No Bookmarks Exist.
Great. | 00:00:17 | |
Good evening. It's six, 6:00 PM on June 13th. I'd like to call to order the regular meeting of the Pacific Grove Planning | 00:00:20 | |
Commission. And tonight all of our votes must be roll call votes. So Mr. Campbell, would you call the roll? | 00:00:28 | |
I believe, Chair, do we do the motion for Kubica before the No, we know that. OK, great. Thank you. | 00:00:42 | |
Chair Murphy. | 00:00:54 | |
Pleasant. | 00:00:55 | |
Vice Chair Sawyer. President. Commissioner Nazinski. | 00:00:58 | |
Commissioner Swaggart. | 00:01:03 | |
Commissioner Davidson. | 00:01:06 | |
President. | 00:01:08 | |
Of yeah, Commissioner Frederickson is attend this evening. | 00:01:09 | |
We have right now we have 5 present in chamber and we do have a quorum. And I see Mr. Kubica online if you could. | 00:01:16 | |
Unmute him, perhaps. And now I'm going to make a motion that this is a little unusual. We haven't done this before. | 00:01:26 | |
I move that we authorize Commissioner Kubica. | 00:01:34 | |
To attend remotely pursuant to Assembly Bill 2449. | 00:01:37 | |
And Commissioner Sawyer, second, could we have a roll call, please? | 00:01:43 | |
Chair Murphy. President, I mean, aye, Vice Chair Sawyer. | 00:01:50 | |
Aye, Commissioner Spager. | 00:01:55 | |
Commissioner Nadzynski, Aye. | 00:01:58 | |
Commissioner Davidson, Aye. | 00:02:01 | |
We have Five Eyes, 0 nays and one absent, and the motion passes. Welcome, Commissioner Kubica. | 00:02:04 | |
I at this point I have to ask you if there is anyone in the room with you that is over 18 years of age? No, there is not. | 00:02:11 | |
Welcome. Welcome to the meeting. | 00:02:22 | |
We're not. We're not used to having someone join us remotely. So if. | 00:02:26 | |
If I miss you at any point, please wave your arms to do whatever you can do to get our attention. And I'll, I'll ask Staffs help | 00:02:33 | |
with that too. It's, you know, this is the first time we've done that. | 00:02:38 | |
But welcome, Commissioner Kubica. Thank you. | 00:02:44 | |
We're now at Item 2, which is approval of the agenda. | 00:02:50 | |
The staff have any proposed changes to the agenda. | 00:02:55 | |
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Staff is requesting that Item 8B, Coastal development permit #24-0066. | 00:02:59 | |
For 123 17th St. be removed from the agenda. | 00:03:10 | |
Staff had submitted a determination of exemption to the Coastal Commission on May 15th of 2024. | 00:03:16 | |
On May 23rd, 2024, a member of the community challenged the determination of exemption and so staff elevated the request to the | 00:03:24 | |
Executive Director of the Coastal Commission for a final determination. And we did receive word on Monday that the Coastal | 00:03:32 | |
Commission disagreed with the merits of the challenge and they upheld the city's exemption. So the project is no longer under the | 00:03:40 | |
purview of the Planning Commission. It has been exempted from ACDP per the Coastal Commission. | 00:03:48 | |
Thank you. And just for information is there. | 00:03:57 | |
Under those circumstances, is there any appeal of the director's decision possible or is that a final decision? That's a final | 00:04:01 | |
decision. Thank you. | 00:04:05 | |
And anybody on the Commission have any agenda, could I have a motion to approve the agenda as amended? | 00:04:10 | |
I shall move, Commissioner Zinsky, because I was, I'll second it, swagger second. Could we have a roll call, please, Mr. Campbell? | 00:04:18 | |
Commissioner Zinski. | 00:04:27 | |
Aye, Commissioner Sviggart. | 00:04:29 | |
Aye, Commissioner Davidson. | 00:04:32 | |
Hi, Commissioner Kubica. | 00:04:34 | |
Aye, and Chair Murphy. Aye, Vice Chair Sawyer. | 00:04:38 | |
So the vote was 60, with Commissioner Zinski making the motion, Commissioner Swaggart second. | 00:04:46 | |
Now it's time for Commission and and staff announcements. Does anyone have the on the Commission have an announcement? | 00:04:53 | |
Are there any staff announcements? | 00:05:03 | |
No chair. | 00:05:05 | |
So much for announcements. | 00:05:07 | |
Now it's time for announcements from our Council liaison and I see Councilmember Colletti here. Welcome. Thank you. Thank you | 00:05:09 | |
Chair Murphy and members of the Planning Commission. Just a very briefly, we did at our last meeting June 5th adopt on 1st read | 00:05:17 | |
the budget for fiscal year 2425. However, we will be bringing that back again not only for a second read, but also revisiting some | 00:05:24 | |
possible additional expenditures in September. | 00:05:31 | |
And then just kind of as a heads up, at our next meeting next week, June 19th, we will be discussing parklets as well as expanding | 00:05:39 | |
the sidewalk. | 00:05:44 | |
At Fountain and Lighthouse. Have a good meeting. Thank you. | 00:05:50 | |
Thank you. And Mr. Margolin, are you representing the city Attorney's office? That is correct. I'm here as well as with Brian | 00:05:54 | |
Perek is here as well and he will be presenting the first item. We do offer you offer the attorney's office the opportunity to | 00:06:01 | |
make an announcement if you have any. | 00:06:09 | |
I do not have any announcements at this time. I don't know if Brian does as well, but I will. | 00:06:18 | |
Allow him to if he does because I have no announcements tonight. | 00:06:24 | |
Now we're up to general public comment. This is the time when members of the public can talk to us about matters that under the | 00:06:31 | |
purview of the Planning Commission and city related manners. | 00:06:37 | |
These are again matters not on our agenda and we usually we never take any action on this this comment, but we may. | 00:06:43 | |
In the future. So is there anyone in the room who wishes to make a comment now? | 00:06:52 | |
And is there anyone online who wishes to make a comment? Mr. Campbell? We have Lisa Chiani. | 00:06:58 | |
Welcome. | 00:07:06 | |
Thank you. Let's see here. OK, Pacific Rope has had an LCP for four years. Sometimes that LCP works well to protect the amazing | 00:07:07 | |
natural and man made resources of this extraordinarily beautiful and unique place we live. Unfortunately, there are errors that | 00:07:15 | |
haven't been corrected in the four years we've had our LCP. | 00:07:22 | |
Big ones The LC the scenic areas map doesn't recognize. Scenic areas it doesn't recognize. | 00:07:32 | |
The lighthouse reservation and its June restoration or the lighthouse itself. It doesn't recognize the Sylmar Conference grounds | 00:07:39 | |
with the dune restoration there. The scenic native forest recognized in resource Scenic Resource policy SCE 10 or the designated | 00:07:46 | |
historic Julia Morgan and John Warneke architecture. | 00:07:53 | |
The scenic areas map. | 00:08:02 | |
Called Figure 4 only recognizes scenic view areas and scenic viewpoints, and so it recognizes the asylum are Dunes residential | 00:08:06 | |
area as a scenic view area even though. | 00:08:15 | |
Asylum are State Park and the lighthouse reservation on either side of it are not scenic. | 00:08:25 | |
According to the map, the scenic resources policies recognize the retreat as a special community, as the 1989 LUP did as well, | 00:08:33 | |
and. | 00:08:38 | |
That means it needs protecting as a historic and scenic area. | 00:08:46 | |
The result of our very inaccurate and absurd map is that there are no exceptions to CDP exemptions for properties in the retreat, | 00:08:52 | |
as far as I can tell. | 00:08:59 | |
And that applies to the item that was removed from today's agenda. So despite the, uh. | 00:09:08 | |
The errors in the agenda report and the. | 00:09:18 | |
The proposed. | 00:09:23 | |
Extra height and and doubling the size, which will have a negative effect an adverse effect on the historic 1904 house that is on | 00:09:27 | |
the property. This can't be heard by the Planning Commission or or discussed by the public. So I just hoping it's also | 00:09:37 | |
additionally disappointing that the Coastal Commission staff doesn't recognize. | 00:09:47 | |
What scenic, excuse me, what special communities means in the coastal Act itself? And this is all laid out in the in the scenic | 00:09:59 | |
resources section of our LCP. So I, I know I sent off finally a response to coastal staff. | 00:10:08 | |
Umm shortly before your meeting, but if you are interested in learning more about the situation, I. I hope you will read that my | 00:10:18 | |
letter, but I. | 00:10:24 | |
I would ask that staff make it a priority and the Planning Commission make it a priority to correct the scenic resources map. | 00:10:31 | |
And, and, and I hope, I hope something will happen with that. Thank you very much. | 00:10:44 | |
Any further residents or members of the pop-up question to comment have no other hands up online. | 00:10:54 | |
We're just sick here, but I don't see anyone either. | 00:11:02 | |
Let's end general public comment and move to our consent agenda. | 00:11:05 | |
And these are items that we think are non controversial. We usually don't debate them. | 00:11:11 | |
And I was hoping for a motion to approve the consent agenda. | 00:11:17 | |
Mr. Sawyer. | 00:11:22 | |
I make a motion to approve the consent agenda and is there a second I will second? | 00:11:24 | |
And we need A roll call, Mr. Campbell. | 00:11:31 | |
Vice Chair Sawyer, Aye. | 00:11:35 | |
Commissioner Swagger. | 00:11:38 | |
Commissioner Davidson, Aye. | 00:11:41 | |
Commissioner Kubica. | 00:11:43 | |
I chair Murphy, Aye, Commissioner Nadinski. | 00:11:45 | |
We have 6 ayes of one absent of the motion passes and it was Commissioner Vice Chair Sawyer and Commissioner Swagger. Yeah. | 00:11:52 | |
Thank you. | 00:12:00 | |
I know we have one letter pertaining to the housing element item. Did we receive other general public written public comment this | 00:12:02 | |
this month since our last meeting? | 00:12:08 | |
I don't believe that. | 00:12:18 | |
We did we. We received two comment letters today, I believe pertaining to the item that was removed from the agenda and that will | 00:12:19 | |
be uploaded to the the packet I believe tomorrow. | 00:12:24 | |
And then one of those from Mr. Chani, I think he was nervous about us having received them, but we did receive them yesterday or | 00:12:32 | |
the day before. | 00:12:36 | |
Thank you. | 00:12:41 | |
And the consent agenda that we just approved. | 00:12:43 | |
It was our work plan for the year, minutes of our March 14th meeting and minutes of our April 11 meeting. | 00:12:48 | |
Now it's time for the regular agenda and a public hearing. And the first item is Item 8A resolution recommending that the City | 00:12:55 | |
Council adopt A proposed ordinance amending Chapter 2345 of the Municipal Code regarding timeshare projects. And this is not not | 00:13:02 | |
subject to Sequa, and I believe Mr. Perik will. | 00:13:10 | |
Handle this item. Welcome. Thank you very much, Chair. So you have in front of you the agenda report for this item which goes into | 00:13:19 | |
the background regarding Chapter 23.45 of your municipal code. The history on that chapter is that there was a measure B that was | 00:13:29 | |
adopted by the voters at the general election on November 2nd of of 1982. | 00:13:39 | |
And it prohibited, among other things, it prohibited timeshare projects, and that measured B was then codified. | 00:13:51 | |
Into the cities code and it appears now in chapter 23.5 there is a typographical error in the agenda report that makes reference | 00:14:01 | |
to section 2.45020 that should read 23.45 point O2 O and I wish to thank. | 00:14:12 | |
Commissioner Sawyer, for bringing that to my attention, that same correction needs to be made in the resolution. I have advised | 00:14:24 | |
Director Vaughn of the of the need to make that change so it will be changed prior to the execution of the resolution. | 00:14:32 | |
There is one other. | 00:14:41 | |
Comment I'll make about the resolution in a moment, but continuing with the historical background here. So as I mentioned in your | 00:14:44 | |
code in Chapter 23.45, it was enacted in pursuant to Measure B, there is a prohibition of timeshare projects. However, there is no | 00:14:53 | |
definition of what constitutes a timeshare project. So in order to provide that definition. | 00:15:01 | |
It is being there is a proposed ordinance that's included in your packet that would provide that definition. You can see it, it's | 00:15:10 | |
fairly long and I'm not going to read the entire definition, but it does define what a timeshare project would be for purposes of | 00:15:20 | |
chapter 23.45. There's some other changes proposed by this ordinance including adding a section 23.45 O 2/5. | 00:15:30 | |
That would prohibit advertising of timeshare projects, as well as 23.45035 to prohibit assisting with timeshare projects with the | 00:15:41 | |
creation of such projects. | 00:15:47 | |
In terms of the sequel findings, those are set out in the Agenda report. Again, it's fairly lengthy. I'm not going to, in this | 00:15:54 | |
presentation, read the entire findings, but there are four findings that are set forth there. Now, in terms of the resolution | 00:16:02 | |
itself, I've already mentioned one of the modifications that's going to be necessary to correct that type of graphical error and | 00:16:09 | |
another change that needs to be made. | 00:16:17 | |
Is that the resolution itself indicates that? | 00:16:25 | |
It would be a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt A proposed ordinance amending 23.45 S just a slight modification | 00:16:31 | |
to that title such that it would read the A resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Pacific Grove recommend that the | 00:16:39 | |
City Council present a ballot measure to the voters. | 00:16:47 | |
In November N5 of 2024. | 00:16:57 | |
With a proposed ordinance amending chapter 23.45 of the Municipal Code to add a definition of timeshare project and prohibit the | 00:17:02 | |
advertising and sale thereof. So there's that revision to the title, and then the corresponding revision would be necessary to. | 00:17:12 | |
Section. | 00:17:23 | |
Let me look for a moment here. | 00:17:28 | |
Section 2 under the Therefore, at the bottom of the resolution where it says the Commission recommends the City Council adopt the | 00:17:32 | |
proposed ordinance, a similar change to the one that I just mentioned to you would be to recommend that the City Council. | 00:17:41 | |
Present to the voters, by way of a ballot measure, the proposed ordinance to amend Pacific Grove Municipal Code section 23.45 to | 00:17:51 | |
add a definition of timeshare projects and other changes. | 00:17:58 | |
So the one of the findings that is necessary for you to make tonight, the findings are set forth in in in the resolution, | 00:18:07 | |
including the findings that are required by section 23 point 84.060. That's in finding #14 and namely that the proposed amendment | 00:18:17 | |
is consistent with the city's general plan and the certified local coastal program. That's a. | 00:18:27 | |
Be that the proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety and convenience or welfare of the | 00:18:37 | |
city and see that the proposed coordinates is internally consistent with other applicable provisions of the city Municipal code | 00:18:45 | |
and regulations. So for all the reasons set forth in the findings in the resolution, you'll see there's a discussion with respect | 00:18:52 | |
to the city's housing element and also with respect to the local coastal program. | 00:19:00 | |
So all those findings are in the resolution for your consideration this evening. And as I've indicated, the recommended action is | 00:19:08 | |
to adopt the resolution with the changes as I've recited them here in my presentation and I'm available to answer any questions. | 00:19:16 | |
Thank you Mr. Pic. We'll follow our usual protocol and go to the public first for comment before I do that, as planning staff have | 00:19:25 | |
the language suggested by Mr. Perrick. | 00:19:31 | |
I, I, I, I don't believe they, they do in terms of what I said this evening, but I will provide that to them, you know, after the | 00:19:41 | |
meeting and before the resolution signed. | 00:19:46 | |
Thank you. And we and we do have the the edits to the resolution that will be made before those are signed. | 00:19:52 | |
Thank you. It's time to go for public comment. Is anybody in the room who wishes to speak about this item? | 00:20:00 | |
Is there anyone online who wishes to speak about this item? | 00:20:08 | |
Thank you. | 00:20:13 | |
Go ahead, Miss Dahmer. | 00:20:16 | |
Thank you very much, Planning Commission. This was one of those little glitches that we didn't foresee way back when and now needs | 00:20:18 | |
to be cleaned up. And so let's clean it up. And if it takes the ballot measure, then let's do it and get this over with because, | 00:20:26 | |
you know, we don't want Picasso and all this other bit. And this is, you know, we didn't get rid of St. Rs to have this come in on | 00:20:34 | |
us. So thank you very much. | 00:20:42 | |
Move it forward. | 00:20:50 | |
Thank you. | 00:20:53 | |
Mr. Campbell, do you see anyone else? | 00:20:56 | |
I did not see any other hands raised. I don't either. I'm going to wait just a second. | 00:21:01 | |
You know, seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing. It's time for commissioners for questions or or comments. | 00:21:07 | |
Commissioner Swagger. | 00:21:15 | |
Thank you. Chair Murphy, I have a few questions for Mr. Parekh and. | 00:21:18 | |
Probably best to do them one at a time. So my first question is in the definition of the timeshare project. | 00:21:24 | |
In the fourth line it says whereby a purchaser in exchange for consideration. | 00:21:33 | |
Well, first of all, I want to thank Councilmember Colletti and anybody else who had a hand in bringing this to the to the | 00:21:41 | |
Commission. And, and, and I know Mr. Pierrick, your office is probably gone over this with a fine tooth comb and I appreciate your | 00:21:47 | |
work too. | 00:21:52 | |
My my one first question relates to the word purchaser in the fourth line of the definition, section A of the proposed definition. | 00:21:59 | |
I'm just wondering if if using the word purchaser doesn't leave wiggle room for somebody who might say, well, we're not a | 00:22:07 | |
purchaser, we're a, we're a renter or we're a customer or we're a. | 00:22:13 | |
Some other, some other capacity, that's that's my first question. | 00:22:20 | |
Well, there needs to be an acquisition of the property in order for there to be the next step, which would be the use of that | 00:22:26 | |
