Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-01-25 HAC MIN 1 CITY OF CHULA VISTA MINUTES HOUSING ADVISORY COMMISSION Wednesday January 25, 1995 Conference-Room 2 3:30 p.m. Public Services Building CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL - 3:35 p.m. PRESENT: Helton, Alonso-Massey, Madrid, Flaugher, Lopez-Gonzalez ABSENT: None STAFF: Housing Coordinator Arroyo, Community Development Specialist I Shanahan, Administrative Office Assistant II Gonzalez I EX-OFFICIO Lembo (present), Mayfield (present) GUEST: J.R. de Jesus Chantengco All the Commission Members and staff briefly introduced themselves again since everyone was present. MUSC (Flaugher/Madrid) to excuse Maggie Helton from the November 30, 1994 Commission meeting, approved unanimously. Commission Members decided to wait until the end of the meeting to elect officers. Member Helton drew her lot, her term ends 6-30-98. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MUSC (Flaugher/Lopez-Gonzalez) to approve November 30, 1994 minute Is with minor amendments, approved unanimously. 1 2. EASTLAKE AFFORDABLE HOUSING TASK FORCE REPORT - Mr. Arroyo gave a brief overview on the discussion that took place at the prior meeting. He stated that the EastLake Affordable Housing Task Force Report was put together by a committee that was established by the Council. Representatives from the EastLake community, EastLake Development Co, representative from the Planning.Commission, representative from a non-profit Housing Corporation, representative from the Housing Advisory Committee, and staff from Community Development and Planning Departments were-also involved. The program is in response to the City's policy which requires per the Housing Element that any development over 50 units or more must set aside 10% of those units for low and moderate income households. The plan outlines an affordable housing program for EastLake and identifies a number of issues. One of the most significant issue that was identify in the process has to do with the Olympic Training Center Athletic Housing. The EastLake Development Company proposes that some credit be given to those units as counting towards their low income housing requirement. The task force position on the issue was basically mixed. It was referred to the City Attorney for legal research, and the initial response to the EastLake Company is that the City cannot provide any credit to those units because the.City cannot get any credit from the state. That type of housing is very specialized and does not meet the intent of the City's Housing Element and does not address low R' income housing needs. I i i As far as time frame, after the review from the Housing Advisory Commission, the report will go to the Planning I Commission in approximately 3 weeks after which time it will go to City Council for final approval. Mr. de Jesus Chantengco who participated in the process is here to share his insights. Mr. de Jesus Chantengco gave a history of the project. He briefly went over the project outlining the major components. One of the issues was transportation. Another issue was open space and parks. The architectural design was another concern, something that would apply to the general plan. The Task Force identified 3 sites where development can occur within a short time frame. One of the sites is a 24 acre parcel south of the EastLake High School which is being considered to begin the first project. Mr. de Jesus Chantengco mention that South Bay Community Services is currently negotiating with other non-profit housing developers to try to implement an affordable housing development. Mr. Arroyo mentioned that staff has researched the athletes' housing issue and has provided some background materials to the EastLake Development Company and to the City Attorney's Office. Staff doesn't recommend any credits be given towards the Olympic Training Center Athletes' housing. i Ms. Shanahan gave an overview of the Olympic Training Center. The athletic housing would be a dormitory style housing and the athletes are expected to be there for maybe 3 to 5 months at a time. The type of h ousing that can count towards the Housing Element and the affordable housing goals is permanent affordable housing. The housing at the training center is not permanent because its dormitory style. It doesn't have its own kitchen facility and bathroom area, hence it doesn't count in that criteria. It is affordable in that the athletes are sponsored by their committees. The athletes don't necessarily need to be low income to be there. In other affordable housing projects the tenants would have to submit their income and qualify as a low income person in order to be able to occupy that unit. The whole idea of the inclusionary housing policy is to have a 5% low, 5% moderate income units to provide a balance community in the eastern territories of the City. It is important to have mixed income housing so everyone can afford to live in all neighborhoods. Member