Loading...
RPVCCA_CC_SR_2013_10_01_01_Prelim_Review_Draft_General_Plan_Housing_ElementCITY OF MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: REVIEWED: HONORABLE MAYO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS JOEL ROJAS, AICP, CO DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OCTOBER 1, 2013 PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF THE DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT CAROLYN LEHR, CITY MANAGER~/ Project Managers: Gregory Pfost, AICP, Deputy ~munity Development Director So Kim, Associate Planner 16' RECOMMENDATION Receive public comments at the public hearing, which was continued from the September 17, 2013 meeting on the Preliminary Draft Housing Element, provide Staff with feedback on the document, and direct Staff to forward the Preliminary Draft Housing Element to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review and feedback. BACKGROUND On August 27, 2013, the Preliminary Draft Housing Element was presented to the Planning Commission for review and comments. The Planning Commission provided Staff with direction to make relatively minor modifications to the Draft and to forward the document to the City Council for review. The revised Preliminary updated Draft with the Planning Commission recommended changes was distributed to the Council on September 3, 2013. On September 17, 2013 the City Council received a Staff Report (attached) on the Draft, heard public testimony, discussed the Draft and posed questions to Staff. At the meeting the Council expressed some concerns regarding the Draft and requested that Staff conduct additional research pertaining to specific issue areas. The Council then continued the item to tonight's meeting. DISCUSSION During the September 1 yth City Council meeting, the Council specifically expressed concern and/or requested that Staff conduct additional research pertaining to the Draft's proposed Adequate Sites Program, which proposes to address the City's RHNA shortfall of 8 lower income units through a mixed-use program along Western Avenue. Based upon the Council's September 1 yth discussion, Staff provides the following discussion on various issue areas. 1-1 If new multi-family units are developed through this Program. do the units have to be reserved at an "Affordable" rate or can they be "Market" rate? As noted in the September 1 ih report, through the City's Housing Element, the City is mandated to identify sites to meet the City's total RHNA housing need of 31 units, at varying income levels. The City is able to identify sites for most of that need; however the City has a shortfall of sites available to meet 8 lower income units during the 8 year planning period. To address that shortfall, the State has indicated that in order for a City to meet its lower income need, a City can re-zone existing properties provided that the zoning accommodate a residential density of up to 20 dwelling units/acre. It is very important to note that the units do not have to be restricted at an affordable (lower income) level under State Law -they can be rented or sold at market rate. This is because, theoretically, a higher density project (20 du/acre) will provide for smaller units that will typically rent or sale for a lower price thereby providing a relatively affordable alternative than typical market rate single family detached housing. However, it is also important to note that the City Municipal Code currently has an "lnclusionary Housing Ordinance", which is Chapter 17.11, titled, "Affordable Housing". That Ordinance currently requires all residential development projects of 5 or more units to provide an "affordable" component as part of the project equal to either 10% of the units affordable to "Low" income households, or 5% of the units affordable to "Very Low" income households. Since its adoption in 1997, this Ordinance has been implemented through many projects, including the Oceanfront Estates Residential Tract, Seabreeze Residential Tract, Tract 52666 (13 lots), Crestridge Estates Condominium Project, and Highridge Condominiums. Thus, while allowing a mixed use res!dential component on properties does not need to include any restricted affordable units under State Law, the City's existing Ordinance would require a small percentage (10% or 5%) of those units to be restricted to either "Low" or "Very Low" income households. For example, if a property owner of a 1 acre lot proposed to move forward with a mixed use project at 20 du/acre, per the City's Ordinance, the property owner would only have to provide for either 2 "Low" income units or 1 "Very-Low" income unit and the rest (18 to 19 units) could be rented/sold at market rate. If a property owner wants to redevelop their commercial property will they be required to put in housing as part of their project? No. As envisioned, this program allows an alternative residential use in the Commercial zone along Western Avenue, whereas commercial use would remain as the permitted primary use in the zone. For example, if a property owner wanted to demolish their existing commercial structure and replace it with only a new commercial structure, that would be permitted. Additionally, the property owner could add on to or remodel their existing commercial structures without being required to construct any housing. However, if a property owner found that adding housing to a commercial property would be marketable, the property owner would have the option to move in that direction as well. Thus, it is important to note that the City is only required to identify areas where housing could be developed, but it remains entirely up to private property owners to decide whether they want to include a housing component as part of their project. 