Loading...
CC MINS 19990828 ADJMINUTES RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 28, 1999 The meeting was called to order at 9:40 A.M. by Mayor Hollingsworth at City Hall, 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard, notice having been given with affidavit thereto on file. After the Pledge of Allegiance, roll call was answered as follows: CITY COUNCIL: PRESENT: Byrd, Lyon, McTaggart and Mayor Hollingsworth ABSENT: Ferraro (excused) PLANNING COMMISSION: PRESENT: Alberio, Lyon, Paris, Slayden, Vannorsdall, and Chair Cartwright ABSENT: Clark (excused) Also present were City Manager Les Evans, City Attorney Carol Lynch, Director of Planning, Building & Code Enforcement Joel Rojas, Senior Planner Greg Pfost and Administrative Services Director /City Clerk Jo Purcell. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Councilwoman Lyon moved seconded by Councilman Byrd to approve the agenda as presented. Motion carried. SENIOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL (1203) Senior Planner Greg Pfost presented the staff report of August 28, 1999 and the recommendation to: (1) Discuss the feasibility of a senior housing Development Proposal, and provide general direction to the private developer. (2) Discuss potential amendments to the Development Code and provide direction to staff in initiating a Zone Text Amendment. Mr. Pfost then proceeded to detail his report and the main topics as they pertained to the Senior Housing Project: Background: Staff recently met with a representative of the owner of the vacant land located at the intersection of Crestridge Road and Crenshaw Boulevard, Robert Katherman, and anon- profit affordable housing developer to discuss the potential for an affordable senior housing development to be constructed at the this site. The meeting was held at their request and the developer submitted a proposal for a joint development project that would involve the City. The proposal is for a two- story, 84 unit (all one bedroom) senior apartment building with 94 parking spaces (60 subterranean and 34 at grade level). The project involves substantial amounts of grading; total amount presently unknown; would lease apartments at a Very Low to Low rental rate (approximately $400 to $600 per month). The non - profit developer has had some experience in developing projects of this nature; the project would be a joint effort, involving the City, the non - profit developer, the County and others. The amount of investment from the City would be approximately $1.9 million; other funds would be obtained from the County and other sources. Timing: The developer would like City approvals as early as November 1999. Staff feels that if the Council were to decide to proceed with such a project, November may not be feasible, especially if the preparation of an EIR is necessary. CEQA Compliance: The original Marriott proposal that encompassed the vacant land between Congregation Ner Tamid and Crenshaw Blvd. was approved with an EIR. The revised Marriott project (currently under litigation) was approved with a Supplement to that EIR; the project was for the same usage, but less dense. Impacts that could not be mitigated for both projects and subsequently requiring an EIR and adoption of a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" were Visual (not view), Grading (grading in areas of extreme slope), Air Quality (related to construction), and Noise (short-term construction noise). Staff would expect that this project would require an EIR based upon some of the same associated impacts. Preparation and adoption of an EIR could not be completed before November 1999. Land Use: This site has a General Plan Land Use Designation and a Zoning Designation of "Institutional ". Although this use permits "Sanitariums, nursing homes, rest homes, homes for the a d, homes for children and homes for mental patients ", the proposed use is an apartment building for seniors, which Staff considers a residential use. If the Council considers this a "homes for the aged'; and then a Conditional Use Permit would be required. If the Council considers this a residential use, then a Zone Change /General Plan Amendment would be required to change the land use for this site. Addressing Concerns from Adjacent Neighborhood: A large number of residents were concerned about development of this site especially as they related to view impacts. Staff anticipates that a detailed visual analysis would be necessary. Potential Litigation: The City was subject to a lawsuit with both Marriott proposals. The City prevailed in the first, while the suit on the second project is City Council Minutes August 28, 1999 . Page 2 still being Litigated. City's Financial Participation: The developer is requesting that the City contribute approximately $1.9 million towards this project. Staff assumes that the project would be made available to Very Low and Low - Income persons for the life of the project. Monies available for this project: The City's Redevelopment Agency Housing Set - Aside Fund Balance is $925,000. These funds can be spent on the development of an affordable housing project such as this proposal. Additionally, the City has $271,285 in its Housing In -lieu Fee Program, with an expectation of an additional $600,000 that will be contributed by the Subregion 1 (CPH) project within the next year. The in -lieu funds can also be used towards this proposal. As noted in previous correspondence to the City Council, the funds available through the RDA Housing Set -Aside Program and the Affordable Housing In -lieu Fee Program can be spent on other types of affordable housing projects, besides new housing construction. Additionally, although the City does not have any restrictions upon the use of the in -lieu fee funds, the RDA Set -Aside funds do have some restrictions, especially in regards to timing. As such, Staff felt that it would be important to provide some background on the expenditure of these funds. Expenditure of Redevelopment Set -Aside Funds Background State Law requires that 20% of the redevelopment tax increment be set aside for increasing, improving, and preserving housing affordable to very low, low, and moderate households. What is Required? Unspent or unencumbered funds in excess of the greater of $1,000,000 or the aggregate amount deposited into the Fund over the previous four years are considered to be excess surplus funds. According to State Law, these excess funds must be expended within a 1 — 3 year time frame or the Agency will risk losing them. Currently there is approximately $925,000 in RDA set -aside funds. As the Agency has been receiving