Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1982/02/09 Item 7COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item ~ Resolution O Meeting Date 2/9/82 ITEM TI LE: ~ 7` ~ Approving the Submission by the County -Housing Authority of a Development Proposal for Elderl Housing and Approving in Concept Financial Assistance t toubthe Proposed Development SUBMIT ED BY: Community Development Director 0 April 11, 1978, the voters of Chula Vista a roved ~4/5ths Vote: Yes No X ) fo 400 units of publicly owned low-income housing on scattered4 sites endum pu suit of the development of those units, agreements were entered into with th County Housing Authority for development and ownership of such units. The Co my Housing Authority subsequently secured a fund reservation from HUD for 10 ,units of public housing to be built in Chula Vista. A 24-unit famil pr ject was recently approved for development at Melrose Avenue and Otay Va ley Road. On January 12, 1982, the City Council amended the agreements wi h the County Housing Authority to allow feasible elderly unit development un er the remaining public housing fund reservation. The County Housing Au hority has now formulated a proposal for development of 59 elderly public ho sing units on the housing site on "F" Street owned by the City. Therefore, it is my REC MMENDATION: That the Council Ado t the resolution approving submission by the County Housing Authority of the development proposal for 59 elderly public housing units on the "F" Street hou ing site and approving in concept financial assistance to the project. BOA DS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: On April 8, 1981, the Human Relations o fission unanimous y en orse a development of the "F" Street housing site as low and moderate-income senior housing project. DISaUSSION: The HUD fund reservation provides X1,917,159 for development of elderly public housing in Chula Vista. That amount was reserved to fund the development of 30 nits. The County Housing Authority's develo ment unit count by 29. To achieve the proposed 59 units, the development proposal call upon the City to augment the fund reservation by making a donation of the and and a possible cash donation of approximately $183,291. Plea a see the attached report for details of the proposal. FINA CIAL IMPACT: Project donations from the City would be appropriated at a ate a e rom the Redevelopment Agency Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund. The estimated amount would be approximatel that fund as of June 30, 1981, was X1,529,261, y $183,291. The balance in $200, 00 has been expended from the fund in Since that time approximately famil public housing site at Melrose Avenue and Otay Vallevh RA~~rchase of the DKG:n WPC 0 06H ~ ~~~~ GY ~"~ Ci~y Coc.~;~;;ii of C~~fa Vi:;ta, C~ iiforria Form A-113 Rev. 11/79) Dated ~~~-"~ Item 7 C~unty Housing Authority's Development H using in the City of Chula Vista 1 2. 3. Proposal for 59 Units of Elderly Public pitted by: David Gustafson, Housing Coordinator, February 9, 1982 SITE The City purchased the "F" Street housing site for X561,000 on July 29, 1980, with a loan from the Community Development Block Grant Program. It was purchased for the development of low and moderate-income senior housing, based on the premise of the City writing down the cost of the land to a developer to make such a project feasible. The site is .98 acres of R-3 zoned land. occupy the site, and the City incurred Tthe a liabili y m f providins relocation assistance to the occupants of those dwellings when it purchased the site. The City anticipated delivering the site cleared of improvements to a developer of low and moderate-income senior housing. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL The County Housing Authority has formulated a development proposal for 58 one-bedroom units and one two-bedroom manager's unit to be constructed in proposal sta e~ available 1 forf~ stud ~oninschematics and the development Department). The proposal in Ludes ahe Community Development community/meeting/dining room, and a kitchen. The one9bedroom units would be 571 square feet, and each unit would have a balcony or a patio. The units would be supplied by a solar hot water system. All units would be rented to seniors whose income was at or below 72~ of the area median income. Those seniors would pay 25~ of their income for rent. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROCESS 'he development of this project is proposed under the provisions of the enior Housing Development Zoning Text Amendment, which involves approval f a conditional use permit. The zoning concessions which would have to e made for this project under the conditional use permit are the ollowing: Density would be increased from the normal R-3 density of 31 units for the site to a total of 59 units. Parking requirements would be reduced from one space per unit to .44 spaces per unit. This reduction is based on the attached study of need in existing similar projects compiled by the County Housing Authority (Exhibit 1). Side yard and rear yard setbacks would be reduced somewhat from R-3 zoning standards. . -/~ 7~q Item 7 PROJECT COST AND CITY ASSISTANCE The Public Housing Fund Reservation of X1,917,159 available to the Coun Housing Authority was intended to fully finance the development of ty units of elderly public