gray chainlink slatsPlanning Commission Meeting 3/1/2023 - City of Yucaipa

Binance trade volume and market listingsCoinMarketCap Binance trade volume and market listings where users can buy, sell and store their digital assets, as well as access over 350 cryptocurrencies listed and thousands of trading Quant QNT Crypto Price Prediction Suggests $1,000 Before 2025 Quant QNT is on the radar of many investors seeking the next cryptocurrency to explode. The altcoin set a new all-time high of $192 on Aug. 2. Although it has pulled back from that peak to gray chainlink slats Planning Commission Meeting 3/1/2023 - City of Yucaipa

there you go anyways were close um if you have a cell phone if you could turn it off wed appreciate that or put it in a silent mode and if youd like to talk on an item either on the agenda or not on the agenda this young lady up to my left will be happy to take your slip and give you your three minutes with that if we could all rise Richard you want to take it ready to begin I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for respects under God indivisible where you going okay could we get a roll call please chair algower here Vice chair Hicks commissioner Beck commissioner Chester here commissioner higginson here commissioner Snodgrass here and commissioner Vic here thank you um the consent agenda gonna get her approve all that which is the minutes huh oh yeah well get today okay um anybody have I get approval for the consent agenda I approve thank you we got an emotion we got an approval a second thank you any anybody disagree or any changes here and none all those in favor aye aye any opposed okay motion carries takes care of housekeeping okay the establishment of the five wins Ranch you want to do that now or um we have that as a outstanding item um we have as part of the one of the citys committees is a five wins Ranch committee does involve a member of the plant commission and so as part of that roster were here just to see if anyones interested in serving in that role I dont know what the meeting schedule is or um when a future meeting is but um really just wanted to make sure that we have that on the books that way whenever that meeting if it does come to fruition thats part of the five wins Ranch um we had someone online Id like to nominate Stacy Chester okay I would support that its what so we got a nomination we got a second yes oh we got a second okay any other seeing hearing none all those in favor say aye aye well you got it and remember who did it again paybacks okay lets move in any public comments we do have two uh public speaker slips for items not on the agenda and so Maria will call um the first one and the second one okay first we have Terry Boone hello Im Terry Boone I live at uh Yucaipa Ridge Road in Yucaipa and two things I want to comment on tonight first of all uh city council was pretty much a crap show Monday night and most of us in the city do not want to fight with Planning Commission or city council were trying to work together with you so with that being said um um I want to let you know that there are ways we can work around the plans for everything what we really want is for the Planning Commission and the city council to stick with the general plan the second thing I wanted to say is Miss Chester at the last Planning Commission said that isnt a document a living document theres no Im a doctor I was a biochemist the only thing thats living is nature people who mammals and things like that documents are not living theyre sets of rules to set a standard for a civil society the Bible is not a living document the Constitution is not a living document and the general plan is not a living document there can be wiggle room if we want to discuss it altogether as citizens of the of the of the city and the planning and and commission and the city council but it is not to just change at the whim we uh do not want greed to lead our plans for this city I personally had a very high-end developer come out and look at the Serrano a states project he walked the land he looked at the plans he calculated developing 22 one-acre Estates up there and he said that even with that development which is the only amount of land thats developed developable developable if you take off the hills the earthquake trenches and the the pretty much riverbed that goes through it that uh after all expenses there would still be a net of seven million dollar profit so with all of these uh plans that are coming through the developers the owners can still make a profit without raping the city and thats all I want to say fire you got it figure it out okay we can do a tutorial on the timer keeping track on the recordation I realize as yes that uh that youre new in that hot seat so okay is there an on and off button were missing there you go okay okay were ready next we have Hansen Wang good evening Planning Commission thank you very much for uh starting out this year and hopefully well be able to work together to continue making Yucaipa the great City that it is Im going to try and make this shorter enough so that you wont have to use that timer that you were talking about uh so looking at the journal plan uh I think if Im correct its for 20 years and were down the path on that and it seems like its done the city good uh Weve progressed its a city that other people want to come to live in and weve had comments from multiple other areas about why people should live in Yucaipa so I would suggest that as much as we can that we stick to the general plan and that make Minor Adjustments is needed to accommodate modern building and so on thank you thank you thank you sorry Ben thats it for the public comments not on the agenda okay with that lets just move to our first item on on the agenda thats casing them oh before you get started for a very obvious reason since the property is mine I need to recuse myself from this agenda so the next training session for the timer we have to shut down we have an operator Ill keep track of my uh watch here I can do it okay with that continue case number 22-149 uh uh special use permit and Architectural Review thank you honorable chair Al Gower today Ive been before you uh case number 22-149 a special use permit for the Architectural Review of a 2400 square foot 22 foot tall detached metal building on a rural living property located at 10345 Walnut Grove Court the applicants are array in Donna Snodgrass the site is located on a 1.37 acre parcel within like I said the rural living land use district with the one acre minimum lot size uh further within the custom home overlay which has its unique setbacks and custom home requirements the site is surrounded by single-family properties to the south east and west with a single fan with a rural living vacant parcel to the north the detached structure is proposed to store equipment for the on-site wine cultivation and to store the applicants personal belongings here we have a site plan that shows that the site is currently improved with a 4200 square foot home with the proposed metal building being 2400 square feet and located to the rear of that home and is 22 feet tall which is shorter than the primary structure the proposed garage fits within all rural living and custom home overlay setbacks and is located again behind that main residence see the site plan there the elevations are looking to emulate a traditional barn or agrarian style elevation with a 22 foot tall gabled roof two roll-up doors and an access door on the south elevation to be painted Barn Door red with charcoal roof and white doors because of the visibility along Bryant Street which is within a high visibility or a Scenic Corridor I think youve been the Planning Commission May recommend additional elements to be along the rear portion which is going to be visible from Bryant and could also look into a green screen the applicant noted that they were working with the installer to add some of these additional trim details to the rear elevation which you can see here is is unadormed currently as a part of the project notices were sent to All adjacent property owners and three responses were received including one phone call and two written responses uh two of the commenters had concerns that the project would lead to commercial uses and impact on the neighborhood but staff confirmed that the conditions of approval for this project do not authorize commercial uses at the site um and one of the written responses which was included as a part of the submittal of your packets additionally commented that the view shot and aesthetic of the neighborhood would be negatively affected as with an approval of this project one other written response was received following the the package that you guys received so you have a separate paper in front of you today in support of the proposed project indicating that the structure is similar to other metal structures that are within the area um so here are some of the site photos to the left of the screen you can see the existing property to the right of the screen you can see that view from Bryant with The Vineyards kind of to the Forefront of the photo and then that kind of hilly area in the back thats where the proposed structure would be which is why we brought in some of those recommendations for an additional condition to either screen or add architectural elements to the rear portion therefore it is staffs recommendation that you review the architectural design adopt a special use permit findings adopt a categorical exemption class three and direct staff to file a notice of exemption if you guys have any questions staff would be happy to respond or the applicants representative is here as well as always a very good report okay with that did the applicant like to step forth oh and say a few a few a few words just a few words thank you honorable chairman planning Commissioners I hope you all stayed warm it was fun seeing all the the snow out there today my name is Travis heaps Im with West Coast entitlement the applicants Rey and Donna Snodgrass have been wanting to construct a metal building for some time now and theyre excited to bring this project forward the snodgrasses have lived in their homes since 1996 and have been steadily improving the property since over the last few years they became they began taking a strong interest in viticulture and even began growing their own grapes uh their Vineyard has become a large part of their lives and has significantly beautified the property enhancing enhancing the rural theme with all the grape growing the applicants need for storage has grown and now they are proposing the metal building to be used to support that existing Vineyard on site the building has been designed with a specific color scheme to further encourage The Agrarian nature of the property as Mr farmer mentioned earlier there was one written comment and I would like to address some of the points that were made in that letter um first the building will not be applied on the neighborhood the building will be built with durable long-lasting materials and will be aesthetically pleasing the property owners take pride in their home and their property and this new building will only further improve their property uh there are as far as views go there are no protections from the development code or the general plan regarding views but aside from that the building is 22 feet tall at its peak and 17 17 feet on its sides which is no larger than the typical single-family residence and so while views should not be considered in reviewing this project a building