PC Minutes 2003-07-291
1
1
CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in special session with
Chair Guthrie presiding. Present were Commissioners Arnold, Fowler, and Keen.
Commissioner Brown was absent. Staff members in attendance were Community
Development Director Rob Strong and Associate Planner Kelly Heffernon.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES — No minutes to approve.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS — None.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS — Jerry Bunin introduced the Home Builders Inclusionary
Housing document, which was given to the Planning Commission at beginning of meeting.
The document summarizes what jurisdictions in California are doing to get affordable
housing units built.
AGENDA REVIEW — No changes.
Kelly noted the following:
MINUTES
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 29, 2003
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM II.A. — 2003 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE WORKSHOP NO.
5. Prepared and presented by Kelly Heffernon, Associate Planner.
Kelly Heffernon indicated the purpose of the meeting is to revisit the Housing Element's
goals and policies to ensure that they are appropriate and acceptable so the formal
public hearing process can be initiated.
• Housing Element — Chapter 3 was separated into 3 separate chapters because it
was so large.
• Revised Table 15 — Preliminary Housing Opportunity Sites Inventory is included
in the handouts with corrections to some of the calculations. Table 15 is a first
attempt at providing quantifiable objectives for determining a realistic forecast or
expectation of housing development opportunities.
Chair Guthrie indicated that the meeting is an informal discussion of the Housing
Element.
The Planning Commission, Staff and a few members of the Local Housing Task Force
reviewed the Housing Element document. The Planning Commission asked Staff to
provide clarification of some terms. They also asked Staff to do additional research and
provide additional statistical information to support some sections of the Housing
Element.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 29, 2003
PAGE 2
The following sections of the Housing Element were discussed:
1. Section 2.1, Goal A — A.4: Request for clarification about impact of "minimum
residential densities" when an owner may want only one unit on a large lot that
could be split into multiple parcels. Rob Strong provided an example: this
would prevent a property owner from splitting a lot into only 3 parcels if the
minimum residential density is 10 units.
2. Section 2.1, Goal A — A.3: Request for definition of "priority processing ". Staff
indicated that priority may be given if the project was already in process or was
on a waiting list, this would allow them to get on an agenda more quickly.
Projects are currently handled on a "first come, first serve" basis.
3. Section 2.1, Goal A — A.8: The Planning Commission approved use of the word
"may" instead of "shall ". ( "The City may annex land on the urban edge to
promote orderly growth and the preservation of open space. ")
4. Section 2.1, Goal A — A.10 and A.10 -1: Concern about reduction of parking
requirements for Low and Very Low income homes, because lower income
families often have multiple vehicles. A general parking reduction would be
reviewed based on housing type. Chair Guthrie requested inclusion of review
of the Urban Tree Ordinance and Parking Standards and information about
how they can be implemented.
5. Section 2.1, Goal A — A.11, 4th bullet: Concern that the wording in this section
does not appropriately target density bonuses for affordable housing. Chair
Guthrie asked if density bonuses could be tied to the sales price of homes, not
the buyers' income levels. Rob Strong suggested that instead of earnings
between 120 to 200 ($74.4k to $124k respectively) percent of county median
income (workforce housing), the range could be 120 to 160 ($74.4k to $99.2k)
or 170 ($105.4k) percent of median income.
6. The Planning Commission asked for the definition of "workforce" to be clarified.
Rob Strong said that Staff can come back to the Planning Commission with the
following and add to the policy with examples in September:
• What part of the workforce is in the range of 120 to 160 percent of the
income levels, and what type of workforce (e.g., Police officers, Firemen,
teachers, etc.) the income category covers.
7. Section 2.1, Goal B — B.1: Regarding City- approved programs to maintain
affordability, does the State require a period of 40 years rather than 30 years?
Voluntary response survey of Non - Profit Housing Association of Northern
California and California Coalition of Rural Housing shows evidence that most
jurisdictions are using a longer length of affordability period than Arroyo
Grande, which uses 30 years. Some jurisdictions use 40 to 60 years or are
perpetual. Some jurisdictions require Affordability Agreements (duration of 30
1
1
1
1
1
1
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 29, 2003
PAGE 3
or more years) to be renewed upon sale each time an affordable home is sold
within a 30 -year period.
