HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1985/08/06 Item 13a C
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 31 134.'
3
Meeting Date 7/t6/85
ITEM TITLE: Resolution Approving density bonus for housing
project providing Low and Moderate-Income Housing by Starboard
Investment Company and approving a Housing Cooperation
Agreement
SUBMITTED BY: Community Development Direct
Director of Planning -'
�ld
REVIEWED BY: City Manager (4/5ths Vote: Yes No x )
Under density bonus provisions of the State Government Code, a developer had
requested City approval of a 53-unit family apartment project at 54-66 Fourth
Avenue. The request included a density bonus of 9 units over the allowed
density for the property. In exchange for the density bonus, the applicant
offered to provide 20% of the project units as affordable to low and
moderate-income households for 20 years and to enter into a Housing
Cooperation Agreement regarding those units. Since its request, the applicant
has withdrawn from escrow as a result of concern for the financial feasibility
of the project. Starboard Investment Company, the property owner, is now
pursuing the same project and density bonus request, although they request a
reduced term of affordability commitment.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council adopt the resolution approving the density
bonus for the Starboard Investment Company project at 54-66 Fourth Avenue and
approving the Housing Cooperation Agreement, which includes a 20-year
commitment of affordable units.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On May 23, 1985, the Design Review
Committee recommended approval of the project subject to the conditions
attached in Exhibit A.
DISCUSSION:
Project Description
The site consists of three existing lots fronting on Fourth Avenue (54-66)
with a total area of 1 .43 acres. Each lot presently contains a single family
dwelling which will be removed to provide the construction of 53 apartments.
The units will be located in two separate buildings, three stories high. 92
off-street parking spaces will be provided in accordance with Ordinance
standards. The building design features a stucco exterior and a red tile
roof. The project was approved by the Design Review Committee on May 16
subject to modifications of the roof design.
•
C 72-3) by the City Council of
by the City C a:il of Chula Vista, California
Chula Vista, Ca'.iforni1
/ —
Dated —
Dated 7` -! S -_,
i
Page 2, Item -3t (3"--
Meeting Date
City' s Options
Government Code Section 65915 requires a jurisdiction to grant a density bonus
or other incentive of equivalent financial value to a requesting developer who
agrees to provide a percentage of the project units for low and
moderate-income housing. The City is not required to waive any of its
development standards; therefore, lot coverage, setback, and parking
requirements protect the City from clearly inappropriate development of
specific sites.
The City does have the alternative of granting incentives of equivalent
financial value to the developer in lieu of the requested density bonus.
However, State law is not specific regarding the calculation of such
incentives, and their calculation could be subject to considerable analysis
and dispute. The use of an equivalency is not recommended in light of the
positive perception of this particular project, provided that the developer
agrees to deliver the degree and duration of housing affordability desired by
the City and recommended below.
Developer Requirement
To satisfy the State Law requirement for the density bonus, the developer must
provide one of the following:
1 . Ten percent of the pre-density bonus units for occupancy by lower
income households (below 80% of median income).
2. Twenty-five percent of the pre-density bonus units for an
undetermined mix of occupancy by moderate and low-income households
(below 120% of median income).
The first exaction represents some housing benefit to low-income households.
Using the State calculation for affordability, that households not pay more
than 25% of monthly income for rent (the federal standard being 30%), the set
aside units would rent somewhat below the market rent and would be occupied by
low-income households. However, ten percent affordability is not that
significant compared to 100%-affordability in Senior Housing Development
Policy projects and 20%-affordability in tax-exempt mortgage revenue bond
financed projects.
The second exaction represents no appreciable housing benefit. The developer
could choose to rent all 25% affordable units to moderate-income households at
market rent, the moderate-income rent ceiling based on affordability being
much higher than prevailing market rents. This condition results from the
failure of the law to stipulate any particular mix of moderate, low, and very
low income households within that 20% requirement.
The State Law does not speak to the issue of term of affordability.
