The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2007-04-26; Housing Commission; MinutesMinutes of: HOUSING COMMISSION Time of Meeting: 6:00 P.M. Date of Meeting: April 26, 2007 Place of Meeting: CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Scarpelli called the Meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairperson Scarpelli led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners: Sondra Boddy Edward Scarpelli Bobbie Smith Absent: Doris Ritchie Staff Present: Housing and Redevelopment Director: Debbie Fountain Senior Planner: Scott Donnell APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of March 8, 2007, were approved as written. VOTE: 3-0 AYES: Boddy, Scarpelli, and Smith NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Ritchie NEW BUSINESS Debbie Fountain, Director of Housing and Redevelopment, said we have a presentation of the Draft Housing Element, which will be presented by Scott Donnell, Senior Planner. We also have Veronica Tarn, the consultant on this project, who will also be making the presentation and answering questions tonight. Scott Donnell said the purpose of tonight's meeting is for two primary reasons. The first is to seek the Commission's approval or agreement that the Draft Housing Element as it is prepared and presented to you tonight is acceptable to submit to the State Department of Housing and Community Development. The second purpose for the meeting tonight is to receive any comments you have or any comments the members of the public have on the Draft Housing Element. Tonight's meeting is not to make any kind of recommendation or approve any aspect of the Housing Element or any program or land use changes that might be part of the Draft Housing Element. It is simply to discuss the Housing Element, receive any comments and seek your approval to submit to the State Department of Housing and Community Development, or HCD. That is because the Element before you is simply a draft. It is staffs effort to date to provide ways which we feel are necessary to meet our obligations under state law during the current housing cycle. If we do receive your agreement that it is acceptable to submit, staff will then submit it to the State Department of Housing and Community Development for review. We anticipate, after their sixty day review period, they will have a number of comments probably which will require us to do at the very least some changes to the Housing Element, including some disagreements they may have with us over some of our proposed programs. With that said, we anticipate the draft will probably change, and because of those changes and the need for those changes to be seen by you, members of the public and other committees and commissions here, this Housing Element will go through another set of reviews sometime in late summer or fall. The Housing Element will come back to you HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 26, 2007 PAGE 2 of 26 for a recommendation of approval at a public hearing. Public hearings will also take place before the Planning Commission and finally the City Council. After the City Council hearing, the Housing Element will one more time be submitted to HCD for final review and certification by them. There are plenty of opportunities besides tonight's meeting for the public to comment and for you to comment. We realize you may not have had adequate time to review the draft Housing Element as it is a substantial document. However, tonight's review is just to get your blessing to submit to HCD. With regards to meeting notification and review of the Housing Element, we have developed a mailing list and a notice of this meeting was sent to many businesses and individuals and organizations about tonight's hearing, letting them know of our desire to have you accept the draft for submittal to HCD. We also have provided the Housing Element for review at the city's libraries and the Faraday Building. Staff also has the Housing Element available in draft in electronic form that can be e-mailed to anybody who wants it. It is also posted on the City's website. Staff also has provided a notebook in the back with a mailing list for anybody who desires to keep tabs on the Housing Element as it goes through the process. They simply need to provide their name and address on the mailing list in the foyer here. Chairperson Scarpelli commented that the Commission just received some e-mails indicating the Housing Element was not available in detail on the city's website. Are you sure it is there? Mr. Donnell answered that as of 4 p.m. today, it is on the city's website. He would be happy to e-mail it to anyone as well. Just simply put your name and address if you are interested in receiving it, on the notebook in the back. I have also left my business card should anybody wish to contact me or e-mail me with regard to questions. I would like to give the presentation to Veronica Tarn, our consultant. Ms. Tarn said they recognize it has been a couple of years since the Housing Element process was before the Commission so we will have a little refreshment of what the Housing Element is and what we have accomplished so far. The Housing Element is an integral component of the General Plan. It requires the city to look at their current and future housing needs, not only what the city has right now, but what the city will anticipate in the future, and then identify constraints and opportunities for meeting those needs. Once you have identified the constraints and opportunities the City will develop a comprehensive strategy to provide for the housing; particularly focusing on low and moderate income households based on state law. The comprehensive strategy would also establish goals, policies and programs and specific objectives over the planning period of the Housing Element the city must work to achieve. Since the start of the process, we have conducted three workshops to talk about needs, constraints and opportunities. There were three community workshops that were conducted over the process. We identified needs, we talked about constraints and we also talked about opportunities. Once we identified all of the housing issues, some policy changes are necessary to address them. That will be something we are going to touch on tonight; what those policies are and what the changes are that are required in order to meet the needs of the community and also to meet the housing law of the State of California. We have developed a recommendation in the Housing Element, which we are summarizing for you today. Another process we have to decide on is how we are going to process the Housing Element. The San Diego region is an unusual region in a sense that it is the only region in the entire State of California where jurisdictions are allowed to self certify the Housing Element based on specific criteria. Normally the Housing Element needs to go to the State Department of Housing and Community Development for certification review and certification. But while the City of Carlsbad is eligible to self-certify the Housing Element, the City has elected to take it to the state because the state review is much more stringent and once you get a certification from the state, you get a much higher level of legal protection because the state's determination would give you the presumption that you comply with the state. Whereas if you self-certify the Housing Element, you don't necessarily have that kind of protection under the law. The city has elected to go through the State Department of Housing and Community Development and we have since then developed the Housing Element with the intent of meeting every aspect of state law. HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 26, 2007 PAGE 3 of 26 When the Housing Element has to go to the state for review, a very critical component of that review is something called the Regional Housing Needs Allocation. It is something the city must plan to accommodate. The Regional Housing Needs Allocation for the City of Carlsbad is about 8,376 units and is divided into four income categories. Remember this is housing not only for you, but for your future households and your share of the region's growth. All of that together comes to 8,376 units and divided into four income categories with about 40% of that being lower income and another 19% being moderate income. The city's obligation for that is not necessarily to build the units, but instead to provide residential land with adequate density and development standards that facilitates or encourages the development of such units. Your legal obligation is to identify residential sites. Mr. Scott Donnell will discuss with you what the city has already done so far as achieving your RHNA and with what is remaining, how the city is planning on accommodating that from a land use perspective. Referring to a Power Point presentation, Mr. Donnell said the RHNA figures seen here were actually developed for a 7 '/2 year period beginning January 1, 2003, and running through June 30, 2010. The RHNA is an estimate developed by San Diego Association of Governments with State HCD and it is a growth projection; here, pointing to a Power Point slide, he showed the number of units we need to accommodate in that 7 Vi year time period. Even though it is a 7 /2 year time period, it gets transferred into a 5 year housing cycle. Chairperson Scarpelli commented to Mr. Donnell this was referring through December 31, 2006. Are we still on the same page? Mr. Donnell said yes, we are still on the same page. Ms. Tarn said this is units that have been built so far. Mr. Donnell said the reason the chart shows construction over the past four years is because we can take that RHNA number that was developed for a 7 Vi year period and subtract the construction or the units that have been approved from that overall RHNA number. That is what this table shows. We have broken down our construction that has been completed, homes that are under construction or approved by income category; in that four year period. For example, you can see in the above moderate income category, and these tend to be homes in a low density type setting; we have built about 5,500 units in 4 years. In the very low income category, we have completed 203 units in 4 years. If you combine the construction, either completed or approved in the very low and low income categories, you can see we have reached over 1,000 units. That is quite an accomplishment for a city to do. That is largely because of our inclusionary housing program. When you take a look at all of the units that are constructed, under construction, or approved and add those units up, you can see how they compare with our overall RHNA number. For that 7 '/z year period, we had a RHNA of about 8,300 units. When we subtract the units, as this table shows, we are left with a RHNA of about 3,500 units. That means that from the period of January 1, 2007, through June 30, 2010, we need to show that we have sites that are able to accommodate those 3,500 units. As you can see in the very low and low income categories combined together, and they are often referred to as the lower income category, we have about 2,300 units. In other words, we need to make sure we have land and standards that can accommodate those units. One thing we did to make sure we could accommodate those units was do an extensive inventory of all of the vacant land in the city. That was land that was completely vacant, that did not have development proposals on it at this time, and also land that was considered to be under utilized. Land that is under utilized is a property such as a large '/2 acre piece in a general plan designation that allows for high density residential but maybe only has one older single family home on it. If we look at both vacant land and under utilized land, based on the current city general plan land use designations, we found we were still not able to meet our RHNA. There was still a need for several hundred units that we had to provide lands for. That is because Carlsbad is nearing build out, and that is probably obvious to anyone who drives around the city today. Generally the vacant land that is left in Carlsbad now has either been approved for development, although that development has not taken place yet, or has been set aside for open space. This is why some land that you might see vacant is actually not available for development. A case in point HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 26, 2007 PAGE 4 of 26 would be Robertson Ranch the last large master planned community in Carlsbad to be approved, and that just started land development within the past couple of weeks. If we look at those factors, we've examined our vacant land or under utilized land, we know that Carlsbad is reaching build out, we realize there might be changes for the first time that we need to propose in this current housing cycle unlike other previous housing cycles where we actually might have to redesignate lands to accommodate the remaining RHNA that we need. State HCD believes that a minimum density of 30 units per acre is the minimum density necessary to accommodate units in the very low and low income categories. We, however, believe that we do not need to provide that high of a density. In fact, over the years we have demonstrated that it is easy for Carlsbad to ensure high density affordable housing to very low and low income families can be achieved at around 20 dwelling units per acre. We have two land use designations in our general plan that would likely be the ones to provide housing for both lower income families and also moderate income families. We have an RH designation known as