HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC_2023_07_11_AgendaPacket CITY OF ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
HYBRID MEETING INFORMATION:
The City Council meeting will be available via teleconference for those who wish to
participate remotely. The City Council meeting will also be held in the City Council
Chambers and in-person attendance will be available at that location.
HOW TO OBSERVE THE MEETING REMOTELY:
To participate remotely, residents can livestream the meeting on Zoom, SLO-SPAN.org,
on Spectrum cable Channel 20 in Atascadero, and listen live on KPRL Radio 1230AM
and 99.3FM. The video recording of the meeting will repeat daily on Channel 20 at 1:00
am, 9:00 am, and 6:00 pm and will be available through the City’s website and on the
City’s YouTube Channel. To participate remotely using the Zoom platform please visit
https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_ZwJ7a031S3KXauEym9ehaA.
HOW TO SUBMIT PUBLIC COMMENT:
Individuals who wish to provide public comment in-person may attend the meeting in
the City Council Chambers. Individuals who wish to participate remotely may call
(669) 900-6833 (Meeting ID: 889 2347 9018) to listen and provide public comment via
phone or via the Zoom platform using the link above.
If you wish to comment but not via a live platform, please email public comments to
cityclerk@atascadero.org. Such email comments must identify the Agenda Item Number
in the subject line of the email. The comments will be forwarded to the City Council and
made a part of the administrative record. To ensure distribution to the City Council prior
to consideration of the agenda, the public is encouraged to submit comments no later
than 12:00 p.m. the day of the meeting. Those comments, as well as any comments
received after that time, but before the close of the item, will be distributed to the City Council,
posted on the City’s website, and will be made part of the official public record of the meeting.
Please note, email comments will not be read into the record.
AMERICAN DISABILITY ACT ACCOMMODATIONS:
Any member of the public who needs accommodations should contact the City
Clerk’s Office at cityclerk@atascadero.org or by calling 805-470-3400 at least 48
hours prior to the meeting or time when services are needed. The City will use their
best efforts to provide reasonable accommodations to afford as much accessibility
as possible while also maintaining public safety in accordance with the City procedure
for resolving reasonable accommodation requests.
City Council agendas and minutes may be viewed on the City's website:
www.atascadero.org/agendas.
Copies of the staff reports or other documentation relating to each item of business referred to on
the Agenda are on file in the office of the City Clerk and are available for public inspection on our
website, www.atascadero.org. Contracts, Resolutions and Ordinances will be allocated a number
once they are approved by the City Council. The Minutes of this meeting will reflect these numbers.
All documents submitted by the public during Council meetings that are made a part of the record or
referred to in their statement will be noted in the Minutes and available for review by contacting the
City Clerk's office. All documents will be available for public inspection by appointment during City
Hall business hours.
Page 1 of 136
CITY OF ATASCADERO
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
Tuesday, July 11, 2023
City Hall Council Chambers, 4th Floor
6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero, California
REGULAR SESSION – CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 P.M.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council Member Newsom
ROLL CALL: Mayor Moreno
Mayor Pro Tem Funk
Council Member Bourbeau
Council Member Dariz
Council Member Newsom
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Roll Call
Recommendation: Council:
1. Approve this agenda; and
2. Waive the reading in full of all ordinances appearing on this agenda, and the titles
of the ordinances will be read aloud by the City Clerk at the first reading, after the
motion and before the City Council votes.
PRESENTATIONS:
1. Commendation in Recognition of Retiring City Manager Rachelle Rickard’s
26 Years of Dedicated Service to the City of Atascadero.
A. CONSENT CALENDAR: (All items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine
and non-controversial by City staff and will be approved by one motion if no member of
the Council or public wishes to comment or ask questions. If comment or discussion is
desired by anyone, the item will be removed from the Consent Calendar and will be
considered in the listed sequence with an opportunity for any member of the public to
address the Council concerning the item before action is taken.)
1. City Council Draft Action Minutes – June 27, 2023
▪ Recommendation: Council approve the June 27, 2023 Draft City Council
Regular Meeting Minutes. [City Clerk]
City Council Regular Session: 6:00 P.M.
Page 2 of 136
2. March 2023 Investment Report
▪ Fiscal Impact: None.
▪ Recommendation: Council receive and file the City Treasurer’s report for
quarter ending March 31, 2023. [City Treasurer]
3. Community Facilities District 2005-1 Annexation No. 25
▪ Fiscal Impact: Assessments for the Marketplace annexation are estimated to
be between $0 to $71,680 annually beginning in fiscal year 2023-2024, and
adjusted each year for inflation.
▪ Recommendation: Council adopt, on second reading, by title only, Draft
Ordinance authorizing the levy of special taxes in Community Facilities District
2005-1 for certain annexation territory identified as Annexation No. 25.
[Community Development]
4. 2023 Measure F-14 Pavement Rehabilitation Construction Award
▪ Fiscal Impact: $4,000,000.
▪ Recommendation: Council:
1. Award a construction contract for $2,851,397 to Souza Construction for the
2023 Measure F-14 Pavement Rehabilitation Project (Project No.
C2022R01); and
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with Cannon Corp. for
$449,872 for Construction Management and Materials Testing Services for
the 2023 Measure F-14 Pavement Rehabilitation Project (Phase I) and the
Downtown Paving Project (Phase II). [Public Works]
5. Structure Fire Engine Replacement
▪ Fiscal Impact: $1,003,524.
▪ Recommendation: Council authorize the City Manager to execute a contract
with South Coast Fire Equipment, Inc. for a total cost of $1,003,524 to build
and deliver a Pierce Enforcer 2000 GPM Fire Engine. [Fire Department]
UPDATES FROM THE CITY MANAGER: (The City Manager will give an oral report on any
current issues of concern to the City Council.)
COMMUNITY FORUM: (This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wanting to
address the Council on any matter not on this agenda and over which the Council has
jurisdiction. Speakers are limited to three minutes. Please state your name for the record
before making your presentation. Comments made during Community Forum will not be a
subject of discussion. A maximum of 30 minutes will be allowed for Community Forum,
unless changed by the Council. Comments will be allowed for the entire 30-minute period
so if the final speaker has finished before the 30 minute period has ended and a member of
the public wishes to make a comment after the Council has commenced another item, the
member should alert the Clerk within the 30 minute period of their desire to make a comment
and the Council will take up that comment upon completion of the item which was
commenced. Any members of the public who have questions or need information may
contact the City Clerk’s Office, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. at (805) 470-
3400, or cityclerk@atascadero.org.)
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None
Page 3 of 136
C. MANAGEMENT REPORTS:
1. Draft Regional Housing & Infrastructure Plan
▪ Fiscal Impact: None.
▪ Recommendation: Council:
1. Discuss and consider support for the Regional Housing & Infrastructure
Plan, as a recommitment to the 2020 San Luis Obispo Countywide
Regional Compact; and
2. Provide staff general direction on future actions relating to implementation
of the Regional Housing & Infrastructure Plan. [Community Development]
2. Development Process Streamlining
▪ Fiscal Impact: None.
▪ Recommendation: Council review and provide preliminary direction on the
development of standards that will streamline the CEQA process.
[Community Development]
D. COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS: (On their own
initiative, Council Members may make a brief announcement or a brief report on their
own activities. The following represent standing committees. Informative status
reports will be given, as felt necessary):
Mayor Moreno
1. City Selection Committee
2. County Mayors Round Table
3. Regional Economic Action Coalition (REACH)
4. SLO Council of Governments (SLOCOG)
5. SLO Regional Transit Authority (RTA)
Mayor Pro Tem Funk
1. Atascadero Basin Ground Water Sustainability Agency (GSA)
2. Design Review Committee
3. Homeless Services Oversight Council
Council Member Bourbeau
1. City of Atascadero Finance Committee
2. City / Schools Committee
3. Integrated Waste Management Authority (IWMA)
4. SLO County Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC)
Council Member Dariz
1. Air Pollution Control District
2. California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA) Board
3. Community Action Partnership of San Luis Obispo (CAPSLO)
4. Design Review Committee
5. Visit SLO CAL Advisory Committee
Council Member Newsom
1. City of Atascadero Finance Committee
2. City / Schools Committee
3. League of California Cities – Council Liaison
Page 4 of 136
E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND / OR ACTION: (Council Members may ask a
question for clarification, make a referral to staff or take action to have staff place a
matter of business on a future agenda. The Council may take action on items listed
on the Agenda.)
1. City Council
2. City Clerk
3. City Treasurer
4. City Attorney
5. City Manager
ADJOURNMENT
Page 5 of 136
ITEM NUMBER: A-1
DATE: 07/11/23
CITY OF ATASCADERO
CITY COUNCIL
DRAFT MINUTES
Tuesday, June 27, 2023
City Hall Council Chambers, 4th Floor
6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero, California
REGULAR SESSION – CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 P.M.
Mayor Moreno called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and Council Member Dariz led the
Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Council Members Bourbeau, Dariz, Newsom, Mayor Pro Tem Funk, and
Mayor Moreno
Absent: None
Others Present: None
Staff Present: City Manager Rachelle Rickard, Administrative Services Director Jeri
Rangel, Community Development Director Phil Dunsmore, Interim Police
Chief Joe Allen, Public Works Director Nick DeBar, City Attorney Brian
Pierik, Deputy City Manager/City Clerk Lara Christensen, Deputy City
Manager – IT Luke Knight, and Deputy Economic and Community
Development Director Loreli Cappel.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
Deputy City Manager/City Clerk Christensen noted that an updated Exhibit A to the Draft
Resolution for Item #B-1 had been provided to the City Council at the dais, was posted to
the Agenda page on the website and added to the Public Review book in the Council
Chambers.
MOTION: By Council Member Bourbeau and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Funk to:
1. Approve this agenda; and
2. Waive the reading in full of all ordinances appearing on this
agenda, and the titles of the ordinances will be read aloud by
the City Clerk at the first reading, after the motion and before
the City Council votes.
City Council Regular Session: 6:00 P.M.
Page 6 of 136
ITEM NUMBER: A-1
DATE: 07/11/23
Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote.
A. CONSENT CALENDAR:
1. City Council Draft Action Minutes – June 13, 2023
▪ Recommendation: Council approve the June 13, 2023 Draft City Council
Regular Meeting Minutes. [City Clerk]
2. May 2023 Accounts Payable and Payroll
▪ Fiscal Impact: $2,260,980.41.
▪ Recommendation: Council approve certified City accounts payable, payroll
and payroll vendor checks for May 2023. [Administrative Services]
3. Cooperation Agreement with the County of San Luis Obispo for Department
of Housing and Urban Development Community Development Programs for
Fiscal Years 2024 through 2026
▪ Fiscal Impact: Continued availability of CDBG funding for CDBG eligible
programs over the next three years, including approximately $122,000 in
funding for Fiscal Year 2024.
▪ Recommendation: Council approve the Cooperation Agreement with the
County of San Luis Obispo for joint participation in the Community
Development Block Grant Program, the Home Investment Partnerships
Program, and the Emergency Solutions Grant Program for Fiscal Years 2024
through 2026. [Public Works]
Consent Calendar Item #A-4 was removed by Mayor Moreno for separate discussion and
vote.
MOTION: By Council Member Bourbeau and seconded by Council Member
Newsom to approve Consent Calendar Items #A-1 through #A-3 (#A-
3: Contract No. 2023-016)
Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote.
4. Reject Construction Bid and Re-evaluate Design Options for Downtown
District Pavement Rehabilitation Project
▪ Fiscal Impact: Approximately $20,000 of budgeted Local Transportation Funds
for engineering consultant fees and staff time for plan revisions, phasing, and
re-advertising the project.
▪ Recommendation: Council:
1. Reject the bid received from Papich Construction Company, Inc. for
$3,371,786 for the Downtown District Pavement Rehabilitation Project
(Project No. C2021R02); and
2. Direct the City Engineer to evaluate and implement measures to reduce
project costs and resolicit construction bids for the Downtown District
Pavement Rehabilitation Project. [Public Works]
Mayor Moreno noted that due to campaign contribution rules for donations of $250 or more,
she would need to excuse herself from voting on this item. Mayor Moreno then stepped
down from the dais and left the room.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
The following persons spoke on this item: None
Page 7 of 136
ITEM NUMBER: A-1
DATE: 07/11/23
Mayor Pro Tem Funk closed the Public Comment period.
MOTION: By Council Member Bourbeau and seconded by Council Member
Newsom to:
1. Reject the bid received from Papich Construction Company, Inc.
for $3,371,786 for the Downtown District Pavement
Rehabilitation Project (Project No. C2021R02); and
2. Direct the City Engineer to evaluate and implement measures to
reduce project costs and resolicit construction bids for the
Downtown District Pavement Rehabilitation Project.
Motion passed 4:0 by a roll-call vote. Mayor Moreno recused.
Mayor Moreno returned to the dais.
UPDATES FROM THE CITY MANAGER:
City Manager Rickard gave an update on projects and events within the City.
Public Works Director DeBar gave a brief update on upcoming construction in the
Downtown.
COMMUNITY FORUM:
The following persons spoke in-person by telephone or through the webinar: Heather
Branton.
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. Adopting Sewer Service Charges to be Added to the 2023-2024 Property Tax
Rolls
▪ Fiscal Impact: Approximately $4,702,570 in sewer service charges for Fiscal
Year 2023-2024.
▪ Recommendation: Council:
1. Conduct a public hearing to receive verbal testimony regarding the
proposed sewer service charges to be levied onto property tax rolls; and
2. Adopt Draft Resolution, approving sewer service charges to be added to
the 2023-2024 property tax rolls. [Public Works]
Ex Parte: None
Public Works Director DeBar gave the report and answered questions from the Council.
Director DeBar noted that Exhibit A to the Draft Resolution had been updated to include
several missing APNs.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
The following persons spoke on this item: None
Mayor Moreno closed the Public Comment period.
MOTION: By Council Member Bourbeau and seconded by Council Member
Funk to adopt Resolution No. 2023-062, with the updated Exhibit
Page 8 of 136
ITEM NUMBER: A-1
DATE: 07/11/23
A, approving sewer service charges to be added to the 2023-2024
property tax rolls.
Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote.
2. Community Facilities District 2005-1 Annexation No. 25
▪ Fiscal Impact: Assessments for the Marketplace annexation are estimated to
be between $0-$71,680 annually beginning in fiscal year 2023-2024, and
adjusted each year for inflation.
▪ Recommendation: Council:
1. Conduct the public hearing for the proposed annexation; and
2. Adopt Draft Resolution A, authorizing the territory identified in City Council
Resolution 2023-035 to be annexed into Community Facilities District No.
2005-1, authorizing the levy of a special tax and submitting the levy of a
special tax to qualified electors; and
3. Direct the City Clerk to conduct a landowner vote of annexations and collect
and count the ballots.
Council to recess until ballots are counted.
4. Adopt Draft Resolution B, declaring the results of a special annexation
landowner election for Annexation No. 25, determining the validity of prior
proceedings and directing the recording of an amendment to the notice of
special tax lien; and
5. Introduce, for first reading, by title only, Draft Ordinance, authorizing the
levy of special taxes in Community Facilities District 2005-1 for certain
annexation territory identified as Annexation No. 25.
[Community Development]
Ex Parte: None
Community Development Director Dunsmore gave the report and answered questions from
the Council.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
The following persons spoke on this item: None
Mayor Moreno closed the Public Comment period.
MOTION: By Council Member Bourbeau and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Funk
to:
1. Adopt Resolution No. 2023-063, authorizing the territory identified
in City Council Resolution 2023-035 to be annexed into Community
Facilities District No. 2005-1, authorizing the levy of a special tax
and submitting the levy of a special tax to qualified electors; and
2. Direct the City Clerk to conduct a landowner vote of annexation
and collect and count the ballots.
Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote.
Deputy City Manager/City Clerk Christensen announced that thirteen votes (one ballot) were
received and were all in favor.
Page 9 of 136
ITEM NUMBER: A-1
DATE: 07/11/23
MOTION: By Council Member Bourbeau and seconded by Council Member
Dariz to:
1. Adopt Resolution No. 2023-064, declaring the results of a
special annexation landowner election for Annexation No. 25,
determining the validity of prior proceedings and directing the
recording of an amendment to the notice of special tax lien;
and
2. Introduce for first reading, by title only, Draft Ordinance,
authorizing the levy of special taxes in Community Facilities
District 2005-1 for certain annexation territory identified as
Annexation No. 25.
Deputy City Manager/City Clerk Christensen read the title of the Ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF
SPECIAL TAXES IN COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2005-1 (PUBLIC
SERVICES), INCLUDING CERTAIN ANNEXATION TERRITORY
Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote.
C. MANAGEMENT REPORTS:
1. Irrevocable Right to Use Agreement for Broadband Infrastructure
▪ Fiscal Impact: $1,300,000 of one-time budgeted General Fund and SB 1090
monies, plus $5,000 annual expenditure toward broadband service.
▪ Recommendation: Council authorize the City Manager to execute an
agreement with Astound Broadband for the Irrevocable Right to Use (IRU) a
fiber network for broadband infrastructure with 10 Gb/s internet access
connection maintained by Astound. [Community Development]
Deputy Economic and Community Development Director Cappel gave the report and
answered questions from the Council.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
The following persons spoke on this item: Michael Thomas, Maria Kelly, Jeff Buckingham,
Ryan Erbstoesser, and Tim Williams.
Mayor Moreno closed the Public Comment period.
MOTION: By Mayor Moreno and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Funk to
authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement, substantially
in the form accompanying the Staff Report as Attachment 1, with
Astound Broadband for the Irrevocable Right to Use (IRU) a fiber
network for broadband infrastructure with 10 Gb/s internet access
connection maintained by Astound. (Contract No. 2023-017).
Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote.
Page 10 of 136
ITEM NUMBER: A-1
DATE: 07/11/23
2. Atascadero Transit System Modification
▪ Fiscal Impact: Filing for transit funding under Article 8 will eliminate future Local
Transportation Fund penalties due to farebox ratio noncompliance.
▪ Recommendation: Council approve Atascadero Transit service modifications,
providing service to populations requiring special transportation assistance,
and to file claims for funding through Local Transportation Funds under Article
8. [Public Works]
Public Works Director DeBar gave the report and answered questions from the Council.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
The following persons spoke on this item: None
Mayor Moreno closed the Public Comment period.
MOTION: By Council Member Bourbeau and seconded by Council Member
Newsom to approve Atascadero Transit service modifications,
providing service to populations requiring special transportation
assistance, and to file claims for funding through Local
Transportation Funds under Article 8.
Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote.
D. COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS:
Mayor Moreno
1. County Mayors Round Table
Mayor Pro Tem Funk
1. Homeless Services Oversight Council
Council Member Bourbeau
1. Integrated Waste Management Authority (IWMA)
Council Member Dariz
3. Community Action Partnership of San Luis Obispo (CAPSLO)
4. Visit SLO CAL Advisory Committee
Council Member Newsom
1. League of California Cities – Council Liaison
E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND / OR ACTION: None
F. ADJOURN
Mayor Moreno adjourned the meeting at 7:19 p.m.
MINUTES PREPARED BY:
______________________________________
Lara K. Christensen
Deputy City Manager / City Clerk
APPROVED:
Page 11 of 136
ITEM NUMBER: A-2 DATE: 07/11/23 Page 12 of 136
ITEM NUMBER: A-2 DATE: 07/11/23 Page 13 of 136
ITEM NUMBER: A-2 DATE: 07/11/23 Page 14 of 136
ITEM NUMBER: A-2
DATE: 07/11/23
Page 15 of 136
ITEM NUMBER: A-2
DATE: 07/11/23
Page 16 of 136
ITEM NUMBER: A-2
DATE: 07/11/23
Page 17 of 136
ITEM NUMBER: A-2
DATE: 07/11/23
Page 18 of 136
ITEM NUMBER: A-2
DATE: 07/11/23
Page 19 of 136
ITEM NUMBER: A-2
DATE: 07/11/23
Page 20 of 136
ITEM NUMBER: A-2
DATE: 07/11/23
Page 21 of 136
ITEM NUMBER: A-2
DATE: 07/11/23
Page 22 of 136
ITEM NUMBER: A-2
DATE: 07/11/23
Page 23 of 136
ITEM NUMBER: A-2
DATE: 07/11/23
Page 24 of 136
ITEM NUMBER: A-2
DATE: 07/11/23
Page 25 of 136
ITEM NUMBER: A-2
DATE: 07/11/23
Page 26 of 136
ITEM NUMBER: A-2
DATE: 07/11/23
Page 27 of 136
ITEM NUMBER: A-3
DATE: 07/11/23
Atascadero City Council
Staff Report – Community Development Department
Community Facilities District 2005-1
Annexation No. 25
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Council adopt, on second reading, by title only, Draft Ordinance authorizing the levy of
special taxes in Community Facilities District 2005-1 for certain annexation territory
identified as Annexation No. 25.
DISCUSSION:
This action consists of authorizing the levy of special taxes in Community Facilities District
2005-1 to a newly annexed area for a 7-lot commercial subdivision with the potential for
mixed-use development known as the marketplace project (Annexation No. 25). This is a
second reading of the proposed Ordinance and is required to formalize the annexation.
On June 27, 2023, the City Council held a public hearing on annexing the territory
identified as Annexation No. 25 into the City’s Community Facilities District (CFD) 2005-1.
After the close of the public hearing, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2023-063
(presented as Draft Resolution A as part of the June 27, 2023 staff report). This
annexation was authorized by Council on a 5-0 vote. A landowner election was then
held, and the landowner(s) elected to authorize a special CFD tax and approved the
annexation. This Draft Ordinance (Attachment 1) that was introduced for first reading at
the June 27, 2023 meeting to authorize the levy of a CFD fee to all future property
owners residing in Annexation No. 25 territory is before the Council for final approval
tonight.
The Special Tax levied against residential units for Fiscal Year
2022-2023 was $779.10 per parcel, which is subject to an annual escalator to pay for
the service expansion needed to serve these additional residential units. The money
collected can only be used to fund new public services authorized to be funded by the
State Mello-Roos Act and identified within the Rate and Method of Apportionment, and
cannot be used to support existing services. Adoption of this Ordinance, on second
reading, will complete the CFD process and allow for the Final Map to be recorded.
Page 28 of 136
ITEM NUMBER: A-3
DATE: 07/11/23
FISCAL IMPACT:
Assessments for the Marketplace annexation are estimated to be between $0 - $71,680
annually beginning in fiscal year 2023-2024, and adjusted each year for inflation.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Ordinance
Page 29 of 136
ITEM NUMBER: A-3
DATE:
ATTACHMENT:
07/11/23
1
DRAFT ORDINANCE
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF SPECIAL
TAXES IN COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2005-1 (PUBLIC
SERVICES), INCLUDING CERTAIN ANNEXATION TERRITORY
WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero (the “City”) has conducted proceedings pursuant to the
“Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of l982”, being Chapter 2.5, Part l Division 2, Title 5 of the
Government Code of the State of California (the “Act”) and the City of Atascadero Community
Facilities District No. 2005-1 (Public Services) Ordinance enacted pursuant to the powers reserved
by the City of Atascadero under Sections 3, 5, and 7 of Article XI of the Constitution of the State
of California (the “CFD Ordinance”) (the Act and the CFD Ordinance may be referred to
collectively as the “Community Facilities District Law”), to establish the City of Atascadero
Community Facilities District No. 2005-1 (Public Services) (the “District”) for the purpose of
financing police services, fire protection and suppression services, and park services (the
“Services”) as provided in the Act; and,
WHEREAS, the rate and method of apportionment of special tax for the District is set forth
in Exhibit B to the City Council Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City
of Atascadero, California, For the Formation of Community Facilities District No. 2005-l (Public
Services) (the “Resolution of Formation”), which was adopted on May 24, 2005; and,
WHEREAS, the City has conducted proceedings to annex territory into the District and, with
respect to the proceedings, following an election of the qualified electors in the territory proposed
for annexation (the “Annexation Territory”), the City Council, on June 27, 2023, adopted a
Resolution entitled “Resolution of the City Council of the City of Atascadero, California, Declaring
the Results of Special Annexation Landowner Election, Determining Validity of Prior
Proceedings, and Directing the Recording of an Amendment to Notice of Special Tax Lien.”
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct.
