Loading...
PC Minutes 2003-05-201 1 1 MINUTES CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE SPECIAL MEETING - PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 2003 CALL TO ORDER: The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Guthrie presiding. Also present were Commissioners Arnold, Brown and Fowler. Commissioner Keen was absent. Staff members in attendance were Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon and Jim Bergman, Planning Intern. AGENDA REVIEW: Item II.B. was heard first — continued item. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of April 30, 2003 were approved as written on a motion by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Arnold. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 1. City of San Luis Obispo Affordable Housing description. 2. Letter from Camino Mercado Partners, LP, regarding the Camino Mercado traffic signal CIP project. PRESENTATION — VISUALIZING DENSITY: Jim Bergman, Planning Intern gave a power point presentation on Higher Density Housing on the Central Coast. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM II.B: CONTINUED ITEM - DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 02 -006 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CASE NO. 03 -001; APPLICANT - CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION - VILLAGE OF ARROYO GRANDE The Commission unanimously agreed that the item be rescheduled and renoticed for the meeting of June 17, 2003. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM II.A: 2003 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE — WORKSHOP NO. 3 (DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT PROGRAMS). Staff report prepared and presented by Kelly Heffernon, Associate Planner. Ms. Heffernon gave a brief summary of the Housing Element Policies and Programs. She then introduced members of the Task Force who were present. The Commission reviewed the Strategies, Goals and Policies worksheets and a discussed the background information contained in the Preliminary Draft Housing Element with the Task Force. Some of the highlights of the discussion on the Strategies focused on: • The importance of the issue of the leveraging of affordable housing funds. • The difficulty of deciding on establishing a minimum residential density "no lower than 50 percent of the maximum density allowed in each zone" with the task force MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 2003 stating that builders need predictability to overcome a sense of reluctance and in single family zoning it is more difficult to achieve this. • The City's annual report should include produced units from each of the classes of affordable units. The Commission next commented on each of the nine (9) Goals and Policies proposed to be incorporated into Chapter 2 of the Housing Element: Goal I. - Increase the rental housing supply for families meeting the state's definitions of "very low" and "low" income levels: • No. 4 - would this include waiving of school fees? The task force answered that school fees are a separate issue, but that the City of San Luis Obispo has deferred or waived impact fees for elderly housing. • With regard to the density bonus when establishing zoning requirements for Mixed -Use areas, the zoning should be looked at in order to set a starting point to make sure the maximum number is reasonable. Goal II. — Increase the supply of moderately priced housing for ownership: • There was a concern that creating more mobile homes might not be a good idea and a suggestion to change the word "shall" to "may" throughout Goal II. • The height limit should be three stories. • It would be important to review road width when density bonuses are being considered. • Shared parking areas for residential developments close to commercial areas could be considered and in some cases as an overlay in residential areas. • Would the reduction on senior housing parking be increased beyond the present reductions? • Small Tots in residential areas could be consolidated to increase density. • No. 10 - It was suggested that all the density bonuses should be in table form for clarification. John Schoals, 1185 Encinitas Court, Councilman Grover Beach, stated that: • Consolidation of infill Tots may require help from the City, especially in redevelopment areas. • Parking districts should be based on a specific situation; mixed use and commercial is fine, but for residential areas one would have to be vary careful where parking districts would be placed. • He suggested for blighted areas teaming up with the Housing Authority or People's Self Help Housing for assistance. Goal III - Create clearer regulations and streamline the approval process. PAGE 2 • 1.a. - There was a concern that the cost of an appeal would preclude individuals that did not have the financing to do this. 1 1 1 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 2003 PAGE 3 • There was consensus that the word "shall" be changed to "may" and the Commission requested further discussion on this. Goal IV - Condominium conversions shall be regulated both to protect the City's supply of apartments and to allow more moderately priced for -sale homes. • Would like to see language added stating "no net Toss in the percentage of apartment rentals ". Goal V - Apartment construction shall be encouraged. • There is a movement in the State to encourage this. • Suggestion to allow a 10 or 20 year term (after which there would be no liabilities) for an affordable apartment after which it could be converted to condominiums to give incentives to builders. • Suggest that land could be rezoned so only apartments could be built. • Suggest also some trading could be allowed. • The City could set up specific land zones for tax credit projects for low and very low income. Goal VI - The City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance shall be revised. • No. 1. - Commission agreed that 10% of every residential project was reasonable. Goal VII - The City shall develop a policy to maintain long -term affordability on rental and for -sale units that are built with a density bonus or other government - provided incentive(s). • There needs to be firm implementation measures clearly stated. • Specifics clarified who would do the monitoring. • If a qualified buyer chooses to rent there should be restrictions on what could be charged for rent (to make sure it remains affordable). The task force answered: 1. Deed restrictions are being used to monitor this - language must be used to allow the lender the potential to foreclose when necessary. (The Commission asked that the task force provide City staff with specific language.) 2. The regulatory agency (such as the City or Housing Authority) can monitor the agreements - most of the regulatory agreements will restrict the homeowner from renting their property. 3. With single - family homes a Deed of Trust (to the City) is recorded which would reflect an amount to be paid equivalent to the difference between the affordable price and the market price. In effect the City would be notified of a pending sale. The Commission and Task Force then discussed silent seconds. John Schoals stated that Grover Beach has been reviewing each situation on a case -by -case basis. