ABSTRACT: At the Monterey County Planning Commission meeting on 29 June 2011, Planning Commissioners were scheduled to consider an LCP Amendment to change the existing zoning of the 3.68 acre Carmel Convalescent Hospital property (Villas de Carmelo proposed project site) from Medium Density Residential (MDR; 2 units/acre) to High Density Residential (HDR; 12.5 units/acre) to allow a maximum of 46 units to be approved and the Project, including the Environmental Impact Reports and Subdivision/Permits. The Planning Staff gave the Villas de Carmelo project presentation, including the Process involving the Planning Commission’s recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, which will consider the LCP Amendment only, then onto the California Coastal Commission to consider the LCP Amendment, then only if the LCP Amendment is approved by the Coastal Commission to the Board of Supervisors for consideration of the Villas de Carmelo project. The Coastal Commission has appeal authority. Kevin Kane, Development Manager, Widewaters, then presented their Villas de Carmelo project; he emphasized the rehabilitation and restoration of the historic landmark hospital, smart growth principles, TAMC regional traffic improvements and the $2.5 million affordable housing in-lieu fee. Members of the public then addressed the project. During the pubic comment period, twenty –seven members addressed the Planning Commissioners, including, but not limited to, Myrna Hampton (SOCNC), David Armanasco, Barbara Livingston (President, Carmel Residents Association), Michael LePage, Liz Logan Rondelle, Mark Bayne (SOCNC), Mark McDonald, Nelson French (SOCNC), Bonnie Gillooly, Jack Meheen, Beverly Borgman, Lois Roberts, Mike Patton, Carol Stollorz, Wayne Iverson, Yoko Whitaker (Former Planning Commission Chair, Carmel-by-the-Sea), Barbara Rainer, Christine Jensen, Leslie Cooley, Richard Warren, Barbara Warren, Amy White (Executive Director, Land Watch) and Molly Erickson (attorney representing Save Our Carmel Neighborhoods Coalition SOCNC); twenty-five members of the public spoke against the project and two members of the public spoke in support of the project. Public speakers advocating for the denial of the project voiced concerns about the proposed zoning change from MDR (2 units/acre) to HDR (12.5 units/acre), the dangerous precedent set for future HDR projects, a “domino effect” of other HDR projects in the future; the mass and bulk of the three story, 30' high buildings and project buildings “out-of-scale” with the surrounding neighborhood residences; the project’s incompatibility with the character of the neighborhood; and safety issues related to increased traffic on Valley Way, et cetera. After over five hours of presentations, public comment and Planning Commission deliberation on the proposed Villas de Carmelo project, the Planning Commission voted 5-4 on a motion of intent by Commissioner Martha Diehl to deny the LCP Amendment for the Villas de Carmelo project (AYES Commissioners Diehl, Hert, Padilla, Roberts, Vandevere and NOES Commissioners Brown, Mendez, Salazar, Getzelman). Another motion to continue hearing on the combined development permit until the California Coastal Commission makes a determination on the proposed LCP Amendment passed unanimously. A final motion was unanimously approved to consider a Resolution to deny the LCP Amendment at the Planning Commission’s 27 July 2011 meeting.
ANALYSIS:
During Planning Commission deliberation, the issue of whether or not HDR (High Density Residential) zoning, which currently in not a zone in the Carmel Area Land Use Plan, should be discussed as a separate issue or in the context of the proposed project was discussed. Additionally, the Commission was divided on on-site inclusionary housing versus in lieu fee for the affordable housing requirement. One of the most compelling arguments against the project was made by SOCNC attorney Molly Erickson; Erickson presented a part of Appendix A, Monterey County Growth Management Policy, Low and Moderate Income Housing, MONTEREY COUNTY GENERAL PLAN (1982) (the controlling General Plan for this project) and quoted the relevant section, as follows: The General Plan (the “Constitution”) policy allows increases in residential density “only where such increase is determined to provide for low and moderate income housing needs.” In other words, the General Plan contains the requirement for on-site affordable housing, but the project has no on-site inclusionary housing and that violation of the General Plan mandates that the Planning Commission deny the project as proposed. (Note: For this project, 9.2 inclusionary units require nine units on-site and .2 in lieu fee.) Whereas, one of the strongest arguments in support of the proposed project was made by Commissioner Brown; Brown stated that the existing MDR zoning did not fit with the surrounding area and MDR zoning was imposed on the County by the Coastal Commission. And Kevin Kane presented a visual outlay of densities (residences on lots in the vicinity) and stated that HDR (12.5 units/acre) was compatible with the surrounding county area and Carmel-by-the-Sea community which allows for densities of up to 11 units/acre. Other significant issues deliberated included whether the baseline is the amount of water used at the time of the Notice of Preparation (2008) or the historical record of water use by the hospital in 2005 and perceived traffic impacts versus real traffic impacts and traffic impacts compared to the time of hospital operation versus traffic impacts compared to the recent past and present.
REFERENCE:
MONTEREY COUNTY GENERAL PLAN (1982)
APPENDIX A
MONTEREY COUNTY
GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY
Low and Moderate Income Housing
A managed growth program must consider, and provide for, the housing needs of all economic segments of the community. Toward this goal, it is the County’s intent to increase residential densities in designated growth areas over those indicated as land use designations of the County General Plan. Residential densities may be increased only where such increase is determined to provide for low and moderate income housing needs and is in accord with environmental, health, and safety provisions, and where such increase in density is not unduly excessive and does not violate policies of the elements of the General Plan.
APPENDIX B
GLOSSARY
AFFORDABILITY: The ability of low and moderate income households to accommodate housing costs without having to pay a disproportionate share of their income. Those households occupying housing units whose housing costs are greater than 25% to 30% of their gross income are considered to be "overpaying."
ADDENDUM:
Archived Video & MP3 Audio
Monterey County Regular Planning Commission
Wednesday, July 29, 2011 9:00 A.M.
News Articles
Zoning change rejected for hospital condos, CHRIS COUNTS, The Carmel Pine Cone, July 1, 2011
Carmel condominium rezoning opposed by planners
Planning Commission recommends denial, JIM JOHNSON Herald Staff Writer 06/30/2011
News Blog
Neighbors Balk as Villas de Carmelo Heads to Planning Commission By Kera.Abraham June 22, 2011
No comments:
Post a Comment