No Bookmarks Exist.
It is 6:00 PM I am Stephen Lilly and I will call to order this October 12th, 2023 regular meeting of the Pacific Grove Planning 00:00:00
Commission. 00:00:04
Commission. 00:00:09
Mr. Sidor or Mr. McGowan, would you please call the roll one or the other? 00:00:10
Chair Lily. 00:00:22
Present. 00:00:24
Commissioner Davison. 00:00:26
Doesn't. 00:00:28
Commissioner Murphy has it. 00:00:29
Commissioner Kubica. 00:00:32
Present. 00:00:33
We have 4 present. 00:00:36
And three absent. 00:00:38
OK, so we have 4 commissioners are present as Mr. McGowan said. 00:00:41
On my left is Vice Chair Murphy, Commissioner Kubica and on my right is Commissioner Davison. 00:00:45
Myself, Stephen Lilly. 00:00:51
Commissioners Frederickson, Sawyer and Luzinski. 00:00:53
Have excuse absences, nevertheless we have a quorum. 00:00:56
This meeting is. 00:01:01
Being conducted under revised rules mandated in Assembly Bill 2449. 00:01:02
This is a hybrid format with our meeting in chambers and virtually or assume participation. 00:01:07
The webinar ID and toll free telephone numbers are on the agenda phase sheet. 00:01:13
When the host opens the agenda for public comment, those wishing to speak. 00:01:18
Via Zoom should press Star 9 to raise your hand and then Star 6 to unmute one recognize. 00:01:22
Before we continue, let me remind. 00:01:29
All of us, including myself, that we must turn on our microphones and speak directly into them. 00:01:32
So that our equipment can properly record us. 00:01:37
Now we come to our agenda. 00:01:41
Ohh, it's a shorter agenda as it would appear. Does anybody have any changes to the agenda? 00:01:43
If not, then may I have a motion to approve the agenda? 00:01:52
Motion to Approve. 00:01:59
Second, OK, so Commissioner Davison. 00:02:00
I made a motion to approve the agenda seconded by Commissioner Murphy. 00:02:04
So is there any? 00:02:08
Discussion. 00:02:11
If not, then Mr. or Mr. McGowan, would you please call the roll? 00:02:12
All those in favor say aye, and those opposed say nay. 00:02:18
Commissioner Davison. 00:02:22
Aye. 00:02:23
Vice Chair Murphy, Aye. 00:02:26
Commissioner Kubica. 00:02:30
Chair Lily Aye, Chair. The motion is adopted by a flood of vote of four to zero, with three members absent. 00:02:32
3 commissioners absent. 00:02:40
All right. We have an approved agenda. So we now come to item number three, Commission and staff announcements. 00:02:42
Does any Member of the Commission have an announcement? 00:02:50
If not, I have a single announcement. On September 14th, 2023 we approved an architectural permit. 00:02:55
Is permit and waiver for a project. 00:03:01
It's 773775 Ocean View Blvd. 00:03:04
That approval has been appealed to the City Council. 00:03:08
Just so that everybody on the Commission knows that. 00:03:11
Are there any staff announcements, Mr. Sidor? Mr. McGowan? 00:03:14
Staff has no announcements at this time. 00:03:19
OK. 00:03:22
Tonight we have Erica Vega, our new Assistant City Attorney, with us on Zoom. So welcome. 00:03:23
And we also have Mary Wagner. 00:03:30
With. 00:03:33
Same firm as Miss Vega from Burke, Williamson and Sorenson in attendance. She is also on Zoom. 00:03:34
She has been assisting the city staff on the housing bill. 00:03:40
So welcome to you both. I think I see your name so. 00:03:44
Welcome. 00:03:47
Do you have either one of you have an announcement for this evening? 00:03:48
I do not chair Lily other than to say thank you and. 00:03:53
Available if you have questions for me. 00:03:58
Thank you. 00:04:02
Same here. I have no announcements other than this. A pleasure to be working with all of you and I look forward to. 00:04:04
A productive relationship working together in the future. 00:04:11
Well, thank you and again, welcome. 00:04:14
Now we have Council liaison announcements. Mr. Coletti, welcome. Do you have any announcements? Councilmember Coletti, I should 00:04:18
say. 00:04:21
Good evening, Chair and members of the Board. Members of the Commission. I have no announcements. Have a good meeting. 00:04:25
Good. Thank you very much. 00:04:31
We now come to item five, general public comment. 00:04:33
This must deal with matters subject to the jurisdiction of the City and this Commission, but are not not on the agenda this 00:04:36
evening. 00:04:40
This is also an appropriate time to. 00:04:44
Comment on items on the consent agenda, but since we don't have any items on it, I guess that's irrelevant. 00:04:46
Comments from the public will be limited because of our agenda this evening to two minutes per speaker and will not receive 00:04:52
Commission action. 00:04:55
Comments regarding an item on the agenda will be heard at the time the Commission's consideration of that item, and that's the 00:04:59
housing element. 00:05:03
Before we continue, I need to mention that we have received numerous letters and emails. Some are included in our agenda packet. I 00:05:09
think there are 4. 00:05:13
In quite a few. 00:05:17
Were later sent and. 00:05:19
Because most of them deal with housing. Let me read the, the, the names. 00:05:22
We had four general letters from 1 from 2 from Inga Lorenzen Dodson. 00:05:27
Dahmer and. 00:05:33
Two from Tony Chiani and then in the the housing element. I'll wait to read those names. 00:05:34
But our administrative technician, Debbie Gonzalez, keeps a copy of all of. 00:05:41
Our communications in a binder. 00:05:45
And keep the letters coming. We do read them and and do welcome them and they're they often have good insights in them, so keep it 00:05:49
up. 00:05:52
Would anyone like to address the Commission on matters not on the agenda this evening? 00:05:56
Please come to the podium and. 00:06:02
Welcome. 00:06:08
Is it on now? Yes, it is not OK. 00:06:13
Hey, my name is Vince Tuminello. I'm a local Pacific Grove resident and I'm here for a general oral. 00:06:16
Communication. 00:06:22
And it's about basically what a wonderful job I think the Planning Commission has done over the years. 00:06:24
I've been to many different planning commissions as time has gone on. 00:06:31
There were people like Craig Riddell, Dan Court, Sue and Bennett and other people on over the years, and I'm very satisfied with 00:06:35
the work that you do. I think you're very judicious. 00:06:40
Party and you take your job seriously and anything that the council passes down to you. 00:06:45
You do take on. 00:06:50
Now I want to also tell you that I think you, you and your past planning commissions have played a wonderful role. 00:06:52
And making Pacific grow retain its wonderful character. 00:06:59
And zoning. 00:07:04
And all kinds of things that are your responsibilities as well as we've done in the past. 00:07:06
Now you know, everyone can't drive a Porsche. Everyone can drive a Mercedes. 00:07:11
Everyone can't dine at Pebble Beach. Why? Because people have to look at their monetary budgets. 00:07:17
And we live in a market economy. 00:07:23
That means you have to earn what you expect to enjoy. 00:07:25
That includes living in Pacific Grove. 00:07:30
Everyone can't live in Pacific Grove. We have a market economy and all of the properties are market priced. 00:07:33
Either for sale or for rent. So when you look for a living accommodation. 00:07:40
Any person in this country has to decide what can they afford, as I did when I was growing up and when I graduated from college, 00:07:45
You know, I got together with three friends. We rented A2 bedroom apartment with two single beds in each one so we could split the 00:07:53
rent four ways. We did not expect to afford to live in Pebble Beach, Pacific Grove, Carmel or even Monterey as an independent 00:08:00
renter, paying the full cost of an apartment no matter how much I claimed I needed it. 00:08:08
So I just want to share that with you. Thank you very much. My 2 minutes are up. 00:08:16
OK. Well, thank you. You're welcome. 00:08:20
Daily Planning Commissioner Mike Gibbs. I'm a member of the DC when you're talking on my own behalf. 00:08:31
The first of all, you have a very difficult task. I have some comments for later on. 00:08:38
But just to let you know, again, not speaking for the EDC, we are working on a strategic plan. 00:08:42
For Pacific Growth, Pacific Grove is a specifically unique. 00:08:48
A town. A place with some enduring assets that you all know about. The Natural History Museum, The lighthouse. 00:08:51
You know. 00:08:59
Almost 4 miles along the ocean there, which is spectacular. 00:08:59
The the thing about it is, is that there are some properties downtown. I'm not talking about housing and talking about commercial 00:09:04
properties. 00:09:07
And one of the things I think is going to come up and may end up in front of you at some point. 00:09:11
Is that we have some absentee owners. It's been often talked about. Maybe we should tax. 00:09:16
These absentee owners are extra. 00:09:21
And I have been visiting several cities in the state of California that have redeveloped their downtowns. 00:09:24
And a couple of them have come up with this concept in in association with American Planning Association of Catalyst Sites or 00:09:31
Catalyst Locations. They tend to be in downtown locations. 00:09:36
They tend to be buildings that are, you know, out of date. 00:09:41
Or they haven't been updated because the assessments are very low, so no work has been done on them, but they're. 00:09:43
They're not particularly good looking. 00:09:48
So one of the things I think is going to happen, we're going to start talking about sites that could be premier. 00:09:50
We're not going to change a whole lot of stuff, but could be featured places for people to go attract young people. 00:09:56
To Pacific Grove, where they haven't been coming in the past. 00:10:01
So I just wanted to bring that up. That's ongoing. We're going to be talking to stakeholders, et cetera. 00:10:04
The second thing I want to mention is that the EDC. 00:10:09
A few months ago awarded 2 Small business grants. 00:10:13
And those grants? 00:10:16
Have not been awarded yet and I'm just learning into the fact that we can't quite find out. 00:10:17
Where the hang up is on the grants, so I'm going to be talking about this in front of the City Council. 00:10:22
But since the departure of the city manager, we can't quite find out the status of the grant, so I'd like to get those freed up. 00:10:27
Those people need the money. 00:10:34
And we should award it to him right now. Thank you very much. Thank you. 00:10:36
There were any other comments either from the audience or? 00:10:42
Remotely on zoom. 00:10:46
We have one hand raised. 00:10:49
Welcome, Miss. The first first speaker will be Tony Ciani. 00:10:51
Welcome. 00:10:56
Good evening, Commissioners. 00:10:58
I've often come before you to complain. 00:11:01
About. 00:11:05
Particular projects. 00:11:06
Or procedures that that the Planning Commission? 00:11:09
Or the Planning department. 00:11:13
CD. 00:11:15
The. 00:11:16
Is doing. 00:11:18
But tonight, I I just want to compliment you. 00:11:20
Instead of complaining. 00:11:24
Want to compliment all of you? 00:11:26
This Commission. 00:11:29
The entire Commission. 00:11:31
On. 00:11:33
It's. 00:11:34
Efforts. 00:11:36
And it's. 00:11:38
Procedures. 00:11:40
Definitely. It's procedures. 00:11:42
To look after Pacific Groves resources. 00:11:45
To look after. 00:11:49
The administrative policies. 00:11:51
And procedures. 00:11:53
And I. 00:11:55
I just want to compliment you. 00:11:57
Thank you. 00:11:59
You. 00:12:01
Any further public comments? 00:12:05
I see no other hands raised. 00:12:08
Not then. We will move on to our regular or our consent agenda. Since we have no items on the consent agenda this evening, we'll 00:12:10
move on to. 00:12:14
The regular agenda which would be 9A, continued and regular business. 00:12:19
Since there is No 8. 00:12:24
No. 00:12:27
#9A is 6 cycle draft housing element continued from the October 5th, 2023 Planning Commission special meeting. 00:12:28
Tonight we again have a special agenda item, a public hearing on the draft housing element. 00:12:37
Last week, on October 5th, we began our review of this draft. 00:12:43
To recount our actions, the Planning Commission voted to recommend to the City Council. 00:12:46
That the Noah Building property at 1352 Lighthouse Ave. or Lot 49. 00:12:51
Be deleted from the draft housing element. We also recommended report removal of the of any references to Project Home Key. 00:12:57
