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