1-2 How will this Program be implemented and can the City change its mind in 2017? At this time, the Housing Element only needs to include a program to address the 8 unit site deficiency. The Draft addresses this deficiency by indicating that the City will zone sufficient land to accommodate the shortfall by March 2017. The description in the Draft will allow the City more time to work on the details of adding a mixed use component to the existing commercial land uses. Staff is optimistic that it will obtain grant funding for Phase 2 of the Western Avenue Vision/Specific Plan process, which is a more detailed effort to improve the corridor. As part of that effort, the City will be able to utilize the expertise of a consultant to assist Staff in analyzing which sites are most appropriate to meet this need considering potential impacts to neighboring uses, including residential, and to develop specific development standards (height, lot coverage, design, parking, etc.) for such projects. For example, during the Western Avenue Vision/Specific Plan process, it may be determined that the best sites for mixed use would be those sites towards the southern end of the City's Western Avenue corridor such as the small commercial strip center (H. Salt Fish and Chips center for lack of a better term), existing motel/restaurant site, and existing tire shop. These sites may be chosen because they are located significantly below the existing residential homes located to the west and thus most likely to support high density projects without having any impact upon views. Then, within the new Western Avenue Specific Plan the City could create a mixed-use overlay for just these properties. Alternatively, the Vision/Specific Plan process may show that there are other sites along Western Avenue that might also be good candidates for a mixed use project. \Once the City establishes the overlay zone through this process, property owners would have an alternative (not a mandate) to provide mixed use if desired. It should be noted that on August 2J1h, there was one speaker who attended the meeting who expressed his support for Program No. 1. Mr. Herrera, a property owner of a strip mall along Western Avenue, felt that broadening the zoning designation to allow additional uses on his property would give him more development options and make his property more marketable to developers who may want to purchase and re-develop the site. While Staff is proposing that the best sites for mixed use be identified as part of a Specific Plan process that would look at the entire commercial corridor, the City Council could direct Staff to amend the Draft Housing Element now so that proposed Program No. 1 is limited to Mr. Herrera's property and perhaps the adjoining property which currently contains America's Best Value Inn and Think Prime Steakhouse. The March 2017 date is mandated because the State requires cities to implement their program within a specific time frame so that there would still be time for a developer to pursue a project (if desired by the developer) prior to the end of the planning period, which is 2021. If the City moves forward with this program during 2016, which would involve public notification of all property owners within the Western Avenue Corridor as well as property owners within a 500' radius of the corridor, and through such process the City decides that it does not want to continue pursuing such a program, then the City has two options. One, as mandated by State Law, the City must revise its Housing Element to identify other sites in the City that will meet the City's 8 unit shortfall for lower income units. Or two, the City can do nothing and simply not implement the program; however the City would be subject to potential litigation and other penalties as described further in this report. Additionally, if the City chose to not implement the Program, the 8 unit shortfall would be added to the RHNA for the next planning cycle starting in 2021. What is "self-certification", is this an alternative for the City, and what are the ramifications? The term "self-certification" is not a process that the State specifically recognizes 1 . The State either recognizes a city's Housing Element as being certified (in compliance with State Law) or not being 1-3 certified (not in compliance with State Law). Some cities in the State of California decide that they cannot meet the mandated sites RHNA requirement, and while they will submit a Housing Element to the State for review, upon receiving comments back from the State, will adopt a resolution basically finding that the city believes the Element is in compliance with State Law and making specific findings as set forth in Government Code §65585(f)(2). Subsequently, the State would find that Element not in compliance. Taking this action is sometimes referred to as "self-certification". If a City does not have a certified Housing Element, it could be subject to litigation from affordable housing advocate groups for having an Element that is not in compliance with State Law. As reported by the City Attorney at the September 1th meeting, many cities in the State have been sued by public interest groups. If a City loses such a suit, then the City will be required to bring their Element into compliance with State Law within a specified time period. There also would be a good argument that the City's General Plan is inadequate, and if deemed inadequate, the City may not be able to make required general plan consistency findings for such things as zoning code amendments, development agreements, subdivision maps, and other approvals or entitlements that require a general plan consistency finding under the City's Zoning Code or State law. Additionally, the City wifl"be required to pay the plaintiff's attorney's fees and the costs of the lawsuit, in addition to paying for the City's defense costs. Awards of attorney's fees are often