Agenda Item No, 25
CITY OF YUCAIPA
AGENDA REPORT
TO- Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Fermin Preciado, Director of Development Services Benjamin J. Matlock, Planning Manager/City Planner/ 7,- FOR: City Council Meeting of September 12, 2022
SUBJECT: Case No, 22-4631GPA: City of Yucaipa General Plan Housing Element Update RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council conduct a public hearing and review the Planning Commission's recommendation to:
1. Approve first reading, by the title only, as read by staff, of Ordinance No. 407, amending Ordinance No. 343, amending the Official Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance as adopted by the City of Yucaipa to include the change the land use designation for a property located at the southeast corner of Oak Glen Road and Avenue E; and
2. Adopt Resolution No, 2022-20, adopting the 61h Cycle Housing Element Update to the General Plan,; and
3, Adopt an Addendum to the 2016 Yucaipa General Plan Environmental Impact Report in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and the CEQA Guidelines, as amended; and
4. Adopt the Findings as contained in the ,Agenda Report and related Ordinances and Resolutions; and
5. Direct staff to file a Notice of Determination subsequent to certification of the Addendum to the 2016 General Plan Environmental Impact Report; and,
6. Authorize and direct the City Manager and Planning Manager/City Planner to make any technical or clerical revisions of clarifications to the Housing Element as may be required by HCD in order to obtain a finding of substantial compliance with State law BACKGROUND:
The General Plan's Housing Element is the City of Yucaipa's official housing plan and serves as the chief policy document on housing -related issues. A Housing Element provides the plan and programs that focus on conserving and improving existing affordable housing; providing adequate housing sites -376-
City Council Meeting of September 12, 2022
Draft Housing Element
for all income levels; assisting in the development of affordable housing; removing constraints to housing development; and promoting equal housing opportunities.
To ensure that cities do not "overlook" their local responsibilities to provide housing opportunities for all income levels, each city is assigned a "fair share" number of housing units that it needs to be accommodated in the next housing cycle. The City of Yucaipa, along with all California cities and counties, is required to adequately plan to meet the housing needs of everyone in the community, and to update its plan for each housing cycle. The 4th housing cycle update of the Housing Element was adopted by the City Council on February 23, 2009, for the 2008-2014 planning period, and the 5' housing cycle update of the Housing Element was adopted on April 22, 2013 (Resolution No. 2013- 16), covering the 2014-2021 planning period. To correspond to the 6" housing cycle covering the 2021-2029 planning period, cities will need to have an updated Housing Element approved by their City Council and the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).
The foundation for the Housing Element is the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), in which the State estimates each region's housing needs for all income groups for the upcoming housing cycle. Section 65588 of the California Government Code dictates that local government agencies within the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) regional jurisdiction are to file their adopted housing element with the State update by October, 2021. As Council is aware, the delivery of housing units is a statewide priority, and the adopted RHNA reflects those concerns. The City currently has an assigned RHNA of 2,866 units, out of the 1,341,827 units delegated to the entire SCAG region, which represents a significant increase relative to the prior housing cycles. The RHNA is then separated based on four (4) income categories that the City must plan for during the planning period. The allocation is as follows:
Very Low:
708 units
Low:
493 units
Moderate:
511 units
Above Mod:
1,154 units
Total:
2,866 units
Revicw of the l loutiinl+'.Itmcn# Update Efforts:
On January 13, 2020, the City Council approved a Professional Services Agreement with P1aceWorks, a planning consultant firm, to facilitate the City's Housing Element Update. At the regular Council Meeting of January 27, 2020, PlaceWorks provided a presentation as part of a study session that helped tie together recent key legislation, and highlighted how these laws would impact the preparation of the Housing Element as the City initiated the planning process. Similar presentations were provided to the Planning Commission at their regular meeting of March 18, 2020, and to other City -based committees, such as the American Viticultural Area Planning Committee.
The basic summary is that these laws have resulted in significantly more stringent requirements for the preparation of housing elements and the associated efforts to plan for affordable housing sites that are identified in the Housing Element. This includes limitations on what can be considered a feasible site and new more rigorous requirements for the analysis to identify potential housing sites. These -377-
City Council Meeting of September 12, 2022
Draft Housing Element
changes have been required by the State as an effort to avoid creating `paper' designated affordable housing sites that feature size and development limitations which may make them infeasible to complete, but these requirements also constrain the number of sites that would have otherwise been considered in prior Housing Elements, Further, failure to achieve an HCD-compliant Housing Element or to subsequently deny projects consistent with the City's Development Code and General Plan requirements for housing may result in financial penalties, and while cities are not required to actually build the units themselves, the failure to even meet the RHNA may result in even more reductions of local control over housing projects.
Since the initiation of the Update, staff and PlaceWorks have been working on the analysis for the Housing Element update. Subsequent Study Sessions have been provided to the City Council for their review and input. This included a Study Session at the regular meeting of September 28, 2020, that offered an opportunity for Council to review and provide input on the key direction of the Update, and based on that Study Session, additional information on the different approaches was provided at a Study Session on January 11, 2021. Based on input received at these Study Sessions, another Study Session was conducted at the regular Council meeting of April 12, 2021, to help finalize the key policy initiatives and identify the planned attainable housing site areas that were needed to complete a draft of the Housing Element.
Throughout the process, outreach opportunities regarding the Update were provided, including information on the Housing Element within various press releases and on the City's website, several community surveys, presentations at different committees and groups, and information at a Planning Division booth at the 2021 Music and Arts Festival.
Prior to adoption of the City's 2021 - 2029 General Plan Housing Element, the City must first submit a draft of the element to the HCD for their review and "certification." The City must consider their findings before taking any final action to adopt it and should make any changes necessary to complete the process. Following the Planning Commission study session, the draft Housing Element was presented for City Council review at the regular meeting of City Council Meeting of August 23, 2021.
At the meeting, the City Council directed staff to submit the draft Housing Element to HCD for their review, which was completed on September 2, 2021. Since the submittal, HCD provided comments on the Housing Element for the City to incorporate before its ultimate adoption. Many of the comments included strengthening references in the Housing Element to meet state law, clarifying details of the analysis, and incorporating additional information regarding fair housing following HCD's recently released guidance on the new Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) statutes.