property as as a timeshare. So without a sale, you know, that's why we have the word purchaser in exchange for consideration and | 00:22:36 | |
that they would receive the right to exclusive use of the property according to a fixed or floating schedule that's. | 00:22:47 | |
Exactly what a timeshare is, and so that's why we need to include that term. | 00:22:57 | |
OK, I'm. | 00:23:05 | |
That I just thought it might be something that could be broadened a little bit, but I'll leave that to you. My second question | 00:23:06 | |
relates to. | 00:23:11 | |
This appears intended to. | 00:23:16 | |
Address the Picasso model. In other words, the fractional interests that are sold I. | 00:23:20 | |
And my quest, my next question relates to whether or not that this definition encompasses a different type of timeshare, like the | 00:23:25 | |
traditional timeshare that we're all familiar with, where you buy a right to stay somewhere, not necessarily at one particular | 00:23:31 | |
location. | 00:23:38 | |
So I'm wondering if if you think that, that this definition would include that model as well, because somebody could argue, well, | 00:23:45 | |
I'm buying into a timeshare that that doesn't meet this definition because I don't necessarily have to stay in Pacific Grove, I'm | 00:23:51 | |
buying an interest that could. | 00:23:57 | |
That would allow me to stay elsewhere. | 00:24:03 | |
And regardless of whether they are coupled with ownership of the real interests such as a freehold interest or an estate in years. | 00:24:45 | |
So that is a very broad definition of what constitutes a timeshare and is within the scope of. | 00:24:52 | |
What would be defined here as a timeshare? | 00:25:00 | |
And it would include fractional ownership, but is not limited to fractional ownerships. | 00:25:03 | |
Yeah, forgive me for thinking like a lawyer, but. | 00:25:09 | |
Looking for the outs. Looking for the wiggle room. | 00:25:14 | |
Then my next question relates to subsection C of the definition. | 00:25:18 | |
Where we're granting the City Council to change the definition in the future by by ordinance without voter approval. | 00:25:24 | |
Why are we doing that? I mean, isn't this the kind of thing that the voters put into place and it shouldn't be changed without | 00:25:35 | |
the. | 00:25:39 | |
Voter approval in the future. The voters did not put into place a definition in Section 23, Chapter 23.45, which is why this one | 00:25:43 | |
is coming forward. And to answer your question, you know, it is possible at some point in the future that there might be some | 00:25:51 | |
other model, if you will, of a timeshare and rather than the, you know, the process of going to the voters every time some new | 00:25:59 | |
kind of timeshare comes up. | 00:26:07 | |
The group. | 00:26:16 | |
The recent subsection C is there is it allows the City Council the ability to address any such change to the definition in the | 00:26:19 | |
future. So it gives you that entirety. | 00:26:25 | |
I talked over you. It's good. | 00:26:34 | |
Wouldn't it also allow a City Council is more favorable to timeshares to change the definition to allow certain arrangements? | 00:26:37 | |
Well, I mean, the City Council is responsible to its constituents, of course. And so presumably the City Council would act in a | 00:26:46 | |
manner that's consistent with the, you know, what the voters believe to be the appropriate direction, if you will, is primarily | 00:26:57 | |
intended, as I said, to deal with circumstances where there is some other permutation of, of a, of a, of an ownership and. | 00:27:07 | |
And whether it would, because of that, potentially become a timeshare, so it would broaden that definition. | 00:27:18 | |
To include that new. | 00:27:27 | |
Pipe at the timeshare. | 00:27:29 | |
And then my final question relates to the draft provision, the ending in 035. The very last section assisting with timeshare | 00:27:33 | |
projects prohibited says no person or entity shall assist any other person or entity in the market. Shouldn't that be marketing? | 00:27:41 | |
Well. | 00:27:51 | |
I think that it is intended to be. | 00:27:54 | |
Consistent with the language that appears earlier, and let me find it here. | 00:28:00 | |
I thought that was how we were phrasing it, and I believe that I picked that up from that earlier. | 00:28:09 | |
That's a minor thing, but I think you should. No, I think this. Just give me a second, I'll see if I can find it. | 00:28:22 | |
And we could change that to marketing, I think, in the context of this. | 00:28:43 | |
Section we could change that to marketing. | 00:28:48 | |
And then another question related to that provision, it says. | 00:28:52 | |
It says you can't. | 00:28:57 | |
Market. | 00:29:00 | |
Or create you can't assist any other person in the marketing creation, use sale or purchase of timeshare project. I mean, if | 00:29:02 | |
somebody comes in and and tries to advertise in Pacific Grove timeshares that are available in Incline Village, obviously they | 00:29:09 | |
wouldn't be they wouldn't be subject to this provision because it's not a timeshare in this town. But so I would recommend adding | 00:29:16 | |
at the end of subsection A. | 00:29:23 | |
Of a timeshare project prohibited by section 2345.020 because that does mention specifically. | 00:29:31 | |
Timeshares in the city. | 00:29:40 | |
Well, the city, the city can't adopt an ordinance that's going to govern conduct outside of the city limits. So that is. | 00:29:44 | |
You know the law, so it would make it, yeah, we could act that language and it would be more clear. But I can say to you that, you | 00:29:53 | |
know, when the city adopts ordinances, it doesn't only apply to the property within the city of the Commission. We can add that. | 00:30:02 | |
And then finally the this section doesn't include. | 00:30:13 | |
The same language in the other in the prior provision that talks about it being a misdemeanor and what the punishment is, do we | 00:30:18 | |
need to include that? | 00:30:22 | |
Any violation of the city's code would be subject to prosecution, so the answer is we don't need to add it here as well. | 00:30:32 | |
But we could, I just noticed it's included in the prior provisions and let's see that. So we could we could add that to 2345035. | 00:30:46 | |
Thank you. That's all I have. | 00:30:58 | |
Thank you, Mr. Swaggart. Other questions or comments? | 00:31:02 | |
Vice Chair Sawyer, I want to thank. | 00:31:07 | |
Mr. Swigert for bringing up that question in 2345.035, because that was going to be my question as well, so thank you. | 00:31:11 | |
I I do have a question, Mr. A couple of questions. Mr. Perrick in the advertising of timeshare projects prohibited. | 00:31:21 | |
Is there any ability under that part of the code for the city to? | 00:31:33 | |
Go after a newspaper or a. | 00:31:38 | |
A website that is advertising. | 00:31:41 | |
Prohibited timeshares. | 00:31:45 | |
Yeah, the answer is yes, if it's if it's advertising. | 00:31:48 | |
And my question specifically is, would you try to hold the newspaper libel for publishing an advertisement that somebody else has | 00:31:53 | |
has provided for it to it? | 00:31:58 | |
Well, they should. They should be aware of the law, and they should obey the law. | 00:32:04 | |
That's my best answer to that. So they're advertising the timeshare when it's prohibited in the city. They shouldn't be doing that | 00:32:10 | |
now. And obviously that doesn't necessarily mean that you know, we're going to be seeking. | 00:32:17 | |
Some kind of a finding that they're in violation of the law immediately. The city has discretion and could certainly. | 00:32:27 | |
Communicate with whoever it is to explain to them the law before you know any action is taken. And that's that's often done. It | 00:32:37 | |
depends on I guess the answer is it depends on the circumstances. But given what I've just said, I think that there would | 00:32:45 | |
certainly be the opportunity for the city to communicate with. | 00:32:53 | |
Whoever that might be. | 00:33:01 | |
I guess to me would be unreasonable for us to expect, you know, advertising people that, you know, the Sacramento Bee, for | 00:33:04 | |
example, to, to be aware of what's, what is and isn't allowed down here. | 00:33:11 | |
And I would be. | 00:33:18 | |
I guess the warning makes sense, but more than. | 00:33:21 | |
More than that, I'd be I wouldn't be happy with. | 00:33:24 | |
And on the definition of timeshare? | 00:33:27 | |
If if a home were owned, you know, separately by family members and they arranged, you know, among each other the the schedule of | 00:33:32 | |
who would, you know, pick pictures of a second home owned by a family? | 00:33:39 | |
And you know, separate, separate owners owning it jointly and arranging a schedule. Who goes, it goes. When would that be covered? | 00:33:48 | |
That would not be a timeshare, but. | 00:33:59 | |
The example you just provided. | 00:34:02 | |
And I'm sorry, why? Why, why not? Well, because there they wouldn't meet our definition. In your hypothetical, if you had family | 00:34:05 | |
members who Co owned property, they have the right to occupy the house, use and occupy the house 365 days a year. If they should | 00:34:13 | |
choose not to amongst themselves. That's you know, on some informal basis they can certainly do that. The language that I read to | 00:34:21 | |
you earlier about. | 00:34:29 | |
The right to use it according to a fixed or floating time schedule. That means that you can use it only on those time periods that | 00:34:37 | |
are specified. Whereas if you have an informal arrangement among family members, that doesn't mean that they. | 00:34:49 | |
Are somehow excluded from use other days of the year. The timeshare is where you've got the right to use on certain specified days | 00:35:01 | |
of the year, and that's your only right. Whereas in your hypothetical, the legal right would still be to use the property 365 days | 00:35:10 | |
a year, regardless of whether you have some informal agreement with your family members. | 00:35:18 | |
I see. Thank. Thank you. I have no further questions, other comments or questions. Commissioner Nozzinski. | 00:35:28 | |
Before I speak, I'm gonna say Andy has his hand up but but but my question is going back to the. | 00:35:37 | |
Chairs Murphy's scenario, what happens if you have not family members, but for individual parties, say, for example, here's night | 00:35:45 | |
and that's my you know, they don't they may or may not even know each other, but they you know, they they share the property, just | 00:35:53 | |
that property owners and they're the ones who only are able to live and use the property. Would that be considered a a timeshare? | 00:36:01 | |
Get the legal right. If they have the legal right to use the property 365 days a year then it's not a timeshare. | 00:36:10 | |
So in your hypothetical for people who are, I mean, I don't know that four people, they don't know each other are going to buy | 00:36:19 | |
property, but I suppose that could happen. So let's say they're four strangers, they buy the property, they have the right to use | 00:36:25 | |
that property. Each of them has that right to use that property 365 days a year. | 00:36:31 | |
Now, if they choose informally amongst themselves to. | 00:36:39 | |
Arrange for them to, you know, use the property at different time periods during the year. They can they can do that. | 00:36:44 | |
But they have the legal right to use it 365 days a year. That's what distinguishes it. | 00:36:52 | |
Commissioner Kubica. | 00:36:59 | |
Thank you, Mr. Pierrick, for your presentation. | 00:37:04 | |
And I was reading this the definition of timeshare, and that struck me about the advertising. | 00:37:07 | |
And I guess I got a little confused because I remembered I thought I had heard at the City Council meeting that there are several | 00:37:13 | |
grandfathered. | 00:37:18 | |
Time shares in the city. | 00:37:24 | |
And I assumed that those would still be and and I thought the response to the council person was that they would not be impacted | 00:37:26 | |
by the resolution because their grandfather. So I didn't understand if you could educate me and and how. | 00:37:34 | |
The wording here doesn't impact them and they could still advertise or they can't advertise and. | 00:37:42 | |
And I haven't been down to. | 00:37:51 | |
The invitation center here that we have, you know, we first come into town, but they have, they had last year at least they had | 00:37:55 | |
two timeshares posted right there on the board there. So if you could explain that, I would greatly appreciate it. | 00:38:02 | |
So the answer is the timeshares that apparently exist in the city are legal non conforming uses. So there would no not be a | 00:38:11 | |
prohibition on advertising those non conforming uses. So I think you raise a good point and we could include language in section. | 00:38:21 | |
2445025 to say that it does not apply to any legal non conforming timeshares. | 00:38:32 | |
Thank you. | 00:38:48 | |
Vice Chair Sawyer. | 00:38:52 | |
I have one more question, Commissioner Swagger, would would staff be able to enlighten us as to the extent of the existing | 00:38:56 | |
timeshares or, Mr. Pyrrhic, the extent of existing timeshares that would be grandfathered in by this provision? | 00:39:03 | |
That would be non conforming uses. | 00:39:10 | |
I'm not sure if I I don't recall from memory their names and I'm not I'm not sure staff may or may not, but I know one person who | 00:39:14 | |
knows at least I believe he knows could identify them and that would be council member Colletti. | 00:39:21 | |
Is Councilmember Colletti. | 00:39:35 | |
Still on board? | 00:39:38 | |
Good evening. Yeah, there are two timeshares that were. | 00:39:41 | |
Permitted under the Council's original ordinance in 1981, which is I believe Ordinance 12/15. I believe that's mentioned in the in | 00:39:46 | |
the agenda report, the two existing timeshares and I don't recall the addresses right now, but one of them is at the. | 00:39:57 | |
Is that the international? | 00:40:09 | |
Where the international restaurant is, I call it the Chili, Great Chili Building. It's where the old Methodist Church used to be | 00:40:12 | |
there at Lighthouse. I believe that's called the Pacific Grove Plaza. | 00:40:17 | |
That building was was built with the expressed intent of establishing timeshares and that actually is what resulted. The building | 00:40:24 | |
of that timeshare is actually what resulted in getting Measure B adopted in 1982. | 00:40:33 | |
There's another timeshare property on Jewel Ave. I believe the address is 1117. | 00:40:42 | |
And I think it's Pine Acres Lodge is the name of that. So those are the two timeshares that currently exist. | 00:40:50 | |
You know how many units are in each of those? Just the. | 00:40:59 | |
The record I would be, I would be here. Let me get my video here. I'd be speculating, but I believe I recall 25 units at the Plaza | 00:41:04 | |
and somewhere around the similar amount at Pine Acres Lodge. And again, those were established prior to Measure B when the Council | 00:41:14 | |
in 1981 had allowed timeshares as a as an allowed use that time period in which timeshares were allowed. | 00:41:25 | |
To be established was very brief. It was maybe a year or so, but those are the two properties. You might say there's 40 to 50 | 00:41:35 | |
rooms total. | 00:41:41 | |
For the two timeshares that currently exists, which are legal amount of conforming as the city attorney has mentioned. Thank you | 00:41:47 | |
very much for for Mr. Council Member Coletti or or Mr. Pierrick, Do you know if we get TOT from those existing timeshares? | 00:41:54 | |
You don't know the answer to that. | 00:42:03 | |
Do you know Council member? | 00:42:06 | |
So this this is very kind of a difficult question to unravel. As part of Measure B back in November 1982, there was a second | 00:42:09 | |
measure, Measure CC as in Charlie, which established an in lieu fee in lieu of collection of TOT. | 00:42:19 | |
The language and that's that's in Chapter 6.11 of our municipal code. So the voters implemented attacks to tax time shares in lieu | 00:42:31 | |
of a TOT. | 00:42:36 | |
The language that exists currently says that timeshare owners will be taxed as well as anyone else who might be using the the | 00:42:43 | |
timeshare. It's very the city has not been collecting that tax as prescribed under 611. At least that's my opinion. | 00:42:52 | |
What has been happening is at least at one of the timeshares. | 00:43:03 | |
They the timeshare owners can also rent the property out effectively like an STR a short term vacation rental and it's only when | 00:43:09 | |
those rentals. | 00:43:15 | |
Are done that the city collects a tax? My understanding is we've collected very little tax in like the last five or six years. | 00:43:22 | |
Our former administrative services director said somewhere on the order of $70,000 in the last six or seven years. | 00:43:32 | |
So it's a very small tax and again, I don't believe we are taxing per the provisions of Chapter 6.11, the actual owners of the | 00:43:40 | |
timeshare. | 00:43:46 | |
That that needs to be looked into. That's a separate issue and we at our last council, maybe we gave direction on that. So thank | 00:43:53 | |
you very much. | 00:43:58 | |
I didn't mean to. | 00:44:02 | |
Go off in a different direction. Any further discussion? Are we ready for a motion from the Commission? | 00:44:04 | |
Thank you Mr. Chair, I didn't mean to interrupt but I did notice in in looking over section 2345025 on the advertising the | 00:44:12 | |
question was asked about whether that applied to existing timeshares. Subsection D like dog of that ordinance as proposed would | 00:44:21 | |
read that the reads the prohibition of advertising timeshare projects does not apply to any lawful timeshare project established | 00:44:30 | |
prior to the codification of Measure B in chapter 23.45 of the city Municipal code so that. | 00:44:38 | |
Language is already in the. | 00:44:48 | |
Ordinance. | 00:44:50 | |
Yes, thank you. Thank you, Vice Chair Sawyer. | 00:44:51 | |
This is just sort of an empirical question for Mr. Parekh. And thank you for all the work that you did. This is a kind of a thorny | 00:44:56 | |
question. How do you want us to approach the resolution with all the changes? Do you want us just to say as amended or does it | 00:45:04 | |
need to come back to us again? Which doesn't seem to make a lot of sense, But what, what's your pleasure? Well, I, I would say | 00:45:12 | |
that I've given the proposed changes here. | 00:45:20 | |