Page 3, Item -3-t 13a--
Meeting Date
Recommended Commitment and Developer Request
Negotiations with the original applicant regarding delivery of low-income
housing benefit in response to the incentive of a density bonus led to the
agreement on the following set-aside conditions for the project:
1. Twenty percent, or 9, of the pre-density bonus units would be
affordable to low-income households. Those units would be occupied
only by low-income households and rents would not exceed 25% of the
monthly income of a household at 80% of median income.
2. The set-aside units would be reserved for rental occupancy for a
minimum term of 20 years.
Subsequently, the original applicant withdrew over concerns about overall
project feasibility.
The current property owner/applicant, Starboard Investment Company, wishes to
continue with the project proposal and density bonus request. However, they
request that the reservation of affordable units be for a period of 10 years,
rather than 20 years. Given the significance of the land use exception
requested by the developer, the recommendation remains the same as above, with
20 years being the period of reservation. The attached Housing Cooperation
Agreement reflects that recommendation. If this recommendation remains
unacceptable to the applicant, it would be recommended that the Council refer
the applicant' s request to the Redevelopment Agency's Housing Consultant,
Daniel Grady, for an evaluation of appropriate incentives of equivalent
financial value which could be offered to the developer in lieu of a density
bonus.
The Housing Cooperation Agreement, which would be recorded and run with the
land, is substantially similar inform to that recently executed in connection
with the Terra Nova Villas Apartment Project.
Prior Requests
The City has received only one prior request for a density bonus under the
State law. That request was from Morgan-Gardner Subdivision for the
Eucalyptus Apartments project. In addition to the State law density bonus,
the project also entailed a general plan amendment and a rezoning, as well as
tax-exempt mortgage revenue bond financing. Conditions exceeding the State
law set-aside requirements were negotiated with the developer which satisfied
both the State law and the Treasury and local requirements regarding
tax-exempt financing. Because of those two assistance programs, the
conditions imposed do not necessarily provide a model to be applied to
projects such as the subject project.
I .,
Page 4, Item *21= 130-
Meeti ng Date-479-M''
FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed action has no significant fiscal impact aside
from the generation of property tax revenue. If the Council chose to provide
an "incentive of equivalent financial value," expenditures would result from
waivers of fees or possible direct financial contribution to the project. No
specific calculation of financial equivalence has been made, although the
original applicant estimated it to be in excess of $100,000.
DKG:as
WPC 1163X
El 772 11 I ' r
tt P.
c 11 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT / +,
Item
Meeting Date 7/16/85
ITEM TITLE: Resolution Approving density bonus for housing
project providing Low and Moderate-Income Housing by Starboard
Investment Company and approving a Housing Cooperation
Agreement
SUBMITTED BY: Community Development Direct
Director of Planning.
REVIEWED BY: City Manager (4/5ths Vote: Yes No x )
Under density bonus provisions of the State Government Code, a developer had
requested City approval of a 53-unit family apartment project at 54-66 Fourth
Avenue. The request included a density bonus of 9 units over the allowed
density for the property. In exchange for the density bonus, the applicant
offered to provide 20% of the project units as affordable to low and
moderate-income households for 20 years and to enter into a Housing
Cooperation Agreement regarding those units. Since its request, the applicant
has withdrawn from escrow as a result of concern for the financial feasibility
of the project. Starboard Investment Company, the property owner, is now
pursuing the same project and density bonus request, although they request a
reduced term of affordability commitment.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council adopt the resolution approving the density
bonus for the Starboard Investment Company project at 54-66 Fourth Avenue and
approving the Housing Cooperation Agreement, which includes a 20-year
commitment of affordable units.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On May 23, 1985, the Design Review
Committee recommended approval of the project subject to the conditions
attached in Exhibit A. -
DISCUSSION:
Project Description
The site consists of three existing lots fronting on Fourth Avenue (54-66)
with a total area of 1 .43 acres. Each lot presently contains a single family
dwelling which will be removed to provide the construction of 53 apartments.
