Loading...
09/18/1989GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 1989 The regular meeting of the Grand Terrace Planning Commission was called to order at the Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California on September, 18, 1989, at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Jerry Hawkinson, Chairman Dan Buchanan, Vice -Chairman Stanley Hargrave, Commissioner Herman Hilkey, Commissioner Ray Munson, Commissioner Jim Sims, Commissioner Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner ABSENT: None PLEDGE: Commissioner Sims PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP CONVENED AT 6:30 P.M. Information from staff to the Planning Commissioners. Information from the Planning Commissioners to staff. Announcement of staff addition Robin Berliner to replace Maria Muett as Planning Department Secretary and reassignment of Maria Muett as Assistant Planner. PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP ADJOURNED AT 7:00 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONVENED AT 7:00 P.M. CHAIRMAN HAWKINSON OPENED THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. Public Participation - No comment from public. ITEM #1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 17, 1989 1 MOTION PCM-89-91 Commissioner Munson made the motion to approve the July 17, 1989 minutes with noted revisions. Commissioner Van Gelder seconded the motion. MOTION PCM-89-91 VOTE Motion carries, 6-0-0-1. Commissioner Hawkinson abstained. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 21, 1989 MOTION PCM-89-92 Commissioner Buchanan made the motion to approve the August 21, 1989 minutes with noted revisions. Commissioner Sims seconded the motion. MOTION PCM-89-92 VOTE Motion carries, 6-0-0-1. Commissioner Munson abstained. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION Due to the lengthy nature of Item #2, the Housing Element, the Planning Commission moved Item #2 to the last position on the agenda and placed CUP 89-5 and SA- 89-8 later upon the agenda respectively. ITEM #3 CUP-89-5 ADDITION OF PRIVATE MAUSOLEUM BROWN & HOFMAN/ARCHITECTS SISTERS OF SAINT BENEDICT, INC. 22791 PICO STREET G.T. The Community Development Director presented the staff report with the conditions of approval from the Planning Department and recommendations from the City Engineer, Reviewing Agencies and the Planning Staff. Discussion on Section 8 of the Health and Safety Code. Community Development Director clarified Division 8 of the Health and Safety Code. Religious and certain types of private cemeteries or mausoleums are not subject to 2 n Chapter 8. They do not have to abide by a number of regulations, but they are required to have City Permits. The Environmental Health Department will be involved in final inspections, and the County will follow up on their normal regulations. The Cemetery/Mausoleum must have a certain registry of burial that they are not exempt from and our Building Department will make final inspections as far as Building and Safety and Building Code requirements. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if there is room in each crypt for 2 caskets or 1. Applicant Dean Brown stated that there is room for 1. DEAN BROWN BROWN & HOFMAN/ARCHITECTS Mr. Brown presented the project. He explained that at one end are the crypts which are 2 high and 3 wide, and at the other end are the niches. Community Development Director explained that the 20' overall length of building includes overhang roof and a walk in area at each end. Commissioner Van Gelder praised Condition of Approval #1 which states "The proposed project shall be constructed in accordance with the siteplan and architectural design as approved by the Site and Architectural Review Board on September 18, 1989 attached as Exhibit A to Attachment A. Minor changes and/or clarifications may be made by the Planning Department" She stated that it should be added to the conditions of approval of every project that the Planning Commission approves. Commissioner Hargrave asked if the San Bernardino County Department of Public Health Death Records permit for Deposition was filed. Community Development Director explained that it is done on an individual basis as each body is buried. Discussion on Public Hearing Notice process. Community Development Director stated that notices were sent to the surrounding property owners within a 300 foot radius. There were not more than 5. There was no comment from property owners in the surrounding area. Dean Brown responded to Commissioner Hargrave's question regarding earth digging. He stated there will be no earth digging, that urns and caskets will all be above ground. They could be moved if necessary should the { Conditional Use Permit be revoked. Commissioner Hargrave 3 voiced concern over the public health and welfare, as this area will be a primary residential area, and that the Commissioners should be cognizant of this. Discussion raised by Commissioner Buchanan regarding Exhibit C. Section 8500 is given, but it should be 9650. It deals with the structural and material requirements of private mausoleums. So there would be no exemption on the basis of a religious organization for the structural requirements. Dean Brown stated that any structure that is built has to meet Life Safety Codes. Structure contains no combustible material. Dean Brown described fencing. In front of the crypts and niches there will be a gate that will seal off the entombment area. Commissioner Buchanan asked who regulates use. Sister Gries stated that it is definitely a private cemetery for the Sisters who live there. Commissioner Buchanan asked if staff considered a condition restricting use as a private cemetery. Community Development Director stated that the condition was considered. Dean Brown stated that if the cemetery was opened to people outside the monastery, then it would be a public mausoleum, and it is clearly stated that it is a private mausoleum. Commissioner Buchanan is still concerned. Community Development Director suggested a condition that "the mausoleum shall be used in accordance with the regulations of Division 8 for private mausoleums". zoning concern was raised by Commissioner Hilkey, with a crypt in an R-1 zone. Community Development Director stated that the project is not called out as a permitted use in any zone, therefore through State law the applicant has the right to apply for a Conditional Use Permit in any zone. Chairman Hawkinson opened up the