CITY COUNCIL
ERRATA SHEET
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Bonnie Gawf, Interim City Clerk
MEETING DATE: 10/18/2023
SUBJECT: City Council Meeting Agenda- Errata Sheet
Attached is additional information for your consideration at the October 18, 2023 City Council Meeting:
Agenda Item Information Provided/Corrected
11A
On October 12, 2023, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend the City Council consider four properties as potential additions to the Draft Housing Element Sites Inventory in the event that other properties are removed or otherwise not available to fulfill Pacific Grove's regional housing needs assessment (RHNA) of 1,125 new housing units. The four sites are the Safeway site on Forest Avenue, the Country Club Shopping Center, the Mission Linen property at 801 Sunset Drive, and the LaPorte Mansion site at 1030 Lighthouse Avenue. * The Planning Commission also voted unanimously to forward the Commission's recommendations and the Draft Housing Element (DHE) to the City Council with a recommendation that the City Council accept the Planning Commission's recommendations and direct staff to submit the DHE to the state.
* Note: The property at 1030 Lighthouse Avenue is already listed on the Sites Inventory as Site
57. Attachments
Addl Public Comment from PC
NOAA property site inventory #49
Dwight Palmer <[email protected]>
Wed 10/11/2023 9:02 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Cc: Housing <[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]> [NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Pacific Grove email system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] October 11, 2023
Thanks to the Planning Commission for unanimously voting to remove the NOAA property from the 6th Draft Housing Element (site inventory #49).
The unanimous vote is consistent with Veronica Tam’s opinion expressed on the record at the October 5, 2023 hearing that Site #49 is not necessary for the required site inventory. Also, the Commission’s vote is reflective of the public outcry in support of removing site #49 from the site inventory.
Respecting Commissioner Lilley’s October 9, 2023 edit sheet, please consider the following. At edit sheet page 3, bullet point 4, first line, “Figure” 2-9 should read “Table” 2-9. Please add to that same bullet point: “On page 2-25, Figure 2-5 should be modified to remove Site 49.”
Also, please consider adding to “Appendix A: Compiled Site Inventory” at page A-4 a total site acreage of 64.903 acres (excluding Site 49’s 4.19 acres).
Also, we commend Commission members proposing to add to the site inventory parcels at the Safeway Store, Country Club Gate, Mission Linen (3 acres), and Laporte Mansion (2 acres).
Thanks to the Commission for the good work.
Best wishes, Dwight & Barbara Palmer.
(We are full-time residents & homeowners in Pacific Grove.) Sent from Mail for Windows
Fw: PG’s 2023-2031 Housing Element
Alyssa Kroeger <[email protected]>
Sat 10/14/2023 8:31 AM
To: Ryan Russell <[email protected]>
Cc: Veronica Tam <[email protected]>;Joe Sidor <[email protected]>;Debbie Gonzales <[email protected]>;Wagner, Mary A. <[email protected]> HE Comment for CC
Alyssa Kroeger
Housing Program Manager | City of Pacific Grove
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA 93950
+1 (831) 648-3127 | www.cityofpg.org
From: Charles Alvarez <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2023 9:58 AM
To: Alyssa Kroeger <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: PG’s 2023-2031 Housing Element
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Pacific Grove email system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Hi Alyssa,
I will only be able to attend a small part of the HE review on October 18th, so I posed my questions directly to Council in the appended email. I was a member of the advisory committee that never had a chance to meet before the HE was distributed. My letter to Council is provides a form of representation of those most affected had I been able to participate.
I am not sure who is in charge of the agenda, but request your help in making my letter an attachment to the agenda as is commonly done at other Council meetings.
Thanks,
Charles Alvarez
Begin forwarded message:
From: Charles Alvarez <[email protected]>
Date: October 13, 2023 at 12:44:10 PM EDT
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Subject: PG’s 2023-2031 Housing Element
Members of City Council,
The City Council will be entertaining a community review and discussion of the first draft of the PG 2023-2031 Housing Element (HE) on October 18, 2023. I view this as a unique opportunity for the community to come together to acknowledge that housing in the area, and particularly in PG, is becoming increasingly unaffordable for many who live and work here. These are our neighbors and your constituents and the facts show many are struggling with housing cost burdens.
