The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCT 98-14; Thompson/Tabata; Tentative Map (CT) (94)01/14/2000 16:20 7604380981 HENTHORN enthorn & Associate |375 Avenida Endnas, Suite D Carlsbad, California $2008 (760) 438-4090 Fax (760) 438-0981 PAGE 02 January 12, 2000 Ms. Deborah K. Fountain Housing and Redevelopment Directf) City of Carlsbad 2965 Roosevelt Street, Suite B Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 Subject: Thompson/Tabata Poinlettia Properties - Request to Purchase Off-site Affordable Housing Credits - CT 98-14 Dear Ms. Fountain: This letter serves as a formal reqii property owners of the Thompson/I affordable housing obligations thro the existing Villa Loma deveiopmerj bst by Standard Pacific Homes, acting on behalf of the Tabata Poinsettia Properties (CT 98-14) to satisfy their gh: 1) purchase of off-site affordable housing credits in t, 2) construction of 15 for-sale town-home units on site and, 3) construction of 15 second towelling units. Upon approval by the City, this proposal will satisfy the inclusionary housinjL obligations associated with the proposed subdivision. This request complies with City Ordinances and City Council policies previously adopted by the City Council as explained belowj The City's Inclusionary Housing requirements under which re affordable to lower-income hou issuance. The ordinance provi interest would be served by all with one project site to be produ obligations at an alternative sitejj Ordinance (CMC Chapter 21.85) establishes certain idential developers must provide housing that is jiolds as a condition of project approval and permit s that "circumstances may arise in which the public Ing some or all of the inclusionary units associated at an alternative site or sites." City Council Policy 57 establishes procedures for the City to use in determining if a proposed development meets t|e criteria to satisfy Inclusionary Housing Ordinance or sites. Further, City Council Policy 58 sets for the specific evaluation and rankind procedures for the City to use when authorizing proposed developments to satisfy inclusionary housing obligations by the purchase of credits in the existing Villa Lomajproject (a "Combined Inclusionary Housing Project"). 01/14/2000 16:20 7604380981 HENTHORN PAGE 03 The options available to Thompsdh/Tabata Poinsettia Properties (CT 98-14) to satisfy its inclusionary housing obligations arJ: 1) construct affordable units on-site, 2) participate in an off-site combined inclusionary project within the southwest quadrant in accordance with the requirements set forth in Chapter Policy 57 dated August 8, 1995, 3) ?1.85 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and City Council enter into an agreement with the City to purchase credits from the Villa Loma Combined Incllisionary Housing Project in accordance with City Council Policy 58 dated alternatives. September 12,1995, or 4) provide a combination of the previous The Housing Commission has rev ewed a report that analyzed the projected inclusionary housing requirements of undeveloped property within the Southwest Quadrant of the City. The report examined whether ultimate build-out of the Quadrant would result in a demand for off-site credits exceeding the nurrjper of available credits in the Villa Loma project. The analysis shows that there are sufficient excess credits to satisfy the potential demand of the Quadrant, including that associated] with these properties. In the case of the Thompson/Tabata Poinsettia Properties application, there are particular circumstances that warrant this project's participation in the purchase of credits in the Villa Loma project, pursuant to Council Policy 58 criteria. The primary circumstances relate primarily to the economics of constlucting a smalt affordable housing project and have driven the formulation of the hybrid approach contained in this request. Secondarily, the proposed combination of 15 townhomes anl 15 secondary dwelling units with the remainder of the inclusionary housing obligation bejing met through the allocation of credits in Villa Loma allows for an equitable solution to the obligation requirements. This results in the production of 30 affordable housing units (ov required public subsidy. This com!lined approach was specifically designed to eliminate the necessity for the City to pay out s satisfy the entire inclusionary oblige This proposal to purchase credits benefit by reducing the level of hoi would be available for use in other staff Project Review Committee wj the criteria defined in Policies 5 recommendation to the Housing Thompson/Tabata Poinsettia Pro; Policies 57 and 58 is attached to t jr 75% of the requirement) on-site, while minimizing the ibstantial hard-dollar subsidies that would be required to tion by building affordable apartments on-site. in the Villa Loma project will result in increased public sing fund subsidy to a level where current fund balances ity assisted inclusionary projects. We understand that a evaluate this request to determine its compliance with and 58, and that staff will then take the Committee's ommission and the City Council- Our analysis of the rties' compliance with criteria set forth in City Council s letter for your use and reference. 