Tonight we intend to further discuss and complete our review of this draft housing element. 00:13:05
To start, let me begin with these. 00:13:10
For their comments. 00:13:12
1st we will have an agenda report provided by our staff and consultants and I believe Russell Reynolds is here this evening for 00:13:13
Rincon, if that's my correct Mr. Sidor. 00:13:18
Yes, Chair, that agenda report appears on pages 11 through 17 of 45 in this. 00:13:24
Evenings agenda packet. 00:13:30
I will then open the public or the hearing for public comments. Those wishing to speak will have 3 minutes each. 00:13:32
Previously, this Commission heard public comment on this draft housing element on October 5th. 00:13:39
Therefore, we request that you, during public comment tonight you speak on matters that you did not. 00:13:44
Necessarily address. 00:13:51
Your comments on October 5th, as we have. 00:13:53
Heard those and presumably considered them. 00:13:56
I will then close. 00:13:59
Hearing to further comment from the general public so the Commission can finish reviewing the draft housing element. 00:14:00
Discuss and make a recommendation to the City Council. 00:14:06
As I said earlier, there's a number of people who wrote us letters. 00:14:09
There were something like 15 people wrote us 26 letters, and that includes Jane Haines. 00:14:14
Susie Joyce, I hope I. 00:14:20
Pronouncing its names properly. If I don't, I apologize. Anthony Tarsal. 00:14:22
Andrew Brisson. 00:14:28
Jenny McMurdo, Lou Colletti. 00:14:29
Linda Detling, Colleen Ingram. 00:14:33
Lisa Chiani, Rebecca Lee, Inga Lauritzen Dahmer, Tony Chiani. 00:14:36
Karen Harley, Laura Lee Martin. 00:14:42
Michael de la Lop de Lapa. 00:14:45
From Land Watch. 00:14:48
And I think. 00:14:50
I think that covers it. 00:14:53
If I missed anybody, I apologize. I think I got them all, but I may not have. 00:14:55
So I wanna. 00:15:03
Further thank staff and Rincon for their efforts in putting together this draft housing element and helping it review US review it 00:15:05
last week. 00:15:09
On October 5th. 00:15:13
As I said, we have Mr. Sidor from our staff this evening, along with Ryan Russell from Rincon. 00:15:15
As I said last week, the role of the Planning Commission can be found. 00:15:20
On this matter in Article 26 of our Charter, and that is to recommend to the Council the adoption amendment or repeal of a general 00:15:24
master plan or any part thereof. 00:15:28
For the physical development of the city. 00:15:33
This Planning Commission review is a preliminary step necessary for meeting a state mandated. 00:15:36
Deadline. 00:15:41
After further review by the City Council on October 18th, staff will submit the draft. 00:15:42
Housing element with changes to the state Department of Housing and Urban Development. 00:15:47
Otherwise known as HCD. 00:15:51
Subsequently, the draft will come back to the city, presumably for final review on. 00:15:53
Approval. 00:15:58
At this point the this Commission will make a final recommendation on the housing element to the City Council in accordance with 00:15:59
the Charter. 00:16:03
This draft housing element is a plan to foster the development of housing to meet at least. 00:16:07
1125 additional housing units for the eight-year period 2023 through 31. We know the city cannot build that housing. 00:16:13
However, we can adopt policies that promote the development of that housing. 00:16:21
Several members of the community have commented on zoning. 00:16:26
Please know that this is not a hearing to rezone any property in Pacific Grove at this time. 00:16:30
Rather, it is the review of a plan for housing. 00:16:36
That ultimately will involve. 00:16:38
The possible rezoning of some locations and areas. 00:16:40
This hearing is an opportunity for all of our residents and interested parties to make their voices heard by writing letters and 00:16:44
emails and speaking out this evening. 00:16:48
So, Mr. Sidor, I will recognize you for any comments you may have. And then? 00:16:54
You can turn it over, I believe, to Mr. Russell. 00:16:58
That works? Sure. Lily, thank you for those comments to open this item. 00:17:02
Just very briefly, I'll add that on October 5th, 2023, the Planning Commission. 00:17:08
Made two or voted on two recommendations. 00:17:13
1. 00:17:17
Or first, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend removal of the Noah building site. 00:17:19
At 1352 Lighthouse Ave. 00:17:25
And the Commission also voted 5:00 to 2:00 to recommend removal. 00:17:28
Of the reference to project home key. 00:17:32
And. 00:17:35
That's all that I have to add at this point. 00:17:40
And Mr. Russell from Rincon and myself. 00:17:43
As well as Veronica Tam are available. 00:17:48
To answer the questions. 00:17:50
As best we can. 00:17:52
From the Planning Commission. 00:17:55
So Veronica Tam is on the. 00:17:57
Program this evening. She's on Zoom then. 00:18:00
Oh, there she is. OK, good. I'm glad I didn't know. I. 00:18:04
Stand corrected then. 00:18:08
So apologize for any omission of of your name, Miss Tam. 00:18:10
So at this point. 00:18:19
We would recognize Ryan Russell. Welcome. 00:18:21
Any comments you might have to? 00:18:25
Help us start. 00:18:28
Sir, hi, Commissioner. Sorry I couldn't be available at the hearing last week, but it's good to be with you all. I'm Ryan. I'm 00:18:30
with Rincon Consultants. 00:18:33
And I'm also here with Veronica Tam again this evening to help. 00:18:38
Answer any questions you might have on the housing element, we're happy to pull up the presentation that we had and. 00:18:42
Go over any slides again or. 00:18:49
Just dive right into questions and comments. 00:18:51
But it's the pleasure of the Commission regarding that. Should we just proceed on with public comment or is there any need to go 00:18:56
through the Indian? 00:19:00
Page in the PowerPoint. 00:19:04
Alright then. 00:19:05
We will defer any review of that to until later, Mr. Russell, and so thank you for your comments. 00:19:06
If there's no further comments from Rincon or Miss Tam, then I will. 00:19:14
Open this hearing for comments from the public. 00:19:19
As I said before, each person speaking will have 3 minutes and so is there anyone Mr. Gown that wants to speak either in 00:19:22
attendance or in on zoom? 00:19:27
And if so, please come to the microphone and. 00:19:36
Tell us, tell us what you think. Yes. 00:19:39
Thank you, Chair. Lily. Thank you, Planning Commission, my name is Mike Gibbs. I'm a member of the DC. I'm here speaking on my own 00:19:46
behalf. I'm going to raise the level because you guys are in the detail up to a more strategic level you all know. And I'm not 00:19:51
telling you anything new about SB89 and 10. 00:19:57
That are state law. 00:20:03
It affect the housing element. I'm going to address SB-9. 00:20:05
In the last year, the Los Angeles Superior Court. 00:20:09
Received a petition from 4 cities. 00:20:12
Carson, Torrance. Redondo Beach. And Whittier. And Whittier. 00:20:15
And they are suing the state to overturn SB-9. 00:20:20
Right quoting from their petition, it is undisputed that planning and zoning laws are matters of municipal affairs. 00:20:23
The constitutional right of municipalities, of which there are about 480 in California. 00:20:31
To zone single family residential districts and. 00:20:35
Sanctioning principle upon which they they have this right as founded is well founded and has been settled law for 100 years now. 00:20:39
SP9 basically allows you to take a single family property. 00:20:44
And rezone it for multifamily property, I think 2 to 4 units. 00:20:49
By enacting SB-9, the state has eviscerated the cities like Pacific Grove, local control over land use decisions and community 00:20:53
tailored zoning processes. 00:20:58
Prior to the signing of the bill by our Governor Newsome. 00:21:04
He was presented with a letter from 240 states. That's about half of all the cities. 00:21:07
Of all municipalities in the in the state of California. 00:21:13
I'm not sure a bit PG signed on to that. 00:21:16
SB-9 does not guarantee the construction of affordable housing, nor will it spur additional housing development in a manner that 00:21:20
supports local flexibility, decision making and community input. 00:21:26
The bill does not require, interestingly enough. 00:21:32
When we created homes or lots to be. 00:21:35
Affordable. 00:21:37
Or any covenants? 00:21:38
Therefore would be restricted to moderate or lower income households quoting to the petition. 00:21:40
Just just to kind of sum all this up. 00:21:47
These cities and others recognize that housing. 00:21:49
Is important. Fordable housing is important. 00:21:52
Right. I have kids. I have grandkids who couldn't afford to live here. So I'm in favor of this. 00:21:55
But cities are making progress on this. For example, the City of Carson over the past ten 1520 years has created 101,000 00:22:00
affordable housing units through some very interesting and innovative approaches. 00:22:06
I I would just challenge anybody listening here or in the community to think that our politicians and. 00:22:13
Sacramento have the best interests of Pacific Grove in heart. They do not. 00:22:20
Right. What we should know is that they contributions from builders, developers, people who lives in communities that we don't 00:22:25
live in, we couldn't afford to live in. 00:22:29
I just would remind you that on October 23rd, the Carmel Residents Association is meeting with John Laird. 00:22:34
And on Addis. 00:22:41
At the high school Performing Arts Center at 7:00. 00:22:42
To be there, to express your opinion are two representatives will be there. You can talk to them and they will be answering 00:22:46
questions. 00:22:49
Thank you very much. Thank you. 00:22:52
Wright, Palmer. 00:23:02
Commissioners, I just, I didn't hear that you had received my e-mail of last night regarding the housing element. 00:23:03
So I just wanted to make sure that you had was from. 00:23:14
Barbara Palmer and Dwight Palmer. 00:23:17
And if you had not received it, I can read it quickly here. 00:23:19
Because it bears on the changes that were proposed by the Commission. 00:23:23
Thanks to the Planning Commission for unanimously voting to remove the Noah property from the Sixth Draft Housing Element Site 00:23:29
Inventory #49. 00:23:33
The unanimous vote is consistent with Veronica Texans opinion. 00:23:38
Expressed on the record at the October 23 hearing that Site #49 is not necessary for the required site inventory. 00:23:42
Also, the commission's vote is reflective of the public outcry in support of removing. 00:23:52
Site #49 from the site inventory. 00:23:57
Respecting Commissioner Lilly's October 9, 2023 edit sheet. 00:24:01
Please consider the following. 00:24:06
Edit Sheet Page 3. 00:24:08
Bullet .4. 00:24:11
First line. 00:24:13
The word figure. 00:24:15
Hyphen 29 should read. 00:24:17
Table. 00:24:19
So it should be table instead of figure at 29. 00:24:20
Please add to that same bullet point quote. 00:24:24
On page 2-25. 00:24:27
Figure 2-5. 00:24:30
Should be modified to remove site 49. 00:24:33
Also, please consider adding to Appendix A, compiled site inventory. 00:24:38
A page a four, a total site acreage. 00:24:43
Of 64.903 acres. 00:24:46
Excluding site 40 nines, 4.19 acres. 00:24:50
Also, we commend the Commission members proposing to add to the site inventory parcels at the Safeway store. 00:24:55
Country Club Gate. 00:25:03
Mission Linen. That's three acres there. 00:25:04
And the port mentioned that's two acres there. 00:25:07
Thanks to the Commission for its good work. 00:25:11
Wait, the Barbara Palmer We are full time. Residents of Pacific Grove and homeowners, thank you. 00:25:13
Thank you. 00:25:20
Yes, we we did receive that now I recall because it we did, it made those corrections. My head was swimming with the figures and 00:25:21
table numbers. So I'm surprised only messed up one or two. You did very well. Thank you. 00:25:28
Welcome. 00:25:38
Thank you. 00:25:39
Umm. 00:25:40
You know. 00:25:42
I want to challenge the state. 00:25:44
Having the audacity and when I restate the state, who are we talking about? We're talking about the legislators. 00:25:46
In reply supposedly representing us having the governor and a few other bureaucrats. 00:25:53
I'm gonna challenge their authority to shove this down our throats. You know, I talked to people in Seaside. 00:25:59
