 p.m. to : 11 : 00 p.m. at the Apple Farm.
A Planning Commissi study session was scheduled for June 8 ,
1992 from 4 : 00 p.m. to 6: 00 p.m.
Commr. • Cross id the City Council voted 4-1 to include a
requiremen for showers in the Circulation Element.
`-4
t -TING AGENDA
Dm E ITEM #�
IVE13
May 4, 1993 ❑Pim� �
MAY 4 i993 r
gr'amm
CITY COUNCIL ,_.,�O OW
DL2
SAN LUIS QBI$ MCMK-t/1\0%'r-.
��
MEMORANDUM DR
❑ r( L CR
❑ MC64T muki C1 DIR
TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Members 13F� LWUMMI
FROM: Dave Romero .
SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT
Though I agree with the new approach with the draft Housing Element which makes it
much more concise and easier to follow, I believe a number of items were inserted that
were never discussed by the Planning Commission or included in the previous draft: I also
have . a number of philosophical questions regarding the submittal on Background
Data/Housing Law Requirements. If we are to have any hope of obtaining HCD
acceptability of this document (and obtaining additional state grants in the near term), we
must present a document that is reasonably acceptable to the state.
The following are specific comments which I would like to discuss. For ease in discussion,
I have submitted them on a page by page basis. +
Page 2. Third Bullet
The statement regarding dwellings constructed between 1993 and 1998 should be revised by
indicating that an unknown number of affordable housing units would be constructed in
addition to the number shown.
Page 3, Fourth Bullet
Do we really want to encourage development of mixed income neighborhoods? Has the
Planning Commission discussed this new policy?
Page 3. Ninth Bullet
The intent of this wording is unclear.
Page 7, Items 3 and 5
The City should also review its planning regulations, which are more restrictive than the
Building regulations.
Page 7. Item 7
Do we really wish to prevent conversion of affordable rental units to condominiums, thus
depriving individuals from the chance at home ownership?
r-
Housing Element Comments Page 2
Dave Romero
Page 7. Item 9
Does the city really wish to get into the mortgage revenue bond and mortgage subsidizing
business?
Page 8, Programs. Item 1
Do we really wish to compete with financing organizations by offering low cost loans or
rehab assistance? Is this a wise program in which the city should be involved?
Page 9. Policies. Item 1
Is it really desirable to require inter-mixed housing in new developments?
Page 11, Programs. Item 3
I believe the city should consider, but not reuir , that one floor of our multi-structure
buildings in the downtown set aside for residential use. This program would have required
housing on the Copeland facility, the Ross building, the Silvagio building, and Tom's Toys.
Housing within some of these facilities might be desirable but it should not be required.
Page 13, Items 1 and 2, under Programs
Does the city really wish to earmark the business tax to fund neighborhood improvements
and require projects to provide surveillance of streets and public areas?
Page 15 Coal 10• Demand Management
I have philosophical problems with virtually all the policies and programs listed and would
like to see them discussed by the Council.
BACKGROUND DATA REPORT
General
Since the City's entire planning program provides for 5,000 additional dwellings until build-
out. Would it be possible to restructure this to include the 5,000 figure without referring
to the constraints of a 5-6 year program, thus meeting minimum state guidelines.
Pagc 1
All growth projections assume constraints in the next few years due to what I believe are
faulty staff assumptions in our current level of water demand. (See attached
Communication to Council.) Our current water demand is much less than our Safe Annual
Yield, therefore,we would not need to constrain growth in the next several years and then
accelerate in subsequent years to meet growth projections. Rather, we could provide for a
steady growth projected uniformly over the entire time period. This is, certainly, a much
better scenario for the city.
Housing Elements Comments Page 3
Dave Romero
Page 22, Housing Costs
I submit that the primary reason that housing costs in SLO are higher than most
surrounding communities relates directly to city policy concerning annexation,water service,
and development approvals. One of the primary reasons land costs so much in SLO is
deliberate city policy to restrict the supply by restricting annexations.
Page 23. First paragraph (next to last sentence)
I submit that the city's water demand currently does not exceed its Safe Annual Yield_ and
has not for several years.
Page 27 - Availability of Utilities/Public Services - First paragraph
I do not believe that water use rates currently exceed or even approach Safe Annual Yield.