residential high density, which allows 15 to 23 dwelling units per acre. As you can see, that is quite a bit below what the state considers to be the minimum density. We also have an RMH designation, which stands for residential medium high density that allows for 8 to 15 dwelling units per acre. That is even further below, and in addition to that, it is below what the state considers to be an adequate density for moderate income housing, which they believe to be at least 12 dwelling units per acre. Based on our current general plan designations, the vacant lands inventory that has been completed for this Housing Element, and the fact the city is nearing build out, it became clear that some changes were necessary to meet our RHNA. There are various changes we are proposing through this draft Housing Element to different properties in the city. Referring to a slide, the first listing of four properties shown, Canyon View, MAG, Ponto and Quarry Creek, are areas in the city in which we are proposing to redesignate at least portions of these properties to a high density residential designation in Carlsbad. The first two properties, Canyon View and MAG, are actually developer initiated proposals. These are applications we have received from private developers, which are proposing land use changes from low density residential to high density residential. Based on the plans submitted by those developers with Canyon View, we can realize a yield of about 377 units and for the MAG project 120 units. For the last two projects listed under that first category, Ponto and Quarry Creek, the city is actually taking the initiative to redesignate these properties to a higher density zoning and which would allow the yields listed. The Quarry Creek property, for example, currently has a low density designation. We are proposing to redesignate a portion of that Quarry Creek site to allow up to 350 high density units. In addition to these projects, there are proposed redesignations to RH or high density residential mixed use. These are properties that would feature mixed use development, being a combination of commercial and residential. The first project, MAG, is once again a developer initiated proposal, which features 14 units that have been set aside for lower income families and a proposed shopping center in the La Costa area. The Ponto project is a city initiated application as are the remaining two proposals. The shopping center mixed-use proposal we have estimated would yield 377 units. That is a proposal the city has put in its draft Housing Element to allow residential at the city's shopping center sites. For example, under the proposed program, a redevelopment of Plaza Camino Real would be possible. The city would establish appropriate changes to its zoning ordinance to allow high density residential to occur at our shopping centers. The proposed program that we put in the draft Housing Element would not make that residential development at shopping centers a mandate; however, it would allow it as a permitted use. In addition, in the village redevelopment area, because there is such a strong potential there for mixed-use residential and commercial development to occur, we are estimating there is a potential yield of 650 units. We take these yields, we add them to our vacant land inventory, we try to determine if this is adequate to meet our RHNA, and we find there are still additional programs that are necessary. We also need to provide land adequate for moderate income housing units. We have a proposal at Canyon View, a developer proposal, to put in 30 units of moderate income housing. Once again, the Quarry Creek site is where the city is proposing to redesignate a portion of that property to accommodate moderate income housing. When I mention moderate income housing and high density housing, it is all proposed to be at a minimum density. We are proposing for our RH designation, which currently allows 15 to 23 dwelling units per acre, or all future development under that RH designation would occur at a minimum 20 dwelling units per acre. Keep in mind that this density is still 10 units lower than what the state considers to be acceptable for lower income. We believe, however, that is HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 26, 2007 PAGE 5 of 26 adequate based on the number of affordable housing projects that have been approved at that density or even below that density. For the RMH category, we are proposing that all future development would occur at 12 units per acre. You may remember the density range now allows RMH densities to go down as low as 8 units per acres. We are also proposing that any future residential development in the village would occur at a minimum density of 23 units per acre, and any residential development that would occur at a shopping center would be at a minimum density of 20 dwelling units per acre. The Housing Element, after it is approved by the City Council, perhaps sometime later this year, will simply approve programs. However, to actually implement these changes to redesignate properties to RH, or whatever the category, will require future public hearings. The Housing Element, therefore, serves as a policy document. But to actually implement the policies, additional public hearings, land use review, environmental review, etc., will still need to occur. If we take the land use designation changes, our vacant lands inventory, and compare that with our remaining RHNA, the next slide shows what results. Just taking a look at the lower income category, for example, when we look at our vacant high density residential sites, all of the redesignations we are proposing, the mixed-use designations we are suggesting, you can see we achieve a lower income unit yield of about 3,100 units. That puts us almost 800 units over our lower income need according to the RHNA. The next category, moderate income, you can see we are not able to meet our RHNA. In fact, we are still about 600 units short. That is okay because we have a surplus of lower income units, and those lower income units can be applied to the moderate income category. At above moderate income you can see we have more units than we need, and ultimately, if you look at the total, we have over 2,100 units more than what we need to satisfy our RHNA. That is a quick summary of the major changes in this proposed Housing Element compared to the previous Housing Element, which covered the housing cycle from 1999 through 2005. Many of the programs from that Housing Element have been carried forward to this proposed document. The major changes lie in our need to meet our RHNA and proposal of all of the various different land use designation changes. Chairperson Scarpelli asked Mr. Donnell if he is proposing that we actually build above the RHNA requirements. Mr. Donnell answered no, no construction is proposed; just simply identifying lands to accommodate residential development. Chairperson Scarpelli said than using the new recommended density, this is what it would create on those parcels? Mr. Donnell said that is correct. It would create us a surplus in the lower income category. Ms. Tarn continued with regard to the Housing Element process, and said the next step is we need to submit the Housing Element to the city for review. Each round of review is 60 days. It is a very intense review process. We anticipate they would take all the way to 60 days, and at the end of that, we will receive a comment letter from the state indicating what their concerns are. At that time it would be the city's decision as to what you would be willing to do and what kind of changes you will be willing to make to your housing policy to meet the state law. At the same time, we also need to complete our environmental clearance documentation for the Housing Element. We anticipate starting that once we start submitting the Housing Element to the state. It is the goal to achieve certification, but it will probably take quite a bit of revisions and comments and negotiations. The adoption probably will not occur until fall of this year. That is the next step for the Housing Element. There are still lots of opportunities for comments and input, particularly during the 60 day review period as it is still considered a public review period. Commissioner Boddy said she has a question about the environmental clearance documentation. I believe it states in the summary there is no CEQA requirement applicable to the Housing Element. Is that correct? HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 26, 2007 PAGE 6 of 26 Mr. Donnell asked Board Member Boddy if she was referring to the staff report. Commissioner Boddy answered yes. Mr. Donnell said it was just referring to this action tonight, but not to the Housing Element itself. Ms. Tarn said for the actual Housing Element you would have to comply with CEQA. It is just like an amendment to the General Plan. Commissioner Boddy said she has a lot of comments. It is a lengthy document. I did go through it. I am not sure we will have time for all of my comments. On page 2-2, the first full paragraph at the top of that page, second sentence starts out "In 2000 residents under-constituted 23.3%." Are you trying to say "residents under 18 years of age constituted 23% of the population?" Mr. Donnell said he does see where she means. Ms. Tarn apologized. We were using track changes to do the corrections. Commissioner Boddy continued on table 2-8 on page 2-10 there is a category that is referred to as "large families" and I think elsewhere in the draft Housing Element it refers to "large households." I'd like to know whether the term "large families" and "large households" mean the same thing, and if so, should we use the same term in order to be consistent? Ms. Tarn said technically they do not mean the same thing. A family is a household, but a household may not be a family. There can be a family of 5 members in the household, but it can also be a household with multiple unrelated people living together. A large household is not a large family. In your community, you don't have a lot of unrelated people living together. Most of the households are families. So in your community it is not that big of a difference. In some communities it is a big difference. I will make sure we are consistent in the terminology. Commissioner Boddy said on table 2-9,1 didn't understand footnote 5 as it applies to the farm workers and military categories. "Percent of employed work force 16 years and older in 2000," I just didn't understand what that was trying to convey. Ms. Tam said in terms of the military personnel and farm workers, it is not as a percentage of your total population. It is a percentage of how many people are in the work force. Commissioner Boddy said on page 2-11 in the section entitled "Persons with Disabilities," the first full paragraph, second sentence it reads, "The census defines a disability as a long lasting physical, mental or emotional condition." Is that really how it is defined? It seems there ought to be something more like that impairs a person's ability to function independently or some further descriptive language would be needed there. Ms. Tam said the census definition is very long. You are correct. I can see what I can do to paraphrase that. Commissioner Boddy said maybe paraphrase it but provide a little bit more than what is there, because that really doesn't say anything. In the next paragraph there is a reference to the poverty level indicating that 9% of persons with disabilities in Carlsbad earned incomes below the poverty level in 1999. The term "poverty level" is used a couple of times, several times in the document. I would like to understand what we mean by that. How does that correlate to the AMI? Is that extremely low? Ms. Tam said it pretty much is extremely low, but it is not defined in that way. It is a complex index of over 40 to 50 factors they looked at. I will have to go back and look at exactly what the dollar amount was, but it probably is HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 26, 2007 PAGE 7 of 26 around $15,000 a year for a household of four. It definitely would fit into your very low and extremely low category, but it is not a direct relation to the AMI. Commissioner Boddy asked if Ms. Tarn could add something on that. I assume that number you just cited is specific to Carlsbad or to San Diego. Ms. Tarn said it is a national level. Commissioner Boddy commented it is a national level, okay. Perhaps you could add a footnote to indicate what we are referring to there. On page 2-12 at the bottom we refer to the North County area and then start talking about the cities of San Diego, Oceanside and Escondido. I never really thought of the city of San Diego as being part of North County. I just question why it is included there. I guess if we are looking at the region, then it would be more accurate to say "in the San Diego county area." Commissioner Boddy continued on table 2-11 on page 2-14,1 didn't understand some of the notations in the far right column where it talks about the number of beds. Does "NA" mean not applicable or that it was not available or zero? Ms. Tam said this table is directly from the homeless strategy, and I think it actually means "not applicable." Commissioner Boddy said further down in the day shelter section and the social services section we have dashes, and I am assuming there it wouldn't be applicable because those are just day shelters or agencies. Ms. Tam said you are correct. The first one is "not available" and the other one is "not applicable." Because it is talking about the number of beds, and the day shelters do not have beds. I will define that