of the side will hardly impede the view of the San Bernardino Mountains um additionally additionally there will be no commercial activity on site um and the conditions of approval reinforce that um the construction of this metal agricultural building will not impede any neighbors ability to use the property or disrupt the existing land use pattern the crop cultivation is an existing use that is already in operation and the proposed building is intended to support that use the proposed building will not generate any additional activity on the property than what is currently there no additional traffic will be generated no additional noise will be generated this building will be used solely for the storage of equipment and vehicles they use for maintaining the property uh the proposed metal building will be smaller than single family residence is located the back corner of the property and it will be accessory to the single-family residence in size and appearance and while the house is not red the red emphasizes the appearance of a barn which fits within the agrarian theme of the property that theyre trying to go for also there are a number of similar buildings that are scattered throughout the north bench you guys have improved approved a number of them and so these these buildings throughout the north bench creates a pattern of development in the area to which that this proposed building will be compatible with and lastly on the comment um whether the applicant is on a committee or the Yucaipa Valley Wine Alliance you know that should have no bearing on the decision of the Planning Commission to approve this project the Snodgrass family are residents of the city just like URI and theyre entitled to a fair process just like everyone else the snaggress family should not be penalized for being upstanding citizens who take an active part in this community and then in the staff report you mentioned how there were some discussions about with the applicant about the possibility of installing a green belt or adding architectural elements to the building however I do not believe that this is necessary um so for let me ask you then when you were referring to some kind of architectural you talk about possibly trees or plants around it well so theres two things that were mentioned one was some type of tack on feature that could be added to the building or some type of landscape screening so as far so as far as the landscape screening uh there is a dense Vineyard that runs between the building and the right-of-way and these Vines grow upwards of six to seven feet tall plus there is over 150 feet from the building to the right of way which should help soften the building from Bryant Street installing any trees or shrubs could have negative impacts on the existing Vineyard whether it be root systems that disrupt the vines or if you have Shade thats being cast down from any trees it and by creating issues with the vines its counterintuitive to the goal of this building which is to support the grape growing also there is no water line that runs to that portion of the property all of the vines are utilize a drip system that they run off of and that drip system can only be utilized for the grapes so so really requiring additional landscaping or a green belt would really just create a costly Improvement for a little value and then and so this is just a an example of a building thats in the north bench this is off of Oleander this is approved by the Planning Commission Im not sure of the date exactly but as you can see its of similar size its 20 feet from the property line and the only screen that is there is the chain link fence with with a vinyl slats which is transparent and then on 15th Street another project that came to Planning Commission as you can see that when you view the property thats all you see is the red metal Barn no screening no single family residence not looking behind and this was approved and then as far as the attack on additions this building will be ordered from a metal manufacturer who specializes in steel buildings when ordering a building from one of these companies they essentially order offer a a shell of a building and you get the option to choose your colors and the door locations and sometimes the the roof Dimensions but there are no options for adding additional trim or adding additional attack on features and everything becomes pre-engineered so anything added to the building beyond what is being proposed today would have to be constructed and installed by a third party and they would require a separate set of engineered plans which can become classically costing youre trying to create something custom like you know some type of faux tac-on um attack on additions would also not be created from the same material but some from the same treated material so it is reasonable to assume that the attack on features may not be as durable as the rest of the building the material may have a different texture or appearance than the rest of the barn which in my opinion would be disingenuous to the intended design of the building and then uh heres an example on Douglas Street this is another one that was approved 20 feet from the side property line they were required to do the or they added the um the faux shutters on there um but as you look closer you know you see that the the colors dont quite match you know it was intended that this brown was supposed to be the same as this brown but doesnt quite match its not of the same treated material and then theres beginning to show discoloration and wear from the elements um so to kind of close it out you know it is our opinion that the building as proposed is compatible with the uh character of the property and the surrounding community and that there is no need for additional screening or attack on features beyond what is already being proposed and uh the property owner is available for any questions if you have and Im also available as well go ahead Richard the uh Barn Door red what is that I know theres an old barn right down the street across the street from there and its an old rustic red is that its not going to be like a somewhat of a fire engine red or its going to look rustic right yes thats thats the intended goal of it they have color patch that you choose from I dont think fire truck red is on there but its specific as okay Barn Door red okay okay anyone else have anything for her yeah I have a question oh go ahead I was just it for future is there a permit that the applicant can pursue in the future to potentially conduct business in a residential area I mean to address the concern of the neighbor um so right now what is permitted in the RL land use District would be what is allowed there um whether or not any changes to the citys development code whatever uses that may apply at that time would then apply to the site but there is a condition of approval that reflex at it is whatever uses are allowed within that district and and explicitly provided for is what the limits would be for that so you want to elaborate yeah and so certainly certain types of uses like automotive repair is not permitting in the residential districts and so that would not apply to this subject site so wine sales what say wine sales um that would be a separate discussion as part of a development code amendment that would need to come through and then they would whatever permitting process the planting Mission and City columns will establish them and have to apply in those days so rather than try to presume future uses that have not been vetted by city council it would just be if there is that flexibility then at that time that would be explored under its own separate approval right on okay thank you um I appreciate your comments on the landscaping and obviously looking at that that was my first reaction was to add something to it because I visited this site and obviously its a very visible area of course Im looking at the back of other peoples yards that have travel trailers and everything else so I believe this is kind of a kind of conducive to this area theres a lot of homes that have Barns and utility type structures I also know Ive done a lot of metal structures in the past just in my career so looking at embellishments are additional elements to a building its obviously from a distance its off the highway but adding a Louver or something that kind of break up the mass to me in my experience is not tremendously expensive it may be far cheaper than planning mature trees and in running Landscaping so its just a suggestion obviously looking at it from a standpoint of making it aesthetically look more like a bar a little bit more pleasing especially from the visible Corridor of that I think its just worth exploring but its just my suggestion yes uh race Snodgrass Im co-owner um the very issue youre discussing I I did talk with uh the manufacturer of the building or the the vendor and uh one of the companies that were looking at erecting the building does a lot of business with Empire which is the provider of the metal building and they said they have a lot of pieces and parts left over from other projects and that while Empire cannot add that kind of facade to a building for ascetics because they would have to actually build a door and theyd have to cut a hole in it and I have concerns about security and holes doors that would be non-functional so to speak so uh but they said they have a lot of materials that may match the uh construction material of the metal building and we may be able to work out a deal to with them directly not with a manufacturer but with the company building the building to put some kind of trim that would look like a door but not necessarily B1 or cut a hole in the building we have not yet determined that that would be the vendor we use to build the building although were leaning in that direction because of that reason that we can may be able to work with them to add trim that looks like a functional door or like one of the haylofts with the doors that close with the X features and thats what we plan on doing if we use that bin um and again we dont have the vendor for construction because we dont have this at that point yet so thats the intent right I appreciate that Ray and I think I wasnt really referring about doors or security because obviously if its sitting out there I can see that being a concern I was more looking at Ive done a number of buildings with high louvers theyre just attic type louvers so anything like that could enhance it thats just my recommendation and that was a discussion that staff had with the the property owner raise better half um and she indicated kind of the same thing that the surplus material that the vendor may have can create kind of like a a false kind of barn door kind of effect so that when youre viewing it from the scenic Corridor Bryant Street you know passing bias dont look like this kind of functional element that while in practice isnt necessarily a real door but something that adds a little bit more Pizzazz and as part of the inspiration for the stretcher having that kind of barn russet feel is that was a decorative element that that if they were dont facilitate it would look um appropriate and so that was the basis for our staffs um discussion point on that feature as well is that that may be a beneficial detail for the stretcher especially given the visibility well Ill defer that back to planning Ben thank you thank you are you good with David yes okay anyone else have anything for him for a few words um I had a quote I guess its not a big