01/14/2000 16:20 7604380981 HENTHORN Please call if you need additional look forward to receiving your formation or if we may be of any other assistance. We respqrise to this request. Very truly yours, -r/c E. Henthorn JEH:wpc Enclosure cc: Craig Ruiz, Housing and RedJ Mike Grim, City of Carlsbad, Gregg Linhoff, Standard Pac PAGE 04 iVeiopment Department planning Department ic Homes 01/14/2000 16:20 7604380981 HENTHORN PAGE 05 THOMPSON/T \BATA POINSETTIA PROPERTIES OFF-SITE AND COMB ASSESSMEN The following background information 1. Owner/Applicant Information: Owner/Applicant Standard Pacific Homes Attn: Gregg Linhoff 9335 Chesapeake Drive San Diego Division San Diego, CA 92123-1010 858-292-2200 Owner David & Karen Thompson Revocat & DKST Limited Liability Compa Attn: David & Karen Thompson 7040 Rose Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 760-438-1189 Owner William E. Engler 10468 Hot Mineral Spa Road Niland, CA 92257 760-354-1533 Owner Evelyn M. Weidner, Richard John Otennis & Kathleen M Dennis P.O. Box Cardiff By-The-Sea, CA 92007 2, Off-site/Combined Project Name: VILLA LOMA APARTMENTS NED 1NCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROJECT WORKSHEET - BACKGROUND provided to assist you in your assessment. Applicant's Representative: Jack Henthorn & Associates Attn: Mr. Jack Henthorn 5375 Avenida Encinas Suite D Carlsbad, CA 92008 760-438-4090 e Trust y Owner Mendivil Family Partnership Attn; Consuelo Duncan &. Carme! Verodi Frees 21241 San Miguel Mission Viejo, CA 92692 949-830-3386 Owner Tabata Family Trust Attn: Noboru & Evelyn Tabata & Isokazu Tabata P.O. Box 943, Carlsbad, CA 92018 760-438-0280 01/14/2000 16:20 7B04380981 HENTHORN 3.Description of Project with Inclu The Thompson/Tabata Poinsettia unit development (with fifteen att home complex on 80.64 acres ownerships. The table below the ownership parcels/entities. Th housing obligation for the proposec ionary Housing Obligation: roperties, CT 98-14, is a proposed 248-!ot, 243 single-family :hed second dwelling units) with a 15-unit affordable town- incorporating nine individual parcels under six different demonstrates the inclusionary housing responsibilities of each of se individual obligations result in a total 38.7-unit affordable subdivision. PAGE 06 Owners Standard Pacific Corp. David B. Thompson & Karen Thompson Revocable Trust, Truste DKST Limited Liability Company The Mendivil Family Partnership William Engler Tabata Family Trust, Noboru & Eve Tabata, Co-Trustees (1/2 interest) < Isokazu Tabata (1/2 interest) : Evelyn Weidner, Richard & Kathl< Dennis Total I R. 3S yn nd en Title Rep. Area Ref. A, B&E C D F G, H&l J&K L APN's 21 4-1 70-75 & 36 214-170-09 por. 214-1 70-09 por. &47 214-170-73 21 4-1 70-58 & 59 214-140-44 and 214-170-74 214-170-46 , - Proposed Du's 8, 15 & 37 6 54 & 18 24 6&5 12&51 22 258 Indus. Hsg Du's Oblig. 9.00 ,90 10.80 3.60 1.65 9.45 3,30 38.7 5. 4. On-site Affordable Housing Desc The Thompson/Tabata Poinsettia 15 attached for-sale town-home u order to provide usable land) and project site on the single-family sales/rent range that is affordable Income. To achieve financial feasi $400,415 (assuming a fully constructed based on a 95% occupancy rate credit against the purchase of housl ng market price for the for-sale affor market rate would result in the nee? iption: operties on-site inclusionary housing project would consist of its (requiring a reduction of 6 proposed single-family lots in 5 restricted second-dwelling units dispersed throughout the residential lots. The units would be offered in a maximum o households earning incomes of 80% of the Area Median ility, the project would require a net subsidy of approximately pad is provided by the developer and unit revenues are ctor) which the developer is requesting in the form of a fee credits in Villa Loma. These rates also assume a set base able units, A reduced purchase price below the assumed ssity of additional hard