Item 7 Additional Materials posted 8-3-21M EMO RAN D LJ M City of Poway
ADDITIONAL MATERIALS
(Agenda Related Writings/Documents provided to City Council or Staff after distribution of the
Agenda Packet for the August 3, 2021 Council Meeting)
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
CONTACT:
fM.
August 3, 2021
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Robert Manis, Director of Development Services
David De Vries, City Planner \)Y.)Y 858-668-4604 or ddevries@poway.org
SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment (EA) 21-001, General Plan Amendment (GPA) 21-001
and GPA 21-002; a staff-initiated request to adopt the City of Poway 2020-2029
Housing Element and Submittal of the Housing Element Update to the California
Department of Housing and Community Development for 90-Day Review
Summary:
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a summary of comments received during and after
the 30-day public review period for the Negative Declaration for the 2020-2029 Housing Element
which began June 24, 2021. Six comments were received providing feedback on the 2020-2029
Housing Element. The City must consider the comments it receives during the review period prior to
adopting the Negative Declaration. Comments received are provided in Attachment A along with staff
responses where one was provided in writing. As a result of the feedback, staff will update the 2020-
2029 Housing Element to include some minor mapping changes, update the page numbers in Table
1-2, and add additional environmental constraints to the Big Stone Lodge site in the Residential Sites
Inventory Analysis in Chapter 4. To clarify, the Big Stone Lodge site is zoned Commercial General and
allows up to 20 dwelling units per acre. No direction has been provided by the City Council to demolish
Big Stone Lodge. Staff conducted a robust public outreach program for the 2020-2029 Housing
Element and much of the feedback was incorporated into the Housing Element where appropriate.
Staff does not recommend additional changes as a result of the feedback, except as noted above.
Attachments:
A.Public Comments
Reviewed/ Approved By:
Wendy Kaserman
Assistant City Manager
1 of 33
Reviewed By:
Alan Fenstermacher
City Attorney
Approved By:
c�
City Manager
August 3, 2021, Item #7
August 3, 2021, Item #7David De Vries From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: COMMENT 1 Chris Cruse <cmcruse@cox.net> COMMENT Sunday, August 1, 2021 3:50 PM City Clerk David De Vries; Chris Cruse; Ayala, Jose@HCD Aug 3, 2021 Council Meeting Item 7 To Poway City Council From: Chris Cruse, Poway Re: Aug 3, 2021 Council Meeting Item 7 :Environmental Assessment (EA) 21-001, General Plan Amendment (GPA) 21-001 and GPA 21-002; a staff-initiated request to adopt the City of Poway 2020-2029 Housing Element and Submittal of the Housing Element Update to the California Department of Housing and Community Development for 90-Day Review Councilmembers, I have reviewed the draft housing element and the staff comments below: Re: Public participation and review By law, the City must solicit public input and review of the housing element. But, it doesn't seem as if the public comments had any impact on the housing element itself. Below are my comments about the process. I saw the notice for the Housing Element review in the local Poway Chieftain. The notice said to contact Scott Nespor if anyone had any questions. I sent a letter with some questions to Scott Nespor on June 28th, 2021, asking about the boundaries of the Habitat Conservation Plan area, and Prop FF area. Scott never responded. Almost a month later, on July 22, planner David DeVries finally responded to the questions about the habitat area but not the questions about the boundaries of the Prop FF area, which I believe is misidentified. This is not the first time I have had questions delayed for weeks or months, and then briefly answered with no time for followup questions before a meeting. The persistent pattern discourages any comments in a public comment period. Note: After I wrote this, I did get an email response from David DeVries about the Prop FF boundaries. I did not bother to comment any further on the housing element during the review period, as it seemed pointless when there was no response (for over 3 weeks) to my first letter. I attended the virtual housing element workshop on zoom. I saw that the comments from that meeting were succinctly summarized, but I did not see any changes to the housing 2 of 33 1 ATTACHMENT A
August 3, 2021, Item #7element that reflected any of the public input from that meeting. Additionally, the council review did not address any of the public input. Before the virtual housing element workshop, I sent an e'mail to Planner David De Vries asking about the summary from the Big Stone Lodge Workshop which was held in Feb, 2020. At the workshop, Davis DeVries asked all of those who attended to fill out a lengthy survey. He also asked us to send any other comments or thoughts we might have afterwards, so he could make a summary of the meeting for the council. And then, nothing actually happened to all of that input. It has been 17 months, and still nothing has happened. So, the community gave their input and it didn't matter, the staff put the Big Stone Lodge parcel on the housing element for potential affordable housing, although no one in the community sought that outcome. The Big Stone Lodge workshop was held at the request of the Poway Historical Society and other members of the community. The Poway Historical Society also circulated a petition to preserve the Big Stone Lodge. I don't know the exact number of people who signed that petition but I believe it was several hundred. In addition, there was an online petition, which was signed by over 1,000 people. I believe both of these petitions were presented to the Council. And, still, no response to all of this public input. At the City Council meeting, approving the draft housing element, a member of the Poway Historical Society again presented a plea to preserve the Big Stone Lodge for the purpose that the City asked the state to allow them to keep this former redevelopment parcel-as an historical passive park. Finally, at that council meeting, councilmember Barry Leonard responded. He told Mariana Benedict-Bacilla that he agreed with her points, but that she would need to find a new parcel to add to the housing authority in order to remove the Big Stone Lodge parcel from the high density affordable housing list. So what use is all this public input? Why bother? Below are my comments regarding specific things written in the housing element. The bolded parts are from the housing element. My comments are in the lighter type. p 1-1 BThe City will continue to ensure consistency between the Housing Element and other General Plan elements so that policies introduced in one element are consistent with other elements. Currently, the housing element is inconsistent with the General Plan and Poway's subarea habitat plan. The Big Stone Lodge property is entirely within the habitat area, contains part of a creek, and is mostly covered by the floodway and the floodplain. Poway's General Plan says that housing in the floodplain should be low density. The multiple species sub-area habitat plan also addresses housing in the habitat plan area. It also calls for very low density housing in the plan area and near wildlife corridors. The housing element assigned a very high density to this parcel which other parts of the general plan say should be very low density. 2 3 of33
