Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-04-10; Housing Commission; MinutesMinutes of: HOUSING COMMISSION Time of Meeting: 6:OO P.M. Date of Meeting: April 10,1997 Place of Meeting: CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Schlehuber called the Regular Meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The pledge of allegiance was led by Commissioner Walker ROLL CALL: Present: Chairman Schlehuber, Commissioners Calverley, Escobedo, Latas, Noble, Rose, Scarpelli (late), Walker Absent: Commissioner Wellman Staff Present: Evan Becker, Housing and Redevelopment Director Debbie Fountain, Senior Management Analyst Leilani Hines, Management Analyst Craig Ruiz, Management Analyst Toni Espinoza, Housing Specialist I1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Escobedo, and duly seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 13,1997, as submitted. Calverley, Escobedo, Noble, Rose, Schlehuber, Walker VOTE: 6-0- 1 AYES: NOES: None ABSTAIN: Latas Chairman Schlehuber and the Commission recognized Nancy Calverley for her service as Chairperson of the Housing Commission for the year 1996. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA: There were no comments fiom the audience. PUBLIC HEARING: 1. CONSOLIDATED FUNDING STRATEGY AND PLAN FOR FY 1997-1998 - Request to accept public comments and recommend submission of the Consolidated Funding Strategy and Plan for fiscal year 1997-98 to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Leilani Hines reviewed the background of the request and stated that in order for the City to receive the 97-98 funds, the City must prepare a local housing and community development plan, also known as the Consolidated Plan. In essence, the Consolidated Plan is basically the City’s application to the Federal government for the CDBG and HOME funds. In addition to the application itself, the Consolidated Plan also contains some activities which meet the local objectives established by City Council. It also addresses activities that serve the homeless in terms of the shelter needs as well as supportive service needs and any activities the City will undertake in the fhture year to maintain and/or to development affordable housing opportunities. HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES April IO, 1997 Page 2 Ms. Hines stated that all local objective activities are funded by CDBG funds, and said the City is funding approximately 27 different public service and capital improvement projects which range anywhere from teen diversion programs, homeless services, senior services, and other programs that benefit low- and moderate-income persons. Ms. Hines stated that in terms of activities for the homeless, most of the programs that are presented in the Consolidated Plan are programs that are funded by CDBG, which include such programs as La Posada de Guadalupe in Carlsbad, Brother Benno’s Foundation, and a few facilities that help with persons suffering from AIDS. Ms. Hines added that what is not currently listed in the Consolidated Plan is the development of a regional strategy to meet the homeless needs in North San Diego county. She said that in the past the Cities of Vista and Escondido have provided seasonal winter shelter for the homeless in the community. Both of these shelters are possibly going to be lost in the future year. Staff has been working with other North County jurisdictions as well as some non-profit service providers to look at ways to address the homeless needs in the future, especially during the winter season. The Consolidated Plan will be amended to also include Staffs initiative in trying to develop this regional homeless strategy. In terms of affordable housing opportunities, Ms. Hines stated Staff continues to administer the Section 8 Rental Assistance program, which is funded through the Section 8 program. There are approximately $3 million in funds to help 503 households. In terms of the single-family residential rehabilitation program, the HOME funds from the County Consortium, there is $197,000 to help 11 single-family homes or mobile homes for rehabilitation purposes. Ms. Hines stated that the first-time home buyer program includes the MCC or mortgage credit certificate program, which assists buyers to finance or purchase their homes. There is approximately $146,000, which is an outstanding balance from previous allocations, to assist six households to obtain a home in Carlsbad. Ms. Hines stated there is over $3 million in the Affordable Housing Trust Fund with a $453,000 commitment for Sambi Seaside Homes for 42 homeownership opportunities. In terms of new construction and rentals, the City has made a commitment of $700,000 for the Laurel Tree Apartments, and the Redevelopment Set Aside Account is just over $1 million. The Consolidated Plan for FY 97-98 has been prepared and is being presented to the Commission to accept public comments and to make a recommendation to Council to submit the Consolidated Plan to the US. Department of HUD. The Consolidated Plan is available under the requirements of Federal regulations for a 30-day public review and