SECTION 2. By the passage of this Ordinance, the City Council hereby authorizes
and levies the special tax within the District, including the Annexation Territory, pursuant to the
Community Facilities District Law, at the rate and in accordance with the rate and method of
apportionment of special tax set forth in the Resolution of Formation, which rate and method is by
this reference incorporated herein. The special tax has previously been levied in the original territory
of the District beginning in Fiscal Year 2006-07 pursuant to Ordinance No. 478 passed and adopted
by the City Council on July 12, 2005 and the special tax is hereby levied commencing in Fiscal Year
2022-23 in the District, including the Annexation Territory, and in each fiscal year thereafter to
pay for the Services for the District and all costs of administering the District.
Page 30 of 136
ITEM NUMBER: A-3
DATE:
ATTACHMENT:
07/11/23
1
SECTION 3. The City’s Finance Director or designee or employee or consultant of the
City is hereby authorized and directed each fiscal year to determine the specific special tax to be
levied for the next ensuing fiscal year for each parcel of real property within the District,
including the Annexation Territory, in the manner and as provided in the Resolution of Formation.
SECTION 4. Exemptions from the levy of the special tax shall be as provided in the
Resolution of Formation and the applicable provisions of the Community Facilities District Law. In
no event shall the special tax be levied on any parcel within the District in excess of the maximum
special tax specified in the Resolution of Formation.
SECTION 5. All of the collections of the special tax shall be used as provided in the
Community Facilities District Law and in the Resolution of Formation, including, but not limited
to, the payment of the costs of the Services, the payment of the costs of the City in administering
the District, and the costs of collecting and administering the special tax.
SECTION 6. The special tax shall be collected in the same manner as ordinary ad valorem
taxes are collected and shall have the same lien priority, and be subject to the same penalties and the
same procedure and sale in cases of delinquency as provided for ad valorem taxes; provided,
however, that the City Council may provide for other appropriate methods of collection by
resolution(s) of the City Council. The Finance Director of the City is hereby authorized and
directed to provide all necessary information to the auditor/tax collector of the County of San Luis
Obispo in order to effect proper billing and collection of the special tax, so that the special tax shall
be included on the secured property tax roll of the County of San Luis Obispo for Fiscal Year 2023-
24 and for each fiscal year thereafter until no longer required to pay for the Services or until
otherwise terminated by the City.
SECTION 7. If for any reason any portion of this Ordinance is found to be invalid, or if
the special tax is found inapplicable to any particular parcel within the District, including the
Annexation Territory, by a court of competent jurisdiction, the balance of this Ordinance and the
application of the special tax to the remaining parcels within the District, including the Annexation
Territory, shall not be affected.
SECTION 8. A summary of this ordinance, approved by the City Attorney, together with
the ayes and noes, shall be published twice: at least five days prior to its final passage in the San
Luis Obispo Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in the City of Atascadero, and; before
the expiration of fifteen (15) days after its final passage, in the Atascadero News, a newspaper
published and circulated in the City of Atascadero. A copy of the full text of this ordinance shall
be on file in the City Clerk’s Office on and after the date following introduction and passage and
shall be available to any interested member of the public.
SECTION 9. This Ordinance shall take effect 30 days from the date of final passage.
Page 31 of 136
ITEM NUMBER: A-3
DATE:
ATTACHMENT:
07/11/23
1
INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council held on _____, 2023 and PASSED
APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Atascadero, State of California, on
_____, 2023.
CITY OF ATASCADERO:
____________________________________
Heather Moreno, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________________
Lara K. Christensen, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________________
Brian A. Pierik, City Attorney
Page 32 of 136
ITEM NUMBER: A-3
DATE:
ATTACHMENT:
07/11/23
1A
EXHIBIT A
City of Atascadero
Community Facilities District No. 2005-1
(Public Services)
Annexation No. 25
CANVASS AND STATEMENT OF RESULT OF ELECTION
I hereby certify that on June 27, 2023, I canvassed the returns of the election held on June 27,
2023, for the City of Atascadero Community Facilities District No. 2005-1 (Public Services)
Annexation No. 25 and the total number of votes cast in such election and the total number of
votes cast for and against the measure are as follows and the totals as shown for and against the
measure are full, true and correct:
City of Atascadero Community Facilities
District No. 2005-1 (Public Services)
Annexation No. 25
Special Tax Election, June 27, 2023
BALLOT MEASURE: Shall the City Council of the City of
Atascadero be authorized to levy a special tax on an annual basis at
the rates and apportioned as described in Resolution No. 2023-035
adopted by the City Council on May 23, 2023 (the “Resolution”),
which is incorporated herein by this reference, within the territory
identified on the map entitled “Annexation Boundary Map No. 25 of
Community Facilities District No. 2005-1 (Public Services) City of
Atascadero, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California” to finance
certain services as set forth in Section 4 to the Resolution (including
incidental expenses).
YES:
NO:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I HAVE HEREUNTO SET MY HAND on June 27, 2023.
By:
Lara K. Christensen, City Clerk
City of Atascadero
Qualified
Landowner Votes Votes Votes Votes
13
Cast
13
YES
13
NO
0
Page 33 of 136
ITEM NUMBER: A-4
DATE: 07/11/23
Atascadero City Council
Staff Report – Public Works Department
2023 Measure F-14 Pavement Rehabilitation
Construction Contract Award
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Council:
1. Award a construction contract for $2,851,397 to Souza Construction for the 2023
Measure F-14 Pavement Rehabilitation Project (Project No. C2022R01); and
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with Cannon Corp. for
$449,872 for Construction Management and Materials Testing Services for the
2023 Measure F-14 Pavement Rehabilitation Project (Phase I) and the
Downtown Paving Project (Phase II).
DISCUSSION:
Background
Sales Tax Measure F-14 was approved by voters in November 2014 to fund the repair,
maintenance, and rehabilitation of City-maintained local roadways with a one-half cent
sales tax over twelve years. A list of projects to be funded with Measure F-14 revenue
is developed each budget cycle by employing the Critical Point Management technique
with the City’s Pavement Management Program. The roadway segments in the chart
below are part of the 2023 Measure F-14 Pavement Rehabilitation Project and included
in the current Budget and 5-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP). This project has
a total of 3.16 centerline road miles, or 6.32 lane miles. A map showing these
segments is also attached for reference (Attachment 1).
Page 34 of 136
ITEM NUMBER: A-4
DATE: 07/11/23
Road Segments in Measure F-14 2023 Rehabilitation Project
Road Segment From To Length
(ft.)
Area
(sq. ft.) 2019 PCI
Cabrillo Ave Ensenada Ave Capistrano Ave 1,695 38,985 38
Capistrano Ave West Mall Lewis Ave 1,719 53,289 48
Dolores Ave San Anselmo Rd San Jacinto Ave 2,700 56,700 23
Ensenada Ave North End Capistrano Ave 1,669 35,049 14
Ensenada Ave Via Ave Capistrano Ave 540 11,340 33
Magdelena Ave Mercedes Ave End 1,175 22,325 29
Magnolia Ave Capistrano Ave End 1,400 29,400 20
Mercedes Ave Capistrano Ave Highway 41 835 19,205 50
Navidad Ave El Verano Ave San Jacinto Ave 1,300 27,300 18
Palma Ave Traffic Way Rosario Ave 880 17,600 37
San Ardo Ave Arena Ave Dolores Ave 1,240 24,800 20
Sycamore Rd Miramon Ave Capistrano Ave 475 11,875 43
Valentina Ave Dolores Ave Alamo Ave 1,080 21,600 31
Total: 16,708 369,468
Design Analysis
Earth Systems Pacific (ESP) performed pavement testing services and preliminary
design recommendations, which were then coordinated with Wallace Group in final
design work and preparing construction plans and specifications for the project. Cabrillo
Avenue, Dolores Avenue, and Ensenada Avenue are proposed to be reconstructed
using a traditional base/asphalt section, while Magdalena Avenue, Magnolia Avenue,
Palma Avenue, Navidad Avenue, San Ardo Avenue and Valentina Avenue will be
reconstructed using a full-depth reclamation (FDR) process, then recompacting and
asphalt paving. FDR is a cost-effective reconstruction method that was selected for use
on these roadways after evaluation of subgrade soil stabilities and traffic volumes.
Capistrano Avenue, Mercedes Avenue and Sycamore Road will be rehabilitated with a
combination of digouts and deep lift paving in specific locations, crack sealing, and
microsurfacing. All treatment options were based on an assessment of subgrade
quality, current roadway conditions, and traffic volumes.
Staff was heavily involved in value engineering during the design process and worked
closely with the consultants (Wallace Group and Earth Systems Pacific) to determine the
appropriate level of treatment on each roadway. As part of the design process, each
roadway segment was analyzed to determine if and where underlying structural issues
existed, and where the pavement degradation was confined to the surface courses and
could be remedied with a less costly treatment (microsurfacing). The design team
worked together to pinpoint the worst areas, determine the causes of failure, (drainage
issues, poorly compacted subgrade fill, insufficient structural section, etc.), and focus
repair solutions tailored to the expected causes of failures.
Bid Analysis
The project was publicly bid starting May 19, 2023 for a minimum of 30 days in
accordance with State Contracting Laws and Atascadero Purchasing Policies. A public
Page 35 of 136
ITEM NUMBER: A-4
DATE: 07/11/23
bid opening occurred on June 22, 2023, and three bids were received ranging from
$2,851,397 to $4,283,177. The bids were reviewed for accuracy and compliance with
project bidding requirements, and the City Engineer has determined that Souza
Construction of San Luis Obispo is the lowest responsive bidder at $2,851,397.
Bidding was competitive for this project, and Souza’s bid is considered a very fair price
for this project scope, particularly given the rapid recent escalation of construction costs
starting in 2021 and the 2023 bidding environment. Specifically, while there is some
indication they are stabilizing, costs for asphalt and trucking increased by approximately
20-30% from 2021 to 2023. Costs to off-haul excavated soils and import Class 2 base
and other construction materials have risen similarly. Additionally, the current bidding
environment across the Central Coast has seen multiple recent projects with a low
number of bidders (due to current workload and a limited number of contractors), and
bid submissions much higher than typical bid costs.
The recently adopted 2023-2025 budget includes $4,000,000 in Measure F-14 monies for
project funding. This total was adjusted during the current budget process to reflect the
realities of rising construction costs as noted above. To date, there has been
approximately $285,000 spent for the design and bid phases of the project. State Law
requires the City to maintain or re-establish existing survey monuments during road
construction. The City will contract directly with a licensed land surveyor for survey
monument perpetuation/preservation work, which is estimated at $60,000. Other non-
construction costs remaining include material testing, coordination, and inspection fees
that are estimated to be around $285,000, or about 10% of construction costs. Staff is
recommending contracting with a construction management firm for construction
inspection services and materials testing Quality Assurance (QA). See section below for
discussion of construction management services.
A standard contingency of 20% is customarily used for capital projects as a safeguard
for quantity over-runs and if unknown conditions arise which require a change in plans.
The risk for unknowns drops significantly on roadway projects if excavation is not a part
of construction. In addition, estimated quantities for projects such as this are based
upon known pavement surface areas and identifiable item quantities, therefore the risk
for actual versus estimated quantity deviation drops significantly. Given the thorough
fieldwork performed during design, staff is comfortable recommending a slightly lower
construction contingency of 18%, or $518,600, of the construction contract amount.
While every project is different, and staff agrees that a healthy contingency is prudent, it
should be noted that the average contingency use over the previous five F-14 projects
has been less than 5%.
During construction, some inconvenience is expected to vehicular and pedestrian traffic
along the roadway segments. The contractor will be required to prepare a traffic control
plan, and City staff and the contracted construction manager will work with the
contractor to minimize travel delays and impediments to driveways on all roadway
segments. Since the majority of the pavement rehabilitation will match existing grades,
the number of driveways that will need to be removed and replaced is reduced. This will
limit impacts to individual property owners. Property owners on each roadway segment
will be notified of the construction schedule prior to work beginning.
Page 36 of 136
ITEM NUMBER: A-4
DATE: 07/11/23
Construction Engineering Analysis
Staff solicited proposals in May 2023 from qualified consultants to provide construction
engineering and materials testing services for the two large paving projects. Since the
2023 F-14 Pavement Rehabilitation and Downtown District Pavement Rehabilitation
projects consist of similar pavement rehabilitation methods, are within close proximity,
and may have overlapping construction schedules (pending re-bid of the Downtown
District Paving Project), it was determined it would be most efficient and productive to
have a single consultant provide comprehensive construction engineering services for
both projects under one contract. The scope of services includes full construction
management, construction inspection and construction administration services, as well
as geotechnical and materials sampling and acceptance testing.
Staff received three proposals from qualified consultants including Wallace Group,
Filippin Engineering, and Cannon Corp. Proposals were individually reviewed and
scored based upon experience with similar projects, responsiveness to City needs,
experience of key personnel, and other factors. The City was fortunate to receive
excellent proposals and determined that Cannon submitted the most qualified proposal,
with staff available for the scope of work. Their experience working on similar projects
for other public agencies was extensive, and their resident engineer and construction
inspector are well qualified and well regarded.
Cannon provided a detailed fee estimate worksheet with their proposal that included
labor hours/costs, reimbursable expenses, and subconsultant fees for the work scope
identified in the City’s request for proposals. Cannon’s proposal included a detailed
work scope and fee estimate of $256,036 for the 2023 Measure F-14 project and
$193,836 for the Downtown Paving Project. Staff reviewed Cannon’s work scope and
fee and believes that the proposal is reasonable for full time construction management,
inspection, and materials testing. It is anticipated that the contract will authorize the
work under two phases. The first Phase will be for the F-14 Paving Project. Because
the Downtown Paving Project is being restructured before going back out to bid, it is
likely that the Cannon scope of work and fee may change for the Downtown Paving
Project, Phase II of the contract. Even though the Downtown Paving Project scope is
not final at this time, awarding both phases will save staff time and eliminate the need to
re-issue RFP’s for this work.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The proposed project is Categorically Exempt (Class 1) from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et
seq., “CEQA”) and CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000,
et seq.) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, because it is limited to repair and
maintenance of existing facilities. A finding of exemption is on file in the project records
Page 37 of 136
ITEM NUMBER: A-4
DATE: 07/11/23
FISCAL IMPACT:
The recently adopted 2023-2024 budget has $4,000,000 in Measure F-14 Funds
included for this project. The following tables summarize the estimated project
expenditures and funding sources:
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
Design and Bid Phase $ 285,000
Construction Contract 2,851,400
Survey Monument Perpetuation 60,000
Contracted Construction Inspection / Testing / Administration
(F-14 portion of work)
256,036
City staff Construction Administration 28,964
Construction Contingency @ 18% 518,600
Total Estimated Expenditures: $ 4,000,000
BUDGETED FUNDING SOURCES
Measure F-14 Fund: FY2023-2025 Adopted Budget $4,000,000
Total Budgeted Funding Sources: $4,000,000
ALTERNATIVES:
Council may direct staff to rebid the project; however, staff believes the low bid received
is very reasonable given current construction costs and the bidding environment. In
addition, Souza’s bid was very competitive, nearly $300,000 less than the second
lowest bid, and can be completed with budgeted funds.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Project Location Map
2. Bid Summary
Page 38 of 136
F-14 2023 PMP PROJECT
EXHIBIT
STREET LOCATIONS
DRAWN BY:
DATE:
SCALE:
PAGE NO:1
1"=1000'
7/5/2022
R. HAYES
OF 1
LEGEND:
2023 REHABILITATION SEGMENT
DOLORES AVE.
HW
Y
1
0
1
SAN ARDO AVE.
NAVIDAD AVE.VALENTINA AVE.SYCAMORE RD.
VIA AVE.
ENSENADA AVE.
CABRILLO AVE.
CAPISTRANO AVE.
HWY 41
PALMA AVE.
MAGNOLIA AVE.
MAGDELENA AVE.
MERCEDES AVE.
CITY
HALL
ADA IMP. LOC #1
ADA IMP. LOC. #2
ITEM NUMBER: A-4
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 39 of 136
ITEM NUMBER: A-4 DATE: 07/11/23ATTACHMENT: 2 Page 40 of 136
ITEM NUMBER: A-5
DATE: 07/11/23
Atascadero City Council
Staff Report – Fire Department
Structure Fire Engine Replacement
RECOMMENDATION:
Council authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with South Coast Fire
Equipment, Inc. for a total cost of $1,003,524 to build and deliver a Pierce Enforcer 2000
GPM Fire Engine.
DISCUSSION:
The Fire Department maintains a fleet of three Type 1 (Structure Fire/Medical/Rescue)
engines, two Type 3 (Wildland) engines, one Ladder Truck, one Ambulance and one
Heavy Rescue Trailer. This fleet allows the Department to protect the community from
hazards including building and wildland fires, entrapments and technical rescues,
hazardous materials incidents, as well as provide paramedic emergency medical services
to those injured or sick. The engines are cross-staffed, meaning multiple engines are
housed at each Fire Station and the crew takes the appropriate engine based on the type
of 911 call. Fire Station 1 houses two Type 1 engines and Fire Station 2 houses one
Type 1 engine.
A Type 1 or structure fire engine is our primary engine for most incidents. Our structure
engines are the workhorses of our fleet and serve as the toolboxes that carry all of our
equipment for any emergency. They are equipped with medical and rescue equipment,
including advanced medical life support tools, jaws of life, ropes, harnesses, and victim
rescue baskets. They carry 500 gallons of water and 25 gallons of foam with a 2000
gallon per minute pump. They carry hundreds of feet of fire hose of various size, as well
as ladders, axes, chainsaws, breathing apparatuses, fans, thermal imaging cameras, and
many other necessary pieces of equipment that allow us to do our job.
The engine being replaced is Engine 7593. It was placed in service in 2005. Engine
7593 was built by Pierce in Appleton, Wisconsin and has served our community well for
nearly 20 years. Not only has it protected Atascadero, it has also served communities all
over the state as part of the California mutual aid system.
The Pierce Enforcer structure engine will be a well-built, sound replacement for Engine
7593. Pierce makes an outstanding product—all of the City’s current Type 1 engines,
Ladder Truck, and 2008 Type 3 engine were manufactured by Pierce. Having one brand
of apparatus allows for consistency and standardization. The California dealer that sells
Page 41 of 136
ITEM NUMBER: A-5
DATE: 07/11/23
Pierce fire apparatus, South Coast Fire, also maintains a service center in Paso Robles,
allowing for quick repairs when needed.
Authorization for the engine replacement was included in the Vehicle Replacement Fund
in the 2023-2025 adopted budget. Pierce estimates the build time for a new fire engine
to be 31 to 33 months. Delivery and expenditure of all funds is anticipated to be in the
budget year 2025-2026.
In accordance with the City of Atascadero Purchasing Policy Section 2 (3.1), the City will
be purchasing through the use of a governmental contract in lieu of the formal bid process.
Atascadero is a member of a nation-wide buying consortium called Houston Galveston
Area Council (HGAC). The HGAC solicits bids from manufacturers for all types of
products, including fire equipment. They receive pricing from fire apparatus
manufacturers, publish the costs and allow members to buy at that cost. Purchasing
through a consortium allows Atascadero to follow the City Purchasing Policy and receive
the negotiated price of a nationwide solicited bid without using a formal bid process.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The total cost of the engine is $1,003,524 of budgeted Vehicle Replacement funds and
will need to be budgeted in fiscal year 2025-26.
ATTACHMENT:
1. Quote from South Coast Fire Equipment, Inc.
Page 42 of 136
Extension
(1 )
922,771.00$
Sales Tax @ 8.750%80,742.46$
1,003,513.46$
Performance Bond -$
California Tire Fee 10.50$
Consortium Fee Not Applicable -$
1,003,523.96$
31-33
South Coast Fire Equipment, Inc.
Bryden Newell
Sales Representative
APPARATUS COST WITH TAX
10.50$
calender months after receipt of this order and the acceptance thereof at our office
Not Required
1,003,513.46$
1,003,523.96$
-$
reserved to withdraw this proposition.
obtain chassis, materials, or other causes beyond our control not preventing, within about
to the price set forth above. Unless accepted within 30 days from the specified date, the right is
in Corona, California, and to be delivered to you at Atascadero
in or additions to said DOT or NFPA standards will be passed along to the customer as an addition
guidelines for Automotive Fire Apparatus as published at time of bid, except as modified by
by the company of the order to purchase, and provided such alterations do not materially affect
and regulations in effect at the time of bid, and with all National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
The specifications herein contained shall form a part of the final contract and are subject to
922,771.00$
Enforcer Pierce Ultimate Configuration 2000
GPM Triple Combination Pumping Engine
the cost of the construction of the apparatus.
PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING ABOUT THIS QUOTATION:
the specifications hereto attached, delays due to strikes, war or international conflict, failures to
Respectfully Submitted,
Payment options are available and are included under separate cover. One of these options
customer specifications. Any increased costs incurred by the first party because of future changes
changes desired by the purchaser, provided such alterations are interlined prior to the acceptance
may save your department a significant amount of money!
The proposal for fire apparatus conforms with all Federal Department of Transportation (DOT) rules
80,742.46$
-$
Said apparatus and equipment are to be built by the manfacturer and shipped in accordance with
TOTAL PURCHASE PRICE
PROPOSAL FOR FURNISHING FIRE APPARATUS
for final acceptance by South Coast Fire Equipment, Inc., at its corporate office in Ontario, California,
Each
June 30, 2023
Atascadero Fire Dept
The undersigned is prepared to provide for you, our customer, upon an order being placed by you,
the apparatus and equipment herein named and for the following prices:
Atascadero, CA 93422
6005 Lewis Ave
One
ITEM NUMBER: A-5
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 43 of 136
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
Atascadero City Council
Staff Report – Community Development Department
Draft Regional Housing & Infrastructure Plan
RECOMMENDATION:
Council:
1. Discuss and consider support for the Regional Housing & Infrastructure Plan, as
a recommitment to the 2020 San Luis Obispo Countywide Regional Compact;
and
2. Provide staff general direction on future actions relating to implementation of the
Regional Housing & Infrastructure Plan.
DISCUSSION:
Housing continues to be a challenge throughout the State and meeting the housing needs
of the San Luis Obispo region is a challenge shared by all eight local land use jurisdictions
(the seven Cities and County of San Luis Obispo [County]), San Luis Obispo Council of
Governments (SLOCOG), organizations who develop and build housing, as well as local
community members. This challenge is larger than any one entity can solve alone and
will require the collective actions of all local partners. With this great challenge also comes
an opportunity for regional collaboration. Regional partners recognized the need to work
collaboratively to solve the critical shortage of infrastructure resources and housing
attainability in the region. And so, in 2019, the County allocated resources to launch a
new regional collaborative initiative. Since its inception, the Regional Housing &
Infrastructure Plan (HIP) has been part of a phased approach intended to address three
major goals:
• Foster regional collaboration (action taken in 2020); and
• Align land use planning documents (action taken in 2020); and
• Create the HIP (draft under review via today’s item).
The HIP, under discussion today, is the next necessary collaborative action between the
seven Cities, County, and SLOCOG along the region’s path to addressing the region’s
growing housing and infrastructure needs. The HIP is intended to help accelerate housing
development where it makes the most sense, given regional conditions and community
readiness. The HIP inventories infrastructure barriers to housing, identifies funding
opportunities to implement infrastructure priorities, studies housing affordability in the
region, and develops foundational information for the future 2027 Regional Housing
Needs Assessment (RHNA) and other future regional programs.
Page 44 of 136
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
This staff report is organized into three main sections:
1. Prior Actions to Formalize Regional Collaboration for Housing
2. Creation of the Regional Housing and Infrastructure Plan
3. Today’s Action & Future Growth Steps
Section 1. Prior Actions to Formalize Regional Collaboration for Housing
1.1 Fostering Regional Collaboration: Regional Compact (2020)
The seven Cities, County, and SLOCOG adopted the San Luis Obispo Countywide
Regional Compact in early 2020 (see Appendix D). The Regional Compact is an
aspirational document that sets goals for future recommended plans and actions among
the local agencies. It “establishes a united regional framework to unlock the potential to
develop an adequate supply of housing and resilient infrastructure that support our
economic prosperity.” By adopting the Regional Compact, the seven Cities, County, and
SLOCOG embraced six shared regional goals listed below and supported aligning
resources and policies to make progress towards acting on them.