Regular residents, they were under the belief that Seaside's gonna have to build several 1000. 00:26:06
Units because of this SB-9, but we're seaside gonna build them on the property they were given on the old Ford Lord. This is the 00:26:11
illusion that people have. Maybe that's true. Carmel little tiny one square mile Carmel. 00:26:18
Supposed to build over 350 new housing units. 00:26:24
Monterey I heard from two different people. 00:26:29
Candidate. 00:26:32
Dan Alpert junior told me it was 4500. 00:26:33
And I hear from people there now, ohh, it's only 2500 units. 00:26:37
I think it's somewhere in the middle. 4500 seems more likely if Little Pacific Grove is going to be retired to build 11. 00:26:41
100 units. Now the city isn't gonna build them as Mr. Gibbs. 00:26:48
Said some very important things, so I think you should review that if you have an opportunity as his presentation was superb. 00:26:52
Pacific Grove is going to build 1100 units. No, the city's not gonna build them. The city's gonna work with contractors and 00:26:59
developers who have lobbied the state. 00:27:04
To have this mandate shoved down our throats, how is this going to change the character of Pacific growth? 00:27:09
Very negatively, we're going to go from the town known for being the coincident, quintessential coastal community with Victorian 00:27:15
homes and a nice. 00:27:20
Atmosphere that people were here to enjoy. We're gonna jam in high rises. 00:27:26
Large complexes and among the worst things. 00:27:31
If you own a residential property, thanks to the work former president planning commissions have done zoned R1, that house would 00:27:34
be torn down and you can build a fireplace fourplex or a six Plex right next to your existing home. 00:27:42
Now with this outstanding no, it's totally ridiculous. 00:27:50
So what people have to do is write letters. 00:27:53
So on and so forth. 00:27:56
How about if we vote for new? 00:27:58
People in Sacramento. 00:28:00
Get rid of these people who are shoving this down our throats without even asking us. 00:28:03
Was anyone in this community asked to vote on this? 00:28:09
Should we? 00:28:12
Enact this. 00:28:14
Absurd over building to destroy the character and quality of life in Pacific Grove. I say no. 00:28:15
So I'm not voting for anyone who exists in Sacramento now, the governor or any of the people in other offices, because they're 00:28:22
facilitating the disruption of our quality of life. 00:28:29
And if you can't afford to live here, you have to live somewhere else. 00:28:35
Everyone can drive a Mercedes, thank you very much. 00:28:39
You. 00:28:43
I have three hands raised. The first speaker will be Tony Chiani. 00:28:54
Welcome. 00:28:59
Commissioners. 00:29:03
Thank you for having this meeting. 00:29:05
I grew up in Burbank. 00:29:08
And a trailer court. 00:29:10
Next to the railroad tracks. 00:29:11
And that other side of the tracks kind of area? 00:29:13
I understand what the importance of housing is. 00:29:17
I grew up and was fortunate. 00:29:21
Enough. 00:29:24
To be able to go to school, go to City Planning School at San Luis Obispo and Architectural School and become an architect. 00:29:25
I appreciate everything you're doing. 00:29:33
It's really important. 00:29:36
To embrace. 00:29:39
What the state of California is trying to do, which is look at. 00:29:41
After. 00:29:46
All of California's housing needs. 00:29:47
Not just. 00:29:49
A sliver of the coastal zone. 00:29:50
Which? 00:29:53
I feel really fortunate to live in. 00:29:54
I think it's. 00:29:58
Uh. 00:30:00
Really important for you. 00:30:02
To recognize the importance the the the opportunity to incorporate it will include. 00:30:05
Affordable housing and all of the. 00:30:13
Aspects of. 00:30:17
The. 00:30:19
General plan. 00:30:21
The general plan needs to be updated. 00:30:22
Not in peace, but in total comprehensively. 00:30:25
I think the housing element. 00:30:30
That's being proposed. 00:30:32
Is a gallant effort. 00:30:35
But. 00:30:37
It's not success, totally successful. 00:30:38
There are a lot of places in Pacific Grove, a lot of knit. 00:30:41
A niches a lot of. 00:30:45
Nooks and crannies. 00:30:48
Or affordable units could be incorporated into new development. 00:30:50
The. 00:30:55
Commissioner Frederickson suggestion of the Safeway stores. 00:30:58
Or the Country Club gate area Country Club gate. Look at the cross section of profile of the land there. 00:31:02
It's. 00:31:11
The topography there. 00:31:12
Would accommodate a lot of affordable clusters of apartments. 00:31:14
People who are looking for affordable housing are. 00:31:19
Many times just renters. 00:31:23
They're not looking to buy a place. 00:31:25
Just looking to be able to rent a place. 00:31:27
The La Hoya. 00:31:32
Village. 00:31:33
Which I'm very familiar with. 00:31:35
Has provides affordable housing and clusters of apartments next to all of the surfaces, restaurants and. 00:31:37
And stores and things like that. 00:31:45
Please open up the envelope. 00:31:48
Expand. 00:31:52
Where you're looking. 00:31:54
Definitely 801 Sunset. 00:31:57
As a candidate, but it's achievable. 00:31:59
Definitely the Cities Service yard. 00:32:03
Down on sunset. 00:32:06
With a 40 foot height limit. 00:32:08
Is a place where you could. 00:32:10
Maybe cut? 00:32:12
Part of the service area in half and the other half become affordable housing. Look everywhere. Thank you for every all the work 00:32:14
you're doing. 00:32:18
Thank you. 00:32:24
The next speaker will be William Smith. Welcome. 00:32:31
Well, good evening, Commissioner Lily. I'm William Smith, the visitor from Walnut Creek, CA. 00:32:37
I've visited and stayed in Pacific Grove many times. 00:32:43
The monarch butterflies were. 00:32:47
And the few monarchs that still return in the winter, sadly still are. 00:32:49
The major attractions for me. 00:32:54
I'm also a past chair of the County of Alameda Planning Commission. 00:32:57
I've commented on many housing elements, especially in the city of Alameda where I live for 30 years. 00:33:01
I commend to you the comments by Mr. Michael Delapa that you mentioned in your introduction. 00:33:08
If you adopt your suggestions. 00:33:13
Chances are good that HD will approve your housing element as submitted. 00:33:15
Otherwise. 00:33:20
HD could reject your housing element. 00:33:21
In your mind you you may find yourself run out of time. 00:33:23
To get the element approved. 00:33:26
And then become subject to the builders remedy. 00:33:29
And unable to influence the design and sighting of projects large and small before they are built. 00:33:31
When I stay in Pacific Grove, many low wage workers make my stay enjoyable. 00:33:40
Including motel maids, waiters and waitresses, retail clerks, gardeners and janitors. 00:33:44
In return. 00:33:49
I have these suggestions to enable more of them to minimize their commutes. 00:33:50
And reduce their carbon emissions. 00:33:54
Site Most of the affordable housing near, in, or adjacent to your business districts. 00:33:57
Are three of the four I believe might be suitable but include grocery stores and other services. 00:34:02
And our decision to frequent reliable transit service. 00:34:07
Rather than other districts. 00:34:10
Fewer amenities and less transit service. 00:34:12
And do pay attention to the suggestions of Tony Chapa. That sounds for citing affordable housing his his would work out well too. 00:34:14
And I thank you as many people have commented. 00:34:22
For deleting the site 49. 00:34:25
From the in Detroit. 00:34:28
Please ensure that that happens. 00:34:29
So. 00:34:33
I'm excited about staying in Pacific Grove again soon. I've heard that Monarchs have recovered some in the last last winter. 00:34:34
And especially, I will look forward to saying eight years. 00:34:42
After your levels of service and carbon emissions drop. 00:34:44
Is your house more of your service workers than sustainable neighborhoods? 00:34:47
Thank you for your attention. 00:34:52
Thank you. 00:34:54
Next speaker. 00:35:02
Phone Caller 363. 00:35:05
Phone number ending in 363. 00:35:16
You may speak. 00:35:19
Can I do it on Internet? 00:35:23
I just got it back. 00:35:26
Good. 00:35:28
Caller 363. 00:35:46
You there? 00:35:49
We'll come back to her. 00:35:52
I think it's one of the other hands, so why don't you? 00:35:54
Do you want to go to Lisa? Why don't you go to Lisa Chiani? 00:36:02
Next speaker, and it's been off and on all data for upgrades. 00:36:05
Next speaker will be Lisa Chiani. 00:36:10
Whoops. Thank you. 00:36:15
I'm I'm going to read the letter I sent this afternoon. 00:36:17
Because I'm. I'm. I I didn't. 00:36:22
I wasn't able to to send it. 00:36:25
Earlier and and I'm not sure you all had a chance to read it. 00:36:28
I wanted. I appreciate. 00:36:34
All that you did at the last meeting, last hearing on the DHE and I appreciate all the corrections and proposed changes made by 00:36:37
Commissioners and included in the agenda report. 00:36:43
Cheer Lily found a lot of places. 00:36:49
To to remove things. 00:36:53
Referring to 1352 Lighthouse. 00:36:56
And. 00:37:00
And I'm sure there's more. I support Commissioner Frederickson's recommendation to add the Safeway property and Country Club Gate 00:37:01
properties to the DHEA. 00:37:05
The Forest Hill Commercial District is an ideal area. 00:37:10
To to handle density with the addition of some traffic control measures and sidewalks. 00:37:15
To make it all work. 00:37:21
And it could actually improve. 00:37:24
The appearance. 00:37:28
Of the developed area. 00:37:29
In such a beautiful forested setting. 00:37:33
I hope you will ask staff to prepare a red line version for City Council. 00:37:37
That that planning commissioners can review after tonight's meeting and before next week City Council review. 00:37:42
It's important to assure that there's as much right in the DHEA as possible with so little time for. 00:37:49
Adequate review in the midst of the legal. 00:37:57
Public Review period, which as you know, should have preceded Planning Commissions Review. 00:38:00
Thank you for your hard work and attention to detail in this major, complicated document of such critical importance to the city's 00:38:07
ability to provide adequate affordable housing while protecting the communities, unique environmental and cultural resources and 00:38:13
community character. Thank you. 00:38:19
Thank you. 00:38:28
Next speaker will be Kathy. 00:38:37
Welcome. 00:38:42
Hi, my name is. Can you hear me? 00:38:47
OK, my name is Kathy Durbin. I'm a homeowner at 510 Park St. 00:38:51
And I want to state that I support a lot of the comments submitted by. 00:38:58
Michael de Lappa and the Land Watch organization to the city. 00:39:03
In particular, I want to under score the importance of. 00:39:07
Supporting the inclusion of more multifamily residential development. 00:39:11
Especially. 00:39:16
And especially looking at provisions that would facilitate or incentivize multi family residential dwellings in our commercial and 00:39:20
industrial zones. 00:39:25
Especially support promoting affordable units in the downtown area. 00:39:30
On or near any transit corridors to promote the ease of walking, biking and transit use. The city is also in the process of 00:39:34
developing its first Climate Action Plan. 00:39:40
And housing is a very important linkage and element of achieving the goals that I hope the climate action goals will lay out. 00:39:46
Affordable units near. 00:39:56
On or above transit corridors should really be maximized. We should be doing our share or more of housing our workers, students, 00:39:58
young and older people, especially those on fixed income. 00:40:05
So I wanna thank you. I did attend one of the very early workshops of the housing element over a year ago, So I'm really glad to 00:40:13
see this draft housing element and I thank you for the work that's gone into developing this draft plan. 00:40:19
Umm. 00:40:27
So. 00:40:28
I hope to. I'll probably comment again when it goes to City Council, but thanks again for all of your work on this. 00:40:29
Thank you. 00:40:36
The next speaker will be Inga Lorenzen Dahmer. 00:40:45
Welcome. 00:40:48
Council. 00:40:52
Not council Commission chair Lily and planning commissioners. 00:40:53
The four we have. 00:40:58
I was a phone call that I've had this sporadic Internet on and off all day-to-day Xfinity, bless their Pea pickin hearts. 00:41:00
