No preview available
Resolution 2000-52 Resolution No. 2000-52 . . RESOLUTION NO. 2000-52 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY DENYING M 99-1011AHE 99-01, AN APPLICATION FOR AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXEMPTION FROM THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE, APN 841-05- 065. WHEREAS, NorthPoint Management, LLC ("Applicant") submitted M 99-IO/AHE 99-01, requesting an affordable housing exemption from the Residential Development Ordinance ("RDO") relating to a proposed request to construct 45 low-income units and one managers unit, to be developed as a part of the proposed City Plaza Project to be constructed at 7598 Monterey Street, within the C2-HN (Central District Commercial-Historic Neighborhood) zoning district; and WHEREAS, the City Council may grant the requested RDO exemption only if it determines that it meets the criteria set forth in Zoning Ordinance section 50.62(b)(4), which criteria is set forth and fully discussed in the Staff Report dated January 21,2000, which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed application M 99-101 AHE 99-01 at a duly noticed public hearing on February 3, 2000, and voted to deny the request for the RDO-exemption M 99-101 AHE 99-01; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed Application M 99-101 AHE 99-10 and all documents relating thereto and took oral and written testimony at its duly noticed public hearing of February 22, 2000, and determined that at that time there were insufficient RDO-exempt units available to grant the request for the RDO-exemption; WHEREAS, the City Council further decided to suspend discussion of the request for the RDO-exemption for proposed City Plaza Project until the development status of two pending and \JHI465640,1 01-Q703Q4706002 -1- . . , ' unrelated RDO-exempt projects was determined to verifY the number of exempt units available for allocation; and WHEREAS, the City Council again reviewed Application M 99-101 ARE 99-10 and all documents relating thereto and took oral and written testimony at its duly noticed public hearing of June 19,2000, and determined that there were insufficient RDO-exempt units available to grant the request for the RDO-exemption. WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the documents or other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this approval is based is the office of the City Clerk. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT A. The City Council hereby finds as required by Zoning Ordinance section 50.62(b)(4) that the approval of this request for a RDO exemption cannot be granted because there are insufficient number of RDO exempt units to allocate. B. The City Council further fmds that no action taken by the Planning Commission, City Council, or any City official, regarding the denial of a RDO exemption, shall constitute a denial of said project with respect to the other City project approvals or permits necessary to construct any dwelling units. III III III III III WH\485640,1 01-070304706002 -2- Resolution No. 2000-52 -- . . PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17'h day of July, 2000 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: G. ARELLANO, P. ARELLANO, MORALES, PINHEIRO, VELASCO NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: SUDOL, SPRINGER ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE APPROVED: ~(j~1A4 (A./ THOMAS W. SPRINGER, MA ATTEST: ,-'7C&~j~~' Rhonda Pellin, City Clerk \JH\485640.1 01.070304706002 -3- Resolution No. 2000-52 January 21, 2000 .L.A.ilJ...o..i..J.. n Communi~ Development ~partment Planning Division Staff Report File Number: M 99-10 / AHE 99-01 Applicant: NorthPoint Management, LLC (c/o Bruce Tingey) Location: Property located at 7598 Monterey Street (se c/o Lewis Street and Monterey Street) Staff Planner: Melissa Durkin REOUESTED ACTION: The applicant is requesting a 46 unit Affordable Housing Exemption from the RDO competition for the City Plaza project [Note: This project consists of 45 low-income units and one manager's unit] DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: Parcel Number: 841-05-065 Parcel Size: 10,515 square feet Flood Zone: Zone X, Panel # 0603400002D, Panel Date: 8117/98 . STATUS OF PROPERTY: Existing Land Use Vacant Lot General Plan Designation Central Business District Zoning C2-HN STATUS OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY: . Existing Land Use N: City Park. Lot/Fonn. Bus Depot S: Strand Theater Building E: Industrial Buildings W: Commercial Shops General Plan Designation Central Business District Central Business District General Services Commercial Central Business District Zoning C2 C2-HN CM C2-HN M 99-10 I ARE 99-01 . 2 . 