HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Resolution 8890 (General Plan Amendments)RESOLUTION NO. 8890
RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL CERTIFYING A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ADOPTING THE MISCELLANEOUS
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA 93-1)
WHEREAS, City planning staff periodically evaluates the General Plan and
proposes miscellaneous "cleanup" amendments; and
WHEREAS, notification of the proposed GPA 93-1 amendment package
occurred as specified by State law; and
WHEREAS, staff identified the various amendments, with corresponding
background analysis in the March 23 and April 13, 1993 staff reports; and
WHEREAS, an environmental assessment for the proposed program and
policy changes to the San Rafael General Plan 2000 resulted in a Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impacts. The Negative Declaration was
prepared on February 22, 1993; was posted with the County Clerk's office on
February 24, 1993; a public hearing on the Negative Declaration was held on
March 23, 1993; and no comments were received; and
WHEREAS, the San Rafael Planning Commission is required by state law to
hold at least one public hearing and make a written recommendation to the
legislative body on the adoption of any Plan amendments; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 23,
1993, to hear public comments on the proposed amendments; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission continued its discussion to April 13,
1993; reviewed the staff report and written and verbal information on the
Negative Declaration and the proposed plan amendments at that time; held a
detailed discussion of the proposed amendments, and unanimously endorsed
the recommended changes; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending
certification of the Negative Declaration and proposed General Plan
Amendment (GPA 93-1) on February 27,1993; and
WHEREAS, the Council held a public hearing on the General Plan
Amendment on May 3, 1993, and
WHEREAS, the Council considered all verbal and written testimony on the
General Plan Amendment and the Negative Declaration..
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council certifies the Negative
Declaration and adopts the following plan amendment package:
1
1) 155-092-22 and 23, 251-53 Channing Way. Revise land use from "Low Density" to
"Medium Density" Residential and "Parks/Open Space" to be consistent with an
existing 32 unit apartment use constructed on 1.71 acres, and open space dedication on
the remainder parcel.
2) 155-131-26, 45-55 Mitchell. Revise land use from "Office" to "Light Industrial/Office"
to be consistent with the existing building and uses constructed on the site, as discussed
during zoning hearings.
3) 178-240-11 and 14. Revise land use on two small parcels from "Low Density" and
"Hillside Residential" land use to "Open Space" as requested by San Rafael Manor
Homeowners Association.
4a) Add new land use category to General Plan policy LU -9 and to land use map:
"Estate Residential" (0.5-2 units per acre) Flat or gently sloping single family
large lots /large lot subdivisions"
4b) Revise land use designation for Peacock Estates and Peacock Neighborhood One -B from
"Hillside Residential" to "Estate Residential" (Subsequently revise hillside overlay
zoning to apply only to the 5 lots with slopes of 25% or more)
5) Revise the land use designation on 36 flat or gently sloping lots in the Dominican
neighborhood from "Hillside Residential" to "Estate Residential' consistent with
existing large lot sizes and site characteristics. Subsequently eliminate the Hillside
Residential Overlay Zoning District from these lots. Affects Assessor Parcels 15-061-
12, 20, 21, 22,17;15-081-31, 30, 09, 10, 27, 08, 49, 48, 37, 38, 39, 40;15-112- 02, 12, 13, 15, 16,
18,19,20,21; 15-121-01,03,05,07,08,09,10,11,12;15-161-01.
6) Revise land use designation on a 13 smaller and/or gently sloping lots in Loch Lomond
from "Hillside Residential' to "Low Density Residential' to be consistent with
existing lot sizes and slope characteristics. Subsequently eliminate the Hillside
Residential Overlay Zoning District from these lots. Affects Assessor Parcels 16-101-
15,16;16-113-01, 02,12,13;16-112-01, 02, 03, 04, 05;16-121-06, 07
7a & b) Revise Policy C-6 to specifically permit use of underdeveloped parcel reserves for
underdeveloped parcels; revise Appendix B to establish a small "underdeveloped
parcel reserve" in Northgate; and clarify in Policy C-6 that certain trip reserves may
also be used for high tax generating projects consistent with other policies:
"C-6 'Bonus" Trips. In the NorthgatelNorth San Rafael and East San
RafaellFrancisco Blvd. West areas, limited numbers of non -parcel -specific trip
reserves are available for high priority uses: affordable housing, needed neighborhood
serving uses, and high tax generating uses. In addition, to the extent that reserves are
available, parcels developed at less than the permitted FAR or density may request
trips from limited underdeveloped parcel reserves. Trip reserves are identified in the
General Plan Appendices."