very expensive (several hundreds of thousands of dollars). Further, cities during this current planning period that do not obtain HCD certification of their Element will not be able to take advantage of the longer 8 year planning period to achieve compliance. Instead, they would be required to prepare another updated Housing Element in 4 years and another 4 years after that. Lastly, the State legislature often considers legislation that would enact penalties on cities that do not have an approved Housing Element and elect to "self certify". Regardless of the State's housing philosophy and subsequent mandates, knowing these potential ramifications, City Staff believes it is in the best interest of the City to obtain a certified Housing Element. This is especially true during this planning period when the City has a relative~y small shortfall (8 units) that it needs to address through its site inventory, and the City has an opportunity to utilize the Western Avenue Vision/Specific Plan process to identify a site or sites over the next few years. What are the other cities on the Peninsula doing? Staff contacted the cities of Rolling Hills Estates, Palos Verdes Estates, and Rolling Hills to find out what they were doing in regard to meeting their adequate sites requirements of RHNA. The RHNA requirements for each of the three cities as compared to our City are as follows: City Population RHNA Above Mod. Moder~te Lower Total RPV 41,643 13 5 13 31 RHE 8,067 2 1 2 5 PVE 13,606 6 3 7 16 RH 1,860 2 1 3 6 In regards to Rolling Hills Estates, their current 2010 Housing Element was certified by the State. They are currently working on their next Housing Element and expect that they will not have a problem in meeting their RHNA adequate sites requirement of 5 units as they have areas within the their "Mixed Use" overlay zone, which is in the Peninsula Center area, to accommodate these units. In regards to Palos Verdes Estates and Rolling Hills, their current 201 O adopted Housing Elements have not been certified by HCD. For their 201 O Element, those cities submitted their Elements to 1-4 HCD, received comments, and adopted a Resolution indicating that each City believes that they have met the requirements of State Law. Both agencies are currently working on preparing their new Housing Element, and at this time it appears that this same process will probably be followed for the Element due in October. Has this issue been publicly noticed? In order to obtain as much public input as possible on the Preliminary Draft Housing Element, an 1/8 page public hearing notice was published in the Peninsula News and mailed to all Homeowner's Associations and churches within the City and various State Agencies. Additionally, notice of this item was sent via electronic mail to all parties registered on the City's listserve system for the Housing Element and the General Plan Update lists. Further, since one of the Programs within the Housing Element involves the Western Avenue corridor, Staff also mailed a notice to those on the Western Avenue Compass Blueprint project notification list, which includes all property owners within 500' of Western Avenue. All public comments received prior to and since the August2ih Planning Commission meeting, are attached to this report. It's important to note that the program identified in the Draft is general in nature. If the City moves forward with such a program as part of the Western Avenue Vision/Specific Plan process, additional public notification and public hearings would take place prior to the adoption of any specific Code Amendments that implement such a program. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Affordable Housing that Currently Exists in the City As noted in this report, the proposal would not result in a significant amount of new affordable housing units on Western Avenue because most developers would prefer to build market rate units. This is especially true if during the process, the City were to apply a mixed use overlay zone onto only a few properties. Staff raises this point because some residents in the community, particularly those on the east side have expressed a feeling of being singled out as the location where the City is going to address all of its affordable housing needs. Some have expressed concerns with "affordable" housing and its perceived negative stigma. To dispel the negative image of what "affordable" housing is in addition to showing that affordable housing is dispersed amongst various areas of the City, Staff feels it important to point out the successful affordable housing projects that currently exist in the City. The most recent project is the 34-unit Mirandela project located at the intersection of Crestridge and Crenshaw, which accommodates 33 lower income units (extremely low, very low, and low). Additionally, many probably are not aware that Trump National has four existing affordable units on site next to their Maintenance Yard that are restricted to house very-low to low income households. Additionally, there are two condominiums in the City that are restricted to lower income households. Most are not aware that these sites provide affordable housing, and to Staff's knowledge has there never been any issues associated with the tenants, condition of the units or property, or a reduction in property values for other properties in the vicinity. 