1/21/00 CONFORMAL'lCE OF REOUEST WITH GENERAL PLAN: The proposed project conforms to the land use designation for the property on the General Plan map, and is consistent with the intent of the text of the general Plan Document. This project conforms to the policies of Gilroy's General Plan. The following example demonstrates this compliance: Residential Environment (Section IV): Policy 1: "The City will continue to work towards the goal of a balanced community with a variety of housing types and prices, sufficient job opportunities. and an efficient and adequate provision of City services and amenities. " The proposed project is in conformance with this policy, because it will provide low-income rental housing for 1 to 2 person households, which is a housing type that has been under-represented in Gilroy. Urban Develooment and Community Desi!!ll (Section II): Policy 3: "Urban Developmenl will onZv occur within the incorporated portion of the Planning Area. Land will therefore be annexed to the City before final development approval is given. " The proposed project is in conformance with this policy, because this land has been within City limits for many years. Policy 4: "The City will phase development in an orderly, contiguous manner in order to maintain a compact development pattern to avoid premature invesrmentfor the e.'Ctension of public facilities and services. New urban development will occur in areas where municipal services are available and capacity exists prior to the approval of development in areas which would require major new ftcility expansion. " The proposed project is in conformance with this policy, because this site is surrounded by urban development. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provides two exemptions that the applicant believes apply to this project (see Attachment 1): 1) Public Resources Code Section 21080.14 [Note: the CEQA Guidelines' are a part of the Public Resources Code.] This section exempts lower income housing project that consist of 100 units or fewer, do not create significant impacts on the environment, and are located in an urbanized area. The applicant believes the low-income residential portion of this project is exempt under this provision. M 99-10 I ARE 99-01 .. . 1121/00 3 2) CEQA Guidelines Section 15302, ''Replacement or Reconstruction." This section provides an exemption for projects that involve the "replacement of a commercial structure with a new Structure of substantially the same size, purpose, and capacity." The commercial portion of this project is exempt under this section because there was a building on this site previously that was substantially the same size as the proposed building. The applicant believes that the commercial oortion of the proiect is exempt under this provision. Staffhas not been able to definitively determine whether this project is exempt from CEQA because of the potential impacts that will result from the project's failure to provide parking. This may be considered a significant environmental impact under CEQA law. Staffhas referred this issue to the Ci, Attorney for an opinion. lfthe City Attorney d~ermines that an Initial Study is required, this study wilJ be prepared prior to completion of the Architecrurai and Site review application. RELATED APPLICATIONS: CUP 99-10: A Conditional Use Permit request to allow the applicant to construct residential units on the second, third, and fourth floors of the proposed building. This application will be presented to the Planning Commission in Spring 2000. V 99-07: A Variance request to: 1) construct a residential unit on the first floor of this project, 2) construct a fourth floor, and 3) construct a building that exceeds the 45 foot height limitation in the C2 zonin.. district. This application will be presented to the Planning Commission in Spring 2000. A/S 99-56: Historic Neighborhood Architectural and Site review for the construction of a mi.xed-use (commercial and residential) development in the C2/HN zoning district. This application will be presented to the Historic Heritage Committee and Planning Commission in Spring 2000. OVERVIEW OF THE CITY PLAZA PROJECT: The City Plaza project is a mixed-use (commercial and residential) project with the following components: .. 46 Dwelling Units . 1 Manager's Unit . [Note: This unit is proposed to be located on the first floor of the of this building. Approval of a variance is required to allow this unit to be located on the first floor of a structure in the C2 zoning district. ] 45 Studio Apartments . .. 4,680::: square feet of Ground Floor Commercial Area M 99-10 / ARE 99-01 . . 