HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAP 2007-01-09 COMPLETE AGENDA PACKET City of Tukwila Distribution:
P. Carter V. Jessop
V. Griffin
Community Affairs and ffin D. Jenkins
o �2 P. Linder S. Kerslake
41 o D. Robertson S. Lancaster
k a Parks Committee Mayor Mullet M. Miotke
Pam Linder Chair R. Berry C. o' Flaherty
1908 ♦Pam Carter E. Boykan J. Pace
J. Cantu D. Speck
Dennis Robertson B. Fletcher R. Still
K. Fuhrer CC File (cover)
AGENDA
Tuesday, January 9, 2007
Conference Room #3; 5 PM
ITEM I ACTION TO BE TAKEN Page
1. PRESENTATIONS)
2. BUSINESS AGENDA
a. Proposed Interurban Court project; a. Forward to 1/22 COW for Pg. 1
Evie Boykan, Human Services Program discussion.
Manager.
b. Clarification of "buildable lots" and b. Forward to 1/16 Regular Pg. 7
Zoning Code amendments; Meeting public hearing.
Jack Pace, DCD Deputy Director,
3. ANNOUNCEMENTS
4. MISCELLANEOUS
Next Scheduled Meeting: Tuesday, January23, 2007
The City of Tukwila strives to accommodate those with disabilities.
Please contact the City Clerk's Office at 206 433 -1800 for assistance.
INFORMATION MEMO
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Mayor Mullej1.~ Council
Evie Boyk~man Services
December 22, 2006
PROPOSED INTERURBAN COURT PROJECT
ISSUE: Low Income Housing Institute (LIHI) proposes purchasing the Towne and Country
extended stay motel for the purpose of housing homeless vets and homeless adults, both single
and couples who are challenged with mental illness. They are proposing to provide both
extended stay units on the first floor and permanent units on the second floor. There would be
88 units including 7 studios, 74 one bedroom and 7 two bedroom units. This includes 6 units for
service provision. LIHI will partner with Seattle Mental Health who will provide on site
management and services with 24/7 guaranteed response to all clients. Evidenced based
effective practices will offer an integrated approach addressing individual needs to assist
residents on the road towards health and self sufficiency.
BACKGROUND: The proposal is consistent with the King County Ten Year Plan to End
Homelessness. The proposal is also consistent with the Housing First approach which aims to
provide permanent, service supported housing to homeless individuals. Seattle Mental Health
recently received an award from King County for a Housing First Pilot project.
The Town and Country property is located within the RCM Regional Commercial Mixed Use
zoning district. Land uses permitted outright include:
Multi-family dwelling units located above office and retail uses.
Hotels and motels.
Offices.
Outpatient and emergency medical services.
Indoor recreation facilities.
Schools and studios for education and self improvement.
Apartments are not a permitted use on the ground floor, which is why LIHI has proposed to limit
leases to six months on the lower level. This would keep them operating much as they are now
as extended stay units.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS/ALTERNATIVES: LIHI has received a conditioned
recommendation for King County funds. The condition includes the City's support for the
project including matching funds (doesn't need to be cash) in a ratio of I :7. For further detail
see attached Housing Finance program summary and recommendation. The proposal does meet
a need of difficult to serve populations that require comprehensive care management. Often,
without this comprehensive level of support, individuals are unable to meet their own basic
needs, facing multiple barriers to permanent housing. The proposal is also consistent with
Tukwila's comprehensive plan that "encourages a full range of housing opportunities for all
population segments..."
RECOMMENDATION: Discussion at Committee level to be followed by discussion at the full
Council.
Attachments: Housing First description
Housing Finance Program 2006
/
HOUSING FIRST
A Solution to End Chronic Homelessness
What is Housing First? Housing first is an innovative approach to engage and rapidly house
individuals who are homeless into permanent supportive housingl then to provide intensive and
flexible services to stabilize and support housing tenure.