better. Chairperson Scarpelli said maybe just another footnote below. Commissioner Boddy said she also thinks it would be helpful that whenever a table continues to the next page, if you could just add "continued" after the title. This is one incident where that occurs, but if you put Table 2-11 Continued, it makes it a little easier to understand what you are looking at. On page 2-16 in the footnote at the bottom, footnote 2,1 think there is a date missing, a year, July 25th, should that be 2004? Table 2-12 on page 2-17,1 understand what single-family detached is, and I understand what multifamily five plus units is. I'd like to make sure I understand the difference between single-family attached and a multifamily two-unit property. What is the difference? Mr. Donnell said single-family attached refers to two units which are attached, but are located on separate lots. They are a zero lot line, in other words. Commissioner Boddy asked if that would be a duplex. Mr. Donnell said yes, like a duplex, assuming each half is on its own lot. Commissioner Boddy said then multifamily two to four could be like a condo complex where they own the interior space but not the ground. Chairperson Scarpelli said typically that is not the situation. Typically the multifamily two to four, duplex is up to four, duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes. It is interesting that is broken out. That is how it is looked at from our perspective in the finance industry. A multifamily is self-explanatory. We ought to look into that because again single-family attached is really saying the same thing as multifamily two to four units. HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 26, 2007 PAGE 8 of 26 Ms. Tarn said to some extent, the definition of housing units has evolved in the different censuses so sometimes it can be what they carry from an old definition as a single-family attached, and you have to think about a lot of the row houses or some of the housing types in other parts of the country. Chairperson Scarpelli said alright then that is a national term. Commissioner Boddy said table 2-14 on page 2-20,1 was just wondering if we have any more current data available for home and condominium sales. Why are we going back so far in time? Ms. Tarn said if you go to table 2-15, we attempt to update that differently. The data that was available in that format back in 2004 is no longer available to the public. We attempted to update it with a median price for 2006. Commissioner Boddy asked where you said that. Ms. Tam said the next table. Commissioner Boddy said on table 2-14 in the notes, there looks like there is some duplication there. It says "either the records did not provide the sale price" and then the third notation is "did not include sale price." Isn't that the same thing? It says there were 342 records excluded. Either they did not provide the sale price 288, did not include number of bedrooms 31, and did not include sale price. Isn't that the same as "did not provide the sale price?" Ms. Tam said she will double check on that. Commissioner Boddy said on table 2-17, again looking at the notes, it defines small family as three persons, large families as five or more persons. Do we mean small family up to three persons? Where would a family of four fit in here? Ms. Tam said we are trying to come up with a general sense of what kind of people can afford what type of prices. The income limits is indexed by household size by one person, two persons, three persons, five persons so instead of doing a massive table with many different household sizes, we picked one which is usually a single senior person living together, three people usually is a young married couple with a young child, and a large family usually is a more mature family with a child and also potentially with an extended family member. That is why we picked one, three and five. If you want to see it, we can do two, three, four, five, six, seven and eight, but it would just make the table very large. Commissioner Boddy asked couldn't you include families of just one or two people in the small category and then get the data in the existing categories you have? Ms. Tam said their income limit would be different. Commissioner Boddy asked Ms. Tam, but you think this is meaningful in the way it is presented? A family of four just seems like such a standard measure of housing to me. Ms. Tam said we can certainly do a family of four. It is a different income limit. Chairperson Scarpelli asked if she would list that with the new listing on your chart of a family of four with their income limit. Commissioner Boddy said table 2-19 on page 2-26 in the headings we are referring to "elderly" as a category. Is that the same as seniors, and if so, should we just say seniors since that is the term we have used previously? On table 2- 20 there is a typo in the header column, "earliest date of conversion" instead of "data of conversion." Would it be HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 26, 2007 PAGE 9 of 26 possible to add the zip code or the quadrant for each of these projects that are listed here; the inventory of assisted rental housing? That way we can see it at a glance where in the city these are located. Mr. Donnell asked if those are the projects listed in table 2-20 that should have information like northwest quadrant or zip code. Commissioner Boddy said yes. You have the address, which is good, but if you could also include the zip code or quadrant, that would be helpful. I had a question on the market value of the at-risk housing units. I saw the methodology that was employed here, but I couldn't figure out how you derived the market value. I didn't have a lot of time to study this, so maybe if I spent a little longer, I could have figured it out, but the market you have for Seascape Village in Santa Fe Ranch I think it was the net annual income number that I couldn't get because the gross annual income minus the annual operating costs didn't equate to the net annual income. So was there something else that was being deducted there to get that net annual income number? Ms. Tam said she'll have to check on that. Commissioner Boddy said she was also wondering if the staff had considered any alternative evaluation methodologies. Or if you did, maybe you could briefly state in the Housing Element why you chose this one. Ms. Tam asked if it is in terms of the costs. Commissioner Boddy said yes, in terms of the valuation. There are lots of different ways to determine market value. Ms. Tam said there are many different ways, and I think the important thing is we are looking at a magnitude. There is no way to really come up with accurate unless you do a very detailed analysis and interview the actual property owners. What we are trying to do is compare the different options for preserving the units. What would be the more costly? Not necessarily the precise number of the amount, but generally if you are talking about rent subsidies, if you are talking about buying the unit versus if you are talking about building new units, what is the most costly option amount. We are doing only a general analysis here and certainly not a detailed analysis because we don't have the specific information incorporation of the property owners. Commissioner Smith asked are you saying this is estimation. Ms. Tam said it is just a general estimate. We have used this methodology with the state many times and they have accepted this as one of the methodologies. Commissioner Boddy said than this is a standard accepted method. I guess that was helpful to know that. Chairperson Scarpelli said he does have a question on the methodology. What you are doing is you are looking at fair market value estimates and using that appraisal method. Since these are remaining in the affordable housing inventory, would it not be advisable to consider looking at them at cost basis because they are not going on the market and it would give you a more realistic picture of actual cost values? Ms. Tam said but these are privately owned. If somebody wants to sell it, they are not going to sell it at cost. They are going to sell it at a profit. Chairperson Scarpelli said, but they have limitations on their ability to put them on the market because they are in the affordable housing inventory. Ms. Tam said no. These are actually multifamily revenue bond projects. When the bond expires, they can sell it. Chairperson Scarpelli commented that is 25 to 30 years. HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 26, 2007 PAGE 10 of 26 Commissioner Boddy said on the next page on 2-30, it states "assuming an average development cost of $200,000 per unit for multifamily rental housing." What is that assumption based on? Ms. Tam said she should say actually an average subsidy. That is closer to the reality. I have reviewed a lot of the market studies by affordable housing developers, and the average subsidies for affordable housing is typically around $200,000 per unit in the North County area if you are talking about 20 units per acre. If you are talking about higher, the subsidies naturally go higher. Commissioner Boddy asked when you say subsidy, do you mean the amount of money that the local municipality contributes to that project or are you talking about grants or what? Ms. Tam answered it doesn't necessarily mean that it is a local government that subsidizes it, but it is the gap financing required in order to make a unit affordable. It can be funding that came from this state. It can be funding that came from other kind of sources from the federal government, but in reviewing a number of affordable housing developments in the North County area, the average for lower density, about 20 units per acre, for lower income households is around $200,000. I should say it is a gap financing. Commissioner Boddy said she would prefer if Ms. Tam used the term "gap financing." On table 3-3 on page 3-6, in the reference to Roosevelt Gardens, which is the last project listed, the number of units is shown as 11 total, 11 affordable. It is just a total of 11 units, right? Mr. Donnell said correct. Commissioner Boddy asked if that shouldn't be just 11 like Mariposa and La Paloma. It is a little confusing. I think it should just be 11 and not 11/11. Mr. Donnell said he sees the inconsistency. Commissioner Boddy said she wrote in the margin "good" on the proposal to amend the RH land use designation to require a minimum of 20 dwelling units per acre. I think that is a good idea. I don't want to get too granular here. I also agree with the proposal to look at shopping center sites as potential locations for financing city housing. I support that. When we talk about second units, it is mentioned on page 3-15 that could be just an addition right to someone's home? It doesn't have to be a free standing structure, right? It can just be an addition. Is that what a second unit can be? Mr. Donnell said it can be self-contained with a kitchen. It could be attached or detached. Commissioner Boddy continued then as long as it is within the zoning, it doesn't really matter how they do it, right? Mr. Donnell answered right. Chairperson Scarpelli commented there are limitations on square footage on a second dwelling unit. Commissioner Boddy said on page 3-18, in the first full paragraph, first sentence, it refers to the minimum density of 12 and 20 units per acre, which would be adequate for lower and moderate income housing respectively. I think it is moderate and lower, respectively. Twelve would be for moderate, and 20 would be for lower income? Mr. Donnell said you are correct. HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 26, 2007 PAGE 11 of 26 Commissioner Boddy said on table 4-1 on page 4-2, when we are looking at land costs, did I see the prices here were derived from the MLS listings of advertised prices or asking prices? Did these lots sell anywhere close to these prices? Did the city look at actual sold data? There can be a big difference between what people ask and what they get. Ms. Tam said we will see what we can do. I have only access to what is advertised. I am not a real estate agent, but this actually I went through a real estate agent to pull that from. Commissioner Boddy said he or she should be able to give you the sold data as well as advertised data. That would be more useful. On page 6-13 in the program 3-6 "Land Banking" the last sentence of the full paragraph I think there might be an extra word in there. I didn't quite get the meaning. This land would be used to reduce the land costs of producing lower and moderate income housing developed by the city. Ms. Tam said I think we can just take that out. Commissioner Boddy said on the next page 6-14 program 3.7, Housing Trust Fund Objectives and Time Frame, and there is one bullet and it refers to actively pursue housing activities to timely encumber and I think the word we want here is "disburse" housing trust fund, not "disperse." On a more substantive level, can someone please help me understand what we mean in the next section 3.8, second objective, and the second bullet, "Seek to maximize the lease-out rate of the allocated vouchers?" What does that mean? Ms. Tam said the Housing Authority is allocated a certain number of vouchers they can provide to the very low income households. However, because of the market conditions, a lot of property owners may not be willing to accept the vouchers so the lease out rates sometimes are not optimum so there are unused vouchers that unfortunately if you don't use it, you tend to lose it. Or in the future you will receive lower subsidies in future years. We are trying to say the Housing Authority tried to