The units will be located in two separate buildings, three stories high. 92
off-street parking spaces will be provided in accordance with Ordinance
standards. The building design features a stucco exterior and a red tile
roof. The project was approved by the Design Review Committee on May 16
subject to modifications of the roof design.
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 7/16/85
City's Options
Government Code Section 65915 requires a jurisdiction to grant a density bonus
or other incentive of equivalent financial value to a requesting developer who
agrees to provide a percentage of the project units for low and
moderate-income housing. The City is not required to waive any of its
development standards; therefore, lot coverage, setback, and parking
requirements protect the City from clearly inappropriate development of
specific sites.
The City does have the alternative of granting incentives of equivalent
financial value to the developer in lieu of the requested density bonus.
However, State law is not specific regarding the calculation of such
incentives, and their calculation could be subject to considerable analysis
and dispute. The use of an equivalency is not recommended in light of the
positive perception of this particular project, provided that the developer
agrees to deliver the degree and duration of housing affordability desired by
the City and recommended below.
Developer Requirement
To satisfy the State Law requirement for the density bonus, the developer must
provide one of the following:
1. Ten percent of the pre-density bonus units for occupancy by lower
income households (below 80% of median income).
2. Twenty-five percent of the pre-density bonus units for an
undetermined mix of occupancy by moderate and low-income households
(below 120% of median income).
The first exaction represents some housing benefit to low-income households.
Using the State calculation for affordability, that households not pay more
than 25% of monthly income for rent (the federal standard being 30%), . the set
aside units would rent somewhat below the market rent and would be occupied by
low-income households. However, ten percent affordability is not that
significant compared to 100%-affordability in Senior Housing Development
Policy projects and 20%-affordability in tax-exempt mortgage revenue bond
financed projects.
The second exaction represents no appreciable housing benefit. The developer
could choose to rent all 25% affordable units to moderate-income households at
market rent, the moderate-income rent ceiling based on affordability being
much higher than prevailing market rents. This condition results from the
failure of the law to stipulate any particular mix of moderate, low, and very
low income households within that 20% requirement.
The State Law does not speak to the issue of term of affordability.
Page 3, Item
Meeting Date 7/16/85
Recommended Commitment and Developer Request
Negotiations with the original applicant regarding delivery of low-income
housing benefit in response to the incentive of a density bonus led to the
agreement on the following set-aside conditions for the project:
1. Twenty percent, or 9, of the pre-density bonus units would be
affordable to low-income households. Those units would be occupied
only by low-income households and rents would not exceed 25% of the
monthly income of a household at 80% of median income.
2. The set-aside units would be reserved for rental occupancy for a
minimum term of 20 years.
Subsequently, the original applicant withdrew over concerns about overall
project feasibility.
The current property owner/applicant, Starboard Investment Company, wishes to
continue with the project proposal and density bonus request. However, they
request that the reservation of affordable units be for a period of 10 years,.
rather than 20 years. Given the significance of the land use exception
requested by the developer, the recommendation remains the same as above, with
20 years being the period of reservation. The attached Housing Cooperation
Agreement reflects that recommendation. If this recommendation remains
unacceptable to the applicant, it would be recommended that the Council refer
the applicant's request to the Redevelopment Agency's Housing Consultant,
Daniel Grady, for an evaluation of appropriate incentives of equivalent
financial value which could be offered to the developer in lieu of a density
bonus.
The Housing Cooperation Agreement, which would be recorded and run with the
land, is substantially similar inform to that recently executed in connection
with the Terra Nova Villas Apartment Project.
Prior Requests
The City has received only one prior request for a density bonus under the
State law. That request was from Morgan-Gardner Subdivision for the
Eucalyptus Apartments project. In addition to the State law density bonus,
the project also entailed a general plan amendment and a rezoning, as well as
tax-exempt mortgage revenue bond financing. Conditions exceeding the State
law set-aside requirements were negotiated with the developer which satisfied
both the State law and the Treasury and local requirements regarding
tax-exempt financing. Because of those two assistance programs, the
conditions imposed do not necessarily provide a model to be applied to
projects such as the subject project.