Guiding Principles:
. Everyone deserves safe, affordable housing
. People determine when they are ready to be housed, not the system (no housing "readiness"
standard). People do need to accept responsibilities of being a tenant.
. It is cost effective to provide supportive housing as an alternative to individuals using some of
our most intensive and expensive services (e.g. jail, hospital).
Housing First: Core Principles:
. It's about changing the system, not the person. The major paradigm shift of this model is
how services are provided. They are onsite at the apartment building versus expecting an
individual to show up at an agency for services. Staff are constantly working to engage
residents and are trained in evidence based practices that have been shown to be effective for
hard to serve populations (motivational interviewing, assertive community treatment).
o Tenant choice on accepting clinical services. Servic.es need to be readily available with staff
continually working to engage and build a relationship with the tenants. No participation in
clinical services is required in order to remain housed. Persons may be in early stages of
recovery and chose to continue to use alcohol and other substances. Any direct knowledge of
illicit drug use, especially drug dealing, would result in contact with law enforcement.
. Focus is on being a good tenant. The main emphasis is on safety with interventions on
behaviors that negatively impact an individual or the community. Skill building is essential to
help an individualleam the skills needed to be a successful tenant: managing finances (or
obtaining a payee if needed); handling conflicts with other tenants; and managing the day to
day responsibilities in their apartments.
. Eviction is a last resort. Clinical interventions are attempted to try to exhaust all other
solutions prior to serving a tenant an eviction notice.
. Strength-based model with emphasis on building community. Some of the most effective
PSH projects have designed their space to include community rooms where activities and
shared meals can occur. Peer support and helping individuals feel connected to their
community is an important part of recovery and housing stability.
/"
~ I Permanent supportive housing is affordable housing that has no length oftime restrictions.
SOUTH KING -COUNTY HOUSING FIRST PILOT
Bringing Resources and Best Practices to Meet a Community Need
Who will be served?: This project will help twenty-eight individuals with long histories of
homelessness rebuild their lives. Team members will engage individuals who are homeless in the -
South King County area (streets, under bridges, and in parks) and will rapidly place each person
seeking shelter into supportive housing with intensive, flexible onsite services. We anticipate that
many of the individuals in the project will have multiple needs. Therefore our approach will be to
integrate mental health, chemical dependency and primary health care into a single, comprehensive
team that can addresses their array of health conditions.
New Partnership: To design, fund and oversee the implementation of this project a new alliance was
formed with three key partners:
. King County Housing Authority (KCHA)
. United Way of King County (UW)
. King County Mental Health and Chemical Abuse and Dependency Services System
(MHCADS)
New 'Vay of Combining Resources: Braided Funding Model:
. 25 Section 8 Vouchers
. Public mental health and chemical dependency dollars
. United Way dollars
. 2163 housing and services funding for people who do not meet Section 8 and/or Medicaid
Eligibility (pending approval)
Embracing Evidence-Based Practices2 (includes the following features):
. Assertive Community Treatment: intensive case management (caseJoads not to exceed 1:12)
. Integrated approach to address mental health, chemical dependency and primary care issues.
. Onsite supportive services to help an individual stabilize in order to retain their housing and
move towards recovery.
. Responsive services to the individual, landlord and the community.
. Peer mentors to help engage and support individuals to transition from the streets into
supportive housing setting.
. _ Support and linkage to employment opportunities.
Research Component:
. King County MHCADS will take the lead to design, collect and analysis critical data related to
who is served by this project, their housing stability outcomes and their use of emergency and
jail system pre- and post placement into this project.
Project Operation: Seattle Mental Health has been selected through a Request for Qualification
process to be the lead provider. We anticipate that the project will begin serving individuals by the fall
of2006.