Table 1. Regional Compact Goals
Goal 1. Strengthen
Community Quality
of Life
We believe that our Region’s quality of life depends on four
cornerstones to foster a stable and healthy economy for all:
resilient infrastructure and resources, adequate housing
supply, business opportunities, and educational pathways.
Goal 2. Share
Regional Prosperity
We believe that our Region should share the impacts and
benefits of achieving enduring quality of life among all people,
sectors and interests.
Goal 3. Create
Balanced
Communities
We believe that our Region should encourage new
development that helps to improve the balance of jobs and
housing throughout the Region, providing more opportunities
to residents to live and work in the same community.
Goal 4. Value
Agriculture & Natural
Resources
We believe that our Region’s unique agricultural resources,
open space, and natural environments play a vital role in
sustaining healthy local communities and a healthy economy,
and therefore should be purposefully protected.
Goal 5. Support
Equitable
Opportunities
We believe that our Region should support policies, actions,
and incentives that increase housing development of all types,
available to people at all income levels.
Goal 6. Foster
Accelerated Housing
Production
We believe that our Region must achieve efficient planning
and production of housing and focus on strategies that
produce the greatest impact.
These six regional goals created a path for compatibility among the eight local land use
planning agencies’ Housing Elements, built a basis for the HIP, and drove future
recommendations for collaborative actions. Signatories to the Regional Compact
committed to acting as partners in aligning actions with these regional goals. The City
Page 45 of 136
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
Council adopted a resolution in March 2020 authorizing the Mayor to sign the Regional
Compact. Adoption of the compact indicated general support for regional collaboration
but at the time, it was understood more detail and discussion would come forward.
1.2 Aligning Land Use Planning Documents: Housing Elements (2020)
The eight local land use planning agencies (the seven Cities and County) were each
required to update their jurisdiction's Housing Elements to reflect how local communities
are planning for the State’s 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocations (2020 - 2028).
The Housing Elements were submitted to Housing and Community Development (HCD)
by December 2020. As a step towards the regional goal of aligning land use planning
documents, each agency’s Housing Element included a regional chapter that included an
initial list of aspirational regional policies that, if implemented, could further the Regional
Compact goals (see Appendix D). The regional chapter also recognized the importance
of ongoing collaboration moving forward and pointed to future collaborative efforts to be
identified in the HIP. It was the first time all eight land use planning agencies included a
regional chapter in the Housing Elements—an important step for aligning land use
planning documents.
Section 2. Creation of the Regional Housing and Infrastructure Plan
The final goal of the regional collaborative initiative was developing the HIP. Due to
emergency response needs, the County put the HIP on hold during the COVID-19
pandemic. In June 2022, the HIP was revived with the establishment of a Memorandum
of Understanding between the County and SLOCOG, under which SLOCOG took over
as the project manager of the effort and subrecipient of the County’s Senate Bill 2
Planning Grant Program funding award for HIP development. With Senate Bill 2 grant
funding sunsetting in September 2023, the HIP needed to move at an accelerated pace.
Making progress on the region’s strategic goals for addressing housing and infrastructure
needs can only be achieved through the actions of many stakeholders; therefore,
communication and stakeholder engagement were critical pieces of the HIP development.
SLOCOG contracted with REACH and Koble Collaborative, Inc. to conduct the HIP’s
communications and stakeholder engagement. The primary outreach goals were:
• Foster ongoing collaboration and buy-in among private and public stakeholders
• Remind government of the Regional Compact, laying the groundwork for HIP effort
• Build public sentiment in support of solutions and regional planning efforts
The stakeholder groups and meetings were designed to convene diverse perspectives
and have honest conversations about what each organization can and needs to do to
realize those goals, across sectors and industries. Key stakeholder groups included:
Page 46 of 136
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
Regional
Managers /
Key Staff
Housing Action
Team
Builders &
Developers
Housing
Advocacy
Group
City &
County
Elected
Officials
30
attendees,
3 meetings
15-20 attendees,
monthly
meetings
20-35 attendees,
3 meetings
15-20
attendees,
2 meetings
40
elected
officials
1 meeting
per
agency
County of
SLO,
7 Cities (+
Santa Maria),
SLOCOG
Leadership
County of SLO,
7 Cities, SLOCOG
Planning/Comm
Dvpmt. Staff
Builders,
Engineers,
Developers,
Econ. Dvpmt.,
Architects, Real
Estate, etc.
Nonprofit
builders, Home
Builders Assoc,
Chambers, etc.
Seven
City
Councils
County of
SLO
Board
SLOCOG
Board
HIP Steering Committee
10 attendees, 3 meetings
City Manager, Elected Officials, County Regional Planner, Developer, Low Income
Lender, Architect, Engineer, Advocate, Water Resources and Cal Poly met
collaboratively to consider ways to integrate feedback from all stakeholder
perspectives
These stakeholder groups helped to review and shape the HIP.
On May 19, 2023, SLOCOG published the attached Draft HIP, including some of the
expected appendices and a mapping tool. The Draft is currently missing appendices C
& E, and the HIP along with its included appendices are still missing information and in
draft form. This has made it challenging for staff to thoroughly review, understand and
analyze the document and its appendices.
There are seven major components of the HIP (listed in Table 2 and further described
below). These components intertwine and build upon one another. As with each prior
phase of the regional collaborative efforts to address the housing and infrastructure
shortage, stakeholder engagement was key.
Page 47 of 136
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
Table 2. HIP Components
HIP
Components
What Each Component Is Possible Individual Agency
Use
1. Housing
Highlights
Communication tool:
Understanding the need for
housing, affordability, and
opportunities
Voluntary use of a
communication tool to convey
housing challenge and
community call to action
2. Data and
Project Inventory
Infrastructure barriers to
housing
Recognizes community’s needs
and connects to regional
inventory
3. HIP Mapping
Tool
Living strategic analysis tool
used to show the interrelation
between housing and
infrastructure
Visual tool connecting each
community’s plans to overall
regional scale
4. Housing
Efficiency
Analysis
Housing Efficient Areas in HIP
Recognizes community’s plans
and serves as leverage for
future infrastructure funding
sources
5. Infrastructure
Prioritization
Region’s highest priority
projects to unlock housing
Identify importance of
community’s needs in
supporting regional housing
supply
6. Funding
Strategies
Assessment
Funding the region could
pursue for priority infrastructure
projects
Identifies possible funding
sources that each community or
partners could pursue to cover
funding gaps
7. Affordable-by-
Design Study
Menu of possible policies to
increase housing attainability
Voluntary use of menu of
options for possible policies to
implement
2.1 HIP Component 1–Housing Highlights
A communication tool designed to unify the region’s focus on the challenges and
successes that local agencies, the building and development community and other
stakeholders face related to the housing supply needs. This document will serve to
reinforce the commitment to the Regional Compact and expand on opportunities each
stakeholder has to address housing needs within their area of control and span of
influence. The draft Housing Highlight document was not available at the time of this
report and the draft was expected to be available by June 28, 2023. The final document
is expected to be included with the final HIP in July 2023.
Page 48 of 136
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
2.2 HIP Component 2–Data and Project Inventory
The HIP analyzes the transportation, water and wastewater infrastructure barriers to
housing development. This HIP element included compiling infrastructure and housing
data from across individual agencies as briefly described in Table 3 below:
Table 3. Major HIP Inputs
Housing Data Proposed residential developments of all income categories were
collected from Planning and Community Development staff of the
seven Cities and the County in 2021. This data includes specific
plans, proposed residential and mixed-use projects projected to be
built between now and 2045. Residential development that has
been completed or is near completion was removed from the HIP
analysis.
Transportation
Data
The 2023 Regional Transportation Plan included a list of 350+
transportation investments submitted by Public Works staff of the
seven Cities and County and transit providers. Transportation
infrastructure was studied using the Transportation Efficiency
Analysis (TEA). The TEA identified transportation barriers to
housing production and was used in the HIP analysis.
Water/
Wastewater Data
The HIP inventory is based on responses from 44 water and
wastewater agencies, local capital improvement project lists, 2021
Regional Water Infrastructure Resiliency Plan findings, and
information from the County’s Water Resources team. Available,
detailed GIS based data was limited. However, to the extent needs
are known, key infrastructure projects, estimated costs and timing
were included in the HIP analysis.
Additional
Contextual Data
The HIP analysis provides the data that connects infrastructure
and housing on a regional scale for the first-time. When planning
for housing, land conditions are carefully considered. To provide
a fuller picture, flood risk, sensitive habitat, open space, prime
farmland, and fire risk were all included as additional reference
information. However, these additional datasets were not used to
remove or prioritize infrastructure projects from the HIP list, but
simply to provide additional context.
The HIP is a living tool and can adapt as new information becomes available. Future
updates to the HIP may incorporate two key datasets:
• Water data update: The County’s Master Water Report update is underway, which
may be leveraged to provide updated water capacity information for a future HIP
update.
• Economic data: It is anticipated that a future HIP update will incorporate economic
data. A concurrent effort, led by REACH, is underway which may be leveraged to
provide economic/jobs information for a future HIP update. This is something that
the City has pushed for in order further the below Goal #3 of the Regional Compact
o Goal 3. Create Balanced Communities: We believe that our Region should
encourage new development that helps to improve the balance of jobs and
Page 49 of 136
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
housing throughout the Region, providing more opportunities to residents
to live and work in the same community.
2.3 HIP Component 3–HIP Mapping Tool
The HIP Mapping Tool was created to display the GIS analysis and foster future
collaboration. It is an interactive tool, compiling the complex data and inventoried projects
from across the region. The mapping tool makes it easier to visualize connections
between infrastructure and housing, see project priorities, and quickly access more
information about each community’s priority projects and housing efficient areas, within a
regional context. This component is completed and included in the draft HIP.
2.4 HIP Component 4–Housing Efficiency Analysis
The Housing Efficiency Analysis looks at three efficiency factors: (1) transportation
access, (2) water capacity and (3) wastewater capacity. By analyzing these efficiency
factors, housing efficient areas were identified as efficient, potential, or limited. Any
infrastructure projects located in an area deemed “efficient” or “potential” moved on to the
Infrastructure Prioritization element. All projects located in areas deemed “limited”
housing efficiency were removed from further analysis. There were 440 infrastructure
projects collected as part of the data inventory. Of those, 18% (80 projects) were located
within Housing Efficient Areas (i.e. areas deemed “efficient” or “potential”). This
component is completed and included in the draft HIP. Figure 4 from the draft HIP is
shown below.
In April 2022, the SLOCOG Board approved the Transportation Efficiency Analysis (TEA)
which identified transportation barriers to housing production. The TEA identified both
transportation projects that were required for new housing and transportation efficient
areas (within ½ mile from a transit stop, ½ mile from a bikeway and 1 mile from an
interchange.)
City staff is looking into understanding the criteria used to show the water/wastewater
efficient areas here in Atascadero. The map showing water and wastewater efficient
Page 50 of 136
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
areas appears to include the entire City limits for Atascadero, although sewer is not
available to much of the City. In addition, the Wastewater Treatment Plant is at or nearing
capacity and a better understanding of how that was factored into determining the net
housing efficient area is needed.
Generally, in Atascadero, it appears that the HIP identifies areas that are identified as
“housing efficient” and “potentially housing efficient” along both the East and West sides
of Highway 101.
2.5 HIP Component 5–Infrastructure Prioritization
The premise of the HIP is to help accelerate new housing development, so the current
prioritization factors relate solely to the amount of proposed housing that benefits from a
community’s infrastructure project. Figure 5 of the HIP outlines the HIP analysis process.
Page 51 of 136
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
The 80 infrastructure projects identified through the processes described in HIP
Components 2-4 were ranked as high, medium, or low priority based on three factors: (1)
if the project is needed for new housing, (2) benefit/cost (i.e., investment cost per
additional potential housing units served), and (3) whether there are significant barriers
to development.
Table 4: Draft HIP Priority Projects Summary
Estimate
($ Millions) Projects
Estimate for all HIP Projects $ 1,015 80
High $ 348 54
Medium $ 385 10
Low $ 281 16
This component is completed and included in the draft HIP. Details of each community’s
infrastructure priorities can be found in the HIP’s Appendix A. The following table included
in Appendix A includes a summary of infrastructure priority projects summarized by
subregion.
Table 5. Priority Projects by Subregion
Atascadero has four identified priority infrastructure projects as shown in Exhibit A. The
projects include the Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion (medium priority), the
Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade to address salts and nutrients in the water (high
priority), the Del Rio Road interchange modifications (medium priority), and an
Atascadero Mutual Water Company project to remove PFAS from the water (high priority).
Additional information is needed at this time to better understand both the data used to
determine the priority of projects (i.e., how the # of proposed dwelling units used to
determine cost benefit was determined) and the rationale for using only cost divided by #
of proposed dwelling units to determine high, medium, or low priority (i.e., the wastewater
treatment plant is at or near capacity, severely limiting future development, yet is a
medium priority due to its high overall cost). The water company project, which has a
lower overall cost but does not prevent future units, is a high priority. All of the projects
identified are important, however staff feels that a better understanding and perhaps
refinement of the methodology may be needed.
Page 52 of 136
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
2.6 HIP Component 6–Funding Strategies Assessment
SLOCOG contracted with BKF Engineers to conduct a Funding Strategies
Assessment. The Funding Strategies Assessment is currently underway and seeks to
identify funding sources that can reasonably implement water, wastewater, and
transportation infrastructure priorities included in the HIP (for all high, medium, and low
priorities). This component is underway, but not completed yet. The draft assessment is
expected in July 2023 will include a project-by-project detailed breakdown covering
funding requirements, potential funding sources, projected grant funding, and residual
funding gap.
Once the Assessment is available, local agencies will be encouraged to review the
assessment and pursue funding opportunities for priority infrastructure projects in order
to voluntarily contribute to the regional housing effort in a manner that best fits within their
agency’s goals.
2.7 HIP Component 7–Affordable-by-Design Study
SLOCOG contracted with ECONorthwest to conduct the Affordable-By-Design (ABD)
Study. The Draft ABD Study is included in the HIP as Appendix B and evaluates housing
affordability characteristics for the seven Cities as well as unincorporated areas. The
intent is to identify whether housing units in this region can be built to meet low- to
moderate-income RHNA categories (as rentals or for-purchase) without being income- or
rent-restricted. Initial findings include:
• Design helps, but does not guarantee affordability.
• Market rate rental housing is close to affordability targets in some areas, but
regulatory changes are necessary for most areas of the county.
• Only manufactured housing met target price points for new for-sale housing.
• Factors that make for-sale housing more affordable in other areas may not
translate to this region’s current market.
The ABD Study notes that there are generally four factors that come together in the
housing market to produce lower-cost housing, including:
(1) simple design with lower-cost materials; and
(2) lower cost locations; and
(3) efficient production, and
(4) smaller units with higher density.
Due to the limited findings of housing affordability, the ABD Study includes development
of a simple menu of policy options that could help to incentivize ABD units in the region.
The HIP’s Appendix B includes preliminary information; however, it is still in draft form.
While the Study includes a lot of valuable information on affordable by design units, it is
important to understand the data used to arrive at the market and financial feasibility of
ABD units. In Atascadero, the study included La Plaza as affordable by design rental
housing.
Recognizing that there is no single solution to the challenge of affordability, the menu of
policy options will be provided for each local agency to consider. Local agencies will be
Page 53 of 136
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
encouraged to adopt what fits their community’s needs in order to voluntarily contribute
to the regional housing effort in a manner that best fits within their agency’s goals.
Section 3. Next Steps
On June 7, 2023, the SLOCOG Board of Directors directed SLOCOG staff (via the HIP
engagement consultant team, REACH, and Koble Collaborative, Inc.) to present this item
to member jurisdictions for comment and seek general support of regional collaboration
moving forward. The seven City Councils and the County Board of Supervisors are
receiving a presentation on the HIP and are being provided an opportunity to support the
HIP between June 27 - August 8, 2023. Tonight, Council is being asked to consider
supporting the draft HIP and providing staff with any additional direction related to the HIP
and recommendations provided in the HIP.
On August 2, 2023, the SLOCOG Board of Directors will consider formal adoption of the
HIP.
3.1 Recommended Action
It is worth emphasizing that supporting the JIP recognizes that there is no “one size fits
all” when it comes to this region’s planning and that while local agencies plan for
housing, they do not build or develop housing. Therefore, nothing in the HIP mandates
action by any of the Cities or the County, it simply offers voluntary opportunities for
action that could accelerate the development of needed housing in the region.
Implementation relies on each agency’s voluntary actions moving forward, such as:
• Agencies) may consider pursuing funding opportunities identified for a priority
infrastructure project to cover funding gaps.
• Agencies) may consider implementation of affordable-by-design policies
appropriate to each unique community and its needs.
• Agencies may consider programmatic changes to improve approval process
timelines such as identifying ways to improve response time for housing project
approval or coordinating with other agencies to align and streamline processes.
• Agencies may consider updating their approach to prioritizing the community’s
needed infrastructure projects in order to most impactfully increase housing
supply.
• Agencies may consider using the HIP to help justify the benefit of a community’s
priority infrastructure project towards increasing the region’s future housing supply,
making it more competitive in a number of State and Federal funding programs.
• SLOCOG and agencies may consider using the HIP as a foundation for negotiating
where the region’s housing needs are best met (e.g., future RHNA cycle
allocations).
While taking action to support the HIP may not mandate or direct the City to take any
particular action, it is important to understand that the HIP is expected to be a foundational
tool. It could be anticipated that the HIP would be used to inform and guide policy related
to all regional infrastructure funding decisions and future RHNA allocation methodology.
It may also be used to inform Affordable by Design feasibility and thresholds.
Page 54 of 136
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
3.2 Alignment with Agency’s Policies
Today’s action signifies another milestone on this path to regional collaboration and
fulfilling the Regional Compact adopted by the City on March 20, 2023. In addition,
support of the HIP is consistent with the Regional Vision for Housing Section adopted as
part of each City’s Housing Element.
3.3 Future of the HIP
As stated before, the housing, infrastructure and economic challenges that the State and
region face are larger than any one entity can solve alone and will require the collective
actions of all local partners. Since 2019, this region’s stakeholders have taken
incremental steps to build a strategic, unified regional collaboration to address housing
and infrastructure needs. These incremental steps led to the draft HIP proposed today.
The HIP is the first of its kind, and it is intended to be a living document. The HIP’s future
implementation and use are wholly dependent on the voluntary actions of many–the
seven Cities, County, SLOCOG, organizations who develop and build housing, as well as
local community members.
Pending adoption of the HIP, SLOCOG is committed to:
1. Using the HIP as a factor in future grant programming cycles; and
2. Leveraging the HIP as a foundational tool during the next RHNA cycle; and
3. Updating the data in the HIP Mapping Tool in sync with the Regional
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Community Strategies development’s public
processes.
As stated throughout Section 2, the HIP offers tools and information related to strategic
actions and priorities that can make the largest impact on accelerating housing supply.
SLOCOG, REACH, and HIP team encourage the City of Atascadero to take voluntary
actions aligned with the HIP, considering what will best fit our unique community’s vision
and the City’s goals. Through these voluntary actions, Atascadero, along with other key
stakeholders, can voluntarily contribute to fulfilling the Regional Compact goals and
creating a more vibrant and livable region.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Although there is no direct fiscal impact for supporting the HIP, the HIP is anticipated to
have a substantial effect on future regional infrastructure funding decisions.
ALTERNATIVES:
The City Council may choose whether to support this regional effort through future policy
amendments or other actions. The Council may also choose to defer this action for
additional information, however, SLOCOG would like to finalize the regional HIP by
August 2, 2023.
Page 55 of 136
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Regional Housing & Infrastructure Plan
2. Appendix A: Draft List of HIP Infrastructure Projects
3. Appendix B: Draft Affordable-by-Design Study Preliminary Information
4. Appendix D: Regional Compact & Housing Element Regional Chapter
Page 56 of 136
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 57 of 136
1 | H I P
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS PAGE
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 58 of 136
2 | H I P
CONTENTS
HIP Summary ....................................................................................................................................................... 4
Data and Project Inventory .................................................................................................................................. 6
Housing ........................................................................................................................................................ 7
Water & Wastewater ................................................................................................................................... 7
Transportation ............................................................................................................................................. 7
Bonus Layers ................................................................................................................................................ 7
Housing Efficiency Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 8
Infrastructure Prioritization .................................................................................................................................. 8
Findings .......................................................................................................................................................... 10
Future Data Considerations ....................................................................................................................... 12
HIP Mapping Tool............................................................................................................................................... 14
Affordable-By-Design Study ............................................................................................................................. 15
Rental Preliminary Findings ....................................................................................................................... 16
For-Sale Preliminary Findings .................................................................................................................... 17
Market Conditions ..................................................................................................................................... 18
Funding Strategies Assessment ........................................................................................................................ 20
Housing Highlights ............................................................................................................................................. 21
Stakeholder Engagement Strategy ............................................................................................................... 21
Regional Housing Success Stories .................................................................................................................22
Next Steps .......................................................................................................................................................... 23
Appendix ............................................................................................................................................................. 23
Appendix A: Draft List of HIP Infrastructure Priorities .................................................................................... 23
Appendix B: Affordable-by-Design Study Preliminary Information ............................................................. 23
Appendix C: Funding Strategies Assessment Preliminary Information ....................................................... 23
Appendix D: Regional Compact & Housing Element Regional Chapter ...................................................... 23
Appendix E: Additional Housing Data July 2023 ........................................................................................... 23
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 59 of 136
3 | H I P
FIGURES
Figure 1: HIP Elements ......................................................................................................................................... 4
Figure 2: Draft HIP Priority Projects Summary ................................................................................................... 5
Figure 3: Data Inventory Sources ......................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 4: HIP Mapping Process ............................................................................................................................ 8
Figure 5: HIP Analysis Process ............................................................................................................................. 9
Figure 6: Draft HIP List Summary ...................................................................................................................... 10
Figure 7: Priority Projects by Community .......................................................................................................... 10
Figure 8: Multijurisdictional Projects by Priority .................................................................................................11
Figure 9: Priority Projects by Subregion .............................................................................................................11
Figure 10: Future Data Considerations by Community ..................................................................................... 12
Figure 11: Future Data Considerations by Subregion ........................................................................................ 13
Figure 12: San Luis Obispo County’s Rent and Sale Price Limits (May 2022) .................................................. 15
Figure 13: Feasibility of Rental Prototypes by Subregion .................................................................................. 16
Figure 14: Key Takeaways from Financial Feasibility Analysis (Rental) ............................................................. 17
Figure 15: Market Conditions for Lower-Cost Housing ..................................................................................... 18
Figure 16: Public Sector and ABD Market Conditions ........................................................................................ 20
Figure 17: HIP Stakeholder Process .................................................................................................................... 21
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 60 of 136
4 | H I P
HIP SUMMARY
The Regional Housing & Infrastructure Plan (HIP) is a collaborative action plan between the seven Cities,
County of San Luis Obispo, and SLOCOG in response to the San Luis Obispo region’s growing housing and
infrastructure shortage. The HIP is intended to help accelerate housing development where it makes the
most sense given regional conditions and readiness. The HIP inventories infrastructure barriers to housing,
identifies funding to implement infrastructure needs, and develops foundational information for the future
2027 Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA).
In 2018, the County of San Luis Obispo recognized the need to work regionally in solving the critical
shortage of infrastructure resources and housing attainability in San Luis Obispo County. This challenge is
larger than any one jurisdiction can solve alone. In January 2019 the County Board of Supervisors approved
the kick off of this effort. Since inception, the HIP has been a phased approach with the goals of regional
collaboration, strategic action planning, and aligning land use planning documents.
The Regional Compact (April 2020)
The County, seven Cities, and San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) approved the first major
milestone of the HIP - the San Luis Obispo Countywide Regional Compact. The Regional Compact is an
aspirational document that sets the tone and goals for future recommended plans and actions among the
local agencies. It establishes a united regional framework to unlock the potential to develop an adequate
supply of housing and resilient infrastructure that support our economic prosperity. It recognizes that
people, water, transportation, connectivity, and housing form the foundation of the San Luis Obispo
Region’s healthy, livable communities and thriving economic opportunity.