The HE is purposefully organized in a constructive manner by chapter: 1) a fact driven housing needs assessment; 2) a look at available and potential housing resources; and 3) action plans to solve the underlying problems. This is a common sense way to approach any problem. First acknowledge and understand the problem, then seek possible solutions, and, finally, make plans to solve the problems. The community discussion should be conducted in the same manner, first properly framing the problem fully before evolving to solutions and plans.
The Council should not let the discussion devolve quickly into a focus on any one solution before the underlying problem is acknowledged, as has become the case in local media.
Unfortunately, local media has focused coverage and controversy on certain potential housing resources while ignoring others and, more importantly, the underlying needs assessment. Also sadly, it appears that many of our neighbors who may be most affected by housing cost burden have not been involved in the conversation, perhaps for one or more reasons: inadequate media coverage, poor rollout of the HE, managing the stress of work-life balance, fear of retribution by landlords, or, probably worst of all, they’ve given up on their elected leader’s willingness or ability to help. So, again, it is imperative to start the discussion by properly framing the problem.
Due to a prior commitment, I will only be able to virtually attend a small segment of the meeting, so I would like to pose my question in writing, not only on my behalf but for your most affected constituents. In your campaigns for office, six of the current Council members each claimed that affordable housing was one of their top three priorities. My request and question to Council is for each member of Council to articulate for attendees their understanding of the affordability issues facing PG and the corrective actions they are willing to support.
I would also like this letter to be made an attachment to the meeting’s agenda.
Respectfully,
Charles Alvarez, PG resident
La Porte Mansion on Site Inventory?
Lisa Ciani <[email protected]>
Thu 10/12/2023 9:56 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> [NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Pacific Grove email system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Dear Planning Commissioners and Mr. Sidor,
Perhaps I’m mistaken, but I believe the LaPorte Mansion is #57 on the Site Inventory. It’s at 1030 Lighthouse Avenue and shown as 2 acres in an R-3-M zone. It is on Table 2-9 and in Appendix A, and designated for 29 units, 19 units VLI and 10 units LI.
I apologize if I’m mistaken, but I believe it should be looked into in light of the Commission’s motion about 4 potential properties to keep in your “hip pocket”.
Thank you for your work tonight.
Sincerely,
Lisa Ciani
City Housing
Tony Ciani <[email protected]>
Thu 10/12/2023 3:06 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Cc: City Council Members <[email protected]> [NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Pacific Grove email system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] ...and please consider this site:
Additional Potential Housing Sites
Tony Ciani <[email protected]>
Thu 10/12/2023 2:10 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> [NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Pacific Grove email system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Dear Commissioners,
Commissioner Fredrikson made a great suggestion for consideration of mixed-used supermarkets such as Safeway and Lucky's, at the Country Club Gate, etc. That model has been successful - for example the La Jolla Village Square Apartments:
"Village Square is where conveniency lives. Shopping, dining, entertainment and scenic views within a brief distance away. "
The Country Club Shopping area provides a recessed enclave suitable for apartment clusters for affordable housing.
Sincerely,
Tony Ciani
Thank you for the Recommendation to Remove 1352 Lighthouse Ave Lora Lee Martin <[email protected]>
Wed 10/11/2023 5:41 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Cc: Housing <[email protected]>
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Pacific Grove email system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Thank you for your recommendation to remove 1352 Lighthouse Avenue from the draft housing element plan. Over 1000 residents and visitors to Pacific Grove have signed a petition requesting such action.
Your recommendation recognizes the scenic, cultural, environmental importance of this open space in the City of Pacific Grove.
Lora Lee Martin
Coastal Advocate
Transmittal of Comments by William Smith on Pacific Grove 2015-2023 Draft Housing Element William Smith <[email protected]>
Thu 10/12/2023 7:17 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Cc: Dervin Kathy <[email protected]>
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Pacific Grove email system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Comments on Pacific Grove General Plan
Chair Steven Lilley,
I’m William Smith, a visitor from Walnut Creek, California. I’ve visited and stayed in Pacific Grove many times. The Monarch butterflies were, and the few monarchs that still return in the winter still are, the major attraction for me.
I’m also a past chair of the County of Alameda Planning Commission. I have commented on many housing elements in the City of Alameda where I lived until late last year.