Staff and Placeworks have been working with HCD over the past few months to refine the document based on their input and have ultimately developed a Draft Housing Element that responds to all of the comments. As noted previously, the original adoption date required for Housing Elements would have been in October, however, the significant amount of updated state law requirements, AFFH analysis guidelines, and the overall RHNA requirements for this cycle has resulted in almost all the SCAG cities falling behind that schedule, with a majority of cities that have yet to adopt their elements. The City's efforts have been to comprehensively address the comments received from HCD as part of the adoption and certification process. Based on HCD's email from November 30, 2021, -378-
City Council Meeting of September 12, 2022
Draft Housing Element
the updated draft also provides all of the changes in a review/concurrence following adoption: of the Housing Element.
Element is being presented for adoption, as required by state law.
Planning Commission Hearina.
"track -changes" format for their
With these elements, the Housing
The updated Housing Element that was prepared following HCD's comments was presented to the Planning Commission at a public hearing during their regular meeting of May 18, 2022. The Planning Commission found that the Housing Element maintains the City's priorities and that the updated draft addressed the comments received. Following their discussion, they recommended that the City Council adopt the Housing I .lement and the addendum to the General Plan EIR.
City Council Continuances:
Following the Planning Commission hearing, the City had resubmitted the proposed Housing Element draft to HCD and had requested an expedited review to receive preliminary certification findings so that the process would be complete prior to Council adoption. During that review, HCD identified a list of items that they would like to see, or additional information that would be helpful to complete the analysis of the Housing Element. These various items represented a potentially significant time and cost investment to complete, and in some cases included elements that were not necessarily applicable to the City or had limited value to the overall efforts made. As a result, the initial adoption of the Housing Element was continued, and then a series of conference calls were made with HCD staff to address each specific item in detail and to determine the best approach to meet the collective needs of the City and the state. Staff believes that the updated draft addresses all the outstanding items identified by HCD, and merely clarifies or amplifies the existing vision of the plan with no changes to the overall units or the proposed housing sites.
DISCUSSION:
As park of the adoption of the Housing Element, the following discussion is intended to provide for an overview of the key components and strategies for the Housing Element and highlight elements revised based on comments received from HCD.
Housing Element Format:
The draft btu' cycle Housing Element has been developed to meet state law requirements and includes a background technical information of the City°s housing -related conditions, as well as a planning housing sites inventory and associated policies and program that are ultimately designed to support safe housing options for Yucaipa residents, The chapter arrangement is as follows:
• Introduction: Provides the background and statutory requirements of the Housing Element • Housing Needs: Assesses the housing demographics and trends within the community • Constraints Analysis: Explores both governmental and nongovernmental elements which may limit or otherwise hinder the development of housing
• Housing Resources: Provides the strategies to be used by the City to meet the RHNA. -379-
City Council Meeting of September 12, 2022
Draft Housing Element
+ Program Evaluation: Assesses the progress and success of the prior Housing Element. • Housing Plan: Establishes the City's housing -related goals and policies, along with the proposed programs that are designed to meet those goals.
Housing Flement Sites for RHNA:
As noted in the background section of this report, one of the foundational objectives of any blousing Element is to address the RHNA. The draft Housing Element identifies two different key elements for meeting the RHNA requirements. One is the consideration of all of the previously -approved projects, including the anticipated market rates/rents for those projects, to establish a housing "pipeline" of the feasible development that will occur over the course of the upcoming housing cycle.
The Housing Element provides a list of these previously -approved projects, which effectively establishes the initial baseline of the City's anticipated progress towards the RHNA.
The second element is associated with the planning for viable housing sites. A core component of the Housing Element is providing the opportunities for new housing to occur; the RHNA allocation is not a mandate that the City ensure a certain number of units are built. In addition, the City cannot force developers to build units nor is the City required to build the units themselves. However, the City must demonstrate that there is enough land zoned at the appropriate densities that would support the residential development needed to meet the RHNA allocation and diligently mitigate potential obstacles for development.
As part of the HCD review, it was noted that the default density established by the state that qualifies for lower income units is 30 dwelling units per acre (du/ac), whereas the City's affordable density that has been established is 24 du/ac. In response, the City has added additional information regarding the affordable and attainable housing projects that had been built in the 5t' Housing Cycle, which had ranged from 16 du/ac to 24 du/ac, to highlight that the City's proposed densities are sufficient and have been successful to meet the RHNA.
As part of developing the proposed Housing Sites inventory, an analysis of potential sites was conducted to address any impediments that would preclude the ability to develop, and includes programs to ensure that the zoning and entitlement processes would reasonably allow for such development to occur.
As part of HCD's review, additional information was requested to confirm that the proposed sites would be feasible, or to help clarify details that are needed to confirm compliance with state housing law. Additionally, certain strategies and programs previously identified were strengthened best meet the comments received, However, the core strategies and approach of the Housing Element remains the same and a summary is as follows:
1. Mobilehome Park Overlay — The Mobilehome Park 3 (MHP3) Overlay will be modified to allow the currently -permitted 24 du/ac in a by -right process.
2. Uptown —The Uptown Business District Specific Plan would be modified to allow for the currently -permitted 24 du/ac in a by -right process. HCD had noted that a few of the potential sites featured smaller lots and/or existing development, which may pose as a constraint for :1
City Council Meeting of September 12, 2022
Draft Housing Element
future development. Staff and Placeworks has had discussions on these sites to help better clarify the thoughts of future development, including the success already made with the senior housing project along Yucaipa Boulevard. HCD recognized that he Uptown strategy represents a small percentage of the City's total RHNA, and the strategy to allow by -right development and ultimately support the community's vision and economic potential of the area was a worthwhile endeavor. However, HCD recommended a lot consolidation program be added to help address the small sites and remove that potential constraint, which has since been incorporated.
3. Freeway Corridor — The Freeway Corridor Specific Plan currently provides for 24 dulac in a by -right process. However, based on the current infrastructure and project phasing elements, one site west of Live Oak Canyon Road and one along Outer Highway 10 are planned to be developed during this housing cycle. Future residential sites would be available in subsequent cycles, particularly after the adoption of the Freeway Corridor Specific Plan update.