issue I was just curious on this map here the site plan okay if you look on the site plan is that the metal building when I drove by it way in the back am I correct in the back yeah yes okay is it 24 feet 22 feet its 22 feet thats a mistake its a mistake on my end and the site plan says 24 feet heres a mistake it would believe it or not it it happens from time to time and Ill take full ownership of it uh it should say 22 feet on the site plan and so thats okay I was just I just wanted to point it out thank you appreciate your thorough review okay do we have any comment um we do have one public comment uh speaker slip uh we have Jim makovich hi my name is Jim Malkovich Im a neighbor of Ray and Donna um I had marked mine is that I was opposed to the project this is more informational than it is opposition um I wanted to find out from the commission is there a time frame that were as neighbors supposed to be notified of of this meeting are we supposed to be notified within a week of when before any or there is no time frame as to when they notify neighbors of whats going on so I can provide a response but do you want to finish up your comment and then I can provide that way you have your three minutes oh okay okay um really I uh I think the the main thing I that I think that theres opposition at least with the other neighbors was the fact that um I um I dont think theyre really opposed to the actual structure going up but the color of the structure okay we only have seven houses on our cul-de-sac every one of them is a very muted um light color they range from tan to a light silver gray and stuff like that this hot grass is uh home is a light yellow with white trim okay so when they talk about that the appearance appearance of this new building should be compatible to the surrounding area its not okay in as big as the city Yucaipa is I think theres only maybe two red buildings theyre in the whole city so to put it in in our neighborhood Im not opposed to the building but I think that there are two buildings that are similar are being used for the same thing one is on the on the opposite corner of where I am and um they its it was an actual structured uh building with stucco and its painted exactly the same color as the home there was a house uh and property with a garage and an Adu which was on Monterey Pine which is right behind my property uh the and when they put that in the house is white with like a black trim and the corresponding garage which is similar in nature to what they want to put up um was painted to match the the the housing okay um so I I think that you know the use of of for them to put up the the building Im not in opposition of but I think the the coloring of it the fact that people coming down Bryant are going to see it because now theyre saying they dont want to put up a green screen or anything like that my fear is that whats gonna its gonna be a curiosity standpoint people coming up and down Brian they see this big red building everybodys what is that building for so what are they going to do theyre going to turn onto Grape Street come up Walnut Grove go to the end because thats where the sod grasss property is at to say oh yeah theres the building we still dont know what it is and so basically theres going to be coming up and down well thank you sir all right I appreciate your comments okay so in terms of the public hearing notice um we are as part of the notice for the meeting does require 10 days in advance so essentially two weeks before the meeting which is obviously on Wednesdays um that week two weeks before were sending out the notice um for that and then I do want to know as well that we do provide the public comment as has ended but I can talk with you separately and then we also do send out a project notice when the project is deemed complete and so that is a secondary notes that we do in addition to state law okay if I could just add one thing the only notification that that I received on this I havent received anything from the city this was taped on my door yesterday afternoon okay well you can deal with that with Ben you know and perhaps maybe as a clarified a clarifying element or a special use firm only requires notice to all the adjacent properties so if he is a couple of houses down then um note no notice is required pursuant to the citys municipal code was there anything that the applicant would like to remodel thanks again for the opportunity I I do respect our neighbors and uh Jim and his wife we I mean we get along quite well um Im thinking that the Aboriginal notice didnt go to them because the property is not adjacent it doesnt touch the property lines so with all due respect that the city Medics obligation with the original notifications of the project um I kind of disagree with the color description because red is kind of a traditional Barn agricultural Barn uh feature going back many many years and mainly because red was a a treatment of the wood and and the treatment actually was read in the agricultural industry so that was to protect the wood and that was kind of a industry standard to protect uh then non-metal buildings obviously they were natural products but uh they were red and thats kind of agricultural history and I dont think its adverse to the history of the Yucaipa Valley going back to some features that traditional agricultural uh shows I mean theres a lot you can do with the barn like that shutters theres a lot that can be done but I mean and and I assure you we will attempt to do that and and I mean we are not there to put up a big box and expect people to traits around the neighborhood trying to figure out what it is if you travel up and down Bryant Street now um and look there are quite a few buildings erected that uh in my opinion dont match the colors of Agriculture or they match the existing buildings but thats Im not looking to compare ourselves with that we want to be good neighbors we have no intention of any kind of a commercial operation and and wed have to come back before the commission anyway as Mr Matlock said so having said that we always want to be good neighbors The Vines themselves will provide a green belt view from Bryant looking towards the neighborhood and yes theyll see a red barn but I dont see that as being offensive and we certainly wouldnt propose it to impact our neighbors in a negative way so I I just wanted to I dont want to rebut and get in a big argument over that color is important to us thats why we said red because it kind of puts us back to the agriculture thank you Ray thank you appreciate it okay what that was close the public hearing and it will move to the Commissioners its like I always do it kind of start down at the end down there and put David youre on their spot any comments well other than I appreciate the response back from the applicant and also just hearing the comments from that obviously um I think it was brought up earlier theres different shades of red and so I think obviously looking at that from a standpoint of were not looking at fire engine red or something thats a little bit more weathered but again I understand color is important and I understand and just appreciate what youre trying to do as a homeowner and again this area is its not littered with those types of buildings but theyre large acres and people need space for their equipment and and if I had a a lot that large I would want a barn too so I dont have any other questions on that but I appreciate the response Stacy I dont have anything to say nothing to say all right Richard um okay lets jump down the Lyle so with that do I hear some sort of emotion Ill make a motion we approve the uh do I have to give the number of the item okay I get a second layer got a second from Lyle a further discussion seeing seeing none do we want to lets do a count come here short a couple people chair algower yes commissioner higginson yes commissioner Chester yes commissioner Beck yes commissioner Vic yes thank you motion carries okay thank you got a project Benny have any announcements or are we going to have that study session or what are we doing we will have that study I would respect respectfully SF uh commissioner higginson can you grab Donna real quick and bring her back in and oh you want to bring it back in forgot about her the only reason okay Ben youre up what are we um all right so Im sure this is going to be everyones favorite discussion that well have but as kind of continuing on from our last meeting uh given that we have a number of new Commissioners really this is to provide um one kind of an update for existing Commissioners but then information for our new ones members of the public and and everyone else about some of the different housing laws and really kind of what that means for you guys as decision makers what it means for us as staff and really kind of where we go from here so to have first scenes first um and uh we actually have a press release that we had done as part of the housing element which I had referenced this coming component is mazels hierarchy of needs um you know one of the key things that everyone kind of needs is you know food water and shelter and so housing is kind of a big deal for people because thats one of our most fundamental kind of physiological needs um and so yeah I was kind of discussed with in the land use planning 101 presentation the last meeting um really the land use plans were trying to figure out uh you know directing growth managing the resources that we have providing for future needs including including housing in it and so thats where planning and then certainly housing comes together is managing those different um components to figure out you know how do we plan for the needs of the future and meet both the current demographics of our community and then certainly those in the future now housing certainly has become a bigger issue um as of late um just for kind of frame reference within the county minimum wage right now is 15 the affordable rent for that worker uh kind of what would be appropriate is about 728 dollars a month however the current rent with a one-bedroom apartment in the county is over eleven hundred dollars so theres quite a bit disparity between that um and then certainly the average wage Im kind of needed for a one bedroom unit to afford that would be 24 so you know considerably more than the fifteen dollars and then thirty dollars to double what the minimum wage is for a two-bedroom apartment and so theres a few different key elements that come together with it this is identified some of in our housing element but even different committees and commissions have relayed these concerns um one is that the housing production itself has not necessarily kept up demand and so housing has become progressively more expensive and it impacts a few different elements including many of the community if theyre looking for a new place or a new spot in their their lifestyle cant necessarily afford to live here anymore and so they either move away from the hometown of Yucaipa or even the state or in some cases um certainly the homeless crisis is part of some of the housing challenges among other elements and then one of the elements as well is the economic loss of people leaving so and prior discussions lets say for the economic uh Economic Development advisory committee they talked about you know hey we have our kids that grew up here you know protective members are young professionals they cant afford to live here theyre moving farther away and so that engine of of growth you know that kids going to t-ball that they