Housing Element Alignment (June 2020)
The County and the seven Cities were each required to update their jurisdiction's Housing Elements to
reflect how local communities are planning for the State’s 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocations
through 2028. The Housing Elements were submitted to the Housing and Community Development (HCD)
in December 2020. As part of the Housing Element update process, the regional approach section was
developed to showcase the ongoing commitment of each agency to the HIP collaboration. This section
presents a regional vision and policies focused specifically on fostering regional collaboration to plan and
develop housing and supportive infrastructure. It was the first time all seven jurisdictions included a regional
approach chapter in their required housing elements.
Regional Housing and Infrastructure Plan (2022-2023)
Put on hold during the Pandemic, the HIP was revived in June 2022 with the establishment of a
Memorandum of Understanding between the County of San Luis Obispo and SLOCOG. SLOCOG became
the project manager of the effort. With Senate Bill 2 funding sunsetting in September 2023, the HIP began
moving at an accelerated pace. There are seven elements of the HIP and they are listed in Figure 1: HIP
Elements. These elements intertwine and build upon one another.
Figure 1: HIP Elements
HIP Element Informs
Data and Project Inventory Infrastructure barriers to housing
Housing Efficiency Analysis Housing Efficient Areas in HIP
Infrastructure Prioritization Region’s highest priority projects to unlock housing
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 61 of 136
5 | H I P
HIP Mapping Tool Living strategic analysis tool used to show the interrelation
between housing and infrastructure
Affordable-by-Design Study Menu of possible policies to increase housing attainability
Funding Strategies Assessment Funding the region could pursue for priority infrastructure
Housing Highlights Communication tool: Understanding the need for housing,
affordability, and opportunities
There were 440 infrastructure projects collected as part of the data inventory. Of those, 18% (80 projects)
were located within Housing Efficient Areas. The 80 projects were ranked using a three-tiered prioritization
process based on potential new housing units served. The estimated cost for all 80 HIP projects is over one
billion dollars. About one quarter of the HIP projects are water related with the remaining being
transportation improvements.
Figure 2: Draft HIP Priority Projects Summary
Estimate
($ Millions) Projects
Estimate for all HIP Projects $1,015 80
High $ 348 54
Medium $ 385 10
Low $ 281 16
HIP 2023+
The HIP is the first of its kind, and it is intended to be a living document. For the last five years, collaboration
has continued to build, and these incremental steps have allowed the region to make progress in addressing
the monumental challenges of the housing and infrastructure shortage. Next steps to follow stakeholder
guidance during Summer 2023 Outreach.
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 62 of 136
6 | H I P
DATA AND PROJECT INVENTORY
The HIP analyzes the transportation, water, and wastewater infrastructure barriers to housing development.
Figure 3: Data Inventory Sources, provides the source details on the data used in the HIP analysis.
Figure 3: Data Inventory Sources
Data Inputs
Transportation
Housing
Water &
Wastewater
Flood Risk
Sensitive Habitat
Open Space
Prime Farmland
Fire Risk
7 Cities & County Planning Staff (Land Use Model,
2022 Transportation Efficiency Analysis (TEA), 2020
Housing Elements, Developer Updates
Data Sources
44 water & wastewater entities surveyed,
Community Improvement Plans reviewed
7 Cities & County Public Works Staff, 2023 RTP
Projects List, 2022 TEA
Federal Emergency Management Agency’s “Flood
Insurance Rate” map
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
“Biogeographic Information Observation System
(BIOS)”
California Protected Areas Database and the
California Conservation Easement Database, 2023
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
(FMMP) 2018
CALFIRE High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (2023),
Local Jurisdictions GIS teams
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 63 of 136
7 | H I P
Housing
Proposed residential developments within the seven cities and unincorporated county were collected from
planning staff in 2021. This data includes specific plans, proposed residential and mixed-use projects
projected for to be built between now and 2045. Residential development that has been completed or near
completion was removed from the HIP analysis.
Water & Wastewater
In early January 2023, SLOCOG staff contacted the 44 water and wastewater agencies found in the 2021
Regional Water Infrastructure Resiliency Plan. Five initial questions were asked to the agencies:
1. Is your agency fulfilling its water/wastewater service demand?
2. Do you have capacity to serve additional housing units?
3. Is your agency experiencing any infrastructure limitations or does it have any infrastructure
needs?
4. Have they been planned for?
5. Is there a cost estimate for these improvements?
The data collected includes the findings of the 2021 Regional Water Infrastructure Resiliency Plan, agency
responses, local capital improvement project lists, and information from the County of San Luis Obispo’s
Water Team. Water and wastewater service districts were used as water boundaries. Detailed GIS based
data from these agencies is limited and water capacity data will be informed by the County’s Master Water
Report Update. However, infrastructure projects, estimated costs, and timing were all collected. In 2023,
forty-five water and wastewater projects were collected from the agencies.
Transportation
Transportation infrastructure was studied in the Transportation Efficiency Analysis (TEA) which the
SLOCOG Board approved in April 2022. The TEA identified transportation barriers to housing production
which resulted in a list of transportation projects that were prioritized as either land use necessitated or land
use beneficial. Land use necessitated projects were transportation projects required for new housing
development. These projects are considered TEA priority projects because they are needed to accelerate
housing development. Land use beneficial projects are transportation projects that are not required for
housing development but improve the transportation efficiency of an area. Of the 350+ transportation
investments contained within in the 2023 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), 64 transportation
investments were identified as TEA projects. The San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (RTA)
provided details on transit projects and additional improvements needed to best serve additional housing
development. The transportation infrastructure list was further refined in the HIP analysis and prioritized
differently.
Bonus Layers
The HIP analysis provides the data that connects infrastructure and housing on a regional scale for the first-
time. The 2023 effort is also the first phase of the analysis. When planning for housing, land conditions
carefully considered. To provide a fuller picture, flood hazard, sensitive habitat, open space, prime
farmland, and fire hazard severity data were included as additional reference information. These were not
used to remove infrastructure projects from the HIP list but are there to provide additional context.
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 64 of 136
8 | H I P
HOUSING EFFICIENCY ANALYSIS
The Housing Infrastructure Analysis looks at three efficiency factors: transportation access, water capacity,
and wastewater capacity. By combining the three efficiency factors, housing efficient areas were identified.
This is graphically represented in Figure 4: HIP Mapping Process. Any infrastructure projects located in the
“efficient” or “potential” mapped areas moved on to the prioritization phase. All areas and projects that
were considered “limited” were removed from further analysis. The Communities of Shandon, Avila Beach,
and Cambria were removed from HIP analysis since they did not meet the efficiency criteria.
Figure 4: HIP Mapping Process
There were 440 infrastructure projects collected as part of the data inventory. Of those, 18% (80 projects)
were located within a Housing Efficient Area. The 80 projects moved on to the prioritization phase. The flow
of the analysis can be seen in Figure 5: HIP Analysis Process
INFRASTRUCTURE PRIORITIZATION
After stakeholder outreach in February and March 2023, a three-tiered approach was selected to prioritize
projects. Projects were labeled as high, medium, or low depending on three factors: if the project supports
new housing, the benefit/cost (project cost per total potential housing units within community), and barriers
to development. Barriers to development include instances such as a building moratorium. These barriers
are outside the controls of the HIP and slow housing development. The entire analysis and prioritization
process can be seen in Figure 5.
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 65 of 136
9 | H I P
Figure 5: HIP Analysis Process
Infrastructure projects were divided into two lists, water and transportation, and then prioritized. It was
concluded that transportation projects, in general, could be built at various stages of housing development.
Whereas, housing cannot be built without adequate water distribution and collection infrastructure. Each
list was sorted by highest benefit/cost. The total funding need for the list was divided by three to categorize
projects as high, medium, or low.
LIMITED
Missing 2 of the 3
efficiency factors –
limited capacity for
housing acceleration
Located in Job Cluster
Include any Infrastructure
Needs in HIP
Future Add-ins:
•Job clusters data
•Master Water Report data
•Transportation Access
Factors:
•1 mile from interchange
•½ mile from a bike way •½ mile from bus stop
•Has water capacity
•Has wastewater capacity
EFFICIENT POTENTIAL
Future Add-ins:
•Job clusters data
•Master Water Report
data
Missing 1 of the 3
efficiency factors
High Medium
Needed to support
new housing
Limited barriers to
development
Low
Outside barriers to
development that
would likely delay or
prohibit development
Low Benefit/Cost
Needed to support
new housing
Limited barriers to
development
Located in Jobs Cluster
Housing Efficient Areas (HEA) Analysis
Considers 3 efficiency factors: (1) transportation access, (2) water capacity, (3) wastewater capacity
High Benefit/Cost Moderate Benefit/Cost
Needed to support
new housing
Combine HIP Projects from Efficient & Potential HEA
into one list and prioritize
HIP Project Prioritization
Considers: (1) if project is needed for new housing, (2) Benefit/Cost (investment cost per additional
potential housing units served), (3) barriers to development
Include any
infrastructure needs that
would help make area
efficient
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 66 of 136
10 | H I P
WATER
$396M
TRANSPORTATION
$618M
The premise of the HIP is to help accelerate housing development, so the current prioritization factors
relate solely to the total amount of proposed housing. In the future, other factors like jobs-housing balance
factors and proposed housing unit type could be considered.
Findings
The draft HIP list contains 80 infrastructure projects with an estimated cost of more than one billion dollars
in need. As seen in Figure 6: Draft HIP List Summary, one quarter of the needed infrastructure investments
are water-related (supply & wastewater). Interestingly, the cost of 54 high priority projects is less than 10
medium ranked projects.
Figure 6: Draft HIP List Summary
Figure 7: Priority Projects by Community breaks down the total number of HIP priority projects, the total
investment needed for each proposed housing unit, and the total estimate investment needed by
community. Within the 80 total projects, three are listed as multijurisdictional projects including Central
Coast Blue, the Regional Transit Authority Cashless Fare System Conversion, and the North County Transit
Charging Facility. In Figure 7, these are listed as a separate row and are not included individually in the "HIP
Projects" column for each community. However, multijurisdictional project costs are included in the
community's total investment needed. The number of multijurisdictional projects by priority can be seen in
Figure 8.
Figure 7: Priority Projects by Community
Community
Total
Proposed
Dwelling
Units
HIP
Projects High Medium Low
Total Investment
needed per
proposed unit
Total Estimated
Investment
Needed ($
millions)
Multijurisdictional* 3 2 1 $ 95
Arroyo Grande 600 1 1 $ 227,254 $ 136
Atascadero 722 4 2 2 $ 155,313 $ 112
Grover Beach 624 4 3 1 $ 85,920 $ 54
Estimate
($ millions) Projects
Total Estimate $ 1,015 80
High $ 348 54
Medium $ 385 10
Low $ 281 16
WATER $ 396 21
TRANSPORTATION $ 618 59
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 67 of 136
11 | H I P
Morro Bay 120 1 1 $ 183,368 $ 22
Paso Robles 4,959 17 16 1 $ 37,055 $ 184
Pismo Beach 297 $ 61,179 $ 18
San Luis Obispo 6,171 26 23 3 $ 43,197 $ 267
County 2,221 22 6 3 13 $ 77,286 $ 172
Cayucos 7 2 1 1 $ 1,185,714 $ 8
Los Osos - 3 3 $ - $ 15
Nipomo 1,351 6 4 1 1 $ 25,171 $ 34
Oceano 4 1 1 $ 950,000 $ 4
San Miguel 152 1 1 $ 269,737 $ 41
Santa
Margarita 514 1 1 $ 2,918 $ 2
Templeton 193 7 1 1 5 $ 341,647 $ 66
Cal Poly 2,780 2 2 $ 17,986 $ 50
Total Projects 15,714 80 54 10 16 $ 64,592 $ 1,015
Priority Category Total Cost Estimate ($ millions) $ 323 $ 315 $ 281
Figure 8: Multijurisdictional Projects by Priority
Community Multijurisdictional HIP
Projects High Medium Low
Arroyo Grande1,2 2 1 1
Atascadero2,3 2 2
Grover Beach1,2 2 1 1
Morro Bay2 1 1
Paso Robles2,3 2 2
Pismo Beach1,2 2 1 2
San Luis Obispo2 1 1
County2,3 2 2
The 3 multijurisdictional projects include the following: Central Coast Blue1, Cashless Fare System Conversion2, North
County Charging Facility3
Ninety-nine percent of the region’s population lives in four out of five subregions: North County, Central
County, North Coast, and South County. The North and Central subregions have the majority of the HIP
projects, and combined make up 81% of the proposed new housing units in the entire region.
Figure 9: Priority Projects by Subregion
Subregion Total Proposed Dwelling Units HIP Projects High Medium Low
Total Investment
needed per
proposed unit
Total
Estimated
Investment
Needed
($ millions)
North County 6,540 31 21 4 6 $ 61,927 $ 405
Central County 6,171 29 25 3 1 $ 51,693 $ 319
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 68 of 136
12 | H I P
North Coast 127 6 0 1 5 $ 354,331 $ 45
South County 2,876 13 7 2 4 $ 85,535 $ 246
The draft list can be viewed in Appendix A: HIP Project List.
Future Data Considerations
Creating balanced communities is one of the six 2020 Regional Housing Compact goals. The 2023
Sustainable Communities Strategy defines a jobs-housing balanced community as
A community where residents can both live and work. With jobs and housing in close
proximity, vehicle trips and commute times reduce and active transportation and transit use
increase. These balanced communities also provide a broad mix of housing options to
accommodate households with a range of incomes.
As a proactive measure, the jobs-housing balance of communities was analyzed using live/work
percentages. A live/work percentage is the total number of employees living and working in the city or
community boundaries divided by the total workers living in that boundary. In future iterations of the HIP,
jobs-housing balance could be integrated through the live/work percentage and additional job cluster data
as mentioned in Figure 5: HIP Analysis Process. The data displayed in
Figure 10 and Figure 11 was not used to prioritize projects in the 2023 HIP. The information is for reference
purposes only. This information is included since it relates to goals found in the 2020 Regional Housing
Compact, HIP stakeholder interest, and or relates to the 2023 Affordable-by-Design Study. The 2023
Affordable-By-Design Study has shown that units within the multi-family category are more aligned units in
the low- and moderately-priced income categories. Understanding the proposed multi-family percentage
of each community provides better insight on how the region will fulfill the needs of working households.
Figure 10: Future Data Considerations by Community
Community
Number of Total
Proposed
Dwelling Units
% of Multi-
family units
proposed
Live Work
Percentage
Arroyo Grande
600 18% 14%
Atascadero
722 75% 21%
Grover Beach
624 81% 9%
Morro Bay
120 47% 21%
Paso Robles 4,959 42% 28%
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 69 of 136
13 | H I P
Pismo Beach
297 30% 12%
San Luis Obispo 6,171 58% 41%
County 2,221 25%
Cayucos
7 0% 13%
Los Osos - 0% 11%
Nipomo 1,351 34% 9%
Oceano
4 100% 4%
San Miguel
152 0% 3%
Santa Margarita
514 10% 2%
Templeton
193 19% 12%
Total
15,714
Source: Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) 2019, SLOCOG GIS
Figure 11: Future Data Considerations by Subregion
Subregion
Number of Total
Proposed
Dwelling Units
% of Multi-family
units proposed
Live Work
Percentage
North County 6,540 42% 40%
Central County 6,171 58% 44%
North Coast 127 44% 27%
South County 2,876 41% 27%
Source: Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) 2019, SLOCOG GIS
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 70 of 136
14 | H I P
HIP MAPPING TOOL
The HIP Mapping Tool is an interactive web app that supplements this plan. It was created to illustrate the
HIP geographical analysis and support communication and collaboration. The web app includes three
pages.
On the Explore page (shown below), users can pan/zoom around the Region to view and click on
infrastructure projects colored by high, medium, and low priority. Transportation projects are symbolized
with lines and open circles, and water/wastewater projects are symbolized with points. Bonus layers may be
added to the map by clicking the map layers icon and opening the "bonus layers" group. Residential
projects, symbolized by grey polygons, may also be selected to learn more information.
On the Project List page, users can sort infrastructure projects by high, medium, and low priority. The
transportation project list is on the left and the water/wastewater project list is on the right. Both lists are
collapsible. When a project is selected on the list, the map will zoom to the project. The user may also click
on the project on the map to view a pop-up showing the name, description, and estimated cost.
On the "Story" page of the tool, users may scroll through the HIP Storymap. It includes a quick summary of
the HIP, the four-step geographic analysis, a timeline, and a link to the draft plan.
This tool was created using ArcGIS Experience Builder, ArcGIS Pro, ArcGIS Online, and ArcGIS Storymaps. It
is in the draft stages and will continue to be developed along with the HIP.
Map Layers
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 71 of 136
15 | H I P
AFFORDABLE-BY-DESIGN STUDY
The Affordable-by-Design (ABD) Study evaluates housing affordability characteristics for the seven
incorporated Cities and unincorporated San Luis Obispo County. The intention of the ABD study is to show
certain units (built without financial assistance or deed restrictions) as either low- or moderate-income units
in annual Housing and Community Development RHNA reports. For purposes of the ABD Study, “affordable
by design” (ABD) is defined as new housing that is not income- or rent-restricted, but where typical market
rents or sales prices would be affordable to low or moderate-income households (earning 50-120% of Area
Median Income). The San Luis Obispo County’s published rent and sale price limits by income level define the
rent and price range affordable at this income level as seen in Figure 12.
Figure 12: San Luis Obispo County’s Rent and Sale Price Limits (May 2022)
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 72 of 136
16 | H I P
The ABD Study includes the following approach:
1. Identify common physical characteristics for ABD housing
2. Interviews with local housing developers
3. Consider whether ABD housing examples from other regions could meet ABD criteria in SLO
County’s market
4. Financial feasibility analysis of illustrative “prototypical” development examples
5. Identify regulatory barriers to development to ABD housing
6. Highlight potential policy measures to support ABD housing
EcoNorthwest used development “prototypes” to highlight characteristics of housing that could potentially
meet the Study’s ABD definition. These are prototypical developments informed by (or extrapolated from)
actual development. Each development prototype is a specific combination of key characteristics, such as
number of units and configuration (e.g., detached, attached side-by-side, stacked), Lot size / density, height,
unit size and parking. In May 2023, preliminary findings were presented to five stakeholder groups. The
following information provides a brief summary and more preliminary information can be viewed in Appendix
B: Affordable-by-Design Study Preliminary Information. The final report will be completed in July for
SLOCOG Board consideration in August.
Rental Preliminary Findings
On the rental side of new development (within the last 5 years), some new apartments are affordable at a
moderate-income level. This may include some mixed-income buildings but 1-bedroom units are most
likely to be affordable whereas no 3-bedroom units are categorized as affordable. Design helps but does not
guarantee affordability. Most of the buildings that fit within the ABD definition are 3-story, they have a
smaller average unit sizes, but not all small units are affordable to moderate-income households.
EcoNorthwest looked at examples from other housing markets within California, Washington, and Oregon
to add a few possibilities to a financial feasibility analysis. These protypes included:
A. 3-story walk-up apartments—standard
• Larger units (~880 sf average)
• Typical density, parking ratio, and landscaping
B. 3-story walk-up apartments—compact
• Smaller units (~620 sf average)
• Higher density, lower parking ratio, less landscaping
C. 4-story micro-unit apartments
• Very small units (~300 sf, shared kitchens, individual kitchenettes)
• Very high density, no parking, no landscaping
Figure 13: Feasibility of Rental Prototypes by Subregion
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 73 of 136
17 | H I P
The financial feasibility analysis uses a metric called “return on cost” (ROC), which reflects the income
potential of the completed development0F
1 divided by the total cost of development. This ratio is often used
as an initial indicator of development feasibility for rental developments, as it provides a preliminary
indication of whether the completed property will provide competitive financial returns that could attract
investors and meet loan underwriting requirements. More data on the Market Assumptions can be found in
Appendix B: Affordable-by-Design Study Preliminary Information.
Figure 14: Key Takeaways from Financial Feasibility Analysis (Rental)
For-Sale Preliminary Findings
In the last five years, only manufactured housing in manufactured home parks met target price points for
new for-sale housing using County calculations. This does not factor in the lot cost associated with
1 Net Operating Income (NOI), the revenue after accounting for vacancy and operating expenses.
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 74 of 136
18 | H I P
manufactured home parks. There are few small detached homes that came close and could potentially
meet the City of San Luis Obispo’s affordability standards since they calculate income limits differently.
Looking at examples from other housing markets:
A. Small detached units
• ~350-800 square feet units
• Shared yards with clustered parking
• Smallest units may be affordable at close to 120% of AMI in that market
• Affordability: Comparable Units in SLO region exceed target price
B. Small condo units
• ~325-600 square feet units
• Little or no on-site parking
• Can be affordable to Moderate Income households in portions of some high-cost regions
• Feasibility: May not be viable in SLO region’s market
C. Simple condo development
• ~600-1000 square feet units
• Little or no on-site parking with few shared amenities
• Can be affordable to Moderate Income households in portions of some high-cost regions.
• Feasibility: May not be viable in SLO region’s market
D. Smaller townhouse units
• ~1,000-1,600 square feet units
• Can be affordable to Moderate Income households in portions of some high-cost regions
• Affordability: Comparable units in SLO region exceed target price
E. Smaller single-detached homes
• 3BR, ~1200-1500 square feet units
• Can be affordable to moderate-income households in moderate-cost areas (e.g., Central
Valley)
• Affordability: Comparable units in SLO region exceed target price
San Luis Obispo’s regional market conditions do not support new for-sale housing at prices affordable to
moderate-income households, with the possible exception of manufactured homes in housing parks. A few
developments have attempted to produce ABD for-sale housing, but even with very small homes, prices are
still too high for the moderate-income target price range. Factors that make for-sale housing more
affordable in other areas may not translate to the SLO County market (lower land cost, no parking, few
amenities, micro units).
Market Conditions
In summary, the rental market is close and regulatory change could help with smaller units in cost-effective
developments. The market is not close in the for-sale side and a longer-term approach is needed. Increasing
the housing production overall can help bring supply and demand into balance and make ABD achievable over
the longer term. These preliminary findings are not surprising but sobering. Looking at a wide-angle view,
ECONorthwest looked at what conditions make for lower-cost housing.
Figure 15: Market Conditions for Lower-Cost Housing
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 75 of 136
19 | H I P
As seen in Figure 15: Market Conditions for Lower-Cost Housing, there are four factors that have to come
together in the housing market to produce lower-cost housing including simple design with lower-cost
materials, lower cost locations, efficient production, and smaller units with a higher density.
A primary deliverable for the ABD Study is to create a menu of policy change options that will incentivize ABD
units in the region. Figure 16 depicts how the public sector impacts the conditions for ABD. ECONorthwest
interviewed six developers that work within the San Luis Obispo Region. Those interviews provided four
market barrier themes to ABD Development including land cost, demand for high-end housing, construction
costs, and demand for parking. They also identified six regulatory barrier themes to ABD development
including: discretionary review, density caps, minimum unit sizes, parking requirements that exceed market
demand, impact fees and inclusionary zoning, and required infrastructure improvements. More of these
details will be made available in July.
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 76 of 136
20 | H I P
Figure 16: Public Sector and ABD Market Conditions
In coordination with HIP stakeholders, ECONorthwest identified potential policies and incentives that local
governments in the region could implement to support ABD housing development. In the next few months,
the consultant will identify relevant case studies from jurisdictions that have implemented programs or
policies similar to the relevant incentives, and, where possible, the impact they have had on housing
production for ABD housing.
FUNDING STRATEGIES ASSESSMENT
The Funding Strategies Assessment seeks to identify funding and financing sources that can reasonably
implement the water, wastewater, and transportation infrastructure needs of the HIP. BKF Engineering has
drafted a grant inventory that connects each specific HIP project to various public sources of funding. They
also include a grant glossary with factors such as eligibility requirements, deadlines, funding amounts
available. These draft pieces can be reviewed in Appendix C: Funding Strategies Assessment Preliminary
Information.
A Gap Analysis is currently being conducted which aims to determine the difference between the required
funding for the projects and the potential funding that can be secured through grants and other funding
sources. The Gap Analysis approach includes:
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 77 of 136
21 | H I P
1. Assessing the Projects & Determining Funding Requirements
2. Identifying Potential Funding Sources
3. Estimating Potential Grant Funding
4. Calculating the Funding Gap
5. Proposing Strategies to Bridge the Funding Gap
The Funding Strategies Assessment will include a detailed breakdown on a project-by-project basis,
covering funding requirements, corresponding funding sources, projected grant funding, and the residual
funding gap, including shortfalls and match requirements. An actionable timeline and a roadmap, along
with recommendations for implementing the proposed strategies aimed to maximize the probability of
securing the requisite funds for HIP projects.