dollar subsidy from the public. Proposed Off-site Project Desert tion The Villa Loma project is a 344-un affordable to households with incon Loma was developed by La Teiraza Managing Genera! Partner. The cp nple: apartment development in which all units are restricted and es not exceeding 60% of the San Diego County Median. Villa Associates, with Bridge Housing Corporation as the x contains 1, 2, 3, & 4 bedroom units. Villa Loma was financed with Redevelopment Agency. The assi; now marketed exclusively by the Ci The Villa Loma Apartment comple) Ordinance, and developers may p? sststance from the City of Carlsbad and the Carlsbad ance was structured to create affordable unit credits that are to other developers to satisfy affordable housing obligations, is a Combined Project according to the Inclusionary Housing :lcipate in this as an "off-site" method of satisfying affordable 01/14/2000 16:20 7604380981 HENTHORN PAGE 07 6. housing obligations. (This is als< Carnation, Hadiey, Roesch, and an approved site for Greystone Cove, Ocean Bluff, Lohf, otHer projects in the vicinity.) The proposed purchase of 8.7 Villa mitigate the inclusionary together with the provision of 15 fo consistent with the terms housing ordinance. Loma Affordable Housing Credits as a part of the approach to requirements of the Thompson/Tabata Poinsettia Properties application •-sale affordable units and 15 secondary rental units on-site is established by City Council Policies 57 and 58 and the inclusionary Description of On-site Project Cphstraints Site specific and ownership constraints which diminish the feasibility of pr housing. These constraints include project and the significant product apartment complex and the existit g subject site. The applicant is proposing homes to be built immediately n Poinsettia Lane on the south and immediately west of the proposed i reduces these conflicts and provid The costs of providing a 39-unit inclusionary housing obligation sources, including the City, provision of for-sale units and affordable housing units, while full 39-unit affordable facility on-st dollars. •--X exist at the Thompson/Tabata Poinsettia Properties site during the full inclusionary obligation with on-site affordable the independently owned parcel configuration within the type difference between a large high-density attached single-family homes in the neighborhoods adjacent to the to buffer the on-site town-home project with single-family rth of the proposed site. The site is further buffered by he parking area for the adjacent multi-family project located ite. The use of second dwelling units and Villa Loma credits ; for integration of the units into the total project. ajfordable housing apartment project on-site to satisfy the full result in substantial subsidies being required from public proposed allocation of off-site credits combined with the condary units on-site, maximizes construction new on-site minijnizing the amount of subsidy required. The construction of a e would require additional public subsidy of over a million 01/14/2000 16:20 7604380981 HENTHORN THOMPSON OFF-SITE AND COM ASSESSM 1, Feasibility of the Qn-site Proposal a. Are there significant feasibility issu and availability of required subs id option impractical? • The applicant's proposal incorpors product increases the feasibility of • The net gap of the proposed 1 developer site dedication. Credits this gap. This approach would re otherwise been paid and reinves outside subsidy. • The construction of the full 39-un could require an additional approxi • The construction of the 15 afford project's market units being requ contributed by the applicants. Th required to build the units on-site The proposed combined approach greatly reduces the potential burdei be built on-site. For example, the result in a greater than 50% increa • Given the multiple ownerships with to each ownership would not be c project located on a particular pard owners to the unearned benefit of TABATA POINSETTIA PROJECT INED INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROJECT NT WORKSHEET - WORKSHEET s due to factors such as project size, site constraints, amount and competition from multiple projects that make an on-site b.Will an affordable housing product because of significant price and pro The proposal of 30 integrated on- rental units will provide affordable detached homes In the vicinity. The combined town-home, seconc use of the City's affordable housinj the inclusionary units on-site, integ The applicant is proposing to buffi immediately north of the proposed the parking area for the adjacent rr