have just is you know kind of stopping with that and so that was a concern as well now as what kind of response weve had a lot of changes to housing laws I do want to know kind of quickly um kind of the purpose of this meeting and trying to go in from there one um as much as many like to complain about Sacramento and the status there is the reality is housing laws themselves isnt necessarily a partisan issue both Governor Newsom but as well as me and the prior Republican candidates all had platforms dealing with streamlining Housing Development encouraging future Housing Development and this is also something as a planner I follow kind of the the national level politics red States blue states are all dealing with housing laws and trying to encourage Housing Development each you know has um their own unique approaches but it isnt a monolithic one side approaches housing in one way and the other side approaches a different way it really is just you know every different place is looking for ways to to deal with the housing costs and that production and so for our purpose it really is that theres no kind of Silver Bullet idea of you know hey if this group or other groups take uh over of the legislature were going to see where the cities can just do what they want thats not necessarily going to be the case further many different Builder groups housing Advocates and other parties are also interested in improving housing opportunities so even beyond the political realm you have all these different stakeholders that are also at the table trying to advocate for for housing and so really the the simple takeaway for us as a city as we apply our housing obligations or projects is that this is kind of the lay the land and remain an issue it may change over time but its something that we well certainly have to apply additional note as I kind of talked about these different laws is remember I did not write these Im merely the messenger of what we have and really is kind of providing the focus today rather than a critique of of laws and what they do well or not well this is really more just a high level overview of how does it pertain to us as a collective as we deal with reviewing projects both bringing it to applying commission what do you guys need to know thats important for your decision making process and the last part is really these laws are really complex um not all of them are written as that well um as I noted I did not write these laws um all of them have kind of unique features or weird exceptions that kind of play in because theyre trying to apply it to a Statewide traffic every jurisdiction has its own need to hit elements and so one thing to note were not going to go into dive of every single law and what the nuances are because I could spend uh many days on that process and really it isnt necessarily I think helpful for us and then the other components theyre also changing all the time so by the time you cant get grapple on maybe what is the density bonus law and what those standards are not sure its going to be a little different and so it really is you know a high level discussion that Im just trying to help equip you guys so that when you guys are reviewing housing related projects you kind of know where the winds at were your limitations were the opportunities and really just being able to work within that framework and be able to execute um decisions that are appropriate and best for the city now as I noted housing certainly in the state of California among other places is a big issue and in response the state of California has declared a housing crisis um that is affecting every Community um over the past several years the state legislature has also approved a number of different housing laws since 2017 so really this kind of stretch from 2017 to today has had hundreds of new laws and dozens of new laws being signed every year and in fact really kind of since this kind of uh you know later 2010s period weve seen more laws focused on housing in that process than some of the Decades proceeding so it really has become as that cost and as housing has become a bigger issue is okay the state legislature is really kind of throwing every opportunity they have to try to address it and so thats what we have at the states high level rules um really theres kind of a few main key components that theyre trying to do at a very fundamental level one is make housing easier to build and removing potential constraints that impede that ability um certainly increasing rental protections and then the kind of last kind of components is increasing the enforcement of the laws to use so there was a lot of rules that had already been on the books but really wasnt enforced or lets say the California Department of Housing and Community Development really didnt have any mechanism to say Hey you were violating this but we dont have any way to to go after you for doing that in that sense change it really gives them a lot more tools to actually enforce laws that were already on the books and then really the last part is reinforcing kind of certainly in the planning process is that if you have properties that are allowed to have housing the developers or the property owners should kind of know what their rights are on that and it should be relatively easy and transparent to figure that out yes what you just said about the Housing Authority theyre not an enforcing agency supposedly is that correct the Housing Community Development does have enforcement mechanism as part of their um not just a recent addition to authority to reinforcement um so typically theyll just refer matters to the state attorney general and over the years the state has added things to the list that are enforceable by the Attorney General Im just in the um this last 2021 legislative session the state actually set money aside to fund um whats I guess called the housing police um so that they can be more proactive in enforcement yeah and so one thing I do want to note as well uh the person thats kind of in charge of that hcd enforcement she was actually pretty instrumental in helping us get our housing element adopted or certified through the state so she was kind of that good cop for us on that side but um also very familiar with our housing element um on the back end but thats her new role is to help facilitate kind of the enforcement of Meeting those obligations and well piggyback on Donnas um comment um would it be similar to our code enforcement they dont really have law where they can they cant really arrest anybody but they can give them a citation I think is that it um so Ill kind of cover a few of the different elements um in terms of enforcement through the presentation but yeah it would be um either penalties um such as fines for that uh decertification of the citys housing element and loss of funding that may apply there and penalties there as well and then certainly if we uh do certain activities then the courts can also invalidate the decision that the plant commission did as part of that to an overturn essentially what the citys decision was if its inconsistent with what the the rules are with the city and so Ill discuss those kind of with the respective laws down the Nets three or four slides so um kind of how um as most of the client Commissioners where uh well while aware of uh the general plan really kind of sets forward the housing obligations are kind of that basis um state law does require General plan to have an adopted housing element thats compliant with state law um and then addresses down by eight-year uh planning cycle um on the right of the screen you do see the citys Arena requirements its 28.66 units that we have to try to facilitate of um over the next eight year period um kind of the key driving force of the general plan housing element is the Regional Housing needs allocation so the 2866 is our share of the approximately 1.3 million units that were allocated to the entire Southern California region now one of the kind of key laws um that has been on the books for a long time since 1982 is the housing accountability Act it has always been intended to kind of limit the local jurisdictions ability to deny or make infeasible Housing Development projects are consistent with their code requirements and this was something that had been on the books but had no enforcement capabilities so most cities usually took actions that were kind of counter to this law and really didnt have any consequences for it however since 2017 that emphasis has really changed and really worked to strengthen this law one of the elements is SBE 167 and ab 78 Which documents to have the standards that are needed in order to deny a project and then also includes a fine of up to ten thousand dollars per unit that if that standard is not met and the city chooses to deny those units then that would be fine upon the city um another element was ab1515 which is a reason person standard of determination for compliance who have City standards so its not just kind of this this you know Arbitrage kind of working through of saying this this project does or does not mean it is more of a standard task of you kind of look at it a plain person can say yeah this meets the code requirements or doesnt and so kind of that legal gymnastics that may have been employed in the past wouldnt pass Mester with that law um and then Abu 3194 is a zoning consistency kind of requirement so if there is a inconsistency with what the general plane land use allows and the zoning designation essentially the general plan um its time precedent so if your zoning code um hadnt been updated to match the general plan then that would be the fault of the jurisdiction the general plan were trying to cover it as the city B type is since we have a one map system or general plan and zone map are the same we dont have that same issue um but some cities May update the journal plan say this is now the new designation but their zoning code may not reflect that okay okay so in many cities except for us and a few others the general plan map and the zoning map are different so the general plan is much more broad Ill say this is like our high density housing area this is our single family housing and itll be very broad brush type stuff and then theyll have their zoning districts of lets say this is our RS 10 000 square foot Line This Is Our RS 5000 square foot lot this is these different components and so theyll have these Maps kind of separate and so if you had your general plan map that showed one type of land use that maybe was more intense in your zoning code uh map had not been updated yet then that inconsistency would not be a detriment for the housing accountability at it would apply that General plan requirement it doesnt really apply here since we dont have that that same framework but okay and then the last one is SB 330 which is a lot of the elements of what cities do not do for housing related discussion so a lot of the recent discussion on the housing accountability at really falls under the Wheelhouse of SB 330 which Ill cover in the next slide so SB 330 is trying to refer to as no net loss this is one of the key no net loss loss and therell be another one Ill talk about in some following slides but really what it does establish is prohibit cities from reducing the capacity of a parcel to lessen what was in effect in January 1st 2018. unless there was a concurrent change elsewhere so if lets say a city wants to down Zone a property and say okay this property itself was allowed to have 40 units on it now were changing it it will only be allowed