public hearing for anyone to speak in favor or against this Conditional Use Permit. PUBLIC HEARING CONVENED 7:30 P.M. CAROLYN GRIES, SISTER 22791 PICO G.T. RESIDENT Ms. Gries stated that a new development by T.J. Austin has gone into the property south of the monastery. A resident called her and asked what was intended for the 4 Oproperty. Ms. Gries informed her that the Sisters were working with an architect planning to come before the City to get permission for a mausoleum. The resident seemed to have no objection. Does not have the name of the resident. Commissioner Munson asked Ms. Gries how many property owners will the mausoleum be visible to. She stated about 5, and 2 or 3 homes being built. There is a wooden fence between the properties, and is quite a distance from where the mausoleum will be constructed. Community Development Director stated that T.J. Austin is the owner of record for those 3 homes being built, so T.J. Austin was notified, not the individual residences. DEAN BROWN BROWN & HOFMAN/ARCHITECTS Mr. Brown and the Sisters are concerned with Conditions 6 and 7, which reads "Applicant shall submit a detailed landscape and irrigation plan". There is already extensive landscaping around the monastery and this particular mausoleum will go just off from the landscaped area which is now being hand watered. The Community Development Director explained that this is a standard condition to assure that the plants that are required on the landscaping plan will survive. If any developer can be trusted, this would be one that could be trusted to water regularly. DEAN BROWN BROWN & HOFMAN/ARCHITECTS As the monastery develops further back, that area will come under landscaping and irrigation, but at present with expenses, they prefer to hand water the area. Since it isn't visible to the public and they do hand water it they wouldn't like to put in an irrigation system at this time. CAROLYN GRIES RESIDENT At present there are about 3 dozen fruit trees in the back lot which are watered with a drip system. We had not planned on developing the area extensively for another 5-10 years. The Community Development Director asked if it would be possible to extend that drip system for the Oleanders? 5 Ms. Gries answered yes. Community Development Director suggested that staff handle on a site inspection basis and eliminate that as a condition and staff will be satisfied with that. No further comments. PUBLIC HEARING ADJOURNED 7:40 P.M. MOTION PCM-89-93 MOTION PCM-89-93 VOTE Commissioner Buchanan made the motion that Conditional Use Permit 89-05 as recommended by staff with the following modifications that condition #5 have inserted in it the phrase for private mausoleums so that it reads "All regulations as required in Division 8 of the California State Health and Safety Code for private mausoleums shall be complied with", and the deletion of condition #6 and the renumbering of condition #7 as #6. Commissioner Hargrave seconded the motion. Motion carries, 7-0-0-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD CONVENED ITEM #4 SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW/MAUSOLEUM SA-89-8 BROWN & HOFMAN/ARCHITECTS SISTERS OF SAINT BENEDICT, INC. 22791 PICO STREET G.T. MOTION PCM-89-94 Community Development Director the Site and Architectural Conditional Use Permit, and discussed, and a motion would stated that since this is project twin to the all the issues have been be acceptable. Commissioner Hargrave made the motion to approve Site and Architectural 89-8. Commissioner Buchanan seconded the 6 MOTION PCM-89-94 VOTE motion. Motion carries, 7-0-0-0. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL BOARD ADJOURNED. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONVENED ITEM #2 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Community Development Director introduced the proposed draft Housing Element that has been prepared by Wildan & Associates. This is a draft of the update and it will then go from this body to the City Council for their comments . They will then submit it to the State for their review and the State is required to make comments within 90 days. It will be addressed again by City Council at that point. AL WAROT WILDAN & ASSOCIATES Mr. Warot made a presentation of the Housing Element. He covered contents, State regulations and status. His presentation was in 3 sections: Overview, Review and the Housing Program Section. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION Discussion on Phase II of Forest City Dillon, The Highlands and the impact of count on the Housing Element. Community Development Director stated that area 15 is the McDuffy property. Unit 16 is included because those numbers that were not included in previous years counts either had to be put in as existing units or placed in potential areas as possible units for the coming year. They are under construction but have not been occupied as yet. Area 17 is Van Canal property and is vacant except for a single family residence. It has the potential of generating future units on that site. Commissioner Hargrave stated that on July 19th the General Plan was submitted to the Mayor and City Council. Is that the date we deal off of here for the 5 years or 7 is it a calendar year basis? Community Development Director answered that the General Plan was adopted in December, 1988. The numbers that we are using here do not coincide with the numbers in there. What we are looking at are the units that have been built to date in 1989. Commissioner Hargrave asked why it would not include area 16. Community Development Director answered because they are not completed, 16 is Forest City phase 2, and still under construction. Commissioner Hargrave asked why the units in #16, which will be completed this year, are not included in the count. Community Development Director stated we are estimating that they may not be completed. The cutoff date was January 1, 1989. Commissioner Hargrave expressed concern, based on the 5- 8 year track record, of not reaching the 572 additional households which is what the Housing Element is calling for. Community Development Director clarified if those units that are in area 16 were included previously then there will be a tough time reaching the quota. If they're included in next years numbers which will fall into the next 5 years then it's possible. Commissioner Hargrave expressed that he understands what is being done here and states that in a sense it irritates him because the