Note: A 16 trip "Underdeveloped Parcel" reserve will be established in Appendix B in
Northgate; these trips come from two existing "general" high priority use reserves.
7c) In addition, the following clarifications to C4 are adopted (changes are underlined):
C-4 Trip Allocations. In the most traffic sensitive areas (North San Rafael/Northgate
and East San RafaellFrancisco Blvd. West) individual parcels have been assigned a
proportion of area trips based on pin peak hour trip generation in order to achieve Level
of Service standards. Trip allocations are detailed in Appendix B and are updated
periodically to delete built projects and reflect subdivisions. These allocations may not
be exceeded (except as permitted for Bonus Trips) and are consistent with General Plan
Floor Area Ratios for typical uses.
•Undeveloved (vacant or unimvroved) varcels have been vrovided trio allocations
for full develovment: ane historic trips from temvorary uses on the site in calendar
year 1986 are included within the site's trip allocations in Avnendix B.
•Partiallu develoved (under-develoved) varcels listed in Avvendix B have a right
to their historic use tries in calendar year 1986 vlus trio allocations in Avvendix B.
-Developed varcels have a right to their historic tries as of calendar near 1986; no
additional trio allocations are vrovided to these sites in Avvendix B.
In other parts of the Planning Area, designated Floor Area Ratios and residential
densities are used to determine intensity of use and trip generation."
2
8) Inclusion of minor circulation revisions consistent with recommendations in the 1991
Northgate Traffic Model Update as follows (changes are indicated):
Revise policy C-8:
►►C -B. Planned Circulation Improvements...
f. Improve the Lucas Valley/Smith Ranch Road intersection with 101
fb. Imvrove the Smith Ranch/Redwood intersection...
i. Widen Merrydale Road and North San Pedro Road...
k. Construct a direct Highway 101 northbound on ramp at Manuel Freitas Parkway and
construct imvrovements needed to signalize the northbound offramvs at Freitas/Civic
Center Drive...
1. Construct the proposed Merrydale Road Overcrossing over Highway 101..."
Add to the Circulation Background discussion of Roadway Construction Projects pp. 203-
4 the following underlined discussion:
7. Lucas Valley RoadlLos Gamos Drive/Smith Ranch Road/Highway 101
A direct southbound Highway 101 off ramp intersection with Lucas Valley Road at Los
Gamos Road and a loop southbound on ramp for westbound Lucas Valley Road traffic
including minor restriving and widening at the Smith Ranch Road/Northbound ramvs
as identified in the 1991 Northgate Traffic Model Update...
7b. Smith Ranch/Redwood. Addition of a westbound through lane and reconfiguration
of the northbound avvroach to vrovide one through lane and two left -turn lanes instead
on one right turn lane, one shared through/left and one left turn lane. The additional
westbound through lane, which would be the third lane in the westbound direction„
could drop off at the Highwav 101 northbound ramv. This imvrovement, estimated at
$30,000 (1991 dollars), is to be _fully _funded by a local areawide transportation
imvrovement vrogram.