There weren't. There was just a few words here and there. And so I can work with staff and you know, we've got the record of the | 00:45:28 | |
meeting. I believe that we can make those changes and present the resolution for signature. I don't believe we need to come back | 00:45:34 | |
unless, unless somebody asks questions about the changes. | 00:45:40 | |
That, that, that makes sense to me also, yeah. | 00:45:47 | |
Are we ready for a motion? | 00:45:51 | |
I will make the motion that we approve the resolution as revised. | 00:45:54 | |
Would you add to the findings to that in the sequa? Oh yes, and the sequel findings and all of the other findings contained. | 00:45:59 | |
In the resolution. Thank you. | 00:46:07 | |
Is there a second vice chair, Sawyer? | 00:46:09 | |
I second the motion. | 00:46:13 | |
Mr. Campbell, could we have a roll call vote, please? Yes, Sir. | 00:46:15 | |
Commissioner. | 00:46:19 | |
Aye Vice Chair Sawyer. Aye, Commissioner Davison. AYE Chair Murphy, AYE, Commissioner Kubica. | 00:46:21 | |
Commissioner Niezinski, Aye. | 00:46:32 | |
With six eyes 0 nays 1 absent, the motion that was made by Commissioner Swaggart, seconded by Vice Chair Sawyer, passes. | 00:46:34 | |
Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Pierk. We're now on to Item 8 and Item 9A Housing element update consideration of alternative | 00:46:48 | |
sites and methods in lieu of the three unclassified sites in order to achieve the city's regional housing needs assessment arena | 00:46:55 | |
requirements. | 00:47:03 | |
And I think that's all I. | 00:47:13 | |
All I have to say. | 00:47:17 | |
And I think the process we're going to follow, we're going to have a presentation from staff, a presentation. | 00:47:19 | |
From Rincon, we're going to the public, both the public in the room and the virtual, virtual public. At that point, I'll give | 00:47:27 | |
staff and Rincon an opportunity to answer questions from the public. Not to comment on comments from the public, not to take issue | 00:47:35 | |
with the public, what the public has said, but simply to answer questions posed by the public. If, if they wish, then it'll come | 00:47:42 | |
back to, to us. I think maybe 2-2 phases for US1. | 00:47:50 | |
Sort of high level questions if we have any. | 00:47:59 | |
And then starting a discussion. | 00:48:02 | |
Sort of option, option by option. | 00:48:06 | |
And I'm hoping as we go option by option for each option. | 00:48:09 | |
We can reach a consensus and that might be too much to hope for, but that's that's my goal. And we'll move through all of the | 00:48:15 | |
options and not formal votes, but with consensus and at that point somebody on staff who's been all of Rincon who's been keeping | 00:48:21 | |
close. | 00:48:27 | |
Paying close attention should know what numbers we've come up with or what numbers it seems we're going to come up with. | 00:48:34 | |
And if we're short, we might go back and try again. If we're over, we also also have an opportunity to go back and and take some | 00:48:39 | |
off if if we wish. | 00:48:45 | |
Does that does that make sense to all of you? | 00:48:52 | |
Great Director Vaughn. | 00:48:55 | |
Thank you, Chair Murphy and Commissioners. So before I get started with my presentation, I just want to reiterate for the Rincon | 00:48:59 | |
consulting team the the process that we're going to take tonight is a little bit different than we had discussed earlier today. So | 00:49:07 | |
I will go through my presentation and then the Rincon team will go through their full presentation before we go to public comment | 00:49:14 | |
and then back to the Commission for discussion. | 00:49:21 | |
And if you'll bear with us just a moment, we're trying to get the presentation up. | 00:50:08 | |
Thank you for bearing with me on this. So, as you noted, we're here this evening to consider some changes to the housing element. | 00:50:48 | |
Specifically, sites and methods to achieve our arena allocation numbers. | 00:50:57 | |
And there there is a much more extensive background on this process that has been ongoing for probably a year and a half, two | 00:51:05 | |
years. For purposes of tonight's meeting, I'm not going to go through the whole background because it's not pertinent to the | 00:51:11 | |
discussion this evening. | 00:51:17 | |
Starting with last fall, the Planning Commission and the City Council reviewed the draft housing element. | 00:51:25 | |
And that was the full policy document that included the needs and constraints analysis, arena allocations and a proposed site | 00:51:33 | |
inventory and various policies and programs. And that draft housing element was submitted to the California Department of Housing | 00:51:42 | |
and Community Development, otherwise known as HCD for review. And on January 31st of this year, we received our formal comment | 00:51:50 | |
letter from HCD. And once we received that comment letter, staff and Rincon then have been working. | 00:51:59 | |
To address the comments that were included by HCD. | 00:52:08 | |
In the comment letter, among other things, HCD asked for clarification on how the city would achieve the rezoning required of the | 00:52:15 | |
three proposed housing sites that are currently zoned unclassified. The unclassified zoning district does not allow residential | 00:52:22 | |
uses and requires a vote of the people to rezone. | 00:52:28 | |
So on February 21st, 2024, staff went back to the City Council seeking direction on how to proceed with the three unclassified | 00:52:36 | |
sites. | 00:52:40 | |
And the City Council's direction to staff was to seek alternative options, be it sites or methods, in order to meet the arena | 00:52:45 | |
requirements without having to use those 3 unclassified sites. | 00:52:52 | |
The HCD comment letter also asked about constraints on sites that contain historic resources. | 00:53:02 | |
So staff reviewed the list of all of the housing element sites that contain historic resources and we are recommending that we | 00:53:09 | |
remove three of the sites altogether and then move others into the office conversion category, which would allow for interior | 00:53:17 | |
remodels and only minor exterior changes that would not impact the historic integrity or ability to retain their historic status. | 00:53:26 | |
The next two slides are are the tables and numbers that are most relevant to the discussion this evening. First is ARENA or a | 00:53:39 | |
regional housing needs assessment. Pacific Grove was allocated 1125 total housing units for which we need to demonstrate capacity. | 00:53:48 | |
This means we need to have sites that are zoned to allow the units or that we can achieve the units in some other some other way. | 00:53:59 | |
The 1125 units are broken into income based buckets to ensure that the city adequately accommodates housing for low income | 00:54:07 | |
families. | 00:54:12 | |
So in the the table that I have on the screen right now, the arena column, these are the numbers that were allocated to the city | 00:54:19 | |
of Pacific Grove. | 00:54:23 | |
The city receives credits for approved housing projects as well as project projected Adu production based on past trends. So we | 00:54:29 | |
actually get some credits against our arena allocation which. | 00:54:37 | |
We're able to take 228 units off of our arena allocation by utilizing those credits that HCD allows. | 00:54:46 | |
In the third column you see the buffer and the state has instituted a rule called no net loss for housing and that means if a | 00:54:57 | |
housing site. | 00:55:02 | |
Eventually develops with less units than we had projected, we need to make sure that we have capacity on other sites in the city | 00:55:09 | |
to make up for that loss, and so that's the reason why HCD requires us to include buffers. | 00:55:16 | |
One thing that has changed since the draft housing element that you saw. | 00:55:24 | |
Is that in working with HCD we learned that we could apply the the buffers after the credits have been removed, so it actually | 00:55:31 | |
reduces our buffer numbers a bit. | 00:55:36 | |
And then in the final column is the remaining arena. So this is our arena number. | 00:55:43 | |
Minus the credits plus the buffers, and that gets us to. | 00:55:49 | |
The total amount of units and in the income categories that we need to accommodate in the housing element. So while I know we talk | 00:55:56 | |
a lot about that 1125 unit number, the arena allocation. | 00:56:03 | |
Given the credits that were allowed to utilize and then the buffer we need to add, our total number that we need to accommodate is | 00:56:11 | |
1006 housing units. | 00:56:16 | |
On this slide, we see the arena allocation in the first row that we just discussed. In the 2nd row are the arena minus the credits | 00:56:28 | |
plus the buffer, which gets us to the 1006 number. | 00:56:36 | |
And then the third row is the current housing sites inventory after we've removed the unclassified sites and the historic sites. | 00:56:46 | |
And then that leaves us on the bottom row with the numbers that we're discussing tonight. So this is the shortfall that we are | 00:56:56 | |
looking at with the removal of the unclassified and the historic sites, a total of 365 units. But we also have to make sure that | 00:57:03 | |
we meet the minimum numbers in each of the income categories. | 00:57:10 | |
So since February, when we received direction from the council, staff and Rincon have been working to identify new sites. | 00:57:23 | |
As well as methods to recoup the units that would be lost with the removal of the unclassified and historic sites. | 00:57:32 | |
We worked to develop an array of options for the Commission to consider and ultimately forward to the City Council. | 00:57:39 | |
And the options that we provided to you equal well above 365 units, and I want to make sure that the Commission and the public | 00:57:47 | |
understands that that was intentional on our part. | 00:57:54 | |
We wanted to provide you with some flexibility to to. | 00:58:02 | |
Plug and play with the options to see how the numbers add up so that there if there are some options that are unpalatable, we may | 00:58:07 | |
have the ability to remove those and work with the other options, but we wanted to give you some flexibility. | 00:58:15 | |
And I do need to note here that regarding option 7. | 00:58:26 | |
Staff became aware of a 1978 ordinance that was adopted by the City Council based on a citizen initiative. | 00:58:32 | |
To down zone the 1st edition and part of the 4th edition neighborhood from R3A to R2. And because the current R2 zoning was set at | 00:58:41 | |
the behest of a citizen initiative, it can only be changed by a vote of the people. So for this reason, we do need to remove | 00:58:48 | |
option 7 from consideration this evening. And for anybody that we have here in chambers or online watching that may have received | 00:58:56 | |
one of the letters that we sent out. | 00:59:03 | |
I want to make very clear that option 7 to rezone the 1st edition and 4th edition neighborhood will not be discussed or considered | 00:59:11 | |
further by the Planning Commission or the City Council. | 00:59:17 | |
And finally, I just wanted to provide a little bit of context about the overall housing element process. | 00:59:26 | |
First of all, it's it's a state mandated planning exercise to ensure that the city can accommodate its fair share of existing | 00:59:33 | |
housing needs as well as projected growth, including affordable housing. | 00:59:40 | |
This is required of every jurisdiction within the state of California and it's required every eight years, and the intent is to | 00:59:48 | |
reduce or remove regulatory barriers to the creation of housing. | 00:59:54 | |
There is no requirement on the part of the city or any property owner to actually physically construct housing units on their | 01:00:04 | |
properties. So this this is an exercise to ensure that we can accommodate the arena capacities that were allocated to us. But it's | 01:00:11 | |
not required that any any person or owner of a property, whether they're placed on the housing sites inventory or whether their | 01:00:18 | |
properties are up zoned. | 01:00:25 | |
Or rezone. There is no requirement for the property owners to do anything to to make the housing physically construct the housing | 01:00:32 | |
on the sites. I want to make that very clear. | 01:00:38 | |
The city will be required to carry out the programs identified in the housing element, and we provide an annual report to the | 01:00:46 | |
state on how we're implementing the programs and meeting our housing numbers. | 01:00:52 | |
And additionally, the City Council has set goals around affordable housing and will continue to look for opportunities to bring | 01:00:59 | |
affordable housing options to Pacific Grove. | 01:01:04 | |
So with that, I'm going to turn the presentation over to Rincon and their staff will go through their full presentation before we | 01:01:09 | |
go to public comment. Thank you. Thank you very much, Director Vaughn. | 01:01:15 | |
Hello, Chair Murphy and Commissioners, can you hear me OK? Yes. | 01:01:23 | |
Great. Good to hear. Be here with you all again. I think it's been about a year since I was in front of you with the full draft | 01:01:27 | |
housing element. Let me share my screen. | 01:01:33 | |
All right. Can you see my screen OK? | 01:01:40 | |
All right. | 01:01:46 | |
Like Karen mentioned, we're focused this evening on specifically the site inventory component of the housing element. Some of my | 01:01:48 | |
introductory slides will will be some repeat information, but I think that will be important cause a lot of this is kind of | 01:01:53 | |
technical and. | 01:01:58 | |
Convoluted. | 01:02:04 | |
So let me move forward to the agenda for my presentation in this evening. So I'll go over again in a little bit more detail the | 01:02:06 | |
changes that have occurred since the last time you've seen the housing element, specifically the site inventory. I'll go over some | 01:02:13 | |
big picture options that we can look for in order to make up for those changes that the state has approved and and looks at. And | 01:02:20 | |
then I'll go over some of the requirements that the state needs to consider that we need to consider. | 01:02:28 | |
Directed by the state for identifying sites specifically for lower income units. And then I'll dive into some of the specific | 01:02:36 | |
strategies that we are recommending the menu of options like Karen said and then we'll open it up to to public comment. | 01:02:43 | |
So stepping back big picture, like Karen has mentioned, local governments every eight years are given a number of of units of | 01:02:53 | |
regional housing need allocation which is divided into different income level buckets. Jurisdictions need to to plan for these and | 01:03:00 | |
one way local governments are required to demonstrate that they can accommodate their housing allocation is through an inventory | 01:03:07 | |
of available sites, which is what the site inventory is. | 01:03:15 | |
So in the draft site inventory that you saw last and the one that we did send over to the state for the review, there were three | 01:03:24 | |
sites zoned unclassified that are shown here on the table. | 01:03:29 | |
The first one in the top column. 417 Hillcrest with the Calam site. | 01:03:36 | |
1004 David Ave. was the Monterey Bay Charter School and then finally there was the adult education. I believe it was center or | 01:03:41 | |
maybe school. | 01:03:45 | |
So these sites, as part of the initial draft housing element, were proposed to change their zone from unclassified to residential. | 01:03:50 | |
And like Karen mentioned, this would have required an initiative from the voters. So on February 21st, City Council directed staff | 01:03:57 | |
to find alternative sites to make up these units. | 01:04:03 | |
You'll notice here on the table these these sites are all pretty large, one of them 15 acres. So because of that, there were a | 01:04:10 | |
pretty high number of units attributed to these three sites. | 01:04:15 | |
So by removing them from the inventory, we lost about 497 units, including 224 very low and low income units from the initial site | 01:04:21 | |
inventory. | 01:04:27 | |
And then like Karen mentioned, the state also commented on potential constraints from historic resources. So staff went through | 01:04:35 | |
and reviews, reviewed sites with historic resources that were existing and made some updates to the inventory. This included | 01:04:43 | |
removing two sites and part of one site from the inventory completely and then reallocating units on four sites to the office | 01:04:50 | |
conversion. So in the office conversions piece of the housing element, we assume only internal conversions. | 01:04:58 | |
So this would avoid impacts to those historic resources. So from those changes related to historic sites, we lost about 19 units | 01:05:06 | |
in total. And because some of the state requirements related to lower income units, we had to reallocate the lower income units to | 01:05:13 | |
above moderate. We lost about 34 lower income units with those changes as well. | 01:05:21 | |
So this was that final table that Karen showed. It kind of shows where where we're at now and and where we need to go. Like Karen | 01:05:31 | |
mentioned, 1125 units, the city's arena allocation. | 01:05:37 | |
Like like she also mentioned, we're allowed to take out credits. So pending projects, the city has one project I believe we can | 01:05:45 | |
count 10, about 10 units for and then accessory dwelling unit trends. So after taking those out and adding that 20% buffer. | 01:05:53 | |
We were left with 1006 units. We're proposing a 20% buffer currently and that's what we proposed in the initial draft housing | 01:06:01 | |
element that was sent to the state. HCD recommends a 15 to 30% buffer, but we feel that 20% would allow enough flexibility for the | 01:06:09 | |
city over the next eight years, the next eight years over the planning period. | 01:06:17 | |
So the current inventory after taking out those unclassified sites and after moving some units around from historic resources, | 01:06:26 | |
about 641 units including 288 lower income. So the difference there is kind of where where we're focused on this evening trying to | 01:06:34 | |
track down enough options to find sites for 365 units. Of those 269 are lower income and I'm highlighting that because I'll go | 01:06:42 | |
over in a couple slides all of the factors we need to consider when. | 01:06:50 | |
Identifying sites specifically for lower income. | 01:07:00 | |