Page 28, Fourth Paragraph
I do not believe that increased water and sewer is needed before more housing can be
accommodated. Our current demand is much less than our Safe Annual Yield.
Page Z8. First paragraph under Water
The definition of Safe Annual Yield is not the standard definition and gives an erroneous.
impression. A more proper definition would be: "The Safe Annual Yield is defined as the
quantity of water which can be withdrawn every year during the most severe historical
drought period for which records are available."
Page 28, First Bullet
By what basis is "normal" level water demand 8,200 acre feet per year? Is normal demand
the water we used in 1984 - 88, is it the water we used from 1989-93, or is it some other
figure?
Page 29, Third garagrauh
Safe Annual Yield is currentlyrg eater than the water demand.
Page 29, next to last paragraph
The 1996 date for the Nacimiento pipeline is so overly optimistic as to be meaningless. The
sentence following that date reading, '"The amount of water available will depend on City
and County decisions on the state water project," has no meaning for me.
Page 30; Note (c)
Why will all reclaimed water be used to balance Safe Annual Yield and normal use levels?
Shouldn't reclaimed water be considered as an additional supply similar to the other
sources? Our current normal water use level is substantially less than the Safe Annual
Yield.
Housing Element Comments Page 4
Dave Romero '1
P.age 31 First paragraph, last.sentence
I would strike the following: "however, financial constraints severely limit the City's ability
to undertake such an expansion." I don't believe this is true since expansion would be
covered by sewer fees, or could be funded by a revenue bond.
Page 34 First paragraph under Regional Housing Need
I believe the state plan context is misstated. It does not call for the construction of 19,880
new housing units, it calls for "planning which will accommodate" that many new units.
Page 34 2nd paragraph from the bottom
I do not believe the state will accept growth limitations based on availability of water,public
services and facilities, and environmental effects of growth as a proper basis for not
including their numbers in our planning document.
Page 36. First Bullet
Current city water demand does not exceed Safe Annual Yield. The 1995 date for water
availability from the Salinas Reservoir Expansion is way too optimistic.
Page 56. Second paragraph
I do not believe job growth between 1986 and 1990 increased at a rate of 28% annually.
Page 62, Figure 1
I would doubt that any significant amount of housing could be build in the 21.3 acres of very
steep hillside in the Monterey Heights. I would add approximately five acres of very
buildable property at the end of Lizzie Street (Bowden). I would also add the acreage on
Tank Farm Road east of the railroad tracks proposed for development by the Housing
Authority.
DR:ss
Attachment
h:houselem.dav
MEETING AGENDA/
SATEITEM #
Housing Element CommenqjjLdS2&4egQn1WCounciI Hearing Draft
From Mayor Peg Pinard MAY 4 1993
CITY COUNCIL
In general, the new draft is a ?M?@nf@nt both in content and tone.
The biggest issue is staff's insertion of "moderate" cost housing as a growth management-
exempt category. This needs to be eliminated.
The second section is still too long and wordy.. It could be.condensed, and the frequent
conclusive statements of opinion should be removed.
Following are suggested corrections and changes, in sequential order by page.
Page 1:
End of first paragraph, delete from sentence beginning "Significant changes..." through end
of first list, and reinsert from mayor's draft statement of purpose: "The most important
planning function of the Element is its enumeration of the City's housing policies. These
policies will guide housing activity in the City during the life of the Element."
.2nd paragraph. Change first sentence to: "The City has prepared this document to meet
state law and to help guide housing development and conservation. End of paragraph,
change "needs" to"goals."
Page 2: .
Executive Summary: In this form it is not a summary, it is an editorial essay. "The obstacles
to providing affordable housing are daunting" is a personal opinion. The element should
stick to facts. The discussion at the bottom of the page, "it has become apparent that the
most effective programs.involve cooperative public/private efforts" is also opinion, and is
subject to considerable debate. If there is to be a summary, that's what it should be. Facts
about the document, not opinions.
Page 33:
Eliminate the source references for housing goals. Those were for council information, not
for inclusion in text.
Goal 2 has been changed from mayor's, and should be changed back: "Encourage housing
production whose affordability fits the income profile of the city's present population."
The meaning of the two versions is not the same.