The complete Funding Strategies Assessment will be available in July/August.
HOUSING HIGHLIGHTS
Stakeholder Engagement Strategy
The HIP engagement strategy established four outreach objectives:
• Foster ongoing collaboration and buy-in among private and public stakeholders.
• Remind government/elected officials of the Regional Compact and the motives behind it to lay
groundwork for their commitment to the 2023 regional HIP.
• Build public sentiment in support of solutions and regional planning efforts related to HIP.
• Support effective coordination with and communication among SLOCOG, HIP consultants and
the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) teams.
The San Luis Obispo region has strategic goals for the future of housing and infrastructure, but they can only
be achieved through the decisions and actions of organizations and stakeholders. The stakeholder meetings
are designed to have honest conversations about what each organization can and needs to do to realize those
goals. The December 2022 Regional Managers Retreat guided the stakeholder engagement process which is
depicted in Figure 17: HIP Stakeholder Process.
Figure 17: HIP Stakeholder Process
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 78 of 136
22 | H I P
The following list are the key stakeholder groups engaged – totaling approximately 100 individuals that
participated during the HIP development process in January - June 2023:
Regional Managers/ Key Staff: A key driving force behind developing this plan has been regional leadership,
including eight City Managers, County Administrative Officer, SLOCOG Executive Director (and key directors
from their organizations).
Elected Officials: Two City Council Members with knowledge of regional differences bring the various
perspectives and concerns voiced by their respective constituents for this Steering Committee. The full 40
elected officials within the region will have an opportunity to hear about the plan through public updates to
SLOCOG Board as well as through presentations of the recommended HIP to their Councils and Boards in
Summer 2023.
Building & Development Cluster: Leaders in the building and development industry that convene quarterly with
the goal of regional coordination focused on aligning housing and infrastructure needs to create a strong local
economy.
Housing Advocacy Group: Organizations and individuals that have significant influence in the community, with
representation from the non-profit builders, local chambers of commerce and various advocate organizations.
Housing Action Team: Existing work group made up of planning/ community development staff from Cities,
County, and SLOCOG.
Community Stakeholders: The broader community will be engaged in partnership with the SLO Chamber of
Commerce Housing Summit in Spring 2023. Feedback from this event will be brought to the HIP Steering
Committee to discuss and adjust the communications plan accordingly.
HIP Steering Committee: Formed to oversee the vision for the HIP Outreach Strategy and to bring leaders in
each of these areas together, aligning and integrating the various interests that will lead to action on the
region’s priorities.
A HIP Steering Committee was selected to represent broader interests and to allow for cross-sector
collaboration and cohesion. It is a small group of representatives with a balance of public and private
backgrounds and a variety of expertise in issues related to development around the region. The HIP Steering
Committee guided the development of a balanced plan, and helped to identify paths for the plan’s successful
adoption and implementation. The HIP Steering Committee includes Matthew Bronson (Grover Beach),
Mayor Heather Moreno (Atascadero), Councilmember Andy Pease (SLO City), Trevor Keith (County of SLO),
Aaryn Abbott (Abbott | Reed), Lenny Grant (RRM), Jeff Eckles (SLOCHTF), Courtney Howard (SLO Flood
Control & Water Conservation District), Anthony Palazzo (Cal Poly), and Jorge Aguilar (Wallace Group).
Regional Housing Success Stories
Available following Summer 2023 Outreach
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 79 of 136
23 | H I P
NEXT STEPS
Available following Summer 2023 Outreach
APPENDIX
Appendix A: Draft List of HIP Infrastructure Priorities
Appendix B: Affordable-by-Design Study Preliminary Information
Appendix C: Funding Strategies Assessment Preliminary
Information
Appendix D: Regional Compact & Housing Element Regional
Chapter
Appendix E: Additional Housing Data July 2023
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 80 of 136
Draft Regional Housing Infrastructure Plan Appendix A
Community Total Proposed
Dwelling Units
HIP
Projects High Medium Low Total Investment needed
per proposed unit
Total Estimated
Investment Needed
($ millions)
Multijurisdictional*3 2 1 95$
Arroyo Grande 600 1 1 227,254$ 136$
Atascadero 722 4 2 2 155,313$ 112$
Grover Beach 624 4 3 1 85,920$ 54$
Morro Bay 120 1 1 183,368$ 22$
Paso Robles 4,959 17 16 1 37,055$ 184$
Pismo Beach 297 61,179$ 18$
San Luis Obispo 6,171 26 23 3 43,197$ 267$
County 2,221 22 6 3 13 77,286$ 172$
Cayucos 7 2 1 1 1,185,714$ 8$
Los Osos - 3 3 -$ 15$
Nipomo 1,351 6 4 1 1 25,171$ 34$
Oceano 4 1 1 950,000$ 4$
San Miguel 152 1 1 269,737$ 41$
Santa Margarita 514 1 1 2,918$ 2$
Templeton 193 7 1 1 5 341,647$ 66$
Cal Poly 2,780 2 2 17,986$ 50$
Total Projects 15,714 80 54 10 16 64,592$ 1,015$
323$ 315$ 281$
Subregion Total Proposed
Dwelling Units
HIP
Projects High Medium Low Total Investment needed
per proposed unit
Total Estimated
Investment Needed
($ millions)
North County 6,540 31 21 4 6 61,927$ 405$
Central County 6,171 29 25 3 1 51,693$ 319$
North Coast 127 6 0 1 5 354,331$ 45$
South County 2,876 13 7 2 4 85,535$ 246$
1,015$
Priority Category Total Cost Estimate ($ millions)
*Multijurisdictional projects are listed as a separate row and are not included individually in the "HIP
Projects" Column for each community. However, multijurisdictional project costs are included in the
community's total investment need. The number of multijurisdictional projects by priority can be seen below.
Draft- July 5, 2023 Page 1 of 9
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 2
Page 81 of 136
Draft Regional Housing Infrastructure Plan Appendix A
Community Multijurisdictional
HIP Projects High Medium Low Low
Arroyo Grande1,2 2 1 1
Atascadero2,3 2 2
Grover Beach1,2 2 1 1
Morro Bay2 1 1
Paso Robles2,3 2 2
Pismo Beach1,2 2 1 2
San Luis Obispo2 1 1
County2,3 2 2
The 3 multijurisdictional projects include the following:
Central Coast Blue 1
Cashless Fare System Conversion 2
North County Charging Facility3
Draft- July 5, 2023 Page 2 of 9
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 2
Page 82 of 136
Draft Regional Housing Infrastructure Plan Appendix A
Priority
Supports
new
housing
Benefit/Cost
Proposed
Units within
Community
Outside
Barriers Project Type Community Project Name Project Description 2023 Cost Estimate 2023 Time
Horizon
High Y 74$ 1,351 Wastewater Nipomo CSA 1 Nipomo Capital Improvement Projects 100,000$ next 5 years
High Y 2,083$ 2,780 Water
/Wastewater San Luis Obispo Cal Poly
Increase water storage capacity for
campus domestic use and fire suppression 15,000,000$ by 2026
High Y 2,884$ 4,959 Wastewater Paso Robles Paso Robles City wastewater
There are some areas of the City’s
wastewater collection (sewer) system that
must be upsized in conjunction with new
development
14,300,000$ next 10 years
High Y 2,884$ 4,959 Water Paso Robles Paso Robles City water
some portions of water system
experiencing infrastructure constraints 14,300,000$ next 10 years
High Y 2,917$ 6,171 Water
/Wastewater San Luis Obispo
San Luis Obispo (City)
capacity constraints on sewer conveyance
network, additional water storage tanks
and water transmission main needed
18,000,000$ n/a
High Y 2,918$ 514 Water Santa Margarita CSA 23- Santa Margarita undersized pipelines, pipeline loops 1,500,000$ n/a
High Y 4,861$ 7,200 Water
/Wastewater San Luis Obispo Cal Poly
plans to build on-campus Water
Reclamation Facility 35,000,000$ by 2026
High Y 13,850$ 722 Water Atascadero Atascadero Mutual Water Company
treatment facility to remove PFAS
(planning stages)10,000,000$ next 2 years
High Y 34,626$ 722 Wastewater Atascadero
Wastewater Upgrade
Wastewater upgrade to address some
Regional Water Quality Control Board
water quality permitting standards.
25,000,000$ 5-7 years
High Y 1$ 624 Transit Grover Beach Grover Beach Service Addition South County Transit provide service to
Urban Reserve (Strawberry Field)
High Y 1$ 1,351 Transit Nipomo Nipomo Service Addition RTA provide service to Dana Reserve
*working with developer
High Y 1$ 4,959 Transit Paso Robles Paso Robles Service Addition Paso Express provide service to
Beechwood development
High Y 1$ 4,959 Transit Paso Robles Paso Robles Service Addition Paso Express provide service to
Olsen/South Chandler development
High Y 1$ 6,171 Transit San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo Service Addition SLO Transit provide an additional stop
along Board or Tank Farm
High Y 1$ 6,171 Transit San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo Service Addition
SLO Transit provide access between
Broad and South Higuera in the Margarita
Area
High Y 35$ 15,714 Transit Countywide Cashless Fare System Conversion
(further study is required)550,000$
High Y 72$ 624 Active TransportationGrover Beach S. 4th St. bike lanes: Grand Ave. to
city limits
Restripe to provide Class II/Class IV bike
lanes 45,000$ Unconstrained
High Y 149$ 624 Active TransportationGrover Beach The Pike Complete Street
Improvements striping, bike lanes 93,225$ By 2035
*When working with development
early, stop can be added with
minimal cost.
*When working with development
early, stop can be added with
*When working with development
early, stop can be added with
*When working with development
early, stop can be added with
*When working with development
early, stop can be added with
*When working with development
early, stop can be added with
Draft- July 5, 2023 Page 3 of 9
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 2
Page 83 of 136
Draft Regional Housing Infrastructure Plan Appendix A
Priority
Supports
new
housing
Benefit/Cost
Proposed
Units within
Community
Outside
Barriers Project Type Community Project Name Project Description 2023 Cost Estimate 2023 Time
Horizon
High Y 151$ 6,171 Active TransportationSan Luis Obispo Froom Ranch Frontage &
Streetscape Improvements
Install sidewalks on west side and median
between Irish Hill Plaza and Calle Joaquin.932,250$ By 2028
High Y 153$ 6,540 Transit North County North County Charging Facility Charging facility at 1735 Paso Robles
St., Paso Robles 1,000,000$
High Y 162$ 6,171 Non-Highway San Luis Obispo Los Osos Valley Rd/Auto Park Wy
Intersection Improvements
Install traffic signal, median refuges, hi-vis
crosswalks and bicycle protected
intersection element
1,000,000$ By 2028
High Y 248$ 6,171 Active TransportationSan Luis Obispo Tank Farm Road Complete Street
Convert from 5-lane to 3-lane, add Class
IV bikeways, landscaped medians, and
pedestrian crossings
1,533,000$ By 2045
High Y 302$ 6,171 Active TransportationSan Luis Obispo Madonna Rd. - Class IV - Madonna
Inn to Higuera Ave.
On Madonna Ave. install Class IV from
Madonna Inn to Higuera Ave.1,864,500$ By 2035
High Y 322$ 6,171 Non-Highway San Luis Obispo Buckley Rd. widening: Thread Ln. to
Buttonwood Wy.
Widen Buckley Rd. to provide paved
shoulders, center left turn lane and to
flatten existing horizontal curve
1,988,800$ By 2035
High Y 343$ 4,959 Transit Paso Robles Paso Robles New Route
Paso Express provide service to North
Chandler Ranch* $700,000 yearly
operating
1,700,000$
High Y 373$ 6,171 Non-Highway San Luis Obispo Broad St/Tank Farm Rd Intersection
Improvements
Add NB right turn lane, WB right turn lane,
and ped/bike crossing enhancements.2,299,500$ By 2045
High Y 496$ 6,171 Non-Highway San Luis Obispo Orcutt Rd. widening: Johnson Ave. to
Tank Farm Rd. (Phase 1)
Widen road to three lanes with Class II
bike lanes and sidewalks 3,057,780$ By 2035
High Y 497$ 6,171 Non-Highway San Luis Obispo Johnson Ave/Orcutt Rd Roundabout Install roundabout 3,066,000$ After 2045
High Y 501$ 4,959 Non-Highway Paso Robles South River Rd. / Charolais Rd.
roundabout Construct roundabout 2,486,000$ By 2035
High Y 514$ 6,171 Active TransportationSan Luis Obispo Broad St. Median Improvements Install landscaped medians on Broad St.
north of Tank Farm Rd.3,169,650$ By 2035
High Y 514$ 6,171 Active TransportationSan Luis Obispo Railroad Safety Trail (Phase 7): Bike
connection south of Tank Farm Rd.
Construct Class I bike path and ped/bike
bridge over Tank Farm 3,169,650$ By 2035
High Y 608$ 6,171 Active TransportationSan Luis Obispo Los Osos Valley Road Protected Bike
Lanes
Install Class IV bike lanes along LOVR
between Diablo and S. Higuera 3,750,250$ By 2028
High Y 618$ 4,959 Non-Highway Paso Robles Airport Road extension North
Chandler Ranch
Extend Airport Road as 2-lane arterial
from Linne Rd. to Union Rd.3,066,000$ by 2045
High Y 619$ 6,171 Non-Highway San Luis Obispo Santa Fe Rd. extension: Santa Fe
Rd. to Tank Farm Rd.
Extend Santa Fe Rd north w/ new bridge
over creek and roundabout intersection at
Tank Farm/Santa Fe
3,822,225$ By 2035
High Y 633$ 6,171 Active TransportationSan Luis Obispo Railroad Safety Trail: bike bridge
crossing at Industrial Way
Construct bike bridge across UPRR tracks
at Industrial Wy. to the RRST 3,909,150$ By 2045
High Y 648$ 4,959 Active TransportationPaso Robles N. River Rd.Class I trail multi-use paved trail from 13th
St. to SR46 along river trail 3,214,500$ By 2028
Draft- July 5, 2023 Page 4 of 9
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 2
Page 84 of 136
Draft Regional Housing Infrastructure Plan Appendix A
Priority
Supports
new
housing
Benefit/Cost
Proposed
Units within
Community
Outside
Barriers Project Type Community Project Name Project Description 2023 Cost Estimate 2023 Time
Horizon
High Y 726$ 4,959 Active TransportationPaso Robles Creekside Bike Path: Phase 1 and 2 Construct path: Nicklaus to Old S. River
Rd.3,600,000$ Unconstrained
High Y 745$ 6,171 Active TransportationSan Luis Obispo South of Broad St. and Santa
Barbara Ave. Protected Bike Lanes
Install Class IV bikeway on Santa Barbara
(Upham to Broad) and Broad from Santa
Barbara to Farmhouse
4,599,000$ By 2045
High Y 870$ 4,959 Non-Highway Paso Robles Creston Rd.: Niblick Rd. to
Meadowlark Dr. (Phase 3)
Install traffic-calming and intersection
improvements- roadway diet and signals 4,313,210$ By 2035
High Y 1,242$ 6,171 Non-Highway San Luis Obispo Horizon Lane Extension
Extend Horizon Ln between Buckley and
Tank Farm as commercial collector w/
roundabout at Tank Farm
7,665,000$ by 2045
High Y 1,429$ 6,171 Active TransportationSan Luis Obispo Higuera Protected Bike Lanes Install Class IV bikeways along Higuera
from Marsh to southern City Limits 8,817,000$ By 2045
High Y 1,577$ 4,959 Active TransportationPaso Robles Huer Huero Creek Trail Construct Class II bike lanes 7,818,300$ by 2045
High Y 1,615$ 6,171 Non-Highway San Luis Obispo Buckley Rd. widening: Vachell Ln. to
Broad St.
Widen to three lanes between Hoover St.
and Broad St.9,964,500$ By 2045
High Y 1,945$ 6,171 Non-Highway San Luis Obispo Prado Rd. Bridge Replacement &
Multimodal Corridor Enhancements
Replace SLO Creek bridge w/ 6-lane
bridge (2 each direction + turn lanes),
sidewalks, Class IV bike lanes & construct
2nd NB turn lane from S. Higuera to Prado
and a bicycle protected intersection
12,000,000$ By 2028
High Y 2,014$ 6,171 Highway San Luis Obispo US 101 / Prado Rd. I/C
Improvements (Phase 2)
Construct SB off ramp and on ramp; SB
auxiliary lane btw Madonna Rd. to Prado
Rd.
12,430,000$ By 2035
High Y 2,017$ 4,959 Non-Highway Paso Robles Creston Rd.: South River Rd. to
Niblick Rd.
Streetscape enhancements and pedestrian
crossing improvements 10,000,000$ By 2028
High Y 2,024$ 1,351 Highway Nipomo Interchange Improvements at Willow
Rd US 101 NB & SB ramp signalization 2,734,600$ By 2035
High Y 2,256$ 4,959 Active TransportationPaso Robles Paso Robles Eastside Grand Loop
Complete gaps in the Grand Loop Bikeway
Route on the eastside of town, not already
completed by Olsen, Chandler,
Beachwood, North River Rd., and Huer
Huero Creek to complete a connected
orbital Class I network.
11,187,000$ By 2035
High Y 2,484$ 6,171 Non-Highway San Luis Obispo Santa Fe Rd. extension: south of
Tank Farm Rd.
Realign and extend Santa Fe Rd. from
Hoover Ave. to Tank Farm 15,330,000$ by 2045
High Y 2,837$ 1,351 Non-Highway Nipomo Roadway Extension of Hetrick Rd
Extend Hetrick Rd from Glenhaven Place
to Pomeroy Rd to two travel lanes and 8'
shoulder
3,832,500$ After 2045
High Y 3,091$ 4,959 Highway Paso Robles SR 46E / Union Rd. improvements
(Phase 2)
Construct Phase 2 improvements: new
interchange 15,330,000$ by 2045
Draft- July 5, 2023 Page 5 of 9
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 2
Page 85 of 136
Draft Regional Housing Infrastructure Plan Appendix A
Priority
Supports
new
housing
Benefit/Cost
Proposed
Units within
Community
Outside
Barriers Project Type Community Project Name Project Description 2023 Cost Estimate 2023 Time
Horizon
High Y 3,480$ 4,959 Active TransportationPaso Robles
Niblick Rd. Corridor enhancements,
operational improvements, Complete
Streets
Transportation demand management
improvements 17,257,000$ By 2035
High Y 4,186$ 193 Non-Highway Templeton Las Tablas Rd. at Florence St.
Improvements
Traffic signal, ADA ramps, and left-turn
lane at Las Tablas Rd. at Florence St.807,950$ By 2035
High Y 4,386$ 4,959 Highway Paso Robles US 101 / SR 46W I/C construct two
roundabouts
Operational improvements: modify
interchange, EB and WB roundabouts
(Phase 3)
21,752,500$ By 2035
Medium Y 41,451$ 193 Water/WastewaterTempleton
Templeton Community Services
District
new sewer force main needed; water
supply availability is a limitation and a
Nacimiento Recharge and Retrieval
Project is needed to add water to the
District water system (will include a new
pipeline turnout, recharge basin, water
filtration and two new wells)
8,000,000$ 2027 or later
Medium Y 42,857$ 7 Wastewater Cayucos Cayucos Sanitary District
(wastewater)Capital Improvement Projects 300,000$ 1 year
Medium Y 61,144$ 1,521 Water/WastewaterArroyo Grande, Grover
Beach, Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue: GB, AG, PB
Water Supply & Sewer Main
Regional Recycled water project (PB,
GB, AG); Phase 1-pipe treated
wastewater from Pismo Beach’s
Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) to
a new advanced treatment facility
located in Grover Beach. Phase 2 -
expand to treat wastewater from South
San Luis Obispo County Sanitation
District’s WWTP.
93,000,000$ next 5 years
Medium Y 96,953$ 722 Wastewater Atascadero Wastewater Treatment Plant
Expansion
Expand the capacity of our wastewater
treatment plant.70,000,000$ Next 2-4 years
Medium Y 4,583$ 6,171 Non-Highway San Luis Obispo Tank Farm Rd. widening: Higuera St.
to Broad St.
Widen to five lanes with Class II bike lanes
& Class I paths between Horizon and
Santa Fe
28,283,850$ After 2045
Medium Y 7,360$ 1,351 Non-Highway Nipomo Roadway Extension of North
Frontage Rd
Extend North Frontage from Sandydale Dr
to Willow Rd 9,944,000$ By 2035
Medium Y 8,418$ 6,171 Non-Highway San Luis Obispo Prado Rd. extension: South Higuera
St. to Broad St.
Construct extension as 4-lane road (plus
median/LT lane), Class I shared-use
paths, and new intersection at Broad St. &
Prado Rd.
51,948,771$ By 2045
Medium Y 9,695$ 722 Highway Atascadero US 101 / Del Rio Rd. I/C
modifications
Construct interchange improvements in
association with developments 7,000,000$ By 2028
Draft- July 5, 2023 Page 6 of 9
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 2
Page 86 of 136
Draft Regional Housing Infrastructure Plan Appendix A
Priority
Supports
new
housing
Benefit/Cost
Proposed
Units within
Community
Outside
Barriers Project Type Community Project Name Project Description 2023 Cost Estimate 2023 Time
Horizon
Medium Y 10,331$ 6,171 Highway San Luis Obispo US 101 / Prado Rd. I/C and NB
auxiliary lane (Phase 1)
Construct Prado Rd. overcrossing; NB
auxiliary lane. Extend Prado Rd. east to
Froom Ranch Way; construct bike lanes,
sidewalks.
63,750,000$ By 2028
Medium Y 10,587$ 4,959 Highway Paso Robles SR 46E / Union Rd. improvements
(Phase 1)
Construct overcrossing; realignment,
vertical sight distance improvements,
channelization & bike lanes/sidewalks on
Union Road from Ardmore Road to Barney
Schwartz Park
52,500,000$ by 2028
Low Y 183,333$ 120 Water/WastewaterMorro Bay Morro Bay (City)Fire flow limitations; aging infrastructure 22,000,000$ next 10 years
Low Y 269,737$ 152 Water/WastewaterSan Miguel
San Miguel CSD
water pumping capacity, wastewater sewer
treatment capacity, and water water
treatment plant expansion
41,000,000$ 1 to 10 years
Low Y 950,000$ 4 Water/WastewaterOceano
Oceano CSD
Water Resource Reliability Program
(capital improvements), and upgrade of
water mains
3,800,000$ next 10 years
Low Y 1,142,857$ 7 Water Cayucos CSA 10/10A- Cayucos (Cayucos
Water Treatment Plant)water line loops and replacements 8,000,000$ next 5 years
Low Y -- Building Moratorium Water Los Osos
S&T Mutual Water Company
pipeline to secure a secondary water
source, which would run between their
water system and the Los Osos CSD,
Shared Bike path Easement
2,900,000$ next 5 years
Low Y -- Building Moratorium Water Los Osos S&T Mutual Water Company North Water Tank 2,500,000$ next 5 years
Low Y -- Building Moratorium Water/WastewaterLos Osos Los Osos CSD infrastructure to import supplemental
water 10,000,000$ next 5 years
Low Y -- Wastewater San Luis Obispo County CSA 18 Los Ranchos Sewer Rehabilitation 1,500,000$ next 10years
Low Y 12,875$ 1,351 Non-Highway Nipomo
North Frontage Rd. extension:
Sandydale Rd. to Summit Station
Rd.
Extend North Frontage Rd. from
Sandydale Rd. to Summit Station Rd.17,394,568$ By 2045
Low Y 15,855$ 193 Active TransportationTempleton Las Tablas Rd. Class II bike lanes:
US 101 to Old County Rd.Construct Class II bike lanes 3,060,000$ Unconstrained
Low Y 16,101$ 193 Highway Templeton Las Tablas Rd Interchange
Improvements
On Las Tablas Rd from Bennett Way to
US 101, widen US 101 SB off-ramp and
add westbound lane
3,107,500$ By 2035
Low Y 24,519$ 624 Active TransportationGrover Beach Beach Cities Trail: Boardwalk Dune
Trail Construct bike/ped trail 15,300,000$ Unconstrained
Low Y 28,982$ 193 Non-Highway Templeton
Bennett Way connection/ frontage
road: Templeton Hills Rd. to
Vineyard Dr.