Because most most of the sites remaining are in the lower income unit category. | 01:07:03 | |
So I'm going to go over some of the big picture strategies that we looked at to to make up for these changes. And then like I | 01:07:11 | |
said, some of the lower income unit requirements from the state. So how can how can we find sites or options for 365 units? So | 01:07:19 | |
first we can take a look at the existing inventory and are there any sites in the inventory where maybe we can increase the unit | 01:07:27 | |
numbers on them? Maybe we were a bit too conservative in the initial draft and we can. | 01:07:34 | |
Change the capacity assumptions and gain units in that way. | 01:07:42 | |
Maybe there are some zoning standards that are existing that would be considered a constraint to housing, where if we update that | 01:07:47 | |
standard we can gain units either from existing sites or from other sites in the city. | 01:07:53 | |
We can look for parcels or areas in the city to be rezoned to either allow housing or allow that at a higher density. | 01:08:01 | |
And then maybe we missed some available sites in the initial draft. Maybe there's some vacant sites or sites that were feasible | 01:08:09 | |
for redevelopment with housing that we didn't include in the initial inventory that we could now include in this updated version. | 01:08:17 | |
So when applying these strategies specifically for looking at new sites and areas to be rezoned, we need to consider a number of | 01:08:28 | |
factors. Specifically when looking for lower income units, like I mentioned, there's 269 lower income units. We need to track down | 01:08:34 | |
a majority of of the remaining units. | 01:08:41 | |
So these sites for lower income, they need to be over half an acre or less than 10 acres. And then you need to have a a density | 01:08:48 | |
that allows housing at least at 20 units an acre. So under the city's existing zoning designation and zoning district, this 20 | 01:08:55 | |
units an acre really would only apply in the R3 zoning district and some commercial zoning districts. So that really constrains | 01:09:03 | |
where we can identify sites to meet that 20 units an acre requirement. That's not to say that affordable housing can't be built | 01:09:10 | |
outside of these these districts. | 01:09:17 | |
But this is just a state density requirement for specifically for the site inventory. | 01:09:24 | |
Most of the city is in a high resource area, but we also we want to make sure we're not concentrating lower income units in one | 01:09:31 | |
specific area of the city or in an area that might have fair housing issues. | 01:09:37 | |
And then related to the parcel sizes, the city has a fair amount of parcels and a lot of cities have this issue as well, parcels | 01:09:45 | |
that are under half an acre. So in order to meet that half an acre size requirement, we need to assume that some sites would have | 01:09:52 | |
a few parcels that would be consolidated into one into one development. So in order to make some of these assumptions, the state | 01:10:00 | |
wants to have certain conditions apply. So we need to have some type of analysis done. | 01:10:08 | |
This usually includes looking at existing trends in the city. | 01:10:15 | |
Seeing if there's a common ownership on these parcels. Maybe the parcels were developed previously together? | 01:10:20 | |
Is there a common access way or other factors to show that those consolidation is feasible? | 01:10:28 | |
So the existing inventory already took all of these, all of these factors into account when they were looking at 4 sites | 01:10:36 | |
specifically the factor related to the density requirement. So the current inventory already searched through most of the R3 and | 01:10:44 | |
commercial districts for those available sites to meet that density requirement. So therefore, in order to meet that, this 269 | 01:10:53 | |
unit number, there likely will need to be some zone rezoning or changes to the zoning code in order to accommodate specifically. | 01:11:01 | |
These lower income units. | 01:11:10 | |
So now I'm going to jump into some of the options that we have identified in order to accommodate the remaining need. We tried to | 01:11:15 | |
identify options that meet these state requirements, but also limits impacts to existing neighborhoods as much as possible. And | 01:11:23 | |
then I did want to reiterate what Karen said. Including a site in the inventory doesn't require property owner to do anything. It | 01:11:30 | |
simply demonstrates to the state that the city has sufficient areas. | 01:11:38 | |
In the city to accommodate its regional housing need. | 01:11:45 | |
With that, the first option that we proposed is to change the capacity assumptions on existing sites in the inventory within the | 01:11:51 | |
Forest Hill commercial district. The sites are shown here on the map. The inventory currently assumes 50% of its allowed density. | 01:12:01 | |
So we're proposing increasing this capacity to 70%. This would be consistent with assumptions used within the downtown and central | 01:12:13 | |
early districts as well as other sites within the inventory. | 01:12:19 | |
We would gain 109 units, including 48 lower income units. | 01:12:27 | |
So the. | 01:12:34 | |
The minus of units in the moderate income bucket is because we we did shift units around because ultimately our goal here is to | 01:12:35 | |
try and identify sites for lower income because that's where the majority of the the remaining need is. So with this option, we | 01:12:43 | |
would gain 109 units. That's on top of what these sites already have attributed to them in the existing inventory. | 01:12:51 | |
So the second option we identified as updates to the zoning development standards for C1C2 and industrial zones. | 01:13:02 | |
So this map here shows the location of those parcels in the city. | 01:13:12 | |
As you'll note, a lot of these parcels are within existing commercial districts or along Sunset Dr. There's a few parcels spread | 01:13:18 | |
out here and there, but for the most part those are the the main locations these these sites are located. | 01:13:25 | |
So currently the density on in these zones are is based on the density of the nearest residential parcel up to 30 units an acre. | 01:13:35 | |
So if one of these sites is adjacent to a site with a medium density residential land use that allows 8.7 units an acre, this site | 01:13:42 | |
would allow only allow 8.7 units an acre. So we're proposing to remove this requirement and simply allow 30 units an acre within | 01:13:50 | |
the zoning districts. | 01:13:58 | |
Some reasoning behind that, like I mentioned, a lot of these sites are an existing commercial district, so it would support | 01:14:07 | |
mixed-use, smart growth development. | 01:14:12 | |
Most of these commercial districts are adjacent to existing multifamily neighborhoods, and the sites along Sunset Ave. are on the | 01:14:17 | |
opposite side of the street from existing neighborhoods. And then this strategy would promote housing throughout the city, it | 01:14:24 | |
wouldn't concentrate it in one specific location. | 01:14:30 | |
So by implementing this option of removing that density provision, we would be able to accommodate 55 units on existing sites. So | 01:14:41 | |
if you look at this table, the first two rows are existing sites within the inventory. So 55 units on existing sites including | 01:14:51 | |
about looks like 68 lower income units. And again that's because we're reallocating existing units on those sites to lower income. | 01:15:01 | |
In addition, as I'll go over later in the presentation, we also identified new sites to add to the inventory that also have C1C2 | 01:15:12 | |
and industrial zoning district designations. So with those new sites, we would also be able to gain 118 units. | 01:15:21 | |
So overall about 139 lower income units from implementation of this option. So I will note that without this option it might be | 01:15:32 | |
pretty difficult to meet some of those lower income unit requirements. The like I mentioned 269 lower income units, that's the | 01:15:41 | |
number we're we're aiming for. So this option itself has 139 potential lower income units attributed to it. | 01:15:51 | |
OK. Then next I'll go over some proposed areas we've identified for rezoning. We tried to identify, like I said, strategic areas | 01:16:08 | |
that met all of those state requirements readily and that were the most feasible. | 01:16:16 | |
So this first option is the area of in the city. | 01:16:25 | |
Bordered by Dennett St. Sinix Ave. and it's actually bordered by Grove Acre Ave. not 17 mile drive. | 01:16:30 | |
The area currently has an existing zoning designation of R2 with the land use designation of median, I'm sorry, low density | 01:16:39 | |
residential, 8.7 units an acre. So we're proposing to change the zoning and land use in this area to R3. | 01:16:49 | |
High density residential, 29 units an acre which would allow for apartments and condos type housing uses. | 01:16:59 | |
So this area is next to existing apartment and multifamily housing as well as adjacent to existing R3 zoning districts, I believe | 01:17:12 | |
the R3 M district. | 01:17:18 | |
In addition, I'll go back to the previous slide. As you can see, the parcel sizes in this area are pretty large and so those meet | 01:17:24 | |
those lower income size requirements and would be considered financially feasible for for lower income units. | 01:17:32 | |
So with this rezone we could add at least 58 units, including 38. | 01:17:40 | |
37 lower income units. | 01:17:46 | |
Another rezoning options is just South of what I just spoke on. It's between Sinox Ave. and Sunset Drive, just across the street | 01:17:54 | |
from some of those industrial and commercial parcels on Sunset shown here. | 01:18:02 | |
So the area is currently zoned R1B3. It has a low density residential land use that allows housing at 4.4 units an acre. | 01:18:11 | |
We're proposing increasing changing the zoning to R3. | 01:18:21 | |
With a high density residential. | 01:18:26 | |
21.8 units an acre density. So this would this is less than the 29 units an acre previously discussed in the last option. | 01:18:28 | |
Similarly, this area is near existing multifamily housing which is 1 some of the reasoning for identifying this area for rezoning. | 01:18:40 | |
It's a Long Sunset Dr. collector roadway which would help with any potential traffic issues associated with with more housing in | 01:18:46 | |
the area. | 01:18:52 | |
Similar to the previous option, as you'll see this area also has large parcel sizes which meets those state requirements for lower | 01:19:00 | |
income. | 01:19:04 | |
With this option, we could add at least 46 additional housing units to the site inventory, including 34 lower income units. | 01:19:11 | |
Another rezoning option we're proposing is the single family neighborhood adjacent to the Forest Hill commercial district. | 01:19:24 | |
This area has an existing R1 zoning district and it has a medium density residential 7.0 units an acre density. | 01:19:32 | |
We're proposing to change the zoning to R3 with the high density residential land use, 29 units an acre. | 01:19:45 | |
Some of the reasoning behind identifying this as an option allowing multifamily adjacent to to retail would provide, you know, a | 01:19:54 | |
multifamily housing adjacent to services and retail is a long planning best practice. It would provide for a transition from these | 01:20:04 | |
commercial districts into the neighborhoods similar to across from Forest Ave. there's existing apartments. | 01:20:14 | |
Developments just adjacent to this Forest Hill commercial district. | 01:20:24 | |
Including this option in the inventory would allow at least 41 units, including 21 lower and 10 moderate income units. | 01:20:29 | |
Another option is to rezone an existing site in the inventory. This site is, like I said, already in the inventory. It's the | 01:20:44 | |
current uses First United Methodist Church. | 01:20:50 | |
Currently the zoning is R2 with the medium density residential land use that that allows housing at 17.4 units an acre. We're | 01:20:56 | |
proposing changing this the zoning to R3 with a high density residential land use, 29 units an acre. | 01:21:05 | |
Similar to the sites along Sunset previously talked about, this is along Sunset Dr. which is the collector Rd. wave to allow for | 01:21:18 | |
traffic movement. There's existing multi family uses across the street and this the site is adjacent to commercial uses to the | 01:21:25 | |
east and the site also meets the size requirements which would allow for flexibility in housing design and meets those lower | 01:21:32 | |
income unit requirements. | 01:21:40 | |
So with the proposed rezoning on this option, the site could add 47 units, including 40 lower income units. And this is this is | 01:21:48 | |
because this is an existing site in the inventory, so this would be 47 units on top of what's already allocated in the inventory | 01:21:54 | |
to it. | 01:21:59 | |
As another way, like I mentioned previously to make up units in the inventory, we can see if we missed maybe some sites that could | 01:22:09 | |
be considered feasible to include in the inventory under existing zoning regulations. | 01:22:16 | |
So these sites were either vacant that we've we've identified or non vacant, but we're could be considered feasible for | 01:22:25 | |
redevelopment due to various factors that the state likes us to to look at and that those factors could include. | 01:22:32 | |
Older structures sites not meeting their full build out potential if the land value is greater than the improvement value. This | 01:22:40 | |
this would incentivize redevelopment in some cases. | 01:22:46 | |
If there's underutilized spaces on the property and also based on community feedback, the state does consider if if the community | 01:22:52 | |
thinks a site is feasible for housing, the state state does take that into consideration when adding non vacant sites. | 01:23:00 | |
So these new sites that we've included in some of these options are shown on the map. | 01:23:08 | |
Again, we're not proposing to change the zone on these sites. These are just new sites that would we would be adding to the | 01:23:15 | |
inventory. | 01:23:18 | |
So this is a list of the sites. During discussions, I have slides for each of these individual sites so we can take a closer look | 01:23:25 | |
at them. And then I think staff can also pull up Google Earth if we want to look around at them further. | 01:23:32 | |
I'll note that the first two sites were previously discussed during the previous housing element as backup sites. This is the | 01:23:41 | |
Country Club, Gateway Shopping Centre and and the Mission Linen site. | 01:23:46 | |
I will note that like I mentioned previously, there are four sites here, new sites that have C1C2 or industrial zoning | 01:23:54 | |
designations. So if you recall the second option that I talked about. | 01:24:01 | |
Revising the density requirements in those districts. The numbers associated that you see here on the table assume that that | 01:24:10 | |
option has moved forward. So if during the deliberations that option is taken off the list, the units associated with these sites | 01:24:17 | |
here would be reduced pretty drastically and a lot of the lower income units would be having to be reallocated because they no | 01:24:25 | |
longer would be meeting the density requirement. | 01:24:33 | |
But overall for for these new new potential sites, there are 202 units we could add to the inventory, including 90 lower income. | 01:24:42 | |
I know that was a lot that I just went through. So the next slide I have a summary table that shows all of those potential options | 01:24:56 | |
that I just went over, including all the units associated with them. | 01:25:02 | |
I believe there was one other option that we have as another potential site, but we'll need to have to have some recusals. So I | 01:25:09 | |
think this is where we will open it up to, to public comments and questions. And again, I'm happy to go back to any slides here | 01:25:15 | |
and we do have slides at the end of this PowerPoint that are specific to each of these potential new sites if we wanted to look at | 01:25:22 | |
them closer. | 01:25:28 | |
Dude, thank you very much, Mr. Russell, Director Vaughn, does it make sense for me to recuse myself now? | 01:25:36 | |
I I was going. | 01:25:45 | |
I was going to ask the same question if if the the rest of the Commission would like to see the one remaining site now that you've | 01:25:48 | |
seen the full presentation. We do have Chair Murphy needs to recuse just for that one site. And it makes sense to me to do it. I | 01:25:55 | |
think so. And I'm recusing because I live close to it, you know, within five, 500 feet in. | 01:26:03 | |
Please don't hesitate to bring me back. | 01:26:12 | |
I. | 01:26:16 | |
So Ryan, if you can hold for just a moment and then we'll let you know when we're ready. | 01:26:22 | |
OK. You can go ahead, Ryan. | 01:26:32 | |
OK, sounds good. So this is similar to those other potential sites that I just talked about. This is a site with existing zoning. | 01:26:34 | |
We're not proposing changing the zoning at all. This is just an existing site that we can consider feasible for housing I. | 01:26:42 | |
It's nearby commercial uses in an existing multifamily neighborhood. Its land value is higher than the improvement value, which | 01:26:51 | |
would lend to some incentives to redevelop this site with with more housing. | 01:26:58 | |
Only 6 units we couldn't assume for this this site, but again, each each potential option is everything adds up so. | 01:27:06 | |
This would be so. | 01:27:17 | |
I think that was all I had to speak on for this site. So I don't know if do we need to deliberate now on this specific site or can | 01:27:18 | |
we discuss as a as a group once it comes back in? | 01:27:25 | |
Yeah. So I think we'll pause here and bring the chair back in and then I think move over into public comment. | 01:27:34 | |
OK. | 01:27:44 | |
Started to say I was hoping to be gone longer. | 01:27:57 | |
Apologies. | 01:28:01 | |
As Director Vaughn said, it's time for public comment on this topic. See if there's anyone in the room who would like to. | 01:28:03 | |
Speak to us this this would be a good time. | 01:28:10 | |
Seeing no one right now. If we could go to. | 01:28:16 | |
Virtual comments. | 01:28:20 | |
We have Lisa Chiani. | 01:28:27 | |
Thank you I I appreciate the very clear presentations by both. | 01:28:32 | |
Director Vaughn and and Ryan. | 01:28:40 | |