A larger affordable housing proj compatibility opposition with regard surrounding developments. This j ranging in size from 2,800 to 4,30(j prices ranging from the upper $30C PAGE 08 ing three avenues, credit purchase, secondary units and new rental n site construction. unit affordable town-home project results in over $400,000 after can be granted in the existing Vill^ Loma to offset a large portion of ult in no additional cost to the City beyond fee revenues that would d into the project. The combined proposal reduces the need for obligation (24 for-sale units and 15 second dwelling units) on-site ately 1 million-dollar contribution by the City, ble town-home units and 15 secondary units on-site results in the ed to absorb about $4,650 per unit so that land value could be figure rises to approximately $6,300 per unit if the applicants are nd close the post land development gap of approximately $400,400. while producing over 75 percent of the project's requirement on-site, that would entail if the entire obligation of 39 affordable units had to addition of 9 units in the proposed for-sale affordable project would e in both the private and public subsidies required, the proposed project area, an on-site affordable project apportioned sufficient size to be viable, A large on-site inclusionary apartment I in the CT 98-14 project area would unfairly burden certain property ther property owners. >e difficult to integrate Into the proposed market development uct type disparity? e affordable units composed of for-sale town-homes and secondary units that better blend in with the existing higher-end single-family / ry unit, and credit request proposal provides for the most effective budget by reducing required subsidies while providing over 75% of ted within the proposed development. the on-site town-home project with single-family homes to be built te. The site is further buffered by Poinsettia Lane on the south and ti-family project located immediately west of the proposed site, could raise greater price, product type disparity, and land use o the existing larger lot, higher-end detached single-family homes in uld also occur with the proposed new homes in this development square feet on 5,700 to 39,000 square foot lots with estimated base OO's to the mid $500,000's. 01/14/2000 16:20 7604380981 HENTHORN c. Does the on-site development ent on-site? • The ability to obtain off-site credit! would be required from the City, housing project on-site, for the ap • Standard Pacific Homes is a repu • Standard Pacific Homes is workin; Carlsbad, as wed as with the r& agencies. 2. Relative Advantages/Disadvantages a.Does the off-site option offer grea particularly regarding potential loca • Villa Loma is built and has proven • The CT 98-14 project participate amount that the associated with tl used to provide additional afforda site inclusionary project meeting significant additional subsidy from • The ability to obtain off-site credi rental units to be built onsite while b. Does the off-site proposal have loc to jobs, schools, transportation, sen The combined proposal has the project and within the Villa Loma family neighborhoods. The combined proposal also allow development is located further to tl The Villa Loma development is loil business parks and shopping centt services due to its location along a Villa Loma is a self-contained residential development such as project, Manzanita Apartments loci c. Does the off-site option offer a deve The Villa Loma project is an specialized affordable housing devj d. The Villa Loma project was origiiij purpose. The obligation to provide all inclust would potentially be one of severe assistance. Villa Loma has alreax financing. The combined proposal PAGE 09 If have the capacity to deliver the proposed affordable housing |for the proposed combined development, in lieu of the subsidies that really enhances the economic viability of providing the inclusionary icant and the City. |b!e company with a long history of development success in this area, with an affordable housing development team that are experienced in irements and procedures of State and Federal affordable housing jof the Off-site Proposal. r feasibility and cost effectiveness than the on-site alternative, public assistance? s feasibility; no additional assistance is required, in Villa Loma will minimize the expenditure of City funds to the proposed Villa Loma credits. Future collected funds could then be e housing in other developments and locations. Conversely, an on- |he full 39-unit obligation at this location would create demand for ie City. allows