solicit more participation by property owners to accept the vouchers. Commissioner Boddy asked, so we have vouchers that are unused because there are not enough properties available where that qualify in the program, right? I guess then if that is the case, why would we pursue additional vouchers as well? Ms. Debbie Fountain, Director of Housing and Redevelopment, said she might add the way HUD has recently changed the program, we probably need to change this description. You now get a lump sum amount of money. We used to actually get voucher designations like we had 700 vouchers, but now there is a limited amount of money. We try to stretch that money as far as we can. Sometimes it might get you 630 households on the program; sometimes it might get you 660 households on the program; it depends on how much you subsidize each household within that maximum amount of money you are getting. So it is not so much now just on a total number of vouchers. It is how much money you get. Technically they say they are giving you funding for 700 vouchers, but it really doesn't work out quite that way. What we really will be doing is trying to pursue as we can. They still call them vouchers and funding for vouchers, but we will just try to pursue getting more funding for an estimated number of vouchers, but it can vary in how many you actually issue. Commissioner Boddy said looking at page B-3, the appendix B, page 3, Summary of 1999 Housing Element Accomplishments, in the rehabilitation section where we talk about the progress as of December 2005, it says the building department continued to monitor housing conditions as part of its code enforcement activities and structures are reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Can we provide any more detail on this in terms of how many structures actually were identified within the last Housing Element timeframe? This seems a little vague. Is there any data we could bring forth on this point to show what the city has done in this area in the past is what I am asking. Mr. Donnell said yes, we'll look into that. Chairperson Scarpelli said what you are suggesting here is record of performance? HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 26, 2007 PAGE 12 of 26 Board Member Boddy answered yes, I was just looking for more detail. This is a summary of our accomplishments so I think it would be in our interest to show a little more specifically what we did in that area. On page B-18 regarding priority processing, program 3-7-F, which is around the middle of the page where we talk about progress as of 2005, it simply says "the city continued to offer priority processing for lower income development projects." Again, could we maybe say more there; provide a little more detail on what we actually did, how many times we did provide priority processing and how much faster it was. Just some more detail would be helpful. On page B-21 when we are talking about the objective of smaller, more affordable housing, in the progress statement there in the middle of the first paragraph it says that "after the city amended is planned development ordinance and revised development standards, this resulted in the development of smaller dwelling units in the city." I guess I was surprised by that because it seems to me just from a layman's perspective that many of the housing units that have been built since 2001 have been larger than in the past, not smaller. Could we again provide some more background and detail here to support this statement if this is indeed true. I've seen a lot of 3 and 4,000 square feet homes being built around where I live so I'd like to know about these smaller dwelling units that we say have resulted. On table B-3 in the Land Banking Activities where we refer to Cassia Heights in the development status it says "under construction." I thought we were open there. Ms. Fountain said we are now but I think when we were preparing this document, we were still under construction. Commissioner Boddy asked is it too late to change it? I guess at some point we will revise that. Ms. Fountain said we could make a comment as to when the expected completion day was. Commissioner Boddy said on Goal 4 on page B-24 where we talk about "housing, jobs and work force balance." I guess the city in its earlier Housing Element had a goal, as referenced here as Program 4-1, of assessing the impact of commercial and industrial development on housing demand and the ability of local employees to afford local housing, etc., talking about mitigation measures that will be considered to reduce the impact, including requirement for commercial and industrial developers and employers to contribute in-lieu fees towards the production of affordable housing and employer assistance to finance affordable housing for their employees, so it is work force housing I gather. Then in the progress statement, it says "the city did not implement this program." I'd like to know why not, and is it something we should address in this document? Mr. Donnell said it has been a program that has been discussed for quite a while. I believe there has even been a study prepared that would suggest ways it could be accomplished, but it is not a program or a policy that the Council chooses to enforce. Commissioner Boddy asked, chooses to enforce or to adopt? Mr. Donnell answered either, but more correct to say adopt. Commissioner Boddy said this may be already obvious and implicit, but on energy conservation, which I happen to believe is very important and we need to promote that in all of our projects, it says in terms of our progress, "the city continues to implement energy conservation measures in new development." I wrote in the margin "how." I read further it says "the energy conservations measures are incorporated into the city's development review process," which I'm not entirely familiar with so maybe it is just a gap in my knowledge. I would really like to know a little bit more about how we do that. Does energy conservation in any way make it more difficult to provide affordable housing, and if so, how, and is there anything we can do to mitigate that? Ms. Tam said in this particular program we were referring to the state building code title 24 so it is complying with that. In the development review process it would be to make sure the developer complies with the basic standards under the building code. I don't think there is anything above and beyond that we are referring to in here. If you are HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 26, 2007 PAGE 13 of 26 talking about just meeting the building code, then there should be no impact on affordable housing because everybody else has to do the same thing. This is for basic health and safety reasons, and so there is no particular impact unless you subsidize the cost. Otherwise there is no impact to that. Chairperson Scarpelli said the questions he had dealt with sensitive area. We are talking about reducing density on the basis of state recommended density recommendations. We are bringing forth a program that is reducing density further from 30 down to 20 dwelling units per acre, for example. Yet we have some very sensitive areas that the public has advised us about that they would like to see preserved. Isn't it one working against the other by bringing into the fold areas or parcels of land that are being recommended when we know there is a concern, even if we are just reading a local newspaper? For example, we were talking earlier about the fact we just received a bunch of e- mails on our dais here just a moment ago. I happened to receive mine one hour earlier thanks to a phone call from Patti and my request that they be sent to me immediately. There is a concern about historical sites, sensitive sites that the public is saying to us in the City of Carlsbad, we do not want these to be considered in the land inventory that we are presenting. I realize this is a draft, and I realize there is a lot of work to be done before it gets into a formalized approved form. But why do we even bother doing that from the beginning? The concern that I had, the reason I ask the question, is we have in the projected numbers; we are projecting a considerable amount of surplus over our required need for affordable housing in the city. Am I correct in that? Mr. Donnell said yes and no. We have a greater than we need number of units in the lower income category, but we have much less than we need in the moderate income category. Chairperson Scarpelli said if I'm correct, we have 637 is the only negative number there, right? Mr. Donnell answered correct. Chairperson Scarpelli said that can be balanced out by any one of those easily. Ms. Tarn said only the lower income can balance the moderate income. The above moderate cannot go down. Chairperson Scarpelli said okay. And if I am correct, I am looking at 2,000 units in excess. Ms. Tarn said no you are looking at an excess of — Chairperson Scarpelli said the above moderate income then. Ms. Tarn said the above moderate income cannot be balanced for the lower income. The 1,900 units in the above moderate you can not use it to balance the moderate or lower income. Only the lower income can be used to balance the moderate income. Chairperson Scarpelli commented you could get more affordability into the units by increasing density versus decreasing density. Ms. Tam agreed. Chairperson Scarpelli said, so we are recommending that we go from 30 to 20, and I guess what I am saying is by doing that aren't we then making it necessary to go for more land? Aren't we working against ourselves there? Mr. Donnell said he'd like to clarify that. No we are not recommending a decrease. The 30 is a default density that the state says is adequate for higher density housing or for lower income housing. Our high density housing now has a minimum range of 15 to 23 units per acre with a growth control point of 19 dwelling units per acre. Historically, most developments at that higher density have occurred at about the growth control point for 19 dwelling units per HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 26, 2007 PAGE 14 of 26 acre. We are actually proposing in this Housing Element to bring that up to a minimum of 20 dwelling units per acre. Chairperson Scarpelli said he is still confused. Are we still talking in the same category when we are talking about the 30 units per acre? Mr. Donnell answered yes. Chairperson Scarpelli continued then we've got a control point of 19 and we are recommending 20. We still have a spread of 10. Mr. Donnell agreed, but the state's de facto density, 30 units per acre, is not anything the city has adopted. That has never been a minimum density of ours. Chairperson Scarpelli said he recognizes that. Shouldn't the city possibly be considering greater density so we don't need to get into sensitive areas to create the units we are required to create? Have we addressed that possibility? This is a sensitive area. We all know it here. I guess that was emphasized by the information we received. I think it needs to be taken into consideration in this report. I recognize this is a draft. I recognize the approval we will make this evening would be just to simply get it up to the state so they can look at it and they can come back with their recommendations. We will have ample opportunity to address the concerns of the citizenry in this document, is that correct, before it is approved? Mr. Donnell said yes it is. Shelley Hayes Caron, resides at the Marron Adobe: I am concerned, even though this is in draft form, that it is going to the state identifying the Quarry Creek area, which is what we are talking about as a sensitive area. A lot of things have occurred since this document started to grow. That is, of course, the recent 134 acre land acquisition made and just closed escrow in March. That is pretty much half of the valley there. I furnished you with some more update on the newsletter from January to March, and it discusses reclamation, restoration and rehabilitation of mining sites, which is the only obstacle in connecting the water fall, the El Salto Falls, to the continuous undeveloped, untouched property. Within those areas in the mining site that haven't been disturbed, there are other concerns of cultural resources. I would request that this Commission come on a site visit, if you haven't been to the area and to the Adobe and look at it first hand. The mapping certainly shows it as just a small reach, and this could be something of great benefit to the city, not that housing isn't a benefit to people that need it, but this particular site is not a site that should be considered for smart growth. If it is approved, it would bisect the recently acquired land with a road system, and I can't see the public and the agency spending 9 Vi million dollars in the future. It seems totally counter. I've attended SANDAG meetings, and there are thoughts that perhaps this should never have been put on a smart growth track. I am concerned that even though it is in draft form, that it will be seen at the state level, and then how easy is that to remove it and resubmit that for comment again. Anyone that reviews this is going to assume these sites are what you have chosen and there couldn't maybe be a change later. That is what my concern is. Commissioner Smith asked if there is any way the Commission could go and see the site. Chairperson Scarpelli said I'm sure we can set up an arrangement to see the site. I am not going to be available for the next couple of weeks. I am on vacation after Saturday so I can't, but I'm sure the rest of the Commission could if they so chose to take Shelley's invitation and go to the site. Commissioner