Anyway. 00:41:09
I really wanted to tell you that. 00:41:11
Since. 00:41:15
Since, uh, the 176 Central. 00:41:17
Ave. 00:41:22
On the corner of Central and Dewey, Yes, that's the block of the ATC proposed. 00:41:23
You know. 00:41:30
Hotel. 00:41:31
And this one little. 00:41:32
Corner Lot, which is just West. 00:41:35
Of. 00:41:38
Site 12. 00:41:40
Which is the central early corridor that is proposed and has sites on it for. 00:41:42
Development. 00:41:50
On top of aquarium buildings and and commercial and whatever. 00:41:51
Anyway, this 176 is now for sale again. 00:41:57
The museum that you planning, commissioners had approved the Rock Museum. 00:42:01
With, uh, three kind of. 00:42:07
Shoehorned in. 00:42:09
Overnight units. 00:42:13
Law and Our Little Narrow Dewey St. 00:42:15
Ave. excuse me. 00:42:18
It's a narrow St. 00:42:20
Umm. 00:42:22
Anyway, that's for sale again. I guess it didn't. 00:42:23
Pan out, even though it took months to go through all the things that it was detrimental. 00:42:27
For our neighborhood. But you know, my little area here is zoned R4. 00:42:32
R3 and four. 00:42:39
And we were always meant to be. 00:42:41
More. 00:42:43
We were always workers, housing and affordable housing. 00:42:46
Until we got gentrified with Mcmansions. 00:42:50
So here we are. I am going to suggest now that it's for sale again, it is commercial zoned. 00:42:54
On that block right across the street from R4. 00:43:01
Zoning the narrow Dewey Ave. I would like to suggest it as a possible site. 00:43:05
It could easily have probably 4 to 6 units on it because. 00:43:12
Those 3 little units the Hotel Mini Hotel wanted? One of them was 2100 square feet. 00:43:17
So let's face it. 00:43:26
This could have 4:00 to 6:00. 00:43:28
So what's the suggestion to add to a possible inventory? 00:43:30
The site on the corner of Dewey and Central. 00:43:36
Just West of site #12 in the housing element. 00:43:39
And I want to thank you for all the work you're doing and hope my Internet lasts. 00:43:44
For the meeting. Thank you very much. 00:43:50
Thank you. 00:43:53
I see no, their hands raised. 00:44:01
All right. Well, I will then close. 00:44:04
The public comment portion of this hearing. 00:44:07
And now go to. 00:44:11
Planning Commission discussion. 00:44:13
And 1st. 00:44:16
Ask what is the pleasure of the Commission in reviewing all of this and. 00:44:18
Vice Chair Murphy, you started to raise your hand. 00:44:22
I I thought perhaps we would follow our our normal procedure and. 00:44:25
Ask questions of staff and Rincon. 00:44:29
And after after the questions are answered. 00:44:31
Go to further discussion. 00:44:35
Without objection if that's suggestion works then. 00:44:38
Let's do that in. Would you like to begin with any questions? 00:44:43
I I'd be happy to. And I I do have a series of four questions, I believe, from Mr. Russell. 00:44:47
About the the site inventory. 00:44:53
And this is to help me, perhaps to help some members of the public understand what it is. 00:44:56
And a smart resident of of. 00:45:02
The city asked me a couple of days ago. 00:45:05
Said Hey, you you have enough. 00:45:08
Properties on the inventory to to meet you arena number. 00:45:11
You have a buffer. 00:45:16
What benefit is it? 00:45:19
To the city to continue to add sites. 00:45:21
And I I I didn't know the answer to that. So I'm I'm asking, I'm asking you at at this point. 00:45:25
What would be the reason or in the positive reason for the city to to add new sites to the inventory? 00:45:31
Yeah, Commissioner, good question. I think there's a couple of things. 00:45:40
One, not including the site in the inventory doesn't necessarily. 00:45:43
Mean that it can't be developed with housing in the future. So that's that's just one thing to consider but as HCD in the state 00:45:48
reviews the. 00:45:52
The housing element, typically they have comments. A lot of times it's should you reduce the number of units on a site? Is is that 00:45:56
realistic? So it is good to have some wiggle room in case we need to either take out a site or reduce the number of units assumed 00:46:01
on sites. 00:46:07
So that's that's one reason for having more sites than you need. 00:46:12
And like you said, we already have that wiggle room built in. 00:46:17
But we are happy to add additional sites such as the Safeway site and Country Club site if that's. 00:46:21
The direction you want to go with. 00:46:27
Thank, Thank you. 00:46:30
My second question has to do with. 00:46:32
With with property owners. 00:46:35
And my hypothesis is their their adjacent properties ones on the inventory. 00:46:38
And the next. 00:46:44
Lot is is next parcel is not on the inventory. 00:46:45
Does the owner of the site. 00:46:49
That's on the inventory have any? 00:46:51
By being on the inventory get gain any development, development rights or any any different treatment that a site not in the 00:46:54
inventory would receive. 00:46:58
No. 00:47:05
Unless there is some type of program that would have the city to do some type of overlay for for specific sites, we're not 00:47:05
currently proposing that. So there would be no difference in development capabilities if if they're not in the inventory. 00:47:13
Thank you. My my third question is if if the property owner? 00:47:22
Not on the inventory does in fact develop housing. 00:47:27
Is that counted against arena number? 00:47:31
Yes. 00:47:34
And and my last question, it may end up being a two-part question is. 00:47:36
What's the role of property owners in developing the site inventory? 00:47:40
If any. 00:47:46
Umm, well, the city conducted a fair amount of public outreach, and so property owners could have expressed interest in either 00:47:49
being on the inventory or letting us know in the city know which sites they think should be on the inventory. 00:47:56
So we're always open to UM. 00:48:04
Hearing from property owners if they're interested in developing housing. 00:48:07
Um, and alternatively if a property owner is is adamant of not being in the inventory. 00:48:11
Then that's something we we also consider. 00:48:17
As well. 00:48:20
And the second part of that question is if there is a property owner who is adamant that. 00:48:22
He or she has no interest in. 00:48:27
And housing during the next eight years. 00:48:30
Is the city allowed to put it on the inventory anyway, or is that not is that? 00:48:34
Not allowed under the rules. 00:48:38
Yeah. So it's it's allowed. I mean the being on the inventory doesn't require the property owners to develop housing over the next 00:48:40
eight years. 00:48:44
It's just showing that this site if someone comes forward. 00:48:48
Could feasibly develop housing on that site there's there's sufficient land use controls. 00:48:51
Thank you very much. That's that's been helpful to me. Anyway, thank you. 00:48:58
Be sure Cuba code. Do you have any questions? 00:49:04
It's please. 00:49:14
Commissioner Murphy asked most of the questions I I had on my list here. I do have a. 00:49:15
A couple questions about on the schedule. 00:49:20
On on page 16 of 45. 00:49:23
Where we talk about that. Where? 00:49:28
It it. 00:49:32
Seems like we're the schedule is going all the way out to the summer. 00:49:33
And I was a little confused with that. What happened to March? Or is there a typo there? It seemed like we're not doing anything 00:49:38
in March. 00:49:42
Yes, Commissioner Kubica, through the Chair. This is Joseph Sedor. 00:49:48
The first review by HCD. 00:49:53
Would end. 00:49:57
Presuming that the city submits the initial draft. 00:49:58
Housing element to HCD by early November. 00:50:03
Or late October, early November. 00:50:07
Then. 00:50:10
The initial. 00:50:12
HCD review would be completed in the late January, early February time frame. 00:50:15
Those comments from HCD would be returned to the city. 00:50:21
And incorporated into a revised draft. 00:50:25
Housing element that would then come back before the planning. 00:50:30
A Commission? 00:50:34
And then and and the City Council. 00:50:35
And. 00:50:41
Then the draft housing element or the adopted housing element in the. 00:50:42
Early in the March, possibly April time frame would then be submitted to HCD for a second review. 00:50:48
The first review by CD is a 90 day review. 00:50:56
The second review is a 60 day review. 00:50:59
And Mr. Russell, if you could please correct me if I. 00:51:02
State that incorrectly. 00:51:05
Umm. 00:51:07
But. 00:51:08
That second review by HCD would then take us into the early summer time frame. 00:51:10
I was looking at the time that. 00:51:20
We we the city had the, the. 00:51:22
The document that seemed excessively long time. It seemed like it was like a two-month period and it's only a. 00:51:25
I don't believe it's a 60A, another 30 day requirement that it's out for public review. 00:51:31
That's what I was questioning or just curious about how staff came up with that number or you know it's it just seemed like there 00:51:40
was a 60 day time period there that. 00:51:45
That. 00:51:50
To review it and then bring it back to council, it just seemed or 90 days. 00:51:51
When you go from the end of February to March. 00:51:57
I mean to April to May. 00:51:59
Just seems very long, that's all. 00:52:02
I understand about the 60 days with the estate, it just seemed our time was. 00:52:04
Longer than I had anticipated. 00:52:10
Through the chair, I think. 00:52:12
Some of that time frame will depend on the extent of the comments from HCD mean. 00:52:15
It it could be a shorter time frame, however, we. 00:52:20
Staff wanted to build enough time into the schedule to allow for. 00:52:24
Potentially. 00:52:29
Comprehensive or extensive comments. 00:52:32
And revisions from HCD. 00:52:34
And what are the implications of the for the planning? 00:52:37
The the one year and a three-year. 00:52:40
Planning time period based on our. 00:52:42
Submit all of this document then. 00:52:45
Chair Lily. I'm happy to jump in on that one, if I may. 00:52:53
Wagner. 00:52:56
If I understand the question correctly, you're asking about the one year and three-year time frames that exist for the rezonings 00:52:58
that are required under your housing element. 00:53:02
To provide the capacity to meet your arena and for reuse sites. 00:53:07
So as you know, there's the statutory deadline to adopt the housing element which is coming up. It's December 15th. For 00:53:10
jurisdictions in the Ambag region, there's a so-called grace period of 120 days following the statutory deadline for HD to find 00:53:16
your housing element and substantial compliance. 00:53:22
If the city. 00:53:28
Is able to achieve that? 00:53:29
With HCD, you would have three years to complete any of the rezonings that are required under your housing element. 00:53:32
If you don't have that certification from HCD. 00:53:38
Within that 120 day period, then, the city has one year from the statutory deadline to adopt those rezonings, which would be 00:53:42
December 15, 2024. 00:53:46
Questions. 00:53:58
Mr. Davidson. 00:54:00
Excuse me? 00:54:05
Maybe off the back of that, do we know what percentage of? 00:54:06
I guess housing on. 00:54:11
That is that is potentially going to be going through is. 00:54:13
Or does require rezoning? 00:54:17
To understand that if we did want to build in a bigger buffer to avoid some of those. 00:54:20
Timelines if that would be possible. 00:54:24
I would ask Mr. Russell if he can help with that. 00:54:28
Yes, I'm just scrolling through the UM Housing Action Plan where where that has the numbers. Sorry, I don't know them off the top 00:54:35
of my head, but I can get you that number. 00:54:40
Shortly. 00:54:45
Thanks. 00:54:48
Any further questions? 00:54:50
I I have a comment in two in one. 00:54:52
With regard to the schedule and I think we've talked about that enough. We know we're behind, but. 00:54:57
The 120 day grace period is over on by my calculation February or. 00:55:03
April 12th. 00:55:09
If we have one review by HCD. 00:55:11
It's initially the 90 days and then it's followed by the 60 day. 00:55:16
And the City Council and the Planning Commission meet at the first available meetings they have to them. 00:55:21
The best we can do is. 00:55:27
April 26th, so we're short 13 days. 00:55:29
That's. 00:55:33
Just the calendar. 00:55:34
And by my calculations that could be off, but I. 00:55:36
Developed that based on the staff. 00:55:39