4. College Village — The College Village Overlay includes provisions to permit 100 units out of the entire residential capacity in a by -right process. The College Village Guidelines that were adopted by the City Council included these provisions.
5. Commercial Corridor — Based on Council direction, an overlay district will be established for the commercial -designated sites along Yucaipa Boulevard between 141n Street and 2nd Street to permit residential projects as either a stand-alone project or in a mixed use setting. A Development Opportunity Reserve will establish an initial baseline number of 50-100 units, which can be modified to address any potential no net loss issues that could arise through the housing cycle.
6. Oak Glen Road Sites — The City -owned parcel at the southeast corner of Avenue E and Oak Glen road shall be rezoned to RM-24, which connects to the previously designated RM-24 site directly south. Additional efforts through a SLAG grant and the state's LEAP grant are in progress to further support development of these sites.
7. .Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) — Policies and actions are included to provide encouragement to residents to build ADUs, consistent with emerging trends in the community and property owner support based on prior surveys. Based on HCD's comments, the assumptions for ADUs have been slightly reduced. The comment letter had requested clarification with the trend of ADU development, but their basis for the comment was due to the fact that the 2021 annual report was not complete at the time of their review, which shows the progressive increase in units built referenced in the draft Element. However, to maintain compliance, the original annual assumption of units would have to be built each year, or a new strategy would need to be added. To account for any market -related changes that happen in the future, a slightly more conservative estimate was provided. Additional efforts can be included to help incentivize the development of ADUs, including development of pre - approved construction plans and allowances for smaller attached garages that can be included in the ministerial permit process.
Other Key Considerations:
Past Study Sessions have identified the importance of having a buffer within the Housing Site strategy to prevent any "no net loss" issues of the City's proposed housing sites. These "no net loss" provisions are associated with AB 166 and identify that if a Project is proposed and ultimately approved with -381-
City Council Meeting of September 12, 2022
Draft Housing Element
less units on a site than what was originally planned for in the Housing Element site inventory, the City would be required to find an alternative site within 180 days to make up the deficit. For example, a designated affordable site that is ultimately built with less units than envisioned in the Housing Element, or at the moderate -income level instead of the low-income level, would require a replacement site(s). To that end, Council provided direction for the Housing Element to include a not - to -exceed buffer of 15%, which would provide the flexibility needed to maintain the RHNA as individual projects are proposed.
Moderate and Above Moderate RHNA .Dousing Categories:
The State's priority with the current housing challenges is to provide housing at all income levels. As the RHNA is broken into various income categories, the City's Housing Element needs to therefore encourage housing at all income categories, which includes affordable units but also the above - moderate units and the spending power that is associated with those households. While affordable housing projects typically feature the most substantive impediments in ensuring their delivery, the Housing Element, along with the City's overall housing strategy, continues to ensure that all housing steeds are met. As a general approach, the City's Multiple. Residential (RM-72C and RM-10M) districts are intended to fulfill the moderate -income range, and the City's Single Residential (RS) and Rural Living (RL) districts support the above moderate -income range.
As part of the RM District, two different project types currently represent the expected housing strategy and are a part of the current "pipeline" projects. Several pending apartment projects, including those approved along 18"' Street, 40' Street, 50' Street, and Avenue H have expected rental rates that would qualify at the moderate -income range. The other "pipeline" projects include the detached condominium projects that have been approved. Based on the expected cost of each unit, the 3-bedroom units are projected to qualify for moderate income housing, and the 4-to-5-bedroom units are generally projected to be above moderate units, and this income percentage split has been included in the Housing Element's assessment of the pipeline and potential sites.
Above moderate -income housing projects are generally reserved to the City's single-family designated areas and include homes in the mid-$400,000 range or above. The current pipeline projects for this income category are predominately in the North Bench, but also at the Oak Glen Creek Specific Plan, including the Woodside Homes project, the Mountain Gate project along Highway 38, and along vacant areas of Wildwood Canyon Road near the eastern area of the City. In addition, other smaller infill areas spread throughout the community that feature approved tentative subdivisions also contribute to the above -moderate pipeline. Encouraging the development of higher income houses and providing opportunities for those projects to come to fruition is part of the overall housing strategy to appropriately ensure a balance of housing options and income ranges for Yucaipa's future.
Housine Element Goals, Policies, and Programs:
The Housing Element works to maintain the same fundamental goals and policies that are currently in effect, with many of the existing policy directions carried over into the proposed draft. No changes were required to the Goal and Policies following HCD's review, and the Housing Element goals are as follows:
-382-
City Council Meeting of September 12, 2022
Draft Housing Element
• GOAL HN-1: HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOOD
Neighborhoods of well -maintained housing, ample public services, open space, and infrastructure that provide quality places to live.
• GOAL HN-2: HOUSING SITES
Adequate sites through General Plan land use designations and specific plans that provide opportunities for a range in type, tenure, and affordability of housing in appropriate locations, * GOAL HN-3: HOUSING DESIGN
Well -designed housing that contributes to property values, is affordable to Yucaipa residents, is practical and cost-effective to build, and affordable to a range of income levels. • GOAL HN-4: HOUSING ASSISTANCE
Improved opportunities for moderate and low-income residents and those with special needs to affordably rent, purchase, maintain, and retain adequate housing. • GOAL HN-5: FAIR HOUSING
Promote equal and fair housing opportunities for residents of all ages, income levels, abilities, and status to reside in the type of housing best suited to their individual needs.
It should be noted that Goal HN-5 is a new goal topic intended to address the Housing Element's Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) requirements, however, many of the policies associated with this goal have been typically included within other goals and policies. The City has recognized the importance of providing safe housing for all people and continues to implement these fair housing provisions consistent with past city goals and with consideration of the AFFH provisions.
As noted previously, new AFFH guidance was developed following the completion of the initial Housing Element draft, and additional information and modifications to the proposed housing program were made to meet these requirements.