comment period. The comment period will end May 5. After that City Council will consider the Housing Commission’s recommendation. Staff will then submit the Plan to the U.S. Department of HUD. Chairman Schlehuber asked if there were questions of Ms. Hines. Commissioner Calverley asked if the “extra” $3 million was Bank of America’s contribution. Ms. Hines replied that no it is not. Mr. Becker replied that Bank of America has made a partial deposit based on the maps they have finalized. Since the money goes through the Housing Trust Fund, Staff probably could have shown the Home Buyer Assistance units that will come out of that. Even though the agreement is not finalized, Bank of America has made deposits. The program will serve 160 buyers. Commissioner Walker asked about the elimination of the homeless shelters. HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES April 10,1997 Page 3 Ms. Hines replied that the City of Vista was using the National Guard Armory as a homeless shelter, and they have plans to redevelop the area and will be demolishing the armory by the summer. In addition, there is legislation that is pending that continues the use of National Guard Armories for homeless shelters during the winter season. This bill is in limbo right now; so the City of Escondido does not know whether or not the Armory will be available for use as a homeless shelter. Chairman Schlehuber inquired about the MCC carryover amount. Ms. Hines replied that there is typically a carryover amount for the MCC program. The City in the past has been allotted a certain amount of this overall regional pot, and Carlsbad has not been quite as successful as other jurisdictions issuing the MCCs in a timely manner, leaving a remaining balance. Chairman Schlehuber opened the public testimony. There being no persons desiring to address the Commission on this topic, Chairman Schlehuber declared the public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members. Commissioner Escobedo asked Ms. Hines who is looking into the homeless shelters, and if there is a facility in the City of Carlsbad large enough for a homeless shelter. Ms. Hines replied that Housing Staff has been working with staff members of other jurisdictions as well as other social service providers in response to a nofa that will be published from the Federal government regarding supportive housing programs for the homeless. One of the projects that is being considered is a regional facility for the homeless. Ms. Hines added that there is a sub committee that is looking at sites and identifying sites that are centrally located that provide the best benefit and access to some of the services that homeless persons may need. No site has been identified at this time. Commissioner Scarpelli asked about the renovation of La Posada de Guadalupe. Ms. Hines replied that La Posada de Guadalupe, the homeless shelter in Carlsbad, was awarded $6,000 in CDBG funds for operations/administration of the facility and $40,000 in funds for renovations of the facility. They currently have a request for financial assistance to purchase the property. Staff will be presenting the request at the next Housing Commission meeting. Ms. Hines said that the facility has weathered quite a bit, especially from the recent storms. It needs repairs to the stairs, showers, and has problems with uneven floors as a result of sinking ground. Ms. Hines added that the facility was built and intended as a temporary facility, and with the acquisition of the property, they would like to make it a more permanent facility. In addition, the City has provided funds in the past to purchase a newhsed trailer for their office facilities. ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Rose and duly seconded, to ACCEPT public comments regarding the City of Carlsbad’s Consolidated Funding Strategy and Plan for fiscal year 1997-98 and ADOPT Housing Commission Resolution No. 97-003, recommending to the City Council approval of the submittal of the 1997-98 Consolidated Funding Strategy and Plan for the Community Development Block Grand/HOME Program to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, pending completion of the thirty (30) day public review and comment period and consideration of any public comments received. Calverley, Escobedo, Latas, Noble, Rose, Scarpelli, Schlehuber, Walker VOTE: 8-0-0 AYES: NOES: None ABSTAIN: None NEW BUSINESS: HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES April 10, 1997 Page 4 2. SECOND DWELLING UNITS - Working Session to discuss Second Dwelling Units and issues related to their use by housing developers to satisfy the City’s Inclusionary Housing requirements. Craig Ruiz, the new Management Analyst, assisted Evan Becker with this workshop/discussion on Second Dwelling Units (SDUs). Mr. Becker stated that Staffs goal is to seek direction on criteria that can be applied to SDUs that are being proposed for use to satisfy Inclusionary affordable housing obligations. The outcome Staff would like to seek is to have the Commission’s consensus on criteria that address the issues in a way that will become guidelines