10. Merrydale Road/North San Pedro Road.... Widening of Merrydale
Road... Widening North San Pedro Road Between Merrydale Road and the highway
overpass ... In addition, widening, of North San Pedro at the 101 northbound ramvs to
vrovide an additional westbound through lane. No right of way is needed. This
improvement is to be fully funded by a local areawide transportation improvement
program. The projected cost of this improvement is $110,000 (1986 dollars) plus $50,000
(1991 dollars)
12. Manuel Freitas Parkway/Highway 101. A direct northbound onramp serving
traffic from Redwood Highway and Civic Center Drive, *ltd channelization of the
intersection to-Hinit prohibit left turns across the existing northbound off ramp, and
related imvrovements needed to signalize the Civic Center DrivelFreitasl101
intersection. This improvement is funded by the Civic Center North, Civic Center
Plaza and Northgate East/City of San Rafael area transportation improvement
program -and Federal Aid Primary and ISTEA funds. (Fully funded)"
Additionally add the following wording to p. 202 of the Circulation Background: '7t is
recognized that minor design modifications may occur to identified vroiects as a result of
subsequent design studies: these descrivtions are not intended to vreclude such
modification"
Eliminate the following traffic reserves in Appendix B, Northgate area, to assure
acceptable long term circulation operating conditions: 120 of the 160 trip "family
housing reserve" ; a 70 trip "jail reserve"; and 180 surplus McInnis Park Trips left over
after recent Master Plan approvals.
9) Include the following new Priority 3 Implementation Program:
"LU-qq Illegal Units. Develop an improved program to legalize or abate illegal
dwelling units. "
10) Add to the end of LU -13 Commercial and Industrial Land Use Categories and Intensities
as follows:
"k. Residential Densities in Mixed Use Districts: In mixed use districts where multi
family residential uses are permitted, such uses may be developed at high densities
(15-32 units per gross acre)"
11) Clarify General Plan language that density bonuses may be applied in Mixed use
districts which permit residential uses as follows:
Revise LU -10 b, last sentence, and H-20, identical sentence, to read:
"Further, use of residential density bonuses is limited to medium and high density land
use designations, including any_ mixed use district which hermits multi family
residential uses."
12) Clarify LU -21 wording regarding height limits to assure consistency with zoning as
follows:
"LU -21 Building Heights. In most areas, height limits for main buildings shall be 36
feet. Certain sites identified on the Downtown Floor Area Ratios and Height Limits
Map, and Lincoln Avenue residential sites may be up to 48 feet to achieve more
intensive floor area ratios or residential densities, consistent with design policies.
Height limits for main buildings in single family zoning districts shall continue to be 30
feet. Zoning may provide for variances or exceptions to these limits. Higher buildings
existing or approved as of 1-1-87 shall not be considered nonconforming. An additional
one story may be considered as a result of Design Plans identified in LU -r. Where 25%
or more of the units in a residential project are for low income households, a one story
height bonus up to 48 feet may be provided in appropriate Downtown areas on sites
greater than 20,000 square feet in size where design criteria can be met."
13a) Add Housing Element policy to be consistent with redevelopment law as follows:
H-_ Redevelopment Area. Regardless of other housing policy, housing projects in the
Redevelopment area must comply with applicable Health and Safety Code sections
regarding affordability. Such law currently requires that, within the Redevelopment
Area, 15% of units developed or rehabilitated by public or private entities other than
the Redevelopment Agency (including such entities receiving agency assistance) must be
affordable to low and moderate income persons and households with at least 6%
affordable to very low income and 2% affordable to low income. Projects developed by
the Redevelopment Agency must meet higher requirements.
13 b) Include an analysis and programs to preserve assisted housing at risk of converting to
non -low income uses, as required by State Housing Element law by modifying policy H-9
and program H -u; and replacing the "termination of Federal Subsidies section p. HB -
72 -73 with the following section as follows:
11H-9 Protection of the Rental Housing Stock. Promote the retention of rental units and
encourage rental subsidy programs which can be applied to existing housing. Give high
priority to protection of assisted low income units. "
"H -u Actions Related to Subsidized Rental Projects. Monitor subsidized rental vrokects„
in particular, San Rafael Commons. At least two vears before use restrictions run out,
negotiate with property owners to extend subsidies, or assist in develovment of other
solutions. Consider develovment of ordinances to discourage conversion of subsidized
units to market rate units, where not vreemvted by State or Federal law. Target:
Preservation of all assisted units, Housing Specialist."