Boddy said, I won't be serving on the Commission unfortunately after tonight. I would still like to go visit the site though. Chairperson Scarpelli said he would talk with Ms. Fountain on that and see what could be arranged in that area. HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 26, 2007 PAGE 15 of 26 Tom Maddox, 511 Rudder Avenue, one of the original members of the Farm Worker's Housing Task Force: On page 2-10, I was gratified to see that farm workers are still listed as a special needs group within this draft Housing Element. I was a little surprised, however, in table 2.9 to see the number listed as 101 farm workers residing within the city. I thought you might want to consider adding a note something like on page 2-15, because on that page you do indicate this is based on census data, probably under-reported. You might even want to indicate where you say, "however the census likely under estimated," you might want to say "undoubtedly" or "most likely." I know I have spoken to the general manager of Lesley Farms who operates the strawberry fields and he tells me they have 50 employees during light harvest, peaking at more than 200 employees during their peak harvest. You, of course, have the flower fields. Although farming probably is on the decline, I seem to notice new, small fields popping up here and there. There is one on Cannon Road on 1-5 right by the railroad track, one at Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real, sort of the approach to the airport, so I think there are a lot more farm workers out there. Also, perhaps to some extent with the development of the golf course and the new timeshare resort, and I have no quarrel with either of those projects, but I think some of our farm workers are probably being displaced to neighboring cities and over crowded living arrangements. In terms of the new housing plan and some of the goals, I did note on page 6-16, you might want to consider listing on the farm labor housing, this is program 3.13, and you make the reference to the prior laws in terms of density for farm workers. On page 4.11 you pointed the city had amended its zoning code in 2004 to permit higher density farm labor housing developments with a conditional use permit. Just a thought you might want to recite that again. However, more importantly, I was thinking on the funding sources, I wondered if you might consider adding another possible source of funding as the affordable housing trust fund that is mentioned back on 3-19. I am not sure if that is a viable source, but I thought it might be a possibility. More on point, as most of you know, the city's agricultural conversion mitigation fee fund has a specific category for farm worker housing. I thought you might want to mention that as well. Then in terms of appendix B and the Summary of Accomplishments, page B-l 1 where farm workers are discussed. This might be an issue just because this is a snapshot in 2005, but this section ends with a reference to the committee I have been involved in and indicates that to date we have not been successful, but you are continuing to work with us. We are actually still working on a project with Catholic Charities at La Posada de Guadalupe to try to add 72 beds at that facility. I don't know if you wanted to mention something like that here or leave this as a snapshot as of 2005. Although again, since you are talking about accomplishments, you might again want to mention the creation of that special category within the agricultural mitigation funds that addresses farm worker housing. Mel Vernon, 4010 Loma Alta Drive, San Diego, CA 92115, San Luis Rey Bank of Mission Indians: The Quarry site and that whole valley, to me, is a very special place. To me it looks like a place that has been avoided by time, for whatever reason, and now we are looking at it as one of the last places to develop. That is why it is such a jewel, I think, from both directions, from both developers and also people who want to preserve it. I am personally connected to the land there with my great-grandmother, Lagrada Garcia. She was born in 1865 under the pepper tree. A little further up the valley is the secret water fall meaning something to the Indian people. When you say the word sacred, it hits everybody a little bit differently, but being people from the earth and the area and connecting ourselves with the land. There was also a hearth found there that was 6,000 years old. We don't have to make something up. It is something that has to be acknowledged and a lot of this stuff isn't acknowledged. Maybe it is because people today have different ideas of what values are. People look at a piece of land and they see dollar signs. I look at a piece of land, and I see culture, I see our connection through who we are here. I look at a city and part of things I have been seeing is the Native Americans haven't been represented hardly at all but maybe in the library here and there. We can't go downtown here and find any of the culture that is really here under our feet. That is something that has been farmed over by our early pioneers and some of my ancestors because it wasn't important to them. They were busy surviving and doing what they had to do that day. When you look at some of the past, you realize some of the ancestors that were here in Carlsbad where Lego Land is, those ancestors were here before there was an America, before there was a United States. Those people lived and died in their own time. What I am looking at when I look at these, I see that some of these special places have survived to this generation and I see it as a legacy to pass on to our future generation. Open space is becoming endangered. If we build on all the open spaces, people will have to go further out somewhere else to find an artificially created open space. Those are just some of the concerns that go through my mind. I like the creative thinking about spreading some of these things HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 26,2007 PAGE 16 of 26 away from us; let somebody else carry some of the burden so it doesn't come back to this piece of land that I see as actually a bubble. If that bubble bursts, we lost it. Don Christiansen, 3715 Longview Drive, Carlsbad, Smart Growth in the Buena Vista Creek Valley: I'd like to share that I don't consider this area under discussion Quarry Creek. It is the Buena Vista Creek that feeds in to the Buena Vista Lagoon. Quarry is the name of a shopping center that was built within a few feet, asphalt was laid within a few feet, of a unique natural resource, El Salto waterfalls, that go back 9,000 years in Native American culture that was the site of the Portola Expedition where they camped in 1769. They camped at what is commonly known as El Salto waterfalls, the Buena Vista Creek Valley. Quarry Creek is the shopping center. Having said that, this area is a unique, natural resource. I have been a member of the Carlsbad Historic Preservation for over eight years, and last year the Commission decided that El Salto waterfalls and the Buena Vista Creek Valley was the number one priority for preservation in the City of Carlsbad. The letter to City Council also went on to say that in our opinion it was the most important preservation effort in the last eight years. Recently, the Carlsbad Open Space Committee that has met for over a year examining different pieces of land throughout Carlsbad to be designated as permanent open space arrived at the Buena Vista Creek Valley and El Salto waterfalls as their number one priority for open space. This piece of land deserves more than more asphalt and stucco. It is too special to just treat like another development. Isabella Viney, 2326 Byron Place, Carlsbad: I am here to recite an essay that I wrote in school about saving El Salto Falls. Near the Marron Adobe a waterfall stands. A Wal-Mart was put right by it. Why build more? El Salto Falls is part of the Buena Vista Creek. This land supports a rich diversity of plants and animals. Not only is it a main area for animals to eat and drink, it is one of the few natural and cultural places you can visit. If this place was destroyed, many of environmental issues would pop up. I could imagine you disagreeing with this. You may think, we need more places to buy clothes, food and supplies. We already have so many stores. Once again I ask you, why build more? Why not take down unneeded buildings to put another in its place to make room. Sure it is unused land. Sure, we could put houses there, but it provides a home for animals that otherwise might go crawling into your home. This land has many historical reasons why it should be kept as a landmark, not a Wal-Mart. El Salto Falls was part of the original Rancho Aqua Hedionda land grant. The area has been recorded in history from the time of the Portola expedition of 1769. Before that and for a long, long time, it was a sacred site for Native Americans. Keeping El Salto Falls could also be a tourist attraction. The City of Carlsbad could earn money. They could put a stand after we knock down Wal-Mart on top of the hill the falls are on and we could sell sunglasses, cameras and hats, then we could lead the people through a gate to take pictures of El Salto falls with their new cameras. This wouldn't be good for nothing land now would it? Preserving El Salto Falls should be a main priority for the residents of Carlsbad. It would be very sad if we didn't have this beautiful place anymore. Chairperson Scarpelli commented that was a beautiful essay. Did you get an A+? Ms. Viney said, I don't know yet. They haven't graded it yet. Chairperson Scarpelli said, if I were your teacher, I would definitely give you an A+. Gary Duerst, 155 Juniper Avenue: I am not hear to speak on the falls. Some of the points they made are along the same lines that I have feelings about also. In college I was an econ major and a poly sci minor and spent two years in real estate in mobile homes so I have that background. I spent 18 years as a senior bureaucrat for a governmental agency in the inland empire area. What I am going to say plays back to all of that background. The first point is the basic rules of supply and demand. What property is worth is primarily location, location, location. Two of the areas that you have listed as locations for lower income housing are the Village and Ponto areas that are west of the 5 that are location, location, location. I find it extremely difficult to believe that trying to average what your support level is going to be for property that close to the water and using an average for North County low income housing overall is mis-based. As the folks said related to the fall situation, I know enough about bureaucracies to know that you can give them more, but don't try and take it back after you have turned it in. In telling them that you are going to be plus 778 on lower income, you are going to pay hell trying to take that back again later on. It just so happens those numbers you put up there said 650 for the Village and 128 for Ponto, which happens to total 778. At an absolute HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 26, 2007 PAGE 17 of 26 minimum I would suggest you move those two areas from the lower income to the moderate income, and because of location, you will find it extremely difficult in reality to ever be able to make moderate income housing available in those areas. People will pay a premium to live there regardless of the size of the units. I am not arguing over the density. I am arguing over the classification that you are going to put low income housing that close to the beach. The only way you will do it is to pay massive subsidies. Then the only people who will get that will be those who win the lottery because they will not be able to afford those properties. Everybody and their uncle will want in. Their names will go in a hat, and somebody will be a lottery winner. My personal feelings are that the laws of supply and demand should decide who gets to live in the most expensive property. That location makes it the most expensive property. How much low income housing do you think we would find designated in Newport Beach, Malibu or La Jolla, and that is our future. Especially west of 1-5, that is where Carlsbad is going. We aren't San Bernardino. We aren't Marino Valley. We aren't Paris. We aren't even Escondido. This is high priced property and we are kidding ourselves to think we are going to put low income housing west of 1-5. It won't happen. Brian Milich, McMillin Companies: Originally I was not planning on speaking tonight, recognizing this is a general plan level issue and we are not here really to talk about specific properties. However, as you know we are the future owner of the Quarry Creek property and the issue has come up both in the report and in some of the discussion tonight. I thought I would at least let you know our position as the future developers of that property. In terms of the staff position and the recommendation going forward, in general we are supportive of that. We have not, at this point, submitted any development applications. In fact, we are following behind the Hanson Aggregate Reclamation process which is just starting its public review process, but we have not submitted any development plans to the city. We actually find ourselves in a unique position where the city staff is a little bit ahead of us. Normally we are pushing the process along, but in this case staff is moving forward with a potential general plan amendment, which at this point, we are not here to discuss the details of the project. However, because issues of the project will undoubtedly be raised throughout this