Page 4, Item
Meeting Date 7/16/85
FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed action has no significant fiscal impact aside
from the generation of property tax revenue. If the Council chose to provide
an "incentive of equivalent financial value," expenditures would result from
waivers of fees or possible direct financial contribution to the project. No
specific calculation of financial equivalence has been made, although the
original applicant estimated it to be in excess of $100,000.
DKG:as
WPC 1163X
(7 (
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
s
•
a. The design shall be approved as conditions for 53 units with 92 parking
spaces. The design for 53 units is subject to the applicant receiving
approval and an agreement with Chula Vista City Council authorizing a
bonus density of eight units as provided in State law to accommodate
low and moderate-income families.
b. Additional landscaping shall be provided within the west and south
parking areas. The loss of two parking spaces will likely result, in
addition to the loss of at least one unit.
c. The sidewalk adjacent to the central parking lot area shall be widened
• to seven feet and the proposed 22 foot wide landscape strip deleted.
d. Front yard slope areas shall be smooth and rounded subject to approval
of the City's Landscape Architect. One and one-half-to-one slope
adjacent to City sidewalk is unacceptable. Combination of retaining
walls and protective wrought iron railing will be required as part of
approved site plan.
e. The rear fence shall be constructed of chain link, painted or treated
green.
f. The south and side yard fence shall be extended up to the 30 ft. front
setback.
g. Direct pedestrian access shall be provided from Fourth Avenue to the
central parking lot. The open space provided for unit "E" shall be
shifted to the west side of the building and the floor plan changed
appropriately.
h. An acoustical analysts shall be prepared that shows compliance with
State of California minimum interior noise levels in addition to a
maximum noise level of 65 decibels within all required private open
space areas. This analysis shall be submitted in conjunction with
building permits.
i . All retaining walls shall be treated with stucco to match exterior
building walls.
j . The trash enclosure shall be deepened to provide enough space for
two trash dumpsters.
(
k. The applicant shall pursue adjacent slope rights in order to reduce the
need for additional retaining walls.
1 . A minimum of 4x4 wood posts shall be utilized as support members for
proposed stairways.
m. Support posts located within the front or sideyard setbacks shall be
relocated behind the setbacks or removed.
n. Except for the north-facing units , all ground floor private patios shall
be provided.
o. The :roof design shall be modified to create a more prominent roof line.
The redesign shall be returned for Design Review Committee approval.
•
-2-
The City of Chula Vista
Li(H
Office of the City Attorney (619) 691-5037
DATE: August 2 , 1985
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
John Goss, City Manager
Paul Desrochers, Community Development Director
6jrFROM: Charles R. Gill , Assistant City Attorney
SUBJECT: Density Bonuses and Other Incentives
On July 16, 1985, the City Council considered a request from
Starboard Investment Company for a 53 unit family apartment
project involving a density bonus based upon the developer ' s
promise to construct affordable apartment units .
The City Council requested that staff respond to several
questions raised by the Council relating to the application of
density bonuses for affordable housing. Specifically, you
requested that the City Attorney' s office provide an analysis of
Chapter 4 .3 ( commencing with Section 65915*) of Division 1 of
Title 7 of the Government Code. Said Chapter establishes a
statewide requirement that local agencies must follow.
Section 65915 provides in relevant part:
" ( a) When a developer of housing agrees to
construct at least ( 1) twenty five percent of the
total units of a housing development for persons
and families of low or moderate income, . . .or ( 2 )
ten percent of the total units of a housing
development for lower-income households, . . . (3 )
fifty percent of the total dwelling units of a
housing development for qualifying residents. . .a
city. . . shall either ( 1) grant a density bonus or
(2 ) provide other incentives of equivalent
financial value.
* hereinafter all section references are to the
Government Code unless otherwise specified.
276 Fourth Avenue Chub Vista,California 92010
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
August 2 , 1985 /
2
(b) . . .The city, county, or city and county shall
establish procedures for carrying out this section
which shall include legislative body approval of
the means of compliance with this section.