2 The Substance Abuse an~ Mental Health Service Ad~stration (SAMI:ISA) recognizes Assertive Corru:nunity Treatment ~
(ACT), peer mentors, and mtegrated treatment to be eVIdence based practices that have shown to be effective. U
JRC Packet - Attachment 8.5
HOUSING FINANCE PROGRAM 2006
Project Summary and Recommendation
Applicant:
Low Income Housing Institute (L1HI)
Project:
Interurban Court
Location:
Tukwila
Use of funds:
Acquisition/Reha b il itati on
Amount Requested: $2,936,066
Amount Recommended: $750,000
Project Summary:
LIHI proposes to purchase an existing motel in Tukwila and rehabilitate the structure to
provide 82 units of housing (44 pennanent and 38 "extended-stay" transitional housing)
for homeless individuals and households. Sixty-eight units will serve people with chronic
mental illness, and 38 units will be designated for tenants who are veterans. The existing
structure is an extended-stay motel with each unit containing a full kitchen and bathroom,
essentially studio and one-bedroom apartments. The redeveloped site will offer residents
a common area for recreation, meetings, or other community functions. Each unit in the
complex, located directly adjacent to the Green River, has a functional balcony or outdoor
patio looking over a well-maintained grassy court. LIID will add outdoor sitting areas, a
computer lab/employment center, social services offices, and counseling space for Seattle
Mental Health.
Unique Features:
. The project would provide 82 units of housing (44 pennanent and 38 "extended-
stay" transitional) for homeless individuals as early as February, 2008.
. LIHI holds a purchase and sale agreement which expires in February, 2007. The
applicant is willing to purchase the building with a bridge loan and operate as
housing for the homeless until at least February, 2008, pending commitment of all
public funds. The property will be purchased with all rooms furnished and ready
for rental.
Need:
. The lO-Year Plan to End Homelessness estimates that there are more than 5,000
single adults in King County every night, many of whom are veterans.
. The 44 units of penn anent housing are a high priority, while the 38 units of
transitional housing are a lower priority under the King County Consolidated
Plan.
~
File: Alt. 6.5 project summaries.doc
Page 75 of 85
Final
JRC Packet - Attachment 8.5
. The Consolidated Plan refers to supportive housing as "a critical requirement for
sustaining housing" for vulnerable populations.
Capital Budget:
Source Total Secured Pending
HFP (Includes request $ 5,936,066 $ 5,936,066
for future Veterans
Funding)
State Trust Fund $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000
City of Tukwila $ 25,000 $ 25,000
L1HTC $ 5,145,854 $ 5,145,854
~
V A Per Diem Capital $ 700,000 $ 700,000
FHL8 $ 250,000 $ 250,000
L1HI Deferred Fees $ 180,000 $ 180,000
Total $14,236,920 $ 14,236,920
Ratio HFP : Other sources 1.0 to 1.4
Total capital cost per unit $ 173,621
HFP capital cost per unit $72,391
Feasibility:
. Permanent housing for the homeless is a top priority under the Ten Year Plan to
End Homelessness and the project, in terms of the population to be served, is
consistent with Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan and the King County Consolidated
Plan.
. Zoning restrictions would result in 38 units being rented as transitional units with
renewable short-term leases, instead of being permanent or transition-in-place
housing; the Agency will need to resolve this issue, preferably through are-zone
or, at a minimum, a formal interpretation from the local planning director stating
that all units may be used indefinitely as permanent housing under the City of
Tukwila's zoning ordinance.
. LIHI could potentially obtain a tax credit award of up to $2 million more than the
amount indicated in the capital budget, reducing the need for funds from other
public sources, if they applied for tax credits after August 2008. The Low Income
Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) program guidelines allow projects to calculate their
tax credit award based on the value of the land and buildings if the previous
oVvner has owned the land ten years or more. The current owner has not owned
the property for ten years.
. The development budget is somewhat preliminary. The Phase I Environmental
5
At\. 8.5 project summaries.doc
Page 76 of 85
Final
JRC Packet - Attachment 8.5
identified mold issues and condensation on the windows of some units was
observed during a staff site visit. LIHI has proposed remediation of these issues
but the full extent of the problems has not yet been determined by Tonkin, the
project architect.
. Seattle Mental Health would provide case management and mental health services
directly on site. This organization has a proven and successful track record in
providing such on-site services. This project would be Seattle Mental Health's
largest-scale effort to provide services on a single site to date.