August 3, 2021, Item #7p. 1-19 Continue to increase the availability of housing with emphasis on meeting the needs of and providing affordable housing to local workers while affirmatively furthering fair housing; Both Councilmember Mullin and Council member Frank have declared that the city does not plan to build more housing for "workers". Councilmember Frank said we have enough of that. Councilmember Mullin said that we are only going to build housing for disabled and veterans. The council acted on this by sending a Request for Proposal to developers for the Monte Vista site, explicitly saying the site would be half veterans and half disabled units. p1-22 Continue to encourage the development of larger two or more bedroom ADUs to provide affordable housing opportunities to large families and affirmatively furthering fair housing in an equitable manner. I have asked David DeVries for the number of ADUs that are deed restricted for low or very low income families in north Poway. He said there were none in north Poway. I also asked for the number of deed restricted affordable units in residential north Poway. He said that there is no definition of north Poway. I do not think there is ANY deed restricted affordable housing in district 2. It's nice to make larger ADUS, and the large lots in north Poway, would be amenable to doing that. But without any deed restrictions, there will likely never be any affordable units in north Poway/District 2. p 2-11, The largest proportion of renter households in Poway have above-moderate incomes with 31.6 percent, with the other income categories ranging between 11.9 and 21.4 percent. To "affirmatively further fair housing", it would be important to find out if any low or very low income person can afford any unit in north Poway/District 2. I believe that every single deed-restricted unit that is or ever was in Poway, is located in South Poway. The City has refused several requests to provide any numbers showing the number of deed restricted units in north and south Poway. These geographic boundaries are not defined, but the City has provided no alternative way to show the geographical difference in the distribution of affordable units in Poway. p-26 A lower percentage of households in Poway (3.1 percent) are living in overcrowded conditions than the County (7 .9 percent). Again, there is a huge difference in overcrowding in North Poway/District 2 and some areas of South Poway, where people are renting out rooms and there is insufficient parking space for all of the renter's cars. This element does not look at the differences in 3 4of33
August 3, 2021, Item #7people per bedroom in North Poway/ District 2 verses in south Poway that are near to the Poway Rd Specific Plan area. p 2-86 In addition to ADU, Figures 2-22, 2-23, and 2-24 show that the Proposed RHNA sites shown in Figure 2-21 (basemap for Figures 2-22, 2-23, and 2-24) were carefully placed to help further fair housing by placing housing required for the RHNA in either an area that is more predominantly White or that is of lower income which continues to encourage inclusion within the City. Most of the housing sites are in the same general area where the previous affordable housing sites have been built. And, almost all of them, new or old are in the darker tan colored area in South Poway. Granted, they are mostly on Poway Rd, whereas the previous ones are a block south on Civic Center Drive or Oak Knoll, or on a cross street (Community and Midland), running north and south of Poway Rd. Poway Rd is not a "predominately white" area. It is a commercial corridor so it doesn't really have many people living on it right now, but almost all of the deed restricted affordable units in Poway are very close to Poway Rd. D V 4 5 of33
August 3, 2021, Item #7p3-3 The vacant land covered by Proposition FF is primarily environmentally sensitive, steeply sloping land at the edge of the urban area (Figure 3-1 ). This also includes almost all of the Constrained Areas identified in Figures 2-7 through 2-10. It has been identified as regionally important open space under the Multiple Species Conservation Plan. As such, it would not be an appropriate location for higher density housing. Most land with access to sewers, City water, and public transportation, including the sites identified for lower and moderate-income housing in the new Residential Sites Inventory in Table 4-5 in Chapter 4, are not located within the area subject to the provisions of Proposition FF. As a result, Proposition FF will not impact the City's ability to meet its obligation to provide adequate sites to accommodate its fair share of regional housing needs for lower and moderate-income households. In fact, the main residential area of North Poway, Green Valley is not in the habitat area, most of it is not in the high fire area, it has access to water and sewer and it is almost completely constrained by Prop FF, which also prevents any retail grocery stores or other retail or commercial entities from being built in the area. Prop FF does prevent the City from a fair distribution of deed-restricted affordable units. Prop FF is basically the same as redlining the area to keep out people who are lower income, and in protected minority groups. In contrast, the Big Stone Lodge parcel is in the habitat area, a hi-fire area, it is a wildlife corridor linking two sub areas, it has been identified as "an historic passive park", and it has an historical building on the site, and it was supposed to link two different trail systems. There is a creek that transverses the parcel. It also has an environmentally sensitive slope and a grove of ancient oaks and sycamores that has historical as well as biological significance. But it does not have Prop FF protection because it was zoned commercial because the Big Stone Lodge was a commercial entity. All of the constraints to Prop FF that don't exist in Green Valley and other north Poway areas do actually apply to the Big Stone Lodge parcel. The Big Stone Lodge parcel is also smaller in size than many individual lots in Green Valley. p 3-36 Lack of State and Federal Funds Localities have limited sources of revenue. The RHNA allows for jurisdictions to upzone to meet their RHNA, but there are not sufficient funds to develop deed restricted affordable housing without significant government assistance. On December 29, 2011, the California Supreme Court upheld Assembly Bill ("AB") 1X 26, requiring the elimination of all California redevelopment agencies ("RDAs"). The Court also overturned AB 1X 27, a companion bill that would have allowed RDAs to survive if they paid an annual fee to the State. The Court's decision secured funds 5 6 of33
August 3, 2021, Item #7for the State's General Fund for fiscal year 2011-12 eliminating hundreds of RDAs throughout the State and numerous jobs. The City has expended much of the housing funds available towards the construction of affordable housing, but the RHNA requirements continue to increase, while funding decreases. Without significant subsidies from the State and Federal government, it is unlikely that any jurisdiction in the State will meet it's RHNA. There are also limited funds to support services needed for a jurisdiction (e.g., road, sewer, water and drainage infrastructure and services related to transit, police, fire, hospital, schools, parks, libraries). However, the production of housing requires these support services. Somebody forgot to include Proposition 22 in this summary. Poway council members supported Prop 22, paid a lobbyist, and actively worked on promoting Prop 22. It was Prop 22 that prohibited the Legislature from requiring that redevelopment agencies pay or otherwise transfer, directly or indirectly, any tax increment to or for the benefit of the State. The League of Cities sued the state demanding that they be given all the redevelopment money due to Prop 22. The California Supreme Court's hands were tied because of The Prop 22. The City of Poway sold the trailer parks they had bought, thinking they would satisfy their redevelopment requirement to build affordable housing. When they sold the trailer parks, the mayor said that the City did not want to be in the housing business. But, the City did form a Housing Authority, even thought