I commend to you all of the comments by Mr. Michael DeLapa. If you adopt his suggestions, chances are good that HCD will approve your housing element as submitted. Otherwise, HCD could reject your housing element and you may run out of time to get the element approved and then be subject to the builder’s remedy - and unable to influence the design of projects large and small before they are built.
When I stay in Pacific Grove, many low wage workers make my stay enjoyable, including motel maids, waiters and waitresses, retail clerks, teachers, gardeners, janitors .... In return, I have these suggestions to enable more of them to minimize their commutes and reduce their carbon emissions.
1. Site most of the affordable housing near in or adjacent to your business districts (three I believe) that include grocery stores and other services and are adjacent
2. As many people have commented, ensure that Site 49 is deleted from the site inventory.
I’m excited about staying in Pacific Grove again soon - especially in 8 years after your levels of service and carbon emissions will drop as you house more of your service workers in sustainable neighborhoods.
Yours in Housing All,
William Smith
1911 Weaver Lane
Walnut Creek, CA 94598
[email protected]
Transmission of Comments of W Smith on Pacific Grove 2024-2032 Housing Element William Smith <[email protected]>
Fri 10/13/2023 3:18 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> [NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Pacific Grove email system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Retransmittal
Comments on Pacific Grove General Plan
Chair Steven Lilley,
I’m William Smith, a visitor from Walnut Creek, California. I’ve visited and stayed in Pacific Grove many times. The Monarch butterflies were, and the few monarchs that still return in the winter still are, the major attraction for me.
I’m also a past chair of the County of Alameda Planning Commission. I have commented on many housing elements in the City of Alameda where I lived until late last year.
I commend to you all of the comments by Mr. Michael DeLapa. If you adopt his suggestions, chances are good that HCD will approve your housing element as submitted. Otherwise, HCD could reject your housing element and you may run out of time to get the element approved and then be subject to the builder’s remedy - and unable to influence the design of projects large and small before they are built.
When I stay in Pacific Grove, many low wage workers make my stay enjoyable, including motel maids, waiters and waitresses, retail clerks, teachers, gardeners, janitors .... In return, I have these suggestions to enable more of them to minimize their commutes and reduce their carbon emissions.
1. Site most of the affordable housing near in or adjacent to your business districts (three I believe) that include grocery stores and other services and are adjacent to frequent and reliable transit service, rather than in “Other” districts that have fewer amenities and less transit service:
2. As many people have commented, ensure that Site 49 is deleted from the site inventory.
I’m excited about staying in Pacific Grove again soon - especially in 8 years after your levels of service and carbon emissions will drop as you house more of your service workers in sustainable neighborhoods.
Yours in Housing All,
William Smith
1911 Weaver Lane
Walnut Creek, CA 94598
[email protected]
William (Bill) Smith
Walnut Creek, CA 94598
(925) 566-8001 [Home]
Comments on Pacific Grove Housing Element
William Smith <[email protected]>
Fri 10/13/2023 3:27 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> [NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Pacific Grove email system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Chair Steven Lilley,
I’m William Smith, a visitor from Walnut Creek, California. I’ve visited and stayed in Pacific Grove many times. The Monarch butterflies were, and the few monarchs that still return in the winter still are, the major attraction for me.
I’m also a past chair of the County of Alameda Planning Commission. I have commented on many housing elements in the City of Alameda where I lived until late last year.
I commend to you all of the comments by Mr. Michael DeLapa. If you adopt his suggestions, chances are good that HCD will approve your housing element as submitted. Otherwise, HCD could reject your housing element and you may run out of time to get the element approved and then be subject to the builder’s remedy - and unable to influence the design of projects large and small before they are built.
When I stay in Pacific Grove, many low wage workers make my stay enjoyable, including motel maids, waiters and waitresses, retail clerks, teachers, gardeners, janitors .... In return, I have these suggestions to enable more of them to minimize their commutes and reduce their carbon emissions.
1. Site most of the affordable housing near in or adjacent to your business districts (three I believe) that include grocery stores and other services and are adjacent to frequent and reliable transit service, rather than in “Other” districts that have fewer amenities and less transit service:
2. As many people have commented, ensure that Site 49 is deleted from the site inventory.
I’m excited about staying in Pacific Grove again soon - especially in 8 years after your levels of service and carbon emissions will drop as you house more of your service workers in sustainable neighborhoods.