1/21/00 4 .. Outdoor Plaza Providing: . Mailboxes for residents . Outdoor Cafe Seating . ATMfTelephone Booth . Passages Connecting the Project to Monterey Street, Lewis Street, and the Alley . Open Space ANALYSIS OF REOUEST: The applicant is requesting approval of an Affordable Housing Exemption from the RDO under the provisions of Zoning Ordinance section 50.62 (b) (4), to allow the construction of 46 housing units, as follows: """ 45 Low-Income Studio Apartments """ 1 One-Bedroom Manager's Unit Under this section of the Zoning Ordinance up to 75 residential units may be exempted from the City's Residential" Development competition process. Projects that are exempt from the Residential Development competition under this section must comply with the City's "Affordable Housing. Exemption Procedure for Private Developments" policy. As stated in section 50.62 (b) (4), the City Council may grant RDO exemptions ffJr affordable housing projects if the project is determined to meet specific criteria. This section states. The City Council shall grant an exemption under this subsection only if the City Council determines the project would substantially benefit the City, and would not create significant negative impacts to public facilitie5 or to providers of public services in the communlty or to the Gilroy Unified School District. The City Council shall consider the following elements in determining whether to grant this exemption: a. The number of exempt units which have already been granted during the current RDO cycle, and the number of years left in the cycle; b. The affordability of the projeCT; c. The need for the types of units which are proposed; d. The number of affordable housing projects constructed or proposed within the project vicinity; e. The diversity of unit type and architectural styles which are proposed in the entire development; and f. The site design and proposed building elevations. Following is staffs determination of this project's consistency with these exemption criteria: M 99-10 I ARE 99-01 . . 1/21/00 5 The applicant has not addressed the project's impact to the Gilroy Unified School District. However, given that the proposed units are all studio apartments, which typically house only one or rwo people per unit, it is likely that there will be a minimal impact to School District facilities. In addition, this is an infiIl project; therefore minimal impacts are expected to public facilities or services. Staff believes this project is Consistent with this criterion. A. The number of exempt units which have already been granted during the current RDQ cycle, and the number of years left in the cycle The City Council set aside 1,080 housing units to be ex=pted from the RDO competition in the ter year cycle berween 1994 and 2003. Although there are no annual limits on the number of exempl units that can be awarded, the City Council has expressed a desire to ensure that the exempt units are not completely allocated in the first few years of the RDO cycle. So far, 1,041 units have been allocated through the exemption process, leaving a balance of 39 units available for the 4 years remaining in the cycle. [Note: Some of the projects that have received RDO exemptions have buildout schedules that will take them into future years of the RDO cycle.] Since so few remaining exempt units are available for allocation during this RDO cycle, the City Council adopted a resolution on June i, 1999 requiring all remaining exempt units to be allocated to infiIl projects (see Attachment 2). Applications are currently pending for a total of 46 units that are competing for allocation of the remaining 39 units. [See Exhibit A, Projects that have Applied for Residemial Allocations] In compliance with direction from the City Attomey, the remaining units will be allocated to the projects that are first to vest their entitlements. Vesting is determined by either approval ')f a Tentative Map. if a Tentative Map is required for a project or approval of a building permit if a Tentative Map is nc required. The City Plaza project presents three issues for consideration with regard to the number of remaining RDO-exempt units: 1. The applicant is requesting 46 units, and there are onlv 39 units available to allocate. 2. If the City Plaza request is approved, there will be no units available to allocate to the oroiects that have submitted aoolications for the remaininl! 39 units. 3. The City Counciloassed Resolution 99-47 establishinl! a oolicv to allocate all remaininl! RDO-exemot units to infill Droiects. rather than affordable oroiects. Based on the number of units remaining in the RDO cycle and City Council direction, Staff believes this request is Not Consistent with this criterion. M 99-10 I ARE 99-01 . 6 . 