1-5 Public Correspondence Staff received several phone calls and letters/emails (attached) related to Program No. 1 of the Draft document. In speaking with the public and reading the correspondence, the public appears to have a misunderstanding of the program in general. The public believes that Program No. 1 will result in either requiring a property owner to demolish their shopping center and construct affordable housing or the City will exercise eminent domain to obtain a commercial property and construct affordable housing. This perception is not accurate. The idea behind Program No. 1 is to broaden the zoning designation of the Western Avenue properties from Commercial-General only to Commercial- General and multi-family housing. Allowing for a broader use would provide developers more options/alternatives with their sites, including mixed use development, should they decide to do so. This program would not require anyone to do anything with their property. It would merely allow for additional uses on existing commercial properties if a property owner chooses to do so in the future. On August 2th, there was one speaker who attended the meeting who expressed his support for Program No. 1. Mr. Herrera, a property owner of a strip mall along Western Avenue, felt that broadening· the zoning designation to allow additional uses on his property would give him more development options and make his property more marketable to developers who may want to purchase and re-develop the site. Next Steps Based on comments received from the City Council at tonight's public hearing, Staff will make necessary changes to the Preliminary Draft prior to submitting it to HCD for their 60-day review period. Once HCD completes their review and provides comments on the Preliminary Draft, Staff will make any required changes and present the final Housing Element back to the Planning Commission for formal review, and then to the City Council for final adoption. The appropriate environmental review in accordance with CEQA will also be prepared and presented to the Commission and Council concurrently with the final Housing Element. These additional meetings will be held as duly noticed public hearings. CONCLUSION In working with the consultant, Staff feels that the Preliminary Draft Housing Element is consistent with State Law and therefore recommends that the City Council receive any public comments, provide Staff with comments and direct Staff to forward the preliminary draft document to HCD for review. By approving the proposed Housing Element, Staff believes that it will be certified by the State, which will mean that the City will have eight years to achieve compliance with the Housing Element, rather than a four year update requirement. ATTACHMENT • September 17, 2013 Staff Report • Draft Housing Element (under separate cover delivered to City Council on 9/3/2013 and available on the City's website through the following link: http://palosverdes.com/rpv/planning/planning-zoning/Draft-Housing-Element-9-17-13. pdf) 1-6 CITYOF MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Project Managers: RECOMMENDATION HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS JOEL ROJAS, AICP, COMMUNITY DE.P}f(NT DIRECTOR SEPTEMBER 17, 2013 · UV PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF THE DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT Gregory Pfost, AICP, Deputy Community Development Director 1'{\) So Kim, Associate Planner Q.Q_, (YT\ Open the public hearing, receive public comments on the Preliminary Draft Housing Element, provide Staff with feedback on the document, and direct Staff to forward the Preliminary Draft Housing Element to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review and feedback. BACKGROUND All General Plans must contain a Housing Element that addresses existing and projected housing needs, along with goals, policies, objectives and programs for the preservation, improvement and development of housing. Unlike other elements of the City's General Plan, pursuant to State Law a Housing Element must be updated every five years. The last update forthe City was certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) in 2010. The next Housing Element update for all cities is due to HCD by Odober 15, 2013. Similar to the approach taken in 1992, 2001and2010, Staff has used an outside consultant (Castaneda & Associates) to prepare the City's Preliminary Draft Housing Element. On August 27, 2013, the Preliminary Draft Housing Element was presented to the Planning Commission for review and comments. The Planning Commission provided Staff with the following direction and forwarded the document to the City Council for review and comments: 1) Review the Introduction section of the Housing Element and make sure thatthe contents are consistent with the City's General Plan Introduction Section; 2) Update the graphics; and 3) Update a graph shown on page 1-4. The Preliminary updated Draft with the Planning Commission recommended changes was distributed to the Council on September3, 2013. 1-7 DISCUSSION Required Content of the Housing Element The Housing Element is one of the seven mandatory elements of the General Plan, and it specifies ways in which the housing needs of existing and future residents can be met. Attached is a copy of the Preliminary Draft Housing Element, which includes the following six major components, required by State Law: • An assessment of the community's housing needs. • An inventory of sites that can accommodate the share of the Regional Housing Need. • An analysis of housing market and governmental constraints that impede public and private sector efforts to meet the needs. • A progress report describing actions taken to implement the 2008-2014 Housing Element. • A statement of goals, quantified objectives and policies relative to the construction, rehc;ibilitation, conversion and preservation of housing. • An implementation program which sets forth a schedule of actions which the City is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the stated goals and objectives. The City's Housing Need In the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, just like all cities and counties in the State of California, the number of future housing units needed to meet the Region's need