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 2003 Chair Guthrie called for a 10- minute break. PAGE 4 Goal VIII. - The City shall identify various financing alternatives to provide affordable housing for households earning up to 120 percent of the area median income. • The Commission was opposed to the City issuing bonds to finance moderate priced housing unless they were actually buyer owned. The task force explained that: • If you are a moderate - income person you cannot qualify for any of the State bonding money that is available at lower interest rate, but the City can create their own financing pool to lend to a moderate - income person at a lower rate. Goal IX. - The City shall develop incentives to encourage builders to create homes for households earning 200 percent of area median income and below. • No. 1 - Should read, "the City may (not shall) grant a density of 20 percent.... • No. 2 - The Commission did not consider this a viable policy and felt it would have a negative impact. • The Commission suggested that policies 1 & 2 be combined and reworded. Task Force Comments: • This policy was to help provide incentives for builders not to build at the top of the market. Ms. Heffernon informed the Task Force that the City Council would like to give recognition to them on their hard work at the Council meeting of June 24, 2003. Ms. Heffernon then asked the Commission to hear Non - Public Hearing Item III.A. after the break and before completing the discussion on item II.A. The Commission agreed. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEM III.A - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2003/04. CIP report prepared by Public Works. The Planning Commission reviewed the fiscal year 2003/04 Capital Improvement Program for consistency with the General Plan. Don Spagnolo, Public Works Director, gave a short presentation explaining the report, receiving comments and answering questions from the Commission. Commissioner Arnold asked when the Rancho Grande Park would be completed. Mr. Spagnolo said it would probably be the Fall. Commissioner Brown asked if all the projects identified for this year would be started? Mr. Spagnolo said he believed all the identified projects would happen. Commissioner Fowler had the following comments and questions: 1 1 1 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 2003 PAGE 5 • Project No. 5812, Grand Avenue Phase 3 Reconstruction - were the funds in hand to do this? Mr. Spagnolo said the work would begin June 2, 2003, but some of the funds would not be available until July 1, 2003 and in addition, not all of the older funds may be available and they were looking to SLOCOG to fill some of the gaps. • Bridge Street bridge - what was happening with this? Mr. Spagnolo said the bridge is not able to handle the standard highway loading so a lot more work has to be done in order to bring it up to a higher standard. • When would the sidewalk on Montego Street be completed? Mr. Spagnolo said the south side was completed, but the north side is more challenging and the only funding source is a very competitive one and they had not been successful in getting these funds. • Ms. Fowler thanked the Director for completing the work on Dodson Way. The Commission asked for comment from Director Spagnolo regarding the letter received from Camino Mercado Partners LP regarding Camino Mercado traffic signal CIP project. Mr. Spagnolo said that once the design for this project is complete he would discuss the matter with the City Manager and would propose that the City do the construction. In reply to a question from Commissioner Guthrie, Mr. Spagnolo clarified that this would mean the developer would only be making "a contribution" to the signal. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fowler, approving the Capital Improvement Program and making the finding that it was consistent with the General Plan as required by Government Code Section 65103. The motion was unanimously approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Fowler, Arnold and Chair Guthrie NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Keen CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON ITEM II.A: Mr. Hetherington, the Consultant for the Housing Element Update, gave a summary of the Housing Element Update and some of the highlights were: • Chapter 2, page 3 needs additional work to be completed once the goals and policies are set. • Chapter 3 will contain most of the demographic data. • One of the major issues in Chapter 2 is affordable housing and the final document will contain quantified objectives and how they relate to the State requirements for regional housing needs allocations. Commissioner Brown said he had a concern that goals and policies were being set out for this chapter without specifics and he would like to see mechanisms and implementations in place. Mr. Hetherington agreed that there does need to be more specifics and some of these specifics could be included. Commissioner Brown said he had a concern that the task force had not done this. �_ nn C`h ter 2 °% .....m. . ���v Na "` ` '' Comments . .... _.....c..a, ®.A .m,,... . ..,.. a� .._ STRATEGIES A. B. & C. Modify to state the "City will implement a fund for affordable housing other than by developer funds. " D. & E. No comment. if F. Change 50% to 75 %. (Ms. Heffernon — Planned Unit Development will come under this.). ii G. No comment. " H. Strike "appropriate ". " I. No comment. 61 J. Report should show what has been done on housing units. GOALS & POLICIES Goal 1. " No. 1 Acceptable. No. 2 Suggest change from 25% to 35 %. No. 3 & 4 Acceptable. Goal II. 1. Acceptable. 2.a. & b. No consensus — Change word "shall" to "may ". 3. Change word "shall" to "may ". 4. No consensus. 5. Add road width — then acceptable. 6. & 7. Acceptable. 8. Change word "shall" to "may ". 9. Acceptable. 10. Simplify this with a table (Commissioner Arnold will bring language for consolidation of land). Goal III. 1. Change language strike ... "for all projects ".... 1.a. Change language ... "City Council may waive or reduce the fee for the cost of holding a public hearing. ". 2. No consensus. Goal IV. 1. — 4. Acceptable Goal V. 1. — 3. Acceptable. Goal VI. 1.a. Need clarification on why "greater than two units ". 2. No consensus. 3. No consensus. Goal VII. 1. & 1.b. No consensus. 2. No consensus. Goal VIII. 1. — 3. Acceptable. Goal IX. 1. & 2. Blend policies 1. & 2. together, reword language. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 2003 Commissioner Guthrie asked Mr. Hetherington if he was going to write the policy from the report done by the Housing Task Force. Mr. Hetherington said they would be using the policies and may add implementation measures to this. Final Commission Comments on the Strategies, Goals and Policies: PAGE 6 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 2003 The Commission agreed to continue the discussion on Strategies, Goals and Policies, as there was no consensus on some of the issues. Housing Element Update Workshop No. 4. would be scheduled for the meeting of July 1, 2003. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - None COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP: None. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. on a motion by Commissioner Arnold, seconded by Commissioner Brown. ATTEST: N REARDON- SMITH, COMMISSION CLERK Z6- L' AS TO CONTENT: ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPME T DIRECTOR JAME GUTHRIE, CHAIR PAGE 7