Hello Citizens,
The location of an Affordable Housing project on Jeffries Road (across from the Middle School) is currently in grave doubt (see Item #IA-1 on Monday’s CC Agenda, p. 223). Yet the state of California still requires the City to supply 193 additional units of affordable housing by 2014. So, where do you think they should be placed?
Here are the “rules of the game”:
Here are the “rules of the game”:
The project needs to be placed within the City of Big Bear Lake
It needs to be affordable for the City. At $146,415 per unit, the Jeffries project became too costly for our City’s Improvement Agency.
It needs to generate sufficient income for the developer/management company. That’s why these projects must be built:
- With a certain density: ie. apartments, townhomes, etc.
- In the proper zoning, at least R-3, which allows up to 24 units/acre for affordable housing projects
- A large parcel or several adjoining parcels (at least one acre)
In order to rank high in the competition for federal funding (tax credits), the project needs to meet certain criteria. Competition points are earned by location. A project must be fairly close to:
- Shopping for essentials (supermarkets, food stores, pharmacies)
- Schools
- Public transportation
- Medical Facilities
- Social Service Facilities & government buildings
Consider that “mixed use” is an option and possibly even desirable, i.e:
- Apartments placed above stores in the Village or Moonridge shopping area
- Mixed housing, recreation, hotel and retail (both residential and tourist)near and on the Lake near Sandalwood Drive in back of Von’s
Now that you know what the City is faced with, I’d like to hear some of your suggestions.
- Write your thoughts down as a response to this blog
- Take the poll to the right
Please pass-on this blog or e-mail to people you think would be interested in this important topic.
Sincerely,
Michael
10 comments:
SANDALWOOD DRIVE would be perfect!! It's already approved by the City, it's already level, there are no trees, there's plenty of room for parking, and it's close to the hospital, the Family Health Center, pharmacies, library, and shopping centers. Plus it's conveniently between all of the schools. Also, M.A.R.T.A. has a regular route nearby.
By the time Sandalwood is completed, the state's wacky affordable housing laws will probably be modified and there may be no further requirements (several cities have filed lawsuits against the state to reform the current housing requirement).
Meanwhile, if we must comply with this law, then Sandalwood is the ideal location.
I was in favor the one that has been approved on Knickerbocker. As a neighbor I thought it would be better than what was on the property. Now I am told that the city allowed all of the trees to be cleared and that there is a problem with the title transfer to the new owners. What the hell is going on? It is embarrassing to drive up Knickerbocker and see a complete junk yard that your people can't get cleaned up NOW...... what are we in for down the road with these owners and contractors
I agree with Katherine - the Sandalwood area seems suited for just about anything but retail as its off the beaten path.I think this is a plus factor for the housing location, though it is still easily accessible like Katherine said. An important consideration is the "look" of our city as a resort destination - not that the affordable housing would be ugly, but in the context of a quaint mountain/lake/ski resort it just doesn't belong.
I am continually amazed and exaspersted that this simple concept is not consistently applied by the city in all its decisions.
The project was proposed on Sandalwood behind Von's nearly a year ago. It's still "in the works" and we await the outcome. Hopefully it doesn't get too expensive like the Jeffries project did. Thus far, it's in two phases of around 75 units each (total about 150 units).
This area is near the lake. Some people would like the area to be developed for "mixed use" which might include affordable (or regular) housing. Options in the mix could include: tourist attractions which use the Lake, retail for tourists and residents, hotels, as well as housing. Although the current Sandalwood project in back of Von's is only housing, what do you think of the "mixed-use" idea?
Thanks for keeping us informed. As a Realtor in Big Bear for the last 3 years, it has struck me how much vacant housing there already is in the city on a daily basis and how difficult it can be to find full-time tenants, even at low ($450-$550) rents. Building another 193 units of low-income housing seems counter-productive when we already have a plethora of potential low-income housing in Big Bear Lake. Do the state requirements allow for using the funds to procure long-term leases from existing Big Bear homeowners? It seems like this would kill several birds with one stone by providing low-income housing, leasing out existing homes that are sitting vacant, and maybe even preventing additional foreclosures, which are driving down the values of everyone else's homes.
Hello Anonymous,
I agree that rehab'ing existing homes would be a wonderful way to go for all the reasons you state. However, the 193 homes required by CA must be ADDITIONAL homes. If we were to rehab, it would not "count."
In addition, the Rent Schedule for these apartments will start in the lowest income bracket from: $302 1br; $366 2br; $419 for 3br. Looking in the latest Grizzly classifieds, you can't touch that for quality private homes. And rents are the lowest they've been in private homes for a long time and bound to go up in the future.
Can you explain how mixed use would work?
Who would pay for and own these projects in terms of land, construction costs, on-going management?
What information is available on what types of buildings produce the best results in terms of re-vitalizing an area?
Mixed use can come in many forms. Stores in the village or Moonridge retail area with apartments above would be mixed-use. The potential advantage of this would be a steady flow of residents who would frequent restaurants or shopping below.
In areas near lakes, seashore, parks, or other natural or man-made features, mixed use could include housing interspersed with parks, docks, retail (above or adjacent). I noticed this at a ski resort next to the northwest corner of Tahoe: apartments above retail stores with the ski resort nearby. I also noticed this in Halifax, Nova Scotia (Canada) along the bay with stores/apartments, docks, amusements, etc. The mix of uses are usually designed to interact synergistically, each helping the other out.
If Big Bear Lake were to think big, imagine what could go in by the lake in the Sandalwood area in back of Von's. Businesses in the Moonridge area showed an interest in mixed use: apartments above stores. Remember that the ski area is nearby.
I understand that most municipalities attract developer(s) to undertake such projects. The City usually plays an organizing function.
As a general building contractor for 30 years in and around the Palos Verdes Pennisula and now a business owner and propwery owner in Bid Bear Lake for 10 years property and its value I am familiar with. I too would like to know the truth behind Knickerbocker, certainly before any futher properties are considered. I disagree on the Sandlewood property. It is some of the highest valued property in Big Bear and is nestled between to premiere properties Eagle Knolls and Eagle Point Estates. There are other resort communites getting around this low income housing! The problem with Big Bear Lake is this was never planned for and no body wants it in there neigborhood. Statistics show that crime is higher in this type of housing.
Hello Anonymous,
Not sure what you mean about the "truth" behind Knickerbocker. Could you be more specific?
Like you, I also think that planning in Big Bear Lake has left much to be desired. We don't even know "what we want to be when we grow up." What I mean by that is: Do we want to be the best tourist community we can? What would that look like and what would it mean? Or do the citizens want to curtail tourism and focus upon making this a residential community? Then, what would that look like and what would that mean? Each has its pluses and each has its ramifications. But we cannot meaningfully plan for anything until these questions are asked and answers are known.
Sandalwood could take on many different forms depending upon the answer. If we were to go all-out tourism, this is lakefront property that could be developed commercially, possibly with mixed-use residential.
A complicating factor is that the State of CA is requiring that we have 193 Affordable Housing units shovel-ready by 2012 so that it could be finished and inhabitable by 2014. Throws planning off a tad. Previous City administrations let us fall behind on this.
Post a Comment