is determined through a process called the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), which involves State HCD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) defining the future need for each jurisdiction. According to the RHNA, the City's allocated new housing construction need is 31 new housing units for the planning period of October 2013 to 2021. The 31 new housing unit need is segmented as follows: • 13 "Above Moderate" income units • 5 "Moderate" income units • 5 "Low" income units • 4 "Very Low'' income units • 4 "Extremely Low'' income units It is important to note that the City is not responsible for constructing these units using its own resources. Instead, the City is only responsible for identifying the sites available to meet this need, while it is perceived that the market will theoretically see to the construction of the units. Proposal to Meet the City's Housing Need In the 2001 and 2010 Housing Elements, the RHNA new construction need was 53 and 60 units respectively. During the preparation of those two Housing Elements, the City was fortunate to have purchased the site where the current Mirandela Senior Affordable Housing Project is located. Because the Mirandela site was purchased for the development of future affordable housing units that met the City's allocated RHNA for lower income units during the previous two Housing Element planning periods, the City met its obligation to identify sites available and HCD "certified" the prior two Housing Elements. However, while the City does have sites available to meet its current RHNA need for 13 "Above Moderate" income units through the construction of new units on existing vacant lots, its 5 "Moderate" income unit requirement through the City's Second Dwelling Unit ("Granny 1-8 Flat") Program (see Program #2 on page 3-5), and 5 lower income units through the future Highridge Condominium Development and Crestridge Senior Housing Development, the City no longer has sites available to meet its RHNA need for the remaining 8 lower income units. Mixed Use Proposal for Western Avenue In order to address the shortfall of 8 lower income housing sites, Staff and the City's Housing Consultant are proposing to implement a Western Avenue Vision Plan/Adequate Site Program (see Program #1 on pgs. 3-4 to 3-5). As the Council will recall, the City has been moving forward with a Vision Plan for the Western Avenue Corridor, which was presented recently to the Planning Commission and the City Council. The City recently submitted a Grant application for this year's Compass Blueprint program from SCAG to continue with the Western Avenue Vision Plan by moving onto the next step of preparing more specific use and design guidelines for the private and public areas within the Corridor that will eventually lead to a revised Western Avenue Specific Plan. This Visioning/Specific Plan project for Western Avenue provides a great opportunity to consider a program ·that will provide for mixed use (residential and commercial) type development in the Corridor, which provides a Housing Program to meet the City's RHNA need for lower income units. In brief, the proposed Program #1 identified in the attached Preliminary Draft Housing Element indicates that the City will re-zone sufficient land on Western Avenue to accommodate the 8 lower income sites at a density of 20 du/ac or greater, by-right. More specifically, the zoning district must allow multi-family uses by-right, without additional discretionary permit, such as a Conditional Use Permit. It's important to note that the exact details of this change do not have to be identified at this time -the City only needs to generally define a program that it will pursue that would meet the RHNA site's requirement. Thus, as the City works out the details of such a program through the Compass Blueprint project and the Specific Plan revisions, the City can define exactly how such a program would work successfully along Western Avenue, including identifying specific development standards {height, setbacks, lot coverage, parking), permitted uses on the site, design requirements and even identifying specific sites that could accommodate the Piogram. As noted in the Program, the potential zone change to accommodate this Program is targeted to be completed by March 2017. It is important to note that the City has identified this as a Program that it will pursue, however, if during the pursuit of such a Program, the City elects not to move forward with it, then the City will be obligated to define other sites in the City where the lower income unit need of 8 units can be met. Again, it's important to note that the City is not mandating the construction of these units on a specific site, but only providing a path for the development community to provide said units if its marketable. While the City currently has funds earmarked only for the use on affordable housing projects, the expenditure of these funds would only be used in concert with a developer that is interested in providing a product that meets the requirements that the City identifies through the Specific Plan Amendment process. Of course, any future Code or Specific Plan Amendments that would develop such a Program would be subject to public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council prior to adoption. The remaining Housing Programs identified in the attached Preliminary Draft are programs that have been implemented by the City in the past and will continue to be implemented in order to ensure consistency with Housing Element Law while adhering to the goals, policies and objectives that guide the City. 1-9 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Public Notice In order to obtain as much public input as possible on the Preliminary Draft Housing Element, an 1/8 page public hearing notice was