8. Section 2.1, Goal B — B.4: In favor of height limit that allows 3 or 4 stories.
9. Section 2.1, Goal B — B.3 -1: Ask Tim Carmel if the City can restrict waiver of in-
lieu fees for Arroyo Grande residents only.
10. Section 2.1, Goal B — B.3 -2: Move from the beginning of B.3 -1 to the beginning
of B.3 -2: "To the extent that housing set aside or in -lieu funds are available, ... ".
A discussion took place regarding whom would be eligible for a fee waiver — if it
isn't a local workforce person, what is the City achieving? This can be
researched from a legal perspective.
11. Section 2.1, Goal C — C.3, C.4, C.5: These all require an agency that doesn't
currently exist.
12. Section 2.1, Goal D — D.1 -1: Chair Guthrie stated that in order to do an
apartment district; the City would need to do an annexation. Otherwise, there
would be a downgrading of existing property. There was discussion about
parking allocations for apartment complexes.
13. Section 2.1, Goal E: These policies assume that the current number of
apartment buildings is the correct number of apartment buildings. There are
huge restrictions. Based on these restrictions there may not be any
conversions.
14. Section 2.1, Goal E — E.4 -1: Six years seems too short of a time period. Use
30 years and possibly different percentage levels of shared equity. Or, perhaps
use a sliding benefit (e.g., 100% to the City within "x" years and after "x" years
share equity at 50:50). Various options were discussed. The Commissioners
asked staff to clarify how this would be implemented.
15. Section 2.1, Goal F — F.1: Wording should be: "up to nine (9) units ".
16. Section 2.1, Goal F — F.2 -1: Second paragraph, eliminate "very low and low"
verbiage. The difference between the median price home ($475K) and
moderate - income price home ($294K) divided by 10 could be the fee ($475K -
$294K = $181/10 = $18.1K); fee adjusted quarterly. A formula fee could be
established for very low and low income. Perhaps the fee could be collected
when the Certificate of Occupancy is issued; fee adjusted monthly.
17. Section 2.1, Goal F — F.3 -1: Small jobs increase the demand for low- income
housing, and that's what we're trying to solve. If low- income jobs are being
created we need to have something in the process that creates low- income
housing. The policy bases in -lieu fees on construction costs. Consider a
different formula, for example, base the fees on the number of jobs created per
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 29, 2003
PAGE 4
square foot of commercial space, or one fee per 15 jobs. Kelly said the City of
San Luis Obispo requires commercial development to contribute to affordable
housing; one affordable dwelling unit per acre, but not Tess than one affordable
dwelling unit per project or an in -lieu fee of 2 %. Commissioners said to change
2,500 square feet to 7,500 square fee and asked staff to survey other agencies.
18. Section 2.1, Goal F — M.1: Add "and local" after "state ". Policy should read, "All
new dwelling units shall be required to meet current state and local
requirements for energy efficiency. The retrofitting of existing units shall be
encouraged."
19. Section 2.1, Goal F — 0.2: Change "shall" to "may ".
20. Section 2.1, Goal F — 0.3: Research to find out if the City is required by law to
provide an interpreter. If not, eliminate this policy.
21. Commissioners asked staff to find out from the State how the City can qualify
secondary dwellings as counting towards the Regional Housing Needs
Allocation. Does the City need to impose a 30 -year deed restriction?
22. 4.2 Summary of Quantified Objectives: Change "767" to "667 ".
Kelly asked the Planning Commission for approval of the proposed schedule included in
the staff report.
III. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: None
IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None
V. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: None
VI. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS /FOLLOW -UP: None
ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting
was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. on a motion by Commissioner Arnold, seconded by Chair
Guthrie and unanimously carried.
1
1
1
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 29, 2003
ATTEST:
ONNE BRADFO,, / JIAIVIES GUTHRIE, CHAIR
OMMISSION CLERK
AS TO CONTENT:
ROB STRONG,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
PAGE 5