The draft Housing Element features a total of 33 different programs, which was increased by 4 following HCD's review, that are designed to support and implement the goals and policies of the Housing Element. Similar to the goals and policies, many of these programs build off' the current Housing Element, and either continues successful programs or features revised elements to help better ensure success in the future and to also align with the proposed housing strategies. Further, each of the Housing Element goals are listed, which helps to best identify which programs and policies are intended to fulfill those respective goals.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The proposed Housing Element does not directly result in the development of any parcel of land, An Addendum to the 2016 Yucaipa General Plan Environmental Impact Report that addresses the changes proposed by the Housing Element has been prepared and the Planning Commission has recommended its adoption with the Housing Element. This Addendum was prepared pursuant to Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines. The analysis contained in the addendum demonstrates that the conditions described in Section 15162 of the Guidelines that call for preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR have not been met, and therefore a subsequent or supplemental EIR is not required, and that the adoption of the Ordinance would not result in impacts not originally analyzed in the 2016 General Plan EIR.
-383-
City Council Meeting of September 12, 2022
Draft Housing Element
CONCLUSION:
The proposed housing sites that have been identified in the agenda report have been developed to meet and/or exceed the total number of units that will be needed to meet the RHNA requirements, and to ultimately provide the necessary flexibility in the City's strategy. In addition, the draft Housing Element includes an adequate buffer of units of 15% as approved by Council to prevent any no net loss implications that may arise if a desired housing project proposal is submitted, but falls short of the originally anticipated units. This measure works to minimize any potential subsequent HCD review processes and separate rezoning actions that would be required to approve such a project. In addition, the draft Housing Element includes a variety of existing policies that are carried over, but which may include revisions or additional actions to encourage greater housing product variety and/or to streamline the process to further support market demand, which ultimately supports the delivery of the types of new housing desired within the community. Ultimately, the City is not responsible for building houses and cannot force property owners to develop their properties, but simply makes the process easier for those owners who choose to do so.
As noted previously, this draft Housing Element has been submitted to HCD for their review and has been revised based on their comments. Adoption of the Housing Element is necessary prior to final approval by HCD, and following City Council's consideration after Planning Commission's recommendation, the adopted Housing Element will be resubmitted to HCD for final review and certification. Based on HCD's request for the submittal of the adopted Housing Element, the document is currently shown in a "track changes" format to help highlight the changes made. HCD has 90 days to complete its final review and issue a determination whether the adopted Housing Element complies with State law. If additional substantive revisions are necessary to address HCD comments, the revised Housing Element will be presented to the City Council for re -adoption once preliminary certification has been obtained from HCD. However, the updated Housing Element considers all of HCDs comments and have incorporated them, and the City has resubmitted the draft to HCD and has requested an expedited review to receive preliminary certification findings. As noted previously in the agenda report, stag' has had one on one meetings to discuss the final elements and ensure a smooth review process, but in light of the difficult process experienced by other agencies, the recommendation for the adoption requests the authorization and direction to the City Manager and Planning Manager/City Planner to make any technical or clerical revisions of clarifications to the Housing Element as may be required by HCD in order to obtain a finding of substantial compliance with State law. Once the Housing Element is formally certified, the document will be corrected to remove the "track change" format.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Housing Element Update is being funded through the SB2 Grant. Subsequent implementation of programs/processes will be funded through different grant programs and the General Fund as applicable.
Attachments: Resolution No 2022-20
Ordinance No. 407
City Council Meeting of September 12, 2022
Draft Housing Element
Minutes from May 18, 2022, Planning Commission hearing
HCD Comment Letter and Response
Housing Element (Under separate cover, accessible here: https://yucaipa.org_/yucaipa- housing-element/)
Addendum to the 2016 General Plan EIR (Under separate cover, accessible here:
https.://yucaipa. orgwp-
content/u loads/dev svcAousin elenment/Housin ElementAddendum. dP t=1651 792641)
Approved by: AL-Z/*'1Vf
-385-
RESOLUTION NO, 2022 -20
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
YUCAIPA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE YUCAIPA GENERAL
PLAN 2021— 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT
WHEREAS, on rune 27, 2022, the City Council of the City of Yucaipa conducted a duly noticed public hearing, as required by law, on General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 22-063, to update the General Plan dousing Element document in accordance with State law for the 2021-2029 planning period; and WHEREAS, California Government Code Sections 65353 and 65354 require that prior to adoption of any proposed amendment to the General Plan, the Planning Commission shall first review, approve and recommend to the City Council the adoption of any such proposed amendment; and
WHEREAS, on May 18, 2022, the Planning Commission of the City of Yucaipa held a duly noticed public hearing as required by Government Code Section 65353 regarding the proposed amendment to the General Plan, and recommended to the City Council adoption of a Resolution to amend the City's General Plan Housing Element consistent with GPA 22-063; and
WHEREAS, the project proponent is the City of Yucaipa, located at 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, CA 92399; and
WHEREAS, attached hereto, marked as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference, is a proposed amendment to the General Plan of the City of Yucaipa consisting of a revised 2021-2029 Housing Element.
WHEREAS, the City Council also has before it a request for approval of a General Plan Amendment to change a Land Use District designation consistent with the proposed housing sites listed in the Housing Element, provided as Ordinance No. 407; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan Land Use District Amendment is in the public interest, and there will be a community benefit, due to the implementation of the Housing Element program; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan Land Use District Amendment is consistent with General Plan goals and policies; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan Land Use District ,Amendment will not have a substantial adverse effect on surrounding properties as any future project will require improvements and include development standards to ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses.
:e
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FOUND, DETERMINED, AND RESOLVED
by the City Council of the City of Yucaipa as follows:
I. The information set forth in the Recitals above is true and accurate in all respects.
2. Based on the record of proceedings, the City Council hereby finds as follows.
A. The State of California requires every municipality to periodically update the Housing Element of its General Plan to review the housing needs of the community and revise its policies, programs and objectives to address those needs. Jurisdictions such as the City of Yucaipa that are within the Southern California Association of Governments region are required to update their Housing Elements for the 6th planning cycle, which covers the 2021-2029 planning period.
B. On August 18, 2021, the Planning Commission reviewed a draft of the 2021-2029 Housing Element. The City Council on August 23, 2021, reviewed the draft 2021-2029 Housing Element. Thereafter, on September 2, 2021, the draft element was submitted to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review and comment pursuant to Section 65585 (b) of the Government Code.
