Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-31-2009 City Council Study session MinutesMARCH 31, 2009 Mayor Page called the Joint Study Session meeting to order at 6:10PM. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers: Susie Nagpal, Howard Miller, Jill Hunter, Vice Mayor Kathleen King, Mayor Chuck Page, ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: MINUTES HOUSING ELEMENT JOINT STUDY SESSION SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION Planning Commissioners: Yan Zhao, Linda Rodgers, Susie Nagpal, Joyce Hlava, Manny Cappello, Robert Kundtz and Rishi Kumar None Dave Anderson, City Manager Richard Taylor, City Attorney Ann Sullivan, Acting City Clerk John Livingstone, Community Development Director Chris Riordan, Senior Planner RBF Consulting Representatives: Tricia Schimpp and Arlene Granadosin REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR MARCH 31, 2009 Ann Sullivan, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of March 31, 2009, was properly posted on March 26, 2009. COMMUNICATIONS FROM PUBLIC No one requested to speak at this time. ORAL COMMUNICATION and COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF None JOINT MEETING AGENDA ITEM: 1. Discussion on the Update to the City's Housing Element Senior Planner Chris Riordan presented the staff report noting that the City Council and the Planning Commission met on February 24 and March 10, 2009 to discuss the update to the Housing Element and to seek additional comments on the proposed Draft Housing Element's proposed goals, programs and policies. After the meeting on March 10, 2009, several members 1 of the City Council and Planning Commission expressed their concerns to the Mayor that there was not enough time during the meeting for a complete discussion of the issues and believed that further discussion was merited. Thus, this evening's Joint Study Session was scheduled to address those issues. One of the concerns was the modification of the mixed -use development standards to require a minimum residential density of 20 dwelling units per acre. Many members of the Council and Commission considered the application of this density to all commercial districts within the City to be overly broad. To minimize the impact and to satisfy the requirements of the State, an alternative solution would be to select just one commercial area of the City to designate an area with the increased residential density. Every five years the City of Saratoga is required by the State of California (State) to update the City's Housing Element. Housing element law requires a quantification of each city's existing and projected housing needs and requires each to provide their "fair share" of regional housing needs. This is accomplished, in part, through the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) process. Discussion focused on two issues SB 2 (Emergency Shelters) and AB 2348 (Adequate Sites). Direction had to be provided on these two items so that the draft Housing Element could be submitted to HCD for compliance review. RECAP: City of Saratoga 2007 -2014 Remaining RHNA Allocations (Growth Needs): The City of Saratoga is required to provide a total of 292 new housing units to meet the RHNA. The City has eight second dwelling units (with deed restrictions) that are currently under construction since 2007. These units qualify for the low income category. In addition, there are 14 moderate income units under construction, leaving a remaining RHNA need of 270. ADEQUATE SITES AB 2348: AB 2348 requires a minimum of 20 dwelling units per acre; 150 Units in Low and Very Low Income category; 75 of these units can be in non residential districts. The City has established that the Odd Fellows site meets the Very Low and Low income need with a total of 75 dwelling units. MIXED USE OVERLAY OR REZONING: The Mixed Use Overlay proposed in the meeting on March 10 (capacity for 547 dwelling units) would apply to all commercial districts. As an alternative, the City could rezone 3.75 acres to permit -by -right a minimum of 20 dwelling units per acre (75 dwelling units) at the 6 -acre Prospect Road site or elsewhere. The City would have one year after the approval of the Housing Element by the State to comply with this requirement. If the City chooses to create a new zoning district on the 6 -acre Prospect Road site, the City could create a new set of development standards specific to that site, and therefore, would not be subject to the Mixed Use Overlay development standards as applied elsewhere in the City. 2 EMERGENCY SHELTERS SB 2: SB 2 Requires identification of a zone(s) where emergency shelters are permitted by right without a use permit or other discretionary permit. Adequate Sites would be: Professional office (PA) Zone Commercial Neighborhood (CN) Zone Commercial Visitor (CV) Zone DISCUSSION: The representative from RBF Consulting, Tricia Schimpp, noted that at the last Housing Element Study Session, there was discussion on choosing the P/A District for meeting the SB 2 requirement. Senior Planner Riordan noted that at the last Housing Element Study Session, staff was directed to explore other commercial areas not just the P/A District, that would have the capacity to provide emergency shelter services. Discussion continued on the 6 -acre Prospect Road/Lawrence Expressway site regarding: Low income housing requirements Emergency Shelter requirements Size of the Emergency Shelter Number of required beds Number of homeless in the community Zoning only 3.75 acres of the 6 acre site to accommodate the required 75 dwelling units Ms. Schimpp noted the Housing Element did not indicate that the City of Saratoga had a homeless population. In addition, she noted that these requirements are policies and the Housing Element does not require a specific number of beds at the specific site only capacity. She also noted that the City is only required to prove to the State that the suggested Prospect Road site meets State requirements and that the City has one