Goal 5 has been omitted from the list: "Provide variety in the location, type, size, tenure,
cost, style and age of dwellings to accommodate the wide r - eholds desiring to
live within the city." Put back. [0] To:
❑=;DeEoln Action FYi
(t�
Page 4: LTJ cao ❑ FIN.o�tR
MACAO 13FIRECIiIEF
-
Page 1'-- LL�7�A. M.qEY ❑ FwDIR.
1-6 CLL1d /O?.tG ❑ POLICE Qi
❑ M6ff-TFd":i 1i r.CC Dip-
0 C P.EAD FILE ❑ VnL DT.,t.
� 1
Goal 2,typo: "city's"
Page 5: ��%
2nd paragraph typo: "or," not "of'
Page 8:
Program 2, typos: "no net loss..." (net omitted); asterisk with word "Definition."
Page 10:
Production policy 1 (bottom of page). The number 1170 units differs from mayor's previous
policy statement's 960. Why the difference?
Page 11:
Policy 1, continued, at top of page. The exclusion of moderate income housing units from
growth management was not requested by Council. At the present time, interest rates
would make all dwellings costing less than about $170,000 fall within this exclusion. This
is simply a way of dismantling long-standing growth management policies while
pretending that is not what is happening. The moderate exclusion.should be eliminated.
Program 1, "residential and commercial uses..." ("and" omitted)
Page 12:
Goal 7, typo: "and develop new areas in..." (omission)
Page 13_, top: Programs misnumbered.
Pie 14, typo Policy 1 — no comma between energy and conservation.
Page 16 5 at top, "Cal-Poly" — no hyphen.
Page 17, 1.20:
Sentence beginning "Community groups..." Change "special interests..." to "with interest
or expertise in..."
Page 18:
First paragraph: "and mueh less than the County's average annual growth..." (delete
"much")
Last paragraph: "based on different assumptions about housing demand and constraints on,
housing development-ate de s,,d:" (add and delete)
—Page 2--
Page 20:
Last paragraph, second sentence, delete. "During that time... rates." (Construction's
probably cheaper, all things considered, now than then.)
Page.21:
Why are we using outdated figures in the Household Income paragraph? Surely we have
something more up to date than 1989?
Add to end of that paragraph: "The city believes its low income household percentage is
distorted upwards by the presence of so many student households, whose earned incomes
are low, but which are supplemented by other uncounted sources, such as parental
support."
Page 22:
Next to last paragraph: "homes in the city is was$241,100..." (change tense for 1990 figure)
Last paragraph: Keep first sentence, delete rest, and add: "Monthly payments vary not only
according to the sale price, but also according to the interest rate on the home loan. With
sale prices and interest rates both in decline, houses in San Luis Obispo have become more
affordable than they were two or three years ago."
Page 23:
Delete Table 4: Its assumptions are unclear. It may be outdated. With interest rates and
home prices in constant flux, it is a meaningless chart, and will be increasingly useless
with the passage of time.
Page 24: end of first paragraph: "to be established."
Page 25: statement in last paragraph that amortization of fire sprinkler costs through lower
insurance rates takes 10 years. Surely this is wrong? Maybe 100 years? (Amortization of
$6000 in .10 years means a net insurance savings of $600 per year. At a 13% reduction, that
means the insurance would cost $4600 per year.)
Page 26: 2nd paragraph: "principal," not "principle."
Page 27 and following: The introductory paragraphs on Availability of Utilities are
repetitious with the subsequent paragraphs. Rewrite and condense.
Page 29: first bullet paragraph. why the statement that city counts "about 450 acre feet" of
groundwater. Isn't the proper number 500?
Table 5: Why does retrofit produce "no new supply"? That's the point of it. It is used for
housing, too. By council policy, 2,000 acre feet of new supply is for a "reserve. Why is this
—Page 3--
i
not shown? Why is the entire water supply shown available for development? Is this table
needed? Why not delete it? It just adds confusion, and makes the housing element
inconsistent with the water element. --
Page 31: paragraph continued from previous page: Delete everything except the continued
sentence.
.Page 32: last paragraph: interest rate information is outdated. 7 to 7.5% fixed rate available
now. Why include such information? This document has to last for five years, and interest
rates are constantly changing.
Page 33: top paragraph. There's a fallacy to the discussion. Those with few resources aren't
buying median priced homes; they will be looking at the bottom of the market, which has
prices much lower than median or upper cost homes. Besides, any competent real estate
agent can figure out a way to help a cash-strapped buyer come up with a down payment.