Report in the. 00:55:42
The my look at the law, perhaps we could have a joint meeting with the City Council to cut a week off or something, but we're 00:55:44
we're definitely behind the situation and I I just wanted to make that comment. 00:55:50
I have a question for Mr. Russell. 00:55:56
And that is. 00:56:00
Does. 00:56:03
A property have to be in the inventory in our housing element for us to get credit toward the 11:25. 00:56:05
I think that follows, Mr. Commissioner, Vice Chair Murphy's second question. 00:56:13
Yes. No, any any housing that's developed in the city over the six cycle will count towards your arena allocation, no matter if 00:56:19
it's in the inventory or not. 00:56:23
All right. So well, that's, that's edifying to say the least. Thank you for that. 00:56:29
So. 00:56:34
Is there a calculation that missed or that Commissioner Davison was waiting for or what's the situation with that? Yes, So there's 00:56:37
about 599 units in the inventory that are within the rezoned sites, so those. 00:56:44
Those basically are concentrated in the downtown area and the Forest Hill area where we are proposing to increase the density 00:56:51
there. 00:56:55
As well as some of the other sites that are considered have an unclassified zoning designation that would. 00:56:59
Need to be rezoned to residential. 00:57:06
So it's about about 600 units. 00:57:08
Alright, thank you. 00:57:12
So that then would conclude the questions people had, Vice Chair Murphy. 00:57:13
Sorry to report it. It did not conclude my questions. Ohh, I'm sorry. That's OK. 00:57:19
I did have a question for Miss Wagner. 00:57:24
We had asked at the last meeting about. 00:57:27
AB 2295. 00:57:30
And my question has to do with. 00:57:33
The land. 00:57:36
And on the sides, that's in the you. 00:57:38
Zone or EU District? 00:57:42
That's school district land. 00:57:44
And under our zoning code to rezone those properties. 00:57:47
There would have to be a vote of the people. 00:57:51
And my question to you was whether AB 2295? 00:57:54
Would would trump our our requirement and and allow that to be rezoned without a popular vote. 00:58:00
Thank you for following up on that question, Vice Chair. 00:58:08
You know AB 2295. 00:58:11
Does not require that the property be rezoned in order to allow for the development of housing on it by the. 00:58:15
Schools if it fits within. 00:58:22
The parameters of that that law. 00:58:25
So my. 00:58:28
Responses. I don't believe that the initiative would prevent the development of that housing. 00:58:29
Thank, Thank you. 00:58:41
And my second question perhaps is is to Mr. Sedor? 00:58:42
And I confess I'm still confused. 00:58:46
About. 00:58:49
Rezoning. 00:58:50
And the developing. 00:58:53
You know, revising our land used element in the General plan. 00:58:55
And and I guess. 00:59:00
I guess my assumption is. 00:59:01
That we would have to do the land use plan first. 00:59:03
So the rezoning that would result. 00:59:07
You know it would end up in increased density. 00:59:09
Would match the land use plan. Am I off base? 00:59:12
Through the chair, Vice Chair Murphy. 00:59:19
So I'm presuming you're referring to sites in the coastal zone. 00:59:22
So no, I'm I'm just requiring. 00:59:28
Areas of the city in general, in general that we want to, we have to rezone in order to. 00:59:31
Build. 00:59:37
To the density that that we're saying we're going to in the housing element. 00:59:38
But our existing land use plan? 00:59:43
You know, would not allow that rezoning. 00:59:45
In in those densities. So I'm I'm asking which. 00:59:48
Which has to come first we have to have a completed land use plan. 00:59:50
Before we can do that kind of rezoning. 00:59:54
And if if my question doesn't make sense that no no it makes perfect sense and and generally speaking. 00:59:58
The zoning rezoning would follow. 01:00:04
The land use redesignation and the General plan, however, in the case of the housing element. 01:00:09
I'm going to defer that question to Miss Wagner. 01:00:14
To see if there might be any exceptions. 01:00:18
Sure. And Chair Lily. Vice Chair Murphy. Happy to. 01:00:21
To respond to that as well. 01:00:24
My expectation is that any. 01:00:26
Revisions to the land use element of the General Plan. 01:00:29
Would either. 01:00:32
Likely come concurrently with the zoning amendments. 01:00:33
You're going to need to bring your land use element into your. Your general plan will need to be internally consistent. 01:00:37
So I I hear you on the the question of kind of the chicken and the egg with the land use plan and the zoning, but I think that 01:00:43
that will be solved as we bring that zoning forward. 01:00:48
Thank you. 01:00:56
Questions. 01:00:59
Keep going, OK? 01:01:02
I guess I guess this question is. 01:01:09
For Mr. Cedar also. 01:01:10
You mentioned during your brief staff report you specifically mentioned the two motions. 01:01:13
The Commission made at our last session. 01:01:19
But in addition to the motion. 01:01:22
We had a wide number of. 01:01:25
You know, questions last suggestions from individual. 01:01:27
Commissioners. 01:01:32
And I guess my assumption was that they. 01:01:33
Uh. 01:01:36
Assumption is that they're going to be. 01:01:37
Relate to the City Council as well is. Is that correct? 01:01:40
Through the chair, Vice Chair Murphy those comments that have been provided by the Planning Commission. 01:01:45
Will be forwarded to the City Council. 01:01:53
OK. Thank. Thank you. 01:01:56
And. 01:01:57
And. 01:01:58
And. 01:01:59
I've I've read, I think, in the staff report. 01:02:00
That letters from the public. 01:02:03
Will be sent to the Council and and to HCD. 01:02:06
And I wondered if they're treated like letters. 01:02:09
In environmental. 01:02:14
Review where they're actually responses. 01:02:15
From staff or from the the consultant? 01:02:18
True written responses to the suggestions in the letters. 01:02:21
Well. 01:02:28
Provide a brief response and then perhaps Mr. Russell would. 01:02:30
Care to? 01:02:34
Add to whatever I say, but it's my understanding that. 01:02:35
It's not similar to environmental analysis like an EIR that the the letters. 01:02:40
Or comments that would be submitted. 01:02:48
Would be grouped as general in general categories. 01:02:50
And the. 01:02:54
Again, it's my understanding that they would not be directly responded to. 01:02:58
So perhaps Mr. Russell could add. 01:03:03
To that. 01:03:06
Sure, I'm happy to, but that is that is correct. We're we're planning on taking all of the public comments that we've received and 01:03:07
grouping them based off topic and responding to how we either did or didn't. 01:03:15
Update the housing element based off of that comment letter. 01:03:23
Thank you. 01:03:28
Thank you. 01:03:29
Questions Commissioner Kubica. 01:03:32
Just a process question, just a process question to educate me. 01:03:35
So. 01:03:40
What is going to be taken to the Council? A redline version, a corrected version or the version that we have now? 01:03:41
With. 01:03:48
Pilot changes. 01:03:49
And if if it is that. 01:03:52
Yes, through the chair, Commissioner Kubicki, The the version going to the City Council next week will be the same version that 01:03:55
the Planning Commission has reviewed. 01:04:00
Along with the comments and recommendations. 01:04:06
And. 01:04:09
Follow up Chair Lily. 01:04:10
And and what's going to go to the state then? 01:04:12
So. 01:04:19
I'm sorry. Good. I'm going to defer that question to Mr. Russell or Miss Wagner. 01:04:23
Yeah, I'm. I'm happy to to jump in. And then Mr. Russell, if you want to jump in as well. So what, whatever revisions are directed 01:04:29
by the council will be what's sent to the to the state. 01:04:34
So they'll get your recommendations. 01:04:39
And they'll provide direction to staff on those recommendations. 01:04:42
And then that is the document that'll be. 01:04:46
Sent up to HCD for its 90 day initial review period. 01:04:49
Yep, that's that's typically how how we handle it. There's also the, the opportunity if you wanted to kind of have this go a 01:04:55
little bit quicker is to as HCD is reviewing the the document, we could make some of the minor edits. 01:05:02
While the state is reviewing, since we will have to be resubmitting back to them for adoption, that could save a week, maybe a 01:05:10
little bit less. So I think in this case we would make all of the recommended changes and then have it sent to the state. 01:05:17
Yeah. And and just to be clear and I know I think you all are aware of the timing, so that after following the 30 day public 01:05:26
comment period. 01:05:30
Those we have to take 10 business days to. 01:05:34
To review those and to incorporate any revisions into the. 01:05:37
The element and it was trying to respond. 01:05:40
To the question in the context of these changes that the Planning Commission is is asking. 01:05:43
Be made and how that will be handled at the council level. 01:05:49
OK. 01:05:56
Vice Chair Murphy. 01:05:57
To to follow up. 01:05:59
There's a list of. 01:06:01
Where I would say very minor corrections and suggested by planning Commissioners. 01:06:03
On the one hand, there would not. 01:06:09
Want the City Council to get bogged down with those? 01:06:11
On the other hand, many of them are. 01:06:14
You know things that should be fixed. How? How do you envision that happening? 01:06:18
I envision potentially the Commission saying that, you know, there's typos and some of you pointed out that there are typos in the 01:06:23
document that need to be revised and those I I don't see any problem with making those. 01:06:29
Those cleanup changes. 01:06:35
But wherever there's something that involves any kind of policy or or document, you know, changes. 01:06:37
Related to something beyond a typo, we would anticipate that the Commission would. 01:06:42
Discuss that and give give direction on on whether or not they want to make that recommendation to the. 01:06:48
The the council and you think you have a wide, wide range, you know, as you just identified of things that are, you know, clearly 01:06:55
typos like Pebble Peach versus Pebble Beach and then you have long, long, you know, much broader issues about sites. 01:07:02
And those types of things. So obviously on the sites we're looking for your. 01:07:10
Your recommendation to the Council on those? 01:07:14
Thank you. 01:07:17
Questions. 01:07:22
I I had a couple of follow up questions. One was I I asked a question about. 01:07:23
If we could. 01:07:29
It had to be on the. 01:07:30
Inventory to get credit for it. 01:07:32
The reverse would be can we take things out of the inventory and substitute later or how does that work or does it work or as 01:07:35
effectively amending a a plan and and I'm sure there's probably rules there but. 01:07:42
There are, and I'm happy to take the first cut at that response if you'd like me to. 01:07:50
So in response to your the first part of your question, that's already been addressed. If if sites, sites developed with housing 01:07:55
that are not included on your your site's inventory, the city does get credit for those units through and you'll see that through 01:08:00
the annual. 01:08:05
Progress reports that come through and that are sent to HD, I think it's March or April. I'm not remembering the date that those 01:08:10
go up, but every jurisdiction has to account for building permits issued, projects, you know entitled and actually projects that 01:08:16
receive a final certificates of occupancy. That's a pretty shorthand version of that if sites are included on your site's 01:08:23
inventory. 01:08:29
And later removed under the no net loss laws you have to provide concurrently with a removal or changing of any development 01:08:36
regulations that would would reduce residential densities. 01:08:42
You have to concurrently provide other sites that have the capacity to provide those units at the income levels that they're 01:08:49
identified in your housing element. 01:08:54
So once they're on your inventory and included in your programs. 01:08:59
They there's. 01:09:03
There's impacts to removing them. 01:09:05
If you have an adequate buffer, that buffer and part of the reason for having the buffer. 01:09:07
Is so that you can identify that you have existing sites in your inventory that can cover that? 01:09:12
Capacity. 01:09:18