"13. Termination of Federal, State and Local Subsidies
Discussion: Government Code Section 65583 requires each city and county to adopt
analysis and programs for preserving assisted housing developments. The analysis is
required to identifv anv low income units which are at risk of losing subsidies between
1990-95 and 1995-2000. This analysis researched all low income rental housing units in
the City subsidized by Federal, State and local government programs. Units in three
projects fall into this category: McInnis Park Apartments, Channing Crest, and 1606
Third Street.
Other below market rate rental projects are also listed for information purposes.
Assisted housing developments and their status are identified in the Assisted Housing
Projects Table.
Federally Subsidized Projects:
There are four projects located in the City of San Rafael which utilize federal
mortgage subsidies: Pilgrim Park, Martinelli House, 626 Del Ganado and San Rafael
Commons. The Department of Housing and Urban Development normally renews
4
C
O
ea
M C%4
N N N N00 00 00
\
z
910 rt A
v
� o �
ct r, 00
00 o
3�ob Ln
a W-4 1
e�
M DA
v v �
cn
00 m
d
P. b b
.4 E4 aoi
r3g'0�� o aooa�
u o�
ai b z U b
fir$
000
N
d N C p f V O `Q to O N �i 0 d�
a �Qd, aim �c RV o�
z X4'0 o ° o a ooh
A � �� a2�W� axb�w� 0,
ow�PO o
CC pCp ,� C C C w wC
i0 id 44
�C+ rr� \ id \ � id V N id y� \ Lo id
.cnm 44m ...Fi NNcn.. rTi V NCn...Q!i.�tn % U- %'"D
v1
a Qcd �> o �n>
w
10
tti i N --� r-�
NTT rr�++yy,,.rr.� `ci �o 00 ( �
04 1 "�" K tv N 1� �0 0� F d
QI Cn M � '� � r�-� � � I T-+ " .moi r --i r-4
.cO
N
cid N z z
^
p 't: ti o 0.) v Gni O
w a cen 60,
o o ao
0u
� a, o ra .
w ul
tu ul
C)
y N r� N V) oyi NLn
Ito H e�y •� o as N N
h
cd 3X3
c
Q,9wo8 moo$ °,« o z40
x
a a
Q S a E u m� v
N 00
p� r4 .Q) O
a O a S4�• O c� � y a cpm G�oJ
au .� cn °o C' �' °` �a 'era w a O o. bo
cNch cb� o b ° O� ox o ¢ aC�
u'�i � °` �`' ° 9 o �' � v' ' � .� v im' eo m w �, ur
x°y�r g °�a:° o.or;ao r�ar� �wo.�ax •2�Uw
as �,w ��°�$ a o�wV
�, a a
G
00 a Q,� O O N A OO 4 O n O O O n A p 0 0 a
cn u°.-°cn V�cn V u00c!`�i� �Q ucn mcnE� uQ�5rm u°o-°tn�xR-stn � �l 1-1 en
e�
3
ao ul
(U tv
cu
v 3 3
�N a ti ` ag1 x.S et"� �o .v im g
cn O "" O 1 u'1 '-' cn N cn G w lA
l� OO d e0 In �' h [� 0 04 m In � cn R% oo l i
In F. Gli N V N to Q N �"'� T"
Section 8 rent subsidies when they come due, if owners so desire. Three of these projects:
Pilgrim Park, Martinelli House and 626 Del Ganado, are under non-profit ownership
and are not considered to be at risk of not renewing Section 8 low income subsidies. Thus,
these units are secure as lone as HUD continues to offer rent subsidies.