Why not delete the entire paragraph? It is confusing and adds nothing to the element's
purpose.
Page 34:
Add to Regional Housing Need first paragraph, after "the County's total projected housing
need." "That projected need is based on 1986 population projections made by the State
Department of Finance. Those projections were based on a few years of unusually rapid
growth in the early to mid 1980s stimulated by real estate value increases in the Los
Angeles basin and a resulting exodus of equity-rich residents to the relatively less -
expensive Central Coast. The conditions which created that rapid growth ended before the
1980s were over, and there is no indication rapid growth will resume again in the
foreseeable future. The City therefore believes the COG growth projections are not reality
based.Nonetheless, state law requires..."
Bottom paragraph, "target," not "targets."
Page 35: Mention of exempting moderate income housing from growth management.
Delete.
Table 6: What basis is there for the belief that exclusions from growth management
regulations for affordable housing will produce only 20 units per year? This seems very
low. Other comparable sized cities California have reported far higher affordable housing
production.
Page 36: First italicized paragraph -- what % safe annual yield exceeded?
Table 8: Column headings. 'Number of New Dwellings Needed" -- better as 'Number of
New Dwellings." "Percent of Units Added" better; also "Household Income." Simplify
headings as much as possible. Title makes clear what chart is about.
Content of Table 8: Where do these numbers come from? The percentages are different
—Page 4--
i Y
from those in Affordability Policies 3 and 4. There is no explanation for the source of the
chart numbers. They should be the same as in policies.
Page 48: Third paragraph, 4th sentence: "Elderly persons... compete for rentals with other
small households that either m a y have greater financial resources, or m a y have potential
for greater income in the future." (add, delete)
Pie 49: Single Parent Families section. Delete last sentence of first paragraph and entire
rest of section: "Often, the single parent must settle... are showing up at emergency shelters
locally as part of the homeless population."
Homeless persons: delete first paragraph. Shelter operators dispute increase due to
economic conditions.
Page 50: second full paragraph. Reference to Women's Shelter is out of place here. It is for
battered women, not the homeless. Remove. Women with children are being housed at a
voluntary shelter that moves from church to church. "Between 30 percent and 40 percent
of our local homeless are women and children." Evidence? If the numbers are so loose, are
they accurate enough to merit including here?
Students: 1st sentence: "one quarter of the City's population, and strongly influence..." (add
"and")
3rd paragraph: In 1991, enrollment was about 17,500,and is expected to continue to drop
for the next several years." (add) Continuing: "Mere Student lifestyles — ..." (change)
Continuing: Delete sentence "Census figures show.. in 1990." Irrelevant to discussion of
student housing needs unless there is hard factual evidence to indicate cause and effect
relationship.
Page 51: Add at top of page: "In addition to Cal Poly students, about 1,000 Cuesta College
students come to San Luis Obispo from elsewhere and live in or near the city."
First paragraph: "Cal Poly and Cuesta students..." (add)
Second paragraph, third sentence: Delete "and the homes need to meet different needs." At
end of paragraph, add: "Students' buying power has also distorted the single-family home
rental market. Six students renting a 3-bedroom house might be prepared, at rental rates
of the recent past, to pay $1,500 per month. Such rents are beyond the reach of most
working families who are also in the single-family housing market. As a result, families
are increasingly being priced out of the rental market by student competition for family
housing."
Third paragraph, last sentence: "... encourage or provide the type of housing that students
want and to relieve pressures on the
single family rental market." (delete, add)
Fraternities: Last paragraph: "Among those alternatives are Cal Poly land, the Hathway
—Page 5--
{
1
neighborhood, the Foothill- area;and conversion of existing student complexes..."
(delete)
Page 52: top partial paragraph: "in R-3 and R-4 zones
e€adjacent to the Cal Poly campus." (delete, add)
Overcrowding section: 2nd paragraph, last sentence: Insert "... result in adverse impacts
on those living under crowded conditions as well as on neighborhood parking and overall
quality of life."
Page 53: first partial paragraph: delete last sentence, "This ordinance..."
Displacement section: ??? This section may conflict with Program 10 on Page 7 and with
Policy 4 on Page 16. Do we need this section at all?