C. On November 1, 2021, HCD provided written comments on the draft 2021-2029 Housing Element for the City's consideration. The City revised the 2013-2021 Housing Element in response to the findings of HCD, and the revised Housing Element is attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution and incorporated by this reference as though set forth in full. The revisions and responses to HCD's comments are summarized in Exhibit B to this Resolution, which is attached hereto and incorporated by this reference as though set forth in full.
D. On May 18, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing regarding the Draft 2021-2029 Housing EIement, as revised in response to HCD's comments, reviewed the comments and responses as summarized in Exhibit B of this Resolution, and thereafter, recommended that the City Council adopt the revised 2021-2029 Housing Element and authorize and direct the City Manager and Planning Manager/City Planner to make any technical or clerical revisions of clarifications to the Housing Element as may be required by HCD in order to obtain a finding of substantial compliance with State law, and to adopt a CEQA addendum for the project.
E. Consistent with Section 65585 of the Government Code, the City Council has reviewed the findings of HCD and found that the 2021-2029 Housing Element as revised fully addresses each of the findings made by HCD.
3. The City Council hereby finds that an Addendum to the 2016 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (22-063) has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, and, this Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Addendum with respect to the General Plan Amendment identified in this Resolution and hereby adopts the Addendum.
-387-
4. State law provides for the adoption of a Housing Element as part of the General Plan of a municipality and that said element be periodically updated. The current Housing Element for Yucaipa was adopted by the City Council in 2013 and amended in 2016 to correspond with the City's comprehensive 2016 General Plan Update to meet the 5th Housing Cycle. The Oh Housing Cycle began on October, 2021, and the Housing Element prepared addresses Dousing law requirements, including planning for the City's Regional Housing Needs Assessment of 2,866 units.
5. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65351, during preparation of an amendment to the General Plan, the planning agency shall provide opportunities for the involvement of citizens, public agencies, civic, educational, and other community groups, through public hearings and other means the City deems appropriate. Such public involvement included public study sessions before the Planning Commission and City Council prior to and upon completion of the draft Housing Element. In advance of each hearing, notices of public hearing were published in the local newspaper, and posted at the City's official posting places. 7 Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65300.5, general plan policies must be internally consistent, and the City Council finds that the General Plan will continue to be internally consistent upon the adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 22-063.
S. Based on the findings as contained in the Agenda Report, the City Council hereby approves General Plan Amendment No. 22-063 and adopts the 2021-2029 Housing Element, in accordance with the Planning Commission recommendation as set forth in the Planning Commission Agenda Report dated May 18, 2022, and by this reference, incorporated herein, and authorizes and directs the City Manager and Planning Manager/ City Planner to make any technical or clerical revisions of clarifications to the Housing Element as may be required by HCD in order to obtain a finding of substantial compliance with State law.
9. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED on this 12`h day of September, 2022.
David Avila, Mayor
ATTEST;
Jennifer Crawford, City Clerk
ORDINANCE NO.407
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF YUCAIPA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ORDINANCE
NO. 343, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL LAND USE PLAN
AND ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF YUCAIPA
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUCAIPA DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. A public hearing has been held before the City Council of the City of Yucaipa (the "City"), duly noticed and conducted pursuant to the Planning and Zoning Laws of the Mate of California and applicable provisions of Division 3 of the Development Code as adopted by Ordinance No. 124; and the Official Land Use Plan of the City, as adopted by Ordinance No. 343, is hereby amended as provided in Section 2 herein below.
Section 2. The proposed land use designation contained on the "Official Land Use Districts Map" on file with the City, and bearing the file number Case No. 22-0631GPA, changes the Land Use District designation on a property from IN (Institutional) to RM-24 (High Density Residential) on approximately 8.2 acres at the southeast comer of Oak Glen Road and Avenue E, as shown on the attached Exhibit A.
Section 3. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause the following summary of this ordinance to be published by two (2) insertions in the Yucaipa News Mirror, a newspaper of general circulation that is printed, published, and circulated in the City of Yucaipa, and hereby designated for that purpose by said Council of the City of Yucaipa: "Ordinance No. 407 changes the Land Use District designation on a property from IN (Institutional) to RM- 24 (High Density Residential) on approximately 8.2 acres at the southeast comer of Oak Glen Road and Avenue E as part of the Housing Element implementation." PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED on this 120'day of September, 2022.
David Avila, Mayor
ATTEST:
Jennifer Crawford, City Clerk
F, xhibit A
PROPOSED GENERAL PLAIN CHAN(ji; ARIA
-390-
Agenda Item No.
City of Yucaipa
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting of May 18, 2022
A Regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Yucaipa, California was called to order in the Council Chambers, 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, on May 18, 2022, at 6:30 PM.
PRESENT: J.A. Allgower, Chair
Christopher Markarian, Vice Chair
Tony Hicks, Commissioner
Richard Beck, Commissioner
Lloyd Rekstad, Commissioner
Bart Brizzee, Commissioner
ABSENT: Aron Wolfe, Commissioner
CITY STAFF: Benjamin Matlock, City Planner/Planning Manager Madeline Jordan, Assistant Planner
Katrina Kunkel, Associate Engineer
CONVENE PLANNING COMMISSION
1'he meeting was called to order at 6:33 PM, with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Vice Chair Markarian.
ROLL CALL
PUBLIC COMMENT
One (1) email was sent to Publiccomment(i0ucaipa.org. by Amanda Frye who expressed concerns over the impacts on wildlife and surrounding residential property owners caused by light and glare, and felt that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) should be required.
CONSENT AGENDA
The following Consent Agenda items are expected to be routine and non -controversial. The Planning Commission will act upon them, at one time, without discussion. Any Couricilmember or staff member may request removal of an item from the Consent Agenda for discussion.
The title is deemed to be read, and further reading waived on any ordinance listed on the Consent Agenda for second reading and adoption.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 1
5.1 g-22 -3 91-
I. SUBJECT: Approve Item No. 1, Planning Commission Minutes of April 20, 2022 RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission approve the minutes from April 20, 2022.
ACTION: ]MOTION BY VICE CHAIR MARKARIAN, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HICKS TO APPIZOVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 202 2022. MOTION CARRIED 6-0-0-
1. (WOLFE<, WAS ABSENT).