process, I think it needs to be made very clear that while the 168 acre site certainly has the potential to accommodate the type of densities that staff is proposing, we recognize there will definitely be a lot of discussion and need to address all of the sensitive resources on the site. Should all 168 acres be developed? Absolutely not. Should the Quarry Creek Falls, should the Buena Vista Creek be preserved? Absolutely. We recognize the city's general plan already designates a large portion of the site for residential development. Its habitat management plan has hard lined that area. It has clearly identified the sensitive resources on the site. We are well aware and had discussions already at a preliminary level with some of the community. We recognize that the falls are a very significant resource that will have to be preserved. We recognize the creek and the valley itself are significant resources and will be preserved. I would simply ask that as you go through this process, you recognize this site could be, and in fact should be, an important element in providing much needed housing for the city and the region as well. I believe very strongly that both objectives, open space preservation, and housing provision, can be met on this site, I think they can be met very adequately, and I think at the end of the day we can have a very unique and exemplary process. The last point that I want to make is if you look on the big picture of sustainability, environmental orientation in new developments, Quarry Creek actually is a site that not only should develop, but really has to develop. It is a brown field development. It is already a heavily impacted site. By not developing this site, you put undue pressure on other sensitive areas that probably shouldn't be developed. We just set aside almost 50% of the Robertson Ranch Project for open space. Those are areas that will not be developed, have been taken out of the city's ability to put units in those areas for appropriate reasons. If you take a highly impacted area, not all of the site but a portion of Quarry Creek is highly impacted because of the quarry operations, and make it open space, I think you are going to end up putting pressure on areas that should be preserved permanently. At the end of the day, I think portions of Quarry Creek should absolutely develop. I think portions of Quarry Creek should not be developed and should, in fact, be preserved and maybe enhanced. We fully understand the disparate views on this. We are fully prepared to address those. I would again ask you to look at the big picture, as I know you will, as you go through this process. I would be more than happy to answer any questions that you might have. Chairperson Scarpelli said it does appear that the communications with those people who are activist in the area with preserving the Buena Vista Creek and El Salto Falls, which is the proper name and that was brought to our attention this evening, but I think absolute communication with folks that are trying to preserve this site is absolutely essential. HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 26, 2007 PAGE 18 of 26 It is not meeting with the city and it is not meeting with us. I believe you have to get that dialog going and see what can be done to satisfy the concerns of the citizenry that are concerned about maintaining this historical site for the reasons mentioned here at the meeting tonight. I am sure something can work out to the mutual benefit of the citizenry and the developer, and I am sure compromise will have to be reached in accomplishing this. I would suggest the sooner you start dialoging with them the better. Commissioner Smith said she agrees with Commissioner Scarpelli. I think you should have a meeting with the people and try to work something out. I was deeply touched when they said this is sacred ground. I too have Indian descent and I have heard my family speak of their feelings. I think we should speak with the people. Peggy Dornish, 6873 Carnation Drive: I am speaking to you on behalf of the League of Women Voters North Coast, San Diego County, an organization of over 250 members. Our league has a long history of involvement in local and regional government, especially with respect to land use and transportation. We generally support SANDAG's Smart Growth projects. At their suggestion, we are bringing several concerns to your attention this evening. The League of Women Voters urge: 1. All sites in the preliminary plan undergo further review of environmental impact in order to eliminate those with significant constraints. 2. In as much as what we call the Quarry Creek site, it is both environmentally and culturally important, the league strongly recommends that it be removed as a possible site from the smart growth concept map. 3. It appears to us this site fails to meet basic smart growth design guidelines. That is on the one hand, it would require building new roads through an area with significant natural, cultural, and historical resources. On the other hand, since it is not on a transit corridor yet, it is close to a freeway ramp and it is likely to encourage auto use rather than other modes of desired transportation such as public transit. Diane Nygaard, 5020 Nighthawk Way, Oceanside, CA 92056: I am here tonight representing Preserve Calavera and our over 1,900 families. Our focus is on preserving the largest remaining natural land left in all of coastal north county. It is the Calavera area of northeastern Carlsbad and we distributed a handout to you for your consideration. We recognize you are under tremendous pressure from SANDAG who wants to add a millibn more people to San Diego County and from the state who wants a lot more housing and a lot more affordable housing, but your responsibility is really to this community. This community we think has made it clear what their concerns are. You are the ones with the responsibility for approving this housing plan. What you approve in this plan is likely to determine what the Carlsbad of the future really looks like. We support affordable housing. We support smart growth. But what we don't support, and we know this community doesn't support, is destroying what makes this community so special. Our concern is not really the details of the housing element. It is one thing. It is the 600 units proposed at Quarry Creek. The Buena Vista Creek Valley , as you point out, is a creek and a waterfall that is priceless. Our organization, with the support of over 700 members of this local community just raised the funds to leverage the acquisition of the Sherman property; 130 acres of new open space, half of the remaining Buena Vista Creek Valley. Words really can't tell you how we feel having spent years of effort to save half of this valley to see you throw that away or potentially throw it away and simply put twice as much development on the other half of the valley. It was an easy choice for staff to look at this valley, and you clearly have a willing developer, but it is not the right choice for this community. The valley is priceless. The residents of this area have made it clear how they feel about it. Please honor their wishes. Direct your staff to go back to the drawing board and come back with a plan that really balances these issues. We can save one of the special places that still hasn't been lost to the bulldozers if we have the vision and the courage to do it. You only have one chance to see that this is done right. We ask you to send this back to the staff until you are satisfied this is the best plan that it can be. Brad Roth, 1507 Rubenstein Avenue, Cardiff 92007, works in the environmental field: Apparently there is a surplus of about 2,000 units in the above moderate income category of something like 3,500 needed. It seems to me the city has been approving too many units in the high income categories and not enough in the low income. Now there is pressure to make up for the deficit at the expense of open space, increased density, and so on. I think we need to recognize that. I have a question. Does the city maintain the lower income housing designation in perpetuity? I HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 26, 2007 PAGE 19 of 26 know in Encinitas they give density bonus and they say this is going to be a low income unit so the developer gets a density bonus. But it only has to remain a low income unit for 30 years. Is there anything like that? Ms. Fountain answered our projects are 55 years for rentals, which is considered the life of the project, and 30 years for a for-sale product. Mr. Roth continued the impression he gets in Encinitas is there is a gradual erosion of the low income housing stock because of this 30 year thing. Chairperson Scarpelli asked Mr. Roth if that answered his question. It is 55 on the rental units, and it is 30 on the for-sale properties. Mr. Roth said it does seem to me that in 30 years your low income units are going away, that is contributing to your problem and maybe there needs to be a look at that. You are just eroding your low income housing over a 30 year period. I don't understand this table. If there is a surplus of above moderate income units, and a deficit of moderate income units, I'm not sure I understand the whole thing correctly, why can't you build less of the above moderate and more moderate? Ms. Tarn answered, when you designate a site, you designate it by zoning category, by density, and the state tends to equate density with affordability, but it doesn't necessarily say this site will have to become lower income housing. When we look at the density, above the moderate income we are talking about units that are at a very low density range, which the state will not accept as possible or feasible for moderate or lower income development. So they are really equating density with affordability. When you look at land that is really low density, they would not accept it. Mr. Roth asked if you would have to change the zoning. Then maybe that is something they need to look at doing. I really came here tonight to address the Hanson Aggregates property use. I had been hearing about the El Salto falls for quite a few years, and I went there the first time and I was just thunderstruck that here I was standing in the parking lot of this huge shopping center 15 to 20 feet away from this falls, which has Indian sacred site just written all over it. You have to go probably 30 miles in any direction to find anything close to this spectacular of a waterfall. McMillian Company, as I understand, put that shopping center practically on top of it. You should get an aerial view of this site, or just go to the back corner of the parking lot at the shopping center. This huge sign is sitting right above this falls. You just wonder, what were they thinking? The first time I went there I thought they must have done this years and years ago before anybody knew any better. Then I find out this thing is a couple or three years old. It just was mind boggling to me. To me it is obvious the falls should be the centerpiece of a beautiful park not the back slope of some shopping center parking lot. The damage to the site is just incredible. On the other side of the falls, there is asphalt and broken rock piled up. I couldn't believe the way this site, which is so unique, was treated. I think maybe the city and the developer owe the community a debt from the damage they have already done to this site. Peg Crilly, 2330 Paseo de Laura, Oceanside: I would first like to thank you for recognizing the many e-mails and comments the citizens have put forward in support of saving the valley and the waterfalls. That is really important for us. I am urging you not to rezone any part of the Buena Vista Creek Valley for housing or commercial units. This site includes much beauty and is a sacred site listed in the Native American Registry. We need to respect that. This sacred site does not mean "vacant land that needs housing on it." The Buena Vista Creek Valley and waterfalls are one of the few remaining sites of historical, cultural and natural resource significance. It needs to be preserved and protected for future generations so they know what natural space is and can honor the historical and natural aspects when they study it in school. Personally, this valley has become very endeared to me even though I have lived here less than two years. I understand it has a unique history to it, and even one that my parents liked to see when they came to visit this past June. I also recognize people have always sought out natural spaces for spiritual and emotional renewal; especially in those times when the beaches are crowded with tourists. This is why we need the waterfalls and the creeks. The local community cares about the Buena Vista Creek Valley. Hundreds of residents attended the fund raiser and educational days at the Adobe for the Sherman parcel, including myself. We HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 26, 2007 PAGE 20 of 26 all donated much time, energy and money to save the valley. We all have the intention that the valley be preserved and protected. Building housing and commercial units will destroy the natural habitat along with the cultural and historical significance. The many important species need that wildlife corridor over there. In the presentation we heard tonight, we saw that there is plenty of available land for low and moderate income housing units and other vacant lots that are underutilized. Please use that. I am all for affordable housing, but not at this site. The Quarry area should be restored and reclaimed for natural habitat to preserve one of the wild, scenic, cultural and historic jewels of