Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1999/05/266:00 p.m. Wednesday, May 26, 1999 MINUTES OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers Public Services Building 276 Fourth Avenue~ Chula Vista ROLL CALL/MOTIONS TO EXCUSE: Absent: Staff Present: Chair Willett, Commissioners Castaffeda, Ray, Thomas, and O'Neill Commissioners Hall and Tarantino Jim Sandoval, Assistant Director of Planning and Building Leilani Hines, Community Development Specialist Glenn Goggins, Assistant City Attorney PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/SILENT PRAYER INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Read into the record by Chair Willett APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MSC (O'Neill/Thomas) (4-0-3-0) to approve minutes of April 14, 1999 as submitted. Motion carried. MSC (Castaneda/Ray) (4-0-2-1) to approve minutes of April 28, 1999 as submitted. Motion carried with Commissioner O'Neill abstaining. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: No public input. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a 38 percent density bonus increase and a reduction in the required parking for an 11 unit transitional housing development, known as Trolley Trestle, located at 746 Ada Street to be developed by South Bay Community Services. Background: Leilani Hines, Community Development Specialist reported that the applicant, South Bay Community Services, is requesting approval of a 38% density bonus and a reduction in the parking requirements to facilitate the construction of an 11 unit affordable housing development for young adults completing the County of San Diego Foster Care program. The project is located in the Southwest Redevelopment Area. The site is strategically situated in an area that is served by public transportation, the Palomar trolley stop, commercial centers, an elementary school, the County of San Diego Family Resource Center and a proposed day care facility. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that the site is appropriate for transitional housing and is compatible with surrounding land uses. Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - May 26, 1999 On December 8, 1998, the City Council conditionally approved conveyance of this property for the fair market value of the property ($167,600) to South Bay Community Services for this project, but was conditioned based on their ability to obtain land use and environmental reviews and approval, as well as a firm commitment from all of their funding resources. The proiect will be owned and operated by SBCS, a non-profit organization. The project contains 11 units, a common room, and 12 parking spaces, and the purpose of the public hearing is to consider a 38% density bonus, going from 8 to 11 units, ten units which will be occupied by very Iow income emancipated foster youth, and one unit will be occupied by an on-site property manager. Additionally, the applicant is requesting a reduction in the parking requirements from 19 to 12 spaces (one parking space per unit plus one handicapped parking space). Tentatively scheduled for June 8~", the Redevelopment Agency and City Council will be considering a request for financial assistance approving a loan to the applicant for $300,000 to meet the remaining financing of the project. State density bonus law states that if a developer decides to designate a portion of their units as affordable to Iow or very Iow income households, that Cities have the responsibility of either providing a minimum 25% densi~ bonus and at least one additional incentive, or make a finding that it is not required, or as an alternative provide financial incentives to the developer. Staff feels that the applicant's requests are justified in that the proposed land use is compatible with surrounding land uses, all of the units will be restricted to extremely Iow income, and it meets the housing needs priority for the City. The restrictive 55-year term of affordability exceeds the minimum 30 years under State law. The reasoning for this is that typically many of the funding sources require a 52 to 55 year term of affordability. The City's standard practice when financially participating in a project is to require a 55-year term of affordability. The security of the City and Agency investment is to execute a housing cooperation agreement for the density bonus and incentives which acts as a regulatory instrument to ensure that these units remain affordable for the specific period of time. A Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) will be executed for the City and Agency loans, which governs the development and use of this project. The DDS would also incorporate the density bonus and design plans and would address the conversion of these units to market rate family housing. Because of the City's financial participation, it would always be required that this remains a Iow- income project. It may be able to go to family housing rather than transitional housing, but it would require approval by the Cit~ and the Agency and there would need to be a public hearing. Commissioner Castaneda asked if any tax credit sales were involved with the project. Ms. Hines stated that this project would be completely financed through the City Agency participation, County of San Diego, HOME funds and State funds and there would be no tax credits. Planning Commission Minutes - 3 - May 26, 1999 Chair Willett asked if the City is imposing a performance bond in case the developer defaulted. Glen Goggins stated that in past dealings with for-profit developers, the City has required a performance bond for the larger multi-family projects to secure performance and typically tax credits are sold. Ms. Hines stated that a performance bond has not been required for this project because the funding sources are firm commitments; they are loans and there will be no debt service on these loans. If in the future it were to convert to a Iow-income family housing project, the City might be able to receive residual receipts from the project. However, as a facility for a near homeless youth population, the likelihood of receiving residual receipts is very unlikely. At the end of the term of affordability, the loan will become due and payable. At that time, it would be expected that it would convert to market-rate housing. Commission Discussion: Commissioner O'Neill expressed concern and stated his reluctance in supporting a density bonus and parking reduction, thereby creating a legal non-conforming use at the end of the 55-year term of the loan. Glen Goggins stated that the DDA and the Housing Cooperation Agreement would include a provisions that would require appropriate permitting, approval and public hearing before any conversion can be approved. Commissioner O'Neill stated he would like to see language that would require it meet the current standards for multi-family occupancy in terms of all life amenities. Commissioner O'Neill asked for a breakdown on the occupancy. Ms. Hines responded that the developer will address those requirements. However, the City's standard agreement provides for a maximum allowance of two people per bedroom. Commissioner Thomas stated that in his opinion the City's financial participation, in essence, is a gift and questioned the appropriateness of the use of these funds for this particular project. Public Hearing Opened 7:15 Chris Moxem, South Bay Community Services, responded to questions and addressed Commissioner O'Neill's question by stating that the 1 