Page 56: 2nd paragraph, explanation of housing production policy success. Assertions are
made that housing has not kept up with job growth even though the paragraph admits
there are no believable figures on job growth. Needs to be rewritten in its entirety as
follows:
"Beh,veen adoption of the housing element in June 1986 and January 1990, the City added
1,624 new housing units, a 10 per cent increase in the number of housing units in the City.
During the same period, enrollment at Cal Poly increased from 16,007 to 18,657, an increase
of 17 percent, but enrollment has since declined, and is expected to continue to decline in
coming years. Information is not available on the number of jobs added during th&'same —�
period." --
Following paragraph, last sentence, 'Relatively lower housing costs in Los Osos, Arroyo
Grande, Atascadero, Templeton, and Paso Robles, together with climate preferences and
preference for such amenities as large suburban lots or proximity to the ocean,have made
these housing markets attractive to San Luis Obispo workers." (add) In other words,
housing cost isn't the only reason people live where they do.
Page 57: #5 results: Delete second sentence, "According to..."
#6 results: Delete all but first sentence,."City general plan... to be annexed," and add:
"However, in 1993 the city annexed both. the Broad Street Annexation Area and the
Stoneridge Area."
Page 58: #11 typo: "Housing," not "hosing."
Page 59: #13 results (top of page) This needs rewriting: Asserts jobs/housing imbalance has
increased, yet provides no evidence. Asserts government employment is increasing! The
response needs to address actions the city has taken, or not taken, to prevent worsening of
the jobs/housing balance. The policy does not state that the city.will reverse the imbalance,
only that it will try not to aggravate it. Last sentence: "Given the City's historical role and
stated objective as to be the retail and commercial hub of the County, it is unlikely that the l
i
—Page 6--
City can achieve a balance between jobs and housing, though it continues to try to hold
the imbalance at its historical level. (add and delete)
Section 2_.70, end of paragraph, typo, "area," not "areas."
Page 60: partial paragraph at top: "... but no =r-___"__ type ei eertstruetieft is speeifted mobile
h.o m es."
#8, Is "no action" correct? When were mortgage bonds issued for the Southwood
Apartments (Packwood?)?
Page 62, Figure 1. #1, 159 Broad Street is important open space for both viewshed and
habitat protection. Should be deleted, and protected under program 1, page 16.
#16, 651 Foothill, is shown in LUE update as park. Should be reclassified also.
Page 63, Figure 2. #1, 275 Bridge St. — next to Bailey Bridges, heavy manufacturing — clearly
inappropriate for residential use. Why drive out an established business by introducing an
incompatible adjacent use?
Page 64 Figure 3. #1, 533 Broad St. This parcel (community garden) lies between
confluence of two major creeks, and due to flood hazard was purchased by the city after the
1973 flood specifically to prevent its being redeveloped (previous dwelling floated away).
Should be deleted from list of developable sites.
--Page 7--
MEETING AGENDA
r �ITEM #®
�i►II�IIIIIIIIIIII I������ �IIIIIII�I►I
city of. sAn hAl S OBIS
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100
RECEIVES City of San Luis Obispo
COPIESTO:
MAY 4 1993 Community Development Department 13 I Ac&n / FYI
�Counnl U CDD DIR.
CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM a'CAO 11FINV.DIR.
SAN LUIS OBISPO.CA 2 AC10 ❑ MELT
CIL
\TE1'P ❑ S,DRIERK/al*c. ❑ mucEa-L.
TO: San Luis Obispo Cit Council t,IcnlT.r��".t El RCC.DI?
P y ❑ C ?tiADRILE ❑ UTILD12
FROM: John Dunn, City Administrative Offic
VIA: Arnold Jonas, Community DevelopmenDirector
By; Jeff Hoo ciate Planner
SUBJECT: Changes to CC hearing draft Housing Element
C
Attached are revised pages 11, 18, 19, 24, and 35 to be inserted into and reviewed as part of
the Council's hearing draft Housing Element. The changes are intended to bring the revised
element more closely in line with Council's April 6th direction, dealing with affordable housing
exemptions from growth limits and with alternative growth projections.
Council had directed staff to include an exemption for "very low" and "low" income housing
from residential growth management limits. "Moderate income" was carried forward from a
previous Planning Commission policy recommendation. The term "moderate" is now deleted
from the exemptions to be consistent with council direction.