Yours in Housing All,
William Smith
1911 Weaver Lane
Walnut Creek, CA 94598
[email protected]
Transmittal of Comments on Draft Housing Element
William Smith <[email protected]>
Fri 10/13/2023 3:31 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> [NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Pacific Grove email system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Chair Steven Lilley,
I’m William Smith, a visitor from Walnut Creek, California. I’ve visited and stayed in Pacific Grove many times. The Monarch butterflies were, and the few monarchs that still return in the winter still are, the major attraction for me.
I’m also a past chair of the County of Alameda Planning Commission. I have commented on many housing elements in the City of Alameda where I lived until late last year.
I commend to you all of the comments by Mr. Michael DeLapa. If you adopt his suggestions, chances are good that HCD will approve your housing element as submitted. Otherwise, HCD could reject your housing element and you may run out of time to get the element approved and then be subject to the builder’s remedy - and unable to influence the design of projects large and small before they are built.
When I stay in Pacific Grove, many low wage workers make my stay enjoyable, including motel maids, waiters and waitresses, retail clerks, teachers, gardeners, janitors .... In return, I have these suggestions to enable more of them to minimize their commutes and reduce their carbon emissions.
1. Site most of the affordable housing near in or adjacent to your business districts (three I believe) that include grocery stores and other services and are adjacent to frequent and reliable transit service, rather than in “Other” districts that have fewer amenities and less transit service:
2. As many people have commented, ensure that Site 49 is deleted from the site inventory.
I’m excited about staying in Pacific Grove again soon - especially in 8 years after your levels of service and carbon emissions will drop as you house more of your service workers in sustainable neighborhoods.
Yours in Housing All,
William Smith
Walnut Creek, CA
William (Bill) Smith
Walnut Creek, CA 94598
(925) 566-8001 [Home]
Comments on 2023-2024 Pacific Grove Housing Element
William Smith <[email protected]>
Fri 10/13/2023 3:50 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> [NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Pacific Grove email system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] I’m William Smith, a visitor from Walnut Creek, California. I’ve visited and stayed in Pacific Grove many times. The Monarch butterflies were, and the few monarchs that still return in the winter still are, the major attraction for me.
I’m also a past chair of the County of Alameda Planning Commission. I have commented on many housing elements in the City of Alameda where I lived until late last year.
I commend to you all of the comments by Mr. Michael DeLapa. If you adopt his suggestions, chances are good that HCD will approve your housing element as submitted. Otherwise, HCD could reject your housing element and you may run out of time to get the element approved and then be subject to the builder’s remedy - and unable to influence the design of projects large and small before they are built.
When I stay in Pacific Grove, many low wage workers make my stay enjoyable, including motel maids, waiters and waitresses, retail clerks, teachers, gardeners, janitors .... In return, I have these suggestions to enable more of them to minimize their commutes and reduce their carbon emissions. 1) Site most of the affordable housing near in or adjacent to your business districts (three I believe) that include grocery stores and other services and are adjacent to frequent and reliable transit service, rather than in “Other” districts that have fewer amenities and less transit service; 2) As many people have commented, ensure that Site 49 is deleted from the site inventory.
I’m excited about staying in Pacific Grove again soon - especially in 8 years after your levels of service and carbon emissions will drop as you house more of your service workers in sustainable neighborhoods.
William (Bill) Smith
Walnut Creek, CA
BS From: Bill Stoner DG
Home View Help Update Tracking Sheet Tomorrow 8:30 AM Microsof… Favorites
Inb… 242
Sent Ite…
Drafts 4
IT 21
D… 5093
Add favo…
Folders
Inb… 242
Drafts 4
Sent Ite…
D… 5093
Jun… 680
Archive
Anastazi…
Citation …
Contracts
Convers…
Finance
Hdlgo… 3
Legal … 4
Draft Housing Element (DHE) plan
Close Previous Next
Wed 10/11/2023 6:53 PM
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Pacific Grove email system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or
open attachments unless you are sure the content is
safe.]