published in the Peninsula News and mailed to all Homeowners Associations and churches within the City and various State Agencies. Additionally, notice of this item was sent via electronic mail to all parties registered on the City's listserve system for the Housing Element and the General Plan Update lists. Further, since one of the Programs within the Housing Element involves the Western Avenue corridor, Staff also mailed a notice to those on the Western Avenue Compass Blueprint project notification list, which includes all property owners within 500' of Western Avenue. All public comments received prior to and since the August 2th Planning Commission meeting, are attached to this report. Public Correspondence Staff received several phone calls and letters/emails (attached) related to Program No. 1 of the Draft document. In speaking with the public and reading the correspondence, the public appears to have a misunderstanding of the program in general. The public believes that Program No. 1 will result in either requiring a property owner to demolish their shopping center and construct affordable housing or the City will exercise eminent domain to obtain a commercial property and construct affordable housing ourselves. The idea behind Program No. 1 is to potentially broaden the zoning designation of the Western Avenue properties from Commercial-General only to Commercial-General and multi- family housing. Allowing for a broader use would provide developers more options/alternatives with their sites, including mixed use development, should they decide to do so. This program would not require anyone to do anything with their property. It would merely allow for additional uses on the existing commercial properties if a property owner chooses to do so in the future. On August 2ih, there was one speaker who attended the meeting Vlklo expressed his support for · Program No. 1. Mr. Herrera, a property owner of a strip mall along Western Avenue, felt that broadening the zoning designation to allow additional uses on his property would give him more development options and make his property more marketable to developers who may want to purchase and re-develop the site. It should be noted that any future development proposals on any of the sites would require separate Planning Department approval, which would include view analysis, traffic analysis, height restrictions and compliance with other development standards. Additionally, assuming Program No. 1 is in place, should a property owner choose to develop his/her lot with a mixed-use building, with retail at the lower level and residential at top, not all or perhaps none of the residential units would be required to be affordable units. It is assumed that a developer would likely have mostly market rate residential units with a small portion as affordable dependent upon the size of the project per the City's lnclusionary Housing requirements in the Municipal Code. Again, details of this program would be determined at a later time if the Draft Housing Element is approved with Program No. 1 at a future meeting. Next Steps Based on comments received from the City Council at tonight's public hearing, Staff will make necessary changes to the Preliminary Draft prior to submitting it to HCD for their 60-day review period. Once HCD completes their review and provides comments on the Preliminary Draft, Staff will make any required changes and present the final Housing Element back to the Planning 1-10 Commission for formal review, and then to the City Council for final adoption. The appropriate environmental review in accordance with CEQA will also be prepared and presented to the Commission and Council concurrently with the final Housing Element. · CONCLUSION In working with the consultant, Staff feels that the Preliminary Draft Housing Element is consistent with State Law and therefore recommends that the City Council receive any public comments, provide Staff with comments and direct Staff to forward the preliminary draft document to HCD for review. ATTACHMENT • Draft Housing Element (under separate cover delivered to City Council on 9/3/2013 and available on the City's website through the following link: http://palosverdes.com/rpv/planning/planning-zoning/Draft-Housing-Element-9-17-13. pdf) • Public Comments 1-11 So Kim From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: winniech@cox.net Friday, August 30, 2013 10:11 PM So Kim the 31 new units construction Follow up Completed I am a resident close to the Western Ave. I strongly opposed to the construction on any new units, especially the lower income units. The reason is that Western Ave is very busy and crowded already, there should not be any additional construction. Furthermore, lower income units will affect t~e price of the homes already existed. Are we -going to vote on this? Please let me know. 1 1-12 August 26, 2013 Dear Planning Commissioners: The attached limited response from the folks located in the Mira Costa Terrace cul de sac community is personally delivered to you because we are unable to attend in person your meeting on August 27, 2013. We are a working class community of single family dwellings and all of us are. doing our best to stay "afloat" in these difficult economic times. In the real work world, there is no such thing anymore of leaving your job early to attend a meeting. We are encouraged to often stay over without any compensation whatsoever, and we do this to keep our jobs. We are either empl_oyed (for more hours than 9-5 or our hours are other than the regular 9-5 work day) or we are retired and have a full day caring for grandchildren, or we have been retired for awhile and can no longer drive at night. We have no grandiose dreams in our daily lives! Our dreams are to stay employed, to help our children and grandchildren to have enough money