to have 20. that 20 has to be up zoned somewhere else in the city to go with that and so it really addresses kind of those decision-making activities that if youre trying to rezone Parcels of land there is kind of that thought process a okay it isnt just a vacuum decision it does have an implement uh impact somewhere else in the city um and then another component was it really does prohibit cities from Liberty the amount of housing or population um through either moratoriums that are placed on development limitations on the number of approvals camps on housing units that may be built in population limits and then it also does establish that any low income units that were demolished have the right of refusal for the new units that are provided or can receive assistance really in terms of the the limitations like the moratoriums the city of Yucaipa has not had any but certainly other jurisdictions near us um caps my experience with the city of Redlands is they had a pretty difficult process for how they allocated housing units and that has essentially been rendered uh void with SB 330. let me try to if somebody has got approval for attractive houses anywhere in the city and instead of building they sell the property the new landowner doesnt want to build anything thank you those houses that were approved prior do they now have to be built someplace else in the city is that does that mean no net loss because you cant force the landowner to build the houses correct that is right so in this case if they didnt request a rezone that would remove the development capacity then it wouldnt necessarily trigger SB 330. um if they had the entitlement and they just choose not to add on it it doesnt necessarily deal with SB 330. so what triggers it then if lets say the city was to rezone a property so we had an area of land and we said okay we want to change the designation that would remove that unit capacity so were going to make it more low density or something of that sort then that triggers that change of discussion there is another law that Ill get into that has kind of a separate component and is the second part of the no net loss laws no its not a its not an easy framework and so Ill get to that next um kind of ending on I got two more slides on the housing accountability app but really kind of key few things um that I also came into play one is a streamlined process so it does the limit um projects are consistent with the the development code um a total of five hearings are allowed on that project so plant commission or city council or lets say a design review board or other entities can have all these subsequent meetings for our project is once you hit the five number a decision needs to be made or youre in violation as well and thats part of it just you cant stall out these projects over a line period I am um City View type of War time will actually that we dont have a lot of these kind of miscellaneous committees and commissions that also review that stuff some cities have like uh you know architectural board and all these other elements that add meetings and so we dont have that issue um it also does establish certain elements um in terms of the timeline for approval after the environmental review period is done including 90 days after certification of the eir if theres a project for it and then at 60 days if its about half affordable and then the last part of the certainty in the process is the unit count itself is based on the density thats permitted by the zoning and job plan we dont necessarily get to make a judgment call of well this area may not be able to have a unit on it so this shouldnt count against it thats not how the housing accountability act treats it it really is just a more you take what is the yield thats allowed for your code and then you apply it on the property and its its a much more black and white type of process and then kind of the last components are the approval process applies to consistency with objective design standards so stuff thats subjective like you know hey they should include you know compatible features where there really isnt a clear-cut definition that cannot be the basis for denial of a project and then cities some cells are also tasked at the staff level that we have to identify those consistency with objective standards when we deem a project complete or time within that period so we will before we even route the project out to other departments well know whether or not its time meeting those objective design standards or not and if it does meet it then that is ultimately what the city has to consider in its approval process and then this right here is a easy chart to navigate on how the housing accountability should be applied um I say that in Jess because its not necessarily very easy but it is kind of helpful but really it is making sure that you know hey if the project meets your code requirements you shouldnt be taking action that runs counter to it now the second part of the no net loss um Provisions that I wanted to share and this goes I think to your point um uh commissioner Snodgrass is ab166 and so this is part of the Arena requirement of the housing element um it does require that cities throughout the arena period maintain the plan capacity so that 2866 units that we have for the city of radiation we have kind of different areas set that can meet those requirements and we have to maintain those requirements and so what that means is essentially a city cannot down zone or approve projects that are at a lower density cited in the housing element unless it provides remaining sites that can do it so lets say hypothetically in the housing element we say this will provide 100 moderate units and this is what we expect this property to be able to do as part of our housing sites someone shows up as a developer wants to do 50 units that are moderate thats great it meets our code requirements but then that means that we have to make up those 50 units elsewhere and so thats where I think to to your point Don as the the landowner that has an entitlement for something they choose not to act on it some sort of formal action that goes with that could have that implementation as well um and really it comes down to is when we do have that that transition it does require then cities to rezone um and either a major finding that we have adequate sites or we have to essentially half a year to rezone sites and then resubmit that to the the state and so we do try to have a little bit of a buffer as part of our affordable housing kind of thresholds we did include a 15 buffer just to make sure that if one project comes through and is slightly below where we thought it was going to be were not scrambling it gives us a little bit of breathing room but it is something that is important and so really this is as part of the greater steam both for SB 330 and ab16 as it does implicate the decision for projects listed as part of a housing element strategy so the housing element covers you know above moderate to affordable housing and so we have different strategies to meet those different stuff and so we have to be mindful in the decisions that is this going to help the strategy or is it going to make make it worse and if its not made it worse than we have to kind of make up for that that change all right now we get into the more complex laws because the ones I just talked about are not the complex ones um density bonus is probably one that is um one of the harder ones to get through just because one is very dense as the name implies but more importantly it really is comprised of a lot of different laws that every I mean in recent years has been every year its been changed a little bit here and there but just over time has had a lot of different changes throughout that and so it really does um major kind of complex to follow theres a lot of little nuances to it that apply but really A high level the idea is that in order to offset costs developers are allowed an increase of units and can get incentives concessions or waivers of Standards to help provide affordable housing so it says okay if you have a property your zoning allows you to build you know 20 houses but if youre trying to provide affordable housing you may not be able to meet that with those 20 units so you get an escalation of that density um to provide affordable housing um the increase itself is based on affordability so if you have lower income units or more units that are affordable then that increases the density bonus and so really kind of the key threshold is up to a 50 increase if either 15 of the units are very low income housing 24 are low income or 44 or greater is moderate income um as part of the approval developers are allowed to submit the density bonus and then angry reductions or requested as part of those objective standards of lets say we have a setback requirement of 25 feet they can say as far the the concessions that we want to be able to do 20 feet and so that becomes then the objective standard the 25 with the reduction is not the the standard its now the 20 feet thats being requested is the objective design standard uh and then one thing to kind of note is while they get to request a density bonus it doesnt mean its a freebie and then they can just build something thats at a higher income level it does establish a long-term Covenant and for the most part um it is at least 55 years that applies to that property so when you have the affordable housing project youre going to have that that housing need met for for a considerable amount of time um as part of the density bonus so the the process that I just talked about is kind of a high level what does that mean for the plant Commissioners really theres a few different elements that come into play that youll see with it so the first part is incentives and concessions this allows a reduction of standards that has kind of a Nexus to reduction of cost of development so the number of concessions that they can ask for is based on a sliding scale with more affordable housing projects allowed more concessions than than not and then theres also a additional consideration for those are low VMT areas now itself is the reductions are limited to the reduction project cost so they cant just ask for anything um just for the sake of it it does have to have some sort of tangible element with the project cost of making the project affordable however there is another part of the density bonus which is called waivers which is really about um removing any standard that permits the density that can be achieved so rather than maybe necessarily dealing with cost affordability but lets say there are certain standards that dont allow you to build at your maximum capacity then the waiver what itll allow for them to do that and so there are some cities that have had multi-family standards that really were never were intentionally designed to never allow you to meet your maximum yield on that um and so essentially this says Hey the developer can say hey I cant meet the maximum yield so this is the standard Im going to to waiver from and Im allowed to do that because I need to be able to to meet that threshold now um there is a limit that they cannot cause specific adverse impacts on public health safety or welfare or cultural resources and so this is a pretty well-defined component in the density bonus law that those findings need to be addressed um and then can the last two elements with the density bonus stuff is that parking is reduced as well and further reduce if youre near Transit and so cities cannot require