Connect Bennett Way between Templeton
Hills Road and Vineyard Drive 5,593,500$ By 2035
Low Y 115,927$ 193 Highway Templeton US 101 / Main St. I/C improvements Reconstruct interchange and widen Main
St. from US 101 to Creekside Ranch Rd.22,374,000$ By 2035
Draft- July 5, 2023 Page 7 of 9
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 2
Page 87 of 136
Draft Regional Housing Infrastructure Plan Appendix A
Priority
Supports
new
housing
Benefit/Cost
Proposed
Units within
Community
Outside
Barriers Project Type Community Project Name Project Description 2023 Cost Estimate 2023 Time
Horizon
Low Y 119,145$ 193 Highway Templeton Interchange Improvements at Las
Tablas Rd
Phase 3 Widening to 5 lanes (Bridge
Removal and replacement) or
Roundabouts
22,995,000$ By 2045
Low Y 166,075$ 600 Highway Arroyo Grande US 101 Traffic Way/El Campo
Interchange
Closure of SB Fair Oaks off-ramp & Traffic
Way NB & SB ramps, and all at-grade
access points between Traffic Way and
Los Berros Road and construct new
interchange in the vicinity of El
Campo/Traffic Way.
99,645,000$ By 2045
Estimate Projects
Estimate for all HIP Projects 1,014,252,229$ 80
High 348,000,000$ 54
Medium 385,000,000$ 10
Low 281,000,000$ 16
Water/Wastewater 396,000,000$ 21
Transportation 618,000,000$ 59
Total Purposed Units 15,714
Total Investment needed per purposed unit 64,544$
Total HIP Projects 80
Estimate ($ Millions)Projects
Estimate for all HIP Projects 1,014$ 80
High 348$ 54
Medium 385$ 10
Low 281$ 16
Draft- July 5, 2023 Page 8 of 9
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 2
Page 88 of 136
Draft Regional Housing Infrastructure Plan Appendix A
Atascadero Priority Projects
Priority
Supports
new
housing
Benefit/Cost
Proposed
Units within
Community
Outside
Barriers Project Type Community Project Name Project Description
2019 RTP
Time
Horizon
2021 Cost
Estimate
2023 Cost
Estimate
2023 Time
Horizon
High Y 13,850$ 722 Water Atascadero Atascadero Mutual Water Company
treatment facility to remove PFAS
(planning stages)10,000,000$ next 2 years
High Y 34,626$ 722 Wastewater Atascadero
Wastewater Upgrade
Wastewater upgrade to address
some Regional Water Quality
Control Board water quality
permitting standards.
25,000,000$ 5-7 years
Medium Y 96,953$ 722 Wastewater Atascadero Wastewater Treatment Plant
Expansion
Expand the capacity of our
wastewater treatment plant.70,000,000$ Next 2-4 years
Medium Y 9,695$ 722 Highway Atascadero US 101 / Del Rio Rd. I/C
modifications
Construct interchange improvements
in association with developments By 2045 8,500,000$ 7,000,000$ By 2028
High Y 153$ 722 Transit Atascadero North County Charging Facility Charging facility at 1735 Paso
Robles St., Paso Robles 110,466$
High Y 35$ 722 Transit Atascadero
Cashless Fare System
Conversion (further study is
required)
25,270$
112,135,736$
155,312.65$
4
TOTAL
Total Investment needed
per proposed unit
Community Specific
Projects
* Multijurisdictional Project Cost Estimate = Total
Benefit/Cost per unit * number of proposed units within
community
Draft- July 5, 2023 Page 9 of 9
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 2
Page 89 of 136
Working With the Market:
Understanding and Supporting
Affordable-by-Design Housing
in San Luis Obispo County
June 26, 2023
Prepared for: San Luis Obispo Council of Governments
Draft Report
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 90 of 136
Acknowledgements
ECONorthwest prepared this report for the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG).
ECONorthwest and SLOCOG thank those who helped develop the Affordable-by-Design Study.
Housing Action Team
• Andrew Perez, Arroyo Grande
• Ani Garibyan, County of SLO
• Cory Hanh, Pismo Beach
• Darcy Delgado, Paso Robles
• Katie Banister, Paso Robles
• Kelly Gleason, Atascadero
• Kyle Bell, City of SLO
• Megan Martin, Grover Beach
• Nancy Hubbard, Morro Bay
• Phil Dunsmore, Atascadero
• Rafael Castillo, Grover Beach
• Teresa McClish, City of SLO
Local Housing Industry Experts that provided input
• Abbott | Reed Inc.
• Z Villages Management and Development
• Coastal Community Builders
• Ambient Communities
• Midland Pacific Homes
• Peoples' Self-Help Housing
• Housing Authority of SLO (HASLO)
• Paso Robles Housing Authority
• North San Luis Obispo County Association of
Realtors
• California Association of Realtors Region 31
• Compass Real Estate
• San Luis Obispo County Housing Trust Fund
• Habitat for Humanity
• Home Builders Association
• YIMBY
• SLO Chamber of Commerce
• South County Chamber of Commerce
• Morro Bay Chamber of Commerce
• Paso Robles Chamber of Commerce
• League of Women Voters
• Kovesdi Consulting
• Covelop
• Specialty Construction
• Wallace Group
• The HRM Corp.
• Ten Over Studio
• People's Self-Help Housing
• RRM Design Group
• Vivian Hanover Ventures Real Estate
• California Polytechnic University
• First American Title Company, San Luis Obispo
• Omni Design Group
• Midland Pacific Homes
• NKT Commercial
• San Luis Obispo County Housing Trust Fund
SLOCOG
• Sara Sanders
Consulting Team (ECONorthwest)
• Becky Hewitt
• Emmanuel Lopez
• Rasik Hussain
• Jamil Ditter
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 91 of 136
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 1
Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 1
Part 1: Understanding ABD Housing in SLO County ........................................................................................... 2
Part 2: Supporting ABD Housing in SLO County ............................................................................................... 17
Recommendations for Affordable-By-Design Policies in San Luis Obispo County ............ Error! Bookmark not
defined.
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 92 of 136
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
We will add this to the final version, following initial review
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 93 of 136
1
INTRODUCTION
The intention of the Affordable-by-Design (ABD) Study is to determine whether certain types of market-rate
housing units are likely to be affordable to low- or moderate-income households in San Luis Obispo County
“by design”, and what jurisdictions in the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) can do to
support this type of housing. Identifying physical characteristics that are commonly associated with the
targeted level(s) of affordability could allow the jurisdictions to count these developments towards RHNA
requirements in annual reports to Housing and Community Development (HCD) and align local policies to
support this type of housing production.
For purposes of this study, “affordable by design” is defined as new housing that is not income- or rent-
restricted, but where typical market rents or sales prices would be affordable to low or moderate-income
households (earning 50-120% of San Luis Obispo County’s Area Median Income or AMI). The study
encompasses the seven incorporated Cities and unincorporated San Luis Obispo (SLO) County.
The study included the following components:
Part 1: Understanding ABD Housing in San Luis Obispo County
▪ Identify common physical characteristics for ABD housing based on a review of market data and
development examples from SLO County as well as other regions.
▪ Market and financial feasibility analysis to determine whether housing built with the identified
physical characteristics would meet ABD criteria and be financially feasible for a market-rate
developer to build in the different parts of the county.
Part 2: Supporting ABD housing in San Luis Obispo County
▪ Identification of a barriers to ABD development and a range of potential policy measures that could
help support ABD housing based on interviews with local housing developers and ECONorthwest’s
analysis.
▪ Stakeholder feedback on the study’s findings and on priorities for policy measures to explore
further through this study, resulting in selection of six policy measures for further evaluation.
▪ Additional analysis of the selected policy measures, including a survey of current planning practices
among the SLOCOG jurisdictions related to these policies and research on how other jurisdictions
outside SLOCOG have implemented the selected policy measures.
▪ Draft recommendations for SLOCOG jurisdictions to consider in support ABD housing.
The balance of this report summarized the results of this analysis and the recommended policy measures
for consideration.
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 94 of 136
2
PART 1: UNDERSTANDING ABD HOUSING IN SLO COUNTY
Identifying Examples and Characteristics of ABD Housing
Rent and Sales Price Limits for ABD Housing in SLO County
San Luis Obispo County’s published rent and sale price limits by income level define the rent and price range
affordable at this income level (see Figure 1).1
Figure 1: San Luis Obispo County’s Rent and Sale Price Limits (May 2022)
Source: San Luis Obispo County Department of Planning and Building, Affordable Housing Standards, May 20222
1 The City of San Luis Obispo has its own way of calculating maximum sale prices for its inclusionary housing program, which results
in somewhat higher maximum sales prices. However, for consistency across the County, this analysis uses the County’s price limits.
2 “Affordable Housing Standards.” San Luis Obispo County Department of Planning and Building, June 1, 2022.
https://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Departments/Planning-Building/Forms-Documents/Housing-Forms-and-Documents/Informational-
Documents/Affordable-Housing-Standard-(Post-2009).pdf.
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 95 of 136
3
Examples of ABD Rental Housing
Rental Housing Examples from SLO County
ECONorthwest used data from CoStar, a proprietary market data service, to identify recently-constructed
market-rate multifamily rental housing in SLO County where rents appear to meet the rent limits shown in
Figure 1 by unit type (number of bedrooms). This search yielded five properties where at least some unit
sizes appear to meet moderate-income rent limits.3 These example properties are shown in Figure 2 below,
and their characteristics are summarized in
Figure 3.
Figure 2: Examples of ABD Rental Housing in SLO County
Source: CoStar
3 Note that CoStar reports rents on average by unit type and does not separate rents for affordable units from those for market-rate
units within mixed-income buildings.
Connect SLO La Plaza
Ramona Gardens Laurel Lane
The Junction
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 96 of 136
4
Figure 3: Characteristics of ABD Housing Examples in SLO County
Source: ECONorthwest analysis of CoStar data, February 2023.
Connect SLO La Plaza Laurel Lane Ramona
Gardens The Junction
Jurisdiction San Luis Obispo Atascadero San Luis Obispo Grover Beach San Luis Obispo
Land Area (AC) Not Available 1.83 Not Available 0.51 1.58
# Units 78 42 22 19 69
# Stories 3 3 3 3 3
Studio
Affordability Above Moderate Moderate N/A Moderate Above Moderate
Studio Unit Size 477 sf 534 sf N/A 400 sf 531 sf
1 BR Affordability Moderate* Moderate Low/ Moderate* Moderate Moderate*
1 BR Unit Size 664 sf 721 sf 514 sf 800 sf 568 sf
2 BR Affordability Above Moderate Above
Moderate Moderate* Moderate Above Moderate
2 BR Unit Size 1,032 sf 1,537 sf 877 sf 800 sf 799 sf
3 BR Affordability N/A Above
Moderate Above Moderate N/A N/A
3 BR Unit Size N/A 2,808 sf 1,288 sf N/A N/A
*CoStar does not isolate market rents in mixed-income buildings. Reported average rents may be artificially low due to some units
being below market rate, particularly where inclusionary housing regulations apply.
This analysis suggests that some new apartments are affordable at Moderate Income rents in at least some
parts of the County, but this may be skewed by mixed-income buildings. Among these examples, one-
bedroom units were most likely to be affordable, and no three-bedroom units met affordability criteria.
A review of the physical characteristics of these developments shows that design plays a role in making
them affordable, but it does not guarantee affordability. Most of the examples are three story buildings, and
most have small average unit sizes; however, many other apartments built in the County are also three
stories, and not all small units are affordable to Moderate Income households.
ABD Rental Housing from Other Regions
ECONorthwest looked at examples of other types of rental housing recently developed in other housing
markets for housing types that could potentially meet ABD criteria if built in SLO County. The primary type
of housing that consistently achieved moderate-income affordability (or below) in similar housing markets
is Micro Units. These typically have:
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 97 of 136
5
▪ Unit sizes between 150-350 sf with individual kitchenettes and shared kitchens4
▪ No vehicle parking but on-site bike storage
▪ Generally, four or more stories, high density, with minimal setbacks/landscaping
▪ Highly walkable and desirable locations
Figure 4: Examples of Micro Unit Developments
Image credits: Alcove PDX (https://pdxalcove.com); Stenberg Hart
(https://www.steinberghart.com/design/projects/mccadden-place-micro-units/)
Examples of ABD For-Sale Housing
ABD For-Sale Housing Examples from SLO County
ECONorthwest used sales transaction data from Redfin to identify sales within the last year of recently
constructed housing units that sold for less than the sales price threshold listed in Figure 1. Only
manufactured housing in manufactured home parks met these target price points (see examples in Figure
5).5
4 Because of the shared kitchens, groups of four to eight micro-units are often regulated as a single dwelling unit under the zoning
codes where these developments have been permitted.
5 Because these manufactured homes must pay space rent for the manufactured home park, when this space rent is accounted for,
even these units may not be affordable for moderate income households.
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 98 of 136
6
Figure 5: Examples of ABD For-Sale Housing in SLO County
Source: Redfin
A few small detached homes (such as the examples shown in Figure 6) came close to meeting the County’s
affordability standards, and would meet the County’s Workforce housing price limits, but exceeded the
County’s Moderate Income sales price limits.
Figure 6: Examples of Small Detached Homes Close to ABD Sales Limits
Source: Redfin
ABD For-Sale Housing from Other Regions
Looking at examples from other regions, ECONorthwest identified three types of for-sale housing that
tended to offer the lowest price-points in other relatively high-cost housing markets. These included:
▪ Very small detached units (roughly 350-800 sf) with shared yards, and clustered parking. The
smallest units may be affordable at close to 120% of AMI in that market, but the most comparable
units in SLO County exceed the target price. It is possible that the smallest detached units (e.g.,
under 800 sf) could meet the affordability targets in some cases.
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 99 of 136
7
Figure 7: Examples of Very Small Detached Units from Other Markets
Image credits: Redfin6; Connect Architecture7; South Park Cottages8
▪ Small condo units (roughly 325-600 sf) with little or no on-site parking. These can be afforHdable to
Moderate Income households in portions of some high-cost regions, but may not be viable in SLO
County’s market given the small size and lack of parking.
Figure 8: Examples of Small Condo Units from Other Markets
Image Credits: Portland’s Best Real Estate9; Redfin10
▪ Simple condo development with simple design, medium-sized units (roughly 600-1000 sf), little or
no on-site parking, and few shared amenities. These units can be affordable to Moderate Income
households in portions of some high-cost regions, but may not be viable in SLO County’s market
given high development costs.
6 https://www.redfin.com/OR/Bend/61301-Benham-Rd-97702/unit-1/home/167021238
7 https://www.connectarchitecture.us/posh-pockets
8 https://southparkcottages.com/
9 https://www.portlandsbestrealestate.com/division-43-studio-condo
10 https://www.redfin.com/OR/Portland/7360-N-Atlantic-Ave-97217/unit-3/home/185141446
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 100 of 136
8
Figure 9: Examples of Simple Condo Developments from Other Markets
Image Credits: Redfin11
▪ Small townhouse units (roughly 1,000-1,600 sf). These can be affordable to Moderate Income
households in portions of some high-cost regions, but comparable units in SLO County exceed the
target price.
Figure 10: Examples of Small Townhouse Units from Other Markets
Image Credits: Redfin12
▪ Smaller single-detached homes (“starter homes”) that are typically three-bedroom units roughly
1200-1500 sf. These can be affordable to moderate-income households in moderate-cost areas
(e.g., California’s Central Valley), but comparable units in SLO County exceed the target price.
11 https://www.redfin.com/CO/Federal-Heights/1401-W-85th-Ave-80260/unit-B101/home/176995897;
https://www.redfin.com/OR/Portland/1801-N-Rosa-Parks-Way-97217/unit-303/home/172577477;
https://www.redfin.com/OR/Portland/5025-N-Minnesota-Ave-97217/unit-102/home/185246763
12 https://www.redfin.com/CO/Denver/2206-E-38th-Ave-80205/home/185222737; https://www.redfin.com/OR/Portland/7308-NE-
11th-Ave-97211/home/185109359
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 101 of 136
9
Figure 11: Examples of Small Single-Detached Homes from Other Markets
Image Credits: Redfin13
Based on developer interviews and review of market data from SLO County, none of these models from
other regions seemed likely to be viable as a way to deliver ABD for-sale housing in SLO County, and they
were not further evaluated.
Overall, the data suggests that SLO County market conditions are unlikely to support new for-sale housing
at prices affordable to moderate-income households, with the possible exception of manufactured housing
in parks. A few developments have attempted to produce ABD for-sale housing, but even with very small
homes, prices are still too high for the moderate-income target price range. In addition, even if jurisdictions
were to change policies, factors that make for-sale housing more affordable in other areas may not
translate to the SLO County market (e.g., lower land cost, no parking, few amenities, micro units).
Market and Development Feasibility Analysis
Potential ABD Housing Types Selected for Analysis
Based on the review of ABD examples from SLO County and other market areas, ECONorthwest selected
three development “prototypes” that typify the physical characteristics that showed potential viability and
affordability to moderate income households in the San Luis Obispo market:
▪ A 3-story walk-up apartment with typical unit sizes and site layout for the region
▪ A more compact 3-story walk-up apartment with smaller unit sizes, less parking, and less
landscaping / setbacks
▪ A 4-story micro-units development with very small units and no parking
Additional characteristics and physical features assumed for these prototypes are listed in Figure 12.
Figure 12: ABD Prototype Assumptions
Source: ECONorthwest
Description 3-story walkup
- standard
3-story walkup -
compact
4-story micro
units
Site Size (sf) 65,340 65,340 8,000
# of Units 51 91 71
13 https://www.redfin.com/CA/King-City/611-Cecily-St-93930/home/167240703; https://www.redfin.com/CA/Shafter/9710-
Amberdale-Way-93263/home/178358767
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 102 of 136
10
Density (DU/Ac) 34.0 60.7 386.6
Parking location surface surface none
Parking ratio 1.54 1.00 0.00
Unit Mix (% of units)
Studio 5% 30% 100%
1-bed 40% 40% 0%
2-bed 50% 30% 0%
3-bed 10% 0% 0%
Unit Size (net sf)
Studio 500 425 300
1-bed 675 575
2-bed 1,000 875
3-bed 1,350
Average Unit Size 880 620 300
Note: This analysis treats each micro-unit as its own unit, although under many codes they would not be considered stand-alone
units because of their shared kitchens.
Market Conditions
While the affordability targets and AMI are set countywide, the market conditions vary across the county.
The analysis addresses this by dividing the county into different market areas for purposes of the analysis
(see Figure 13). The analysis focuses on four market areas:
▪ North Coast
▪ North County
▪ South County
▪ Central County
East County is not included in the analysis because there is little development or development opportunity
in that area.
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 103 of 136
11
Figure 13: SLO County Market Areas
ECONorthwest estimated the market rents in each market area for each prototype based on the most
comparable developments and adjusted to reflect differences between market areas and prototypes. The
estimated market rents for each area are listed in Figure 14, along with the relevant moderate income rent
limit by unit type.
Figure 14: Estimated Market Rents by Market Area and Prototype
Source: ECONorthwest analysis based on CoStar data; San Luis Obispo County Department of Planning and Building,
Affordable Housing Standards, May 202214
Region -
Bedroom Size
3-story walkup -
standard
3-story walkup
- compact
4-story
micro units
Moderate-Income
Rent Limit
Central County $2,750 $2,327 $1,470 $0
Studio $2,250 $2,083 $1,470 $2,047
1-bed $2,430 $2,156 - $2,329
2-bed $2,950 $2,800 - $2,597
3-bed $3,375 - - $2,877
14 https://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Departments/Planning-Building/Forms-Documents/Housing-Forms-and-
Documents/Informational-Documents/Affordable-Housing-Standard-(Post-2009).pdf
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 104 of 136
12
Region -
Bedroom Size
3-story walkup -
standard
3-story walkup
- compact
4-story
micro units
Moderate-Income
Rent Limit
North Coast $1,925 $1,513 $956 $0
Studio $1,575 $1,354 $956 $2,047
1-bed $1,701 $1,402 - $2,329
2-bed $2,065 $1,820 - $2,597
3-bed $2,363 - - $2,877
North County $2,465 $1,972 $1,176 $0
Studio $1,800 $1,594 $1,176 $2,047
1-bed $2,147 $1,898 - $2,329
2-bed $2,650 $2,450 - $2,597
3-bed $3,240 - - $2,877
South County $2,289 $1,747 $956 $0
Studio $1,450 $1,275 $956 $2,047
1-bed $1,856 $1,639 - $2,329
2-bed $2,600 $2,363 - $2,597
3-bed $3,038 - - $2,877
Note: market rents reflect 2023 market conditions with an estimated 3% annual escalation prior to opening.
These rents are shown graphically in comparison to the moderate-income threshold in Figure 15.
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 105 of 136
13
Figure 15: Estimated Market Rents by Market Area and Prototype Compared to Moderate-Income
Rent Limit
Source: ECONorthwest analysis based on CoStar data; San Luis Obispo County Department of Planning and Building,
Affordable Housing Standards, May 202215
This highlights that while many of the prototypes are estimated to offer market rents below the moderate-
income threshold, this may not be the case for all prototypes / unit sizes in all market areas.
Development Feasibility Analysis
ECONorthwest’s financial feasibility analysis uses a metric called “return on cost” (ROC), which reflects the
income potential of the completed development16 divided by the total cost of development. This ratio is
often used as an initial indicator of development feasibility for rental developments, as it provides a
preliminary indication of whether the completed property will provide competitive financial returns that
could attract investors and meet loan underwriting requirements. Because both lenders and investors will
expect higher returns for riskier investments, market areas that have stronger demand fundamentals will
likely have a lower threshold for ROC to make development viable. Thus, the target ROC is assumed to be
higher in smaller markets (North County and South County) than in Central County (North County is
estimated to fall between these book-ends).
ECONorthwest used cost information calibrated based on interviews with local developers and research on
average local fee amounts in SLO County to estimate development costs by prototype.
15 https://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Departments/Planning-Building/Forms-Documents/Housing-Forms-and-
Documents/Informational-Documents/Affordable-Housing-Standard-(Post-2009).pdf
16 Net Operating Income (NOI), the revenue after accounting for vacancy and operating expenses.
$-
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
Studio1-bed2-bed3-bedStudio1-bed2-bed3-bedStudio1-bed2-bed3-bedStudio1-bed2-bed3-bedCentral County North Coast North County South CountyMonthly Rent per Unit3-story walkup - standard 3-story walkup - compact
4-story micro units Moderate-Income Rent Limit
Central County North Coast North County South County
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 106 of 136
14
Figure 16: Estimated Return on Cost by Prototype and Market Area
Source: ECONorthwest analysis
Because costs and market conditions can vary substantially between sites even within the same market area
and for the same prototype, these results should be taken as a general indication of the relative feasibility of
different prototypes, and not an absolute indication that a given prototype will consistently be feasible or
infeasible in a given area. To account for the inherent uncertainties associated with this type of generalized
analysis, ECONorthwest summarized the results based on how likely they indicate a given prototype is to
meet affordability and feasibility criteria. This is shown in Figure 17.
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
A B C A B C A B C A B C
3-storywalkup -
standard
3-storywalkup -
compact
4-storymicro units 3-storywalkup -
standard
3-storywalkup -
compact
4-storymicro units 3-storywalkup -
standard
3-storywalkup -
compact
4-storymicro units 3-storywalkup -
standard
3-storywalkup -
compact
4-storymicro units
Central County North Coast North County South CountyReturn on Cost Estimated Return on Cost Target Return on Cost
Central County North Coast North County South County
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 107 of 136
15
Figure 17: Summary of Affordability and Feasibility Results by Prototype and Market Area
Source: ECONorthwest analysis
Conclusions on Market and Development Conditions for ABD
Housing in SLO County
The key take-aways from this analysis are summarized below by market area.