consultant from Wildan has been to enough City Council meetings that he knows the attitude of the City right now in regards to low income housing. It irritates him from a planning standpoint to see all this work put into this "we should housing this and housing that" but with the constraints the City has and the attitude of the population which may be correct. He feels this is a wish list and doesn't think it's doable to the extent from a practical standpoint but understands as a consultant what is being done here. Mr Warot stated that that's one reason they're showing accomplishments at less than half of what SCAG is suggesting should be accomplished. Commissioner Hargrave stated that he is not saying that is wrong. He doesn't agree with SCAG all the time. Mr. Warot shared with the Commission that he just attended a statewide Planning Association (APA) statewide conference in San Jose and it was the most heavily attended conference anywhere in the country in the history of APA. The housing and housing agenda was one of the major topics of concern. 8 Commissioner Hargrave asked if the planners are aware of the political ramifications that will be coming on site here. He asked if household meant a single family dwelling or as an apartment? Mr. Warot answered that the household is a basic demand for a housing unit. It can be a single person household, a widow, a widower, it can be a young couple, it can be a family with 1, 2, 3, 4 or more children. Commissioner Hargrave stressed that he was trying to get Mr. Warot to the physical constraints of that. Mr. Warot answered that it could be either depending upon the composition of the household, and is judged more by the individual and not necessarily by where the individual lives. Commissioner Hargrave asked if it were conceptually possible, in L.A. County, for it to be the back end of a car. Mr. Warot responded that when you see the figures on homeless in L.A. County, there are a lot of households that reside in the back seats of vehicles. Commissioner Munson wanted to know what the penalties would be to the city if the goals were not achieved. Mr. Warot explained that the city fell very short of the SCAG generated goal over the last 5 years within about 10 units or so. The city 's own goal in the housing element prepared back in 1984 was much higher, approximately 625 units. Commissioner Munson requested that Mr. Warot be more specific. If the city doesn't meet the goal for the low income units. Mr. Warot answered that at this point he doesn't know what form sanctions, if any, could take at the State level. He thinks that more than that it's the matter of groups like the Center For Law In the Public Interest, Fair Housing Foundations, groups of that nature who are routinely on the distribution list for HCD comments. Commissioner Hilkey said that back on page 23, parcel #6 is the city' s Coast Development property and it is tagged for a potential of 1,000 homes. He doesn't think that's realistic. That's half the city's capacity. Mr. Warot said that it's shown in an R-1 density. It was 9 focusing on a figure Commissioner Hilkey said there was a hillside overlay concept that was considered but never formalized. If memory serves it seems like 600 homes maximum down in that area. He wouldn't want Coast Development to think that anyone in this city is expecting 1,000 homes. Community Development Director stated that it looks as though the city used a 7.2 zone in there. This is misleading because at the time it was done the City was in the zoning reclassification hearings and a good portion of that was reclassified as hillside which was one unit per acre. He feels that Commissioner Hilkey is correct that it is high, and the city probably should revise that number in that area. For the pure zoning that number could be close but once the hillside portion of it is factored in then it is out of proportion. Commissioner Hilkey continued with parcels #7 and #8. He doesn't think the city is ever going to get 1,000 homes in that parcel. If this is going to drive some mandatory number for low income homes, the city is going to establish a base for the need of low income homes to match the other homes based on 2,200 potential number of units and the 2,200 is truly a maximum theoretical number not even allowing for offsets, slopes, roads and easements. Mr. Warot said the city can reexamine sites #6, #7 and #8 and adjust those figures accordingly. Commissioner Hilkey asked if there were any unexpected significant findings either favorable or unfavorable. The Community Development Director explained that there were a couple of things. One, the city wanted to take the programs that are in the plan itself and make them realistic. It was discovered that there were several programs that were in the existing housing element that were not realistic. They weren't being implemented so it was a matter of why they were even in there. Some of the programs were removed and some new programs were put in which we think we can implement in the next 5 years or at least show that there is an attempt to implement them and in that case have something that can be discussed with HCD in 5 years. The city said these are the numbers they are trying to achieve and a good faith effort has been made. He feels that's the main difference between the last programs and the programs being reviewed tonight. 10 Mr. Warot added that with regard to the programs using techniques like SB99 or 1355 it doesn't necessitate a higher density. It doesn't even necessarily mean that rental units but programs that make detached single family homes affordable to moderate income people by way of reducing the financing on those units. An important point is that he doesn't know that there is any program that has been called out or suggested that automatically translates into higher density or even multiple family construction. Community Development Director felt that one of the programs that the city will continue to look forward to is how senior citizen projects fall into the low and moderate income type of programs and how the city's not only dealing with apartment projects in order to meet that, but there are other ways that housing can be provided for low and moderate income people who may be senior citizens in that type of a project that we can meet some of these numbers. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if the reason for having this or doing this is because the city needs to have an adequate amount of housing to fit the needs of various of economic categories. Mr. Warot told her that was correct. Commissioner Van Gelder again asked if it is supposed to fit the economic needs of those who work in the city. Mr. Warot answered that it's a matter of looking at those individuals who work within the community but also recognizing that the city is within a regional marketplace. There are those people who will live here and work elsewhere. This leads into the topic of jobs/housing balance, something that is not a mandated section of the housing element at this point. Something that SCAG is currently working on developing. Commissioner Van Gelder was concerned about how many people who work in the city of Grand Terrace pay more than 30% of their income for housing? Mr. Warot answered that the figure is not readily available. Commissioner Van Gelder stated that she has a hard time dealing with this. She understands why the city, or any city, would want to be concerned about providing adequate housing for people who work here. If they work someplace else, then it's their problem. 11 OMr. Warot explained that If the information were readily available, the city could look at that particular point to look at the ratio between the number of jobs. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if she was the only one that thinks that's a viable problem. Commissioner Buchanan said that as he understands it, the reason that the city has to look at providing housing opportunities in the abstract and not specifically in relation to supplying housing for workers within the city is as part of what is in a sense of regional responsibility that each community bear part of the load of providing housing opportunities without establishing some kind of direct relationship to job opportunities. Mr. Warot answered that in fact, the SCAG planning effort, figures can be disaggregated and come up with figures for any specific city, but the majority of their work is done at a subregional level. He doesn't have the specific map showing the region within which, and it's not the entire County of San Bernardino, but the specific subregion which Grand Terrace is located. What they are looking at within that subregion, and he knows for this particular subregion, there is the thought and hope that there will be more and more job opportunities. Some of which may be here in Grand Terrace and will be as non residential development occurs, but maybe more of which will be in other nearby areas, but looking at it on a subregional basis. The city can disaggregate the figures though and try to come up with specific figures for Grand Terrace. Commissioner Van Gelder questioned the regional concept, that the city has to make sure that enough low income housing is provided for somebody who doesn't live here already or who doesn't work here. When that person could go 2 miles down the road and find plenty of housing. Mr. Warot explained that low and moderate income persons and for the County of San Bernardino, for the San Bernardino/Riverside primary metropolitan statistical area, for a family of 4, the current figure for 1989 is $32,200. This definition of low and moderate income varies on household sizes, kind of a graduated scale. If there are more household members the figure may increase. The median household income for a family of 4 is 32,200. When looking at 80%-120% of that for a family of 4, that means a moderate income household ranges from 25,600 to 38,600. In fact, if one were to challenge the SCAG estimates, and as David has correctly indicated, there have been few successful, if any successful challenges of these SCAG figures. There's a l ) 12 group known as the Planning Director's Committee, that hear challenges. He and his staff presented 2 challenges for cities in the past, and they thought they were both well formulated challenges that kind of went in 1 ear and out the other. A number of factors were decided upon as to why the figures were inaccurately high. The kind of population they were talking about just couldn't be accommodated. This matter of jobs/housing balance and looking at, is to create more jobs. There's an assumption that the city is not adequately providing for the low and moderate people that currently have jobs in the city. The information is not available to make that kind of comparison, unfortunately, without doing a census of businesses here. Chairman Hawkinson asked if he could approach from a little different perspective on the same subject. If the General Plan indicates so many jobs within the city limits per se, can the income requirement be satisfied or the affordable housing element by just going a couple of miles to the south over into Riverside County and Highgrove. Mr. Warot stated that the city is kind of implying that or suggesting that by way of not offering SLAG. They're telling SLAG that the number of units will be generated that they're telling us to generate. Realistically looking at it those number of units can't be generated. They are not being offered up to them on a silver platter, what they're asking for. The very points that are being touched upon here this evening would serve as the defense for the position the city has taken. Chairman Hawkinson asked Mr. Warot if, in his experience, that was a satisfactory defense if this plan had to be defended to the State of California? Mr. Warot said he didn't know of anyone that's been challenged on that basis to date. He didn't know, for example, the one situation mentioned earlier in terms of the City of Long Beach, what they are offering up as their defense, for why they can't provide more housing or why they should be required to provide more housing. There have not been a lot of challenges. That's not to say that won't be the case in the future. Chairman Hawkinson stated that there is one other point that bothered him a little bit. On the table it showed that 1/10% of houses within the community lack plumbing, which he finds very hard to believe. Mr. Warot answered that they were trying to offer up some 13 indication of some standard to identify substandard units. Chairman Hawkinson stated that even in 1980 that is hard to believe. Mr. Warot said it would seem hard to fathom there could be units without adequate plumbing facilities at that point of time but evidently, somebody when they completed the census questionnaire indicated that they lack certain facilities that were included in the questionnaire. That's where the data