View of Staking & Flagging with Multi-Colored Triangular Flags from Hwy 1
View towards former Carmel Convalescent Hospital building 
View towards the North, along Hwy 1Proposed Site of Affordable Housing Units
Staking And Flagging
In accordance with the Monterey County Code, specifically “County-wide Staking and Flagging Criteria” “at least two feet wide of woven plastic snow fencing, or another equally suited material (in "international orange,” yellow, red or other contrasting color) must be assembled to represent the proposed structure” in a visually sensitive area.
MONTEREY COUNTY
HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
AGENDA
May 14, 2008
Monterey County Administration Building, Monterey Room, 2nd Floor
168 West Alisal Street, Salinas, CA
5:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m.
1) Call to order, roll call.
Members Present: Linda English (Chair), Wayne Ross (Vice Chair), Sabino Lopez, Denika Dallimore, Sarah Hardgrave, Mog Cabatu and Margaret Robbins
Member Absent: Maria Orozco
4) New Business:
b. Receive a presentation from applicant on the proposed Villas de Carmelo Project near Carmel (Rigoulette PLN070497)
Informational only, no action required.
HIGHTLIGHTS:
• Assistant Director Marti Noel’s Staff Report included a SUMMARY and a DISCUSSION; selected excerpts, as follows:
SUMMARY:
“Carmel Hospital Development, LLC is proposing to develop a 46-unit housing project on the old Carmel Hospital property located between State Highway 1 and Valley Way near Carmel…the HAC is being asked to provide early input to the project applicant on the proposed Affordable Housing Program.”
DISCUSSION:
“The project application is subject to the County’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance which requires that 20% of the total number of units proposed be Inclusionary units. Of the 20% required, the Ordinance further requires that 8% be affordable to Moderate-income households, 6% to Low-income households, and 6% to Very Low-income households, unless a modification to those requirements is determined to be appropriate for the specific project and approved as part of the project. This proposed project would be required to supply 9.2 Inclusionary units, with 9 units constructed on the site and the .2 remaining requirement being in the form of an in-lieu fee. The project is proposing 9 moderate-income units and is requesting approval of a modification to the affordability levels required by the Inclusionary Ordinance. The applicant will present their justification for not including very low and low-income Inclusionary units in the project at the meeting.”
“Once environmental review is completed for the project, the HAC will be asked to make a formal recommendation on the affordable housing program to the Planning Commission.”
• Former City Council Member Barbara Livingston submitted a letter to the Monterey County Housing Advisory Committee in opposition to the Vilas de Carmelo project. Specifically, she wrote, as follows:
“I am writing in opposition to the Villas de Carmelo project proposed for development immediately adjacent to the tranquil city lands of Carmel-by-the-Sea. The community character of the neighborhood surrounding the proposed development would be jeopardized by heavily increased traffic, buildings of excessive bulk, height and scale and loss of forested ambiance. This proposal is totally incompatible with the residential character of existing county and city lands. I ask that in formatting your advisory comments that you be guided by the existing local and coastal plans, the existing zoning and the concerns of neighbors. The current zoning requirement of low density residential development for the CCH property is totally appropriate and desirable.”
• Derinda Messenger, attorney for Robert Leidig, mentioned representation of Widewaters and Leidig. Her introductory comments focused on Carmel-by-the-Sea, the process, mayor and city supportive, then public hearings, whereupon they soon became aware the project was “hopeless.” She mischaracterized the opposition as against any development of the property. Then on to the County. She stressed affordable housing was always a component of the project and that, according to the Monterey County Code, the project was exempt from affordable housing requirements. Later, during Committee discussion, Assistant Director Marti Noel stated that the County Counsel did not agree with the applicant’s interpretation and the County therefore is proceeding as outlined in her Staff Report. Attorney Messenger also stated they requested an EIR “because of the controversy.” Another representative of the applicant presented a slide show of Villas de Carmelo project regarding affordable housing.
REFERENCES:
WIDEWATERS
Monterey County Code
Title 18 BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION
Chapter 18.40 INCLUSIONARY HOUSING
18.40.050 Development requiring inclusionary contribution.
A. The requirements of this Chapter are minimum requirements and shall not preclude a residential development from providing additional affordable units and/or affordable units with lower rents or sales prices. Except as expressly provided in Paragraphs B and C of this Subsection, all residential developments shall contribute to the provision of housing for very low, low, and moderate income households in the County of Monterey as provided in this Chapter. “Residential development,” as that term is defined by this Chapter, means any project requiring any subdivision of land, use permit, discretionary permit or building permit, or combination thereof, for which an application or applications are submitted to the County and which would by construction or alteration of structures create three or more new or additional dwelling units and/or lots.
B. Residential developments which meet one of the following criteria shall not be required to comply with this Chapter:
1. Residential developments which form part of a larger residential development as to which the requirements of this Chapter have previously been fully satisfied and as to which there is no default in continuing obligations under this Chapter, where the new residential development results in no increase in the number of previously approved lots or units;
2. Development as to which the applicant demonstrates during consideration of a first approval that there is no reasonable relationship between the development and the requirements imposed by this Chapter, that the requirements of this Chapter would take property in violation of the federal or California Constitution, or that as a result of unusual or unforeseen circumstances, it would not be appropriate to apply, or would be appropriate to modify, the requirements of this Chapter, provided that the Appropriate Authority who makes the determination to approve or disapprove an exemption or modification makes written findings, based on substantial evidence, supporting that determination;
• During PUBLIC COMMENT, a member of the public asked the applicant’s representative to expand on the reasons the project does not include Low or Very Low-income housing; the applicant’s representatives stated that including Low and Very Low income housing would make the project economically infeasible, in part because of the multi-million dollar cost of renovating the historic hospital building. Note: The project as submitted is 28% total affordable housing, including 20% affordable (Moderate) and 8% workforce.
• During COMMITTEE DELIBERATION, one Committee Member, Mog Cabatu, said that the applicant would need to present more convincing arguments for not including Low and Very Low income housing. Additionally, Committee Member Margaret Robbins asked about facilities for children. The applicant’s representatives stated there were no facilities for children in the project, as submitted, but they would be amenable if the County required equipment, et cetera, expressly for children.
COMMENTS:
• The agenda item, “Receive a presentation from applicant on the proposed Villas de Carmelo Project near Carmel,” was “informational only, no action required,” nor taken. The HAC is expected to make a formal recommendation on the affordable housing program to the Planning Commission after environmental review is completed for the project.
• The proposed site for the Affordable Housing Units is along Hwy 1. The two-story units, garage on ground level and living space on second floor, will have the same physicial appearance as the Market Rate Units.
• The applicant’s representatives basically presented economic infeasibility as the reason for not including Low and Very Low income units. The Committee Members appeared concerned about the lack of Low and Very Low income units.
No comments:
Post a Comment