And I did not have time to check out all of these sites and my major consideration, but I I I really appreciate the the approach | 01:28:44 | |
and. | 01:28:50 | |
And, and the decisions that have been made already to to sort of sort this out all out my, my. | 01:28:59 | |
Questions are about the two sites on Lighthouse 617 and 701, because I know that's. | 01:29:09 | |
Between Del Monte and and downtown, but I I can't place those sites. I guess they're actually both on the South side of the | 01:29:18 | |
street. So if if there can be more. | 01:29:25 | |
Explanation of those I'd appreciate it because. | 01:29:34 | |
Lighthouses. | 01:29:38 | |
It has it has multifamily out especially let's see close between. | 01:29:41 | |
Well, especially close to to Del Monte and West of there. | 01:29:50 | |
There, but but it's a really special St. too historically and and aesthetically and and so I just would would like to hear more. | 01:29:55 | |
But thank you very much for these very clear presentations. Thank you. | 01:30:04 | |
Thank you. | 01:30:18 | |
Have Shannon. | 01:30:20 | |
Shannon, you may. Yeah, we're ready for you, Shannon, if you're ready. | 01:30:29 | |
Perhaps sure if you'd like to come back, we can go to the next are the directions we can quickly give over the to how to how to | 01:30:48 | |
unmute. | 01:30:51 | |
Oh hi, so sorry I had a question about. | 01:30:58 | |
So I got one of the letters that said that my property has been rezoned to allow for more housing to be built and I'm just | 01:31:04 | |
wondering about we have this huge oak tree. | 01:31:10 | |
That we would need to get removed at least partially. And I know that the city is so stringent about even the littlest limbs. I | 01:31:16 | |
mean, it's ridiculous the things that people do to allow for these oak trees. So I'm just wondering if that's going to be. | 01:31:25 | |
Per, you know, if they're going to be less stringent about that in terms of like allowing for more housing to be built on the | 01:31:35 | |
property and then also parking. | 01:31:41 | |
And. | 01:31:46 | |
Yeah, those two things. | 01:31:49 | |
Thank you very much. | 01:31:54 | |
We have Marsha. | 01:31:58 | |
Welcome. | 01:32:03 | |
Thank you. | 01:32:04 | |
I'm like Miss Siandi, I must be pretty thick. I didn't. I just want clarification on. | 01:32:07 | |
The your presentation of where you were making up. | 01:32:18 | |
You know, low income. | 01:32:23 | |
Units and I think Mr. Russell, you said at some point. | 01:32:26 | |
These sites. | 01:32:33 | |
Would have these low income units added. | 01:32:35 | |
To what they were already assigned is, is that what you meant? And secondly, because we haven't really seen the total numbers for | 01:32:41 | |
each of the sites, if you were adding to the existing unit assignments and the other question was looking at what you had or what | 01:32:51 | |
CDD had produced. | 01:33:01 | |
For us to browse through for the meeting, there were some locations like, well, 1030 Lighthouse, which is the mansion, the former | 01:33:11 | |
mansion that you know was destroyed by a fire. | 01:33:20 | |
And I guess you, CDD and Rincon had assigned 29 above market income units. | 01:33:31 | |
With that was that it said something about its zoning was or its its unit was units were changed. So am I to understand that it | 01:33:43 | |
would only be assigned 29 units in total at 1030 Lighthouse? It is a very high end, high, high value property, let's say. So that | 01:33:53 | |
makes a lot more sense. | 01:34:02 | |
Than what the original assignment was given to that particular property. Maybe too many questions, I don't know, but if you could | 01:34:13 | |
just sort through them and just give me quick answers, I'd appreciate it. | 01:34:21 | |
Thank you. | 01:34:32 | |
We have Christine Diorio. | 01:34:35 | |
I just wanted to speak to the Forest Hill, the residential area. | 01:34:42 | |
And. | 01:34:48 | |
That just a recognition that when we talk about buffers, you're looking at the commercial area. However, Divisadero is a buffer in | 01:34:51 | |
Pacific Grove and on the other side is residential and. | 01:34:58 | |
No one I guess that street was not sent a letter and understanding that this proposal is to have R3 and I I think that that's | 01:35:07 | |
important that. | 01:35:12 | |
That be noted that there isn't any high density. | 01:35:18 | |
In that that area. | 01:35:22 | |
As well, fortunately, you have the Presidio on one side in the commercial area, but it would be. | 01:35:24 | |
It would be nice to be recognized that Monterey, I mean Monterey is adjacent in an R1 neighborhood. | 01:35:32 | |
Thank you. | 01:35:43 | |
I see no other hands raised online. | 01:35:49 | |
Is there anyone else listening in who would like to comment? | 01:35:52 | |
I I see no one either. So let's let's close the public hearing and come. | 01:36:00 | |
Come back to the Commission. | 01:36:09 | |
First four questions for either staff or Rincon and I was hoping if you have sort of big picture questions that are not about | 01:36:12 | |
specific sites, so specific options. | 01:36:16 | |
But about the process in general, this might be the time to. | 01:36:21 | |
To ask those anybody, Mr. Davidson, thank you. I think my question would be, you know, for what we're trying to do tonight, are we | 01:36:25 | |
really going for the numbers or are we sticking to the spirit of kind of I think what HTC is after? And I bring that up because it | 01:36:33 | |
sounded like a few of the options were to make higher assumptions, which isn't necessarily allowing for more development while | 01:36:41 | |
others are and allowing more development. So depending on which way we're going, if it is to truly just get the numbers. | 01:36:49 | |
That's one thing, and I think, again, the spirit of the intention is the other. | 01:36:58 | |
I'm sorry, I'd have to tell me again what the difference is. Sure. So with option one it assumes 50%. | 01:37:05 | |
Like maximum density versus assuming 70%. So in that case, we're not making any changes to allow for higher density. They're just | 01:37:14 | |
assuming that we're there will be higher density, right. So we're getting numbers that we aren't actually changing. | 01:37:21 | |
Whereas in the other cases, we're making changes to allow for more development and those are increasing our numbers. Does that | 01:37:28 | |
make sense? | 01:37:32 | |
It does, and well, I'll I'll let the director answer if he wishes. | 01:37:37 | |
Sure, I'll get started, and I'll probably throw it over to Rincon as well. | 01:37:43 | |
So yeah, we we do have some areas where we were fairly conservative and the assumptions that we were using and. | 01:37:49 | |
Working with Rincon and and their team HCD does allow some higher concentrations or assumptions. | 01:37:59 | |
I think one of the things that would come into play and and is another component of this overall project that you haven't seen yet | 01:38:08 | |
is there will be some zoning code amendments. | 01:38:14 | |
We'll be working on things like objective development standards and things like that where we might have to be more aggressive on | 01:38:20 | |
those in order to allow the higher capacity assumptions on some of these sites. So I think those are the ways that we're looking | 01:38:28 | |
at potentially getting more units out of the sites than we we had previously looked at. But I'll also let Ryan chime in if he has | 01:38:35 | |
any additional information. | 01:38:43 | |
Yeah. So Forest Hill commercial and the downtown commercial district and the and the current draft housing element have a proposed | 01:38:51 | |
density increase to, I forget the number off the top of my head, but I believe it might be 45 units an acre. So I think the state | 01:39:00 | |
with, with hearing that proposal from the city would be inclined to agree with some of those capacity increases. | 01:39:08 | |
So that along with some of the incentives that Karen talked about. | 01:39:18 | |
Could lead to those assumptions being taken into consideration. | 01:39:22 | |
Appreciate it. And I'm, I'm sorry, I sort of jumped ahead of myself. I did promise callers that I would ask staff and or Rincon to | 01:39:28 | |
answer specific questions if if you wanted to. | 01:39:34 | |
Yes, I can address a few of them and then I'll have Ryan address the site specific ones. Thank you. So I think there, there was | 01:39:42 | |
one commenter that stated that she received a letter that the property had been rezoned. And I do want to clarify that that's not | 01:39:48 | |
the case. We we sent out the letters. | 01:39:54 | |
So that we sent out letters to every property owner of the options where we were proposing to rezone because we wanted to give | 01:40:03 | |
those property owners the opportunity to participate in the discussions. And and that's all that's happening tonight is deciding | 01:40:10 | |
whether or not those are options that we want to move forward to the council. | 01:40:17 | |
Any rezoning of property that takes place would happen. | 01:40:26 | |
At the end of this process, so we we still have to do all of the work on the land use element, the safety element of the general | 01:40:31 | |
plan. | 01:40:36 | |
The full housing element and the full environmental impact report. | 01:40:42 | |
Before we would then go through the second phase of doing all of the rezoning on the property, but I just wanted to make clear | 01:40:49 | |
that no properties have been rezoned yet and that's not happening tonight. | 01:40:54 | |
Umm, she also had some questions about trees and parking. And that gets back into the zoning code amendments that will be required | 01:41:01 | |
to make to make objective development standards. And so we may be looking at things like what are the required tree plantings, | 01:41:08 | |
making sure that those are quantitative and they don't take into account any level of discretion, right? It has to be an objective | 01:41:16 | |
number that you can. | 01:41:23 | |
The code says for every this you have to do that. | 01:41:31 | |
And there's no question about it. And same thing with parking. We may be looking at residential parking requirements to ensure | 01:41:35 | |
that we can meet the the arena capacities that we need. | 01:41:41 | |
And then there was another caller that had mentioned that neighbors didn't receive the letters and and that is correct. We did | 01:41:48 | |
only send letters to the property owners. | 01:41:53 | |
Of the affected properties where we were proposing rezones, we didn't go beyond in any radius. | 01:41:58 | |
And then I think I will hand it over to Ryan. I think there was a comment about sites along Lighthouse Ave. and then there was a | 01:42:06 | |
comment about the LaPorte Mansion site at 10:30 Lighthouse. | 01:42:13 | |
Yeah, it's the caller was correct that that site currently has 29 above moderate units attributed to it in the in the current | 01:42:21 | |
inventory. And then I think there was a question on when we are adding sites to existing units kind of what what those totals are. | 01:42:29 | |
There are a fair amount of sites where that's that's the case. I can go over just a specific example just to kind of shine some | 01:42:37 | |
light on it. So the First United Methodist Church for example. | 01:42:45 | |
Currently has 35 units attributed to it and there are above moderate income units with the proposed density changes in the C1 or | 01:42:54 | |
sorry, with the proposed change to changing it to R3, we could allocate 61 units on that site. So 35 to 61. So that's that's where | 01:43:03 | |
where the change what, what some of the changes we're looking at would be. | 01:43:13 | |
And so when we're changing those, we're able to move some of those above moderate income units over to the lower income bucket | 01:43:25 | |
because that site is now meeting that 20 unit an acre requirement. So initially that site had 35 above moderate units, but now | 01:43:32 | |
we're allocating about 46 lower and 15 above moderate income units. So that's kind of one example of of how a change in density or | 01:43:40 | |
zoning to existing sites. | 01:43:47 | |
Occurs. | 01:43:56 | |
Was there another question that I might have missed? | 01:43:59 | |
Yes, Commissioner. Miss Gianni asked about 617 Lighthouse and 701 Lighthouse, and I think I can answer the question quickly. The | 01:44:04 | |
617 Lighthouse is the monarch of building. 701 Lighthouse is the Passion Fish Restaurant building, if I'm not mistaken. Yes, | 01:44:10 | |
that's correct. | 01:44:17 | |
So I think we've answered the caller's questions and now back back to commissioners. Commissioner Zinski. Thank you. Chair Murphy, | 01:44:26 | |
I have a question about the PowerPoint presentation. When you talked about the historical sites and you move some of the | 01:44:33 | |
historical sites into office conversion, can you speak what does that mean exactly? Are they current historical sites that you're | 01:44:40 | |
converting to office conversion offices and and then you can run into residential or go ahead. | 01:44:47 | |
Yeah. So, so there were some sites that were included in the housing sites inventory that are historic resources. | 01:44:55 | |
Where we were looking at allowing for upper floor conversions, so we would keep the ground floor as commercial and allow the upper | 01:45:03 | |
floors, which are currently office spaces to be converted to residential units. | 01:45:11 | |
And in that office conversion category, like Ryan said, it's it's a. | 01:45:20 | |
It's really for interior remodels only. It doesn't affect the exterior of the building. So the the building remains historic with | 01:45:27 | |
putting residential units on upper floors. There may be some building code requirements like for ingress, egress or or specialized | 01:45:34 | |
doors on the ground floor. So there may be some minor exterior modifications, but one to think of as the Chase Bank building on | 01:45:42 | |
Lighthouse and. | 01:45:49 | |
I don't know the side street, is that forest? OK, So that's one of the sites where I think they have two upper stories above the | 01:45:57 | |
ground floor and we could get some residential units in there. Without changing the structure of the building, would you add | 01:46:03 | |
additional floors if possible? | 01:46:10 | |
We're not proposing that because that then gets into the question of are you affecting the integrity of the historic resource? | 01:46:18 | |
And those are the questions that HCD had was about what is the processing right? The the the overall goal is to remove barriers | 01:46:27 | |
and make it easier to create housing. | 01:46:33 | |
And when we go through an entitlement process that is multiple steps through through various boards or committees, HCD sees that | 01:46:39 | |
as a constraint. | 01:46:44 | |
Vice Chair Sawyer. | 01:46:57 | |
Commissioner Swagger. | 01:47:01 | |
Few questions I. | 01:47:03 | |
First of all, what? | 01:47:07 | |
The issue of the the credits that that you mentioned Director Vaughn's. | 01:47:09 | |
Has. | 01:47:17 | |
HCD acknowledged those credits in writing. Are they fine with that? | 01:47:20 | |
I might ask Rincon that question. They've been the direct conduit to HCD, but I believe in the draft housing element we, we may | 01:47:27 | |
have considered some credits and in the intervening time those numbers have been refined through communications with HCD. So they | 01:47:34 | |
we worked with them on. | 01:47:41 | |
The Adu projections, I believe previously we were looking at the past three years to determine what the what the next eight years | 01:47:48 | |
would look like. And HCD wanted us to go back and look at a five year period rather than three years. And so that's how we were | 01:47:57 | |
determining the numbers. But it has been in communication with HCD and and I don't know if Rincon has any additional comments on | 01:48:05 | |
that. Yep, that's exactly correct. Initially in the initial draft that we sent to the state we assumed. | 01:48:13 | |
That the city would have 270 credits for accessory drilling units, but because of what HCD asked for, we did have to reduce those | 01:48:22 | |
numbers to about 218, which is what what the current numbers you see here in the in the materials and the presentation were. | 01:48:30 | |
Thank you. I would just hate for us to get way down the road and have AC come back and say we're not going to give you credit for | 01:48:39 | |
all those credits. Oh yeah. And and we, you know, our Adu numbers have been on the uptrend because of the the state laws that have | 01:48:48 | |
come into play over the last few years and because we have a very clear trend over the last three years. | 01:48:56 | |
Years four and five previous, our numbers were very low and we wanted to base it on the current trend. But again, HCD made us go | 01:49:05 | |
back and use those two other years where the the Adu production was lower. And so that unfortunately lowered our credits. But | 01:49:13 | |
yeah, we're in we're in communication with HCD on how we're doing the calculations. Great, thank you. And then my next question is | 01:49:21 | |
the the buffer. I've heard it said that that the buffer can be from 15 to 30%. | 01:49:29 | |
I've heard it said that it's required in the. I believe it's in the original house or the draft housing element says it's | 01:49:37 | |
recommended. | 01:49:42 | |
Is there an opportunity to? | 01:49:47 | |
Buffer down closer to 15 and and pick up some. | 01:49:50 | |
Some units that way. | 01:49:54 | |
Or get rid of the buffer entirely if it's only recommended and not mandatory. Not mandated by statute. | 01:49:59 | |
Well, the the issue with the buffer is the no net loss rule. And so if the city were to approve a housing project for less units | 01:50:07 | |
than we had identified, we have to find another site that can accommodate. | 01:50:15 | |
The remaining units and if we don't have another site in our buffer, I believe there's a requirement then that we have to find | 01:50:23 | |
another site and rezone it within a certain period of time. | 01:50:28 | |
So it can become a very cumbersome bureaucrat bureaucratic process when you're looking at the approval of a housing project in | 01:50:34 | |
front of you, but you've got to worry about how you're making up the numbers on the back end. So that's the reason why. | 01:50:42 | |
The the buffer is really, I'll leave it to Ryan to discuss the specifics in HCD and and legal in terms of whether it's required or | 01:50:51 | |
recommended, but it's going to be a best practice in this upcoming cycle. | 01:50:58 | |
Yeah, I, I think I'll turn it over to legal on if it's an actual requirement or not in the statute. But I do know if, if the | 01:51:06 | |