stems from. Chairman Hawkinson asked if that is adequate plumbing or just plumbing period? Mr. Warot answered that he didn't know if it's totally lacking plumbing facilities or lacking adequate plumbing facilities. That though is one measure of the quality of the housing stock within the city. Community Development Director stated that that's actually possible if it is considered there was perhaps a little more rural atmosphere at that time and there may have been people who were asked as residents who were perhaps living in sheds or places that were back behind homes. For instance, the Marmac Farms facility back there. The city continually gets concerns about people who are living back there who are people who work and work with the horses back there. Easily, one of those units back there, some of those people could have been interviewed as residents during the census process and indicated that don't have plumbing in those places back there, yet they're living back there illegally. At that time there might have been situations like that in different places in town where that response may have come up. For instance, the Garden Home apartments, those places which fortunately are now gone, could easily have been out of repair where someone might have responded to a census questionnaire. Commissioner Munson stated that he was just curious, in reading about the development fees, and it says the fees are lower than the surrounding area. Is this true? Mr. Warot said that it's based on a survey of surrounding agencies, and what Commissioner Munson is referring to are the actual application fees that are charged. Community Development Director stated that the city went through and lowered a lot of our application fees not too long ago, through the fee ordinance revision because it 14 was felt that the fees were too high for certain things and the change was reflected on that and the intent was to try to help development in town, and so that was reflected in that. Mr. Warot said that at one point, particularly after incorporation the city's fee schedule was the same as the county. It's not comparable to the county's current fee schedule, and the County of San Bernardino's fee schedule is one of the steepest for agencies across all Southern California. Community Development Director commented that that's what the fee ordinance was based on originally. Commissioner Munson asked if the city is now in the lower third? Mr. Warot said he would have to look at the specific information on that. A survey was done of surrounding agencies. Commissioner Munson said that the survey was not there. The sheet being referred to wasn't in his book. Mr. Warot said it was to be appendix B. Appendix B will appear in here. Copies of it could certainly be provided with copies of that as well. Commissioner Buchanan asked for an explanation regarding page 3 under the Community Profile, and Section B on Household size. Mr. Warot explained that the 2.63 is incorrect. The current figure was 2.8. That 2.6 figure was arrived at by dividing total population by total housing units and of course the total population should be divided by total occupied housing units. So there would be no inconsistency in reality, it should be 2.8. That was the current figure as of January 1, 1989. Commissioner Buchanan referred to the top of page 6 relating to the ethnic profile indication that 81.7% of the population is caucasian. The persons of black origin represent the largest minority group comprising 1.9% of the overall population. The next largest population is persons of Hispanic heritage representing 12.4% of the population. For the purposes of the Housing Element is Spanish/Hispanic heritage not considered minority? Mr. Warot answered that it is considered a minority and that it is the second largest minority group. That will 15 be altered. Commissioner Buchanan asked for clarification of paragraph E, the income characteristics. It might simply be a matter of punctuation or it might be phrased a little awkwardly. It's difficult to follow what is being stated there. He believed that what was being said was that in 1980, 75% of Grand Terrace households were at the median income or above, and 20.8% were very low income households. But to go on to say less than 80% median, he thoought that was probably intended to be set off parenthetically. Mr. Warot stated as a definition of variable income. Commissioner Buchanan was surprised at the figures indicating that over half the city's housing stock is more than 25 years old, and it was being estimated that by the year 2000 over 65% would be in excess of 25 years of age. Is that relatively typical for a residential community? Is it something the city should be alarmed about? It goes on to indicate there was no dilapidation or deterioration to speak of. It seemed throughout this because of the lack of any identifiable deterioration in neighborhoods that rehabilitation and maintenance concepts are not really given a particularly high priority in this Housing Element. Is that something the city will probably be looking at in the next 5 year period? Mr. Warot answered that's why it was suggested that some programs be initiated during this 5 year period that in fact would be in place and could be carried forward. Commissioner Buchanan said the idea of public education, awareness type programs, to make people aware of how to prevent deterioration in their neighborhood. Mr. Warot said maybe eventually taking the form as in many cities using redevelopment agency funds or CDBG funds. Low interest rate loans or rebates, handyman type programs where nominal amounts of money would be made available to perform certain home repairs to lower income or moderate income households. Commissioner Buchanan referred to page 16 with respect to housing affordability. That middle paragraph begins "more recent data...". The methodology taking place there was confusing. It indicated that a February 1989 report indicated that the median sales price for homes was $114,000. Down a little farther in that paragraph it states "Based upon the 1980 census household income 16 data, it is estimated that approximately 34% of the households could afford to purchase the average house". Commissioner Buchanan is concerned whether or not it is comparing 1980 income with 1989 prices or whether there was an adjustment made to make a more accurate determination of affordability. Mr. Warot clarified that without having 1980 census data or State