( c) For the purposes of this chapter , "density
bonus" means a density increase of at least twenty
five percent of the otherwise maximum allowable
residential density under the applicable zoning
ordinance and land use element of the general
plan. The density bonus shall not be included when
determining the number of housing units which is
equal to ten or twenty five percent of the total.
The density bonus shall apply to housing
developments consisting of five or more dwelling
units.
(d) If a developer agrees to construct both the
twenty five percent of the total units for persons
and families of low or moderate income and ten
percent of the total units for lower income
households, the developer is entitled to only one
density bonus under this section although the city
. . .at its discretion may grant more than one
density bonus. " (Emphasis added)
The above quoted provisions establish a mandatory requirement
upon the City to provide a density bonus when requested by the
developer. In addition, this section provides that the City
shall establish procedures for carrying out the section' s
provisions. Therefore, the state legislature has recognized the
authority of the City to establish reasonable requirements for
the implementation of the density bonus provisions.
Section 65916 provides that where there is a direct financial
contribution to a housing development pursuant to Section 65915 ,
the City must assure that the affordable housing units shall be
available for thirty years . In addition, Section 65916 provides
that , "when appropriate, the agreement provided for in Section
65915 shall specify the mechanisms and procedures necessary to
carry out this section" . The inclusion of the word "agreement"
provides a recognition that Section 65915 should be implemented
through some type of contractual relationship. Accordingly, the
adoption of a policy by the City pursuant to Section 65915 may
specify the terms by which the City will agree to the
applicability of a density bonus for affordable housing.
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
August 2 , 1985
Page 3
Section 65917 is a statement of the legislature' s intent in
adopting Chapter 4 . 3. The legislature intends that "this chapter
shall contribute significantly to the economic feasibility of low
and moderate income housing in proposed housing developments" .
Finally, Section 65918 makes the provisions of Chapter 4 .3
applicable to charter cities, such as the City of Chula Vista.
The provisions of Chapter 4 .3 have not been interpreted by a
court of law. The only available published opinions relating to
these statutory provisions are by the Attorney General .
In 63 Ops. Cal . Atty. Gen. 478 ( 1980) , the Attorney General
considered a provision of Section 65915 relating to other
incentives that has been repealed. Due to the amendment of
Section 65915, this Attorney General opinion does not provide any
direction as to the interpretation of the currently existing
chapter , except to note that the city is free to choose any
"equivalent" incentives it may deem to be appropriate.
In 64 Ops. Cal . Atty. Gen. 370 ( 1981) , the Attorney General
addressed a question relating to direct financial contribution as
provided in Section 65916 . Specifically, the Attorney General
considered whether or not the granting of a density bonus or an
exception from a local ordinance provision constituted a direct
financial contribution. The Attorney General concluded that a
direct financial contribution is one involving the spending of
money and that the legislature has mandated that the monetary
outlay be "direct" as opposed to indirect. (at page 373 ) .
To further analyze the provisions of Chapter 4 .3 , we must turn to
the well-established principles of statutory construction. In
interpreting statutes, the cardinal rule is to "ascertain the
intent of the legislature so as to effectuate the purpose of the
law" (Select Base Materials v. Board of Equalization [ 1959 ] 51
Ca1 .2d 640 , 645 . ) In ascertaining legislative intent , we look
first to the words of the statute, giving the language its usual
and ordinary meaning. (Moyer v. Workmen' s Compensation Appeals
Board [ 1973 ] 10 Ca1 .3d 222, 230 ) . The construction of a statute
that renders some words surplusage is to be avoided. (California
Manufacturers Association v. Public Utilities Commission [ 1979]
24 Ca1 .3d 836, 844) . Also, the various provisions of a statute
should be harmonized and construed together . (People v. Corey
[ 1978 ] 21 Ca1 .3d 738, 743) .