approach and the the plan is to get a certified housing element as soon as we can. My recommendation would be to include a buffer. | 01:51:14 | |
The state that I've seen have it hasn't approved any certified any housing elements without a buffer. Typically they what I've | 01:51:21 | |
seen for the 15% buffer, they usually accept that in areas where. | 01:51:28 | |
The city has an existing track record of high housing production. So I worked on the city of West Hollywood's housing element who | 01:51:36 | |
have has a pretty high track record of building affordable housing. And so they they did accept a 15% buffer in that case. I'm not | 01:51:44 | |
sure if if that would be accepted in this case, but that is that is the recommendation 15 to 30%. Is there recommended buffer? | 01:51:52 | |
Thank you. | 01:52:03 | |
Answers that question. | 01:52:05 | |
My next question relates to I'm looking at option 8IN attachment two to the staff report would be page 86 of 100. | 01:52:07 | |
I think you may have answered this question, but the footnote to that. | 01:52:21 | |
Option eight page says unit assumptions on the asterisk sites assume implementation of option 2. | 01:52:25 | |
That is the increase from. | 01:52:35 | |
From 50% to 70% assumptions, but there's no asterisk next to the industrial site. It's 2160 sunset. Should there have been an | 01:52:39 | |
asterisk? Should that have been asterisk to was that, does that include the option to that does, yes. | 01:52:46 | |
So that's just a missing asterisk there. I. | 01:52:56 | |
I was hoping for this round we wouldn't get, we wouldn't go that deep. | 01:53:00 | |
That's my only question close to close to a site specific. | 01:53:08 | |
Just two more quick ones. We we received a memo in the last couple of days about the change, the 2024 numbers related to state and | 01:53:14 | |
federal income limits. There were some changes in those numbers. | 01:53:21 | |
How, if at all, do those new numbers affect what our requirements will be under the housing element update? | 01:53:29 | |
I know that's sounds simple, but it's probably very are you talking about the area median income? Yes. OK, OK. So I'm looking at | 01:53:39 | |
the May 17th memo. | 01:53:44 | |
From the community development department, yes. So that doesn't that doesn't affect arena numbers at all. | 01:53:52 | |
It's those are the, those numbers come into play when we actually have housing units on the ground that are available for for low | 01:53:59 | |
income families and they have to demonstrate that they need the income requirements. | 01:54:06 | |
To be able to run one of those units, OK. But in terms of arena numbers, that doesn't change anything. | 01:54:14 | |
Thank you. | 01:54:21 | |
And then just one last question I'll throw out now. | 01:54:22 | |
The individual notice went out to the areas proposed for rezoning. Now, I expected this room to be full tonight. | 01:54:25 | |
In its final form, well, will the notice go to those members of the public, those owners? Because it's, it's very likely that all | 01:55:08 | |
of that will be done on one agenda or, or one agenda in the very next agenda. Because if you recall, I, I sent a newspaper article | 01:55:16 | |
several months ago about the city of Portola Valley who recently had their housing element decertified because they didn't follow | 01:55:24 | |
through with their rezonings. And in that case, I think HCD moved within a matter of weeks. | 01:55:32 | |
It was a very short time frame between when they when the city of Portola Valley adopted their housing element, got it certified | 01:55:41 | |
and in a matter of weeks later HCD called them out and said you haven't rezoned the properties were decertifying your housing | 01:55:49 | |
element. So I would expect that we will have a a very fun and interesting agenda at Planning Commission and City Council when we | 01:55:57 | |
get to that point because we're going to have a whole package, the entire package of the project and the environmental. | 01:56:05 | |
Report at that time, but yeah, there will be full public hearing notices. Thank you. And and Mr. Chair, I just wanted to let you | 01:56:13 | |
know that Commissioner Kubica has his hand up as well. Follow up. Go ahead, Commissioner Nazinski. So the letters will be sent to | 01:56:19 | |
the affected people. What about the neighbors at that point? | 01:56:25 | |
We didn't in this round When, when, when we have to do the the official public hearing notices. Yeah, there there is a radius that | 01:56:34 | |
we have to send them to. So it would it would be the property owners plus the required radius surrounding them. | 01:56:41 | |
Commissioner Kubica. | 01:56:51 | |
Thank you for your presentations. Question on chart 5. | 01:56:57 | |
On Director Vaughn's presentation, and I'm trying to understand where we go across the bottom on the totals. If I understand it, | 01:57:03 | |
it seems like we take arena number, we subtract something which are the credits and then the buffer that should be a percentage | 01:57:12 | |
based on what is left, the credit arena minus the credits. | 01:57:20 | |
That is correct. | 01:57:34 | |
OK. And if I take 1125, could you go through the math of how we got to a 109 from 11:25? | 01:57:35 | |
Yes. So doesn't seem like 20% to me. That's why I'm trying to figure out what what that is. The 20% was only applied to lower and | 01:57:46 | |
moderate income units. So there wasn't there wasn't a buffer applied to the above moderate unit income numbers. So that's there | 01:57:53 | |
was only a gain in buffer from lower and moderate income. | 01:58:00 | |
OK. Well, we've been told from the beginning of time that it was 20% on top of our arena numbers. And how do we calculate? | 01:58:10 | |
That that's why I'm trying to figure out how we get to 106 one 1006 from, you know, 1350 and. | 01:58:22 | |
State guidance, state guidance says the buff they want buffers specifically on the lower and moderate income units and they | 01:58:35 | |
require a 15 to 30% buffer. So we applied 20% buffer to lower and moderate income units only those two after we took out the | 01:58:43 | |
accessory dwelling unit and project trends the credits. | 01:58:50 | |
OK, so I couldn't actually calculate the numbers based based on that chart. I would need more information to do with this to come | 01:58:59 | |
out with a number is what I'm understanding it. | 01:59:03 | |
There might have been some confusion on if if you needed to add up the above moderate a buffer on above moderate income units, but | 01:59:10 | |
we we did not apply a buffer to to that income category. It's not it's not a requirement from the state. | 01:59:16 | |
Is there something new or this is what we were told when we started the arena and and the actual? | 01:59:24 | |
Submission of the document in with the first submission we did revise our approach on the buffer a bit after our first review with | 01:59:30 | |
the state. So we we found out that initially we were applying the buffer specifically to the arena allocation. But we we then | 01:59:36 | |
came, we didn't found out that we could apply the buffer after we took out the credits. So the buffer would be a little bit lower | 01:59:43 | |
than what was initially put on the housing element. | 01:59:49 | |
The initial draft. | 01:59:56 | |
I guess I'm really getting even more confused now. | 01:59:59 | |
Of the process, because if this was the process and we had people who, you know, who went and had done this before. | 02:00:04 | |
And now we're finding out that as we're progressing, we're learning. It's just very confusing. | 02:00:12 | |
Umm, and I was just going to add that that's part of the iterative process that we're going through with HCD. So, so the city | 02:00:22 | |
produced a draft housing element. | 02:00:28 | |
That I think was was probably more basic in terms of here's arena, here's your buffer, here's what you have to do, and since HCD | 02:00:36 | |
received the draft housing element, they've been able to review it and then they've been working with us and our team. | 02:00:43 | |
To further refine how the calculations are done. So one thing we learned was we don't have to apply buffer to the credits because | 02:00:52 | |
it's already assumed that those numbers are going to occur. So that reduced our buffer a bit. And then we also learned that we | 02:00:59 | |
don't need to apply the buffer to the above moderate units because those are the, those are the easy ones, right? Those are the | 02:01:06 | |
market rate units that. | 02:01:13 | |
Developers have projects that can pencil out. They don't need subsidies. | 02:01:21 | |
In order to get the the low income units on board, we really only need to apply the the buffer to the the low income categories. | 02:01:25 | |
So through back and forth communications with HD, through this process, we've been learning from them, you know what, what | 02:01:36 | |
calculations or how we do the calculations that would be acceptable to them. So it has changed a bit since the beginning. | 02:01:44 | |
Did you hear that, Commissioner Kubica? | 02:01:54 | |
Yes, I'm still very frustrated. | 02:01:57 | |
And but that's for another time. | 02:02:00 | |
So if I take a look at the e-mail that we got, the buffer would be applied to the very low, the low and the moderate income. | 02:02:03 | |
Yes, was the answer. OK, thank you very much. And then maybe I misheard, but when they we were talking about the property at the | 02:02:15 | |
church. | 02:02:20 | |
And there was a question about the increase of AMI. Did somehow we then transfer those numbers into low income numbers or did I | 02:02:26 | |
misunderstand that present part of the presentation? | 02:02:32 | |
Yeah. So that's that, that was the example I gave. So initially under current zoning standards that that site doesn't meet the 20 | 02:02:40 | |
units an acre needed to put any of the units in lower income, the lower income unit categories. So all of the units currently are | 02:02:48 | |
in the 35 above moderate unit income category. However, if the proposed zone change occurred to R3, then some of the units could | 02:02:55 | |
be allocated to the lower income unit bucket because it it would have that density. | 02:03:03 | |
It would have high enough density on that site to assume that. | 02:03:11 | |
OK. So we're being asked to select options towards the end of this meeting. And so would we have that information provided to us | 02:03:15 | |
about changing from low income to from AMI to low income or does that matter in our selection of the? | 02:03:22 | |
The options the table attachments have has all the sites with their current unit assumptions. I guess we didn't provide what what | 02:03:29 | |
the the unit assumptions were in the initial site assumptions under current zoning standards, but you could find those in the | 02:03:37 | |
those would all be in the draft housing element. So what the existing unit assumptions are are proposed on those sites or in the | 02:03:45 | |
draft and then the table attachments would be what would be allocated on them under some of these options. | 02:03:53 | |
So could we really make a decision tonight or would we have to go dig that information out since it's not been provided? | 02:04:02 | |
As we get feedback on which options you would like to leave in or take out, like we have a working spreadsheet on on my computer | 02:04:08 | |
right now and so I will update the numbers and can can let you know where, where we're at with with the numbers and if we're | 02:04:13 | |
meeting the 365 unit. | 02:04:19 | |
Need. | 02:04:26 | |
OK. And we know for sure that we do not have to do 5497 now we know for sure that we're down to 365 and HCD has agreed to that. | 02:04:28 | |
That's correct. The the reason there's that that difference and why it's not a complete subtraction in units is because the | 02:04:34 | |
initial inventory had a surplus of units. So we had more units than we needed. So that's why there's a little bit less than than | 02:04:40 | |
the total that we've taken out. | 02:04:46 | |
My suggestion is that if this set of charts, the 48 page charts from Rincon is going to be presented to Council, that the | 02:04:56 | |
additional information be added into it. So the Council. | 02:05:01 | |
And get a full understanding of what decisions they're making. | 02:05:07 | |
Thank you. | 02:05:12 | |
Richard Davison. | 02:05:15 | |
I have one more question, and this might be totally superfluous and outside of our purview, but I I really like some of the rezone | 02:05:18 | |
suggestions. And I'm wondering if we can add any suggestions for something like the circulation element around transportation to | 02:05:25 | |
take into account the new units that are being proposed. And if that's something we can do or if that's just a hands off and we'll | 02:05:32 | |
be like, we like the rezone. No comment about the transportation director bond. | 02:05:39 | |
Well, part of getting the site's inventory locked in is to do the Environmental Impact Report, which will analyze. | 02:05:47 | |
Any traffic circulation impacts associated with with the rezoning And then we you know that, that's why we provided some of the | 02:05:57 | |
reasoning behind the rezone sites that they're that they're near a collector roadway, that they're near commercial or other high | 02:06:04 | |
density uses. | 02:06:11 | |
But we'll be doing the impact analysis through the EIR. And then my hope is, and I know there's been discussion of. | 02:06:19 | |
Once we get through this, the housing element work, we will then be going back and revisiting the rest of the general plan | 02:06:27 | |
elements that. | 02:06:32 | |
Are woefully out of date and and need to be looked at, so yeah. | 02:06:38 | |
And I I have some some questions. | 02:06:45 | |
And I've asked this before, but I think it's good for the public, the public, to hear this. | 02:06:50 | |
Umm, property owners at this stage A. | 02:06:55 | |
Without putting a property on the on the on the site inventory. | 02:07:00 | |
They really don't have a role. Is that is that correct? For instance, if a property owner comes to us and says don't put me on | 02:07:06 | |
there, I'm not going to build any houses. I. | 02:07:11 | |
Within the rules were allowed to put them in there and the theory I guess is things can change in eight years. Is that is that | 02:07:16 | |
correct? Exactly. This is an advanced planning exercise. And so we're planning for the future. And while we would we would | 02:07:23 | |
certainly want to have property owners that that are amenable to the changes that we're proposing, this is a mandate by the state | 02:07:30 | |
that the city has to. | 02:07:37 | |
Abide by and so it is within our purview to identify sites to put on the sites inventory. And there's and again, you know, | 02:07:45 | |
there's, there's nothing that the property owner needs to do, you know, but properties change hands all the time. And so a new | 02:07:53 | |
owner in the future might be interested in in doing some sort of housing development. | 02:08:02 | |
One thing I wanted to talk about a little bit in terms of up zoning, we, we did make sure you know that the higher our districts, | 02:08:11 | |
so our, our 2R3R4, they all allow single family residential uses. So by up zoning we're not turning any single family homes into | 02:08:20 | |
non conforming uses or properties. That's very important. | 02:08:28 | |
What the up zoning does is it allows a wider array. | 02:08:38 | |
Of housing types to be on a property. So rather than just a single family home, when you go up into R2 and R3 and R4, you can do | 02:08:42 | |
things like duplexes, triplexes, you know, small housing groups and and even in the you know, in the highest categories into | 02:08:49 | |
apartments and condos. And you know, when we when we look at housing trends today and family trends, we're looking a lot at multi | 02:08:57 | |
generational family housing. | 02:09:05 | |
Because of housing costs, you have you have families that may be taking care of aging parents. | 02:09:13 | |
You may have families that have adult children that are at home because they can't afford to get out into their own homes yet. So | 02:09:21 | |
the idea of of having a wider array of options on your own property to perhaps account for multi generational families or | 02:09:28 | |
caregiver situations. | 02:09:36 | |
We don't. We don't see that as a negative. We see it as it's opening up more possibilities for the property owners. | 02:09:44 | |
Thank you. | 02:09:52 | |
Having a property on the inventory. | 02:09:53 | |
Does that provide any benefits to an owner if he or she is doing some sort of development application? | 02:09:56 | |
Yeah. So like I just mentioned, you, you have a wider array of use, residential uses you can have on the property. But also when | 02:10:04 | |
you're on the housing sites inventory, because of the rest of the programs and everything in the housing element, you're generally | 02:10:11 | |
going to have a streamlined process in, in terms of getting approval or permitting. That's good, good news for property owners. | 02:10:19 | |
Follow up to that question. Let me keep going for a bit. | 02:10:28 | |
OK. Does it have to be on the housing element inventory or can it does My point is that is that streamlined also available to the | 02:10:32 | |
non housing element inventory? | 02:10:38 | |
I, I might ask Rincon if they have some information on that, if it's specifically the, the sites or, and, and part of that can be | 02:10:48 | |
when we're doing the zoning text amendments, the zoning code updates. If, if the Commission and council want to introduce | 02:10:54 | |
streamlining measures for other types of development, that's a possibility as well. But I'll, I'll let Ryan talk about the, the | 02:11:00 | |
sites themselves. | 02:11:07 | |
Yeah, I think some of the programs in in the existing housing element would apply to to all property owners in the city. So some | 02:11:14 | |
of the programs would impact all housing within the city for specific sites in the inventory. 11 benefit that comes to mind is the | 02:11:20 | |
sequel approach we are taking is looking at an environmental analysis for individual sites. So for sites that might have need a | 02:11:27 | |
robust environmental analysis, they can have a streamlined process by being in the inventory and being involved with the EIR | 02:11:33 | |
sequel process. | 02:11:40 | |
If a. | 02:11:50 | |
Some of the parcels on on our list are now existing businesses. | 02:11:51 | |