they didn't want to be in the housing business. They did it after being advised to do so by the California League of Cities as a way to keep all of their redevelopment money. Eventually, the state clawed back the transferred money. But here we are, with the City in the housing business. Poway could get more funding if their affordable housing in-lieu fee was not a minuscule $500. But they have time and time again decided not to raise the in-lieu fee, which is only $500. Other cities charge substantially higher in-lieu fees which provide them with some funds to build affordable units. In addition Poway has used their sparse housing funds to buy the Big Stone Lodge property for about $800,000. Poway requested that the state let them keep the Big Stone Lodge parcel to use as a passive historical park, but Poway turned around and sold it to their housing authority and deposited the money in their general fund to be used to build the Community Center. If Poway has wanted to use the Big Stone Lodge parcel for affordable housing, the state would have given it to Poway for free, but then Poway would not have been able to transfer $800,000 of hard to get housing funds to their general fund. p3-39 The vast majority of Poway's undeveloped land is located within the Poway Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (PSHCP) Mitigation Area. The Mitigation Area comprises approximately 53 percent of the 6 7 of33
August 3, 2021, Item #725,047 total City acreage. These areas are included as "Constrained Areas" in Figures 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, and 2.10. The PSHCP is necessary to allow for the incidental take of listed species by public projects and private projects. The PSHCP fulfills requirements pursuant to Section 1 0(a) of the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA); Sections 2081 and 2835 of the State Fish and Game Code and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA); and the State of California's Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP) Act of 1991. It is also consistent with regional and subregional planning efforts within San Diego County pursuant to the NCCP Act. Collectively, these laws and planning efforts require protection and management of sufficient, interconnected habitat areas to support listed species in exchange for allowing limited take of the species or its habitat. All the more reason selling the Big Stone Lodge parcel to the housing authority was a poorly thought out decision. p.4-21As discussed in Chapter 2, this proposed candidate site is located in an area with a low or moderate percent of residents of Hispanic Origin (Figure 2-22). It is located within areas of low and moderate concentrations of Non-White residents (Figure 2-23). As shown in Figure 2-24, this site is located in an area not within LMI block groups and shouldn't further concentrate low-and moderate-income residents. As a result of this site development within this Census block, there are 29 new units (62 percent of the new units will be affordable to low-and moderate-income households). Approximately, 91 percent of the Census block is part of a high-income race/ethnicity group (White, Asian, or multi-race per Chapter 2). The added units will increase the high-income race/ethnicity groups by 0.5 percent and will increase the low-and moderate-income groups by 18 percent within this Census block. • Environmental Constraints: The southern portion of the site is within an area mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as a 100-Year Floodway resulting in developable net acreage of approximately 1.2 acres. A historical survey has been conducted in preparation for the redevelopment of the site. Preservation of cultural and historical resources is under consideration. • Existing and Planned Infrastructure Capacity: The site is currently vacant. It is adjacent to one other commercial site along with surrounding residential development. Water and sewer utilities are available at the site. • Access to Public Transportation and Other Community Amenities: A bus stop that provides connecting service to a Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) Bus Rapid Transit station is located within a quarter mile of the site. A public park facility is within a quarter mile of the site. The South Poway Business Park, which 7 8 of33
August 3, 2021, Item #7SANDAG has identified as a Tier 3 employment center, is within two miles and easily accessible by bike. • Method used to calculate Realistic Capacity: The existing CG allows mixed use development with a Conditional Use Permit. While the site is over 1.6 acres in size, 1.2 net acres was used to calculate the unit yield due to floodway constraints. This site is targeted for 29 dwelling units including 18 Very Low-Income affordable housing dwelling units. The Big Stone Lodge is across the street from a very old trailer park that existed before the city incorporated. It is also very near to an apartment house that is also high density and low income, and has many Hispanic tenants. The rest of the census tract is very different from these two uses which are adjacent to the BSL and very close. 1. The Big Stone Lodge parcel has many significant environmental constraints which are not listed in the housing element: 2. Almost the entire site is in the floodway or the floodplain, the access road is also in the floodway and floodplain. The adjacent parcels are mitigation parcels and would be affected by raising the soil level in order to build housing. 3. The parcel is an important wildlife corridor linking two sub-area habitats. 4. It is in a high-fire area, and that there is only one access road, which is not a thru road. There is an emergency-use-only fire road with a locked chain across it that needs to be removed in the event of a fire for neighborhood evacuation. s. The adjacent condo development has a buffer zone to protect the riparian habitat on the Big Stone Lodge parcel. There is also an old oak and sycamore grove and other riparian habitat. 6. The land itself and a building on the land have high historical significance. There is no mention in the environmental constraint that the city of Poway submitted a long range property management plan to the state saying that the best and highest use of the parcel was as a passive historical park. 1. The parcel was intended to be used as a trail head where 2 different trail systems would connect. a. There is very little parking in the area and the overflow from the apartment house fills up all available slots. 9. The Big Stone Lodge building has been designated by SOHO as the most endangered historical building in San Diego County. 8 9 of33
August 3, 2021, Item #7p6-4 Policies Preserve neighborhood character with new housing developments to ensure that housing is both compatible and safe for its occupants. The neighborhood around the Big Stone Lodge also contains some stone buildings, like the Big Stone Lodge, but the Big Stone Lodge is the most historically significant of the buildings. Removing the building would have a negative effect on the character of the neighborhood if this building was torn down. Sincerely, Chris Cruse 10 of 33 9
August 3, 2021, Item #7COMMENT2 David De Vries From: Sent: To: David De Vries RESPONSE Friday, July 30, 2021 9:51 AM Chris Cruse Cc: Scott Nespor Subject: Attachments: FW: housing element -Prop FF Ord 283.pdf Thanks Chris, the City Council adopted The General Plan and Zoning Development Code (including Land Use Map} on September 20, 1983. Bridlewood is classified as PRO. Attached is the Ordinance 283 (Prop FF} adopted by the voters of Poway in November 1988. Prop FF lists the zones and communities that it applies to. Neither the PRD Zone or the Bridlewood Community are listed as being subject to Prop FF. Hope that helps. Thank you, David De Vries, AICP City Planner Development Services City of Poway I 13325 Civic Center Drive I Poway, CA 92064 Phone (858) 668-4604 I Fax (858) 668-1211 ddevries@poway .orq From: Chris Cruse <cmcruse@cox.net> Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2021 5:11 PM COMMENT To: David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org> Subject: Re: housing element -Prop FF Hi David, Do you know what the underlying zoning is for Bridlewood. Prop FF applies to underlying zoning designations, I believe. Chris 11 of 33