for Staff in bringing future projects to the Commission and which the Commission can use in making subsequent recommendations to the Council on SDUs. Staff also hopes that the SDU program can be preserved as a form of affordable housing that is useful in terms of the Inclusionary Housing Program. Mr. Becker added that while SDUs are different from other forms of housing that the Commission will be dealing with through the Inclusionary Housing Program and other proposals, SDUs have an important role. Mr. Becker discussed several SDU issues by way of an overhead. He explained how the SDU Ordinance applies to different issues including size limits (a key issue); design features; affordability; occupancy restrictions (rental and income); monitoring; and other limitations/overall number of units. Mr. Becker explained that Staffs SIZE LIMITS recommendations include a 640 square foot maximum and a 400 square foot minimum (based upon a garage foot print), which is an amble amount of square footage for studios and possibly one bedrooms. The SDU Ordinance does not specify a minimum square footage. Mr. Becker explained that the DESIGN FEATURES are a part of the zone code that relates to R1 zoning. The unique features in the SDU Ordinance are that the architecture of the SDU must be compatible and blended with the main unit, and there must be a separate entrance for the SDU with a full kitchen. Staff’s recommendation is for a provision for units with direct access from the main unit to be configured as one-bedroom floor plans. Staff believes that a one- bedroom with a bathroom and kitchen is difficult to use as a “rec” room, which some Commissioners were worried about in the past. Mr. Becker stated that in terms of AFFORDABILITY, Staff is recommending what the SDU Ordinance calls for now, which is, rent affordable at 80 percent of median income and non-mandatory rental, for the life of the unit. In terms of OCCUPANCY RESTRICTIONS, Staff is recommending the SDU Ordinance, which include no occupant income restrictions. Staff explained that the history of SDUs is that their utility is for low-income people, or for those who are finding a tough time finding shelter in other ways--could be a student, a grandmother, someone who is ill, or a domestic or household worker. Mr. Becker stated that the occupancy restriction area is a very sensitive area--probably the most sensitive area--in terms of whether this option (in terms of affordable housing) will be acceptable to those who have to support it and do it; which ultimately is the single-family home buyer who actually invests in one of these units. In terms of FORM OF RESTRICTIONS, the SDU Ordinance records a permit against the property, which carries all the restrictions that are in the SDU Ordinance with a requirement that the buyer sign an Affidavit which covers the requirement regarding rental restrictions--that if it is rented it must be at the 80 percent of median income affordable rent. Staff is proposing this be retained, and this be the method of restricting these units. For Inclusionary purposes, in every case there will be another layer of recorded restrictions because Staff will have an Affordable Housing Agreement as well that spells out the lots and units that are involved, which will be recorded as well. In terms of MONITORING, Mr. Becker stated that there is no provision in the SDU Ordinance for how SDUs would be monitored, other than it would be a matter of code enforcement in the City, largely on a complaint basis. Staff would like to improve on this, but realizes that it cannot do a total monitoring program of SDUs. Staff is proposing an annual spot-check program, done on a random basis, which would serve a couple of purposes, one being to actually find violations and deal with them. The effectiveness of correcting the problems that are found may be minimal; however, it HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES April 10, 1997 Page 5 could serve as a clue that there may be something wrong with the City’s approach to SDUs. Staff could curtail the program, modify the program, etc., based on the survey evidence. In terms of OTHER LIMITATIONS, Mr. Becker stated this is a category that doesn’t have anything to do with the SDU Ordinance; but is an extremely important additional modification or limitation. Staff has been practicing the approach of limiting the use of SDUs, primarily to small projects. Staff has not had a numerical limit, but Staff is proposing 100 units. With respect to larger projects, Staff has used a limitation which is 20 percent of the total Inclusionary Housing Requirement. Mr. Becker stated that this is an important provision in the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance that says the City should be trying to produce, through the Inclusionary Housing Program, units and an array of affordable housing products that mirrors what is in the Housing Element in terms of the needs that are there. SDUs are a specific objective called out in the Housing Element as an alternative form of affordable housing. Mr. Becker then discussed OTHER CONSIDERATIONS of SDUs that