Helton expressed that rental housing is essential and questioned whether the Athletes' housing could be considered a rental facility. Ms. Shanahan commented that staff counts rental housing and could count for sale housing depending on affordability restrictions. However, rental housing that are dormitories or congregate care are facilities that would not count with the state. Member Madrid questioned if anyone has been looking into the possibility of changing the style of housing to single room occupancy units (SRO) so maybe they can count towards the low income housing credit. Ms. Shanahan responded that the housing is going to be built by the Olympic Training Center to meet the needs of the athletes. Therefore, the center have already dictated what kind of housing best suits the needs of the athletes. Ex-Officio Mayfield inquired if the SRO would qualify. Ms. Shanahaln stated that she would need to look into that. She mention that if it had its own bath �I i and kitchen area based on HCD standards, it might count, however if it was a more communal facility then it might not count. - I Member Madrid mention that she has seen some that have a community bathroom and have a microwave and bed, other than that they look a lotlike a dormitory. Perhaps some units could be considered with some minor adjustments. Ex-Officio Lembo stated that she disagrees with the athletes' housing being considered because of the fact that;they will not be built for nor will they be utilized for the true sense of affordable housing for people in lower and moderate income levels, that was the problem she had with it not whether its an SRO. Another issue is counting it as a affordable housing because it doesn't meet the intention,of affordable housing. In addition, its restricted housing, you would have to be an athlete to live there. So if someone is low income who is not an athlete, could not live there even if they wanted to. MUSC (Heft In /Flaugher) to oppose EastLake from receiving any credits for the athlete housing at the Olympic I raining Center, approved unanimously. I Member Helton expounded on her motion that the OTC is a very specific program. It is not available to other members of the community and she feels that it does not fit into the EastLake Affordable Housing program at all. Member Flaugher opened for discussion the issue of manufactured homes. He would like for the Commission;Members to go out to his park so they can see what kind of community he is talking about. He would like to see the developers to set aside areas out in EastLake for manufactured homes, because it is less expensive and can be concentrated for low income ownership. Member Alonso-Massey questioned what Member Flaugher was proposing, if it was in phase I or phase II of the EastLake project or something beyond that. Member Flaugher responded that as far as he understands it, it only has to be east of 805. Ms. Shanahan stated that it is open to any housing proposal and can be brought forward to the City, there isn't really a limitation. If its in connection with an EastLake developer or one of the developers on eastern territories participating, the goal is to have it on site wherever the developer is building it. If that is not achievable for any reason, than the second option is to have it west of 805. Member Alonso-Massey stated he wanted to confirm what this Commission needs to do in regards to the 223 of low income housing units that has to be provided for phase 1 and 473 that have to be provided in phase 2 in' EastLake. Mr. Arroyo stated that the recommendation or action being requested from this Commission is to find out the Commission's opinions and comments regarding the proposed EastLake Affordable Housing program. Staff recommends that the Commission approve the recommended program that has been established in the report. Member Alonso-Massey stated that he would like to make a specific motion which is a motion related to a recommendation considering the November 23, 1994 report. MUSC (Alonso-Massey/Helton) to recommend that the low income housing not be placed directly adjacent to SR125. Also, for EastLake to find alternative sites that are not next to the freeway. In addition, the 1proposed sites 1,3,and 7 not be the preferential placements primarily because it is not fair to the low income people to be placed directly adjacent to a highway, approved unanimously. i i i i I Member Alonso-Massey emphasized that the low income housing not be placed adjacent to SR125 because of.the noise, fumes, and smoke that comes from a highway which is not appropriate for anyone, particularly children. ,He strongly recommends that sites 1,3, and 7 be located elsewhere because they are directly adjacent to SR125 highway. Member Flaugher stated that it would.be,a hazard for the children that would be going off to school. Member Alonso-Massey expressed that he is concerned that the low income housing people will be at the worse geographical location within