August 3, 2021, Item #7> City Council > Agenda Packets > 1980-1989 > 1985 > Agenda Packet 1985 09-10 > Item 5 -DR 85-16 -Imperial Savings Assoc. Meta data Annotations 'l'hla applicatioo requ ■ta approval of a Development Ravi to allow the constructioo of 22 singe faaily dwlliog unit■ in the first phase of Hirsch Ranch C'r'l"M 4092R ----■). Entry Properties 12 of 33 !!§!QB! Tant&tive Tract Map 4092 was originally appro ad by the Boa.rd of Super iaors on July 24, 1980. A revised p (TTM 4092R> was approved by the Pow y City Cou_ncil on Janu_ary 8, 198S. A Developaent Review (DR 8S-09) and a 'l'aaporary Os• Permit (TOP 8S-24J ere pprov on May 7, 198S to allow th construction of the IIOdel boae coaplex and s ■ociated sales office. Tb ar a known u Rirscb Ranch encoapaases 435 acre■ and lies oorth and south of Lake Povay Road and east and t of Bapola Road. All of th Ranch ha• an dopted spacific pl n C pprovad by San Diego cou_ntyl that ■pe.cifie■ the inimum nllllber of buil.dabl• l.ot■ and the requirements for open apace, trails and setbacks. 'l'he approved revised p (TTM 4092R> contain lot■ with at L aat 20,000 square f et, open ■pace along Bapola Road, a pedestrian/equestri n trail ... n along the queduct right-of-way and the o n •P ce areas along the creek<• Att ctulent 4). Th Spe.cific Plan CSP 80-02> dopted previous to T'l'H 4092R requir a minimum lot area of 20,000 square f .. t, a SO foot front yard aetb ck ar u measured from the centerline of atr et, side yard setback ar of 10 ,-fiii1E:"aimt~11&1'--'M-M11tttnl'C'kr-of-i.Q fe Said specific plan was underlying zone. ARCBITECTORAL REVY Section l7. 52 of the Code stablish•• regulations for the Develop nt Review pproval proc••• prior to issuanc of any building per:mit for single f ily subdivision d v lo at. Council r view of the applic tion provides for the evaluation of a develop nt's quality, visual app l, environ ntal so11ndn•••• economic stability, and impact upon property valu s within the City. Modified Created Path Template Agenda Packet Fields Date Agency Type 11/13/2019 9:39:51 AM 5/1/2019 2:38:06 PM \City Documents\City Council\Agenda Packets\ 1980-1989\ 1985\Agenda Packet 1985 09-1 0\item 5 -DR 85-16 -Imperial Savings Assoc. 9/10/1985 City Council
August 3, 2021, Item #7David De Vries From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Categories: David De Vries RESPONSE Thursday, July 29, 2021 1 :18 PM Chris Cruse Scott N espor RE: housing element -Prop FF Housing/Safety Element Update Hi Chris, thanks for your feedback. You are correct, this is a mapping error and will be fixed prior to the final document being approved by the Development Services Director. Rolling Hills Estates will be shown as a Prop FF area, however, Bridlewood is not subject to Prop FF because it was not rural residential at the time of adoption of Prop FF. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I have forwarded this to our GIS division to be corrected. Thank you, David De Vries, AICP City Planner Development Services City of Poway I 13325 Civic Center Drive I Poway, CA 92064 Phone (858) 668-46041 Fax (858) 668-1211 ddevries@poway.org From: Scott Nespor <SNespor@poway.org> Sent: Thursday, July 15, 202110:26 AM To: David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org> Subject: FW: housing element -Prop FF From: Chris Cruse <cmcruse@cox.net> COMMENT Sent: Monday, June 28, 2021 9:51 AM To: Scott Nespor <SNespor@poway.org> Subject: housing element -Prop FF Hi Scott, I saw the Prop FF map in the housing element. Is not the Bridlewood (red circle) are covered by Prop FF? I thought Prop FF covered underlying zoning designations in PC areas? Also I believe the Rolling Hills area (orange circle) is part of the SPSP area and covered by a part of Prop FF that limits the total number of units that can be built there. Also, the phantom units (all the single units from OS-lDU zoned properties in the SPSP area) have been used up. Please advise, Chris 13 of 33
August 3, 2021, Item #714 of 33
August 3, 2021, Item #7ORDINANCE NO. 283 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA REQUIRING VOTER APPROVAL OF LAND USE CHANGES TO CERTAIN PROPERTY IF SUCH CHANGES WOULD INCREASE THE DENSITY OR INTENSIFY THE USE PERMITTED BY THE LAW IN EFFECT ON THE DATE OF ADOPTION OF THIS ORDINANCE THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF POWAY DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Amendment of the General Plan. A. The Land Use and Open Space Elements of the General Plan of the City of Poway shall be amended as here1nafter set forth. This amendment shall not be modified or rescinded without the approval of a simple majority of the voters of the City voting at a special or general election. B. The following Objective and Pol icy shall be added to the Land Use Element of the General Plan: "Objective 20. Rural Residential and Open Space Use Intens1f1cat1on. Permitted land uses in the rural and open space areas of the C1ty shall be 1ntens1fied only when the voters approve such changes, consistent with the prov1s1on of the local public services and fac1lities. Policy 20. No general plan amendment, zone change, tentative subd1v1s1on map, or other discretionary land use decision shall be adopted which would increase the residential density permitted by law or change the residential or open space zone or residential or open space general plan designation to a corrmercial or manufacturing zone or general plan des1gnat1on on property designated RR-A, RR-B, or RR-C, 0-S, or OS-R unless and until such action is approved by ordinance adopted by the voters of the City at a spec1 al or general election, or approved first by the City Council and then adopted by the voters in such an election." c. The following language shall be added to the following objectives and policies of the Land Use Element of the General Plan: "Objective 6. Rural Land. The slope criteria and minimum parcel sizes of Table 3 shall not be changed to allow increased density or intensity of use in rural residential or open space areas unless the voters approve such a change. 15 of 33
August 3, 2021, Item #7Ordinance No. 283 Page 2 Policy 6.a. No change to Tab 1 e 3 wh 1 ch would permit increased dens 1 ty or i ntens 1ty of use sha 11 be adopted un 1 ess and unt1 l such change is adopted by ord 1 nance adopted by the voters of the City at a special or general election, or approved first by the City Council and then adopted by the voters in such an election. Objective 7. Rural Residential Land. The slope criteria and minimum parcel size of rural res1dent1al and open space areas and the lot averaging provisions set forth in this General Plan shall not be changed to allow increased density or intensity of use 1n such areas unless the voters approve such a change. Objective 18. Special Study Areas. Once established by the City Council, the res1dent1al density of the South Poway Area and the Old Coach Area shall not be increased unless the voters approve such a change. Policy 18.a. South Poway Area: No change to the South Poway Planned Conmun1ty Development Plan or to the Poway Municipal Code which would increase the residential density within the South Poway Planned Conmun1ty shall be adopted unless and until such change is approved by ordinance adopted by the voters of the City at a special or general election, or approved first by the City Counc11 and then adopted by the voters 1n such an election. Old Coach Area: No change to the Old Coach Planned Conmun1ty Development Plan or to the Poway Municipal Code wh1ch would increase the residential density or increase the conmercial or manufacturing use within the Old Coach Planned Comnun1 ty sha 11 be adopted unless and unt 11 such change 1 s approved by ordinance adopted by the voters of the City at a special or general election, or approved first by the C1ty Council and then adopted by the voters in such an election." D. The foll ow1 ng Policy sha 11 be added to the Land Use Element of the General Plan: 16 of 33
