Item 29 - Discussion of Porcess for Reallocation of Sr/Family Housing f AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY ~/~~F~-~-~,~F7,/~'~c~
· 'O: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Honorable Chairman and Members of the Redevelopment Agency
James L. Bowersox, City Manager/Executive Direc~
FROM:
INITIAll~DBY: John D. Fitch, Assistant City Manager/Assistant Executive Directo~
Warren H. Sharer, Director of Redevelopment Service ~__~
DATE: February 28, 1995
SUBJECI': Discussion of the Process for Reallocation of Senior and Family Housing
on Housing Sites Pursuant to the Judgement Order in the Case of Smith
vs. All Persons
ABSTI~AC~
On January 26, 1995, a Judgement was entered on Smith vs. All Persons. As a result of
the Judgement, the Agency is required to modify the mix of affordable senior and family
housing now planned by the Agency. The City Council needs to determine the process to
be followed in making this modification in the mix.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This action is not subject to CEQA review.
FISCAL IMPACT
Relatively minor administrative cost difference depending on the option selection.
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATIONAND CORRESPONDENCE
A copy of this report was given to the Redevelopment & Housing Advisory Committee.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council/Redevelopment Agency, after discussion with the
Redevelopment and Housing Advisory Committee, determine which process they wish to
follow.
ACTION
FEB281995 ITEM 29 ,
lo£3
AGENDA REPORT
CITY OF POWAY
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Honorable Chairman and Members of the Redevelopment Agency
FROM: James L. Bowersox, City Manager/Executive Dire~
INITIATED BY: John D. Fitch, Assistant City Manager/Assistant Executive
Warren H. Shafer, Director of Redevelopment Service ~s(~
OATE: February 28, 1995
SUBJECT: Discussion of the Process for Reallocation of Senior and
Family Housing on Housing Sites Pursuant to the Judgement
Order in the Case of Smith vs. All Persons
BACKGROUND
In 1993 the Redevelopment Agency and the City of Poway adopted an Amendment to
the Paguay Redevelopment Plan. Shortly after approval, the Legal Aid Society of
San Diego filed suit against the City to invalidate the Amendment and the City's
General Plan. The suit threatened the benefits of the Amendment, including an
increase in financing ability from $408 million to a new plan limit of $3.5
billion. The suit also sought to shut down development within the entire City,
including the Business Park, and all commercial and housing development. The
lawsuit thus threatened both the long-range planning adopted by the City Council
for the community and the financing capacity which would enable the construction
of the public improvements desired by the community over the life of the
Redevelopment Plan.
The trial was scheduled to commence on November 18, 1994. The Court directed the
parties to a mediator in September in an effort to resolve the Case. These
meetings resulted in amediated resolution of the Case. The City Council, acting
in closed session pursuant to the Brown Act, considered and approved the mediated
settlement. The Legal Aid Society also approved. While the parties thereafter
were unable to resolve a dispute over the mediation memorandum, the Superior
Court did enter Judgement in the Case on January 26, 1995.
FINDINGS
While the Judgement dealt with a number of issues, the purpose of tonight's
meeting is to discuss the process for dealing with one portion of the Settlement.
The portion in question deals with the requirement that the City change the
currently planned mix of senior/family housing. The five projects currently
planned and covered by the Judgement are Haley; Breihan (Haley II}; Gateway;
Brookview and Bowron Road. The two Haley projects are family; the others are all
senior projects. In order to comply with the Judgement, either the Brookview or
.ACTION:
FEB 2 8 1995 29 ~
2 of 3
Case of Smith vs. All Persons
February 28, 1995
.- Page 2
Bowron site will need to be fully or partially changed to family. This is
necessary since the Gateway project will only be constructed as senior housing
by the property owner, Retirement Housing Foundation.
In addressing the question of the process of how to determine the reallocation
among these two sites, there appears to be three options. These options may have
some possible combinations.
The first option would be for the Council/Agency to charge the Redevelopment and
Housing Advisory Committee (RHAC) with the task of conducting hearings on this
question and then prepare a recommendation for Council/Agency consideration. The
Council/Agency would then have additional public hearings on amending the
Affordable Housing designations and take the final action. The major advantage
to this option is that it would provide the community and Council/Agency with an
additional opportunity for public discussion and input. The major disadvantage
is the additional time required, and since the Council/Agency is the final
authority on the decision, people may wait for the item to reach Council/Agency
before they get involved.