for 15 new affordable for-sale units and 15 new affordable linimizing additional subsidy impacts to the City, tion advantages over the on-site alternative, such as proximity ices, less Impact on other existing developments, etc.? Ivantage of dispersing the affordable housing obligation across the evelopment, which also results in less impact to surrounding single- for the dispersing of affordable units within Zone 20 as the proposed west from Villa Loma, adjacent tq Palomar Airport Road, led within close vicinity of public transportation, jobs (in the nearby s), schools, library, shopping, parks, as well as, other amenities and [major thoroughfare, El Camino Real. rordable development in an area designated for higher density ondominiums and townhomes. A 157-unit multi-family residential led just to the south of Villa Loma recently received City approvals. >pment entity with the capacity to deliver the proposed project? existing project, developed and managed by a highly experienced and ioper. Does the off-site option satisfy multiple developer obligations that would be difficult to satisfy with multiple projects? lly established as a Combined Project specifically to address this inary units on-site would result in an affordable housing project that projects in the southwest quadrant competing for scarce financial / been financed and built and thus, is not competing for subsidy >n-site minimizes the competition for outside financial assistance. 01/14/2000 16:20 7604380981 HENTHORN PAGE 10 3. Advancing Housing Goals and Strat< gy a.Does the off-site proposal advance Housing Element, CHAS and Inclusidnary General Plan Housing Element and CHhS • The Villa Loma Apartment affords Die rental units for low-income households • The recovery of the City's investment provide for additional resources tha; • Villa Loma provides a large quantit) a generous supply of different size Goals: project is targeted to the highest priority need identified, larger in the Villa Loma Project through the applicant's participation will are needed to sustain the city's affordable housing activities, and diversity of affordable housing stock with its 344 units, including mits to meet various housing needs of the community. Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Policie • Consistent with the City and public additional new construction. • In conjunction with the combined provide for 15% of the total units complies with the Inclusionary requ Loma project, the Thompson/Tabata Poinsettia Properties will for affordable (lower income) residential units. The project also cements as contained in the General Plan Housing Element. Growth Management Zone, Ord, No. N • The combined proposal to construe site credits for the remainder of the'; consistent with the guidelines. • The proposed on-site affordable surrounding properties and provides pedestrian access to public facilities • Villa Loma is coordinated with surou Element Roadway, El Camino Real:, nd/or support City housing goals and policies expressed in the Housing Ordinance? interests to use existing "excess" affordable units before supporting -257 Guidelines: 30 affordable housing units on-site with the opportunity to obtain off- affordable housing obligation associated with the proposed project is i lousing is coordinated within the proposed development and with access 1o Palomar Airport Road, as well as circulation and inding properties by providing direct access to a major Circulation as well as circulation and pedestrian access to public facilities. 01/14/2000 16:20 7604380981 HENTHORN REVENUE ANALYSIS PLAN 2 - 2 BEDROOM PLAN 3 - 3 BEDROOM PLAN 5 - 3 BEDROOM GRO33 REVENUE COSTSLAND DEVELOPMENT LAND ON SITE IMPROVEMENTS FEES AND TECHNICAL DESIGN/CONSULTANTS IMPROVED SITE COST LAND CARRY iaMO LAMD DEVELOPMENT COST UNIT CONSTRUCTION COSTS UNIT SIZE SQUARE FEET (projeci) STRUCTURE COST $51-00 ON SITE INDIRECTS OVERHEAD SALES 4 MARKETING (include c CONSTRUCTION COSTS CONST FINANCING PROJECT COST TOTAL GAP Developer land contribution NET GAP PER UNIT NET CAP PER UNIT GROSS SUBSIDY DNV IAS CO 11 j ] I 3; FAflATA POINSeTTlA PROPERS*€S CLUSIONARY HOUSING WPARATIVE PHO FORMA PRICE UNITS REVENUE 1148,000 5 $740,000 i1«fl,000 3 $840,000 173,000 5 1865,000 $2,445,000 51,125,000 $430,000 $500,000 $85.000 52,140,000 $172.000 $2,312,000 2 3R . 3 5R 3 3R 1129 1362 1542 5645 9810 7710 20 237,895 $347,310 5393,210 51.028, 5148, 5145, costs) $225. S1,F48t<H5 $1.546. S112.0'00 $3,970,415 51,525,415 51,125,000 $400,415 $28,694 $101,694 JACK HEf^ Page 1 MKA/A,fordab 155 415 000 000 COO 415 THOR l« proft PAGE 11 1/1CTOO