guided Staffs thinking with its recommendations. One of them is that the task of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance is to get affordable housing produced, and the only way it can be done is to come up with alternatives that are feasible and can be implemented by those who are doing it-- the private sector with assistance from the City, in a lot of cases. Staff has found, particularly with small projects, the alternatives are difficult and they are few. The market, zoning, land use practices, and what Carlsbad wants to be dictate what is possible. Mr. Becker stated that SDUs are an important alternative for small projects. Mr. Becker added that in order to work, the SDU alternative has to be feasible for those who are doing it. Restricting and modifying them, may make them unfeasible and could eliminate them as an alternative. Mr. Becker said that buyers of homes are the one who have to find the SDU program acceptable. Developers have to determine that it is going to be feasible, that they are going to be able to market this to home buyers; but ultimately it is those home buyers who have to find this program acceptable. Mr. Becker pointed out that SDUs will be a small part of affordable housing products. Mr. Becker stated that SDU units have historically been more of the studio-type unit. Staff’s recommendation is to improve this some because of the Inclusionary environment so that they do not become SRO rooms. Mr. Becker mentioned that it is very rare that the State of California actually identifies one form of housing as affordable with a State law to pattern a local ordinance after. Mr. Becker reiterated that Staff would like to be guided with what is acceptable to the Housing Commission when they work with developers with proposals for SDUs. Chairman Schlehuber asked if there were questions of Mr. Becker. Commissioner Noble stated that the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council using 200 square feet as a minimum. Mr. Becker responded that when this subject came up before, the City Council did not what to have a minimum. Commissioner Walker asked the philosophy of having a maximum. Mr. Becker responded that it is a planning limitation where a SDU is intended to be secondary and not become a duplex, for example. Commissioner Latas asked what the 80 percent income level would be for rental of the unit. Mr. Becker responded that currently the income would be approximately $27,000 and the rent would be $680. Commissioner Calverley asked at what square footage school fees come into play. Mr. Becker responded that in the case of a remodel, if the addition is under 500 square feet, no school fees are charged. In the case of new development, school fees are dealt with by agreement with the school district and the developer. Chairman Schlehuber asked about the random sample Mr. Becker mentioned regarding the monitoring portion of the program. Mr. Becker stated that it would depend on the size of the program, Le., for a small number of units, less than 100, up to 20 percent could probably be monitored. For larger projects, perhaps 10 percent or less would be monitored. HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES April 10,1997 Page 6 Mr. Becker added that the key is getting enough feedback on SDUs to know how or if the program is working. Mr. Becker stated that Staff would look for everything that is covered in the SDU Ordinance and the Affordable Housing Agreement. Chairman Schlehuber asked what Staff would do if somebody was not in compliance. Mr. Becker responded that for anything done physically to a unit not in accordance with the plans and the Affordable Housing Agreement, the Building Department would begin the normal code enforcement process with a notice of violation. Mr. Becker added that Staff has an ongoing relationship with Code Enforcement, who does the inspection for the Section 8 Program and all the Housing Quality Inspections. Commissioner Rose asked if other cities have SDUs under the same conditions Carlsbad has. Mr. Becker responded that other cities, such as San Diego and Coronado, have a SDU programs. Mr. Becker added the SDUs have been around in San Diego for years. Many cities have in their zoning ordinance the ability to do SDUs which are patterned after the State law. What Carlsbad has in their SDU Ordinance is what you would see other cities having adopted, with a few exceptions, according to Mr. Becker. Chairman Schlehuber asked the specifics of the affidavit. Mr. Becker stated that the affidavit says the homeowner acknowledges the requirements under the SDU Ordinance and the requirements of the Administrative Permit that has been obtained, and it specifically sites the affordable rent provision. The owner(s) must sign that they understand and will comply as part of the Administrative Permit. The Title would show the Administrative Permit, and the Administrative Permit would carry the requirement for the Affidavit. It is not necessary to check the Ordinance for compliance because the compliance requirements are in the Affordable Housing Agreement, which is noted on the Title. After