to live on after we are long gone, and that our pension will be there every month until we die. These are our Visions and Dreams that we concentrate on Daily. We encourage you as Community Lead~rs to concentrate on keeping our beautiful City afloat, please do not squander our hard earned tax dollars. It is not essential to grab every available Grant, especially when the matching funds are a total unknown at the time the Grant is ( awarded! We appreciate your concentration on what we are telling you. 1-13 WESTERN AVENUE VISION PLAN AND PROGRAM #1 OF THE PRELIMINARY DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT WE, THE UNDERSIGNED PROPERTY OWNERS/RESIDENTS OF THE CUL DE SAC COMMUNITY COMMONLY KNOWN AS MIRA COSTA TERRACE, HEREBY OFFER OUR LIMITED COMMENTS ON YOUR VISION PLAN FOR WESTERN AVENUE, AS FOLLOWS: 1. All Visions and Dreams have a Reality Check and here are a few Reality Checks for your Serious Consideration: a. Take a serious look at the surrounding area, i.e. the other side of Western Avenue, the neighboring cities/communities (the stuff that is across the street from RPV's Western Avenue) Does the Vision Plan fit with the adjoining Western Avenue? b. Traffic on Western!?! Ponte Vista continues to be an issue. Western is two lanes each way and is the only way IN/OUT of our cul de sac community. How would you widen Western Avenue without Disrupting the folks who are established???? c. A block wall to keep the bank from eroding ••• Really •• this makes a Perfect Place for the General Public to dump their trash. A block wall, no matter the height or location, makes it impossible to keep the accumulation of public trash, dog baggies, leaves etc. under control d. Contrary to popular belief, a parking lot IS NOT a good buffer between buildings (business or housing) e. A HOTEL ••• take a good look at the hotels in San Pedro which were a grandiose dream of Federally Funded Redevelopment. 1-14 Who will come to the corner of Western/Caddington for a vacation or even a night f. Be careful with the trees. Trees are beautiful, especially in draft plans for future development. However, these trees grow into impossible heights and generally cause a multitude of expensive maintenance problems as well as hazardous to the general public, (Palm trees in particular) g; Mandated Low Low Income Housing • • • please we on Western Avenue have our share ••• Park Western and Harbor Hills . • plan for this mandate to be located in another area h. Western Avenue is Congested with strip malls and traffic. That is a plain simple fact and to add 31 housing units is not a reality viable vision/dream/plan. PLEASE take a look at the multi-story and compact housing on San Pedro side of Western. Not especially beautiful even with landscaping! i. There appears to be no consideration for preservation of views. In spite of efforts to protect and preserve. Views, the views are slowly, but surely disappearing due to vegetation overgrowth, an oops in building height, i.e so it six or more inches higher than projected ••• but, it is already built •• so be it, it is too late and too expensive to start over or to correct the error in height. j. The displacement of all small businesses • . these are folks who depend on their business for their livelihood, and they are certainly not making a mint of money. This is shameful. 1-15 ' . In today's economic situation, locally, state, and federal, and the working public, we are concerned about this grandiose unrealistic Vision Plan and feel smothered and violated that such a Plan has been committed to paper and public hearings. In conclusion, our thoughts expressed here are limited, however, Please keep in mind we have signed this for your serious consideration. You have been chosen as Special Folks to govern our beautiful City for the comfort, enjoyment, and a healthy lifestyle for All. Your thoughtful consideration of Our Vision is appreciated. NAME STREET ADORES -~;J~ Gu~~. P::fJ m_rr;;;... 6~ (41_ ~~ r-> ~~;J, 1-16 Continued from page.J NAME ADDRESS ~~"() GuNft. £<&. f<.~U.~ d-..»11D M11+ev-{2..&. f\,f V. CA ~::t= :'.t~ c? BOT tiWr. 4.,, IL fi/P/ a.rci, 4~ &I ~N' 2'6}pw C?wvltA-u ©?V 1fi,~~1 ~ t<..tl I J /.P// I zss.c~c;~....s\l::5l. ~. \2.~v~ o_p,..,.. ?ff lt'?..b 6(),~ !(). J P.!Y; Git 7 Z. g"S'Z~ 61..1tt. ~t= ftd 9tJZl? ~>6 ~tevRL=~·cA ..z i'ro LA~~ kKRI> Giv~ e{ @Y~9t?~ ~13> 6'vnk= ·RJ_ f:fl/C/#90~ 28"'117 bt>~ rtd. /tl't: ell-'(c~7[ ~~tw___l,L~~~!IU'i· 2 ~9 iJ Gu_~ · l;iA R.'PY LJ \17,:).1 S- J g i7 CcvL.Jl\'·:rbh.J>r /1: ..,,,, ~ot t:to:xrs l r~ 1 Cg.JJ~t\\Ac ~r.tl(s-l ~J ~]5 1-17 c! So Kim Greg Pfost -b~~: To: Monday, August 26, 2013 3:26 PM So Kim· Subject: FW: Housing Element. August 27, 2013 RPV Planning Commission meeting Please include as correspondence to the PC. Thanks. -Greg. Sincerely, _ Gregory Pfost, AICP Deputy Community Development Director ~City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 (3-J.O) 544-5228 From: SunshineRPV@aol.com [mailto:SunshineRPV@aol.com] Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 2:53 PM To: PlanningCommission Cc: CC '"Subject: Housing Element. August 27, 2013 RPV Planning Commission meeting (<< <:;;.Kd:EMO from SUNSHINE TO: RPV Planning Commission RE: RPV Housing Element update. August 27 meeting. Now that you know a little bit about the International Council on Local Environmental Issues (ICLEI), you should know that the State Of California's Staff has "partnered with ICLEI" in a similar fashion as has RPV. It was not a legislated action. Even though it is inaccurate, my concern is less about the text of the proposed update of the RPV Housing Element of the RPV General Plan and more about Staff's credibility in regard to statements made in the Staff Report. Even worse, some important information is missing from the Staff Report. The word "mandatory" and the phrase "required by