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
August 2 , 1985
Page 4
Applying these rules, we note that the statutory scheme of
Chapter 4 .3 prescribes several ways in which the City may comply
with the developer ' s desire to construction affordable housing .
Chapter 4 .3 does not prohibit the imposition of reasonable
requirements by the City upon such a developer . Said
requirements could be imposed pursuant to an adopted City policy
or ordinance which implements the provisions of Section 65915 .
The adoption of a City policy would provide a rational basis for
the approval or disapproval of density bonus projects thus making
the City ' s action defensible in court. Therefore, this office
recommends that the City Council adopt a policy relating to the
provisions of Chapter 4 .3 in order to implement reasonable
standards as required by state law.
CRG: lgk
0649a
Date: July 23, 1985
To: David Gustafson, Housing Coordinator
Via: Paul Desrochers, Community Development Director
From: George Krempl , Planning Director GV
Oept
Subject: Approving Density Bonus for Housing Project by Starboard
Investment Company and Approving Agreement
At the City Council meeting on July 16, 1985, the Density Bonus request by
Starboard Investment Company was continued by the City Council . Among issues
discussed by the Council was the one pertaining to the density permitted
within the R-3 zoning category and whether or not a density bonus of 25
percent as mandated by the state should automatically be added thereto.
Staff has considered this item and would offer the following comments:
1 . The state-mandated density bonus is theoretically possible to
affix to the existing maximum allowed density within the zoning
category.
2. That proviso, however, is qualified with respect to several con-
siderations:
a. The proposal must meet all of the normal R-3 requirements
as to setback, building height, lot coverage, parking, open
space, and so on.
b. In the multiple family category the project is subject to
the review and approval of the City' s Design Review
Committee. If the Design Review Committee were to
determine that the project was not compatible with the
neighborhood surrounding it, due for example to scale or
the bulk of the project, the project could be denied.
c. The statute allows for incentives in lieu of the density
bonus to be negotiated with the applicant. The emphasis on
such negotiation could be from a rather conservative
position by the City with burden of proof to the contrary
to be placed on the applicant, in light of the general
language of the statute.
3. A down-zoning of the R-3 zoning category by means of changing the
maximum density permitted is not recommended. If such were
contemplated, it would need to be predicated on findings that the
maximum density permitted within the zoning district conflicts
with and is too high to sustain the present environment lifestyle
David Gustafson
July 23, 1985 / ` I
Page 2
and qualitative aspects of the City of Chula Vista. Staff would
have concern with the implications of attempting such a program
Citywide for both vacant as well as under-utilized zoned
parcels. Through past experience, it does not appear that due to
density that development quality has been compromised with
resultant negative impacts on the City as a whole. Staff's
preference would be continue working with applicants with respect
to tailoring their design, their density, and so forth to the
unique circumstances of each individual sites. This still permits
the prerogative of recommending denial of projects deemed
incompatible based on failure to meet planning criteria.
We would be happy to furnish you with any additional information which you
might feel would assist you in preparing your report back to Council on this
matter.
GK:vt
-, ii'S ), r- '. r a "
(--
feET-411_ i..101,=T
4 oFFices
...
q o e'�
IIIti c
T GE.LI�c�&L f2acA
I: I
t Project -- - - -
y •R NDR Y 4reo -- - •
MF
_ gF MI` fil
J'!FI MF I I.F �W
1 I x �„ --, MF f
I I I M F L.-ZZ-'' r
�� r- -- - , °
, sF SF tt� m
LMAN ST. b� -------- a)
SF
F1 f-
--L i i�Fj �TF I MF ---- R_ y_ S
I--�--1 11_ i 1 1 I --- it ,„ g-lali
REIM
_bird.