additional parking beyond that but certainly you can try to you know work through that so that becomes a parking standard and the last part is more of a fair housing element is that the units really need to be spread throughout the site so you cant have your affordable housing project where you have kind of the the slum building versus the rest of the project it really needs to be intermittent so it doesnt seem like hey this is where the poor people like thats thats part of that and and and for good reason as well but its just something that to keep in mind as well and especially as we as staff review these different projects as making sure that is is is pretty uniform and Fair through through that project now this is another fun law um luckily the city of Yucaipa has not had to to deal with this yet um but this is um applicable to the city in that any city or county that has not meant its Arena requirements or is not on Pace with the arena is subject to SB 35 what this does is it does create a streamlined by right process for affordable housing multi-family projects a few key elements as it does require compliance with objective design standards but one thing to keep in mind is that the density bonus does provide those waivers incentives so its not a there is that flexibility baked in and then one of the unique elements is it does require prevailing wage construction and then they cannot demolish any existing affordable units now Im going to get into kind of different housing strategies and laws that come into play um Im sure as mosa Commissioners have heard about is that Cesar Doan units or kind of the gradient Flats on properties these are small rentable units on property these are allowed in any Zone that allows residential units does include reduced fees and ministerial approvals for these type of stretchers um including um essentially allowing for any 800 square foot detached Adu that can be built um four feet from the siding rear property line and and then as part of the signal family lots it does allow both a Adu and then a junior Adu which is down by a small 500 or less square foot within an existing building footprint um the adus um certainly when they came out and became part of law um generated a lot of concern with different communities however in its implementation it really hasnt had um a lot of concerns especially in Yucaipa it is a kind of small incremental approach for affordable housing so rather than this large affordable housing you know Apartment project it was more of a pattern of small units coming into fruition and it does give opportunities for property owners um um to have kind of Rebel units we do have a few different adus where weve surveyed the property owners they say this helps pay my mortgage I have a great tenant back there and it really has been pretty benign um in our experience and so um I think everyone thats built in Adu in Yucaipa has actually relayed that um they they love it and so thats just something to know as well um as part of the citys experience with these type of structures now another fun law that is has not been employed in the city of Yucaipa yet but we have had distractions with it is sb9 which is kind of governing both second units and urban lot splits um really um one thing I do want to note um just because theres been a lot of I think misinformation um the portability for sb9 is the parcel subject to the proposed Housing Development is located within a city the boundaries of which include some portion of either an urbanized area Urban cluster as designated by the United States Census Bureau so I had emphasized a few components which is the within a city and include some portions of either urbanized area or cluster and so theres been some public comment Ive heard or some videos where people have said it does not apply to parts of the city and really that the statement thats being applied is those that are unincorporated communities that are a rural kind cluster for the census city of Yucaipa is considered urbanized area pursuant to um the Census Bureau and so even though we may have some areas of the city that are not because property is within the city it is subject to sb9 and so I just want to make sure that that is cleared given that theres been some competing statements out there and and want to make sure that everyone is is familiar with with that requirement sb9 does apply to you drive it yes um if we were like running the screens where its unincorporated rural community it would not apply but in that law provision for unincorporated communities a place like Bloomington would be subject to sb9 but because Yucaipa is a incorporated city all the parcels are subject to sb9 that is right um now in terms of sb9 actually covers on two different components one is urban lot splits it allows essentially if you have a property with a lot of kind of vacant land in the back um it does allow for a split of that there are some components to it it does require that the urban lots of is at least 40 percent of the original lot and at least 1200 square feet so if you had a really small lot you really kind of subdivide it or if its like hey I have a lot of stuff on my line and I want this little sliver in the back that doesnt work either it has to be kind of a fair um split between the lines um with it and then sb9 also includes second units which does allow owners to build a second unit on their property through sb9 um and then it does establish a parking limit requirement for those outside uh major Transit areas um I did want to show um just in terms of kind of a Counterpoint to sb9 the picture on the slide is a historic home that has two units on it um if youre familiar with lets say some of the historic neighborhoods and Redlands some of those houses are two units as well so it isnt necessarily um a foreign concept to see houses with this but certainly well want to make sure its designed well short stretchers kind of have a nice kind of mass and design that lend itself where that balance is pretty pretty minimized and so cities can develop objective standards that help if someone were to do something like this it doesnt look too tacked on but really more integrated with the design and from the outside appearance does kind of fit in with that that character um yep um I dont remember I think there is building um setback requirements but Ill defer to the legal counsel so the the bill requires that any application for an sb9 just be sufficient enough to allow for the separate conveyance of um the properties and so there are instances where a shared wall could potentially satisfy that requirement a lot of local agencies because there is still some room to develop your own objective standards to sort of mold the development into a fashion thats compatible with the city and the different single family areas within the city um some cities have put restrictions on those types of things some cities have encouraged those types of things its really theres a lot of variation at this point with regards to what the developments actually look like yeah just curious if you had a 6 000 square foot law you split it right down the middle and can make a fourplex on that with a shared wall zero set back in the center and potentially provided that the local ordinance because the thing is is theres a forefoot setback that the city is allowed to enforce but it doesnt mean that the city cant be more accommodating on that setback and actually make it smaller um so and I havent looked at the ordinance the urgency ordinance thats on the books right now for yucaipas but Im assuming that we have a forefoot yeah so it wouldnt necessarily um be allowed in in the city of Yucaipa if the ordinance itself provides with a four foot setback I dont know if I made that no its great um yeah without some kind of uh um special use or I dont know what you call it um if you set aside that four feet four of that project thats the only way itd be done right so that the state because it is a state mandate and theres certain requirements set forth in in the the state law that the cities required to approve certain projects that meet those standards but that being said there is certain room for um deviation its just very limited um in terms of the number of ways the city can deviate from the state standards but one of the permissible ways to deviate from the state standards is to allow a smaller setback so in those instances if you are in a jurisdiction that has allowed for a smaller setback other than the forefoot you may see um something more along the lines of what you described good thank you yeah usually these laws are gives you kind of what the limit of what you um have to allow and then cities can be more forgiving on that um our sb9 urgency ordinance tried to really strike the line of encouraging good design and we will be bringing a permanent ordinance um sometime this year but really kind of working through as I mentioned with a historic building kind of examples were from outward appearances still resembles that that single family home versus a bunch of four blitzes kind of cobbled together on on properties um but what what a question on that that brought it up was okay if I have a 10 000 square foot lot well I want to divide it in half so I have two five thousand square foot but the zoning is ten thousand square foot Lots the you know Zone zoning map so how how do you so were gonna throw the zoning map out if it was a sb9 application that would be allowed to to proceed with that um and so one of the things I do want to note just as part of that um is it does establish kind of a three-year owner occupancy intent requirement and so like a developer that had lets say a subdivision they were going to do 10 000 square foot Lots couldnt just waive their wand and say Im going to do sb9 5000 square foot Lots it would have to be the future owner of that property and them committing to it so it isnt going to be as broad brushed but it would certainly be something that individual property owners could pursue pursuant to state law its not allowable for developers to pursue that sb9 per uh well theres certain requirements that were put in the bill um sort of last minute because a lot of groups had concerns that developers would be able to go in and sort of circumvent and the subdivision map back so um what is in the bill that sort of curtails a developers ability to do that is um theres one requirement that prevents the same individual from or I should say the same individual and anyone acting in concert with that individual from splitting adjacent lots and then theres also the owner occupancy affidavit required for the lot splits you have to be resident for two years on one of those three years fed in application it isnt um entirely clear at this point how um developers will sort of Leverage certain holes that are in the Bill the the bill itself um it it isnt um the the cleanest Bill to come out of Sacrament I would imagine that were going to get some sort of cleanup legislation in the upcoming years um but as of right now um there hasnt been um and mind you its its March 1st 2023 um but there hasnt been a significant um manipulation of it by developers because of those requirements that are in the bill one kind of interesting case of that I am familiar with a developer who contacts homeowners and offers their services for a subdivision for free when they could recuperate the cost of that on the back end after the lot was sold and so thats allowed as long as its initiated by the homeowner but a large portion of it is that its you know a lot of