Department of Finance data available at this point, 1980 data was compared to 1989 prices in fact. An attempt could be made to update that 1980 census data using CPI or information from State Franchise Tax Board for example. If the city could obtain that type of information to update that income figure. Commissioner Buchanan asked how critical it was in the analysis being made here with regard to housing affordability. Certainly housing affordability was a key issue in the housing element. His concern was whether this was an accurate picture but he didn't know that the picture that we're taking - what percent of households in the community could afford the theoretical average house, if particularly relevant. If people in the community were already living someplace, and he didn't know how much - a lot of people live in homes that they couldn't afford to buy today. So he didn't know if there's enough relevance to that figure that it would be worth the time and expense of trying to develop additional data. Mr. Warot said it was a matter of trying to bring home the point with regard to affordability in general. The figures from the Regional Housing Needs Assessment though certainly go beyond this and those were the figures that maybe we need to be more concerned about. But this certainly supports the trends in general and documents that what's been occurring region wide is occurring here as well. Commissioner Buchanan referred to page 18, where there are some vacant residential property price ranges set forth. He was surprised to see that medium density property is actually cheaper per square foot than low density property. Is it typical to see medium density property less expensive than low density property? These dollar ranges are typical in this particular region for vacant land prices? Mr. Warot answered that in speaking about the region in general, going from community to community they certainly do vary. He has seen values higher than this particularly in the Los Angeles basin. Some of the 17 communities where land availability have driven the price per square foot up. In terms of the differential between the single family and the multiple family, no it didn't particularly surprise him. Particularly looking at the densities, the range of densities that are involved, and that in some of the single family areas in looking at the return on investment on a large single family home, looking at the land cost, looking at the construction cost in comparison to the sale price of the unit. He saw this situation arise in other communities before. Commissioner Buchanan asked if this was possibly a reflection of the economic or political climate in the community. Mr. Warot stated that to a degree it was a reflection of buyer preferences in certain communities and the supply or the stock of large single family homes, and it never fails to amaze him in some of the communities that he has worked with to see how rapidly $300,000-$400,000 homes are selling. Well, maybe it's the only show in town in some communities in that you don't have the homes at $100,000-$200,000 but he doesn't know where the market comes from at times. Obviously these aren't first time home buyers. The high end product types are moving well in a number of communities. Commissioner Buchanan wondered whether or not this kind of price differential was a reflection or some kind of indicator that multiple family property in Grand Terrace is less valuable because of governmental constraints to development, whether the political climate was more in favor of single family residence and less in favor of multiple family residence and whether the permit process is more cumbersome or expensive. Mr. Warot said that he didn't have that information readily available. He could generate some comparison showing what values might be or what they were supposedly from surveys in other communities. Commissioner Buchanan said that it would have been his guess, and maybe the Community Development Director had some comment about it, that R-3 property would sell for more than R-1 property. Community Development Director answered that it would for out-of-towners perhaps. The attitude of this town toward apartments, may be what dropped that price down, whether or not that would be a powerful enough a force in order to affect the real estate market to include out of town people and investors, but he doubted it. is Commissioner Buchanan feels that as part of this process we're supposed to be looking to see what kind of constraints there are on providing housing within the community. It seemed that might be some sort of reflection of artificial influences that maybe can be dealt with as part of this Housing Element. Commissioner Hilkey asked if these prices were based on historical data. Mr. Warot answered that it was based on empirical data from the Spring of 1989. Commissioner Hilkey said there were no multiple zoned properties that have sold recently. Just try to think of the last time some multiple properties had sold and it's been years and years and years. Where the single family residence properties had sold every month. It came out about $36,000 for a 7,000 square foot lot. This was at $4.00-$5.00 a square foot. It was undeveloped vacant land. Commissioner Sims commented that he didn't understand why that was in there. Why was it indicating that cost ridge? It was talking about housing affordability. Mr. Warot explained that there were a number of different components to overall housing cost and what they were doing was addressing among other things the raw land cost itself. Commissioner Sims said that it would bear a little bit more dissertation then because it just appeared as a statement, and it didn't really explain what it was for. Commissioner Buchanan referred to another item, starting on page 25 and 26 in the Special Housing Needs category, which talked about large families, indicating that large families living within single family residences were probably adequately provided for. But there were some limited choices with regard to rental housing. He asked Community Development Director if his understanding was correct that there was no provision for three bedroom apartments in the city at this point in time. Community Development Director stated that was correct. Any project to be built in town cannot have 3 bedroom apartments, cannot have multiple family units, duplexes, anything other than a detached single family home has to have 2 bedrooms or less. 