NEW BUSINESS
2. SUBJECT: Levy Affiliated Holdings, LLC. (Architectural Review) Case No. 22-058/ARC: An Architectural Review Package for Case No. 21-094/CUP/DBA for the development of thirty-two (32) age -restricted senior housing units located on 4th Street between Yucaipa Blvd. and Ave. E; APN: 0319-012-40. The development is proposed to be called "Elizabeth Court."
Case No. 22-059/ARC: An Architectural Review Package for Case No. 21-086/CUP/DBA for the development of fifty-two (52) age -restricted senior housing units -located at 12845 3rd Street; APN:
0319-121-42. The development is proposed to be called "Tildan Court." RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission review the proposed floor plans, colors, materials, and architectural designs for a total of eighty-four (84) senior housing units which are affiliated with Case Nos. 21-086/CUP/DBA and 21-094/CUP/DBA and approve Case Nos. 22- 058/ARC (Elizabeth Court) and 22-059/ARC (Tildan Court).
DISCUSSION: Assistant Planner Jordan presented the project and noted that the two (2) architectural review packages were combined into a single PowerPoint presentation because they are proposed to utilize the same floor plans and elevation styles across the two (2) project sites. It was highlighted that conceptual Iandscaping plans for Case No. 21-094/CUP/DBA (22-058/ARC) indicate that the existing chain link fence is to remain along the northern property line; however, this does not comply with the City's objective Multi -family Design Standards found in the Citywide Design Guidelines, and will be corrected during the Building and Safety plan check process.
The applicant's representative, Craig Heaps, reiterated that the property owner has opted for separate up -stairs and down -stairs units within each modular building to improve usability for the future tenants. He additionally noted that the third elevation style was provided based on staff s recommendation for more variability across the project sites.
Vice Chair Markarian expressed appreciation for this new design as it will increase accessibility for the senior residents served by the sites. He also asked if there are other modular style projects like this one in the City of Yucaipa. City Planner Matlock noted this would be the first. Heaps stated that there are similar projects being approved in other cities and that the modular homes will be inspected according to California state law as with any other new home construction.
Public Comment(s): Not Applicable
Planning Commission Minutes Page 2
5-18-22 -3 92-
ACTJON: MOTION BY VICE CHAIR MARKARIAN, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BECK TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. MOTION CARRIED 6-0-0-1. (WOLFE WAS ABSENT).
PUBLIC HEARINGS; The order of Business for the Public Hearing Shall Be:
A. Staff Presentation
B. Applicant/Representative Presentation
C. Public Comments
D. Applicant Rebuttal (if necessary)
E. Public Hearing Closed
F. Commission Discussion
3. SUBJECT: Electronic Messaging Centers (GPA/DCA/CUP/DA): A General Plan Amendment to modify Policy CDL-4.6, Outdoor Signage of the General Plan to permit up to three outdoor offsite advertising billboards, and a Development Code Amendment (Ordinance No. 393) to amend Chapter 7 (Sign Regulations) of Division 7 (General Design Standards) of the Development Code to amend regulations pertaining to Electronic Messaging Center Billboards.
General Outdoor Advertising (21-096/CUP/DA): Conditional Use Permit and Development Agreement (Ordinance No. 408) to permit an Electronic Messaging Center Billboard on an existing commercial property located at 13500 Calimesa Boulevard. APN: 0318-212-19.
Leonard and Company (21-104ICUP/DA): A Conditional Use Permit and Development Agreement (Ordinance No. 409) to permit an Electronic Messaging Center Billboard that will replace an existing static billboard located on an existing commercial property at 31103 Outer Highway, APN: 0300-101-19.
General Outdoor Advertising (21-154/CUP/DA): A Conditional Use Permit and Development Agreement (Ordinance No. 410) to permit an Electronic Messaging Center Billboard that will replace an existing static billboard on an existing commercial property located at 31547 Outer Highway 10, APN; 0300-161-13,
RECOMMENDATION:
A) Adopt Resolution No. 2021-21, approving the General Plan Amendment to Policy CDL-
4.6; and
B) Approve first reading, by the title only, as read by staff, of Ordinance No. 393, amending Ordinance No. 343, amending the Official Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance as adopted by the City of Yucaipa; and
C) Approve the Conditional Use Permit (21 -096), subject to the Conditions of Approval as contained in the Agenda Report, and the Development Agreement (Ordinance No 408), and
D) Approve the Conditional Use Permit (21-104), subject to the Conditions of Approval as contained in the Agenda Report, and the Development Agreement (Ordinance No 409), and
Planning Commission Minutes Page 3
5-18-22 -393-
E) Approve the Conditional Use Permit (21-154), subject to the Conditions of Approval as contained in the Agenda Report, and the Development Agreement (Ordinance No 410), and
F) Adopt the Findings as contained in this Agenda Report; and G) Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, finding the mitigation measures and standard measures and procedures will reduce the potential level of environmental impact to less than significant; and H) Direct staff to file a Notice of Determination; and, I) Review, and if it is considered acceptable, approve the architectural design for the proposed Projects.
DISCUSSION:
Vice Chair Markarian recused himself from the meeting given his proximity to the Project site for the legislative action and Case No. 21-154/CUP/DA. City Planner, Ben Matlock, presented the project.
Chair Allgower requested clarification on what the commission is voting on, as well as the CEQA determination. Matlock clarified that Vice Chair Markarian could not vote on the proposed General Plan Amendment, affiliated Ordinances and Case No. 21-154/CUP/DA.However, he could return to the Council Chambers to review and vote on Case No. 21-096/CUP/DA and Case No. 21- 104/CUPIDA later in the evening. Matlock noted that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was updated from a prior project, and recirculated to address project changes, including the three (3) current proposals, as the original MND only assessed the potential for two (2) EMCs along the freeway,
Commissioner Hicks requested clarification on the size of the proposed signs and size of existing billboard signs that are to be replaced. Matlock provided the proposed height and clarified the details of the signs to be replaced. Chair Allgower asks if this proposed action includes a height standard. Matlock clarifies that the Ordinance will provide a maximum allowable height, and that heights for the current proposals were determined through a flag test to determine the visibility of the sign from different vantage points along the freeway.
Chair Allgower asked if the Planning Commission can revise the proposed three (3) sign limit and Matlock stated that Planning Commission can recommend adjusting the number of signs but notes that the CEQA review was completed based on the current proposals that result in three (3) new signs.