On pages 18 and 19, a comparison of growth rates was carried forward from the previous April
1992 draft Housing Element. The discussion of all but the 1 percent growth rate has been
deleted from this section. On reflection, it appears that the comparison could be interpreted as
growth "options" or alternatives that the City was considering when in fact, the "high" and
"intermediate" projections were included to underscore the City's contention that the RHNA
numbers were unworkable for San Luis Obispo.
I hope these changes more accurately reflect the Council's intent, and regret any
misunderstanding or difficulty the original passages may have.caused.
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410.
?1
1
housing supply between 1992 and 1997; and will amend the Residential Growth
Management Regulations to exempt construction of dwelling units which meet the needs
of very-low. and 10 income households.(swff added).
2. To add to the city's residential land base, the City will encourage the production of infill
housing above compatible street-level commercial uses in various commercial zones.
3. New downtown commercial projects should include housing.
4. Encourage new and creative uses of existing structures for residential purposes.
5. If City service capacity must be rationed to new development, residential projects will
be given priority over nonresidential projects.
6. The costs to the City of housing development will be minimized and equitably
distributed. The City will not make new housing more affordable by shifting costs to
existing housing.
(See also Goal 2: Affordability)
Programs
1. The City will amend its regulations to encourage mixed residential commercial uses on
commercial properties, subject to use permit review by the Planning Commission._
2. The City will consider applying the mixed-use zone citywide to the C-N (Neighborhood
Commercial) Zone to require residential development above street level as new
neighborhood commercial facilities are developed. Allowed uses in the zone should be
reviewed to preclude commercial uses incompatible with housing.
3. The City will amend its regulations to require that at least one floor of new multi-story
commercial buildings in the downtown core shall be for residential use. Parking
regulations may be modified, if necessary to make this use feasible. The housing use
should require no separate level of review beyond that required for the project of which
it is a part.
4. For major residential expansion areas, the City will adopt specific plans. These plans
will include sites suitable for subsidized rental housing and affordable rental and owner-
occupied housing. Such sites shall be integrated within neighborhoods of market rate
housing and shall be architecturally compatible with the neighborhood. The specific
plans will designate sufficient areas at appropriate densities to accommodate the types of
dwellings which would be affordable, in the proportions called for by the affordable
housing policies of this Element. Also, the specific plans will include programs to assure
that the affordable dwellings will actually be produced. As the capacities of city services
become sufficient to support development of one or more of the major residential
11 ��
II. BACKGROUND DATAMOUSING LAW REQUIREMENTS
2.00 Population and Housing Need
The City's estimated population is 42,480 (California Department of Finance, January 1992).
Between 1980 and 1990 the City grew by 7,706 persons, an increase of 22 percent. The City's
average annual population growth during this period was 2.2 percent -- slightly less than the
statewide average of 2.53 percent, and much less than the County's average annual growth rate
of 3.97 percent. Analysis of 1980 Census data and State Department of Finance population
estimates indicates that population growth in the City has been primarily due to net migration
to the housing market area -- mainly from Southern California. City residents comprise about
20 percent of the County's total population. Based on the General Plan, the City's population
is expected to increase at about one percent annual until it reaches its buildout population of
54,900 persons in 2017. After that, annual population growth is expected to slow to one-half
percent or less.
During the 1980s, the City's annual population growth rate averaged a little over two percent,
while the job growth rate was about three percent. In 1991, the city population was stable or
declined slightly. During 1980s, the County's population grew at about 3.5 percent annually,
while the job growth rate averaged about 3.8 percent. In 1991, the County population increased
about 0.2 percent.
Recent San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (COG) projections show the County's
population as a whole growing at a little more than one percent annually between 1990 and
2020. This approximates the City's planned growth rate in its Land Use and Housing elements,
and represents a 1.1 percent compound growth rate. State officials predict that the State's
population will grow at about one percent annually from 1990 to 2020, while federal officials
have projected a growth rate of about 0.7 percent nationwide during the same period.