housing. However, the County Housin 30 allowed under HUD regulations to construct as many units asg the h ca ty i s that fund reservation amount. y n for The City's ownership of the "F" Street housing site created a uni u opportunity for maximizing the housing benefit the City's low-income senior housing effort could derive from the Public Housing Program. When the "F" Street site was purchased, environmental studies indicated tha dwelling units could be accommodated on the site without significanO detriment. City and County Housing Authority staff came to the conclusion that the property would be an ideal site for elderl and efforts focused on obtaining the maximum feasibluel~c housing units, public housing units from the fund reservation and frome then site.erly City-controlled site committed to low-income senior housin and flexibility in density and development standards, combined to promise th greatest benefit from the federal housing program funds and the City land purchase costs. The public housing project architect determined that the maximum desirabl unit count under HUD standards would be 59 units. The architect, with County Housing Authority staff and myself participating, then develo ed a project cost estimate. The cost estimate indicates that the City could "buy" the additional 29 units beyond the original fund reservation un' count of 30 by donating the land at a nominal sales price of 1 it investing $561,000 in the project, and by making a cash contribution hof $183,291, for a total donation amount of $774,291. allow the development proposal budget to achieve the a $1,917,159 wfund reservation ceiling for the entire project period. A number of points should be recognized regarding this estimated level of assistance: ~• Given the trends in the construction industry and the appropriately conservative methodology of the architect's cost estimate, representatives suggest that the Count Housin HUD reasonably anticipate a significantly lower actual cost twith a timely proceeding to construction bidding. The proposed City donation is envisioned to be on an as-needed basis, so any savings realized by favorable bids would decrease the amount of the City's cash donation. • The total cost of the project, and therefore the amount of the City's contribution, could be reduced by the cost of the solar hot water system, which ~s estimated at $64,900. San Diego Gas & Electric has applied for authorization from the Public Utilities Commission to provide full cost grants to both this project and the Melrose Avenue -iv ~~ ~ -2- Item 7 and Otay Valley Road family project for installation of solar hot water systems under a Public Utilities Commission-mandated low-income energy conservation program. The chance for Such grants looks excellent, and we would be aware of the Public Utilities Commission's decision before final approval of this project, probably within two weeks. 3• In addition to the maximum allowable project cost imposed by the si of the fund reservation, HUD also imposes a maximum per unit dwelline cost (prototype). Construction and equipment directly associated with the dwelling unit comprises this cost. This cost limit creates the possibility that the City might make a cash donation to the project even though the total project cost was under $1,917,159. In conformity with its private open space standards, the Cit required the inclusion of balconies and patios, even though HUD no longer allows them in HUD assisted ro'ects. included, but if they caused the prototype cost 1Dimit~totbe exceedede the City would have to pay the excess. estimate, such is the case, and that excess iscestdimated at $58,928t So the City might be called upon to pay that amount or less, even though the total project comes in under the fund reservation amount if the City wishes to enhance the project with patios and balconies. I would recommend that the identified potential donations be the Redevelopment Agency's Low and Moderate-Income Housin Fund. fund is committed to the provision of low and moder paid for by throughout the Cit g That y• And to assure that the City donatesn onl housing degree actually necessary, I would recommend that the Redevelopment Ao ence be asked at a later date to place the donation amount in an escrow account to be accessed only to the degree that actual costs exceed the HUD allowable costs. Please note also that the financial aspects of the redevelopment ro osal ay be subject to minor adjustments by HUD at the point of their review. 5• ROCESS f you approve the development proposal and the provisions for donation ssistance, the following steps would be pursued: • Submission of the development program to the County Housin Authority's Board of Commissioners for approval on February 16, 1982.8 Submission to HUD of the development proposal. HUD processing and potential approval, with execution of an Annual Contributions Contract. -/0761 -3- Item 7 4• County Housing Authority processing of plans and conditional use permit through the City. 5• Appropriation by the City Redevelopment Agency of housing fund monie for the donation escrow account. s 6• Development. The City Council, then, will give ultimate consideration to design and to density bonus and standards exceptions in the conditional use ermit process. p :nr 0006H ~+io ~~~ by the CiIY Cc;~;~,;;il of Chula Viss,~, C::i~,,~ia n~,ed _•~- ~--~ o'er -4-