State Law" are used without substantiation. Unfunded mandates at every level of government are bad enough without some employees expanding them at their own volition. The major omission is a specific discussion of the consequences should an unfunded mandate miss a codified deadline. Who's hoops are we jumping through? To be more specific: ( -"'ISCl!SSION First ~e~tence. "The Housing Element is one of s~ven mandatory ~lem~nts of ~e General Plan ... ' When the ex1stmg RPV General Plan was blessed by various State of Cahfonua Agencies, there were only five "mandatory Elements". I should think that the Staff Report would state the legislative action as signed 1 1-18 by. Go~ernor whoever which added two more "mandatory Elements". Or, are they just something added to the "guidelines" as suggested by ICLEI? Who has the authority to make them "mandatory"? cT':'\econd sentence. "Attached is a copy of the Preliminary Draft Housing Element which includes the following « •. 'six major components, required by State Law:" Check it out. The current Housing Element has only four "mandatory components". What legislation, signed by which Governor added two more? To make it worse, one of the previous components has been modified. By whose authority has one component been changed into two? Existing component requirement: An inventory of resources to meet needs and of the constraints that impede public and private sector efforts to meet the needs. ·Proposed and Recommended component requirements: 2. An inventory of sites that can accommodate the share of the Regional Housing Need. 3. An analysis of housing market and governmental constraints that impede public and private sector efforts to meet the needs. See the difference? See the unforeseen consequences? See the wasted Staff Time? See what the pursuit of sustainable development is doing to our piece of paradise? (" ·/on'tjust buy it because it is in a Staff Report. Only a majority of the currently seated RPV City Council may "''''get a slim chance to choose to stop this train wreck. \ Planning Commissioners are appointed by people who have been elected by an open vote. Did you get to recommend who writes the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA)? Have you had an opportunity to send a personal opinion to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) about our local housing needs? Who are these people who expect us to provide "progress reports" about how we are taking care of our community? Seriously, if the State of California didn't confiscate most of the money we pay in property taxes, we could probably maintain our infrastructure all by ourselves. The RPV City Council of2005 obliterated the $125K of Consultant work and three years worth of 14 volunteers' research by "sitting mum" for one minute. How long does it take for the Chair of the RPV Planning Commission to say ... "No motion. Next item?" 2 1-19 WesternA venue Vision Plan, etc. it WesternAvenue Vision Plan, etc. Nina Yoshida [yoshida1832@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 2:42 PM To: So Kim Page 1 of2 I received the city's letter today regarding the Western Avenue Vision Plan etc. on Western Avenue. I and probably all of my neighbors above Western Avenue with a View are Alarmed with the confusing language of this letter to those of us not familiar with your Western Avenue Specific Plan and the Limited Time for all of us to truly review and study what all it is you Intend To Do! I find absolutely no statement in your letter indicating the city is interested in protecting our views or open space ... 31 new unit construction needs .. that is a hefty number of new construction which I read as 31 new .. not remodel of the units we now have on Western Avenue. I am not at all anxious to be neighbors to ONE or EIGHT Low Income Housing or to the "allocated" 31 new construction needs. Further, I believe there are other areas in the city for consideration of the Needs that you have outlined in your communication of August 21, 2013. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that the city will keep an open mind and open ears to really listen and really consider what its tax paying property owners, residents, and business folks along Western Avenue have to say. You have given the folks on Western Avenue a very limited time within which to study, review, and discuss among ourselves, your far-reaching immediate plans for Western Avenue. The city's elected officials and staff need to give those of us who provide your tax dollar support serious consideration. All of us along Western Avenue welcome sprucing up a bit, but please don't smother us into oblivion by adding additional new construction and please let us keep and maintain our precious fast disappearing views. Further you definitely need to study Traffic ... Western Avenue is not prepared for additional traffic ... I find no mention of Traffic patterns or plans in your letter . . it is all about new construction and low income housing including multi- housing??? (. I am sharing this with all of my neighbors who are property owners/residents in the cul de sac area known as Mira Costa Terrace. https://owa.rpv .corn/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAADTl 4dB6uXQSZ5UVM%... 8/22/2013 1-20 WesternAvenue Vision Plan, etc. Page 2 of2 ~ .. "' (,~ .. ··. : ':-. : ·. ~ '-.::o.:.:•:·' I plan to take a serious look at your Program #1 tomorrow and I pray I have the smarts to understand it and if I don't someone can explain to us folks in simplistic language what it is you are really planning. And that we can believe what you tell us without there being an addendum farther down the road after the plan has been implemented. Nina Yoshida, 28808 Gunter Road, 310 547 2635 https://owa.rpv.com/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAADTl 4dB6uXQSZSUVM%... 8/22/2013 1-21