August 3, 2021, Item #711Po11cy 7.1. Ordinance No. 283 Page 3 No change to the slope criteria and m1n1mum parcel sizes and lot averaging provisions of this General Plan which would permit increased density or intensity of use shall be adopted unless and until such change is approved by ordinance adopted by the voters of the City at a special or general elec-tion, or approved first by the City Council and then adopted by the voters 1n such an election." Section 2. Amendment of the Zoning Development Code. A. The Zoning Development Code of the City of Poway, codified as Title 17 of the Poway Municipal Code, shall be amended by adding the language hereinafter set forth. The language added hereby shall not be modified or rescinded without the approval of a simple majority of the City voting at a special or general election. B. The following language shall be added to Section 17.08.020 of the Poway Municipal Code: 11In order to preserve the very low density residential character of such property, no property zoned RR-A, RR-B or RR-C shall be rezoned to a zone, nor shall any amendment to this Title 17 of the Poway Municipal Code be adopted, which would increase the residential density on property so zoned or change the uses permitted thereon to al low comnerc1a1 or manufacturing uses unt 11 and unless such rezoning or amendment is approved by ordinance adopted by the voters of the City at a special or general election, or first approved by the Poway C1 ty Counc11 and then adopted by the voters of the C1ty at a special or general election." C. The fol lowing language shal 1 be added to Section 17 .08.180{L) of the Poway Municipal Code: 11The slope criteria and minimum parcel sizes for property zoned RR-A, RR-B, and RR-C shall not be modified to perm1t increased density or rescinded unless and until such modification or rescission 1s approved by ordinance adopted by the voters of the City at a special or general election, or f1rst approved by the Poway City Council and then adopted by the voters of the City at a special or general election." D. The following language shall be added to Section 17.08.180(0} of the Poway Municipal Code: 11The lot averaging provisions of the Poway Municipal Code shall not be modified to permit increased density or rescinded unless and until such mod1f1cat1on or rescission is approved by ordinance adopted by the voters of the City at a special or general election, or first approved by the Poway City Council and then adopted by the voters of the City at a spec1 a 1 or general election." 17 of 33
August 3, 2021, Item #7Ordinance No. 283 Page 4 E. The following section shall be added as Section 17.22.090 of the Poway Municipal Code: "In order to preserve open space in the conmunity, no property zoned 0-S shall be rezoned to any zone other than OS-R nor shall any amendment to th1s Title 17 of the Poway Municipal Code be adopted which would increase the res1dent1a1 density on property so zoned or change the uses permitted thereon to a 11 ow conmerci a 1 or manufacturing uses unti 1 and unless such rezoning or amendment is approved by ordinance adopted by the voters of the City at a special or general election, or first approved by the Poway City Council and then adopted by the voters of the City at a special or general election." F. The following section shall be added as Section 17.24.100 of the Poway Municipal Code: "In order to preserve open space in the comnun 1 ty, no property zoned OS-R shall be rezoned to any zone other than 0-S nor shall any amendment to this Title 17 of the Poway Municipal Code be adopted which would increase the residential density on property so zoned or change the uses permitted thereon to allow conmercial or manufacturing uses until and unless such rezoning or amendment is approved by ordinance adopted by the voters of the City at a special or general election, or first approved by the Poway City Council and then adopted by the voters of the City at a special or general election.11 G. The following section shall be added as Section 17.20.120 of the Poway Municipal Code: "In order to preserve the very low density character of the residential portions of the South Poway Planned Corrrnun1ty, no property located w1th1n the South Poway Planned Conmunity shall be rezoned to a zone, nor shall the Poway Municipal Code or the South Poway Planned Corrmunity Development Plan be amended in such a way, which would increase the residential density within the South Poway Planned Conmunity until and unless such rezoning or amendment is approved by ordinance adopted by the voters of the City at a special or general election, or f1rst approved by the Poway City Council and then adopted by the voters of the City at a special or general election." H. The following section shall be added as Section 17.20.130 of the Poway Municipal Code: "In order to preserve the very low density and intensity of development in the 01 d Coach Planned Conmun i ty, no property 1 oca ted within the 01 d Coach Planned Conmunity shall be rezoned to a zone, nor shall the Poway Municipal Code or the Old Coach Planned Conmunity Development Plan be amended in such a way, which would increase the residential density or increase the comner-cial or manufacturing use permitted within the Old Coach Planned Comnunity unt11 and unless such rezoning or amendment 1s approved by ordinance adopted by the voters of the City at a special or general election, or first approved by the Poway City Council and then adopted by the voters of the City at a special or general election." 18 of 33
August 3, 2021, Item #7Sect1on 3. C1ty Council Act1on. Ordinance No. 283 Page 5 A. The City Council shal 1 as quickly as permitted by law following the adoption of this ordinance by the voters, take all actions required to carry out the mandates of Section 1 and Section 2 hereof. B. The City Council sha 11 take a 11 steps necessary to defend vigorous 1 y any challenge to the validity or constitutionality of this ordinance. C. In the event that the City Council approves a change, amendment, subd1v1s1on map, or other land use decision which must, by the terms of this Ordinance, be adopted by the voters of the City in order to become effective, the City Council shall set such matter to election by placing 1t on the ballot as a Council sponsored measure. No 1nitiative petition shall be required to be filed by the proponent of such measure. o. In the event that the City Council does not first approve a change, amendment, subdivision map, or other land use dec1s1on which must, by the terms of th1s Ordinance, be adopted by the voters to become effective, the proponent shall comply with all requirements of California Elections Code Division 5, Chapter 3, conmencing with Section 4000 of said Code, including qualification of the measure by initiative petition, in order to have the measure placed on the ba 11 ot. E. The City Council shall set any election required by this Ordinance to the next available general municipal election at no cost to the proponent of the land use change requiring the election. If a special election is requested by such proponent and the proponent qualifies therefor, the City Council shall call a special election, the cost of which shall be borne by the proponent, provided, 1f permitted by State law, that the proponent shall first deposit the estimated cost of such election with the City Clerk, and shall pay the actual costs of such election within forty-five (45) days after the date thereof. Section 4. Construction. Nothing contained in this ordinance shall be construed to make illegal any lawful use presently being made of any property, or to prohibit the further deve 1 opment of any property 1 n accordance with that property's present zoning and general plan designation at a density and intensity presently permitted by existing zoning and general plan standards. Nothing contained in this ordinance shall be construed to require more than a simple majority vote for the adoption of this ordinance or for the approval of any future measure required by this Ordinance. For purposes of this section, "presently" shall mean as of the date of the election at which the voters approve or disapprove this Ordinance. 19 of 33