Commissioner Reksted asked for clarification that the GPA was limited to the freeway corridor area and if the Planning Commission would have the ability to review similar projects in the future.
City Planner Matlock clarified the question.
Planning Commission Minutes Page a
5-1 s-22 -394-
Commissioner Hicks noted he was in favor the general project, but pointed out that the existing older signs along the freeway should also be updated in appearance. Chair Allgower agreed and Matlock suggested that staff could forward the discussion to the City Council about addressing the existing billboard signs, but noted that the current proposals on the agenda were applicant driven action items, therefore any policy change to allow for an update to existing signage would be a future and separate action by City Council.
Commissioner Brizzee requested examples of locations where similar signs are constructed and Matlock referred to the applicant to provide locations, One of the applicant's representatives, Craig Heaps for General Outdoor Advertising, clarified the location of their off -site sign to be removed, provided examples of locations of similar signs in other cities, and spoke of the revenue opportunities that the billboards will bring to the community. The applicant, Tim Lynch, also expanded on these details and noted that free advertising opportunities will be made available to local businesses.
Public Commenst:
1. Pamela Smyth who lives at 31133 Outer Highway 10 requested that the billboards be limited to 45 feet tall and expressed concerns about light coming into her home.
2. Rick Herling, who owns property within the City that he intends to develop, has an existing billboard. He requested that the Planning Commission consider allowing more than three (3) billboard signs because he would like to replace the existing sign with an updated LED display,
3. Cesear Marrufo spoke on behalf of City of Yucaipa Chamber of Commerce and noted that the Chamber voted unanimously in favor of the projects billboard expressing support for how they will help local businesses.
Commissioner Rekstad requested clarification on voting and City Planner Matlock explained how the vote could be broken down. The GPA and Ordinance were to be voted on first, then Case No. 21-154 could be reviewed, with the Iast two (2) voted on when Vice Chair Markarian rejoined the meeting.
Commissioner Hicks noted his opposition to three (3) signs within close proximity, stating that they seem to be city "monuments" that are better suited for only one near any specific entrance and exit from the city limits.
In response to Commissioner Brizee's question, Matlock noted that the Development Agreement has a 30-year timeline, after which the development agreement can be reviewed again so that future Planning Commissions and/or City Councils would have the ability to require signs to be updated.
Commissioner Beck concurred that he agreed with Hick's statement about only one (1) sign within proximity to a ramp location.
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSONER HICKS SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRIZEE TO RECOMMEND '1O CITY COUNCIL THAT THEY APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS A, B, F, G, H WITH CO_NSI1)FRATION TO ALLOW FOR THREE 3 BILLBOARDS BUT FOR COUNCIL TO C"ONSIDER REVISING THE Planning Commission Minutes Page 5
5-18-22 -395-
ORDINANCE TO LIMIT .LUST ONE BILLBOARD WITHIN A CERTAIN PROXIMITY TO EACH INTERCHANGE EXIT. MOTION CARRIED 5-0-1-1. VICE CH'.AIR MARKARIAN RECUSED WOLFE WAS ABSENT).
Matlock presented Case No. 21-154/CUP/DA and Commissioner Hicks again stated his opposition to allowing three (3) signs within such close proximity. He also noted reluctancy to vote on Case No. 21-154 prior to hearing the other two (2) projects included as part of Agenda Item 3 given Vice Chair Markarian's recusal based on his proximity to the project site, since such action would impact either 21-096/CUP/DA or Case No. 21-104/CUP/DA.
Public Comment: None.
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSONER HICKS, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
BECK TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL THAT THEY APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS E, F, G, H, I. MOTI.ON CARRIED 4-1-1-1. (VICE CHAIR MARKARIAN RECUSED CHAIR. ALLGOWER VOTER NO WOLFE WAS ABSENT).
Vice Chair Markarian rejoined the meeting. City Planner Matlock presented the two (2) remaining projects as part of Agenda Item 3, and Vice Chair Markarian asked questions about the height and design of the signs, and a summary of the actions that were taken prior to his return to the meeting to understand the rules recommended. Matlock explained the flag test and that the Yucaipa themed signs had also been reviewed by the City's marketing committee.
Commissioner Markarian addressed the written public comments, recognizing their concerns, but noting that property views are not protected though Yucaipa's Development Code. He noted that he looks forward to the advertising opportunities and hopes to strike a balance between city growth and citizen safety.
Andy Goodman from Leonard & Company spoke on behalf of Case No. 21-104/CUP/DA. He expressed flexibility in the design based on commission feedback, discussed concerns from a private property owner/public commenter who they have met with, and explained that ambient light tests will be performed and the laws which limit brightness would be abided by. Vice Chair Markarian requested clarification on regulation of advertising content and Matlock clarified what is stated in the Development Agreement in regard to the restriction of offensive content.
Craig Heaps, representing General Outdoor Advertising, spoke on behalf of Case No. 21- 096/CUP/DA and reiterated the benefits of the billboards. He noted that his client had been working over the past few years to establish their signs and that the other applicant subsequently submitted their documentation for a third sign that closely resembles their proposed design.
Public Comments:
1. Pamela Smyth who lives at 31133 Outer Highway 10 spoke again and requested a change to the angle of the proposed sign near her property. She expressed opposition for the project for safety and environmental reasons, but was amendable to improvements.
Planning Commission Minutes Page b
5-18-22 -396-
2. Rick Herling who owns property in Yucaipa reiterated his earlier sentiments to allow additional billboards for Vice Chair Markarian to hear.
3. Cesear Marrufo spoke on behalf of City of Yucaipa Chamber of Commerce and again expressed support.
Andy Goodman provided an applicant rebuttal for Leonard & Company and stated that they were willing to adjust the angle of the sign as much as is feasible for Mrs. Smyth. He said that they can complete another flag test and also noted that the billboard's Iights are angled downward toward the freeway, which will be better than the light on the existing static billboard.
Commissioner Hicks stated that he cannot support Council's consideration for two (2) signs within the limits of a single interchange/off--ramp, and the Commissioners expressed concerns about the proximity of the two (2) billboards near Yucaipa Blvd. It was agreed to take the two (2) remaining projects as separate motions.