some discussion on illegally converting SDUs, Commissioner Latas asked about the possibility of the owner getting a variance to convert the unit legally. Mr. Becker responded that he does not know the process or whether there is any discretion available to anybody to approve such a variance, while the SDU is for the useful life of the unit. Mr. Becker added that the restriction follows the Title. Since there is an Affordable Housing Agreement involved, it is no different from any other Inclusionary Housing Project. There is an Affordable Housing Agreement that references all the provisions and is recorded with the Administrative Permit. Chairman Schlehuber opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak. Mr. Doug Avis, 2892 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission, stating that he is a developer who owns property in the City of Carlsbad. Mr. Avis went through a set of plans of his proposed project in Carlsbad. He stated that two of the three products include secondary units. Mr. Avis described his project as an unique project located on Poinsettia and Coast Highway, the 100 acres around the Poinsettia Transit Station, which is currently vacant. Mr. Avis also described his project as the neo-traditional old neighborhood that is focused on transit-oriented development: higher densities close to the station, with an attempt to get people out of their cars and living in neighborhoods that are pedestrian-oriented and are based upon public transit. Mr. Avis stated he was at the Council meeting Tuesday night where he heard MI. Schlehuber make an appeal on behalf of the Housing Commission. His concern about SDUs brought him to the Housing Commission meeting tonight. He stated that there are a lot of factors relating to the SDU which include (1) the size of the unit, (2) the design of the unit, and (3) the economics of the second unit. According to Mr. Avis, the size of the unit is based upon being above a garage; which in American society today is a 20 x 20 two-car garage, with a 400-foot pad. Historically, the granny flat comes from the root of a 12 x 20 garage, which is a 240 square foot unit. Mr. Avis said these types of units are all over the City of San Diego (he lived in one) and in other cities throughout the country. Mr. Avis stated that the economic issue is important from a size standpoint, and added that the size is most importantly controlled by the school district. Mr. Avis therefore would like the size of the units to be below 500 square feet. Mr. Avis described his Inclusionary units as studio units around 400 square feet with access from the outside only. He added that the units are designed as secondary units, not bonus rooms, which is quite distinguishable. HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES April 10, 1997 Page 7 Mr. Avis stated that the third issue--the economic issue--is perhaps the most powerful issue as it relates to the whole discussion. He explained that a 400-square foot unit cost the developer $16,000 and cost the homeowner between $28,000 and $30,000. Under the HUD standards, the unit could rent for $630. Mr. Avis believes the unit will be rented because it will help homeowners qualify and will help them pay for their homes. Mr. Avis stated he believes SDUs will work well in Carlsbad considering the size, design, and economic factors because rents are higher in Carlsbad than other cities. He stated his concern that the Commission give up on secondary units as a method to meet affordable housing. He has never seen a blanket opportunity for affordable housing like the State’s secondary unit law, which gives credit for secondary units without having to keep track of the rents, etc. Mr. Avis stated the State is convinced this program works--it’s cheap and there are no building or permit fees. Chairman Schlehuber asked the Commission if they had any questions of Mr. Avis. Commissioner Scarpelli expressed his concern about the units being marketable, and stated that it is not required to make the units available for rent. He asked if, as a developer, Mr. Avis would have any objection to making these units available on the market for rental purposes. Mr. Avis responded that most of the communities will have CC&Rs with homeowner’s associations, which will take care of the enforceability problem, if any. Mr. Avis mentioned the Syntex project--The Ranch--which has seen a very favorable response to their granny flats. He said that because of the market’s favorable response and the economic issue, 40 percent of his project will be in granny flats instead of the typical 20 percent. Mr. Avis added that the size and design of the units will dictate whether the units are used for rental purposes. Mr. Bob Ladwig, 703 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 300, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and said he likes Staff’s recommendations, especially the range of square footages. Mr. Ladwig believes that the larger units (640 square feet) will probably be rented based on the County median income or 80 percent, which is $658 with a $22 allowance for utilities; however, he