Overall, it appears that the rental market is close to being able to achieve ABD housing production in at
least some parts of the County, and is likely within a range where regulatory changes could make a
Central County
•Smaller units help achieve affordability
•Market likely
to support
feasibility
North Coast
•Market rents provide affordability
•Feasibility is
difficult
North County
•Market rents likely affordable except for largest units
•Market likely
to support, except for the smallest
South County
•Market rents likely affordable except for largest units
•Market
support is borderline
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 108 of 136
16
difference. While ABD housing may not require subsidy, it may not be able to absorb inclusionary zoning
requirements at the targeted moderate-income rents. Affordability through smaller unit sizes may not
meet needs of larger households, and market rents may not stay within target affordability range over time,
but delivering more lower-cost units to the market can help maintain the affordability of market-rate
housing over time, and smaller households may benefit from greater availability of small units.
In the for-sale housing market, prices are too far above Moderate-Income affordability level for the market
to deliver new ABD for-sale housing with regulatory changes alone. Increasing housing production overall
can help bring supply and demand into balance and potentially make ABD achievable over the longer term.
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 109 of 136
17
PART 2: SUPPORTING ABD HOUSING IN SLO COUNTY
Barriers to ABD Housing
To understand how to support ABD housing, it is essential to understand what makes it possible for the
market to produce lower-cost housing, and how the public-sector can influence this. These factors are
illustrated in Figure 18 and Figure 19.
Figure 18: Factors that Allow the Market to Produce Lower-Cost Housing
Source: ECONorthwest
Figure 19: Public Sector Influence on Market's Ability to Produce Lower-Cost Housing
Source: ECONorthwest
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 110 of 136
18
In sum, it takes a confluence of multiple factors for the market to produce lower-cost housing, and local
regulations and fees can have an impact on the market’s ability to achieve those factors.
Looking specifically at SLO County, ECONorthwest’s interviews with local housing developers, market
research, and development feasibility analysis suggested the following barriers to ABD housing:
Market Barriers
▪ Land Cost
▪ Demand for high-end housing
▪ Construction costs
▪ Demand for parking
Regulatory Barriers
▪ Discretionary review
▪ Density caps
▪ Minimum unit sizes
▪ Parking requirements that exceed market demand
▪ Impact fees, inclusionary zoning
▪ Required infrastructure improvements
Potential Policy Measures to Support ABD Housing
Overview
ECONorthwest identified a range of potential policy measures jurisdictions could consider to support
development of ABD housing. These generally fall under the following categories:
▪ Streamline development review and permitting
▪ Align development standards to support ABD housing
▪ Allow ABD housing in cost-effective locations
▪ Adjust impact fee rates and policies to incentivize ABD housing
Based on feedback from multiple different stakeholder groups, including home builders and market-rate
housing developers, affordable housing providers, other housing advocates, and local planners, SLOCOG
and ECONorthwest identified the following six measures for additional research and evaluation:
1. Objective Design Standards
2. Ministerial Approvals and Streamlined Approval Processes
3. Density Limits
4. Zoning Vacant Land for Multifamily Housing
5. Aligning Infrastructure Investments with Land for Multifamily Housing
6. Adjusting Impact Fee Policies or Rate Structures to Incentivize ABD Housing
Having identified these measures as priorities, ECONorthwest distributed a survey to the planning
departments of the 8 jurisdictions in SLOCOG: Arroyo Grande, Atascadero, Grover Beach, Morro Bay, Paso
Robles, Pismo Beach, City of San Luis Obispo, and County of San Luis Obispo to gather information on how
they currently address these topics. The results of the survey are incorporated into the sections that follow.
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 111 of 136
19
Finally, to illustrate how other jurisdictions have approached some of the policy measures highlighted to
support ABD housing, ECONorthwest collected information on practices by jurisdictions in California that
were recognized as “pro housing” as well as jurisdictions in other states. These examples are also integrated
into the following sections.
State Housing Laws and ABD Housing
Many state housing laws aim to remove barriers to developing affordable housing; however, these do not
necessarily apply to ABD housing. This section summarizes how key state laws and recent bills relate to
ABD housing as defined for this study.
Legislation Relevant Eligibility Criteria
(ABD Eligible?)
Benefits for Qualifying
Housing Developments
SB 35 (2018)
ABD not eligible
• At least 10% or 50% of units must be affordable
depending on which income categories
jurisdictions have failed to produce
• Affordable units must be for less than 80% AMI
only, requires lasting affordability restrictions
• Jurisdictions that have not met RHNA targets
(applies to most SLOCOG jurisdictions)
• Ministerial approvals
• Objective design standards
(ODS)
SB 330
(2019) and
the Housing
Accountability
Act (HAA)
ABD potentially eligible
• Housing for Very Low, Low-, or Moderate-Income
Households qualifies for additional protections
• One option is if 100% of units are affordable to
moderate (80-120% of AMI) or middle (<150% of
AMI) income households; units for moderate
income households must be affordable at 100%
of AMI.
• Lasting affordability requirements apply only to
units for very low or low-income households
• Locks in regulations and
fees when a preliminary
application is submitted
• Burden of proof is on the
jurisdiction if denying the
application; limited basis
for denial if application
complies with objective
standards
• Maximum review timelines
AB 2345 (2020) and
the Density
Bonus Law
ABD not eligible
• Multiple affordability criteria; for-sale housing can qualify if at least 10% of units are affordable to
moderate-income (80-120% of AMI) households
• Requires lasting affordability restrictions (at least
45 years)
• Increased density, reduced
setbacks, other zoning
modifications
In sum, ABD housing may be eligible for increased protections from being denied or having density reduced
under the HAA if it meets the requirements for moderate income housing, but it would not qualify for
ministerial approvals, ODS, or zoning concessions under SB 35 or the Density Bonus law.
Objective Design Standards
Description
Objective design standards (ODS) are defined in California State Law as standards which “involve no
personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external
and uniform benchmark.”
While basic development standards, such as lot size requirements, etc. are typically objective, many
jurisdictions apply design requirements to new housing development that introduce subjectivity,
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 112 of 136
20
considering compatibility with surrounding structures or otherwise leaving room for interpretation of
whether a development has met the requirements through ambiguous language. ODS are often related to
building design elements, such as window size and location, roof lines, building articulation, etc. Having
objective design standards can streamline the process of getting planning approvals by establishing a
common set of expectations for developers and allowing development to avoid lengthy discretionary
review processes.
While, as noted above, SB 35 does not apply to ABD housing, jurisdictions could potentially offer ABD
housing the option to use the same ODS applicable to SB 35-eligible development. HCD published an
objective design standards toolkit for California jurisdictions in 2021 with guidance and examples.17
Current Practice for SLOCOG Jurisdictions
Only the City of San Luis Obispo and Grover Beach have adopted specific ODS. In the limited time since
these standards were adopted, they have been used a few times in Grover Beach, but have not yet been
used successfully in the City of San Luis Obispo. Grover Beach allows "modification to standards" for minor
modifications to respond site conditions, which may make it easier for development to comply with most of
the standards while seeking flexibility where needed. (San Luis Obispo County uses only objective basic
development and site design standards and does not have building design standards, therefore all
development uses objective development standards.) Three additional jurisdictions are in the process of
developing standards.
Jurisdiction ODS Status Eligibility for
ODS Topics Addressed Usage
of ODS
Atascadero In progress
All multi-family
and mixed-use
developments
TBD N/A
City of San
Luis Obispo
Adopted
(2021)
SB-35 projects
only
Specific building & site design
standards (materials, window trim, building length, window
placement, roof design,
articulation, landscaping)
None to
date
County of San
Luis Obispo Adopted Not limited
Basic development & site design
standards (no building design standards)
All
projects
Pismo Beach Not Available N/A N/A N/A
Paso Robles In progress TBD TBD N/A
Morro Bay In progress TBD TBD N/A
Arroyo Grande Not Available N/A N/A N/A
Grover Beach Adopted
(2022)
All single
family, multi-
family, and
mixed-use
developments
Site & structure design (façade
articulation, entrances, ground
floor height, transparency,
building orientation, blank walls,
building materials, upper story
A few
high-
density
projects
17 California HCD, “Approaches and Considerations for Objective Design Standards,” January 2021,
https://hcdcagov.app.box.com/s/baznxdyweq6a8txcrb22li0gogqodzz6
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 113 of 136
21
Jurisdiction ODS Status Eligibility for
ODS Topics Addressed Usage
of ODS
windows, parking and access,
pedestrian circulation, etc.)
Modifications to standards
allowed
Other Examples
Sacramento, CA
Sacramento, CA received the first Pro-Housing Designation from the California Department of Housing and
Community Development in February 2022 for its housing reform efforts. These include establishing
objective design standards for infill development of projects with two units or more including additional
dwelling units attached to single unit housing.
Citrus Heights, CA
Citrus Heights was awarded a pro housing designation from the State of CA for their use of objective design
standards to spur development in their city. The designation was awarded for the city’s efforts to develop
the Sunrise Tomorrow Specific Plan, a plan to convert a 100-acre mall property to a mixed-use residential
property.18 The plan zoned for new uses on the site, including multifamily residential, retail, and hotels,
tripling the amount of development allowed on the site and providing the opportunity for 2,200 new units in
a city that is 98% built out. The plan also introduced objective design standards for the Sunrise Tomorrow
Specific Plan area, which will streamline future development.19 The city is currently experiencing challenges
encouraging development on the site because it is owned by six different companies, but it is continuing to
work with developers and the community to improve the site.
Oregon Model Development Codes
In Oregon, all “needed housing” (effectively all housing development that is designed to fulfill a housing
need rather than a resort or short-term rental purpose) must have the option to be reviewed against only
clear and objective standards. Oregon’s Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD)
publishes a model development code for small cities to facilitate compliance with this and other state
requirements and smart growth principles. The model code includes “Community Design Standards” that
address building orientation and design as well as site design factors such as access and circulation, parking,
landscaping. The Residential Building design standards provide clear and objective standards to address
building orientation, articulation, inclusion of certain design features (using a menu approach), and an
option to require house plan variety in new subdivisions. While the Model Code was last updated in 2012, it
18 Murillo, Alicia. “Six California Cities Earn State Prohousing Designation.” hcd.ca.gov. California Department of Housing and
Community Development, December 15, 2022. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/about-hcd/newsroom/six-california-cities-earn-state-
prohousing-designation.
19 citrusheights.net. “Sunrise Mall Specific Plan.” City of Citrus Heights, CA. Accessed June 20, 2023.
https://www.citrusheights.net/1009/Sunrise-Mall-Specific-Plan.
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 114 of 136
22
may provide a useful example for smaller cities considering ODS.20 Oregon’s middle housing model codes,
published in 2020, also include clear and objective design standards applicable to middle housing.21
Eugene, OR
A study of multifamily development in Eugene, Oregon evaluated whether public opposition expressed in a
discretionary review process had an impact on development outcomes. It found that although the City
allows most multifamily development by-right, 12% of multifamily development projects during the period
analyzed (2010-2016) required a land use application. The land use applications ranged from minor
adjustments to site plan reviews to planned development applications. Applications most commonly sought
adjustments to building orientation and entrance standards, parking standards, building massing and
façade standards, and access/circulation standards. While opponents of the projects raised concerns
including traffic increases, pedestrian safety, and neighborhood character, there was no evidence that these
concerns resulted in changes to the development or design for the projects evaluated in the study. The
study concluded that offering more flexibility on the standards that most commonly caused challenges
could reduce the need for land use applications.22
Preliminary Recommendations
▪ Adopt simple ODS: Avoid overly detailed requirements when adopting ODS, and provide flexibility
where possible (e.g., through a menu-based approach).
▪ Simplify minor adjustments: Offer a process for minor deviations from the ODS that can still be
reviewed by staff.
Ministerial Approvals and Streamlined Approval Processes
Description
Ministerial approvals refer to non-discretionary staff-level approval of development projects. Robust
ministerial approval processes provide a faster process and lower fees for development review. California’s
SB 35 requires cities and counties which have failed to meet their RHNA obligations to allow developments
that include a certain percentage of affordable units and meet other criteria23 to proceed through a
ministerial review process.
20 Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, Oregon Model Development Code and User's Guide for Small Cities,
3rd Edition (2012), https://www.oregon.gov/lcd/tgm/pages/model-code.aspx
21 Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, Large Cities Middle Housing Model Code, December 2020,
https://www.oregon.gov/lcd/UP/Documents/OAR660046%20EXHIBIT%20B%20-
%20Large%20Cities%20Middle%20Housing%20Model%20Code%2020201209.pdf
22 Seth Thompson, “Public Opposition to Increased Housing Density in Eugene, Oregon: How Opposition to Multifamily Housing
Impacts the Built Environment,” University of Oregon Department of Planning, Public Policy, and Management, Masters of
Community and Regional Planning, 2018 Professional Project, June 2018.
https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794/25087/SThompson_ExitProj_Final.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
23 At least 50% of the proposed residential units should be affordable to households at 80% of AMI.
The project must net two or more new residential units.
The project must be zoned in the proper parcel and two-thirds of the project must be residential.
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 115 of 136
23
Current Practice for SLOCOG Jurisdictions
Most of the cities offered some form of ministerial approval for developers; two offered SB 35 ministerial
approvals. The criteria or maximum number of units eligible for ministerial approvals in each jurisdiction are
summarized below.
Jurisdiction What is the maximum number of units that can receive
ministerial approvals outside of SB 35 provisions?
Atascadero 11 (unless on a designated site in the housing element)
City of San Luis Obispo No max threshold
County of San Luis Obispo 38
Pismo Beach No Response
Paso Robles 1 outside of State intervention; 3 when including ADUs and JADUs; 4
utilizing SB9
Morro Bay 2 dwelling units and Multi-family projects of 6000 sf or less, Single
family homes under 2500 sf
Arroyo Grande No Response
Grover Beach No cap per year, or within the jurisdiction. SB 35 unit limits are
based on land use density controls.
The jurisdictions differ on processing times for ministerial approvals. The cities of San Luis Obispo, Paso
Robles, and Grover Beach gave the shortest timelines. All three gave initial reviews timelines of maximum
up to a month while the County gave a minimum time period of 6 months. For non-ministerial approvals the
estimates differed widely but they ranged from 3 months to 18 months.
Other Examples
Sacramento, CA
As noted previously, the City of Sacramento received recognition by the state for its housing reform efforts,
which included several measures related to streamlining approvals, including allowing projects of up to 150
units to bypass the requirement for a public hearing and qualify for ministerial approval. The city set a 90-
The location of the project may not be within a coastal zone, prime farmland, wetlands, a high fire hazard severity zone, hazardous
waste site, a delineated earthquake fault zone, a floodplain, a floodway, a community conservation plan area, a habitat for
protected species, or under a conservation easement.
The project does not demolish a historic building, a building where housing units have been occupied for the last 10 years, or a
building subject to rent control.
The project must meet all objective design standards.
If the project is a private development project, it must pay prevailing wage and if it is more than 50 units it must use a skilled and
trained workforce.
The project must not involve the subdivision of a parcel that is subject to the California Subdivision Map Act, unless the project pays
prevailing wage and receives a low-income housing tax credit or uses a skilled and trained workforce.
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 116 of 136
24
day timeline for ministerial approval of these projects.24 It also allowed single-unit, duplex, and multi-unit
dwelling to be built by-right.25
Oakland, CA
The city of Oakland introduced a “one stop shop” for permits that coordinates between three permitting
departments to streamline and simplify procedures for developers. The departments are Fire Prevention
Services, Planning & Building, and Transportation. Oakland introduced the “one stop shop” in September
2021.26
Grand Rapids, MI
According to a study by the Terner Center, zoning reforms in Grand Rapids, MI, which included up-zoning,
allowing a wider range of housing types by right, and other changes, found a balance between opportunities
for community input and streamlined project approvals. “If projects conform to zoning and design
guidelines, the project is approved within approximately six weeks. Moreover, it is nearly unheard of for the
city to deny a project application, largely because complying with the city’s land use regulations has proven
to be straightforward for developers. City officials noted that the predictability of their approval process has
resulted in more interest in development in their community.”
Preliminary Recommendations
▪ Expand eligibility for Ministerial Approvals: For jurisdictions that currently limit availability of
ministerial approvals based on the number of units, this threshold could be increased (e.g., to 150
units) or eliminated for multifamily developments in medium and high-density residential zones.
▪ Have staff review projects using ODS: Even if the review is not considered truly ministerial, avoiding
having a body accustomed to doing discretionary reviews serve as the approval body for projects
subject to ODS can help streamline the process and avoid raising concerns that cannot be
addressed.
Density Limits and Parking Requirements
Description
If an area is zoned to allow multifamily but the maximum density is too low, it can preclude efficient
multifamily development. As noted above, while California jurisdictions are required to allow density
bonuses and other regulatory concessions for qualifying affordable housing developments, this does not
apply to ABD housing where units are market-rate but offer affordability for moderate-income households.
Some jurisdictions use “fractional density” in which small units are counted as a fraction of a unit for
purposes of density calculations. This approach is more aligned with ABD housing. Other jurisdictions
24 Herriges, Daniel. “Did Sacramento Just Approve the Best Local Housing Reform Yet?” Strong Towns, January 21, 2021.
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2021/1/21/did-sacramento-just-approve-the-best-local-housing-reform-yet.
25 “Sacramento Becomes First California Jurisdiction to Earn State Prohousing Designation.” California Department of Housing and
Community Development, February 24, 2022. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/about-hcd/newsroom/sacramento-becomes-first-california-
jurisdiction-to-earn-state-prohousing-designation.
26 “One-Stop Permit Center: In-Person & Expanded Digital Services,” City of Oakland, accessed June 26, 2023,
https://www.oaklandca.gov/resources/one-stop-permit-center.
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 117 of 136
25
simply increase (or even remove) their maximum density standards for all housing to prioritize housing
production.
Reducing or eliminating minimum parking requirements can also be a tool to encourage ABD development
and can be an important complement to higher density limits, because achieving higher densities
sometimes requires lower parking ratios (e.g., for the micro-units and compact walk-up apartment
prototypes analyzed in Part 1). Reducing parking requirements also eliminates a mandatory cost for
developers and can lower rental costs for households in some cases. However, in areas where there is
strong market demand for parking, developers may choose to build parking even if it is not required, or
build more than is required to meet market demand.
Current Practice for SLOCOG Jurisdictions
The survey asked the departments to list their jurisdictions highest density zones and the maximum by-right
density in those zones.
Jurisdiction
Which zones in your jurisdiction allow the highest residential
density? What is your maximum by-right density in these zones?
Atascadero RMF-24 - 24 units per acre
City of San
Luis Obispo
C-D - 36DU/acre, C-C 36DU/acre
County of San
Luis Obispo
Residential Multi-Family (density not specified)
Pismo Beach Our Residential Very-High Density overlay zone. Once a property is rezoned with
the overlay, it is 50 units per acre
Paso Robles T4-N, T4-F, T4-NC, TC-1, TC-2, and RSC all allow up to 30 units/acre
Morro Bay RH (Residential High Density). Currently 2 units by right or Multi-family projects
with total SF of 6000 or less.
Arroyo Grande Multi-Family Very High Density and mixed use zones allow up to 25 du/acre
Grover Beach No Response
The City of San Luis Obispo also utilizes fractional density for all zones outside the AG, C/OS, R-1 zones. The
City of Paso Robles also allows fractional density in some of its zones. The details are included in the table
below.
Jurisdiction Housing Type Fractional Density
City of San Luis
Obispo
Studio and one-bedroom dwellings less than 600 sq. ft. .5
One-bedroom dwellings between 601–1,000 sq. ft. .66
Two-bedroom dwelling 1
Three-bedroom dwelling 1.5
Dwellings with four or more bedrooms 2
Paso Robles
Studio and one-bedroom dwellings less than 600 sq. ft. .5
One-bedroom dwellings 600–1,000 sq. ft. .66
Dwellings with two or more units 1
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 118 of 136
26
Other Examples
San Diego, CA
The City of San Diego introduced several changes to its density bonus program in 2018. The new program
language included several provisions that offer bonuses for smaller units:27
▪ A 10 percent density bonus for developments that do not go beyond the maximum permitted
building footprint.
▪ A 100 percent density bonus for micro-unit production for developments that do not go beyond the
permitted building footprint.
Cottage Grove, Oregon
The small city of Cottage Grove, Oregon, recently eliminated maximum density limits in its residential
zones. Minimum lot size standards apply, but do not scale with the number of units, meaning that they are
primarily a constraint on density for single-unit detached development. Multifamily development is limited
only by height and building coverage standards.28
San Jose, CA
The city of San Jose eliminated their parking minimum requirements in December 2022. It is one of a
number of cities in California that have reduced or eliminated their parking requirements, including
Sacramento, San Diego, and San Francisco. In the same ordinance that repealed the parking minimums the
city council also included requirements for bicycle parking to encourage other forms of transportation.29
Preliminary Recommendations
▪ Adjust density limits in high-density residential and mixed-use zones: This could take several
different forms:
▪ For density limits expressed in dwelling units per acre, increase the maximum density allowed
by-right. Allowing at least 35 units per acre will generally allow for three-story walk-up
apartment development, which may meet ABD criteria.
▪ Use Floor Area Ratio (FAR) or other physical form limits (e.g., height) to regulate the amount of
development. This can serve as an incentive for building smaller units.
Zoning Vacant Land for Multifamily Housing
Description
Many jurisdictions seek to focus higher-density development in core areas, downtown, or near transit.
However, these areas are often largely developed already, and redevelopment means higher land costs
along with demolition and sometimes environmental remediation costs. Zoning vacant land for multifamily
housing can offer a lower-cost development opportunity, particularly if the land has or is in close proximity
27 “City of San Diego Density Bonus Regulations for Affordable Housing,” San Diego Housing Commission, accessed June 20, 2023,
https://www.sdhc.org/doing-business-with-us/developers/density-bonus/.
28 City of Cottage Grove Municipal Code, Chapter 14.22 Residential Districts:
https://www.codepublishing.com/OR/CottageGrove/#!/CottageGrove14/CottageGrove1422.html#14.22.120
29 Kamisher, Eliyahu. “Bye-Bye Parking Requirements: San Jose Becomes Largest City in U.S. to Abolish Minimum Parking.” The
Mercury News, December 7, 2022. https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/12/07/bye-bye-parking-requirements-san-jose-becomes-
largest-city-to-abolish-minimum-parking/.
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 119 of 136
27
to the necessary infrastructure to support development. This makes it easier for ABD multifamily housing
projects to be economically viable.
Current Practice for SLOCOG Jurisdictions
All but two jurisdictions noted that they had vacant sites listed on their Housing Element in their most dense
zones. Atascadero noted the vacant sites are very small and Arroyo Grande and County of San Luis Obispo
did not list any vacant sites. The table below lists all the responses.
Jurisdiction
Are there vacant sites listed on your Housing
Element in your highest density zones?
Atascadero yes....with a caveat that they are small since the original
colony subdivided in 1913
City of San Luis Obispo Yes
County of San Luis Obispo None listed
Pismo Beach Yes
Paso Robles Yes
Morro Bay Yes
Arroyo Grande No
Grover Beach Yes
Other Examples
Study on Up-Zoning in Portland, OR
A recent study on the impact of up-zoning and higher-density zoning on development and housing
production in Portland, OR found that “both upzoning and higher density zoning led to significantly greater
development probabilities, higher development densities, and more housing supply,” suggesting that
“Upzoning could be an effective policy tool for increasing housing supply, particularly when it is applied to
vacant and underutilized parcels.”30
Preliminary Recommendations
▪ Zone vacant buildable sites large enough to accommodate multifamily development to allow it by-
right at an appropriate density. Ideally, this would include sites over an acre with access to
infrastructure.
Aligning Infrastructure Investments
Description
The cost of extending or upgrading infrastructure (e.g., roads, sewer and water lines) to serve a site can be
cost-prohibitive for ABD housing. It also adds significant time and uncertainty to the development process.
To the extent that jurisdictions can invest in the infrastructure upgrades and extensions needed to make
ABD housing development possible, this will can mean substantial cost savings and a major increase to
development feasibility.
30 Hongwei Dong, “Exploring the Impacts of Zoning and Upzoning on Housing Development: A Quasi-experimental Analysis at the
Parcel Level,” Journal of Planning Education and Research. February 1, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X21990728
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 120 of 136
28
Current Practice for Local Jurisdictions
The Regional Housing & Infrastructure Plan (HIP) is a collaborative action plan between the seven Cities,
County of San Luis Obispo, and SLOCOG in response to the San Luis Obispo region’s growing housing and
infrastructure shortage. The HIP is intended to help accelerate housing development where it makes the
most sense given regional conditions and readiness. The HIP inventories infrastructure barriers to housing,
identifies funding to implement infrastructure needs, and develops foundational information for the future
2027 Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). The 2023 HIP identified 80 water, wastewater, and
transportation infrastructure projects and possible grant funding sources.