San Rafael Commons, an 83 unit senior rental project, is owned by a for profit
partnership. The General Partner is Pacific Union; a for profit corporation. EAH holds
a 1% interest with Pacific Union in San Rafael Commons, a limited partnership. The
HUD Section 8 contract for this project is not staged and cannot be prepaid, according to
representatives for the owner. The section 8 subsidy runs beyond the year 2000 planning
period and is not analyzed. However, the City will contact the property owner within
2-3 years of the subsidy expiring to start exploring alternatives to retain low income
affordability of these units. Government Code Section 65863.10 requires at least one
year advance notice to local governments where federal financial assistance for
multifamily rental housing is to be terminated . This project received significant public
Redevelopment Agency, City, County, HUD and Ecumenical Association for Housing
assistance and support during development stages, and is an exemplary design and use.
Other Assisted Housing Projects.
The Marin Housing Authority owns two public housing projects in San Rafael: a 40 unit
senior project at 5 Golden Hinde, and a 28 unit apartment at 95 Medway. These projects
will remain low income public housing projects.
Two projects in the City received State tax exempt mortgage revenue bonds. These
projects are Crest Marin 11, and 1606 Third Street. These subsidies expire ten to fifteen
years from the date of contract; the expiration date for Crest Marin 11 is after the year
2000 planning period which is required to be analyzed at this time. The 1606 Third
Street property owner states that the mortgage revenue bond for that project expires in
1996.
1606 Third Street: This project received a significant density bonus and tax exempt
bonds to provide 5 low income units in the 25 unit project. City conditions of approval
required the low income units for a minimum of 10 years from the date of 50% occupancy.
The building was finalled in May,1986; 50% occupancy is estimated to have occurred by
June or July, 1986.
Two projects: Centertown and Rotary Manor received a variety of subsidies during
construction, are non-profit owned, and are expected to continue to provide significant
low income housing opportunities over time.
Several other projects have provided low income units as result of local development
approvals only. These include 20 units in McInnis Park Apartments;1 unit at 285
Woodland; 7 units at Channing Crest and 2 units at Park Towers. Both the McInnis Park
Apartment and Channing Crest units low income agreements would terminate between
1995-2000.
McInnis Park Apartments. Through a Development Agreement, the City required 20
low income units for 10 years after 50% occupancy (March, 1999) in the 98 unit McInnis
Park Apartment project. A concurrent Partnership Agreement gave Marin Housing
Development Corporation (MHDC), a subsidiary of Marin Housing Authority, partial
ownership interest in the project and provided that at the end of this 10 year period,
MI -IDC could use its interest to purchase the low income units or to buy other low income
units elsewhere in the City. MHDC's ownership interest, however, would be
insufficient to buy a significant portion of the 20 units. The City's Housing Consultant
is exploring an alternative which includes McInnis Partner's buyout of MHDC's interest
in the project in exchange for extension of the low income subsidies for all 20 units for an
additional 10 years. The owner has agreed to this proposal. This negotiation is
expected to be resolved in the near future and this project would then not be at risk of
conversion until 2009.
Channine Crest. As a result of granting a traffic bonus to the site, the City has an
agreement with the property owner to rent 7 units to low income households for 10 years
from the date of occupancy, which was March, 1986. Thus, these units would lose their
local low income restrictions in March, 1996. In 1993 there are no additional project
based Section 8 units, but there are Section 8 vouchers for low income individuals. Any
existing low income tenants in this project which are not Section 8 tenants would need to
get on the Housing Authority's list for Section 8 vouchers to qualify for ongoing Section
8 subsidies.
�i
J
In total, 0 assisted units are at risk of losing their low income status between January,
1990 and January, 1995. However, 7 units at Channing Crest, 5 units at 1606 Third Street
and, (less likely), 20 units at McInnis Park Apartments could Dotentially lose their low
income restrictions between January, 1995 and January, 2000.
Required Analysis:
Notice: McInnis Park Apartment owners must negotiate a buyout with Marin Housing
Development Corporation at the end of the ten year period of this low income project.
No notice or first right of refusal is required for Channing Crest or the 1606 Third Street
low income units.
Cost Estimates for Dreservine or replacement of at -risk units.