If the business, rather than building housing, wants to expand their business on on the purpose of, is this in any way a barrier | 02:11:58 | |
to them doing that? | 02:12:03 | |
No, not at all. And that's why the that's where the buffer comes into play. | 02:12:09 | |
Thank you. | 02:12:14 | |
And right now do we have existing? | 02:12:15 | |
And proposed policies or incentives for lot consolidation? | 02:12:19 | |
There is a proposed program in the draft housing element that talked about lot consolidation and I think that program. | 02:12:25 | |
The language was somewhat generic. It just says that the city will look into incentives for lot consolidation, so that'll be a | 02:12:33 | |
program. Once the housing element is adopted and certified, then the state will look to us to start making pathways forward on | 02:12:39 | |
implementing those programs. | 02:12:45 | |
And just so we're clear about credits. | 02:12:52 | |
You know, we've subtracted the number from our arena number. | 02:12:56 | |
But we're expected to build that number of units. Those credits are those to turn into units over in theory overtime. | 02:13:00 | |
That's correct. So, so we do have one project and Aaron might be able to help me with this. I that's already in process or | 02:13:07 | |
approved and that's the site right across the street here on the corner of Forest and Pine. I think it used to be a bank with a | 02:13:14 | |
drive through and now I believe there's a solar company there. So that site I believe is already approved for 10 units, but | 02:13:22 | |
because of water, it's a commercial site and they can't get the residential water. | 02:13:29 | |
Meter, but that one's already approved. So we get credit for that and then the rest of the credits are based on our Adu | 02:13:37 | |
projections that are based on the past trends. So, so the state assumes that we will continue on those trends. | 02:13:45 | |
And just just two more, at least once we talk about existing transit. | 02:13:55 | |
As a reason to add density in areas. And I think we would all agree the transit here is low level at best. Most of the city it's, | 02:14:01 | |
you know, one bus an hour and all of the recent housing laws linked to transit would not count our our system as as transit. So I. | 02:14:13 | |
I don't feel good about us using transit as a reason to build something somewhere we don't really have a transit. | 02:14:26 | |
But that's just editorial opinion and it's a little bit of a chicken and egg, right? Because. | 02:14:34 | |
Transit, if you build it, they will come. Well, transit providers typically want a certain level of ridership in order to make a | 02:14:42 | |
line feasible. So yeah, it's do you do you build the transit 1st and hope that the people come or do you build the housing and | 02:14:49 | |
bring the people in and then augment your transit once the need arises? So. | 02:14:56 | |
And my last question has to do with. | 02:15:04 | |
With height limits and you know right now in R1 our limit is 25 feet for dwelling, a single family dwelling in R3 it's it's 30 | 02:15:08 | |
feet. | 02:15:14 | |
And in the rezoning when we're making assumptions about the number of the new units that can fit in these properties that going to | 02:15:20 | |
R3. | 02:15:24 | |
We talked about the existing R3 with a 30 foot limit or. | 02:15:28 | |
As we move in with the code changes, are you anticipating that R3 is going to end up with a higher limit? | 02:15:33 | |
Or do the assumptions assume 30 feet or do the assumptions assume a higher limit? I believe the assumptions assume the current | 02:15:41 | |
height limits in the zoning district. So if if we're up zoning from R1 to R3, the R3 development standards would apply. We are | 02:15:48 | |
working on the objective development standards, but I don't recall, Ryan, I don't think we're increase, we're proposing to | 02:15:56 | |
increase height. | 02:16:03 | |
In any dramatic way, I think in some areas we were looking at maybe increasing height by 5 feet. | 02:16:11 | |
And then also changing the way we measure height, because the last thing we want to do is end up with boxes with flat roofs, | 02:16:18 | |
right? We, we don't, we, we don't want to create objective design standards that force people into square boxes. We still want to | 02:16:25 | |
have nice architectural styles, you know, roof pitches that, that complement the, the character of the community and things like | 02:16:32 | |
that. And so that's where through through zoning standards, sometimes you have the unintended impacts of bad design because | 02:16:39 | |
they're meeting. | 02:16:46 | |
Write the requirements. So I believe that we are looking at potentially changing some height limits by about 5 feet to account for | 02:16:53 | |
roof types. | 02:16:58 | |
Thank you. And Ryan, is that correct? Is that? | 02:17:03 | |
Yeah. The the unit assumptions on most of the R3 sites had 70% capacity assumptions. So that that wiggle room kind of accounts for | 02:17:07 | |
some of the the land use requirements that would be you know a constraint to getting to that full 100% density on some of those | 02:17:13 | |
sites. | 02:17:19 | |
Mr. Kubica. | 02:17:28 | |
Thank you very much. I just have one more question. | 02:17:35 | |
But I didn't mention before there was since we took option 7 off the table. Will those people be who got letters be getting | 02:17:40 | |
letters being told that they're out there? There are option no longer exists and they will not be rezoned. | 02:17:48 | |
Yeah, I think that's something we're considering it. It was it was a comment that staff received from the chair as well. | 02:17:59 | |
We didn't have time. | 02:18:07 | |
In advance of this meeting to get letters out because we just learned about the the the R2 zoning by initiative earlier this week. | 02:18:10 | |
I think we will make some efforts to reach out to to those property owners in that neighborhood to just let them know that that | 02:18:16 | |
option is not moving forward. | 02:18:22 | |
Thank you. | 02:18:29 | |
Thank you. | 02:18:30 | |
Commissioner Sawyer. | 02:18:32 | |
I just have one small question. So if we've looked at the various options and we've sort of decided on a few of them, but we're | 02:18:34 | |
still missing numbers, can we add identified new other potential sites sort of one at a time to up numbers? | 02:18:42 | |
Are you talking about the, the additional sites that were included here or sites the the ones that are that are under option | 02:18:54 | |
eight? Yes, OK, yes, but we can add them individually. Individually, yeah, we can consider those individually. I, I think we're | 02:19:01 | |
ready to start talking about options, but I would suggest maybe a 5 minute break. | 02:19:08 | |
If everyone's amenable. | 02:19:16 | |
Thank you. We'll be back at 8:25. | 02:19:18 | |
Mr. Kubica will join us. | 02:19:48 | |
Shortly. | 02:19:51 | |
And we've I. | 02:19:52 | |
I want you to know and Rincon to know that the Planning Commission is delighted to have options and not just presented with a list | 02:19:55 | |
of sort of a done deal and very much appreciated. Thank you, beautiful. Thank you. And and I think so would would we like to have | 02:20:03 | |
Rincon bring up option, we'll have option one up on the screen and that's where we're going to start. OK. | 02:20:12 | |
Sounds good. One second. | 02:20:25 | |
If, if we could wait just a minute for Mr. Kubica. | 02:20:28 | |
831. | 02:21:06 | |
917. | 02:21:08 | |
3506. | 02:21:11 | |
You just send them a message. | 02:21:19 | |
Go ahead, I have it right here too. I don't have a phone. | 02:21:27 | |
Oh, I see him coming. | 02:21:33 | |
Assuming he's coming. | 02:21:36 | |
Welcome, Mr. Kubica. | 02:21:45 | |
Mr. Russell, I think you're ready for option one. | 02:21:50 | |
And staff, we're going to depend on staff to track the numbers for us. Is that, is that fair? | 02:21:54 | |
Yep, we have a spreadsheet in the back end that we're looking at. | 02:22:02 | |
Was Mr. Russell going to do anymore presenting or? | 02:22:28 | |
I could give a summary of a reminder of you know what this option is. | 02:22:35 | |
Does anyone need more information about it? | 02:22:42 | |
I think maybe we're OK. | 02:22:45 | |
Any any questions about it? | 02:22:48 | |
And again, any questions about it? | 02:22:54 | |
Mr. Chairman. | 02:23:04 | |
Yes, Commissioner, if I'm not getting too far ahead of myself, I'm prepared to make a motion on option one. I, I think what we're | 02:23:05 | |
hoping to do is get the, the sense of the committee on each option and then. | 02:23:12 | |
Try to work it into one. | 02:23:20 | |
One motion rather than having to go back and forth, for instance. Well, we'll see how it goes, OK. | 02:23:22 | |
Does anyone want to see the map again for option one is? | 02:23:28 | |
OK, Yeah. | 02:23:33 | |
You know, are there any questions or comments about option one? | 02:23:38 | |
Yes. | 02:23:42 | |
How many units? | 02:23:49 | |
How many units do we have there now? | 02:23:50 | |
In the current inventory, we have about 49 total units in this in this area. | 02:23:55 | |
Oh sorry, I'm mistaken. I'm looking at a different commercial district. | 02:24:02 | |
So. | 02:24:08 | |
In the current inventory, we have about 223 units associated with Forest Hill sites. So with this increase in capacity, we would | 02:24:14 | |
add about 109 units. | 02:24:20 | |
So we would go to 332. | 02:24:29 | |
Sorry, can you hear me OK? | 02:24:39 | |
No. | 02:24:43 | |
Can you hear me now? | 02:24:45 | |
Yes, go ahead. | 02:24:47 | |
Lisa, do you happen to have the current draft housing element pulled up? | 02:24:50 | |
Are you looking for the new total? | 02:24:59 | |
Yeah. What would the new total be? The new total would be 350. | 02:25:04 | |
Her Forest Hill. | 02:25:12 | |
OK. | 02:25:15 | |
With that includes the new Country Club gate site. Without that, that would be 330. | 02:25:18 | |
So Country Club is added to the Forest Hill. | 02:25:29 | |
Correct. | 02:25:35 | |
Right now it's listed as part of option 8, the the individual sites that may or may not be added. Is that correct? That's correct | 02:25:40 | |
as far as how we're presenting it in the presentation. But when we're looking at the total number of units in Forest Hill, that's | 02:25:46 | |
that's the total number of units that we would have. | 02:25:53 | |
And I, I guess I'm, I'm looking at the total number of units infuses me. I think you know, our task tonight is to. | 02:26:01 | |
You know, we're looking for new numbers, new journals. So they're not the 109 is what? | 02:26:12 | |
I'm concentrating on it. Does that does that make sense to everyone? | 02:26:17 | |
Any questions about this this approach to this this neighborhood? | 02:26:25 | |
With a with a we don't need A roll call for this, but with a show of hands is. | 02:26:33 | |
Would a consensus be to to recommend this, you know, option one to the City Council? | 02:26:41 | |
And yeah, I don't know how you feel. And we all raised our hand. | 02:26:50 | |
Well, I, I, I think the number is very important, Don and, and, and the reason I think the numbers are important because this | 02:26:57 | |
looks like almost a 50% increase, like a 45% increase. And, and the presentation it says we're going from 50% conservative to 70% | 02:27:04 | |
maximum. So a 20% increase in density is. | 02:27:10 | |
Coming across to a 50% increase or close to it or 45% increase. | 02:27:18 | |
Of of mixed-use sites, I think 70% would be a realistic assumption that HCD would expect. They typically start to have comments if | 02:28:05 | |
we're going 75% or above. I'm not sure why the 75% number has been difficult for them in my previous housing elements, but | 02:28:13 | |
generally 70% is is something they they've accepted. | 02:28:21 | |
And, and I think Mr. Cooper also answered if we're going from 50% to 70. | 02:28:31 | |
You know, a 20% change, Why is our total going up by more than 20%? | 02:28:37 | |
And maybe that's apples and oranges. I'm not sure. | 02:28:43 | |
The reasoning but but. | 02:28:50 | |
For that I think is just because the Country Club gateway, umm. | 02:28:52 | |
Site in the inventory, we're not the units allocated on that are assuming. | 02:28:56 | |
Are not using the 70% assumptions, we're just allocating 20 units on that site with the assumption that housing could be developed | 02:29:04 | |
on that property without impacting existing units. So I think that's where there's a little bit of a difference in the in the | 02:29:12 | |
percent increase. But we are, we are only proposing to increase the capacity assumptions by by 20% in Forest Hill. | 02:29:20 | |
Given that, Andy, are you OK? | 02:29:31 | |
I think that should be very clear to council that the numbers here are not the what the options that they're getting or because | 02:29:35 | |
right now it from what I understand I just heard is that. | 02:29:42 | |
The numbers from a different option are be added into the here and that's how we're coming up with these numbers. To me that's not | 02:29:51 | |
very clear and I think it should be very clear to council. There may be some people from different parts of the. | 02:29:59 | |
Community who would be there and I think would be only fair to them that, you know, if their section is being added as an option | 02:30:06 | |
that their number should be in that section. And other than that, I'm willing to vote for this. | 02:30:13 | |
Yeah, and I'm sorry, Mr. Russell, let me ask again. The 109 number, am I right? That does not include the Country Club gate? | 02:30:20 | |
That does not. | 02:30:31 | |
That was not in the, that was not in the initial state inventory, no, but it is. Is it in the 109? It's not. Those are just, those | 02:30:37 | |
are just increases in units from existing sites that were in the previous inventory enforced Hill. Thank you. | 02:30:46 | |
So is it OK? | 02:30:55 | |
Commissioner Davidson, can I ask maybe one silly question? Certainly there seems to be a lot of concern that, you know, HTC is | 02:30:57 | |
going to push back on some of the options that we choose. Is there just a possibility to provide, you know, an overshot of options | 02:31:04 | |
so that if HTC does push back, that we do still meet those numbers at a beyond the buffer that we're already talking about? | 02:31:11 | |
Yes, yes, cool. | 02:31:19 | |
Great. And I said we do that. So let's let's say there seems to be a consensus for option #1. | 02:31:21 | |
And Mr. Russell, we're ready for option #2. | 02:31:29 | |
The Zoning Development Standards update. | 02:31:32 | |
So just did you want me to give a quick reminder? Is this pretty? | 02:31:38 | |
Solidified in your head, I will note that there like I mentioned, I'll go to this summary slide, there are a large number of units | 02:31:44 | |
specifically lower income that would be added to the inventory for this option, so I think. | 02:31:50 | |
I would, I'm concerned that removing this option would take us below the the 269 lower income units that we need because this this | 02:31:58 | |
attributes 139. That's, that's just my two cents for for this option. But again, I think there's there's options for flexibility | 02:32:05 | |
here. So. | 02:32:12 | |
Questions or comments about this option? | 02:32:22 | |
I'm, I'm a little perplexed about the new other potential sites being included in this option. And I guess I'm wondering if other | 02:32:28 | |
commissioners were anticipating going through those one by one and saying yay or nay or whether they're happy having those sites | 02:32:34 | |
in here. | 02:32:41 | |
If it would be easier, we could, and I can direct ask Karen as well, we can jump to those other potential sites ahead of this | 02:32:50 | |
option if that's something you'd like to do. | 02:32:55 | |
I think it might be. Let me see what Commissioner Davidson. | 02:33:03 | |
I think if we have consensus on all the other options with them integrated inside, then we won't have to go through side by side | 02:33:07 | |
and I'm kind of in favor of that. So just let us move through the list quicker unless anyone has anything on that site list that | 02:33:12 | |
they are particularly against. | 02:33:16 | |
Vice Chair Sawyer. | 02:33:23 | |
I was just wondering. | 02:33:27 | |
What the other potential sites were, is there a listing of them or? Yeah, it's option eight. It's all of option 8. No, it I | 02:33:30 | |
believe it was. I believe it was only four. | 02:33:36 | |
Four commercial and industrial sites, or maybe 5. | 02:33:44 | |
You're right. | 02:33:49 | |
Yeah, the. | 02:33:51 | |
That yeah, you're right. OK. All right, so. | 02:33:53 | |
So that's those are the ones that have the the asterisk. Yeah, that's right. Yeah. So the the addition of the new commercial and | 02:33:58 | |
industrial sites and then with this zoning development change where we would break the link between. | 02:34:06 | |
Basing their residential density on the nearest residential district and setting the residential density for commercial and | 02:34:16 | |
industrial, I believe Ryan at 30 units per acre. | 02:34:22 | |
Correct. That's the current maximum it could be. And that's that's what we would just have it outright be 30. | 02:34:30 | |
So with, with that clarification and with the. | 02:34:38 | |
Commissioner Davidson's suggestion, I'm OK with leaving this in in this option too, Mr. Chairman. So as I understand it, then if | 02:34:43 | |
we if we show a consensus for option two, we are showing a consensus or Option 2 plus the four sites on option 8, OK. | 02:34:54 | |
And is there such a consensus? | 02:35:06 | |
Any. | 02:35:09 | |
Commissioner Kubica. | 02:35:12 | |
Yeah. Oh, I'm sorry. | 02:35:14 | |
We OK, thank you. | 02:35:17 | |
And so consensus on option 2. | 02:35:22 | |
And I suspect it's going to get more difficult. But let's keep plunging your head. | 02:35:26 | |
And option. | 02:35:32 | |
Option three and I would suggest changing the title to Dennett, Synex and Grove Acre and eliminating the 17 mile drive. I think | 02:35:34 | |
that'll confuse some people. | 02:35:39 | |
I think the map, the map is clear. It's Grove Acre to the east. It's Dennett to the West. | 02:35:48 | |
Is cynics on on the South? | 02:35:57 | |
And as you can see, those are fairly large. | 02:36:03 | |
Large parcels. | 02:36:07 | |
And we're going from R2 to R3, which would change the height allowance but more importantly change the density. | 02:36:08 | |
Any questions, comments? | 02:36:19 | |
Mr. Swaggart. | 02:36:23 | |
Yes, I I do have a comment on this. I I'm have great concerns about rezoning any residential neighborhoods or about recommending | 02:36:24 | |
rezoning of any residential neighborhoods. | 02:36:31 | |
In the absence of more public input, but I think we don't have a choice here and in my view. | 02:36:38 | |