the North County while we still can. I urge you not to rezone and not to develop any part of the Buena Vista Creek Valley and El Salto falls for housing or commercial uses and respect the will of the local citizens who have worked hard to preserve it. In the words of someone wise, which I can't recall right now, they said, "Once it is gone, it is gone." Please remember this when you visit it. Mario Munroy, Carlsbad: The report is a little bit confusing. I am kind of surprised of the $200,000 subsidy and you don't say so in the report. That is unfortunate. My information is that the city has access to all the public information in the county. We can get costs and sales prices of any house, any piece of land. Why do we have changes from one thing to another so we can't tell anything? The issue here is we have four quadrants in this city and about three of them are practically brand new, and the fourth one is the old place. Now you tell me that we have left, if I understand this correctly and I hope I'm wrong, is that we have 2,109 dwelling units left. What I am reading into that is that would get to the cap of the housing excess dwelling units. Any houses or dwelling units beyond that point now have to go to a public hearing. Am I wrong with that? And because you mentioned something that if we go beyond a certain point, we would have to go back to the general public and have a vote, if we exceed the general plan, the growth management plan. The state law says we have these dwelling units for this period, but the next period is coming and is going to have additional houses, and eventually we are going to get where the growth management has to be exceeded because you mention that you looked at every piece of land. There are pieces of land in Carlsbad that for one reason or another haven't been developed to their full potential. You have also mentioned here on property lots, the standard size in city of Carlsbad today is 7,500. In the Redevelopment Area and the areas north of the Redevelopment Area and south of the Redevelopment Area, we have lots of only 3,500 square feet. They are classified as R2. It means by today standards, those people can't build a duplex on their property, and yet the zoning plan says you can do that. I am concerned this Housing Element is not really telling the people where we are going or we have been and what is ahead of us here when the growth management plan gets up to that point, and we are pretty close to it. I am hoping that somebody will clarify this because there is some properties here that if that is true, we will not be able to develop them unless we go to the general public for a vote. Yet state law is saying to the City of Carlsbad, and the staff will verify this, the growth management plan doesn't mean much. If every city in California was to take the same position, what would happen to the economy of this state? Where would your children go? I am concerned that we have in this report today apples and oranges because of the four quadrants. The cost of land by the beach is not $20 an acre foot. It is running in the hundreds. Some of the land in the Redevelopment Area is over $200 already. Nothing west of 1-5 sells probably for anything less than $100. It is approaching those limits. In this report, we mention the cost of land many, many times, and yet there is very little about the actual values of land so it can inform the citizens where we are going. So I am concerned. The Redevelopment Area is mentioned quite often, and I support what is going on in the Redevelopment Area, but the areas north and south don't exist apparently because they are not mentioned here. Another thing, the state law I understand requires that the Housing Element include every piece of land with a parcel number that is included for future development. In here they are mixing several areas and saying X number of dwelling units, but we don't know where they are. Yet that is what the housing law says. It has been suggested here that we ignore state law. Well that is really a challenge if we are going to do that. There is a lot of good information in this report, but there is also somewhat unclear and confusing information. I could go through a lot more than Commissioner Boddy, but I don't want to waste your time. Commissioner Boddy said in regard to the comment earlier about low income housing west of 1-5, I'd just like to know if there is any currently. Ms. Fountain said we do have some affordable housing that is west of 1-5. We have a couple of new projects that have been built recently. Village By The Sea has 11 units that are provided within their 65 total condos that are HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 26, 2007 PAGE 21 of 26 affordable to low income households. Laguna Point has 3 units in it. The Housing and Redevelopment Commission just approved a project with Habitat for Humanity on Roosevelt Street which will be 11 units for very low income households, and we have the Tyler Court Senior Apartment complex that also provides affordable housing to very low and extremely low income seniors. I think what I understood the point was that those are very difficult to do and density alone is not going to get you that affordability and that you will need to heavily subsidize those units and in some cases that has been true. In some of the other cases where we have inclusionary housing requirements, the developers were the subsidy source on that. In other cases, it would be the Housing and Redevelopment Agency that would do that. That is what I understand the point when he mentioned that. Commissioner Boddy asked isn't there also an affordable housing site near the Poinsettia Train Station? Ms. Fountain said yes, but that is outside the Redevelopment Area. Commissioner Boddy said it is west of 5 though. Ms. Fountain said yes, it is west of 1-5. We have an inclusionary housing ordinance that is city wide so that is going to be west of the 1-5 and east of the 1-5 that will apply. So any new housing development is going to have to provide units within their developments so units would have to be provided in the Ponto area, they were provided at the Poinsettia properties project, which already has an existing rental project and will providing some additional units. All of those are requirements of development and have been done and in most cases, fairly heavily subsidized. Commissioner Boddy said in regards to the Buena Creek/Quarry Creek, however we are referring to it, I'd like to know a little bit more specifically which portion of the property that the city is proposing to redesignate. In the draft Housing Element on page 3-9, there is a blanket statement that the city proposes to redesignate a portion of the property to RH and then also proposing to designate another portion of it to RMH. Can you address that, provide more detail on which portions we are talking about? Mr. Donnell answered the Quarry Creek site, Buena Vista Creek Valley site is much larger in terms of acreage than we need to have in terms of portions to be designated for high or medium high density. There has been no analysis done to say exactly where that would occur, which portions of the project would be high or medium high density, and that is because at this stage we are simply calling the site out as a potential location for those units to be built. The analysis to determine exactly where the units would occur on the property wouldn't occur until the Housing Element is adopted, including that program, and then at that time the appropriate General Plan amendment, environmental documents, etc. would be prepared to identify specifically the location. Commissioner Boddy said as a follow up, do I understand correctly that what we are proposing in this draft is 250 units to be allowed on the Quarry Creek site? That is what is reflected in table 3-9. Mr. Donnell said for medium high density, yes. Commissioner Boddy asked, how about for high? Mr. Donnell answered for high would be 350, Commissioner Boddy asked, this is how many acres? Mr. Donnell said, Quarry Creek in total the site was formerly mined about 100; not all of that property is mined, however. Some of it is preserved. I think we are looking at somewhere in the vicinity of 40 acres for both the high density and medium high density sites. HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 26, 2007 PAGE 22 of 26 Brian Milich from Corky McMillian Companies, said actually the site is closer to 160 acres. There are actually two parcels. The portion that is subject to the reclamation plan, and then another portion. Together they total about 160 acres. Ms. Nygaard wanted to be clear that the total number of combined units in both income categories is 600 units. Commissioner Boddy said she would just like to clarify something. A member of the public said this is our one chance. I understand there will be further opportunities for the Housing Commission and other bodies within the city including the Planning Commission and the City Council to review not only this Housing Element, but also any specific development plans that might ensue in the future, is that correct? Mr. Donnell answered, yes it is. Chairperson Scarpelli said, I am concerned about this issue on the Buena Vista Creek, and I would tend to agree with one of the citizens here this evening that once we present this at the state level, it will be very difficult to readjust it because they will be coming down with their recommendations to us; we'll be going back with our recommendations to them. How much attention was paid in looking at the parcels to the fact that this was such a sensitive area when determining that this was a potential area for affordable housing? Mr. Donnell said staff recognizes that the site has sensitive resources; certainly such as the falls and potentially other cultural resources, biology, steep slopes, etc. However, the site also is considered to be developable, at least a portion of it has a residential designation. There has not been an intense analysis done yet to determine those sensitive habitats, what needs to be preserved, etc. We simply see the Quarry Creek or Buena Vista Creek site as a potential location for higher density housing than what the current General Plan allows. Should the City Council adopt the Housing Element with the program to allow portions of Quarry Creek be at the medium high and higher density, that is the point in time when the necessary planning is done to specifically identify the sites and the potential yield from them, whether or not the yields can be achieved per the Housing Element as it suggests today is a question that would be decided when those studies are done. Chairperson Scarpelli said, my position right now is leaning towards removing that parcel or parcels from this report. I am concerned that some decisions be made on that right now. Hopefully the public understands we are not a decision making body. Our roll is to recommend to the City Council for their approval. All we can do is to make that recommendation. I am ready to recommend, just on what we have seen and what I have heard and in looking at these numbers, that this Commission really seriously take a look at asking staff to go back and remove those parcels from this report. I am not only talking about the Buena Vista parcel, but also the Quarry Creek portion of it. I am not sure the total yield in that and whether we can deal with meeting these numbers. We are in excess by 2,000 units is what I am looking at. Am I correct in that? I do need to know that. Are we in excess? Mr. Donnell said it depends on the income category you are looking at. Total excess is 2,000+ units, that is correct. The total number as you see is 2,109 units. However, a great majority of that are units considered to be above moderate income. Where the city really needs units are in the other categories, lower income and moderate income. Do we have an excess? Yes, we do in lower income as the left hand column shows. We do not have an excess in moderate income, however. That is where the excess in the lower income is so important. Chairperson Scarpelli asked, if those parcels were removed from the potential land available for housing, do we know how it will affect the number of units in the lower income? With the two parcels, are they basically dealing with units in the category of moderate income? Is that where those units are? Ms. Tarn said, if you are looking at the Quarry Creek, and I am still going to use Quarry Creek because that is how we refer to it in the Housing Element, if you are removing that proposal from the redesignation to high density, you would subtract 350 units from the lower income category. So you have an excess of 428. If you also take out Quarry Creek for the medium density, then you have a further deficit of another 250 units so you have a deficit of HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 26, 2007 PAGE 23 of 26 887 units in the moderate income category. One way or another, you still need to balance those two categories out and only the lower income can balance the moderate income. Chairperson Scarpelli asked, if we increased the density recommendation in the report, which we still can do, right? Have you analyzed if we increased the density, and I know this would have to be a City Council decision to do this, but if they were to decide to increase the density, can we make up what we have as a deficit by removing those properties? Mr. Donnell said, that is potentially correct. We proposed the densities we did, however, because that seemed to be somewhat consistent with current city policy. Commissioner Boddy said, as I understand it, the densities that are proposed are