approximately $112,000 per fiscal year, it is anticipated that the fund balance will exceed the $1,000,000 mark by the end of fiscal year 1999/2000 or shortly thereafter. It will be important for the Agency to determine as soon as possible how these funds will be spent. The funds can be expended for housing in the project area or elsewhere in the community if the Agency and the City Council adopt a resolution finding that the fund expenditure will be of benefit to the Project Area. City Council Minutes August 28, 1999 Page 3 Staff anticipates formally taking the issue of how to expend the set -aside funds before the Redevelopment Agency at the same time as the adoption of the 5- year Implementation Plan (November 1999) so that the potential future program(s) can be incorporated into the Implementation Plan. Staff anticipated that implementation of any programs to expend the funds would occur thereafter, and before the City reaches the time limit when these funds could be lost. Expenditure of Affordable Housing In -Lieu Funds Background Currently, the City has collected $261,000 from the residential in -lieu fee - housing Y program through the development of the Seabreeze Tract. Staff anticipates receivin g in -lieu funds of approximately $600,000 from the Subregion 1 (CPH) residential development within the next year. How will the City Expend these Funds? There are no time limits required by State Law relative to the expenditure of the in -lieu affordable housing fees, nor are there any requirements on what type of affordable housing p ro ram the funds should be spent on. Although this allows 9 the City as much time as needed to prepare an affordable housing program using the in -lieu fees, Staff recommends that since an affordable housing program needs to be developed for the Redevelopment Agency set -aside funds (see above), that the funds be combined into one program. This will ensure that the City gets the most out of the total funds available for affordable housing. Below, Y9 is a list of some of the programs where these funds could be spent: Land Acquisition for a future affordable housing site. Building Acquisition to purchase a building reserved for affordable housing. On -site or Off -site improvements associated with the development of affordable housing. Building Rehabilitation for persons of low and moderate income. Rental subsidy where the funds would be used to make up the difference between what a low or moderate family could afford and the actual rental rate. Loans that could be used in a first time homebuyers program. In concert with the RDA Plan Update, Staff was anticipating on presenting the potential program options in detail for a Council meeting in the month of November. Upon completion of Mr. Pfost's report, Council and the Commission then proceeded to discuss the major areas of concern: City Council Minutes August 28, 1999 Page 4 Timing: Considering the requirement for an EIR, the objections that would be raised to this project on the grounds of density, it was felt that the developer's November deadline was unrealistic. Discussion continued relative to certain aspects of the project: the necessity for a 16 ft. above grade limit on structures; the geology required considering the ancient landslide on the adjacent property; the possibility that a negative declaration could be issued on this project; how the timing of this project triggered the required expenditure of certain housing funds for both the developer and the City; and, if just starting the process and developing a plan met the state's requirements for expenditure of these funds. Attorney Charles Brumbaugh, Jr., representing the Corporation for Better Housing, stated that the Peninsula Seniors would like to have a 4000 sq. ft. room available for their use; that his client would consider making such a facility available to them on a 30 year lease for about $200 per year; that the seniors would have to pay for utilities. Discussion then moved to whether a zone change was necessary or if senior housing was appropriate for institutional zoning; the fact that this would be consistent with the land use already in existence in the area; if there are state restrictions on homes for the aged different from those for a residential area; the necessity of looking at state law parameters vis a vis the use of the City's housing funds. Council noted that while this City supports the seniors it would be necessary to also get financial support from the other Peninsula cities. The next elements of concern were as follows: the length of time required to prepare and review an EIR; the requirement that a full EIR must be done if it is not possible to mitigate view and grading impacts; if preference for residence in the project could be given to Rancho Palos Verdes residents; the fact that this housing is on a first come first serve basis, however, advertising at the local level could be one way for residents to be aware of the availability of this housing; the viability of this plan if the City was not a participant; how the City could insure that these units remain affordable housing; if the City's participation in this project inflated the value of the land; and, how the value of this land was determined. Mike Walker representing Palos Verdes Land Co. clarified that the landowner surveyed similar property to determine the land value. It was also made clear that Palos Verdes Land Co. is the owner of this property and that Robert Katherman is the representative of the owner of the project and not the property. Speaking again, Mr. Brumbaugh, Jr. stated they will not be preparing a parcel map; that they have no intention of giving the property to the City; and, that there would be a full independent appraisal of the project before the property changes ownership. City Council Minutes August 28, 1999 Page 5 Addressing Concerns from Adjacent Neighborhood: Council consensus was that this project should not impact views. Potential Litigation: It was determined that the length of time to settle the current litigation was unknown. City's financial participation: Council discussion clarified that the City does not have $1.9 million at this time, however, it is expected that we will have within a year. While considered appealing, it was felt that the City must find out the kinds of problems anticipated with such a project, such as management of the facility. It was also felt that this project was an appropriate addition to the existing uses in that area. The status of the other 9 -1/2 acres at the project site was briefly discussed and if an inquiry should be made relative to its availability. (At 