Housing demand is primarily affected by household formation and net migration to the housing
market area, which in turn are influenced by employment and enrollment changes. Te evalti
€;::Based
otr t1;ie City`s Land Ute�l"emettt pohcies regardut$�conomtc end�nstttuttonal,grotutlt, 7�ousut�
cemanrl as expected tp,grow at a gate of spout l pexcnf, closely foilawmg BOG'S cx�uritywide
`u�atton�m�wtlt pxu,�ecttons tinders"resource eonstraxned sr�narxo:" Thts,gtowth pxo,�ecEioi
and demand: Ek "high
n
n• n
r
but with a fedueed
nlifrAted n
grewthf
assume that heusing py-eduetieft will be eenstf6ned between 4anuary 1992 and Deeembef 1994
,: ited ♦ c that •i..., � "high" iatefinediaten grewth
�-te�r�ater—ii�viirees: furter--�,ac--ar„�
18
.rJ
^\/1I
growth management • J
High Growth Projeetion. Assufnes that the Musing supply will gFew at 1 pefeent &e
leauafy 1993 thfetigh Deeember- 1994 (180 dwe4lings aaauaRy), and that housing
,
when addifienal water suppHes afe an6eipated with the planned eempletieft ef the 894iflas
Needs plan (5,128 less 139 built deFiRg 1991 eAd-1992 = 4,989 d s)
available, fellewed by a ten pereem gr-ewth fate between kinttwy 1995 and Atly ,
r
)
733 dwelling uiiits will bebetween ;anuaiy 1991 and �ttly •
buiR in 1991 and 1992,
themmainingunits-f.. built between T............ 1993 and T..1..is
1(1(17
_ u v
)733 139 ,
594. The sme asstimptiefis apply as ift theabeef seven pefeefif eAntiQy, adding abeut 109 dwellings per- menth
both 1995 and 1996; ples abaut 618 dweRings in ene half ef 1997. This weeld -
..1.....♦.8,909 pefsens, and f eats .. annual n .emge ..,...uIa4ieft g ...fl. rate ..F -1.2
pefeEftt.
"'ssumes a 1 percent average population growth rate
between January 1991 to July 1997 following the City's General Plan policies, equivalent
to a construction rate of about 180 dwelling units per year, producing about 900 hew
dwellings between January 1991 and July 1997. Growth limits exempt replacement
dwellings and affordable housing projects. Allowing for an additional 136 dwelling units
(source: RHNA plan) for replacement of market removals (demolition,.relocation, fire)
during the period, plus an estimated 20 qualifying affordable dwelling units annually, for
a total of about 1,185 new dwellings will be accomodated during the 6 1/2 year period
covered by the RHNA plan, or an annual average of 182 units. This would add about
2,500 persons, representing an annual average population growth rate of just under 1
percent (replacement housing not counted toward population increase). This is the
growth rate which is accomodated by this Housing Element.
Growth projections assume that adequate resources and public services are available. Housing
growth beyond 560 dwellings (number of units which can be built without new water supplies),
or above a population of about 43,200 are predicated on successful City efforts to secure
additional water supplies to serve growth. City General Plan policies seek to manage residential
and commercial growth so that new development occurs in an orderly manner and can be
adequately served by utilities and public services like police,fire, schools, parks and recreation, �
and general government. )
19
San Luis Obispo allows relatively small R-1.1ots of 61000 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 established.
Residential growth management
Regulations adopted in 1982 include a schedule of maximum residential construction rates
through 1999. They exempt individually built houses and duplexes, replacement housing
(through demolition, relocation, or fire), group quarters of five or fewer persons, hotels and
motels, and projects that include their own growth management provisions pursuant to an
approved specific plan or planned development. The regulations are intended to provide a steady
rate of population growth of about 1 percent per year, while promoting affordable housing close
to employment centers and Cal Poly.
As a result of ordinance changes and market conditions, the Residential Growth Management
Ordinance did not significantly constrain or delay housing production. The regulations were
subsequently modified to accommodate a building surge following the 1980- 1982 recession,
and to exempt projects within specific plan areas. In 1987 these regulations were suspended
when the City Council adopted the Water Allocation regulations.
The Land.Use Element states the City's basic position on the extent, rate, composition, and
financing of growth, and limits growth in the City's housing supply to not more than one percent
per year. The LUE establishes a maximum buildout of 23,300 dwelling units in the City by
2017, accommodating a total city population of 54,900.