August 3, 2021, Item #7Section 5. Severab111ty. Ord1nance No. 283 Page 6 If any section, sentence, clause, phrase, part, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconst1tut1onal by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. It 1s hereby declared that this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, part, or portion thereof, would have been adopted or passed irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, sentences, cl a uses, phrases, parts, or portions be declared 1nval1d or unconstitutional. Section 6. Effective Date. Pursuant to Elections Code Section 4013, this ordinance shall be considered as adopted upon the date that the vote by the electorate of the City of Poway is declared by the City Counci 1, and shall become effective ten (10) days after that date. PASSED the 8th day of November, 1988, by the voters of the C1ty of Poway, Cal1forn1a, at a general election on that date 1n which approval or disapproval of this ordinance appeared on the ballot. ADOPTED the 6th day of December, 1988, by the City Council of the City of Poway, California upon the declaration of the vote at said general election. ATTEST: TEN, C1ty 1 erk O/Growth7-12/CP27.1 20 of 33
August 3, 2021, Item #7David De Vries From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Categories: COMMENT3 David De Vries RESPONSE Thursday, July 29, 2021 10:14 AM Joe St. Lucas Bob Manis RE: Question about Agenda Item 7 Attachment C, City Council Meeting Aug 3 Housing/Safety Element Update Thanks Joe, sorry about the late reply, please see answers below in red. Hope all is well! Thank you, David De Vries, AICP City Planner Development Services City of Poway I 13325 Civic Center Drive I Poway, CA 92064 Phone (858) 668-4604 I Fax (858) 668-121 l ddevries@poway.org From: Joe St. Lucas <jstlucas@gmail.com> COMMENT Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 202112:27 PM To: David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org> Cc: Bob Manis <BManis@poway.org> Subject: Question about Agenda Item 7 Attachment C, City Council Meeting Aug 3 I'm looking at the Attachment C for the entry with "short-term" rentals. On page 1-14 Item 8, it says "8. Analysis of adopted ordinances that directly impact the cost and supply of housing (e.g. inclusionary ordinance, short-term rental ordinance) this language is from the State Housing Element Guidelines, the City does not have a short-term rental ordinance; must be min. 30 days for any home rental. 3-37" However, I can't find anything on page 3-37 concerning this, only an entry on page 3-13 that talks about short-term temporary shelters. Page 3-37 seems to talk about low-income and affordable housing mandates. Please seep. 3-32 "Relief from Governmental Constraints". I'll update the page# with the final version that goes to HCD. We did add a policy on page 6-4 strategy A-17, "Discourage short term rental of one or more rooms or whole homes on a daily or weekly basis to preserve permanent housing." Am I missing the "short-term rental" part somewhere on page 3-37, or is the listing on page 1-14 incorrect when it says "short-term rental ordinance"? same as above Thanks, Joe St. Lucas 14829 Sunrise Dr. Poway 92064 21 of 33
August 3, 2021, Item #7COMMENT4 CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY California Department of Transportation DISTRICT 11 4050 TAYLOR STREET, MS-240 SAN DIEGO, CA 92110 (619) 709-5152 I FAX (619) 688-4299 TTY 711 www.dot.ca.gov July 21, 2021 Mr. David De Vries City Planner City of Poway Development Services 13325 Civic Center Drive Poway, CA 92064 Dear Mr. De Vries: COMMENT GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR •• lilltran5 l l -SD-15, 67 PM VAR City of Poway 2020-2029 Housing Element ND/SCH #2021060520 Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review of Negative Declaration (ND), State Clearinghouse (SCH) #2021060520 for the City of Poway 2020-2029 Housing Element located near Interstate 15 and State Route 67 (1-15 and SR-67) in the city of Poway. The mission of Caltrans is to provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment. The Local Development-Intergovernmental Review (LD-IGR) Program reviews land use projects and plans to ensure consistency with Caltrans' mission and state planning priorities. Safety is one of Caltrans strategic goals. Caltrans strives to make the year 2050 the first year without a single death or serious injury on California's roads. We are striving for more equitable outcomes for the transportation network's diverse users. To achieve these ambitious goals, we will pursue meaningful collaboration with our partners. We encourage the implementation of new technologies, innovations, and best practices that will enhance the safety on the transportation network. These pursuits are both ambitious and urgent, and their accomplishment involves a focused departure from the status quo as we continue to institutionalize safety in all our work. "Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment" 22 of 33
August 3, 2021, Item #7Mr. David De Vries, City Planner July 21, 2021 Page 2 Caltrans has the following comments: Traffic Impact Study • New developments resulting from the City's Housing Element update should provide a Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT} based Traffic Impact Study (TIS}. Please use the Governor's Office of Planning and Research Guidance to identify VMT related impacts.1 • The TIS may also need to identify the proposed project's near-term and long-term safety or operational issues, on or adjacent any existing or proposed State facilities. Design Caltrans and SAN DAG, in partnership with the City of Poway and other local agencies, are preparing a Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan (CMCP} for the SR-67 Corridor, which includes a portion of the City of Poway. The CMCP and the City's Housing Element efforts should be coordinated. Complete Streets and Mobility Network Caltrans views all transportation improvements as opportunities to improve safety, access, and mobility for all travelers in California and recognizes bicycle, pedestrian, and transit modes as integral elements of the transportation network. Caltrans supports improved transit accommodation through the provision of Park and Ride facilities, improved bicycle and pedestrian access and safety improvements, signal prioritization for transit, bus on shoulders, ramp improvements, or other enhancements that promote Complete Streets concepts and an integrated transportation network. Early coordination with Caltrans, in locations that may affect both Caltrans and the City of Poway is encouraged. To reduce greenhouse gas emissions and achieve California's Climate Change target, Caltrans is implementing Complete Streets and Climate Change policies into State Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP} projects to meet multi-modal mobility needs. Caltrans looks forward to working with the City to evaluate potential Complete Streets projects. 1 California Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) 2018. "Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA." http://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190 I 22-743 Technical Advisory.pdf "Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment" 23 of 33
