Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1982/01/12 Item 12COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item 12 • Meeting Date 1/12/82 ITEM TIT~.E: Resolution Approving an Amended and Restated Memorandum of ~0~~ 9 Understanding Between the City of Chula Vista and the Housing Authority of the County of San Diego .for Low Rent Public Housing SUBMITTE BY• ' • Community Development Director ~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X ) On Augu t 24, 1978, the City Council entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with th Housing Authority of the County of San Diego for the provision of family Low- Rent Pu lic Housing in the City of Chula Vista. HUD reserved $3.7 million for the Housing Authority to build those family units on September 19, 1978. On February l9, 1980, t e MOU was amended to allow higher unit counts on Public Housing sites. HUD has rec ntly contracted with the Housing Authority to build 24 family units in Chula Vista w'th a portion of that fund reservation, and at the same time they converted the remaini g fund reservation to be for construction of approximately 30 elderly one- bedroom units. The existing MOU (Attachment I) is directed to the development of family nits only. Therefore, it is my RECOMMENDATION: That Council Approve the amended and restated MOU (Attachment II) to provide for development of elderly one-bedroom Public Housing units. BOARDS/¢OMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Aff rdable Housing Subcommittee of the Human Relations Commission has supported the pur uit of Public Housing in Chula Vista. DISCUSSION: When Ch la Vista and the Housing Authority undertook the attempt to develop Low-Rent Public ~ousing in Chula Vista, it was in response to the availability from HUD of funding for two and three-bedroom family units. The MOU was drafted and amended to provide for the development of those family units. It established recommendations for dev lopment guidelines, limiting Public Housing site proxi•mities and unit con- centrat ons. It reflected Chula Vista's wishes regarding the development of a specifi category of housing--publicly-owned and operated low-rent famly housing. Large c ncentrations of such housing were eschewed in favor of scattered sites with no more than 25 units per site, to avoid any sense of "tenement projects." The con ersion by HUD of the remaining Public Housing fund reservation to provide the opp rtunity for elderly housing leaves the City and the Housing Authority with an MOU hich took no consideration of the distinctions between family and elderly housing Elderly one-bedroom units, whether publicly or privately owned and operated, are gen rally recognized to be more suitable for higher densities and unit counts. Senior lifestyles tend to create fewer problems as a result of concentration than do family lifestyles. While t e remainder of the Public Housing Fund Reservation has been reformulated to provide funding for approximately 30 elderly units, the Housing Authority would be allowed by HUD to develop as many units as they could with the funds reserved. With so a degree of assistance from the City, I feel that as many as 60 units could be buil for the remaining Fund Reservation amount, thereby accomplishing a unit Continued Form A-113 (Rev. 11./79) Page 2, Item 12 Meeting Date 1/12/82 conc ntration which would make an elderly project work best. Keeping in mind that oppo tunity for augmenting the unit count, I feel that the "F" Street senior housing site owned by the City would be an ideal location for such a project. The purpose of a ending and restating the MOU as proposed, then, is to accomplish that develop- ment, which I feel is consistent with the City's desire for development of that prop rty. The roposed amended and restated P~10U recognizes the differences between family and lderly multi-family housing and allows for development planning for an elderly prof ct on our "F" Street site. Aside from minor rewording without changing sub- stan e, the changes and additions are as follows: 1. Item "b" addressed unit concentration, Public Housing site proximity,. and number of handicap units in the program. Those components have been broken out as follows: a. Item "b" addresses site proximity, family or elderly, with no change of minimum distance. b. Item "c" addresses handicapped unit count, family or elderly, with no change. c. Item "d" addresses unit concentration for family units, with no change in the maximum count per site of 25 units. 2. Item "e" has been added to provide a higher unit count per site for elderly units, with a maximum of 60. 3. Item "c" stated that the City would not provide any off-site improvements for a-Public Housing Development, and it required the Housing Authority to undergo the City's normal development procedures. The off-site im- provements reference has been dropped, with the intent of providing more latitude in facilitating an elderly Public Housing project. The reference to normal development procedures is now item "f ." It s ould be recognized that the fund reservation for Low-Rent Public Housing expires in F bruary of 1982 and that the MOU will be moot after that time. Barring unex- pect d complications, I will come before you shortly with a recommendation that you appr ve the submission to HUD by the Housing Authority of a development program for 60 units of elderly one-bedroom Public Housing on the "F" Street senior housing site wned by the City. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Not applicable. D KG ,~ ,~U~~y r :,