year to comply with this requirement. Mayor Page invited public comment: The following people requested to speak: David Rossi commented on the Mixed Use Overlay; downtown vitality in CH1 and CH2 zones; consideration of the Housing Element requirement in the Village. Vice Mayor King inquired about the agreement regarding apartment rental or housing in Commercial Districts in the Village and if the 6 -acre Prospect site is designated as the site to meet AB 2348 requirement, we no longer have to designate an area for the minimum 20 dwelling units per acre. Senior Planner Riordan responded that at the Council Retreat in January 2009, Council provided direction to staff to remove the "rental only requirement" from all Mixed Use areas. Currently the Housing Element states the rental only requirement will be removed from the Village and the intent was to remove rental only from all Mixed Use. Therefore, we need to have a policy that removes "rental only" from all Mixed Use Overlay in the City not just in the Village. 3 City Manager Dave Anderson noted that it also included removing the 1,250 square foot maximum square footage requirement. Sheriel Jensen asked what will happen to the Quito Area? Will it be developed as residential? She noted the Quito area should become a neighborhood /commercial area not high density housing. City Manager Dave Anderson responded that currently there is an overlay on all the commercial areas that specifies the residential component to be rental and at 1,250 square feet or less. This was deemed satisfactory for affordable housing in the last Housing Element. The State now considers anything with a minimum density of 20 (d/u) units per acre as affordable housing. At the previous Housing Element Study Session, Council decided to eliminate the square footage requirement and the rental requirements and convert to a minimum of 20 dwelling units per acre. Council then determined that would be overly burdensome to all the Commercial areas with the 20 minimum dwelling units per acre; why not designate one area in the City with the 20 d/u per acre restrictions; which would satisfy in part, the current affordable housing allocation mandated by the State. Azita Zaghafi suggested avoiding recommendations for Quito Village at this time. Mayor Page stated the discussion this evening isn't about Quito Village it is about the corner parcel at Lawrence Expressway and Prospect Road. He noted that at the March 10 Housing Element Study Session, Council's recommendation regarding AB 2348 requirements affected all areas of the City; tonight's discussion focuses on the corner of Prospect and Lawrence Expressway. David Rossi commented that the Prospect Road area is exactly where you want high density. Mayor Page asked if there was consensus on designating the 6 -acre site on Prospect Road as the designated area for the 20 units per acre Housing Element requirement. Vice Mayor King stated she was uncomfortable about designating all 6 acres and asked City Attorney Richard Taylor for his opinion. City Attorney Taylor noted he was uncomfortable about the suggested "spot zoning within the 6 acres, however, this area would be fine and it is unlikely to be considered "spot zoning Mayor Page noted that he thought the Prospect Road area is the only area in the City that would meet the low to moderate income housing requirement, provides mass transit opportunities, and is near shopping areas. Mayor Page asked if anyone else wanted to speak on this item. Cheriel Jensen stated there are two areas in the draft Housing Element that needed consideration; commitment to new construction energy savings and the water re- charge program since Saratoga is in the Fore -Bay Area of Santa Clara Valley. 4 City Attorney Richard Taylor noted that it would be appropriate to include "constraints language" such as the efficient energy construction and the Santa Clara Valley Fore -Bay Area Water Re- charge programs that the City can cite in the draft Housing Element. Ms. Schimpp noted that there are State regulations C3 requirements that went into effect in 2006. In addition, she noted there is also a list called "Best Management Practices" that all Building Departments must adhere to. Ms. Schimpp stated she did add a policy in the draft Housing Element, even though it is not a State mandatory requirement, that applicants complete a "Build it Green" check list for "building green" concepts, which does include a landscape section, energy efficient section, and water retention measures. Vice Mayor King and Mayor Page noted the Fore -Bay Water Re- charge language that the City Attorney referred to was something different. Mayor Page noted the Fore -Bay Area Water Re- charge issue will be added to the Housing Element, however, the energy- efficient construction "sustainability" language would not since the City is currently in the process of discussing that issue. Tom Sloan addressed the group regarding storm water requirements. NEXT STEPS REGARDING THE DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT: Draft Housing Element will be submitted to HCD for compliance review HCD reviews for compliance and provides City with letter of suggested revisions to comply with State law City will address HCD comment letter and consider third party comments Upon satisfying statutory requirements, HCD will provide a letter of substantial compliance Planning Commission will recommend adoption of the revised Housing Element to City Council SUMMARY CONCENSUS: o 6 -acre parcel on Prospect /Lawrence Expressway designated as 20 dwelling units per acre (minimum) to meet, in part, the City's fair share affordable housing allocation requirements o This same parcel can also be designated as the SB 2 Emergency Shelter area o Add constraints language regarding ground water re- charge o Rental and 1,250 square feet requirement will be removed from the Zoning Ordinance for all Commercial Mixed Use Zones Housing Element Study Session adjourned at 7:50PM. Respectfully submitted, City Clerk 5