August 3, 2021, Item #7Mr. David De Vries, City Planner July 21, 2021 Page 3 Land Use and Smart Growth Caltrans recognizes there is a strong link between transportation and land use. Development can have a significant impact on traffic and congestion on State transportation facilities. In particular, the pattern of land use can affect both local vehicle miles traveled and the number of trips. Caltrans supports collaboration with local agencies to work towards a safe, functional, interconnected, multi-modal transportation network integrated through applicable "smart growth" type land use planning and policies. The City should continue to coordinate with Caltrans to implement necessary improvements at intersections and interchanges where the agencies have joint or adjoining jurisdiction. Noise The applicant must be informed that in accordance with 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 772, Caltrans is not responsible for existing or future traffic noise impacts associated with the existing configuration of SR-67. Environmental Should future projects based upon the changes enacted from the General Plan have elements and/or mitigation measures that affect Caltrans Right-of-Way, Caltrans would welcome the opportunity to be a Responsible Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Broadband Caltrans recognizes that teleworking and remote learning lessen the impacts of traffic on our roadways and surrounding communities. This reduces the amount of VMT and decreases the amount of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and other pollutants. The availability of affordable and reliable, high speed broadband is a key component in supporting travel demand management and reaching the state's transportation and climate action goals. Mitigation Caltrans endeavors that any direct and cumulative impacts to the State Highway network be eliminated or reduced to a level of insignificance pursuant to the CEQA and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) standards. "Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment" 24 of 33
August 3, 2021, Item #7Mr. David De Vries, City Planner July 21, 2021 Page 4 Mitigation measures to State facilities should be included in TIS/TIA. Mitigation identified in the traffic study, subsequent environmental documents, and mitigation monitoring reports, should be coordinated with Caltrans to identify and implement the appropriate mitigation. This includes the actual implementation and collection of any "fair share" monies, as well as the appropriate timing of the mitigation. Mitigations for impacts to state facilities should be compatible with Caltrans concepts, policies, and standards. Right-of-Way • Ensure that all survey monuments that were found/set or destroyed along the city street or Caltrans R/W are perpetuated per Land Surveys Act 8771 . • Any work performed within Caltrans' R/W will require discretionary review and approval by Caltrans and an encroachment permit will be required for any work within the Caltrans' R/W prior to construction. Additional information regarding encroachment permits may be obtained by contacting the Caltrans Permits Office at (619) 688-6158 or emailing D 11.Permits@dot.ca.gov or by visiting the website at https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/ep. Early coordination with Caltrans is strongly advised for all encroachment permits. If you have any questions, please contact Mark McCumsey at (619) 985-4957 or by email at mark.mccumsey@dot.ca.gov. Sincerely, MAURICE EATON Branch Chief Local Development and Intergovernmental Review "Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment" 25 of 33
August 3, 2021, Item #7COMMENT 5 David De Vries From: Sent: Chris Cruse <cmcruse@cox.net> COMMENT Thursday, July 29, 2021 3:30 PM To: David De Vries Subject: Re: habitat conservation area The housing element lists constraints for Prop FF area that are not true to all of the area that is covered by Prop FF. Conversely, some things on that same list do apply to the BSL parcel, but they are missing from the housing element. And there are also additional environmental constraints that apply to the BSL site that are totally missing from mention in the housing element. > On Jul 29, 2021, at 1:09 PM, David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org> wrote: RESPONSE > > Thanks Chris, at this point we do not have a project design and when/if we have a project in the future, we will determine the answers to these types of questions at that time. There's no way to assess this appropriately until a project is proposed. > > Thank you, > > David De Vries, AICP > City Planner > Development Services > City of Poway I 13325 Civic Center Drive I Poway, CA 92064 Phone (858) > 668-4604 I Fax (858) 668-1211 ddevries@poway.org > > -----Original Message-----> From: Chris Cruse <cmcruse@cox.net> COMMENT > Sent: Thursday, July 22, 20211:21 PM > To: David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org> > Subject: Re: habitat conservation area > > There is riparian habitat and an old oak forest that is in the floodway and flood plain on the BSL parcel. Poway's habitat plan calls for low density housing (RR-A) in the habitat area to protect both the habitats and corridors. Building high density housing on disturbed areas would have an impact on adjacent areas, some of which are citY owned mitigation parcels bought with the BSL parcel. Using the BS L parcel for higH density housing is inconsistent witH the Poway General Plan. In addition, the access road is also in the floodway and floodplain. Remedying that would also impact adjacent mitigation parcels. > > If the habitat corridor was restricted to the floodway, how will the animals use it when it rains? Are they going to have to walk through an apartment development? This corridor is an important linkage between Poway's habitat areas and other parts of the county plan. Has the city conferred witH other stakeholders before buying this parcel for tHeir housing authority? > >C > > > » On Jul 22, 2021, at 12:42 PM, David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org> wrote: RESPONSE 26 of 33
August 3, 2021, Item #7>> » Thanks Chris, we could add in the "Environmental Constraints" section for the site that "The sites are in the Habitat Communities Plan Mitigation Area and the Very High Fire Hazard Area. Mitigation will be required for development within any areas where habitat will be removed which would not include the developed portions of the sites." >> » The habitat corridor area is generally consistent with the Floodway area which must be preserved and the corridor is approximately 200 feet wide at its narrowest point adjacent to the site. >> » Thank you, >> » David De Vries, AICP » City Planner >> Development Services » City of Poway I 13325 Civic Center Drive I Poway, CA 92064 Phone » {858) » 668-4604 I Fax {858) 668-1211 ddevries@poway.org >> » -----Original Message-----» From: Chris Cruse <cmcruse@cox.net> COMMENT » Sent: Thursday, July 22, 202112:00 PM » To: David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org> » Subject: Re: habitat conservation area >> » Hi David, » Can you confirm that the BSL parcel is a very narrow wildlife corridor, and will you be mentioning that in the environmental constraints listed in the housing element? » please advise, » Chris » pS I believe it is also in the high fire area, on the most recent maps. >> »» On Jul 22, 2021, at 9:33 AM, David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org> wrote: RESPONSE »> Hi Chris, I confirmed that the Big Stone Lodge parcels are in the mitigation area. Mitigation will be required for development within any areas where habitat will be removed which would not include the developed portions of the sites. > 2 27 of 33
