May 2, 2005
To: Mayor Albert and Members of the Monterey City Council
Re: May 3, 2005 Meeting, Item 4, PUD at 235 Casa Verde Way
When this project came to you in February, you were generous in offering a compromise rather than requiring an inclusionary unit that could be purchased by a moderate-income family. The proposed below-market price of $310,000 for one of the units would be affordable for a family of four with about 155% of median income. A similar family with moderate (120% median) income could pay only $242,000. Both would need a three-bedroom home. The project map was approved with seven three-bedroom homes, essentially alike, and the understanding was that one of these would be dedicated as permanently "affordable."
It should be noted that there is no definition of "workforce" as a percentage of area median income. The term has been applied to those in a wide range of jobs and professions whose family income, even with two earners, isn't enough to buy a market-rate home near where they work. They may not qualify for subsidized housing because they have above-moderate income.
If the applicant is now allowed to substitute a two-bedroom, one-bath home as the below-market unit, it would be even less affordable at $310,000. It would accommodate only a small family of two or three, who would have to have about 175% of median income to afford it. The three-bedroom, one- and a half-bath alternative which the staff has suggested is not very convenient for working parents with children. The Water Management District has recognized that most households prefer having two baths, and don't consume more water.
The smaller garage parking space prescribes the size of one of the family's cars. Many models fit within 16 feet, but there must also be enough clearance for the washer and dryer doors. The staff report says that the applicant would be willing to build this variation of a three-bedroom home as the affordable unit; we assume that willingness depends on your approving all the changes being proposed in the size of other units.
Adding a fourth bedroom to the two homes at the back of the site, may or may not make them more attractive to buyers. The fourth bedroom adds more bulk and mass over the garage, and the ground floor living-dining space is still very small for a larger family. The Architectural Review Committee will need to consider design elements of whatever plan is approved.
This is a worthwhile project in that it would replace a substandard rental complex with new homes in the neighborhood. The City has already contributed a significant amount of staff time to help make it work on the site. Those Planning Commissioners who were concerned about the density with 7 homes were willing to approve the project if one were affordable. It should be possible to include a family-sized unit, with three bedrooms and two full baths. If the applicant can present specific cost information to substantiate economic hardship with a project of this size, that should be considered. It would also be useful in anticipating further problems in enforcing the City's Inclusionary Ordinance as recently amended.
Thank you for considering our comments.
Sincerely,
Jean Esary, Housing Chair