1/21/00 B. The affordabiIity of the project The applicant has not presented proposed rental rates, however the project will be contractually obligated to comply with the rental rates established by the City in the "Affordable Housing Exemption Procedure for Private Developments" policy. The rental rate for studio aparnnents is currently $657 per month. Staff believes this project is Consistent with this criterion. C. The need for the types of units which are proposed According to the City's Consolidated Plan, which was adopted on May 1, 1995, Gilroy has a demand for 846 new affordable rental units. Since that document was adopted, there have been six affordable rental projects approved within the City, totaling 330 units: 1. Monterra Village (34 Units) 2. Gilroy Park Apartments (74 Units) 3. Gilroy Garden Aparnnents (74 Units) 4. Villa Esperanza (21 Units) 5. Victoria Woods (75 Units) 6. Los Arroyos (52 Units) Therefore, there is still a need for 516 affordable apartment units in Gilroy. In addition, the applicant is proposing a type of unit (studios) which has nor been constructed in Gilroy in many years. Studio apartments typically serve either one or two people, and offer an alternative to households that do not earn enough money to afford a one-bedroom apartinenl. Based on the information contained within the Consolidated plan and the fact that there are few studio apartments in Gilroy, Staff believes this project is Consistent with this criterion. D. The number of affordable housing projects constructed or proposed within the project vicinity There are three affordable housing projects near this site [See Exhibit B, Map of Low Income Projects]: 1. Gilroy Apartments- 110 Low-Income multi-family apartment units, 500 LO.O.F. 2. Milias Apartments - 48 Low Income senior apartment units, 7397 Monterey Street 3. Maple Gardens -18 Low Income multi-family apartment units, 544 Stoney Court As this list shows, there are 176 affordable housing units in close proximity to this site. If this exemption request is approved, there will be 222 units constructed as affordable housing in approximately a '12 mile radius. Staff does not feel that this is an over-concentration of affordable units. However, constructing low-Income units in this area may have a more intense impact than would result if the units were constructed elsewhere, because of this location's demographic characteristics. This project is located in Census Tract 5126.01. [See Exhibit C, Gilroy Census Tracts 1990 Census] The 1990 Census provides the following information about this tract: M 99-10 I ARE 99-01 . 7 . 1121/00 rIit 25% % of the residents'ofthis Census Tract were below the National Poverty Level rIit 82% % of the households in this Census Tract were classified as Low or Very Low income rIit 62.5% of the residents living in this tract were renters in 1990, whereas 41 % of residents City-wide were renters The proposed project could pose a burden on this area because it will serve residents that are already statistically over-represented in this Census Tract. Because of this, Staff believes this project is Not Consistent with this criterion. E. The diversity of unit type and architectural styles which are proposed in the entire development All of the units within this project will be the same, however the proposed type of unit (studio apartment) is different from the typical housing units that are built in Gilroy. Staff believes this project is Consistent with this criterion. F. The site design and proposed building elevations The architectural style of the proposed building is attractive and complements the character of the buildings in Gilroy's downtown. The applicant has proposed a site design that includes r variety of amenities and also provides excellent pedestrian access to the site. Staffbelit: ,'es thi~ project is Consistent with this criterion. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This project is inconsistent with City Council direction in three areas: 1. Affordable Housing Exemption Criteria A: There are not enough units available to allocate to this project; 2. Affordable Housing Exemption Criteria D: The proposed project could pose a burden on the surrounding neighborhood because it will serve residents $at are already statistically over- represented in this Census Tract. 3. RDO-exempt Allocations: The City Council passed Resolution 99-47 establishing a policy to allocate all remaining RDO-exempt units to infill projects, rather than affordable projects. Staff recommends DENIAL of this oroiect because of these inconsistencies. If this oroiect is aooroved. staff recommends that the followinl!' condition be aODlied to this aooroval: ..' f ~ M 99-10 / AHE 99-01 . 8 1/21/06 . 1. The developer shall sign a contract agreeing to the provisions contained within the "Affordable Housing Exemption Procedure for Private Developments" policy prior to approval of an Architectural and Site review for this site. Plannim!: Commission Action 7JJ1;m~ . William Faus Planning Division Manager At their February 3, 2000 meeting, the Planning Commission recommended denial of this application by a vote of 6-1 (Commissioner Gartman voted no). . . , . I, RHONDA PELLIN, City Clerk of the City of Gilroy, do hereby certifY that the attached Resolution No. 2000-52 is an original resolution, duly adopted by the Council of the City of Gilroy at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 17th day of July, 2000, at which meeting a quorum was present. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Official Seal of the City of Gilroy this 22nd day of August, 2000. " (Seal)