Cost estimates for replacing low income rental units can range significantly, depending
upon size of unit, density, construction costs, land values, any extraordinary site
development costs, even type (senior only requires less parking; handicapped accessible
has special requirements). A recently completed, low income project in San Rafael cost
$160,000/unit to build. This estimate is at the high end: it is a three story structure
over parking in Downtown with some significant site development costs. Average high
density apartments with no unusual site development costs could range from $90,000-
120,000 /unit, based on 1992 construction costs, land values, and moderately sized units.
Thus the total cost of replacing 32 low income units could run anywhere from 2.88
million to 5.12 million.
Rents would support a portion of the construction costs. The City's Housing Consultant
estimates that the City or some other non-profit would need to subsidize
approximately 30-50% of the construction cost. Thus, to create 32 new units, 50%
subsidies could cost 1.44 to 2.56 million.
However, replacement does not address tenant displacement difficulties. Replacement
also presupposes that land exists for construction of replacement units. In San Rafael, a
largely built out city, land is increasingly hard to come by and neighborhood opposition
to such projects is often an issue. These are additional reasons to preserve existing units
if possible.
Costs for Dreservine existine units
Costs for preserving the existing units, if purchase were involved, would depend upon
the project's rent structures and mortgage. In one other City, where a detailed analysis
of preservation costs were conducted, preservation through purchase ran almost as high
as replacement costs, but could be less depending on the project being preserved.
Preserving low income units could also occur through rent subsidies. The difference
between what a low income household can afford to pay for rent and market rate rents
in Marin can run several hundred dollars per unit per month. In 1992,
a 1 person household at 50% of median income can afford a rent of $490;
a 2 person household at 50% of median income can afford a rent of $560.
A survey of market rate rents in 1992 in Downtown San Rafael:
1BR $720
2 BR $945
If it is assumed that half of the units being preserved are 1 BR with 1 person
households, and half are 2 BR with 2 person households, rent subsidies for 32 units
would cost 118,080/year and 1.18 million over 10 years.
Thus, rent subsidies could preserve low income units for an additional 10 years at much
lower initial costs, but leave units more susceptible to conversion to market rate units
over time.
Resources Available for Preservation:
Several sources are available for preservation:
• Redevelopment Agency Housing funds for new housing projects as of March, 1993 total
$900,000, primarily for land acquisition. It is possible that, given successful
negotiations with the County of Marin, additional housing set aside funds could become
available. Under existing agreements with the County of Marin, no additional housing
funds are available in the foreseeable future.
• CDBG funds, distributed by the Marin Housing Authority, are currently running
approximately 1.6 million annually for all of Marin County. These funds were
distributed among more than 100 projects in 1992. San Rafael projects are eligible to
compete for 1.35 million of this total. Rent subsidies and construction activities would
not be eligible for CDBG funding, non-profit purchase of an apartment building, site
acquisition or pre -development activities would be eligible activities.
R1
• The Housing Authority also distributes $800,000 in HOME funds, funds available for
low income acquisition and construction. These funds have been available for 2 years
and are distributed among 2-3 projects.
-The Housing Authority administers a Housing Trust Fund from countywide in-lieu
fees. Amounts are "limited" due to low construction activity and County preferences for
onsite construction over fees.
e In addition to these sources, Marin Community Foundation provides grant funds for
low income housing in Marin County. The Foundation's Annual Report states that
Housing and Community Development Grants distributed in FY1992 totalled $2,029,809.
Amounts awarded in FY 1992 for payment in Fy 1992 or a future year totalled
$1,932,349. A review of the Housing and Community Development grants distributed
in 1992 identified 18 grants, 3 of which were $250,000-444,000 each, 3 of which were
$145,000-250,000, and 12 of which were less than $145,000 each.
• Local housing in-lieu fees available as of January, 1993 totalled $179,844. All fees
were collected prior to 1990. Since adoption of the General Plan in 1988, the City has
strongly encouraged onsite construction of below market rate units as part of market rate
residential units rather than fees, because of the difficulty in finding appropriate sites
for and construction of new affordable housing projects, as well as a desire to distribute
such housing throughout the City.