If you if you remove more sites then you have buffer for then you would have to provide additional sites. 01:09:19
OK. 01:09:27
And then the follow up question to similarly related to another one. 01:09:28
About the school. 01:09:34
Buildings. 01:09:35
For building 4. 01:09:37
Employee housing, for example. 01:09:39
And the. 01:09:41
State law overriding local jurisdiction over some of those issues. 01:09:44
Regardless though the. 01:09:49
That. 01:09:51
Kind of action was still required a vote of the school board and the the city to proceed with any project. 01:09:52
I mean the. 01:09:58
That that's my comment. That's. 01:10:01
Seems to me to be rather obvious. 01:10:04
You know, we can say, well, we can make provision to allow for housing. 01:10:07
But it it takes. 01:10:11
The affirmation of of a couple of boards there to make it happen. 01:10:14
And it's just a comment. 01:10:18
As much as anything, unless you disagree. 01:10:20
OK. 01:10:24
Chair, I apologize, I'm having a hard time hearing some of the comments from the. 01:10:27
The commissioners. 01:10:32
I I just made the comment that. 01:10:34
You you talked about how state law preempts some local jurisdiction with regard to building on school properties, and that was an 01:10:37
example given. 01:10:41
Never. Regardless of that, though, it would still take the affirmation of the school board and the City Council say to proceed 01:10:46
with a project anyway, regardless of what preempts. 01:10:51
The terms allowing the for for building on the site. 01:10:57
I I concur with you about the school district making the determination that they wanted to develop. 01:11:00
Housing Obviously the the housing type would have to meet all the criteria in the statute. 01:11:05
With respect to what the city's role is and what kind of permitting is required, that's something we would need to look into and 01:11:11
get back to you on. 01:11:15
And they may not have much. 01:11:19
Authority at all, for that matter. 01:11:21
But. 01:11:23
We we can look into that later, I suppose. Commissioner Kupka, you had a comment or question. 01:11:24
Thank you Chair, Lily and my my question is? 01:11:32
If I can clarify what I thought I heard. 01:11:36
We had a buffer. 01:11:39
Originally we with the report we had a the 11th. 01:11:42
1125 + a buffer. 01:11:47
And then we took out the. 01:11:49
Or recommended the Planning Commission recommended the Planning Commission recommended taking out the. 01:11:51
No, a building. 01:11:58
Or no oversight. 01:11:59
So that put us down either 84 or 92. 01:12:01
Units. 01:12:05
So there's really no. 01:12:06
Benefit to add more than. 01:12:09
If if I understand. 01:12:12
The content of the previous discussion. 01:12:15
There's no benefit to add more than enough sites to cover. 01:12:17
That 92 units are 84 units. 01:12:21
So that just makes us whole. 01:12:24
I mean if we come, come in there and we put them in an additional 300 units in there. 01:12:26
Then we're going to be held hostage to those 300 units if we take out. 01:12:31
That property sometime in the future. 01:12:35
If I think what I heard. 01:12:37
Yes. So with respect to the the Noah building and the Planning Commission's recommendation that that site be removed from the 01:12:40
inventory. 01:12:43
We believe there's still adequate buffer in all your income categories to provide the capacity that you need. So I think Miss Tam 01:12:47
indicated in her presentation last week. 01:12:51
That you still have an adequate sites buffer. HD recommends a 15 to 30% buffer. 01:12:57
But I've seen them approve projects or approve housing elements with with lower. 01:13:03
Buffers. 01:13:07
So if you if you include sites on your inventory beyond. 01:13:09
The the sites that you have currently. 01:13:13
They would count, you know, toward this buffer, and if you have an adequate buffer and the remove later, you don't have a no net 01:13:17
loss problem. 01:13:21
Thank you. 01:13:29
One thing for the for the Commission's consideration, if you would like. 01:13:30
Is if you think there are sites that are good sites but perhaps not to be added right now. 01:13:34
You could make a recommendation that those sites be. 01:13:40
Considered by the Council in the future if HCD were to say that you needed additional sites at a particular income category or you 01:13:43
know, to meet another type of need. 01:13:49
And and as you know, you know there is a wide range of things that you have to look at when you determine whether a site is 01:13:54
adequate for your housing element or not. 01:13:58
So it's it's not a plug and play if you will, it takes. 01:14:02
It takes some time to work through the document and ensure that you've addressed that site in all aspects of the housing element. 01:14:05
Mr. Davison. 01:14:15
At risk of beating a dead horse on this one, it was my understanding that it just gave us additional flexibility having a larger 01:14:17
buffer. 01:14:21
And that we won't be held to maintaining whatever number we reach, we just have to stay above. 01:14:25
These set number from the state of California is that Drew? 01:14:31
You you have to provide capacity to meet your arena. 01:14:37
Plus some wiggle room. 01:14:40
Right. 01:14:42
I can say what we're currently with. With the the removal of the the Noah site, we have about 150 units above the buffer. 01:14:46
Right. 01:15:02
Any further questions? 01:15:05
Well, I guess we have all our questions answered, so we're ready to proceed with some discussion. 01:15:10
At our last meeting, we agreed to provide comments to the staff by noon on October 9th. That was Monday. That's been done. 01:15:19
And I looked at those comments in detail over the last couple of days. 01:15:27
And it seems to me they they fall into 3 categories. 01:15:31
The first category which is the lion share. 01:15:35
Comprises most. 01:15:38
Of the. 01:15:40
Comments were typos or or wordsmithing. 01:15:41
And. 01:15:45
I would propose and and I even have a motion to that effect and I have a listing of what. 01:15:48
How to categorize those so we can go through that very quickly. 01:15:54
But. 01:15:58
My view would be that we may just simply ask staff to. 01:16:00
Take that list. 01:16:04
All those bullet points and go through the. 01:16:06
The document and make the changes at the appropriate time. 01:16:10
And it sounds like the staff Rincon and and and Miss Wagner on top of that, but. 01:16:14
It sounds to me, and this was one question that I didn't ask Mr. Russell, but I'll ask it now. It sounds to me like there's some 01:16:21
degree of flexibility with HCD in terms of. 01:16:27
Of. 01:16:33
Having them review the. 01:16:34
Document. I mean, they certainly don't want us calling them every day and saying where are you today? Do you want this, do you 01:16:36
want that? 01:16:39
Can we add this, could we take this out? They don't want to do that probably, but there is any, is there any kind of flexibility 01:16:42
in that process at all in terms of providing them interim information or information during the process or is it just you submit 01:16:47
it once and it's done? 01:16:52
For the most part they're they're pretty busy over at the state so they they really don't have much contact. Sometimes they'll 01:16:59
schedule mid cycle reviews for us but it's not a guarantee. So we should definitely have the housing element and you know it's 01:17:05
it's final form before we submit to them to them. 01:17:12
OK, thank you. But then back to my comments then the second category were represent. 01:17:19
Citations or or recommendations or require. 01:17:25
Some kind of policy decision and those aren't properties. Those are our statements and some of the comments that we may or may not 01:17:29
decide are worth our time. 01:17:33
Because at the end of the day, probably what matters the most is the properties on the list. 01:17:39
Period. And in terms of the inventory and what we propose? 01:17:44
To rezone for housing or half for housing and the rest is just. 01:17:48
Frankly, window dressing and then the third are the addition of properties. 01:17:52
Either to the inventory or on to some subsidiary. 01:17:57
For secondary list to be added later. 01:18:01
Based on some of the answers to the questions that I had. 01:18:04
But Please note that with those properties that have been discussed in, there's four or five of them. 01:18:09
There is no, there has been no development of density or housing numbers to go forward with any recommendation tonight with any of 01:18:15
those properties like the. 01:18:19
Is as valid as. They may be the Safeway property or the. 01:18:24
Country Club. 01:18:28
Shopping center property or the. 01:18:30
Mission Laundry or the. 01:18:32
LaPorte Mansion There, there. There are no numbers that it can be quickly developed. 01:18:35
That that's a burden on the staff and I want to make sure that they get this this document in. 01:18:40
Even if it's. 01:18:46
Very similar to or the same with what we have now that they get it in and we start the clock. 01:18:48
So. 01:18:53
I just I just bring that up. 01:18:55
Because the the reality is the current draft element without the Noah property still complies with our goal. 01:18:58
Of 1125 new housing units plus. 01:19:05
Lower, but still a buffer. 01:19:09
So. 01:19:11
I think that's what we need to take into consideration, so I would like to ask the Commission this evening. 01:19:13
If you agree with my assessment about. 01:19:18
The three categories, and then if you want to. 01:19:21
Quickly get through the wordsmithing thing where just go down the list and we'll just X those out and then the the the few that 01:19:24
remain for policy, we get into those. 01:19:28
As well as have a discussion about the the properties and what we want to do with those. I don't know if that sounds good or if 01:19:33
you have a another approach but. 01:19:37
The only other way I know of doing this is going through this page by page, and that can be pretty onerous and time consuming and 01:19:42
and probably not necessary, Commissioner Davison. 01:19:46
I think the way that we handled it in our last meeting with the typos where everyone could just submit. 01:19:51
To city staff. And we don't actually have to discuss them here because it's not like a substantive thing that requires discussion. 01:19:57
So maybe we just agree that if there are typos on top of what was submitted last Friday, we do a similar thing where we just kind 01:20:03
of aggregate them and send them off. Well, I've already I I I agree with that. What I was suggesting is I have, I've made a list 01:20:08
of all the the bullets. 01:20:13
That in the in the documents we got of all the typos. 01:20:18
And there are quite a few. 01:20:21
I mean, it's the vast majority. 01:20:24
If if you want, if the Commission wants to make a motion to pass those on that way or just want to pass them on, that's fine 01:20:27
either way. 01:20:30
Commissioner, I mean Vice Chair Murphy, I guess at this point I have faith in staff and Rincon's ability. 01:20:35
To to look at the list that we submitted. 01:20:41
Decide which ones are not policy and just have to do with minor typos and minor. 01:20:44
And changes. 01:20:49
And and I'm not sure. 01:20:50
And we have to list them again. We've sent them to. And I guess I would ask Mr. Sedor. 01:20:53
And or someone from Rincon if they've had a chance to look at those lists. 01:20:57
And whether they feel. 01:21:01
And they know which ones can be handled just as as minor corrections. 01:21:03
The chair, yes. 01:21:11
Vice Chair Murphy. I'm going to defer that question to Mr. Russell. 01:21:14
Yes, it's it's. It's obvious which ones that are are just minor corrections. 01:21:19
It. 01:21:26
If. 01:21:27
If that's the case, unless members of the. 01:21:28
Commission have have additional ones. 01:21:32
I'm I'm content with that going forward, right? For the minor ones I I counted you know just to show you the magnitude of of the 01:21:35
comments that I feel and then I. 01:21:39
That are typos or or are. 01:21:44
Things that easily corrected, like for example taking out. 01:21:47
Mr. Jacks founding Pacific Grove. To me, that's just a big typo. 01:21:52
There's 53 of those. 01:21:56
And so that's. 01:21:58
That's a lot to go over in a meeting and I I, I. 01:21:59
You know would. 01:22:02
Think concur with Commissioner Davidson and Vice Chair Murphy that you know. Let the staff. 01:22:03
Take the stab at it. I think they're educated people and they know what to do. 01:22:09