10:40 A.M. Councilman McTaggart left the room.) Recess & Reconvene: At 10:42 A.M. Mayor Hollingsworth declared a recess. The meeting reconvened at 10:55 A.M. with all members present. Project Description Project Architect John Cotton gave an overview of his experience with this type of housing and detailed the experience of his firm's personnel. He described the projects that they have completed and the ones they are presently building. He invited Council and Planning Commissioners to visit any of their projects. He explained that the project was originally a three -story design with 93 units. That was later changed after a meeting with staff. The design was then changed to a two -story 16 -ft. project to come into compliance with City requirements. Mr. Cotton then described the site plan; the topography of the area; the necessary grading, pad height, the location of the community rooms that open out to the flat side of the pad, the location of the primary auto access, fire department access, the drop off point for guests, and residential and public parking. Continuing with his presentation, he then presented artist renderings of the outside view and interior view of the project and explained that all units are one bedroom and range between 586 to 610 sq. ft. Mr. Brumbaugh explained that if an EIR is not necessary, then the November date is realistic and that this schedule is driven by the filing of tax credit documents. His client will enter into an agreement with the Peninsula Seniors for a long term lease; there is a 55 year covenant that will be placed on this project by the State; and, they will accept 55 year covenant from the City. He described his meetings with County officials relative to the use of the CDBG funds. City Council Minutes August 28, 1999 Page 6 Mr. Atkinson, the builder of this proposed project, described the retrofitting done for a recently completed project in the City of Cudahy and how similar retrofitting would be done on this project. He described his experience in this field, and construction business in general. Mr. Cotton reported that he has been practicing architecture in since 1960 and has been working on low income housing since 1974; he has designed about 45 or 50 projects; has received awards on most of his projects; is currently involved in 6 or 7 projects; and, is familiar with what is required by cities in So. California. Jean Alabaster, 5649 Mistridge Drive, representing the senior citizens, stated she would like a two- bedroom unit so one could be used as a den or library. Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine, stated her disappointment in the design of the proposed building. Council then briefly discussed management techniques for this project and how it would be determined whether a person could stay in the project or be moved to an extended care facility; and, that the developer should consider a certain percentage of two bedroom units be included. It was generally agreed that this project meets the mandates for affordable housing; that it is compatible with the surrounding community; that it fits the needs of the senior citizen population; and, that for the target population the one bedroom is adequate. Concern was expressed, however, about the adequacy of the number of parking spaces. Discussion concluded with the consensus that the City Council is interested in this project and that staff should work with the Corporation for Better Housing. ROOF DECKS (1203 X 1801) Director Rojas introduced the matter of roof decks and specifically the amendment to the Development Code prohibiting "roof decks" in any single- family residential zoning district. Staff felt that the Council's intent was to prevent decks from being constructed on an upper level roof that is accessed by exterior stairs. However, the prohibition of any type of upper level deck, including those which are adjacent to livable floor area, such as a master bedroom deck, is now prohibited. Furthermore, if a property owner wished to enclose the floor area below what is currently defined as a balcony, that would create a roof deck, which is now prohibited. It was the consensus that the prohibition was too broad and restrictive and that the matter should be remanded to the Planning Commission to focus on what is the real problem with roof decks and report back to Council. MAXIMUM STRUCTURE SIZE City Council Minutes August 28, 1999 Page 7 Director Rojas introduced this matter explaining that property located within a residential zoning district is subject to a series of development standards that include a maximum structure size requirement. The purpose of this requirement was to provide the City with a means to regulate the cumulative gross square footage of all structures on property, including all enclosed habitable and non - habitable accessory structures, second units and garages. Currently there are two different criteria used for the maximum structure size requirement. The criteria established depends on whether a lot was created prior to November 25, 1975 or January 3, 1983, in the Eastview neighborhood, or after the City was incorporated and the Development Code adopted. The City's limit for lots created prior to incorporation is based on criteria that does not account for the area of the lot, but rather the footprint of a structure when it was first constructed. Staff feels that applying this requirement for the entire City has the potential to penalize those lots that were developed prior to the City's incorporation. Moreover, this requirement does not account for neighborhoods that were not developed as a large tract with similar structures, changes in a family's lifestyle, nor does it provide a fair ratio of structure to.,lot area. Council and Commission discussion clarified that this rule discriminates against older houses; that it triggers additions coming before the Commission for review; that the maximum rule only works in areas that have not been developed; the fact that this requires applicants to go through the variance process; that a definition could require that any new home should meet the compatibility requirement; that the rule should allow for Commission review but not constrain them or the staff with a variance finding that cannot be made; and, that the 1973 date should be eliminated from the criteria. It was the consensus that the matter should be remanded to the Planning Commission for their review and then returned to the Council with the final language. ADJOURNMENT: Adjourned at 12:25 P.M. on motion of Councilmember McTaggart. ATTEST: CITY CLERK 99CCMINS MAYOR' City Council Minutes August 28, 1999 Page 8