minimums, right? So a minimum of 20 units per acre for lower income, meaning you could go higher, right? Mr. Donnell said yes. Commissioner Boddy said it is not precluded to go higher. There is no range anymore of 16 to 23, it is 20 or above, right? Mr. Donnell answered, yes. Chairperson Scarpelli said, I am ready to recommend that we really analyze going that route to save those parcels. Mr. Donnell said, if I may add one more thing, we did not lightly take the duty to find other sites to accommodate our RHNA need. Yes, we do have almost 2,000 units of above moderate income housing potential. When we prepared our vacant lands inventory, we did a real thorough job to try to understand where we could fit the need for lower and moderate income. We looked at all areas of the city. The sites we concluded that were best for a variety of reasons are the sites we went over tonight, including the Quarry Creek location. Ms. Tarn added, if there is one thing I can add, you had a concern earlier that if we include a site's inventory and show it to the state and if you do remove one or two of the sites later on, would they be concerned? The state doesn't dictate where the sites come from. They only dictate whether you meet the bottom line. So if you choose to swap the sites later on, it is absolutely within your local control. Chairperson Scarpelli said, I am concerned that maybe the decision needs to be made by this city that those sites are not available before this report goes up to the state. Mario Munroy from the audience asked a question off the record. Mr. Donnell said if it is regarding the questions you asked earlier, can you repeat them? Mario said he was wondering if that 2,109 is what remains in the city to be developed. But someone is shaking his head over here and says no. I am confused what that number really means. Mr. Donnell said that number is a reflection of an inventory of vacant land today as it exists based on current General Plan land use designations. For example, if the General Plan states that a 100 acres may be developed at three units per acre, we know that property has a yield of 300 units per acre. So yes, that inventory is looking at all available land in the city as of this date and that is the resulting yield. Does that indicate that is all that can be built in the city in the future? No, it does not. Commissioner Boddy said, I have a concern about timing. I understand we are already well into the 2005-2010 Housing Cycle, and I don't know if there is a statutory or other deadline that we are running up against here, but it HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 26, 2007 PAGE 24 of 26 seems like if we don't get this Housing Element approved or certified soon, we are going to be into the next housing cycle. I am concerned about delay here, and I'd like to understand what the impact might be if we don't approve this draft tonight for submission as a draft, understanding it will be subject to further review and approval and further opportunities for public review and comment. Mr. Donnell said Ms. Tarn and I can answer that. Mr. Donnell said he agrees the city feels it is pressing to submit the Housing Element as soon as possible. That is why we have done the vacant lands inventory to try to determine as best we can what the analysis is and what our needs are. Along those lines, in addition to bringing this item to you, one of the other efforts that we have tried to do is go ahead and brief our City Council on the various programs and policies we are proposing and that you are seeing tonight. It was as a member of the City Council, based on those briefings that we had, the policies and programs, including Quarry Creek for example or the Ponto Project or the MAG property, represented acceptable programs to go forward with in terms of a draft to present to HCD and maybe Ms. Tarn can also answer some of the ramifications of cities that don't have adopted Housing Elements. Ms. Tarn said, for cities that don't have adopted Housing Elements, obviously you are subject to a lawsuit. You would be in a very difficult situation to defend your position of not having a Housing Element that complies with state law. Commissioner Boddy asked, who would the likely plaintiff be in that type of lawsuit? Ms. Tarn said, it depends on the local situation. You can have a developer who would sue the city. That has happened before. You can have a local group suing the city or you could have non-profit advocate groups that sue the city, such as the group that sued the City of Folsom that became a very famous case in the state. That is one of the reason why we want to make sure that the city has the ability to comply with state law as soon as possible. The more you delay, the shorter timeframe to actually implement the Housing Element, the more stringent the state's view will become and the more incentives and efforts that they would want to impose on the city to make sure the development would occur in a timely manner. The more you delay, the more you will have to actually put in the Housing Element. Commissioner Boddy said, you mentioned the 60 day review process. If we were to submit this draft to HCD tomorrow, when do we expect this entire review process to be completed? Assuming we approve the draft tonight. Ms. Tarn said, if we are being very optimistic, it usually takes around two rounds of review, two 60 day rounds. I have rarely seen a community that would get through the state with just one round of review. So assuming you do two months of review and then you come back and spend maybe at least a couple of weeks in responding to the comments and resubmit for another two months, you are talking about a five month timeframe for reviewing. If you go back to look at what happened with one of your neighbors, the City of San Diego, it took them seven rounds of review. We want to be able to make sure we are bringing in the best strategy that we can with the highest likelihood of getting a certified Housing Element. Commissioner Boddy asked, do we have a target date for when this would be finally approved based on the current schedule? Mr. Donnell said, we are hoping, optimistically, that this will come back before you in the fall, make it to the City Council by late this year and be certified by HCD early next year, say February or March 2008. Chairperson Scarpelli asked, what about a deadline date as far as the state is concerned when we have to have it done. Ms. Tarn said we are well past the date. HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 26, 2007 PAGE 25 of 26 Chairperson Scarpelli commented about the liability question. Since we are able to self certify, we chose not to self certify, and on that basis we are going through this process, but again it is an unlimited liability you are taking on as a city. Ms. Tarn said, the other thing too even when you self certify the Housing Element, it doesn't exempt you from complying with state law. The only thing it bypasses is the state's review, but you still have to meet every requirement of state law, including all of the land use issues we talked about. Ms. Fountain said, we know there is great sensitivity to the Buena Vista Creek area, and as Mr. Donnell mentioned, there was a lot of internal debate over how we identify the properties that potentially have additional density to be able to provide to meet our requirement for low and moderate income housing. It is probably one of the key reasons why this has been so delayed. It is trying to figure out how we answer that question because densities in Carlsbad are difficult no matter where we try to put them. If we don't put them in one location, it just means you have to find another location for them where you have to increase densities. We understand that is a very difficult position to put the Commission and to put the Council and everybody that will have to deal with this will have a difficult decision to make. There was a lot of effort that went in to try to figure out how do you disperse this through the community and share the pain throughout the community, we have to do something. We have to designate the sites. We have to find the sites that will accommodate the density to do this to be able to get a certified Housing Element and so I think what is before you tonight is our best effort to do that. It doesn't' mean it is perfect. It doesn't mean that we have solved all the problems and that we are not going to have to still work through quite a bit of that to preserve these sensitive areas that need to be preserved. I think you just have to keep in mind that if we don't add some density, some residential into these areas that we have designated, we are going to have to find other sites for them. It is not easy to do that in Carlsbad. Even though we might show that we have an over abundance of what we need in upper income, those are lower densities and that is why they are in that upper income category. So unless you want to go into some of those areas and increase densities substantially, which is also going to be controversial, so there is not an easy position here to take because it is going to be controversial no matter what position is taken. With that, we are happy to take whatever suggestions you have and we understand that this will need to be considered further and all of these comments will need to be incorporated at some point for a final policy decision. I just wanted to share that. We are understanding that if we remove any sites, we have to find other sites, and that is not going to be easy. When it comes back to you, you are going to be dealing with some other controversy as well. It doesn't go away just by taking it out of there. Chairperson Scarpelli said, I am still perplexed on this issue. I am personally not ready to write this recommendation on this draft as it stands and for the reasons stated. I recognize we will probably have a much more difficult time in the future by adding density to other areas, but I think it has been well stated that once this sensitive site is gone, it is gone and there is no way to save it. To put it out there with that possibility, I personally am not ready to do that. Commissioner Boddy commented, I recognize the importance of preserving open space, and in particular the sensitivity of this site. I am not personally familiar with it, but I hear you. I think what we are being asked to do tonight as the Housing Commission, our mission is to provide opportunities for housing in Carlsbad. It is not our job to decide whether or not certain land should or should not be developed. I would be willing to support submitting this Housing Element as a draft with the understanding that the city, through both its planning staff and development services and other commissions and bodies, will pay appropriate attention to the environmental and cultural resources in the Quarry Creek area and ensure any housing that is built there is done in an appropriate manner. With that I would move to adopt or recommend this Housing Element draft be submitted to HCD for their initial review and comment. Commission Smith seconded the motion. VOTE: 2-1 AYES: Boddy and Smith NOES: Scarpelli HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 26, 2007 PAGE 26 of 26 ABSTAIN: None Ms. Fountain said this was just an action to submit the draft and as I understand, Mr. Scarpelli, your main issue is if the Quarry Creek or the Buena Vista Creek site is removed, you would generally support the rest of the document. You just don't support keeping that in as a site for the housing. Is that what I am understanding? Chairperson Scarpelli answered, that is correct. I also believe that if we reanalyze and work the numbers, I think we can do it. I recognize that it may be that we are going to put this density in other areas and unbalance certain things, but I think the site is so sensitive and irreplaceable that we can't take a chance of even having the possibility that site could be damaged environmentally. Commissioner Smith asked, how soon will staff be able to redraft this Housing Element? Mr. Donnell answered, quite honestly I'm not sure. We have to go back and check the inventory to verify where else high density development might occur. One reason that Quarry Creek was attractive was because it already is designated, a portion of it at least, for residential development. Chairperson Scarpelli said, I understand that, but that is why I am asking people to take another look at it. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Ms. Fountain did not have any announcements or business for the Housing Commission tonight. CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT Chairperson Scarpelli does not have a report. But I do want to thank all of you for being here this evening. This is democracy in action. We need involved citizens to be involved in all of these major issues that affect the lives and the well-being of all of us. I think we all recognize that we have a wonderful city that we live in. It is well governed and does pay attention to the citizenry as far as the quality of life that we are all looking for. I think we are proud of our city, and we can be proud of it because we participate in its government to make sure that government is in fact doing the will of the people. Again, I thank you so much for being here this evening and I appreciate your patience in going through this with us. ADJOURNMENT By proper motion, the meeting of April 26, 2007, was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Debbie Fountain Housing and Redevelopment Director PATRICIA CRESCENTI Minutes Clerk MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE WRITTEN MINUTES ARE APPROVED.