bedroom unit will be for one adult with the capability of having 1 small child. The 2 bedroom unit will be occupied by two same-sex individuals (one person per bedroom). Commissioner O'Neill expressed concern with the transitioning period extending beyond a two- year limit, and asked what, if any, disincentives there are for not allowing a single parent with one child from having another child thereby requiring that she be moved into a two-bedroom unit. Planning Commission Minutes - 4 - May 26, 1999 Mr. Moxem responded that each resident will have a case manager who will be working with them to develop short and long-term goals. Ifa single parent were to have more than one child, they would be moved to a two bedroom unit if one were available, otherwise SBCS would assist them in finding living arrangements elsewhere. Mr. Moxem further stated that SBCS's mission is to work with individuals towards self-sufficiency and it would be defeating their mission to see people, such as those who will be residents of this project, remain stagnant in their self-development and become permanent residents of this facility. Commissioner O'Neill stated that his experience and observation has been that these types of projects require high-maintenance and asked who is going to maintain the property to ensure its safety and up-keep. Mr. Moxen responded that they have solicited and are securing funding through private grants and foundations for this very purpose. Commissioner Castaneda stated that although he agrees with a number of Commissioner O'Neill's comments, he reminded the Commission that the financial aspects of this project are not within the Commission's purview and lies solely within the Redevelopment Agency and City Council The money that the City is intending to use for the project is Low and Moderate Housing funds, which can only be used for this type of purpose. Commissioner Castaneda asked how long ago did the City acquire this property. Mr. Goggins responded that the property was purchased from a private property owner approximately four years ago with the expectation that it would be developed into a community serving purpose such as housing and/or child care facility. Commissioner Castaneda stated that in his opinion the proposed land use is aligned with the City's intent for this property. However, he expressed concern with not having a clear requirement establishing a finite time period that residents are allowed to stay. It needs to be clear that this is strictly transitional housing for a period not to exceed two years. Commissioner Castaneda asked what, if any, requirements or restrictions would be imposed under the development agreement with respect to changing the nature of occupancy, for example, from transitional housing for post foster care children, to drug rehabilitation or other "near homeless" population. Ms. Hines responded that the language in the DDA states that they will be allowed to use this property for transitional housing for post foster care children or other needed transitional housing programs, which could include other near-homeless populations. A conversion to another use would only be allowed if it could be demonstrated that the need no longer exists, or there are no funding sources for this type of use. A conversion to family housing would require approval from the City and would go through the public hearing process. Commissioner Castaneda stated since bringing this proiect into fruition is a joint effort by various Planning Commission Minutes - 5 - May 26, 1999 jurisdictions because of the funding and land gift; who would be the owner of this project should SBCS cease to exist. Ms. Hines stated that the City would have a lien on the property for $167,000 and would be in a first priority position. Chair Willett stated that it was his understanding that the County conducts annual or bi-annual reviews of transitional facilities similar to this, and recommended that the City request to receive a copy of the report, if it does not already receive it. Glenn Goggins stated that the typical Agency loans are structured with some prospect for repayment out of project residual receipts. Whether or not there will be residual receipts depends on whether the project has any income generating capacity and what the other funding sources are. There is always a prospect of repayment on loans, which are secured by a Deed of Trust, but there is no guarantee that the City will be repaid. The specifics of this project are presently being worked out and finalized. Although the financing of the project is not under the Planning Commission's jurisdiction, it will be part of the overall packet that will be considered by the Redevelopment Agency when they are asked to render the final commitment to the project. Commissioner Ray asked if any of the developers in the eastern territory were approached to ask them to fund this program and receive credits for their units of affordable housing. Ms. Hines responded that they did not approach any developer to receive credits for their inclusionary housing. She further stated that the City's obligation is not only to provide for affordable housing through the inclusionary housing requirement, but to go beyond the inclusionary housing requirement to meet the City's larger affordable housing goals. The City actively looks for other projects that may not necessarily fit the inclusionary housing program, but do meet our other affordable housing goals. Mr. Goggins also commented that the intent of the inclusionary housing requirements is to develop affordable housing within the development and not to look to other areas of the City to provide for such housing so that a balance of housing for all economic groups is provided throughout the City. Public Hearing Closed 8:30. MSC (O'Neill/Castaneda) (5-0-2-0) that the Planning Commission adopt the Second Addendum to Negative Declaration IS-93-07B and adol~t resolution recommending that the City Council and Redevelopment Agency approve the requested 38 percent increase in density and deviations from the parking requirements based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained in the draft City Council and Agency resolution, and include the following recommendations: 1. That at such time a change in use is approved or at the end of the 55-year term, the project would have to meet the then current zoning standards or receive approval of a variance from such standards. Planning Commission Minutes - § - May 26, 1999 2. That there be a time-certain, not to exceed two years, that a resident may live on premises, except in limited circumstances as deemed appropriate by SBCS. 3. That staff be able to review and approve an operating plan and regulations for residents; and 4. That any variation in use during the 55 year period from that of transitional post foster care program children would require approval by the Planning Commission and a public hearing. 5. That the City receive on an annual basis or when published a report from the County of San Diego Children Services Bureau regarding an evaluation of programs and services provided by the Project and any follow up of former foster care youths residing or having resided at Project. Motion carried. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS: The Commission expressed a desire to have a workshop on affordable housing. ADJOURNMENT at 8:45 p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting of June 9, 1999. ~'~"~/'~ ~ ~on Diana Vargas, Secretary to Plan~j~g Commiss'