Other Examples
Bend, OR
The City of Bend, Oregon conducted a study in 2018 to evaluate infrastructure and planning needs to make
land development-ready in various areas of the city, including areas on the edge that had been recently
authorized for development with complete communities including a range of housing types and
commercial services and infill/redevelopment “opportunity areas”. The study analyzed the type and amount
of development that each area was expected to yield (including affordable housing); the cost of providing
needed water, sewer, and/or transportation improvements; other factors that could inhibit development;
and estimated revenues from impact fees and property taxes from each area. The analysis informed
decisions about where to focus staff time, political will, planning energy, and infrastructure investments.31
Preliminary Recommendations
▪ Use the on-going HIP process to prioritize infrastructure investments that can unlock multifamily
development in appropriate areas.
Adjusting Impact Fee Policies or Rate Structures
Description
While impact fees are a vital source of funding for local infrastructure needs, they tend to disproportionately
affect the feasibility of building smaller and lower-cost housing units.32 This is particularly true when the fee
structures do not account for differences in impact based on unit size or location-efficient developments.
While many localities in California waive impact fees for affordable housing, this does not apply to ABD
housing. A full waiver of impact fees is not necessarily an appropriate policy measure for ABD housing;
however, there are other adjustments that jurisdictions can make to reduce the effects of impact fees on
ABD housing. For example, impact fees can be deferred until later in the construction process or financed
over a period of years. Rate structures can also be adjusted to account for reduced demand from smaller
units while keeping the overall average rates constant to minimize the impact to revenue collections.
31Bend Growth Management Department in collaboration with Angelo Planning Group, ECONorthwest, Cascadia Partners, DKS
Associates, and MURRAYSMITH, “Bend Urban Growth Boundary Implementation Return on Investment Analysis and Next Steps,”
April 26, 2018. https://www.bendoregon.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/36542/636637940683270000
32 ECONorthwest on behalf of Oregon Housing and Community Services, “Oregon System Development Charges Study: Why SDCs
Matter and How They Affect Housing,” December 2022.
https://www.oregon.gov/ohcs/development/Documents/Oregon%20SDC%20Study_FinalReport_121422.pdf
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 121 of 136
29
Current Practice for SLOCOG Jurisdictions
Impact fee policies vary across the jurisdictions. Three jurisdictions, Morro Bay, Arroyo Grande, and Grover
Beach do not offer any impact fee deferrals. Most other jurisdictions allow deferral or exemptions for
affordable housing projects. Atascadero indicated that all impact fees are deferred for all developments.
All of the jurisdictions indicate that their impact fees vary by housing type/unit size. Some vary by unit type,
lot size, or zoning. Some are lower for affordable units. Others vary based on square footage. Specific
answers are listed below.
Jurisdiction
If your impact fees vary by housing type and/or unit size, please describe
which fees and what the variables are (e.g., housing type / ITE code, square
footage, number of bedrooms, etc.).
Atascadero Vary by lot size, zoning
City of San Luis
Obispo
Transportation, water, wastewater, are reduced for smaller units
(based on square-footage).
County of San Luis
Obispo
Certain building types may qualify for fees based on square footage of
project
Pismo Beach By unit type, yes. Not by unit size.
Paso Robles They vary by "Transportation Area" within the City and the fee can vary
by size/sf
Morro Bay Size and cost of project.
Arroyo Grande Fees are lower for low and very-low income units
Grover Beach Housing type, square footage, etc.
Other Examples
Fontana, CA
The city of Fontana, CA reduced its impact fees for infill development by 50% as part of their Housing
Element update in June 2021. City officials defined infill development as development in the central third of
Fontana.33 Projects located in that zone were eligible for this impact fee reduction. Impact fees can range
from “approximately 9.3% to 10.3% of the direct cost of development for a single-family residential project
and 4.3% to 4.4% for a multi-family residential project” which can represent a significant cost for the
developer.34
Preliminary Recommendations
▪ Scale by unit size: Wherever reasonable, adjust impact fees by unit size to reflect lower impacts
from smaller units. This could also mean increasing fees for larger units so that the change is
revenue-neutral.
▪ Defer collection: Allow deferrals for multifamily development regardless of whether it includes
affordable units.
33 “City of Fontana 2021-2029 6th Cycle Housing Element” (City of Fontana, CA, June 25, 2021), 4–6,
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/housing-elements/docs/fontana-6th-draft062521.pdf.
34 “City of Fontana 2021-2029 6th Cycle Housing Element,” 3–27.
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 122 of 136
30
▪ Adjust for infill locations: Set fee rates lower where infrastructure needs are lower due to proximity
to existing facilities. This can off-set some of the higher cost of building in closer-in, more
developed areas.
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 123 of 136
Page 3 of 3
2023 HIP Appendix E
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 4
Page 124 of 136
Regional Vision for Housing
In early 2020, local agencies adopted a San Luis Obispo Countywide Regional Compact to establish a
united regional framework to unlock our potential to develop an adequate supply of housing and
infrastructure that support our economic prosperity.
1. Overview
San Luis Obispo County is a rural coastal county with seven vibrant cities and numerous unincorporated
communities that depend on collaborative relationships between and among government agencies,
community organizations, and residents to solve the region’s significant issues including inadequate
supply of affordable housing and resilient water, wastewater, and transportation infrastructure and
resources.
The County and all seven Cities are working collaboratively to develop the region’s first Regional
Infrastructure and Housing Strategic Action Plan (Regional Plan) that will identify actions to address these
issues. A key component of the Regional Plan is the integration of efforts to address critical housing and
related infrastructure needs. As part of the Housing Element update process, representatives of the
County, seven Cities and San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) developed this chapter to
showcase the ongoing commitment of each agency to this collaborative effort. This Chapter presents a
regional vision and policies focused specifically on fostering regional collaboration to plan and develop
housing and supportive infrastructure.
2. Alignment with Regional Compact
This effort is guided by the San Luis Obispo Countywide Regional Compact (Regional Compact). The
Regional Compact, adopted by each jurisdiction in early 2020, outlines six shared regional goals to guide
collaborative resolution of underlying housing and infrastructure needs:
Goal 1. Strengthen Community Quality of Life – We believe that our Region’s quality of life
depends on four cornerstones to foster a stable and healthy economy for all: resilient
infrastructure and resources, adequate housing supply, business opportunities, and educational
pathways.
Goal 2. Share Regional Prosperity – We believe that our Region should share the impacts and benefits of achieving enduring quality of life among all people, sectors and interests.
Goal 3. Create Balanced Communities – We believe that our Region should encourage new
development that helps to improve the balance of jobs and housing throughout the Region,
providing more opportunities to residents to live and work in the same community.
2023 HIP Appendix E
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 4
Page 125 of 136
Goal 4. Value Agriculture & Natural Resources – We believe that our Region’s unique agricultural
resources, open space, and natural environments play a vital role in sustaining healthy local
communities and a healthy economy, and therefore should be purposefully protected.
Goal 5. Support Equitable Opportunities – We believe that our Region should support policies,
actions, and incentives that increase housing development of all types, available to people at all
income levels.
Goal 6. Foster Accelerated Housing Production – We believe that our Region must achieve
efficient planning and production of housing and focus on strategies that produce the greatest
impact.
3. Policies
It will take regional collaboration and local actions to realize the vision and goals outlined in the Regional
Compact. Below is an initial list of aspirational regional policies that further the Regional Compact vision,
in addition to local policies. By listing these below, it does not mandate any individual agency to
implement actions, but rather offers ways that the County, cities, SLOCOG, and other partners can
consider moving forward, together. In addition, and consistent with each Housing Element cycle, each of
the seven cities and the County has the opportunity to choose to implement local policies and programs
that help to support their achievement of its RHNA, and if an agency chooses to, can also support the
Regional Compact vision and goals in a way that works for its jurisdiction and community. See Section B
for local programs and policies for Atascadero’s anticipated actions during this Housing Element cycle.
R-1: Promote awareness and support of regional efforts that further housing and infrastructure resiliency
by utilizing community engagement, and consistent and transparent communication.
R-2: Encourage an adequate housing supply and resilient infrastructure, services, and resources to
improve the balance of jobs and housing throughout the Region.
R-3: Develop inter-agency partnerships as appropriate to implement goals and policies related to housing
and infrastructure.
R-4: Coordinate State, Federal, and other funding opportunities for housing and infrastructure
development throughout the Region.
R-5: Encourage developers to sell newly constructed housing units to individuals residing or employed
within the area of the development (a city or the County) first before selling to individuals from outside
the County, to promote local preference.
R-6: Encourage rental units be prioritized for long term residents rather than short term users or vacation
rentals.
2023 HIP Appendix E
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 4
Page 126 of 136
R-7: Support housing development that is located within existing communities and strategically planned
areas.
R-8: Encourage regional collaboration on a menu of housing types, models, and efforts to support
streamlined approvals for such developments (i.e. Accessory Dwelling Units, etc.).
4.Moving Forward
The County, cities, SLOCOG, and other partners engaged in housing and infrastructure development will
continue to collaborate on efforts moving forward – recognizing the benefits of working together to
achieve an enduring quality of life among the region’s people, sectors and interests. This ongoing
collaboration will include learning from each other and sharing possible tools, policies and actions that
can allow the collective region to move towards our adopted Regional Compact vision. Ongoing
collaborative efforts will be described in the Regional Plan, anticipated to be complete in 2021, and related
regional efforts will live outside of each individual agency’s Housing Element.
2023 HIP Appendix E
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 4
Page 127 of 136
ITEM NUMBER: C-2
DATE: 07/11/23
Atascadero City Council
Staff Report – Community Development Department
Development Process Streamlining
RECOMMENDATION:
Council review and provide preliminary direction on the development of standards that
will streamline the CEQA process.
DISCUSSION:
The City’s Housing Element includes policies designed to streamline the development
review process, particularly for housing development. A significant factor in the
development review process is the staff and applicant time devoted to California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance. In Atascadero, many residential projects
are not exempt from the CEQA process due to the City’s threshold for the initiation of the
CEQA review. Through the adoption of specific development standards for development
projects, the City can help guide many projects before they trigger the environmental
review process.
Staff processes approximately 6 environmental documents a year for single-family
residential projects. Each project subject to CEQA review requires tribal notification and
collaboration, completion of an initial study which takes about 15 hours of staff time,
posting at the County and on the State website for public review, mailings to neighboring
property owners and residents, and posting of the final notice of determination at the
County and on the State website.
On April 28, 2020, the City Council authorized staff to pursue grant funding through LEAP
to complete work to adopt objective standards that, when followed, can streamline
projects through the development process and avoid the need to go through the CEQA
process. In April 2023, the City of Atascadero released a request for proposals from
qualified design professionals, and hired MIG, Inc. to assist the City in this process.
Development and adoption of these objective standards will:
• Save considerable staff time
• Save developer time and money and deliver clear expectations creating a clear
understanding of property development requirements early in the design process
• Implement permit streamlining in line with the City’s Housing Element and State
goals and policies
Page 128 of 136
ITEM NUMBER: C-2
DATE: 07/11/23
This preliminary discussion is designed to provide a check-in with City Council, so that
we can focus on the desired topics and bring back a complete code revision.
Topic areas include:
• Hillside Grading
• Creekside Development
• Historic Resources
• Sensitive Resource Areas (biological, archeological)
Existing Outside Agency Development Framework
During the development review process, the City is required to follow State and regional
laws in addition to local codes and policies in determining project consistency. State law,
however, allows local jurisdictions to adopt their own thresholds when it comes to CEQA
determinations. Without these thresholds, the City is forced to use a more conservative
standard that involves more types of development projects and leaves more discretion in
the use of project mitigation measures. In general, a project can be ministerial (approved
with only a construction permit) or discretionary (requiring some level of findings and
conditions to be made through a hearing or other determination). Only discretionary
projects are subject to CEQA analysis; however, all projects must meet State, regional,
and local requirements. At this time, the threshold for discretion for many single-family or
otherwise ministerial projects in the City may be considered low in certain areas.
Existing City Standards
The municipal code sets a discretionary review trigger on otherwise ministerial
development projects when grading occurs on slopes of over 20%. The Code also allows
the Community Development Director to determine that discretionary review is warranted
in other scenarios where the project may create other environmental impacts, such as
creek interference, archeology resources, and historic resources. This triggers CEQA
analysis for many west-side single-family residences, resulting in the preparation of an
environmental document and substantial time prior to the issuance of development
permits. Instead of reducing the impacts to the site, the environmental document
becomes a declaration of the potential impacts, while the mitigation measures adopted
through CEQA only result in slight project adjustments. This is because CEQA is primarily
a public notification tool used to notify interested parties of a given project’s impacts.
Development standards to reduce impacts or provide greater compatibility with the
environmental setting are determined by each jurisdiction’s codes.
Analysis:
Hillside Grading
The City processes roughly 6 Precise Plan (CEQA review) applications per year. The
development of west-side single-family parcels comprises the majority of hillside
development, although other types of hillside development can occur. As more and more
vacant parcels are developed, the remaining lots create significant construction and
access challenges. Grading for driveways and home sites can create a significant
aesthetic impact and result in the removal of larger numbers of native trees, however, the
City recognizes these lots as developable. Clear standards will help streamline the
process and provide expectations to property owners early in their development process.
Page 129 of 136
ITEM NUMBER: C-2
DATE: 07/11/23
The City currently has a number of code standards and policies that provide guidance to
reduce the impacts of hillside grading, however, due to the existing discretionary trigger
for grading on slopes of 20% or greater, all projects on hillsides trigger CEQA analysis
even if all code and policy standards are met and no other significant impacts are
identified. The intent of this code update is to exempt a small project from CEQA if it can
be developed consistent with adopted City standards, even when the site is greater than
20% slope.
Existing code and standards related to hillside grading include:
1. Atascadero Native Tree Ordinance
The Atascadero Native Tree Ordinance requires mitigation for all native tree
removals necessary for a proposed construction project. The ordinance requires
that staff make a finding that the proposed removals are reasonable related to the
project and that the project cannot be reasonably redesigned to avoid the need for
removals. The tree ordinance does not restrict house size, graded pad size,
driveway length, or other factors that effect the extent of potential grading. These
factors, as they related to tree impacts, are currently reviewed on a case by case
basis.
2. Hillside Grading Policy
The City’s Hillside Grading Guidelines were developed in response to discussions
at the City Council’s 2004 strategic planning and were adopted on May 23, 2004
as a formal City policy. The policy includes guidelines for development on steeper
slopes with specific guidance for development on slopes under 30% and for
development projects on slopes 30% or greater. (See Attachment #1)
While these standards and policies provide consistent guidance, the Municipal Code still
considers any projects that proposed grading on slopes of 20% or greater a discretionary
project subject to CEQA analysis, so the CEQA process still applies even if all design
features are incorporated into a project. The CEQA thresholds established with this code
update can build on existing policies and code requirements to refine the line between a
ministerial hillside development project and one that still requires CEQA analysis to
address unique or significant impacts. Through this process, staff will be exploring
standards such as:
• Limiting graded pad areas that extend beyond the footprint of the residence. These
standards may be tied to slope with more flexibility for gently sloped sites
• Determining appropriate thresholds related to the extent of tree removal
• Developing guidance for naturalization of graded slopes
• Exploring the use of earthwork quantities as a metric
• Developing driveway placement and design considerations that incorporate tree
and grading considerations and may include thresholds for length of
driveway/distance from street
• Incorporating retaining wall standards
• Establishing consistent ridgeline protection/mitigation standards
• Setting clear thresholds for distance from adjacent improvements
Page 130 of 136
ITEM NUMBER: C-2
DATE: 07/11/23
Creekside and Wetland Adjacent Development
The City does not currently have standards for how new projects may be developed within
creek corridors or adjacent to creek or wetland areas. Therefore, each new project that
develops near these resources must comply with DFW, ACE, and/or Regional Board
standards, and the limited guidance set by the City’s current General Plan.
In 2018 the City prepared its Local Area Management Plan (LAMP), which implements
Regional Water Quality Control Board standards at the local level. The City’s LAMP sets
a 100-foot setback from creeks to on-site wastewater leach lines and 200-feet from
wetlands to on-site wastewater leach lines. Adopting creekside development standards
will provide flexibility and local control for development projects while protecting
waterways and maintaining adequate flood control measures.
Considerations for creekside development standards could include:
A. Development standards for patios and decks:
Standards could be considered for decks, patios, and walkways to develop
features that allow people to enjoy the area adjacent to a waterway. Standards
could be developed to ensure that construction of these features would not
negatively impact the floodway.
B. Development standards for structures with analysis:
Creekside development standards could consider allowing encroachment of
buildings closer to the creekside area with a review from a soil engineer to confirm
that the creekbank is stable and is unlikely to erode, ensuring that the building will
not be structurally undermined, and a biologist to confirm that the riparian habitat
will not be significantly degraded.
C. Differentiation between major creeks and minor jurisdictional drainages:
The City of Atascadero contains many identified “blue-line” drainageways, most of
which are verified to be jurisdictional. There are also a number of non-specified
blue-line creeks that are identified as jurisdictional. There are 4 major creeks
located in creek reservation parcels in the City limits: Boulder, Graves, Atascadero,
and Paloma. The Salinas River borders the City and has a wide riparian corridor
and floodway. Creekside development standards could differentiate between
major and minor drainageways with unique setbacks and development standards
for each type.
D. Differentiation based on location/zoning:
In the development of creekside development standards consideration may be
given to specific locations adjacent to major creeks, such as Downtown. Standards
may include additional allowances or a modified process for creekside
development in the downtown to encourage use of the creekbanks for pedestrian
oriented features.
Historic Resources
Current code allows the Community Development Director to require a Precise Plan
(discretionary application) for any proposed development activity that could impact a
historic resource. California State law (CEQA) recognizes that a property does not have
Page 131 of 136
ITEM NUMBER: C-2
DATE: 07/11/23
to be formally listed at the State or National register to be considered a historic resource,
as noted below:
(4) The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in
the California Register of Historical Resources, not included in a local register of
historical resources (pursuant to section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code),
or identified in an historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in section
5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code) does not preclude a lead agency from
determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in Public
Resources Code sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.
The City has a rich history, being one of the first master planned communities in California
born out of the City Beautiful movement. The Atascadero Colony subdivision was
recorded in 1913 and the “colony era” began. Homes constructed during the early days
of the colony up until 1926 are known as colony homes and provide important historic
context for the City.
Currently, the City has no formally adopted list of historic resources other than properties,
buildings, and other known resources listed on the State and/or National Register of
Historic Places. However, the City currently treats Colony Homes and other buildings built
in that era as historic resources, based on the government code section noted above.
Staff currently uses the United States Secretary of Interior’s standards as guidance for
modifications to historic properties or structures and determines that a project can remain
ministerial if these guidelines are followed. While this is effective in guidance for building
permit reviews, the State’s new SB 9 regulations (Urban Dwelling Units and Urban
Subdivisions) require adoption of a formal list in order to provide guidance on applications
submitted under this law. Adopting a local list will give staff and property owners a greater
level of clarity and expectation when it comes to modifying, moving, or demolishing these
structures, and provide the same level of standards for properties developing under the
provisions of SB9.
The City, in concert with the Historic Society, does have a list of Colony Homes that is
used to determine at the Director level if a discretionary application is required. In order
to establish guidelines related to determining if a project is ministerial or discretionary as
it relates to historic resources, the City can establish a basic ordinance that references
the Secretary of Interior’s standards and the list of known colony homes. Establishing a
baseline ordinance will codify existing City policy.
Archeological Resources
The City does not have a current, adopted archeological resource map. Instead, many
projects are subject to additional time and cost while preparing a phase one study.
Atascadero has a number of know areas of potential archeological significance but staff
does not have access to official records at this time. Generally, areas around creeks and
natural springs provided fertile areas for settlement and both the Chumash and Salinas
tribes have areas of importance within the City limits. While specific areas of potential
sensitivity cannot be released, the City can develop requirements for projects within
known areas, updated by the consultant team for greater accuracy, to maintain a project
as ministerial. Requirements may include a Phase I archeological survey and/or
monitoring during project construction.
Page 132 of 136
ITEM NUMBER: C-2
DATE: 07/11/23
Staff has reached out to local tribal members recently to discuss specific projects in
addition to the development of CEQA thresholds. Tribal members have expressed
concerns related to areas of known sensitivity in addition to maintaining the native oak
woodlands as a past cultural resource connecting to tribal foraging and food sources.
CONCLUSION:
Standards developed through this code update will be used to identify thresholds between
ministerial and discretionary projects with the goal of reducing project timelines and cost.
Current thresholds include grading on slopes of 20% or greater or at the Director’s
discretion based on impacts to other environmental resources, such as historic properties,
creek interference, and archeological resources. With Council direction, the City can put
in place standards and guidelines that provide clear direction and set City expectations
for development, reducing staff time on CEQA documentation and providing transparent
clear guidance to developers and property owners.
NEXT STEPS:
Staff will compile Council direction and return with draft ordinances and/or guidelines for
the topic areas discussed above. City Council may choose to focus on specific topics as
the City is not required to include all topic areas in the CEQA threshold project. As grant
funding for this project must be completed by September 2023, staff expects to return for
final consideration in late September/Early October of this year.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This effort is funded through the Local Early Planning Project (LEAP) grant that the City
was awarded in 2020. Implementation of revised standards and guidelines may reduce
the number of projects that need to file for a Precise Plan application. No new costs will
be incurred by the City.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Hillside Grading Policy
Page 133 of 136
A. Hillside Grading Guidelines
The goals and policies of the General Plan provide for the protection of the hills and
woodlands of Atascadero and require that hillside grading minimize those impacts.
Goal LOC 5 and Policy LOC 5.2 specifically address hillside grading (see following).
The purpose of the Hillside Grading Guidelines is to provide an interpretation of the
General Plan goals and policies that can be applied to building permits, grading permits,
subdivision maps and planning entitlements.
Building Site Selection Principles
Building sites, driveways and leach fields should be selected with regard to
balancing the following:
1. Minimize the need for grading and tree removals.
2. Allow property owners the flexibility to select the building sites and floor plans
that best fits their needs.
When the property owner and staff cannot come to agreement on a building site
this decision should be referred to the Planning Commission.
Cut and Fill Pads (Few Native Tree Impacts)
Cut and fill pads are allowed for hillside construction in the following situations:
1. Natural slopes are under 30%.
2. Native tree impacts are minimal.
ITEM NUMBER: C-2
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 134 of 136
3. The cut pad is reasonable related to the size of the house footprint.
4. Newly graded flat yard areas are minimized.
5. Landscape and irrigation plans prepared by a licensed professional are
provided for all resulting cut and fill slopes. Landscape plans should
incorporate native drought tolerant trees, shrubs and ground covers (refer to
City plant list).
6. Erosion control plans must be provided.
Figure II-1: Cut and fill pad guideline
Landscape / Erosion
Landscape and irrigation
plans prepared by a
licensed professional are
provided for all resulting
cut and fill slopes.
Erosion control plans are
provided.
Native Trees
Native tree impacts
are minimal
Flat Pad
Cut pad is reasonably related
to the sizes of the house
footprint
Flat yard areas are minimized.
Natural Slope
Natural slopes are
under 30%
Fill
Cut
ITEM NUMBER: C-2
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 135 of 136
Stem Walls / Retaining Walls (Mitigation of Native Trees Impacts)
The General Plan and Native Tree Ordinance provide for the protection of native
trees. The following guidelines apply to grading in proximity to native trees.
1. Stem wall house construction should be considered to save native trees.
2. Retaining walls should be incorporated into cut, fills and along driveways to
save native trees.
3. Tree preservation mitigation measures must be developed by an arborist for
all impacted trees.
Figure II-2: Stem wall guideline
Stem Wall Foundation
Used to minimize tree
removals and tree impacts
Stem
Wall
Native Trees
Impacts to native trees
surrounding the building pad
should be minimized
Retaining Walls
Retaining walls should be
used along driveways, cuts
and fills to minimize impacts
on native trees.
ITEM NUMBER: C-2
DATE: 07/11/23
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 136 of 136