homeowners dont really want to have a much smaller lot that theyre then sharing as well so subjective opinion I mean once uh your prices of homes go up and people need to afford their mortgages if this if this exponential increase if home prices continues to grow this is going to become more and more attractive yeah and I do think um based on even before um sb9 was on the boat so were kind of movement through we I would receive calls from Property Owners I had kind of larger Lots where they had a large back area that they really were responsible for just like mowing to avoid weed abatement notices and they would say hey what I do to subdivide this doesnt mean the the minimum lot size and so they go I wish it was an alternative to get there and so we did receive those at all its not very frequently but but enough to note that when sb9 came through its like those would be the price of the property owners that you would see doing the the urban lot splits you could see rural communities being the most effective because were still the communities that possess lot sizes large enough to accommodate these type of yeah at least 40 percent similar lot sizes theres um Center Berkeley and theyve sort of um taken taken a look to see where most of the development the sb9 development is occurring at and they did say that it is in the areas that have the lot sizes that are large enough to accommodate the splits yeah I have a question do they ever consider water like when theyre subdividing like do they consider is there going to be suited enough sewage water flow I mean did they think about those things when theyre subdividing I dont know there are I think limitations on it um generally at a very high level um density or more density usually results are in per capita reduction of water usage but certainly that is certain communities suffer more from that those limitations are closer to the brink and so um thats certainly part of the overall contentiousness of sb9 and how it impacts different jurisdictions um kind of all along that friend so um all right so now Im going to get into some other types of loss so there has been a push as well to allow kind of residential units on Commercial properties and theres kind of two different ones um in place one is ab211 which does allow a Ministry approval for multi-family developments on Commercial Zone properties does include two requirements one is prevailing wage requirements and that also requires that units be below market rate so it does require kind of affordable housing targets and then theres another law thats sb6 which allows potentially discretionary improvements for multi-family housing but as part of it it does not require the affordable Target but it does establish both prevailing wage and skilled and trained Workforce requirements and so it does have its own set of kind of limitations both of them do have a number of different performance requirements that that make them a little bit more difficult in practice I do want to know however the citys housing it does include a commercial Corridor overlay between 2nd and 14th Street to allow kind of mixed-use development part of it is the commercial sectors changed quite a bit and so as a way to help meet some of the more affordable housing criteria city council did approve the overlay and the standards will be coming and really the goal is to make it much more simplified so rather than some of the the bureaucraticness that goes into the state law requirements is really to set higher standards and expectations but really make it a much more streamlined process for all those involved I did want to ask if looking at this project this is a project that was approved if anyone wants to take a quick guess of what they think the density is of this not in town looks like Riverside rl1 Ireland so this is a three-story Apartment project in commercial this is 53 units per acre wow is the the density this was in Grover Beach a friend of mine did but something that in terms of that that building masses you dont notice that density um kind of a one there all right um and then were gonna get into a few more housing laws um this is one that was unique and really impacted the housing element um and really something that isnt necessarily going to apply too much to the Planning Commission right now but something to keep in the back of your head is ab3 uh 1397. um it did require cities as we establish our housing sites kind of inventory especially for the housing affordable housing sites it does require Parcels to provide the accessible infrastructure to serve those units and really those will always addressed in the paper sites that cities would establish so they would say this is where were gonna have affordable housing however you cant build on it because theres no utilities there theres no access there youre going to spend you know 50 million dollars to be able to even put a shovel on the ground and so it was really kind of saying okay yeah you guys said you could build on this site but it really cant and so the state really did provide a much more comprehensive set of requirements for affordable housing sites and it essentially determines kind of what those are presumed and feasible unless the city can demonstrate otherwise if there are certain impediments um and really its one of the things thats important for the Planning Commission is if we have these certain kind of affordable housing sites identified in the general plan if a the Nets housing element comes through in eight years were looking at it if these sites remain vacant the states dont start asking okay so why are these not being built and so it does lend itself to the city trying to have to prove some of these sites and the ability to develop and really if it kind of the state views it as okay these really dont have a chance in in hell for a lot of a better term of being developed then um then we have to find a new site to replace that one instead and so its just something to keep in mind that um as we tend to select these different housing strategies is we need to be working to make sure that they come to fruition otherwise theyd get dropped off as being infusible and one of the things thats important to keep in mind as well with other state laws is if lets say okay this site is um zoned for 400 units we thought it was gonna be affordable it never gets built say says this doesnt count anymore you need to make up that unit somewhere else is okay then you still have this on the books and so that change you have to be mindful of as well and then kind of the last kind of component of different laws that are also important is just fair housing components this really comes down to discrimination of uh of individuals for a variety of different reasons both at the federal and state kind of definitions of that and making sure that when we are planning for housing or reviewing housing projects or discussing housing projects that were making sure that were not running enough out of fair housing requirements um um really one of the things that comes into formation especially with the the Planning and Zoning law as it does invalid the um decisions that the city kind of denies um um housing projects based on protected status or other sort of discriminatory themes then that can also play into whether or not the citys decision is is upheld or not and one of the things thats I think important less more I think for the plane Commissioners themselves but even as part of the public comments that we received is being mindful of the dialogue that is used sometimes discriminatory language is inadvertently applied uh you know those people very sometimes innocuous type of stuff that can inadvertently impact the validity of the decision-making process um um sometimes its you know very outward um certainly um those of us in our career received concerns from Neighbors that really was uh inappropriate language at times but sometimes its much more subtle and just something to keep in mind that if you hear that distraction as making sure that when youre making the decision that youre kind of clarifying that this is the reason for the decision and its not based on a discriminatory basis um and then kind of a part of that with the housing element itself um also required analysis of fair housing this is ABS 86 that require analysis of fair housing in the the housing elements um it really kind of assesses what is the current state of Housing and the fairness of it policy and programs that impede fair housing and proactive goals and policies that affirmatively further fair housing so think of it as cities where youve heard the term like the other side of the tracks or something of that sort where you have this kind of area of the community thats more disparately low income or impoverished and therefore as May ensure that then your housing elements addressing policies that can address that issue and doesnt further exacerbate those problems um the benefit itself with the city of yucaipas really dont have that type of fair housing issue we dont have a spot in the community where it is you know this is the the very disparately impacted area we really dont have those issues really the spots where we do have some of the the lower cost housing or lower amenity features really were disadvantaged through infrastructure issues so they were in flood zones where it limited the development capacity or the ability to obtain insurance or other elements that that resulted in in impacts to those and the city itself through past City councils and and management hadnt really tend to prioritize those cap Improvement projects weve done a number of flood control projects that those properties that were historically in flood zone couldnt be you know expanded upon really had limitations and were expensive to maintain insurance with those have been pulled out and so thats an element that the citys done to remove those impediments a number of the different programs like the safe routes to school to add sidewalks to neighborhoods adding lighting adding Futures our facade enhancement program all those address some of the areas that were a little bit more disadvantaged and trying to bring those up and so those policies are really both by the state recognized as being good actions that the citys done but then even for the community really is addressing those those uh historic uh inequities and and trying to make sure that all of our residents have a safe place to live and and address those and so really thats weve done a lot to improve those conditions but we always need to be mindful that were taking kind of a fair and balanced approach on on how War delegating housing or viewing housing projects and and trying to make sure that were supporting um those efforts and and improving the the quality of life for all our residents um Can there a few other elements um with the state law really is timelines um time is money um that the cost to develop um you know as you stream stuff along um impact stuff and so there has been as part of law permit streamlining governs um key Milestones that the city has to do so once weve deemed a project complete routed it for review there are timelines we need to meet we cant just kind of hold on a project and kind of let the thought run out we really do want to make sure that were keeping stuff moving and certainly as a customer service component we dont want to be the slow city either and we dont have that reputation as a benefit as well but um new laws have come into play that also further um specify timeline so SB 330 as I mentioned does cover um um