19 Commissioner Buchanan said that it seemed that might be something that maybe deserved more exploration. The comment "large families in need of rental housing may have limited choices available to them" was a little ambiguous. Community Development Director stated that was correct. The second phase of Forest City Dillon would provide nearly 300 units which have 3 bedroom units in it. Even though the City Council adopted the restrictions on future 3 bedroom units there's not a lot of land that's potential for R-3 complexes so it has an impact but not a severe impact on availability of 3 bedroom units because no single project would have had all 3 bedroom units passed anyway. So there are 3 bedroom units that are going to be available in this next 5 year period, so it has an impact but not a drastic impact. Mr. Warot added that as of the 1980 census, there was about 1.5% of the total housing stock overcrowded here in the city. At the county level that figure would be closer to 7%-7 1/2%. Commissioner Buchanan asked if that meant that we were adequately providing for large families or did that mean exclusion of large families from housing in Grand Terrace and forcing them into surrounding regions? Mr. Warot explained that all it said was that there was a very limited percent of units that were overcrowded. Commissioner Buchanan asked if there was a statistical breakdown in there that indicated what number of households are large. Mr Warot answered that it was 11.7%. 5 or more persons, on the bottom of page 25. In fact, what they did was take the percentage from the 1980 census assuming that remained stable and then applied it to the 1989 population count, which had a certain margin of error in it, but that was the methodology suggested by state and SCAG. Mr. Evans asked when the second phase of Forest City was approved for 3 bedroom units? Community Development Director stated that he didn't have that information at the moment. Perhaps if Mr. Evans would tell him why he was asking that question he could help him. Mr. Evans said that to his knowledge the only apartment 20 U complex in this community was the Terrace Pines first phase. The Community Development Director was saying that the second phase of Forest City had 3 bedroom apartments. Was that a correct statement? Community Development Director will check on that for Mr. Evans. Mr. Evans stated that there were not supposed to be any 3 bedroom apartments in the city. commissioner Buchanan reminded the members that they were discussing their surprise that there was a house without plumbing in the community. He was surprised on page 28, the estimate that there were 136 homeless people originating from the City of Grand Terrace. Although, it could possibly be 68 persons due to duplication of reporting. Have we undertaken some method of identifying the number and identity and location of these individuals? Community Development Director expressed his shock at that too. He investigated where that number came from, and found that the number was legitimately arrived at. Where they came up with that number was through the documentation from the homeless shelters that the city is associated with and that were available through San Bernardino County and in the area. When those people go into those homeless shelters, they are asked to register and they indicate where they are from. If they say Grand Terrace, it goes down on the record as Grand Terrace whether or not they have any proof to show they just left Grand Terrace. It could be a situation where it's a battered wife and is leaving home and has taken shelter. Commissioner Buchanan asked if the city had received complaints from the Sheriff's Department, Building and Safety Department or citizens? Are we currently aware of any identifiable person or persons that live somewhere in Grand Terrace not in some kind of dwelling unit? Does the city get reports of people living out of cars or sleeping in places along the freeway? Community Development Director stated that the city gets reports every once in awhile of places where people are staying maybe in a shack or shed or camper and not legitimate living unit or dwelling unit. But that's not often and it's a rare occasion when the city has what is considered a homeless person walking down the street. There are a couple that frequent through town, but they dont sleep under the trees or in the park. 21 Commissioner Buchanan referred to the Housing Goals Objectives and Policies starting on page 34. One of the first goals stated is stated "to provide and encourage a supply of housing suitable to the needs, sufficient in number to serve existing and projected residents of Grand Terrace". He had some questions on this. While maintaining quality of life, while maintaining open spaces, while dealing with the physical limits of development and our infrastructure, is this one of those areas that overlaps with other portions of the General Plan? How exactly do we bring into account limitations? How do we balance the open space requirements with our obligation or stated goal here to expand and develop housing opportunities? Mr. Warot stated that this particular element interfaces with the other elements of the General Plan. A good example of this and in recognizing constraints, particularly environmental constraints, was some of the discussion earlier in tghe evening with regard to sites number 6, 7, and 8. There are certain environmental constraints present there because of the hillside nature of those properties. Some of the estimates could be inflated or higher than they should be. Commissioner Buchanan asked if there comes a point where a city would become developed out. If it were to happen someplace Grand Terrace would be a good place for it to happen because certainly Grand Terrace won't grow physically. At some point in time we're going to say this is open space, this is low density residential. We're not planning on adding any significant number of dwelling units to this community in the next 5 year period. Is that what you were alluding to earlier? Mr. Warot said that that's what he was alluding to earlier. At this point for SCAG to suggest that the city should accommodate 575 units over the next 5 year period, and probably even come up with an additional number to be accommodated in the 2 subsequent 5 year periods. It appears that the land is available at this point. Commissioner Buchanan brought up Goals and Policies. He stated that a little later