the entire development. He strongly recommends to the City Council ion behalf of the Commission, that EastLake be advised to find places which are not directly adjacent to the freeway for low income housing. Member Madrid mention that in reading the report, her understanding is that part of the criteria that they used to select the sites was to have them close. Ex-Officio Lembo stated that a freeway has nothing to do with closeness to transportation. EastLake's determination when they were thinking about very low income, they were thinking more like SBCS did when they.bought 17 and 31 Fourth Avenue, that it be on a road that people can access public transportation. Mr. ArroyoI ention that sites 1,3, and 7 already have built in services which are available for building right now, whereas the rest of the sites do not have infrastructure services as of yet. Mr. Arroyo i Informed the Commissioners that altogether there are a total of 9 sites that have been identified for the entire EastLake development plan both for the current phases and future phases. The map on page 16 identifies all those particular sites that have potential for housing development. - I Member Madrid questioned if staff have done extensive studies in other sites. Mr. Arroyo responded that Planning Department has reviewed the sites, and generally agree that the sites can accommodate housing. The proposed locations meet the criteria of being: near public transit facilities including bus routes, located within walking distance of retail commercial, near public parks,1 and compatibility with adjacent residential areas. i Member Madrid stated that she supports the motion made but for a different reason, her concern is the SDGE power lines are too close to some of the sites. Member Madrid mention,that site 7 would fit into the community as far as being in the neighborhood. It wouldn't be close to shopping, but it would be a appropriate site for SROs. MSCM Amended Motion:'(Alonso-Massey/Flaugher) That the low income housing sites not be placed directly adjacent to either highway SR125 or the SDGE power lines, and in particular recommend that the proposed sites 1, 3, and 7 not be utilized at least as they are drawn on the report because they have them drawn directly adjacent to the freeway, (4-1 Madrid voted no because site 7 was left in the motion). Member Flaulgher added that he would like to amend the motion to remove site 7 and use that site as a condominium or SRO. The reason for it is because there is no space for greenery, hence site 7 would be suitable for single residency occupancy or senior housing. Member Ma�rid added that site 7 would be convenient for elderly housing and or SRO's and agreed to take site 7 out of the motion. I Member Alonso-Massey stated that he didn't have an objection to the amendment just as long as the sites are not directly adjacent to the freeway. Site 7 could be placed several hundred yards to the east further.along Telegraph Canyon road and would be more appropriate. (No vote was taken on the second amended motion.) MUSC (Helton/Lopez-Gonzalez) for the EastLake Affordable Housing Task Force report be accepted with the Housing Advisory Commission's recommendations and concerns, approved unanimously. Ex-Officio Mayfield question the time impact on the sites, if the Commission recommends that EastLake do` 't use the sites what kind of timing are they talking about. Mr. Arroyo res onded that the timing can be ver significant. Most sites that were identified are Y P 9 Y 9 sites that are available, especially sites 1,3, 7, and 2. If those sites are not acceptable the implementation of the affordable housing program would be impacted. Member Madrid commented that if site,7 was kept and did something along the lines of SRO's like senior housi g, that might be something that can take place immediately. Ex-Officio Member Lembo stated that she feels that staff shouldn't exclude families with children in site 7. Greenery and open space are not always needed for those families with younger children. Parents ten to always take their children to parks where they can be supervised. Member Helton nominated Vicki Madrid for Chairman. MUSC (Helto n/Alonso-Massey) Vicki Madrid nominated for Chairman for.the Housing Advisory Commission MUSC (Flaugher/Madrid) Maggie Helton nominated for Vice-Chair for the Housing Advisory Commission 3. ORAL COMMENTS - None 4. STAFF COMMENTS - None 5. MEMBERS COMMENTS - Member Flaugher asked the Chair to notify the members of the Commission when items discussed come before the Council. Member Helton brought up an issue regarding a notice of a public hearing on the Coastal., amendment. She stated that this Commission hasn't received any literature regarding what this amendment is.-The Commission should be inquiring in regards to the amendment. 6. ADJOURNMENT - 5:15 p.m. to the next regular meeting scheduledFebruary 22, 1995 in the Public Services Building. Recorder, Alicia Gonzalez �� [AG/CAWP W IN11-25-95.M I NI r