Case No. 21-096/CUP/DA
ACTION. MOTION BY VICE CHAIR MARKARIAN, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HICKS TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL THAT T11EY AI ROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS C F G H L MOTION CARRIED 6-0-0-1. WOLFE WAS
ABSENT)R,
Case No. 21--104/CUP/DA
ACTION: MOTION BY VICE CHAIR MARKARIAN, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
BRIZEE TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL THAT THEY APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS_ _D, F, G, H, I WITH THE ANGLE OF THE SIGN TO BE MODIFIED BASED ON CITY STAFFoS RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED 5- 1-0-1.. {HICKS VOTED NO, WOLFE WAS ABSENT1.
Vice Chair Markarian echoed that the proximity concerns of the billboards be relayed to City Council for their determination on how to best manage the implementation of the billboards, noting that these may be fine as presented, or to have one selected as the official bookend.
4. SUBJECT: Encore Image. (Case No. 22-008/LUCR/M]V): A Land Use Compliance Review and Major Variance for the review of two monument signs and a freeway oriented accessory pylon sign at the Yucaipa Gateway Project (Case No. 15-150), which includes variances for the total number of freestanding signs and a forty percent increase in the square footage of the freeway oriented accessory pylon sign to permit a sign area of 280 square feet.
RECOMMENDATION; That the planning Commission conduct I 1)uhl is hearing, consider, and if appropriate:
A) Approve Major Variance and Land Use Compliance Review No, 22-008, subject to the Conditions of Approval as contained in this Agenda Report; and B) Adopt the Major Variance Findings as contained in the Agenda Report; and, Planning Commission Minutes Page 7
5-18-22 -397-
C) Find that the Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15311 & 15305 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
D) Direct staff to file a Notice of Exemption.
DISCUSSION:
Assistant PIanner Jordan presented the project on behalf of Christian Farmer, the project planner.
Commissioner Markarian requested clarification on 1) how the proposed sign compares to the existing freeway -oriented sign affiliated with the Yucaipa Pointe project, 2) if the project is a major or minor variance application, and 3) if there was a typo in the eastbound/westbound renderings of what the proposed sign would look like from the I-10 freeway.
Assistant Planner, Madeline Jordan confirmed there was a typo in the renderings and City Planner Matlock noted that the Yucaipa Pointe sign is taller, as it provides advertising space for a greater number of tenants within the commercial complex, but with compatible tenant panel sizes.
Additionally, there is Major Variance requested for the increased size of the freestanding sign, and a Minor Variance requested for the additional monument sign provided along the frontage of Oak Glen Road.
Public Comment: None
ACTION: MOTION BY VICE CHAIR MARKARIAN, SECOND BY _BECK TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. _M01'1ON_ C:ARRIE1) 0-0-0-1. (WOLFE WAS ABSENT).
S. SUBJECT: Case No. 22-0631GPA: City of Yucaipa General Plan Housing Element Update.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing, review the General Plan Update, and recommend to the City Council that they:
A) Approve first reading, by the title only, as read by staff, of Ordinance No. 407, amending Ordinance No. 343, amending the Official Land Use plan and Zoning Ordinance as adopted by the City of Yucaipa to include the change the land use designation for a property located at the southeast corner of Oak Glen Road and Avenue E; and B) Adopt Resolution No. 2022-20, adopting the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update to the General Plan; and
C) Adopt an Addendum to the 2016 Yucaipa General Plan Environmental Impact Report in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and the CEQA Guidelines, as amended; and
D) Adopt the Findings as contained in the Agenda Report and related Ordinances and Resolutions; and
Planning Commission Minutes Page 8
5-18-22 -398-
E) Direct staff to file a Notice of Determination subsequent to certification of the Addendum to the 2016 General Plan Environmental Impact Report; and, F) Authorize and direct the City Manager and Planning Manager/City Planner to make any technical or clerical revisions of clarifications to the Housing Element as may be required by HCD in order to obtain a finding of substantial compliance with State law DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Brizzee recused himself from Council Chambers given his proximity to the proposed site to be rezoned that is associated with recommendation A. City Planner Ben Matlock presented the rezone request as part of the Housing Element, and clarified that a Draft of the Housing Element had previously been provided; this is a follow-up based from the feedback received from the State for consideration. Ordinance 407 would amend Ordinance No. 343 (Land Use Map), and cultural analysis has already been completed for the site.
ACTION: MOTION BY VICE CHAIR MARKARIAN SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
BECK TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL THAT THEY APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS 1(A), NO, 4(D), 5(E). MOTION CARRIED 5-0-1-1. (BRIZEE RECUSED, WOLFE WAS ABSENT'). _
Commissioner Brizzee rejoined the meeting. Matlock presented the rest of the Housing Element Update, and noted that the updated draft shows redlines where changes have been made based on the comments received from HCD. Matlock confirmed that senior housing projects can qualify as a part of the lower income categories, but that the RM-24 Land Use District is established to accommodate the very -low and low-income levels, In response to Chair Allgower, Matlock clarified that the Wine Country Specific Plan, which is currently being developed, is not increasing or reducing the density of allowable single-family residences, but rather reduces the minimum lot size criteria to free up land for agricultural purposes. There is no housing change from a policy level within this Specific flan area other than better facilitating the intended development envisioned.
Additionally, Matlock pointed out that the recommendations within the staff report use a numerical format and is based off City Council staff report templates, but that the agenda is set up in an alphabetical format based on the formatting used for Planning Commission reports.
Public Comment; None
ACTION: MOTION BY VICE CHAIR MARKARIAN SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
BECK TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL THAT THEY APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS 2(B), 3(C), 4(D), 5(E), OF). MOTION CARRIE.1) 6-0-0-1.
WOLFE WAS ABSENT).
ANNOUNCEMENTS: Planning Manager Matlock noted that the next meeting would be in two (2) weeks on June 1, 2022, and that he appreciated everyone's commitment throughout the long evening.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 9
5-18-22 -399-
PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNED: 10:21 PM
Benjamin Matlock JR Allgower
Planning; Manager/City Planner Chair of the Planning Commission Planning Commission Minutes Page 10
5-1 s-22 -400-