It's just I think we've. 01:22:14
You know, anytime somebody reads a. 01:22:15
Document like that. They see things that it takes more than one pair of eyes to to see these things and we've done that and helped 01:22:19
out and so. 01:22:23
Go to it. 01:22:27
So that that eliminates one of the three. 01:22:29
Unless is there concurrence on that? Do we? I don't think we need to take a vote. 01:22:33
Necessarily on that if. 01:22:37
OK. 01:22:40
So. 01:22:41
You just got rid of 53 bullets or some similar number. OK, that leaves then. 01:22:43
The, The items in the, in the, in the, The corrections or the? 01:22:49
Tighter the. 01:22:55
The draft. 01:22:58
The the issues that were provided to the staff on by noon on Monday. 01:23:00
That the so-called policy ones without the property. 01:23:06
Is there anybody that has any one that they'd like to bring up that they think we need to review? 01:23:10
They're just and I would say they probably need to be pertinent to the the outcome of the. 01:23:16
Housing element or really clarify something that really impacts what this is all about? 01:23:21
Because at the end of the day. 01:23:27
You know, we wanted to be as accurate as possible, but by the same token. 01:23:29
We need to get this done. 01:23:33
No, Commissioner Sawyer seemed to have the most. 01:23:38
I'd be happy to. 01:23:55
Lisa, Vice chair, Commissioner Sawyers and see if we can handle them OK, she had. 01:23:57
This is a. 01:24:04
Page that you submitted on October 6th to this to to us and to the staff. 01:24:06
And she titled it suggested Draft housing element issues to consider and discuss. 01:24:12
You know. 01:24:17
Try to go down quickly. 01:24:18
And one was short term rentals. 01:24:21
And on Page 3. 01:24:24
Hyphen 13. 01:24:25
Umm. 01:24:28
I think our program suggests. 01:24:29
Umm. 01:24:31
Checking STR's and their effect every two years and she's suggesting instead track annually. 01:24:35
Questions. 01:24:48
On on a Du's which is page 3.9. 01:24:51
And. 01:24:56
She suggested that we offer pre reviewed plans or low cost plans to the public. 01:24:57
Sooner than the the draft would have us do. I'm sorry I don't have the date. 01:25:02
I guess the plan suggests waiting until December 2024 to removing Deed restrictions requirements for illegal housing unit 01:25:10
registration. 01:25:15
And her question is, why wait until? 01:25:20
December 2024. 01:25:22
And there's a suggestion. 01:25:26
In the Edu section that our zoning code be renewed and and she believes in suggests that we. 01:25:28
Umm. 01:25:36
Amend our zoning code to comply with the state zoning code much more quickly than the. 01:25:38
Then the draft would have us do it. 01:25:43
Umm. 01:25:47
Not. I'm sorry, I'm not sure I've actually been giving you a program. 01:25:51
Numbers or page numbers, I'm sorry. 01:25:55
Page numbers, OK And then on 3/11? 01:25:58
Umm. 01:26:01
And she asked, what do we do to preserve historic character in our neighborhoods? Do we develop districts? And we and we need to 01:26:03
explore this topic more fully. 01:26:07
And she thinks we need language in the housing element to assist. 01:26:13
To help us preserve existing, you know, housing and and perhaps neighborhood character. 01:26:18
And umm. 01:26:25
Yes, other. 01:26:29
I think other questions rather than policy suggestions, and I guess I won't. I won't ask her questions the staff has. 01:26:30
Staff and Rincon have have those. 01:26:38
And I guess I would say as far as the questions. 01:26:43
You know, she's really smart. 01:26:47
And if she has questions, I would assume that you know members of the public. 01:26:49
Might have these same questions and I would consider. 01:26:54
Maybe answering her questions and. 01:26:57
In the document. 01:26:59
I meant. 01:27:03
Commissioner, Coco. 01:27:04
Davidson or? 01:27:07
Further comments vice Chair Murphy. 01:27:09
Umm. 01:27:12
Again, looking at Commissioner Frederickson's written comments, he he's proposing adding the. 01:27:13
Adding sites. 01:27:20
Why don't we keep the site separate, Keep that separate of this stuff? Yeah, if we can. The only one of my comments that perhaps 01:27:22
was the policy item. 01:27:27
On page 3.8. 01:27:33
Where we're talking about lot consolidation. 01:27:36
And making that ministerial. 01:27:40
And my question which might end up with policy is. 01:27:42
In order to make like consolidation ministerial, do we have to amend our? 01:27:47
Our zoning code. 01:27:51
And if we do, that should be mentioned in there and we should have a deadline also to to accomplish that. 01:27:53
If we don't need to amend the zoning, code my comment. 01:27:59
Isn't unnecessary. 01:28:03
Mr. Sidor, do we need to amend it? 01:28:05
Through the chair lot, mergers are already a ministerial action that can be approved by the CDC director. 01:28:08
Great. Thank. Thank you very much. For the others there, I don't believe there would be a need to amend the. 01:28:17
Code at this time. 01:28:23
And miss miss you know cheer Lily and. 01:28:26
And Commissioner Kubica also had written comments. I'll let them. 01:28:29
You know, speak to theirs. 01:28:32
Let's deal with first with the the ones that Vice Chair Murphy dealt with Are there comments about? 01:28:35
Timelines regarding zoning, I think there were two or three references you made in that and and. 01:28:42
There were she wanted to move up deadlines and do you have any and does anybody have any comments? I certainly do. 01:28:48
And the samples she gave, it did seem as if. 01:28:57
Earlier deadlines would make sense. 01:29:01
Well. 01:29:06
You know my view. I have the opposite view. My view would be we have a plan. 01:29:07
It everything is coordinated or should be coordinated and put together so it all flows together. 01:29:12
And if we get it done sooner, then we get it done sooner. So why put the pressure on ourselves to get it done if we we may miss 01:29:18
the deadline? 01:29:22
So I, I, I I don't see any benefit to that, but I I would defer to the. 01:29:28
Pleasure of the Commission on that. I'm just that's just an observation that. 01:29:33
Place for. 01:29:41
Commissioner Davison Yeah, I I think on that point I I agree with Commissioner Sawyer and. 01:29:42
But I I guess one of the questions we could ask staff or potentially? 01:29:49
Mr. Russell from Rincon. If if that puts undue onus or or why why they've kind of framed it that way because the seemingly they 01:29:53
were stopping that so. 01:29:58
If there's. 01:30:02
You know, additional work that's going to be put in place, things like that. And I'd say we stick with the original plan, but if 01:30:03
it's something that we could just sub in. 01:30:06
And actually move forward. 01:30:10
Maybe more quickly, I'd I'd be behind that. 01:30:11
So I would recognize Mr. Sidor first answer that and then Mr. Russell because part of that is is internal staff working and part 01:30:14
of that is is. 01:30:18
Observation about the process that the state, which Mr. Russell probably could address as well. 01:30:22
Thank you, Chair. Lily through the chair. 01:30:30
So. 01:30:32
I think just the first thing to say would be that that these time frames identified in the housing action plan. 01:30:35
Could be viewed as as goals. 01:30:43
That the city would want to. 01:30:46
Try and. 01:30:48
Accomplish these tasks. 01:30:50
By the dates identified, if not sooner. 01:30:52
And then? 01:30:55
Staff would. 01:30:58
Work. 01:30:59
Diligently to accomplish. 01:31:01
Whatever tasks are identified as as quickly as possible. 01:31:03
And. 01:31:08
Again, a lot of it depends on. 01:31:10
When we have a A final certified. 01:31:13
Housing element. 01:31:16
And when we can get started on. 01:31:17
These actions. 01:31:20
Well, a lot of that depends on whether we get one year or three years. 01:31:23
Yes, I think, yeah. 01:31:27
So is it, is it possible, is it appropriate to say that HCD and coming back may say well your your timelines are off because of of 01:31:32
of scheduling or because of well any number of issues that's I don't know if they. 01:31:37
Get into that level of detail, but. 01:31:44
That's a question maybe for Rincon, but. 01:31:47
Mr. Russell, but. 01:31:49
Did they get into that? 01:31:51
The timelines. 01:31:53
Say, well, you're taking too long or. 01:31:54
Or they just care about the final number. 01:31:56
The set is definitely gonna look a lot more closely at cities and making sure they're they're meeting their goals and 01:32:00
recommendations. So Veronica worked a lot on the policies and programs so maybe she can speak to it, but typically we want to give 01:32:05
enough time for the city to. 01:32:10
Make sure they complete those programs, but also we don't want to push them too far out and then the the state will comment and 01:32:15
say those are too late in the planning period. 01:32:20
Right. I just want to make a quick comment for the housing elements, there's. 01:32:25
That's always been the requirement that the housing element programs have to have beneficial impacts during the cycle of the 01:32:30
housing development update. So during the over 8 years, so your implementation of a particular program is pushed two way back in 01:32:39
the the latter part of the housing element cycle then it may not have beneficial impact. So you have to balance between. 01:32:47
What you can do with your limited staff and resources and and how long it takes to do certain things and whether it would take a 01:32:56
couple of years for impacts to show. The other thing that you also want to make sure that you you do is that. 01:33:04
Your time it in a way that. 01:33:13
What there there's accomplishments that you can report, especially within the first 2-3 years of the housing element. There are 01:33:16
other requirements relating to. 01:33:22
Timeline. There are some. 01:33:29
Programs that, particularly relating to zoning code revisions, those generally would have to be done in the earlier part, maybe 01:33:31
within the first two years of the housing element cycle, like revising your zoning codes to comply with state law. Those should be 01:33:38
done within the first couple of years. 01:33:45
Hey. 01:33:53
Thank you. 01:33:54
Wish your could we come? 01:33:58
Thank you, Chair. Lily, on this particular item for the AU, I believe that's what we're talking about the 1224 there. There were 01:34:01
several items that we were talking about timelines, but the the, the items that Vice Chair Murphy ran. 01:34:07
Through. OK. I don't believe address Edu OK that 1224, I wouldn't push that any sooner. 01:34:14
I I would suggest that we that be our goal and if we get it done sooner, we get it done sooner. 01:34:22
OK. 01:34:30
Just so there's clarity then she listed several things on here, so let me go quickly go down the list and we can get rid of this 01:34:34
stuff one way or the other. So short term rentals, she wanted to know is is Commissioner Murphy said What's the percentage of the 01:34:39
housing stock? 01:34:45
Pacific Grove A short term rail as well. 01:34:50
That's been identified. 01:34:53
Or. 01:34:55
Legislated by voter initiative. 01:34:56
To eliminate short term rentals in all of Pacific Grove except the coastal zone and then the rest of the city. 01:34:59
Has some short term rentals in the. 01:35:05
They're they're allowed outside the coastal zone, They're also allowed in. 01:35:07
Commercially zoned districts. Ohh. And yes, you're correct. I'm I stand corrected. Yes they are allowed. 01:35:11
Do we even know how many we have? Because she's really asking how many we have. 01:35:17
And I think they have that, I think it's 174 listed in the. 01:35:21
Through the chair. I'm not sure what the current number of active short term rentals are in the city, however, per the city's 01:35:27
municipal code. 01:35:33
Chapter. 01:35:39
740. 01:35:41
.40 There is a cap of 250 allowed within the city, which is approximately 3% of the housing stock. 01:35:43
In the city. 01:35:52
So give or take a percentage point. So in in response to a Commissioner Sawyers comments then can we just refer to the cap or the 01:35:53
number of 174 existing and then we're done with that so that we can move on or? 01:36:00
Because this this. 01:36:08
You know, there there's also a recommendation in there about that fines be used to support affordable housing. 01:36:11
That's a policy decision that. 01:36:19
Whether. 01:36:23
