HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1982/10/19 Item 9a•
~~ ,.
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
• Item 9a
Meeting Date 10/19/82
ITE TITLE: Report: Disposition of existing dwellings on "F" Street
Public Housing site
SU ITTED BY: Community Development Director (4/5ths Yote: Yes No X )
At this meeting, the Council is considering the transfer of the "F" Street
ho sing site to the County Housing Authority for the development of osesunthe
of Elderly Public Housing. That proposed transaction, then, p
qu stion of the disposition of the three single-family houses on site.
Th refore, it is my
RE OMMENDATION: That Council accept the report and include the houses in
th pending property transfer to the County Housing Authority.
BO RDS/CON~IISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DI CUSSION:
W n the Council, on February 9, 1982, approved in concept the development of
t e "F" Street site as Elderly Public Housing and the transfer of the site to
• t e County Housing Authority, the decision was based on the delivery ° the
c eared site to the County Housing Authority. Since that decision,
C mnunity Development Department has been exploring options for disposition of
t e three single-family homes on-site.
I have identified five options for the Council's consideration. They are:
1. Sell the houses to contract house movers who will move them off-site
for resale. We have received informal offers from contractors
averaging $1500 per house for such purchase.
2. Sell the houses to builders or real estate developers who would move
them to in-fill sites in Chula Vista, rehabilitate them, and sell
them or rent them to low and moderate income families. Considering
land costs, moving costs, and rehabilitation costs, even with CHIP
Program assistance, this approach might require the contribution of
the homes to the builders or developers to accomplish affordability.
Additionalowyand moderate incomeCfamil'esawould be problematicals would
benefit 1
3. Create a City program to purchase suitable in-fill sites, move the
houses onto them, rehabilitate them, and make them available t roach
and moderate income families. The problems posed by this app
are
•
/~-// ~ ~/
._ • •
Page 2, Item 9a
Meeting Date 10/19/82
•
a dministrative costs that would be involved in initiating a
The a
. program with eligibility standards, an auction or lottery
process, resale controls, and liability protection for the
benefit of three low and moderate income families.
b The lack of significant cost advantages over current new
. construction costs, considering land cost, moving cost, and
rehabilitation cost.
c. The City's exposure and its intrusion into the private market.
4. Give or sell the houses to CHIP clients whose houses cannot be
feasibly rehabilitated. The difficulty here is that the houses would
have to be stored somewhere until called for. Additionally, there is
the question of the small cost advantage over current new
cons truction costs.
5. Convey the three single-family houses with the site to the County
Housing Authority, with the commitment that they make the units
available to the low and moderate income families as replacement
housing. This would be accomplished in the County's Residential
Rehabilitation Program target areas in the unincorporated South Bay.
Op i on 5 i s my recommendation. The County Housing Authority feel s that they
• ha e a viable plan for delivering the houses to eligible families under the
ad inistrative structure of their Residential Rehabilitation Program.
Al hough the housing benefit would not be delivered to Chula Vista residents,
th City would be making a contribution to the Regional Affordable Housing
st ck. Low and moderate income families would be the benefit recipients.
La guage has been placed in the Real Property Contract for the property
tr nsfer which would protect the City's position, if the Council chooses
Op ion 5. That language requires that the County Housing Authority do the
fo lowing:
1. Remove the houses by February 1, 1983.
2. Maintain the grounds in the interim.
3. Make the houses available to low and moderate income families.
4. If delivery to low and moderate income families proves infeasible,
contribute disposition proceeds from the houses to the Public Housing
Project.
I the Council chooses not to convey the houses to the County Housing
A thority, the restrictive language could be stricken from the Real Property
C ntract. I would then recommend that Option 1 be pursued as the most direct
a d practical disposition of the houses.
•
' /l~Jyl
• •
FI
Opti
the
Opti
all
were
remo
stor
DG:
WPC
•
IMPACT:
Page 3, Item 9a
Meeting Date ~T1~
ns 1 and 2 could provide the City with approximately $4500 for sale of
ouses, but that gai n woul d be more than offset by site clearance costs.
n 3 would entail an estimated initial program cost of $200,000, most or
f which would be recapturable when the relocated and rehabilitated houses
sold. Administrative costs have not been estimated. Option 4 entails
al and site clearance costs of approximately $60,000, plus unknown
ge costs for indefinite periods. Option 5 entails no cost to the City.
42X
~~~
__ ~
~ate~ _~ ______.__ -- _~