I
, rf j I I MF s'1 I� FIMF' CU '+I" Lej i I 1 1—`" D" STREET
7 NI
_
f ,
s Ili SF , &P : 1
: mi .
m Ill 5F SF rn _
1
Z
_ -_-,r----r sF C 1
o MARETTA ST. �*1 MF 1
v SF 1
TF 1. ,
41mi- _ __ 1
• - - - l — —
. )(Park Vista '20C4 TOR
iiiii RCS-84-5
iii) 1
i t
c0 2co
----
Subdivision
NORTH i ,......_
, .../...2_,3 _ _
August 9, 1985
z ITEM NO. 14
To: The Honorable Mayor and City Counci
Via: John Goss, City Manager
Via: Paul Desrochers, Community Development Director
From: Dave Gustafson, Assistant Community Development Director
Subject: Starboard Investment Company Density Bonus Request and Density Bonus
Policy
The above issues were continued from the Council meeting of August 6 in order
to correct discrepancies in the associated documents. The corrections have
been made and the amended documents are attached to the original resolutions
from the August 6 meeting.
Regarding the first issue, the Starboard Investment Company request, it was
necessary to amend language and add language to the Housing Cooperation
Agreement as it pertained to occupancy of the affordable units. The language
of the Housing Cooperation Agreement provided to the Council at the last
meeting limited the occupancy of affordable apartments as follows:
1 . One-bedroom apartments to be occupied by two-person households.
2. Two-bedroom apartments to be occupied by four-person households.
That language did not reflect the understanding between staff and the
developer and was forwarded to the City Council as a result of inadvertently
using an original draft of the first Housing Cooperation Agreement ever
considered by the City Council .
To make the Starboard Housing Cooperation Agreement consistent with other
Housing Cooperation Agreements approved by the Council , and to make the
requirements consistent with market practices, the language has been changed
to reflect the following: Units shall be occupied by households having annual
gross incomes not exceeding the lower income limit for that household size.
Therefore, one-bedroom units could be occupied by one-person households, and
two-bedroom units could be occupied by three-person households. Additionally,
definitions of the low-income limits for various household sizes were added to
the DEFINITIONS section.
Regarding the issue of a policy for density bonuses, an amended draft makes
corrections recommended by the City Attorney' s office as a result of further
clarification of the issue. The changes are as follows:
by the City Council of
Chula Vista, ...,lifornia
Dated �... u_ .___,:_
The Honorable Mayor
and City Council -2- August 9, 1985
1. Condition No. 1 : The original draft called for 25% of the predensity
bonus units as being for low-income households. The intent was to
maximize the low-income units, since the moderate-income units would have
rent restrictions way above market rents. However, the Attorney's office
advises that some moderate-income units must be included to respond to the
State law language. Therefore, Condition 1 of the attached report calls
for 20% of the pre-density bonus units to be for low-income households and
5% of the pre-density units to be for moderate-income households. A
definition of moderate income has been added to Condition 1 .
2. Procedure 2: Language is added to indicate that necessary and appropriate
City development approvals will be based on the standards for the number
of post-density bonus units. Such a policy point will obviate substandard
developments under the State law mandate.
3. Procedure 3c: The phrase ".. .for articulable reasons" is added after
"invalid" to make it clear that a denial will be based on specific
noncompliance with the policy.
Further regarding the policy, a review of City Council minutes on discussions
of Eucalyptus Grove Apartments and a search of Council referral records shows
no Council request for a workshop on density bonuses. Although it is not
perceived as absolutely essential to adopt the density bonus policy at this
meeting, it would be comfortable to have a policy in place as soon as possible
in order to be able to respond to any additional density bonus request. If
the Council wishes to schedule a workshop on this matter, perhaps the policy
could be adopted at this point and a workshop could be scheduled for further
consideration and refinement of the policy prior to converting the policy to a
zoning text amendment.
In summary, the actions before the Council tonight are as follows:
1 . Consider adoption of resolution approving Starboard Investment Company's
density bonus request and approving amended Housing Cooperation Agreement.
2. Consider adoption of resolution approving housing density bonus policy.
3. Consider requesting a Council Conference on the issue of density bonuses.
As the Council will recall , the resolution regarding the State Densiit a Bonus
Law for League of California Cities' consideration was approved
August 6 meeting.
DG:nr
WPC 1226X