October 11, 2023
209 Lighthouse Ave.
Pacific Grove, CA
To the Planning Commission and City Council
Members:
When I read the articles recently published in the
Monterey Weekly and Carmel Pine Cone, I could
not believe what I was reading. This must be a
mistake! This property at 1352 Lighthouse
Avenue in Pacific Grove was being considered
for development into high density housing? How
can this be?
This pristine, scenic coastline location was going
to be razed by bulldozer, and housing was going
to be put in its place? Who is being bought out
(bribed?) at the expense of this open space
which provides critical habitat for wildlife and
plants? This location, rightly so, has been zoned
and set aside as an Open Space, to be left
undisturbed for all to enjoy.
Not only would this destroy the habitat, but it
would destroy the beautiful coastline property
that both local residents and tourists have come
to enjoy. To what benefit? To line the pockets of
this out of state developer?; local officials?; or
BS Bill Stoner <[email protected]>
To: Housing; Planning Commiss
Cc: Linda Stoner <[email protected]
New mail Delete Archive
Sweep Move to Reply Re
All folders
Draft Housing Element - suggestions
Marcia Wright <[email protected]>
Wed 10/11/2023 9:45 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Cc: Joe Sidor <[email protected]>;Luke Coletti <[email protected]> [NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Pacific Grove email system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Dear Planning Commissioners,
I “zoomed" the Planning Commission meeting on Thursday, October 5. After listening to presentations and remarks by Rincon’s Victoria Tam and PG CDD Planner Joseph Sidor, as well as concerns expressed by residents and discussions of Planning Commissioners the points below are a summary of my opinions and suggestions for alternate properties to be added to the HE list. I have assumed that some potential sites listed in the initial draft will need to be removed for various reasons and replaced with alternatives:
Examples:
- 1030 Lighthouse (LaPorte Mansion) property is privately owned, sloped, might need grading, and the location is a high value parcel. Lead and asbestos were reportedly found in the former house, possibly soil would need remediation?
- Some school properties might have deed restrictions? Mr. Sidor planned to investigate and bring his findings to the Planning Commission on Thursday, October 12.
1. Properties zoned Open Space should not be considered for re-zoning for any type of affordable housing. Pagrovians treasure their green Open Space zoned parks and the golf course which we use for recreation and/or contemplation of natural beauty, view corridors. Local wildlife have also found protection to live and propagate in O zoned spaces.
Open green space properties were Pagrovians’ saving grace, an outdoor outlet to better endure the lengthy Covid lockdowns. Through good times and bad times Pacific Grove’s green open spaces are beloved and used by past, present, and future generations to come. A majority of Pagrovian residents who were engaged for opinions by Baird & Driskell said they wanted O-zoned green spaces protected from any development. Furthermore, any proposed re-zoning of O-spaces would need to go to referendum, which would be a costly endeavor that would likely fail at the ballot box and cause needless upset in our community.
2. I very much agree with Commissioner Fredrickson’s suggestions that Safeway, Country Club Mall and Andronicos Mall should be listed for potential 2nd story affordable housing units as well as their respective portions of parking lots. These locations are near transportation, shopping, schools, medical clinics, and most of all JOBS! The existing buildings at Safeways and Country Club mall and Andronicos are relatively new (newer than other parts of Pacific Grove) and would likely be more sturdy for second or third floor affordable housing unit additions.
3. The small mall across the street to Safeway should also be considered where Patisserie Bechler pastry store and restaurant are currently located at 1225 Forest Ave; the under-used parking lot behind Patisserie Bechler might have some affordable housing possibilities, as well.
4. The same might be true for the Goodyear Tire Store property located at 1224 Forest Avenue.
5. The Mission Linen property at 801 Sunset Drive should definitely be added to the list for a potential affordable housing development perhaps 3 stories tall - a three acre parcel offers quite a bit of potential. A couple of years ago City officials remarked that Mission Linen was a great potential site.