Most of these additional units will be located in designated expansion areas located outside 1992
City limits but inside the urban reserve. Figure 4 shows the location of future residential areas
outside the 1992 city limits. City policies require preparation of specific plans for each of the
major expansion areas, with provisions for phased housing development. Each areas' phasing
will be determined, in part, by the affordability of the dwellings, and by other public benefits
such as-open space. The area committing to development of the largest number of dwellings
affordable to low-income eT ......1erate '..,.,.."e residents would be developed first.
Land use and development standards
Zoning Regulations
Zoning regulations implement the City's land use policies. The regulations allow a range of
residential densities, from seven dwellings per acre in the R-1 zone to a maximum of 24 two-
bedroom units per acre in the R-4 zone, and up to 36 two-bedroom units per acre in the
downtown commercial zone. Parking and setback requirements, height and coverage limits
24
M
1
To achieve the growth targets outlined below, the City must take steps 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 relaxing restrictions on housing
production to encourage affordable housing where such changes will not conflict with other
general plan goals.
Revised Housing Needs
The City's (draft) Housing and Land Use Elements include policies and programs which allow
the City to accommodate up to 1,150 additional dwellings by July 1997, about 4,000 fewer
dwellings than called for in the RHNA Plan. Of these, 725 dwelling units, or 63 percent of the
total units to be accommodated, would be targeted for very-low, low, and moderate income
households.
During the Housing Element's five-year planning period from September 1993 to September
1998 (which overlaps the RHNA planning period), policies and programs will accommodate a
net increase of at least 900 dwelling units. The City's growth management policies now exempt
new housing which replaces housing lost through market removals. This element also includes
a program which will amend the Residential Growth Management Regulations to exempt housing
which is affordable to very-low @4 low, a—�-�� income households from the 1 percent
growth limit. It is estimated that an additional 20 exempt dwellings will be produced annually
which meet affordability standards. When exempt replacement and affordable housing is
included, the total number of new dwellings accomodated during this element's five-year
planning period is approximately 1,100. Table 6 summarizes housing production anticipated for
the Housing Element planning period, September 1993 to September 1998.
Table 6
Projected Housing Construction, City of San Luis Obispo
September 1993 to September 1998
Status of New Dwelling Units Number of Dwelling Units
1% annual increase in new dwelling units.' 900
(5 years Q 180 units per year)
0.5% replacement housing construction' 91
(.005 X 18,1673 = 91)
Estimated 20 affordable housing units 100
annually' (5 X 20 = 100)
TOTAL 19091
35
STATE OF CALIFORNIA.BUSINESS.TRANSP \TION AND HOUSING.AGENCY PETE WILSON.Governor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR '
1600 OX 95 95303SIRfiET,Suite 450 � C, _
P.O.BOX 1.
SACRAMENTO,CA 94252-2051 H
(916)d45-4775 FAX{913237815 /PHI 26, 1993
Honorable Peg Pinard MEETING- AGENDA
Mayor of the City of San Luis Obispo DAA - OEM #
P.O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403
'Dear Mayor Pinard:
I understand that the City of San Luis Obispo has committed to
support the. acquisition of the San Luis Obispo's Women Shelter. I
commend your efforts on behalf of this very worthy project. The
California Department of Housing and Community Development would
still very much like to participate in the funding and improvement
of .the Women's Shelter -through. the Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) program. The Department is committed to taking any
steps it. legally can to assist the City and the sponsors in meeting
the conditions necessary to receive this funding.
As you know from the contract the City signed with the
Department in August of 1992, Section 50829 of the Health and
Safety Code requires the City to adopt: a�housing element pursuant
to' State law prior to receiving CDBG funds. I am now pleased to
learn that the City has committed to -make an effort to bring its
housing element into compliance with State law. Debbie Hosli,
Administrative Analyst for the City, has informed us that the City
intends to submit a draft housing element to HCD on May 5, 1993.
Thomas Cook, Deputy Director of the Housing Policy Development
Division, has assuredme that the Department will expedite its
review of your element and provide technical assistance and
consultation to the City to help it comply with State law.
We look forward to -receiving San Luis Obispo's housing element
and working cooperatively with the City. to address- all of its
housing needs, including those met by the Women's Shelter. To keep
all parties fully informed, I am sending copies of this letter to
Assemblymember Andrea Seastrand, Senator Gary Hart, .and the project
sponsors.
Thank you for all of your efforts.
Very sincerely yours, =�►=�V�. .) .
APR 2 9 1993
CITY COUNCIL
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA
imothy Coyle
Director