believes that the smaller units will not rent for that maximum rental. Having a range of unit sizes will probably provide more of an opportunity for affordable housing, according to Mr. Ladwig. Mr. Ladwig said he would like to see the SDU Ordinance as it is stay in place with Staff’s provisions. Chairman Schlehuber asked if there were any questions of Mr. Ladwig. Chairman Schlehuber asked about using percentages based upon the total square footage of the home. Mr. Ladwig responded that he would not use a percentage, but use the unit itself and what is livable. If it’s too big of a percentage of the house it becomes an economic problem for the owner, he said. Commissioner Scarpelli expressed his concern about the units not being rented. Mr. Ladwig responded that the small size of the units will make them affordable. Mr. Latas asked if the maximum rental is based upon the square footage of a unit. Mr. Ladwig responded that the maximum rental is based upon number of bedrooms and family size, not square footage. There being no other persons desiring to address the Commission on this topic, Chairman Schlehuber declared the public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members. Chairman Schlehuber opened the issue SIZE LIMITS for discussion. Commissioners Walker and Calverley commented that the Commission might want to consider recommending a smaller size than 400 square fee as the minimum. Commissioner Scarpelli would not like to see anything smaller than 350 square feet for the minimum. Commissioners Noble and Escobedo are not concerned about the minimum size because HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES April 10,1997 Page 8 the State of California requires no minimum. Chairman Schlehuber would like to see 400 square feet as a minimum, which will allow for some studios and some one bedrooms. Mr. Becker pointed out that the basis for the 400 square feet is an amount of square footage that does relate to the typical garage-type dimensions. He added that units around 350 square feet are considered managed living units; and those in the 200 square footage range are considered SROs, which are basically a hotel rooms. For Inclusionary purposes, Staff would like the SDUs to be significant affordable housing. The 400 minimum also pushes the developers toward the one-bedroom idea. Mr. Becker added that the recommended sizes are guidelines only. ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Scarpelli, and duly seconded, to support Staff's recommendation of SIZE LIMITATIONS of 400 to 640 square feet for Second Dwelling Units. Escobedo, Latas, Rose, Scarpelli, Schlehuber, Walker VOTE: 6-2-0 AYES: NOES: Calverley, Noble ABSTAIN: None Chairman Schlehuber opened the issue DESIGN FEATURES for discussion. Commissioner Latas asked about the logic of Staffs proposal. Mr. Becker stated that accessibility from the main unit makes it easy to use the SDU for a non-intended purpose. Chairman Schlehuber commented that he received some calls from developers this week concerned about the SDU issue, who said the important thing to them is having guidelines to follow because they do not want to spend time and money on something the Housing Commission does not like. Mr. Schlehuber added that there is a demand for SDUs and this is an opportunity to create quality SDUs in Carlsbad. There was a short discussion regarding walled-off kitchens and open kitchens. ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Escobedo and duly seconded, to accept Staffs proposal on DESIGN FEATURES, with a provision for one-bedroom floor plans if there is direct access to the main unit. Escobedo, Noble, Rose, Scarpelli, Schlehuber, Walker VOTE: 6-2-0 AYES: NOES: Calverley, Latas ABSTAIN: None Chairman Schlehuber opened the issue AFFORDABILITY for discussion. Commissioner Scarpelli commented that it is too easy to circumvent the purpose of what the Commission is trying to accomplish. ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Rose and duly seconded, to accept Staffs recommendation to keep the AFFORDABILITY issue the same as the SDU Ordinance (non-mandatory rental and rental affordable at 80 percent, for the life of the unit). Calverley, Escobedo. Latas, Noble, Rose, Schlehuber, Walker VOTE: 7-1-0 AYES: NOES: Scarpelli ABSTAIN: None Chairman Schlehuber opened the issue OCCUPANCY RESTRICTIONS for discussion. HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES April 10, 1997 Page 9 ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Scarpelli, and duly seconded, to accept Staffs recommendation on the OCCUPANCY RESTRICTIONS issue, accepting the SDU Ordinance with no occupant income restrictions. Calverley, Escobedo, Latas, Noble, Rose, Scarpelli, Schlehuber, Walker VOTE: 8-0-0 AYES: NOES: None ABSTAIN: None Chairman Schlehuber opened the issue FORM OF RESTRICTIONS for discussion, where in addition to the Affidavit required by the SDU Ordinance, Staff is proposing that an Affordable Housing Agreement be recorded against the P'oPertY- Mr. Becker stated that the Affordable Housing Agreement is the standard ordinance mechanism approved by the City Attorney and is what the City uses for Villa Loma or any other property. He added that the Agreement is the best mechanism the City has and that the Agreement repeats the specific provisions of the SDU Ordinance. ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Walker, and duly seconded, to accept Staffs recommendation on the FORM OF RESTRICT~ONS issue, accepting the SDU Ordinance with the addition of an Affordable Housing Agreement recorded against the property. Calverley, Escobedo, Latas, Noble, Rose, Scarpelli, Schlehuber, Walker VOTE: 8-0-0 AYES: NOES: None ABSTAIN: None Chairman Schlehuber opened the issue MONITORING for discussion. ACTION: VOTE: 8-0-0 AYES: NOES: None ABSTAIN: None Motion by Commissioner Rose, and duly seconded, to accept Staffs recommendation on the MONITORING issue as described by Staff at the April 10, 1997, Housing Commission meeting. Calverley, Escobedo, Latas, Noble, Rose, Scarpelli, Schlehuber, Walker Chairman Schlehuber opened the issue OVERALL NUMBER OF UNITS for discussion, where SDUs are allowable for projects under 100 units to satisfy developer's entire Inclusionary requirement; or for projects of 100 units or greater, SDUs are allowable for a maximum of 20 percent of the Inclusionary requirement. Commissioner Calverley asked how the units will be counted when built in villages, for example. Mr. Becker responded that it is based on the Affordable Housing Agreement. Mr. Becker stated again this is a guideline, e.g., when you jump from 99 to 100, you're treating a developer dramatically differently. He added that there are projects of less than 100 units, that based on their project type, may be able to do integrated affordable units as opposed to SDUs. While this may need some flexibility, the intent of it is definitely that SDUs are appropriate generally for small projects, and above a certain level they can be permitted, but only a certain proportion. ACTION: VOTE: 8-0-0 AYES: NOES: None ABSTAIN: None Motion by Commissioner Scarpelli, and duly seconded, to accept Staffs recommendation on the issue Of OVERALL NUMBER OF UNITS. Calverley, Escobedo, Latas, Noble, Rose, Scarpelli, Schlehuber, Walker HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES April 10, 1997 Page 10 Mr. Becker stated that Staff will write up the recommendations and present them to the Housing Commission for adoption. INF’ORMATIONAL/DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS 3. HOUSING PRODUCTION PLAN REPORT - Mr. Becker reported that the Housing Production Plan/Report prepared by the City’s Planning Department indicates that the City needs a lot of affordable housing. 4. EMERALD RIDGE WEST - Mr. Becker reported that the appeal by an “interested party” was upheld by the City Council to deny the Planning Commission’s approval of the amended Emerald Ridge West project. The Council’s motion indicated that the project needed to return to its original proposed state with the SDUs at 640 square feet, and that the Planning Director was empowered to approved the specific architecture for those units with the SDUs at 640 square feet. The developer’s choices are to design the 640-square foot SDU as presented to the Housing Commission or go through the process again. 5. TIMESHARES - Mr. Becker reported that time shares do not come under the Inclusionary Ordinance because they basically are hotel rooms. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Chairman Schlehuber welcomed Roy Latas and Craig Ruiz to the Housing Commission, and invited everybody to the Commissioner’s meeting at the end of April. Mr. Becker gave an update on the Laurel Tree Apartment project stating that, unfortunately, in the lottery for State tax credits, Laurel Tree Apartments drew number 109. Neither the developer nor Staff are giving up on this project to maintain it as an affordable project. NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING: May 8, 1997 ADJOURNMENT: By proper motion, the Regular meeting of April 10, 1997, was adjourned 9:OO p.m. Respectfully submitted, / EVAN BECKER Housing and Redevelopment Director KATHY VAN PELT Minutes Clerk MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE WRITTEN MINUTES ARE APPROVED. I me City of GWsbad Housing & Redevelopment Department A REPORT TO THE HOUSING COMMISSION Item No. 5 + Staff Evan E. Becker 1 Housing & RedeveloDment Director I DATE: APRIL 10,1997 SUBJECT: TIMESHARES I. RECOMMENDATION None. This is an information item only. 11. PROJECT BACKGROUND On February 13, 1997, an inquiry was made by Commissioner Calverley as to whether or not timeshare projects are required to produce affordable housing units. The following information is provided in response to the inquiry. Timeshare units are not deemed to be “residential dwelling units” for the purposes of application of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (Chapter 21.85 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code). Therefore, these type of projects have no obligation to construct affordable housing units. For land use purposes, timeshare units are classified as a “hotel or motel” which allows for daily, weekly or monthly lodging.