• The Housing Authority has a modest administrative reserve (approx. $200,000/
year) and has adopted policies regarding the use of this reserve. 50% are held as a
contingency for the Section 8 program, 20% are used for existing Authority "troubled
projects"; 20% are used to build a housing development fund. Currently there is
approximately $100,000 in this fund. 10% is used to support other Authority programs.
Number of at-risk units to be Preserved.
The City must quantify the number of at-risk units expected to be preserved over the 10
year planning time frame. The City will negotiate to preserve all 32 at-risk units
during the 1990-2000 planning period.
Non-vrofit and Public Entities with Exverience and knowledge to vurchase at risk
rp olects: - - -
The Ecumenical Association for Housing (EAH) is a 24 year old nonprofit corporation
which has been developing, managing and advocating for affordable housing. During
this time period, EAH has developed over 1,150 units of affordable housing
predominantly in Marin County. Additionally, EAH's Property Management Division
manages over 1,300 units of affordable housing in complexes located throughout the Bay
Area. In 1992, EAH had 600 units under construction in the planning, acquisition or
rehabilitation stages. Most recently, EAH was designated by the Marin Community
Foundation as the lead housing agency in the development of affordable housing
throughout Marin County. This non-profit would be a potential "priority purchaser" of
an at-risk project, should it be offered for sale.
Additionally, the Marin Housing Authority owns and/or manages 565 units in 10
projects throughout Marin County, including 5 Golden Hinde and 28 Medway in San
Rafael, and is a second "priority purchaser". The Housing Authority has been in
operation since 1942.
The San Rafael Redevelopment Agency could assist in purchase, land acquisition, etc.
but would not be involved in owning and operating low income projects.
Program Efforts to Preserve At-Risk Units.
Program efforts to preserve at-risk units include:
a ) Finalizing Housing Consultant negotiations with McInnis Partners to extend the low
income subsidies for 20 units an additional 10 years in exchange for buyout of
MHDC's interest in the partnership, or other acceptable alternatives.
b) Housing Consultant negotiations with Channing Crest and 1606 Third Street
owners, Housing Authority, etc. to enable continuation of low income units beyond
1996, when local use restrictions run out.
c) Consideration of conversion protections, such as one-for-one replacement of
affordable units when low income rents are converted to market rate rents, where
not preempted by State or Federal law; and relocation assistance for displaced
tenants.
d) Continue other Housing Element programs and policies supporting, preserving and
constructing rental housing.
Moderate Income Units required as part of local approvals
In addition to the low income units required to be analyzed, many moderate income
ownershiv units have been developed under a City inclusionary program with deed
7
restrictions of 30-40 years. While moderate income units are not required to be
addressed by the government code, these ownership units are not at significant risk of
losing their moderate income use status. The deed restriction on a unit is renewed each
time the unit is sold. Therefore a unit would have to be under the same ownership for
30-40 years to be converted to market rate status. The chance of this happening is
unlikely. These units also have resale controls on price which assure that the units
remain affordable upon sale.
Three rental projects have also been required to guarantee that certain units will have
rents affordable to moderate income households. These include 13 units at Drake's
Terrace, 4 units at 99 Professional Center Parkway, and 20 units at McInnis Apartments.
The difference between market rate rents and moderate income rents is currently
negligible, but if market rate rents were to exceed what moderate income households
could afford to pay in the future, these units would continue to be affordable to
moderate income households. "
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council finds these recommended
revisions to be in the public interest in that they help keep the Plan current and
consistent with State law; clarify wording of certain policies; modify land use
designations consistent with site characteristics or existing uses; and provide
some additional flexibility for limited uses;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the environmental assessment relied on the
prior General Plan EIR to identify impacts of the General Plan policies and land
use designations and identified no significant new environmental impacts
resulting from the new or revised policies, programs or land use designations;
The foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City
Council of the City of San Rafael on the 3rd day of May, and adopted by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen
- �
-- &C
---&---- ---- 4 ----------
Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk
n