The second option would be for the Council to direct the RHAC to review this
matter at the Committee level without public hearings, and prepare a
recommendation for Council to consider along with other testimony at the
Council/Agency noticed public hearing. The major advantage of this approach is
that it provides for Committee input on the matter and saves time. The major
disadvantage of this approach is that the Committee would not be able to evaluate
the public comment before they make a recommendation to the Council.
The final option is for the Council/Agency to take full responsibility for making
the allocation determination. The major advantage to this option is since the
Council has final responsibility for the decision, they would be in a position
to evaluate all factors and make the decision in the shortest time period. A
timely decision will be a benefit in complying with the time frames for housing
production in the Judgement. The major disadvantage with this option is that it
limits public comment and input to the Council level.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This action is not subject to CEQA review.
FISCAL IMPACT
Relatively minor administrative cost difference depending on the option
selection.
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
A copy of this report was given to the Redevelopment & Housing Advisory Committee.
RECOMNENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council/Redevelopment Agency, after discussion
with the Redevelopment and Housing Advisory Committee, determine which process
they wish to follow.
c:\~ta\agenda\~mith.jdg
FEB 28 1995 ITEM 29
3 of 3
- -'"~, ~ February 27, 1995
[ [~~j To Whom it May Concern:
~' , . RE Trolley Extension ~und ShiR
The recent decision by MTDB to expedite the construc[ion of ih,~ trolley
extension from Old Town to the ~tadium (Mission Valley West) has been blocked
Oir,~ ,,r~h.-~la),*r by SANDAG, Both MTDB and the OTC have approved the plan which sirnply
shifts funds from allocations made for future segments of the line to current
~: ,. ~ .,,, ~r,,~[ construction, with replacement funding assured. The extension from the Stadium
: ,, ~,. (;r~.'c LA ~m4~ easterly to Grossmont Center cannot be built until the west segmer,t is on line
, ,,:~4 ~..~4 This shift ms a practical and effective means by which the ]rolley line
~% 46,)-}716 plan can proceed.
CeKainly lhe costs have escalated s~nce the Trolley was first instituted many ~,ears ago,
(so has the price of cars, potatoes and Coca Cola) and, as time goes on, costs will continue to
mcrease Expenses for the trolley, such as land purchases, construction and operation, will
contimJe to increase, but the longer it is delayed, the more it will cost.
Government officials, who toss around the terms "boondoggle", "dysfunctional" and
"colossal waste of money", should consider the wishes and opinions of the million~ of riders who
have enJoyed the trolley over the past years. They should also consider the reduction of fossil fuel
- consumption and the proven improvement in air quality. The age old success of light rail systems
throughout the world does not need to be debated or questioned Southern California has only the
sha rr~e of f~ot dragging to answer for their love of the automobile. The expansion of ligtd r dl ~ravel
is progressing across our nation. Its success is irrefutable and environmentally is mandatory.
Buses wear out faster, cost more to operate and still pollute our air. Trains ca~w more passengers.
are more dependable, require fewer operators and use non-polluting electric,fy, Parking fees,
r~dcsharing, increased licensing fees, otc, are various effods to help lessen the amount of cars on
the roads and the trolley line is working towards this end
As a member of MTOB since 1980, I believe their work ~s exempla~ and efficient and they
are dedicated to providing a much needed service to the public. Many public officials possibly do
not need to ride the Trolley, however the so.ice was not generated for them The service was
provided for the millions who need it as an economical means of transpodalion
Please do not allow political posturing or personal bias to delay, or even destroy, this very
wodhwhile project It is something that San Diego needs to have if we are to be an active pa~ of
the fu[ure. It is a straight fo~ard and honest long range plan for the future of our region and, in
no way, compares to trash plants or airpod studies. The technology is proven and sound. The
need is compelling and the histo~ of MTDB flawless. If someone can make thing~ cost less in the
luture ir~stead of more, MTDB will be the first to embrace the procedure. Until then, we will have
to rely upon prudence and fiscal responsibility, and continue to earnestly address lhe needs of our
fellow San Diegans...
Sincerely, ~ /
D, Robert F' (Bob) Burns
Mayor - City of Lemon Grove 'EEI 2 8 1995 ITEM