I would want to minimize the rezoning of residential neighborhoods for that reason. | 02:36:47 | |
I I would support this option because it is a a smaller area, it's surrounded by motel uses in a on a couple of sides and a multi | 02:36:54 | |
family residential development on the east side. So I think this is one that I could get behind and I don't think we can meet our | 02:37:02 | |
numbers without approving this one. | 02:37:09 | |
And I share those sentiments. | 02:37:19 | |
Other comments Questions. | 02:37:22 | |
Did you want to add anything, Mr. Russell? | 02:37:29 | |
Nope, I have. I have nothing to add. | 02:37:34 | |
Is there consensus on this, on this what we're calling option 3? | 02:37:39 | |
Yeah, apparently there is. | 02:37:51 | |
Option four, and this is the rezoning the area South of Cynics. | 02:37:57 | |
And. | 02:38:08 | |
Comments. Questions. Observations. | 02:38:11 | |
Mr. Swagger. | 02:38:15 | |
Back to the point that I just made, this is one that that I am not supportive of because I think we should minimize the | 02:38:18 | |
recommendation of rezoning residential neighborhoods. | 02:38:23 | |
This is a larger residential neighborhood and. | 02:38:30 | |
It's. It would contribute to the to the. | 02:38:35 | |
Positive environment of if the buyers option is accepted and that Synnex Dennett Grove Acre property is is ever developed as a | 02:38:39 | |
multi family that that's having it surrounded by these uses would improve the quality of life for people in that in in those multi | 02:38:48 | |
family units. | 02:38:56 | |
So I would be opposed to this one. | 02:39:05 | |
Other other comments. | 02:39:07 | |
Commissioner Davidson. | 02:39:10 | |
I would be in favor of it. I think it's adjacency to the the current industrial area. | 02:39:12 | |
And like was pointed out, the access to Sunset and Cenex and the particularly large parcels do make it a good zoning area for some | 02:39:19 | |
of the more high developed housing and it does get us closer to those numbers on low income housing. | 02:39:26 | |
I I I do have a question either for the Director or Mr. Russell on the West side of the map. | 02:39:34 | |
That's Crocker. | 02:39:44 | |
But the line is coming straight down rather than following the street. And I think that that cracker and sunset is that Hayward | 02:39:45 | |
lumber that's excluded from this area. | 02:39:50 | |
Yes, Hayward, Hayward Lumber is excluded from this area, but Hayward Lumber is, I believe, included as a new potential site. | 02:39:59 | |
That's one of those commercial sites, yeah. | 02:40:04 | |
Thank you. | 02:40:11 | |
Commissioner Kubica. | 02:40:12 | |
Oh, I'm sorry. | 02:40:15 | |
I don't have anything to say at this time. | 02:40:17 | |
Are we still voting? | 02:40:22 | |
Yeah, with we're still looking at option 4, the R1 area South of Cynics. OK, this is optional 4. | 02:40:24 | |
Any other thoughts or? | 02:40:35 | |
I would not be opposed to including this as an option. | 02:40:39 | |
The only thought I had was that by the time I got to look at all these maps, it looked like we had kind of mapped out the entire | 02:40:43 | |
city. | 02:40:46 | |
I don't know where I stand on this right right now and. | 02:40:49 | |
Did you say you were unhappy? | 02:40:59 | |
Yeah, umm. | 02:41:01 | |
We have at least. | 02:41:03 | |
Would you like to just skip this one and go on to the next and I would skip it for now, there's no. | 02:41:06 | |
You know, complete consensus. Yeah. So we'll, we'll go on to the next and we'll we'll get through the list, get to the end, see | 02:41:12 | |
where the numbers are and then if we need to come back and revisit this one. Not option 5. | 02:41:18 | |
Is the R1 area near Forest Hill correct? | 02:41:25 | |
And they, you know, far it's Forest Ave. on the on the West, it's it's Seaview Ave. that goes right, right down the middle from | 02:41:35 | |
top to bottom. | 02:41:39 | |
You can see Prescott. | 02:41:45 | |
Coming through. | 02:41:47 | |
Than Stuart and then the the big St. on the southern end is Bishop Ave. | 02:41:49 | |
And the the. | 02:41:57 | |
The eastern limit, The eastern limit is divisadoro. And and I thought the caller said she lived on to visitoro and I thought you | 02:41:59 | |
said they didn't get letters. Did I misunderstand? | 02:42:06 | |
The yeah, the the caller, I actually spoke with her earlier today and she's a City of Monterey resident, lives adjacent to I | 02:42:14 | |
misunderstood. Thank you very much. | 02:42:19 | |
How do people feel about this option? | 02:42:25 | |
Questions. Comments. | 02:42:28 | |
To Mr. Davison. | 02:42:31 | |
Sorry for taking up so much space here. I really like the development. I think it's adjacent to a lot of amenities through | 02:42:33 | |
transit. | 02:42:37 | |
You know, it's built up higher. So I don't think there's going to be as many issues around view. I think, I think it's good, yeah, | 02:42:42 | |
reason option. | 02:42:47 | |
Commissioner Swaggart Yeah, I would oppose this one for the for the reasons I stated earlier and I don't think the numbers, I | 02:42:54 | |
mean, depending on what the consensus is for for the later options, I. | 02:43:00 | |
I think we can get there without without. | 02:43:08 | |
Recommending rezoning of this for sale area or the prior option. | 02:43:13 | |
I would support this as an option. | 02:43:18 | |
Commissioner Sawyer. | 02:43:21 | |
I am. | 02:43:23 | |
Don't support this and. | 02:43:25 | |
I I'm kind of in the same mind as Commissioner Swagger and I did have a question in regards to. | 02:43:28 | |
Saving stuff for when we go to our next cycle and we're looking for things. I just thought this would be a good one to say for the | 02:43:40 | |
next cycle. That's where I'm coming from. I'm sorry. I don't know if that's a very good thought, but that's where I was. | 02:43:46 | |
Commissioner Davidson staff talks about that all the time. | 02:43:53 | |
Commissioner Davidson, if we overshoot on this cycle, can those additional numbers be used to fulfill the next cycle? | 02:44:01 | |
Or will those be taken into an account? It'll be kind of the the post will be moved again. That's that's a good question. Do we | 02:44:10 | |
Ryan or the city attorney's office, would you be able to answer that in terms of whether excess? | 02:44:17 | |
Capacity that we include in this cycle could be carried for carried forward in the next housing cycle. I'm happy to take a cut of | 02:44:27 | |
that, Ryan, if you'd like. It's Mary Wagner with Burke, Williams and Sorenson. | 02:44:32 | |
And you don't necessarily carry forward excess capacity. You could utilize sites again in your next housing element round. You'll | 02:44:39 | |
recall that there were some. | 02:44:45 | |
New requirements that went into effect with this planning cycle that if you reuse sites if they've been used. | 02:44:54 | |
Once if they're if they're developed and twice if they're vacant. I believe it is you have to allow a certain by right development | 02:45:03 | |
on those sites that have a certain number of units that are provided for affordable housing. So there are there are some | 02:45:11 | |
implications to having sites on your sites inventory that are then reused. And I don't know if there will be additional changes | 02:45:19 | |
that come along in housing element law that could have additional implications, but there's no there's no real. | 02:45:27 | |
There's no no, you don't get an automatic carry forward. You'd have to re-evaluate those sites in the next housing element round. | 02:45:35 | |
Well, Commissioner Swigert. | 02:45:46 | |
And Vice Chair Sawyer. | 02:45:48 | |
Would you be amenable to a proposal? | 02:45:51 | |
That just included. | 02:45:54 | |
The West side of Seaview. In other words, the property's closest to Forest Hill. | 02:45:57 | |
I wouldn't, I, I just don't think this is necessary. I think we can meet the numbers with, with some of the subsequent options. | 02:46:06 | |
And on the point that that people were talking about about carryover, I don't think we want to give CDC anything more than we have | 02:46:13 | |
to. We, I think that would be a huge mistake. Personnel changes, laws change. There's no guarantee that any excess that we | 02:46:20 | |
provided right now would inherit our benefit down the road. | 02:46:28 | |
HCD What did I say? | 02:46:37 | |
Thank you, I get my. | 02:46:40 | |
Mr. Russell, this might not be fair. | 02:46:44 | |
Looking at the map of of this option. | 02:46:48 | |
I'm suggesting just taking that seating that goes goes right down the middle and I'm suggesting just taking the houses to the left | 02:46:53 | |
closest to forest. | 02:46:59 | |
I don't think that would help make up the numbers just because of, you know, remember some of those size, size requirements, none | 02:47:07 | |
of these, most of these parcels don't meet that half an acre size requirement. So we would need to make sure that some of these | 02:47:14 | |
sites have appropriate conditions to include a few parcels next to it. So I'm not sure off the top of my head how much, how many | 02:47:22 | |
units we can get from that. We can certainly you can certainly direct us to, to look and see what we can get from just doing that. | 02:47:29 | |
And then I'm not sure from from a legal perspective how how close this is to getting into the spot zoning kind of realm. | 02:47:38 | |
Yeah, thank you. I'll put that aside for now. And it it seems as if we should move on and leave option 5 as a as a question mark | 02:47:45 | |
for now. | 02:47:51 | |
Option 6 is the First United Message Methodist Church and Mr. Russell is that is that all one parcel. | 02:47:59 | |
It is. | 02:48:08 | |
And when you mentioned spot zoning, does that apply here when you're just dealing with one parcel or are we not doing that? | 02:48:12 | |
I would have to to look into that or maybe maybe legal can speak to that. Hi, Mary. Hi. | 02:48:22 | |
I don't think rezoning this site would be considered spot zoning. I think it it, you know, it already has a relatively unique land | 02:48:30 | |
use designation. I believe Ryan is that accurate? It's kind of off by itself. It's surrounded by commercial and it's a it's a | 02:48:36 | |
fairly large piece of property. So I think you know, it, it's you're changing a site that's already got some kind of unique | 02:48:41 | |
characteristics. | 02:48:47 | |
You're changing the zoning of that that same site. I don't think that's wrong. | 02:48:53 | |
In this case, as the city talked to First United Methodist Church by any chance? | 02:48:57 | |
And I've realized we don't have to, and I understand. | 02:49:06 | |
That I'm not sure. I I don't know because this is a site from the original inventory and so I'm not sure the level of contact that | 02:49:10 | |
was made from that original sites list. | 02:49:16 | |
So we're we're really just changing the the density. | 02:49:26 | |
Yes, the this one, the proposal here is to increase or change the zoning and the land use designation to get us above that 20 unit | 02:49:32 | |
per acre threshold where we can then allocate the lower income units to the site. | 02:49:40 | |
Any questions or comments about this option? | 02:49:49 | |
How do we feel about it? | 02:49:55 | |
Commissioner Kubica. | 02:50:00 | |
Your your friends here in PG like this option. | 02:50:03 | |
I'm sorry you're muted. | 02:50:12 | |
That's fine. | 02:50:17 | |
So that's OK for. | 02:50:20 | |
This is option 6 and what what number do we have here? 47 is the total. | 02:50:24 | |
Jim Murphy Yes, we've reached the numbers requirement. | 02:50:34 | |
Just now. | 02:50:39 | |
Does the staff for CD have have the numbers for where we are right now? | 02:50:42 | |
Ryan, are are you able to add up the numbers for options 123 and six? | 02:50:49 | |
An option to included the additional commercial and industrial sites on the other sites list. | 02:50:58 | |
Yeah. If you can give us a minute, because we didn't actually get into the other potential sites. So we'll have to kind of 0 out | 02:51:08 | |
some of those numbers. | 02:51:12 | |
But I can, I can look into those right now. So we'll, we'll take a short pause here and let them tally up the numbers and let us | 02:51:17 | |
know where we are. Great. | 02:51:22 | |
I don't know if you heard Commissioner Zanzi, the totals are fine. We're not sure about the buckets are, Yeah. | 02:51:33 | |
Could could I ask? | 02:51:41 | |
Could I ask a question during this period? | 02:51:44 | |
A lot of the additional sites are existing businesses. | 02:51:47 | |
When I look at them. | 02:51:52 | |
To build the housing that we're suggesting. | 02:51:55 | |
You know that business would disappear the gas station for just for an example. | 02:51:58 | |
What I mean, how does the city feel about that? | 02:52:03 | |
You know, it's, it's just. | 02:52:07 | |
I mean, I would not want to be the person to walk to the gas station and. | 02:52:11 | |
I realize they don't have to do it, but. | 02:52:15 | |
I don't. I don't. That's tough. | 02:52:19 | |
We're not in an easy position right there. There are no easy sites here in Pacific Grove. We, we don't have large swaths of land | 02:52:23 | |
that are undeveloped that we can allocate, allocate the units to. So we're, we're down to hard decisions. But yeah, it's, it is a, | 02:52:29 | |
it's a good point of balancing. I guess my real question is what if HCD comes and says, hey, you really want to get rid of all | 02:52:36 | |
these businesses? | 02:52:42 | |
I mean, would they do that? Is that the way they think or? | 02:52:49 | |
It looks like. | 02:52:54 | |
Yeah, it looks like Mary. Did you have a comment on that? | 02:52:57 | |
I'm not. I'm not sure that I understood the the question if the concern is that if we're rezoning certain types of uses that | 02:53:01 | |
aren't currently zoned residential of HCD would have concerns about that. Is that accurate? | 02:53:08 | |
No, it's it's commercial properties with viable businesses. | 02:53:18 | |
But we're we're saying we would rather have houses there. | 02:53:24 | |
We're not rezoning, we're just changing the use. | 02:53:29 | |
So I think the question is just the sheer number of commercial and industrial sites that were including in the sites inventory as | 02:53:34 | |
as future housing sites. | 02:53:39 | |
I mean, we do have to provide the justification and Ryan can speak to this, you know of of sites that have existing uses on them | 02:53:46 | |
and the likelihood that they are going to develop with housing. I believe that's an analysis we would have to perform, correct, | 02:53:51 | |
Ryan? | 02:53:56 | |
That that is correct. So for for each of the non vacant sites, we, we typically look at if they, if there's existing trends in the | 02:54:03 | |
city for those types of uses to be redeveloped or even regionally. We also look at if sites have a number of non vacant site | 02:54:11 | |
factors that would incentivize the redevelopment. So like I mentioned in the the presentation, some of those factors could be age | 02:54:18 | |
of the structure, condition of the structure, land value greater than the improvement value if there's owner interest. | 02:54:26 | |
If the sites and areas that are experiencing redevelopment, so we need to take all of those into consideration when including some | 02:54:33 | |
of these non vacant sites. | 02:54:38 | |
But let. | 02:54:44 | |
Are you ready with the numbers? | 02:54:45 | |
We are we're showing that we are above the the unit numbers that we needed. So the 365 I'm trying to see if there's a way for me | 02:54:49 | |
to to share my screen if there's if, if that would be useful, but we're showing about a. | 02:54:57 | |
40 about 4743 units above what's needed so. | 02:55:05 | |
And how are you with the economic breakdown? | 02:55:13 | |
So 14 units above lower, 12 above moderate income and 17 above moderate income and that's assuming we didn't move forward with | 02:55:19 | |
these these two options. And then it assumes we don't add any of the potential sites, the other potential sites besides the | 02:55:25 | |
commercial and industrial ones. | 02:55:32 | |
So we're OK. | 02:55:42 | |
We are OK. | 02:55:43 | |
So Ryan, can you just clarify the the row along the bottom, those are the numbers that we are above the minimum numbers that we | 02:55:48 | |
need to have in each bucket. | 02:55:53 | |
Thank you, Commissioner Komika. | 02:56:00 | |
Thank you. Thank you. | 02:56:04 | |
I think these numbers are good. I think we're trying to make a good effort on it. A question I have though is. | 02:56:08 | |
For resource and I'm not sure I'm going to say this correctly, but for. | 02:56:16 | |
Infrastructure and resources Grocery stores, doctors I. | 02:56:21 | |
You know, any outreach we have to do, do we have to make take that into consideration while we're doing these different options? | 02:56:26 | |
Well, HCD come back with another set of questions on that on and then we'll go through this again. Or do we should we be looking | 02:56:35 | |
at that now before we push this forward? And, and I don't know if I'm articulating correctly what I'm trying to say, but I'm, I'm, | 02:56:43 | |
I'm trying here. It's are you asking if we should go, go to these new parcels and, and do outreach to, to new sites? | 02:56:51 | |
So the property owners, no, what I'm trying to say is, OK, I put so many low income people here, so many medium income here. But | 02:57:00 | |
now I, I have 5, you know, essentially 2003 thousand new people in town. I have to have a new grocery store. I have to have | 02:57:09 | |
transit, I have to have where are they going to go to doctors? If I have people who need to outreach from because of low income, | 02:57:17 | |
do we have the facilities to do that? Are we, are we or will we get questions back on that? | 02:57:25 | |
The state requires requires us to look at infrastructure and if if we need to do any infrastructure improvements, if there's | 02:57:35 | |
available capacity, obviously, you know, water is a constraint in the city. As part of our first review that the state did comment | 02:57:42 | |
on having issues with including grocery stores in the inventory, which is one of the reasons we didn't include Trader Joe's. And I | 02:57:48 | |
think there was some other grocery stores that were recommended as as back pocket sites. So we avoided trying to include grocery | 02:57:54 | |
store sites. | 02:58:01 | |
Where we would assume that that use would no longer be available. But as far as doctor's offices and that sort of thing, I haven't | 02:58:07 | |
had the state ask for for an analysis for any of those types of uses or services. | 02:58:15 |