. Proposed rents are appropriate for the target population and may be supported by
Seattle Mental Health Section 8 vouchers awarded under the south King County
"Housing First Demonstration Project" and per diem subsidies from the Veterans'
Administration that will support 18 units of transitional housing. Operating
expenses and proposed replacement and operating reserves are reasonable for the
scope of the project.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND RATIONALE
Fund at the reduced level:
$750,000 of Jumpstart Program funds
Funding is recommended because:
. The project meets high priorities for homeless housing established by the CEH
and could potentially provide 82 units of permanent supportive housing in south
King County.
. The project has the potential to meet program criteria for commitment of
Jumpstart funds, which are prioritized for "converting underutilized or problem
properties into safe, affordable housing for low-income and formerly homeless
residents" .
Specific conditions under which funding is awarded:
. The Agency must secure either a rezoning ofthe site or, at a minimum, a letter of
interpretation from the local planning director stating that the proposed use of all
units on the site for permanent housing is acceptable under relevant zoning.
. The local jurisdiction must commit to a partnership approach on the project as
described in the Jumpstart guidelines: prioritizing the project and committing
matching funds in a ration of at least 1 to 7; designating the proposed project site
as a problem property needing redevelopment under the program criteria; and
assisting with resolution of the zoning issue in advance of the agency's submitting
applications for further public funding.
. The Agency must demonstrate that they can acquire and rehabilitate the premises
'within the timeline required for the "Housing First Demonstration Project", or
secure other rental subsidies adequate to support the operating costs.
b
Alt. 6.5 project summaries.doc
Page 77 of 85
Final
City of Tukwila
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
Department of Community Development
Steve Lancaster, Director
RE:
Mayor
Community Affairs and Parks Committee
Steve Lancaster, Director \ / _ .vJ"
Brandon Miles, Assistant Planner 7'
Clarification of "Buildable Lots"
TO:
FROM
DATE:
January 2, 2006
ISSUE
Clarification of code language regarding development of substandard lots.
BACKGROUND
In 1995, the City Council established the minimum lot size for the Low Density
Residential (LDR) district at 6,500 square feet. For several years thereafter, the City
allowed any legally created LDR lot to be developed with one single family d\velling,
even if the lot was smaller than 6,500 square feet. This led to concern regarding a
proliferation of new residences on lots as small as 2500-3000 square feet.
In 2005 the City adopted Ordinance 2097 which modified the development requirements
for building on such substandard lots. Modified language was added in Tukwi1a
Municipal Code (TMC) 18.70.030. The intent and effect of the modified language was
as follows:
1. In order to be developable, a lot must meet all basic development standards with
the exception of average lot width.
2. If a lot cannot meet basic development standards it must be combined with
adjacent lots.
3. In rare situations an individual may seek a variance to basic development
standards.
Recently, the language included in Ordinance 2097 to accomplish this intent (codified at
TMC 18.70.030) has been called into question. It has been alleged that the language is
contradictory and unclear. In order to erase any doubt regarding the intent and effect of
this language, staff recommended and the City Council approved a temporary
+
Q:\Lots\CAP Memo.doc
6300 Southce ter Boulevard, Suite #100 · Tukwila, Washington 98188 · Phone: 206-431-36
moratorium on the development of substandard lots, to allow the City to reaffirm its
intention and clarify the code language. A public hearing on the moratorium is scheduled
for January 16,2007.
ANALYSIS
The development of substandard lots is currently regulated as follo\vs:
18.70.030 Substandard Lots
A. A lot, as defined in TMC 18.06.500, which does not meet the minimum dimensional
standards for the zone in which it is located may still be developed as a separate lot if
the proposed use is one which is permitted in the zone and the proposed development
can comply with the requirements of this title regarding basic development standards
for the applicable zone and other applicable land use and environmental requirements.