a more streamlined housing project so timeline so the the five meetings as an example is one of those components where its like hey it cant be this drawn out process if it meets your requirements yeah I did that through you know you know provide that facility and then the last part is ab2234 which now also addresses and the post entitlement approval so if someone is got their you know attended to map theyve subdivide the property theyre building their housing units is when theyre submitting the building plans for that as if its going through the review theyve provided everything they meet the code requirements we cant be sitting on those building permits either and so it does establish that timeline as well yep its a sb9 and the adus also subject to that expeditiousness of Permitting and uh processing that they are um um especially what the adus there are specific timelines caught out in those laws that further um address it uh the 60-day timeline right yeah something like that and theres some components um the benefit we do have um so like even with this law here uh the post and timeline approvals are standard turnaround time for plan review is quite a bit shorter uh than whats required by state law and so we have a pretty high success rate of Meeting those turnarounds for all building permits um in the city and so certainly that applies there as well but it is important to keep in mind that um you know from start to finish is the state wants to make sure that were not dragging our feet on on these projects um and then this kind of comes into um hcd enforcement so as I kind of talked about um the state is looking at what were doing um hcd is monitoring and so they can send letters and inquire about the progress of programs to achieve compliance um one of the key elements is our annual progress report so every uh year um uh before April 1st we have to submit a annual progress report to the state on the housing element progress and so they look at the number of units have been built uh the number of units entitled as well as our general plan policies and say okay what have you guys done to meet this program or youre on track are you falling behind and making sure that were doing it and part of it is um you know hcd views the housing element as a contract from the city um of what were going to do so weve adopted this General plan policy that were going to facilitate housing in these different ways and so the states going okay you said youre going to do this you need to do this and so thats where that enforcement kind of comes through and then as part of it um the annual practice report Maddie is having a blast working on it it is a very very difficult Report with a lot of different timelines and this is tracking kind of the post both the entitlement and post entitlement so shes tracking down um you know every project that gets turned in you know when has it turned in when is it rather when is it decided upon by the decision makers what is the change of units was that affordable was it not and then same with the building permit process so it was entitled here then they submitted building permits here one was the permit issued when were they finaled and so the states trying to both keep track of kind of what timelines are whats impacting that but then also kind of looking if were disparately longer than everyone else and theyd go okay thats probably a red flag of a process or procedural breakdown that a city has compared to its neighbors that shouldnt be in place and so that also can be something to to there a few different components that are really kind of important for us to keep in mind one is revocation of our housing element it does allow hcd to revoke the compliance and refer violations to the attorney general as I mentioned we can also be fine for the units that we failed to approve and then if in particular cases if we are banned actors so were deliberately you know just trying to to be bad about our housing approvals that fine goes from ten thousand dollars per unit to fifty thousand dollars per unit so we wont make sure that were not being arbitrary and capricious in our decision making process and the last part is um you know in addition to hcd going after the city is develop helpers and other groups will also sue for violations that the city does and they have been doing it and theyve been pretty vocal about it is you know hey were supposed to be doing this the state is kind of you know the Big Brother looking at this but there are other members of the community they are also trying to make sure that were upholding what we said were going to do and so it isnt just the state thats concerned about this theres other groups that are um concerned about how cities are taking their decisions and whether or not theyre applying their codes appropriately or trying to implement their General plan or trying to just be um you know um anti you know just being difficult and and difficult to work with so now what does this mean um where do we go from here um kind of a lot of it comes down to um I was trying to view themes in different perspectives is consistency and transparency are really the key components is we set the rules and we have to make sure that were setting the decisions that follow those rules the thing that we do have to also remember and one of the things that we in the state um despite some of the the concerns thats happening at the legislature level is we still do have a lot of control about the shape and form that is there so the state says weve proved so much housing units the general plan says youre allowed to build this we gotta make decisions on it but doesnt say what that has to look like cities have control over creating design standards other states dont even allow that cities dont have that control but the city does but it comes down to objective standards so it really is saying okay what do we want to see and so its it is important to think about creating policies I encourage the development we want to see rather than trying to fight the ones that we dont and so if we have standards that say this is what we want to see this is our expectation you meet all these requirements and youre good to go thats a lot easier to facilitate State versus man this project looks ugly but we dont have any ways to to deny it and so were gonna play this kind of legal uh um you know effort to General ourselves into dealing with that project and so its important to remember that and last part is remembering that density is also only a numbered design is important as well um for example this is a very cute Cottage development this is a higher density um um project and so it isnt necessarily you know the the design really makes a big difference on the lovability of projects and so um thats something that that I personally value but but is something to help manage if we have to build some of these different units is to remember that we can kind of set the stage for we want stuff that looks nice provides good amenities and really kind of facilitating that process and the last part is um streamlining the process um we want to as a civil servants provide good customer service and make sure were meeting those stuff and so making sure that the process and timeliness of development is appropriate and then the last part is start remembering as difficult as affordable housing is to develop in some of those High thresholds state law really has reiterated the housing for all income levels is important so our Focus isnt just how do we provide affordable housing is how do we provide housing for all levels and how do we meet at the end of the day what the community needs are as well and so just something to keep in mind as part of the decision-making process happy to answer any more questions um but I just wanted to give you guys to have a high level discussion about all the fun stuff that you guys did to partake in as decision makers but theres a lot on the laws that we as part of our review for every project is also going through and its uh we do our best with it its always changing um and so yeah thats well um right now I dont I think he did a good job I appreciate you you know taking the time to put that together so were running it was Im sure quite a few of us got something out of it you know and that same time you can get something out of it then youre doing good so with that commissioner does anyone have any stateless if not man whens our next meeting you got any announcements um I do have I think written down another announcement but um um so we do have a meeting on the 15th it will be probably a heavily attended one so be prepared for a fun night um and then um I know that both commissioner Hudson and Snyder Assad indicated interest in doing the plant Commissioners Academy right now we are on the waitlist they found out that having the first meeting back in person ended up being a lot more popular than they thought so we are like number four five and six on um on that and so theyre trying to get some more convention space so that they can open up for more people as soon as I hear back I will let you guys know but Im hopeful um what whats the date on that it was right before during the rodeo well that was rude I think they didnt want you there I think thats oh thanks so now were getting personal Im just kidding but um so Im hopeful and it sounded like they were surprised by the interest and so they booked up really fast um but I will let everyone know on that um yeah March 29th to March 31st is the dates for that yeah yeah but before we go I I just want to give a personal thank you to both Kim and Maria for helping me through um I messed up my form 700 and they went back to form 700 101 and helped me fix that and get it up to Sacramento so thank you to your staff for having the patience of Job in dealing with me on that yeah no problem were were glad youre here yeah and yeah its always a computer glitch now with that thats it any other um yeah so I realized the the one announcement or question I wanted to ask um Christians leaving whatd you say oh no oh Im sorry go ahead um um as part of our packet distribution I know weve been giving you guys hard copies wanted to see if any of the Commissioners would prefer just the digital copy if you guys have capability for that um just want to make sure that were mirror needs but if youre like hey I dont want all these papers but I have my laptop if thats something you guys are interested let me know and we can its hard to answer because uh something as small as what Dan presented the last time we were here its pretty easy to look at but when the scope will work on this next meeting is going to be pretty huge I think a full set of plans its going to be I just want to make sure I know that as part of the packets city council for example has assigned um iPads so theyre able to have that technology thats provided by the city but that isnt something thats available for and then Commissioners keep in mind that if if we when you get your packages or something in there its like man I dont get this Bens always available you know give Ben a call and he has hes really good about going through it and dont be embarrassed to ask Im here to make sure that you guys are comfortable making the decisions that you guys need to make and so Im always yeah the only stupid question is when you dont ask okay um and thats all I do I thank you guys and nothing else thank you Commissioners and meeting adjourned thank you oh okay its not gonna get out of here hurry here Audio stream of City of Yucaipa Planning Commission Meeting - 3/1/2023.