August 3, 2021, Item #7David De Vries From: Sent: To: Subject: Categories: Scott Nespor RESPONSE Thursday, July 22, 2021 9:21 AM David De Vries FW: habitat conservation area Housing/Safety Element Update From: Chris Cruse <cmcruse@cox.net> COMMENT Sent: Monday, June 28, 202110:22 AM To: Scott Nespor <SNespor@poway.org> Cc: Chris Cruse <cmcruse@cox.net> Subject: habitat conservation area Hi Scott, Do the boundaries of the habitat conservation plan include the Big Stone Lodge parcel? This map is a bit blurred, and that makes it difficult to tell. Thanks, Chris 28 of 33
August 3, 2021, Item #729 of 33
August 3, 2021, Item #7David De Vries From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Categories: David De Vries RESPONSE Thursday, July 22, 2021 8:58 AM Chris Cruse Scott Nespor RE: housing element Housing/Safety Element Update COMMENT6 Hi Chris, see responses to your questions below in red. Please let me know if you would like to include these comments to the City Council at the August 3, 2021 meeting and include if these comments are in association with the Negative Declaration or not. Thanks for your inquiry. Thank you, David De Vries, AICP City Planner Development Services City of Poway I 13325 Civic Center Drive I Poway, CA 92064 Phone (858) 668-4604 I Fax (858) 668-1211 ddevries@poway.org From: Scott Nespor <SNespor@poway.org> Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2021 5:27 PM To: David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org> Subject: FW: housing element From: Chris Cruse <cmcruse@cox.net> COMMENT Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 20218:23 PM To: Scott Nespor <SNespor@poway.org> Cc: Chris Cruse <cmcruse@cox.net> Subject: housing element Hi Scott, I have a few questions about the housing element Page 2-70 of the housing element says: Figure 2-12 shows that both existing and proposed affordable units are well dispersed throughout the community and do not present a geographic barrier to obtaining affordable housing. As shown, the majority of the City is constrained because of areas within the Very High Fire Hazard Area, the Habitat Conservation Plan Mitigation area, the Proposition FF (voter approval for higher density) area, and areas within the Open Space Resource Management (OS-RM) zone. While some of these constrained areas allow for low density single-family residences, much of the area is preserved open space. However, because of the prevalence of large lot single-family residences, these constrained areas present an opportunity to construct ADUs and JADUs within these low density areas (PC-1, PC-2, PC-3, PC-4, PC-6, RS-2, RS-4, RR-A, RR-B, RR-C, PRD-1, PRD-2, and 30 of 33
August 3, 2021, Item #7PRD-3 zones). It's important to note that many of these constrained areas have limited or no access to sewer or water and are missing essential services and access to employment centers, transit, commercial retailers with grocers, medical services, community facilities and services like libraries and the Mickey Cafagna Community Center, and parks, etc. While the ADU's will help further fair housing, they are largely away from essential services and areas of opportunity. g element says: RE: 1. How many ADUs and JADUs that have been built in north Poway are deed restricted for low income or very low income people? Please provide a time period and I can provide you a list of permitted ADUs and JADUs in the City. North Poway is not a defined area. My understanding is none of the ADUs have deed restrictions for low income or very low income households related to rent. HCD does allow for ADU credits. It is a common practice based on affordability and market-rate rents. In addition, as shown in Table 4-5, the remaining RHNA after our credits is 468 very-low and 62 low-income housing units and the City is exceeding the need with the by 140 low-income units (468 and 202 units respectively). As such, the 62 ADUs shown to be affordable to low-income households are not needed to meet the City's RHNA. 2. How many ADUs and JADUs that are expected to be built in north Poway are deed restricted for low income or very low income people? We are not anticipating any of the ADUs to have deed restrictions for low income or very low income households related to rent, however, new projects can propose such deed restrictions. 3. Without a deed restriction, an owner could rent the ADU to anyone of any income and could move into the ADU themselves and rent out the larger house, right? Correct. 4. How many deed restricted units have been built in south Poway? Same as answer 1. 5. How many deed restricted units are planned for south Poway? Same as answer 2. 6. Exactly how are you defining "well-dispersed"? There is no definition provided, however, the argument is that the ADUs are more prominent on the larger single-family residential lots and therefore help to further disperse the sites in the Residential Sites Inventory. 2 31 of 33
August 3, 2021, Item #7David De Vries From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: David De Vries RESPONSE Thursday, July 29, 2021 4:33 PM Chris Cruse Scott Nespor RE: Housing element Hi Chris, the notable changes are described in the agenda report for the meeting. Hope that helps. https://docs.poway.org/Weblink/Browse.aspx?id=151673&dbid=0&repo=CityofPoway&cr=l Thank you, David De Vries, AICP City Planner Development Services City of Poway I 13325 Civic Center Drive I Poway, CA 92064 Phone (858) 668-46041 Fax (858) 668-1211 ddevries@poway.org From: Scott Nespor <SNespor@poway.org> Sent: Thursday, July 29, 20214:28 PM To: David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org> Subject: FW: Housing element From: Chris Cruse <cmcruse@cox.net> COMMENT Sent: Friday, June 25, 202111:10 AM To: Scott Nespor <SNespor@poway.org> Subject: Housing element Hi scott, Are the changes posted somewhere? Please advise, Chris 32 of 33
August 3, 2021, Item #7Page 3..t, 36 D Q NOTICE OF PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD FOR A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND A NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN of the availability for public review of a NEGATIVE DECLARATION. A PUBLIC HEARING on this item will be held before the POWAY CITY COUNCIL at the time and location noted below: Environmental Assessment (EA} 21-001 and General Plan Amendment (GPA) 21-001 adopting the City of Poway Housing Element (2020-2029). The City of Poway Housing Element, which is part of the City's General Plan, defines goals and programs that will guide the production of housing, including affordable housing and housing services for people with special needs. By State law, a City's Housing Element must be updated in order to periodically assess the changing housing needs of the community and establish an action plan to address these needs and further fair housing. Changes have been incorporated into the Housing Element update (2020-2029) in response to comments received by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the general public to ensure compliance with the requirements of State Housing Law. The sites identified in the Residential Sites Inventory are not on any of the lists compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. This includes, but is not limited to, lists of hazardous waste facilities, land designated as hazardous waste property, hazardous waste disposal sites, and the information in the Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement required under subsection (f) of that Section. This project location is City-wide. DATE OF MEETING: TIME OF MEETING: LOCATION OF MEETING: PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: STAFF PLANNER: EMAIL: PHONE NUMBER: 33 of 33 August 3, 2021 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers 13325 Civic Center Drive Poway, CA 92064 GPA21-001 / EA21-001 2020-2029 City of Poway Housing Element Scott Nespor, Associate Planner snespor@poway.org (858) 668-4656 or 668-4600