B. A lot, as defmed in TMC 18.06.500, which cannot meet the basic development
standards for the applicable zone and other applicable land use and environmental
requirements may be developed only if it is combined with adjacent lot(s) in a manner
which allows the combined lots to be developed in a manner which does comply with
the basic development standards for the applicable zone and other applicable land use
and environmental requirements. In the event lots are combined in order to comply with
the requirements of this subsection, a boundary line adjustment shall occur so that the
combined lots are henceforth considered a single lot.
C. Nothing in this subsection shall be deemed to prevent the o\vner of a sub-standard
lot from applying for or receiving approval of variances pursuant to TMC Chapter
18.72.
Confusion has been expressed regarding use of the term "minimum dimensional
standards." The term is not defined or referenced elsewhere within the Zoning Code.
Staffhas interpreted the term "minimum dimensional standards" to mean the "minimum
average lot width" standard included in the code's Basic Development Standards tables,
because this is the only lot standard that is expressed as a dimension.l This interpretation
is consistent with the rules of statutory construction and is also consistent with our
understanding of City Council intent related to the adoption of substandard lot
requirements under Ordinance 2097.
ALTERNATIVES
Clarifying Amendment
In order to avoid confusion in the future, staff recommends the following modification of
the language found at TMC 18.70.030 (presented in strikethrough underline format).
t
I Several dictionaries were consulted to confirm the meaning of the word "dimension." These sources
consistently define the term as a measurement of size in a specific direction, such as length, width or
height.
Q:\Lots\CAP Memo.doc
Sjl
Page 2 of 4
18.70.030 Substandard Lots
A. A lot, as defmed in TMC 18.06.500, which does not meet the minimum dimensional
standards average lot width standard for the zone in which it is located may still be
developed as a separate lot if the proposed use is one ,vhich is permitted in the zone and
the proposed development can comply with the remaining requirements of this title
regarding basic development standards for the applicable zone and other applicable
land use and environmental requirements.
B. A lot, as defmed in TMC 18.06.500, which cannot meet the basic development
standards (other than lot width) for the applicable zone and other applicable land use
and environmental requirements may be developed only if it is combined with adjacent
lot(s) in a manner which allows the combined lots to be developed in a manner which
does comply with the basic development standards for the applicable zone and other
applicable land use and environmental requirements. In the event lots are combined in
order to comply with the requirements ofthis subsection, a boundary line adjustment
shall occur so that the combined lots are henceforth considered a single lot.
C. Nothing in this subsection shall be deemed to prevent the owner of a sub-standard
lot from applying for or receiving approval of variances pursuant to TMC Chapter
18.72.
The effect of this amendment would be to reconfIrm and make clear that:
1. A lot meeting all Zoning Code requirements except for the minimum width
standard may be developed.
2. A lot not able to meet other Zoning Code requirements (e.g., lot area, setbacks)
may be developed if combined with other property so that it will meet these
requirements, or if the owner is able to obtain a variance.
Alternative Amendments
The City Council could take this opportunity to modify the way that substandard lots are
regulated. This would require additional time and potentially an extension of the
moratorium, and is not recommended at this time.
No Action
The City Council could choose to take no action at this time. Staff would continue to
interpret the Zoning Code as we have since Ordinance 2097 was adopted. This could
lead to continued confusion and dispute over the effect of Ordinance 2097, and is not
recommended.
Q:\Lots\CAP Memo.doc
Sjl
/
Page 3 of 4
/0
RECOMl\1ENDATION
Staff recommends that the Committee forward the proposed clarifying amendment,
above, to the COW for its consideration. Under this recommendation, the following next
steps would be expected:
January 16, 2007:
January 22, 2007:
January 25,2007:
February 5, 2007:
Q:\Lots\CAP Memo.doc
Sjl
Public hearing on moratorium. Staff would explain proposed
clarifying amendment and request that Council refer to the
Planning Commission.
Committee of the Whole briefing.
Planning Commission public hearing/recommendation on
proposed clarifying amendment.
City Council decision (end of moratorium).
Page 4 of 4