One called it an “amazing” location for housing given its water credits and being located next to the high school.
https://www.montereycountyweekly.com/news/local_news/pacific-grove-eyes-annexing-missionlinen-supply-site-for-much-needed-housing/article_7433e3c4-58ed-11ea-aea5-23f3b3b89004.html
6. PG Hotel - it just broke ground - and the ATC hotel complex that is still under consideration at the Coastal Commission level should be required to add affordable housing units to their complexes - 20% of their total retail/hotel room plans. It could be labelled “work force housing” requirements. The PG Hotel is planning to build approximately 100 rooms, so the developers should make 20 affordable units in the stock of rooms. PG Hotel only paid a 10% downpayment for water credits. With inflation the value of water credits has increased substantially like everything else. City Council might be more likely to negotiate the price of water credits if the PG Hotel developers assigned 20 workforce units in their hotel plans. ATC planned for over 200 rooms, so ATC should assign 40 affordable workforce housing units in their complex. The Coastal Commission may be more favorably disposed to granting the ATC owner and developers approval.
7. Monterey Bay Aquarium Administrative Offices at 167 Central Ave (btwn Dewey St & Eardley Ave) might be a potential affordable housing site. Julie Packard, the Executive Director, has expressed concern regarding the need for affordable housing. Ms. Packard might be open to having her organization’s Administrative Offices re-zoned for affordable housing.
8. The section on the Homeless Point In Time Count done on January 27, 2022 by our former CDD Director accompanied by a PG Police Officer should read 18, not 29. It was reported as 18 in Monterey County Weekly on two occasions and I even wrote to CC to express my concerns about an incorrect homeless PIT count being assigned to our city. An accurate PIT number is especially important in light of the fact that SB 7 is under committee consideration. PIT homeless counts are prescribed by HUD to be done in a specific way bi-annually - a small sector of a census tract is assigned to the jurisdiction to count homeless. There is no room for re-imagining or projection or approximation of the PIT count number. Based on HUD’s own rules, PG’s PIT homeless count taken on January 27, 2022 should read 18, not 29. HUD uses these PIT numbers for grant giving, so that’s another reason for accuracy. We do not want our city being accused of inflating the PIT homeless count if there’s ever an audit done.
Here are the 2 MCW articles when the 18 PIT homeless count came up:
a. "In the early morning hours of Jan. 27, Pacific Grove Housing Manager Anastacia Wyatt went out with a P.G. police officer in search of people without a home for the federally mandated biennial Point-in-Time Count of homeless individuals. The officer knew the places people might discreetly camp out. In the census tract they were assigned, they found 18 people – 17 living in cars, one on the ground...”
Monterey County Weekly 02/24/2022, by Pam Marino
https://www.montereycountyweekly.com/news/local_news/an-effort-to-bring-housing-for-lowincome-people-to-pacific-grove-fails-despite-need/%20article_aae69166-94e9-11ec-aa27- 6bbe287cc2c8.html
b. "... a point-in-time-count of homeless one chilly January morning turned up 18 unhoused people in just one sector of P.G.,17 in their cars, one on the ground…" Monterey County Weekly 03/03/2022, by Pam Marino
https://www.montereycountyweekly.com/opinion/mcnow_intro/those-of-us-%20with-safe-securehomes-need-to-give-up-the-notion-that-our/%20article_23e261a6-9b54-11ec-aa62- fb71c456f345.html
9. Lastly, I strongly believe that a reference be made specifically to the Moratorium in the HE. It could be 1 or 2 sentences with a footnote. The reason I think a reference to the Moratorium should be included is because I am not certain that HCD officials fully comprehend the enormous restraints that the current Moratorium imposes on cities served by the CalAm water utility. Every city in California has water issues but I doubt any city other than Monterey Peninsula cities served by CalAm are under a 2 pronged Moratorium: no new water hookups and no intensification of water usage at an existing water hookup due to zoning changes.
It is crucial that HCD be fully informed so they do not unfairly question our staff at CDD or our Elected if there is a shortage of affordable housing units built at the potential properties listed on our HE document.
10. It might be helpful if CDD staff would clarify to residents (and to City Councillors?) that PG is exempted from Builder’s Remedy due to the Moratorium ( public health and safety) as long as the city has its Housing Element accepted and certified by HCD by HCD’s deadline. Many residents seem to be worried about Builder’s Remedy. Our previous Assistant City Attorney stated that PG would not be subject to Builder’s Remedy at a previous Planning Commission meeting but I am not sure how many residents zoomed that particular meeting.
Thank you for consideration of my points.
Sincerely,
M.A. Wright
P.G. homeowner