We agree or not. Or whether it's there, let's put it that way, it's it's there in paper on paper, if the City Council adopts. 01:36:24
Housing plan. 01:36:32
They're basically. 01:36:33
Approving that is a policy that they want to and and a plan at least. 01:36:34
That they want to redirect. 01:36:39
Fines from I guess, the general fund. 01:36:41
To affordable housing. 01:36:44
That's beyond the scope of this Commission. I would. 01:36:47
Suggest, but I'm just making that observation. 01:36:50
You know, all these issues, all these categories have issues with them and some of them get into policy implications down the 01:36:54
road. 01:36:57
And. 01:37:01
Everybody needs to be aware of it going in. This is why you know the planning process cannot. 01:37:03
A lot of ways be truncated or or condensed because. 01:37:08
There's a lot of issues that come up in these things and a lot of collateral. 01:37:11
Problems that can result, so that's just an observation. So. 01:37:16
If there's 174 now and 2:50 cap. 01:37:20
What's? 01:37:25
You know what's? 01:37:27
You know, we we have hired a firm. 01:37:32
And. 01:37:35
I think that the, you know, the the the real question to me on the short-term rails is not how many, but. 01:37:37
Do we agree with the the requirement that or not the requirement the provision that? 01:37:42
The the funds be the fines be redirected to affordable housing. 01:37:48
Commissioner Kubica. 01:37:56
Can we? Can we do that without a vote of the? 01:37:58
We four of us, we agree. We agree. 01:38:02
Yes, but but does there have to be a city ordinance on that? And does there has to be a voter? 01:38:07
On that sad. I don't know. 01:38:13
And that would be the only reason I would not put it in a plan. 01:38:15
At this time, if, Well, it's in the plan right now. 01:38:19
And I I would. I would leave it. 01:38:23
You would leave it, leave it as well. 01:38:25
If we don't know and we put it in a plan, then we're violating the plan if we can't do it. 01:38:30
If. 01:38:36
That's the way you understand the plan. 01:38:36
Say that again, if we send a plan, if we send a plan to the state and it's it's a requirement that we follow this plan. 01:38:39
But for some reason, some city ordinance well. 01:38:47
Maybe we could ask Legal if we can do this. 01:38:51
Well, if we have it in the planning, well, they they would have. Well, we should ask legally. 01:38:54
Miss Wagner, you still there? I'm here. 01:38:59
Did you hear the question? 01:39:03
If you wouldn't mind Chair Lily if you could reframe the vision. 01:39:05
Question is if we have a provision in the plan such as. 01:39:09
There is a a provision under the short term rental that we. 01:39:13
Take the fines for in a proper. 01:39:19
Operation of short term rentals and direct that money to affordable housing. 01:39:22
Presumably it goes to the general fund now, although I'm not sure. I'm not an expert in in city finance, but. 01:39:27
Once we. 01:39:36
Have put that plan into Sacramento. 01:39:37
Now there's no enabling ordinance. 01:39:41
If the city by that, wouldn't the city have to pass and enabling ordinance to implement that and and follow its plan or what? 01:39:43
Well, so yeah, you currently have that program in the housing element that by the end of 2025 short term rental fines. 01:39:50
Would be linked to the cities Affordable housing budget to make those fines available to finance affordable housing development 01:39:57
projects. 01:40:00
The manner in which those funds are directed, absent some. 01:40:04
You know, ordinance to the contrary is at the discretion of the Council. 01:40:08
And if they adopt this program, then they're indicating that they support that. 01:40:12
That direction of those funds. 01:40:17
So the issue then is do we support that provision in the short term rental section? 01:40:20
Yes or no, the four of us, yes. If we do then let's move on. We we support that. OK, that's out of the way I asked the question 01:40:26
and and not to repeat. 01:40:31
What Commissioner or vice chair? Murphy said. But I asked the question last time about low barrier navigation centres. 01:40:35
What exactly is this? Well it's it's for the homeless and and that was answered by Miss Tam to to my satisfaction at least. So I 01:40:42
think we can just move but that's that's an edit or a. 01:40:48
An edit Architecture review. 01:40:55
Need review standards for single family. How does this? Well, this gets into the whole historicity of the and and historical 01:40:59
districts. How do you feel about that? Because. 01:41:04
Vice Chair Murphy brought up about the historical districts. 01:41:09
It. 01:41:14
Mr. Murphy. 01:41:16
There's been a lot of talk about it, Objective standards. We know we need them. The state requires us to have them. 01:41:17
I think Commissioner Soria and I perhaps are uncertain. 01:41:25
On how objective standards work for historic properties. 01:41:28
And that's that's been a question and I. 01:41:32
We don't know the answer. 01:41:34
Does Miss Wagner or Mr. Russell know the answer? Or Or Mr. Sedor? Mr. Sedor? 01:41:37
We have it already. 01:41:44
Through the chair, I'm I'm going to defer in terms of what's in the housing element and what the thought was behind that. I'm 01:41:52
going to defer that to Mr. Russell and Miss Wagner. 01:41:57
If I may. 01:42:06
Chair Lily addressed this the kind of overarching question of the application of odds to. 01:42:09
Historic properties. 01:42:15
Umm. 01:42:16
We we will address that through the process of bringing forward the odds and the changes to the zoning to develop those odds. 01:42:17
But you know if the if the question is can they? The answer is yes. 01:42:24
How they impact the historic nature of our property. 01:42:30
Is a different question. And then we'll have to look at that through the context of the zoning. 01:42:33
You know, other jurisdictions are struggling with odds for the same some of the same reasons. 01:42:37
And are developing have or are developing odds that apply to historic properties. 01:42:42
So is there enough flexibility in this plan, the way it is constituted, for us to do that? 01:42:50
Later on in our zoning and and land use. 01:42:56
And maybe that's the question here, as as opposed to the actual language in the document. 01:43:01
Probably a loaded question. 01:43:11
I'm I'm reviewing the program as and I don't know if miss tan. 01:43:13
Has an opinion on that. 01:43:16
I mean, I I think the program is broad enough, Chair. 01:43:23
Lily to allow it to. 01:43:26
Take into consideration historic. 01:43:30
Properties, but as you know, if there's a multifamily. 01:43:32
A qualifying multifamily housing project. Two or more units we can only apply. 01:43:37
Objective planning standards under the ACA. 01:43:43
And Chair Murphy and the same program Commissioner Sawyer is suggesting. 01:43:48
That the program not be limited. 01:43:53
To multifamily and mixed-use projects. 01:43:55
But it also just single family. 01:43:58
Projects and that seems to be a good suggestion to me. 01:44:01
That would be her. 01:44:05
Page 3, Dash 4 #8. 01:44:07
8. 01:44:09
Route through the chair. 01:44:10
If if I could respond to that briefly. 01:44:12
Yes, the the focus of the the housing element of course is to. 01:44:15
Expand the opportunities for multifamily. 01:44:19
And affordable housing as well as housing in general. So in terms of objective design standards for single family residences, 01:44:23
those would also be addressed through the General Plan update. 01:44:29
Does that need to be changed in the plan or do I think the bottom line we we we're trying to say is objective development 01:44:40
standards should at the minimum apply to multifamily and mixed-use development, but whether you want to take it to single family 01:44:46
is entirely your decision. 01:44:51
And if I may add to that Chair Lily, in some instances you're legally required to only apply objective planning standards to 01:44:58
single family developments, and it's. 01:45:02
It's a little more complicated than a short answer, but. 01:45:06
We, you know, we can bring that forward for your consideration too, with the odds. 01:45:11
So thank you. So what is your pleasure on this? Should we leave it alone or should we add single family into that provision? 01:45:17
Would. 01:45:26
I would leave it alone. 01:45:28
Well, if we're trying to eliminate barriers to housing. 01:45:33
We should move towards objective design standards for single family homes. 01:45:37
Two, but I understand reasonable people can disagree about that. 01:45:42
Well, if we have the ability to do it later on, I think that's what maybe we we hold out for that because I I agree with you that 01:45:46
we we. 01:45:50
We're talking about housing here. We're not talking about this type of housing or that type of where should be talking about all 01:45:54
housing for all people. That's what the law says it should be. 01:45:58
Equality or or equity or whatever it is for for all, all. So let let's make it for all. So from that point of view, 01:46:03
philosophically I agree with Vice Chair Murphy about that but. 01:46:09
For this plan, I'm not sure that's necessary. 01:46:14
All right. 01:46:18
Rezone sites. I asked about this at the last meeting what was rezoned site and that was answered by Miss Tam. 01:46:19
So the is there any issue in that that? 01:46:26
That, that that comes. 01:46:30
To the forefront. 01:46:32
We, you know she. 01:46:34
This afternoon I had a conversation that you should know with Miss Wagner, and she brought up the issue about. 01:46:36
The pros and cons of having definitions in the plan. 01:46:44
And perhaps you might want to explain that Miss Wagner about, you know, there there's some dangers to doing that and and and 01:46:47
benefits, I suppose too. 01:46:52
Sure, happy to do so, Chair Lily. And and you're you're exactly right. 01:46:58
You know a lot of these terms that you're asking questions about or Commissioner Sawyer has asked questions about are either 01:47:02
defined and statutes or. 01:47:07
Your sort of terms of art, like the rezonings? 01:47:13
The the the danger of including a definition from an existing statute is that it might change. 01:47:16
And you'll see this more in the zoning context that we try to be careful when we pull in statutory definitions that will either 01:47:23
indicate you know the the this is the definition as it currently exists or may hear and after be amended. 01:47:30
So to the extent that we've been able to address your questions and things like the, the low navigation Center, I think that 01:47:37
leaving that defined term out may be of benefit. 01:47:43
All right. 01:47:49
So then that might apply to both rezone sites and by right of approval that same. 01:47:50
Issue about definitions to avoid that because it's it's already. 01:47:55
It's fairly common knowledge, I just didn't know what they were because I'm no housing expert to say the least, other than my 01:48:00
house. 01:48:03
But. 01:48:07
OK. 01:48:07
But there any other issues and rezone sites or or by right of approval we need to address OKADUS. We have a new AU ordinance the 01:48:11
City Council passed. 01:48:16
We have the illegal housing. Removal of the deed restrictions by 1224 takes a while to take pass ordinances and get them off the 01:48:21
books. I don't know. 01:48:26
If she's really seen we should wait that long, is that too long a period of time to wait or? 01:48:32
Not. 01:48:38
And it's cited as an impediment to. 01:48:39
The development of AD use. 01:48:42
In our plan. 01:48:44
So. 01:48:46
I don't like deed restrictions anyway, but that's personal opinion but. 01:48:49
Because they're hard to remove. 01:48:55
And maybe that's why it's it's. 01:48:57
There is 12/24, I don't know. 01:48:59
So. 01:49:03
Those are, those are. 01:49:06
Commissioner Davidson. 01:49:09
I mean, I think we kind of tackle that when we're talking about timelines and it sounds like they were put into place on purpose 01:49:11
just to allow for enough time to actually get things through. So maybe we leave alone, OK. 01:49:16
How? How does everybody feel? We leave it alone, OK? 01:49:20
This gets into. 01:49:26
Vice Chair Murphy's issue about the history, You know, they talked about the historical character of the neighborhoods and the 01:49:28
districts and. 01:49:31
That's a tough one because we're a historic town and we have. 01:49:36
As it says in the plane we have.