the meeting gets into the housing program itself which identifies actions to be taken to carry out these goals and policies. What exactly would be the procedure for implementing some of these policies in a way thatwould be different than was set out in the housing program? For example, Policy 2.1.9 called for streamlining administrative procedures for granting approvals and permits and established time limits for such approvals to minimize uncertainty associated with development of affordable housing. A 22 possible idea is utilizing the Planning Commission as a pre development review before somebody undertakes the expense of preparing a site plan and architectural drawings. Mr. Warot said there's a growing number of cities that have a pre application review by an in house review committee for a nominal fee. There's a fee charge to cover some of that time, and then to take it on to Planning Commission before a developer goes off in a particular direction and spends a lot of time, effort and money preparing plans. Mr. Buchanan commented that he could see where that kind of policy could be implemented in a limited sense with respect to low income or moderate income housing projects where you offer them an opportunity to test the planning staff attitudes and to some limited extent the political attitudes that might be reflected by some of the elected or appointed bodies, in some kind of process before people start expending development funds on a project that may or may not go. In that kind of sense, how are these ideas actually implemented as part of this? Mr. Warot stated that many of these are translated into action programs. He can't say conclusively that every single one of the policies here currently matches up with a specific program. In some cases one program may address 2 or 3 or maybe 4 of the policies are covered by way of one or maybe 2 actions that have been suggested. They have tried to cover all policies by way of actions. If there are some that are missing or there are some actions that need to be added that can certainly be done before the document is finally adopted. It's the best way to address the implementation of policies. In fact if it's utilized, the document is periodically reviewed once a year. It will be updated every 5 years. Commissioner Buchanan commented that it's a nicely prepared document. When somebody submits a proposed land use development to the city, in addition to addressing zoning requirements and other things, should there be a place in the application for the applicant or staff to address the relationship between the proposed project and the objectives and policies stated in the Housing Element? How on a month to month basis, do we as Planning Commissioners utilize this document? Mr. Warot answered that the land use element addresses housing in terms of the area that's allocated for residential development in the future as well as showing the densities at which housing can be constructed. The 23 Housing Element goes beyond that, talks about different aspects of housing. It represents the city's official housing policy. The Land Use Element talks about housing but from a land use standpoint. This addressed other aspects of housing. The Housing Element can be utilized as a basis for continuing participation in the continuing participation in the Community Development Block Grant Program. There are various suggestions here, there are points that have relevancy to the city's participation in that program. It can be utilized as a guide for looking at funding mechanisms or as the agency giving direction to the agency, as we're doing here. As to how the city would use that 20% set aside. Commissioner Buchanan asked a hypothetical question. As a developer, he has a project before the Planning Commission and wants to put in a moderate and low apartment development and is anticipating some public opposition in the city for that type of project, should he be addressing the Planning Commission saying "you've adopted policies that require these kinds of things"? Is it used in that kind of functional day to day sense? Commissioner Buchanan expressed concern that we may be doing this just to satisfy a state requirement. Mr. Warot responded that it can and is used in that respect. The Housing Element can be used among other elements in the review, the staff analysis of a project. Under state law if a developer with 5 or more units appears before your body and later the City Council and has 25% or more of that project set aside for moderate income persons that developer under state law is guaranteed a bonus of 25% or 2 other incentives short of a density bonus. Commissioner Buchanan said if this project gets approved. Mr. Warot agreed, if the project gets approved. It may be denied for a variety of reasons. Community Development Director asked if he might interrupt. He stated that Mr. Evans was correct earlier. There are no 3 bedroom apartments that were in phase II of the Highlands Forest City project. Commissioner Buchanan referred to Action 1B. It encouraged more intensive use of underutilized land, and projects with 20% low or moderate income should be processed at city expense. Will adoption of this Housing Element automatically implement an application fee waiver for qualified projects? 24 MOTION PCM-89-95 Mr. Warot answered that it should, because this was a recommendation. It is a statement of what is going to be done. Mr. Warot said he was unable to speak for the Planning Commission or the City Council in terms of what they want that eventual policy to be, that's why it was phrased in that manner. Commissioner Buchanan had one question on page 44, action 2D, the objective to reduce the number of households needing assistance in the city. He wondered about needing assistance versus receiving assistance. Are we endeavoring by this objective to reduce the number of households that are needing but not receiving assistance? Mr. Warot answered that we are endeavoring to reduce the number that need assistance but are not receiving it. Commissioner Munson made the motion to approve the Housing Element with recommendation of review by City Council. Commissioner Van Gelder seconded the motion. MOTION PCM-89-95 VOTE Motion carried 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Hilkey absent. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED. Respectfully Submitted, avid R. Sawyer, Community Development Director 25 Approved by, J y hawkinson irman Planning Commission