Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-05-12 Agenda Packet I declare under penalty of pery'ury that I am employed by the City of Chule Vista in the o�ce of the City Clerk and that 1 posted the document according to Brown Act rcquiremrnts. - — ------ --- - -_ ----------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - . �--.r-?.�T"--� �- Dated:r'�' �._ - - _./�>-_.. . � $I�eAi _ :,K�.. ` ��`�''`P ..d � •, ' cm oF ' `` � .� CHULA VISTA � �8�- �.�� • - • • _ \ � f���Z^�2l'ci � Mary Casillas Salas, Mayor Patricia Aguilar, Councilmember Gary Halbert, Ciry Manager Pamela Bensoussan, Councilmember Glen R. Googins, City Attomey John McCann, Councilmember ponna R. Norris, City Cterk Steve Miesen, Councilmember Tuesday, May 12, 2015 5:00 PM Council Chambers 276 4th Avenue, Building A Chula Vista, CA 91910 REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL: Councilmembers Aguilar, Bensoussan, McCann, Miesen and Nlayor Salas .. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG AND MOMENT OF SILENCE SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY A. 15-0156 PRESENTATION OF A PROCLAMATION TO CHULA VISTA POLICE DEPARTMENT AGENT MATT SHERARD PROCLAIMING MAY 15, 2015 AS PEACE OFFICERS MEMORIAL DAY IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA B. 15-0182 PRESENTATION BY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT HOUSING MANAGER LEILANI HINES AND PROJECT COORDINATOR JOSE DORADO OF A RUBY AWARD FROM THE SAN DIEGO HOUSING FEDERATION TO THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL Gry o/Chula V(sta Page 1 , Pnntcd on Y//1075 City Council Agenda May 12, 2015 C. 15 -0190 PRESENTATION OF A PROCLAMATION TO PUBLIC WORKS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING BILL VALLE PROCLAIMING THE WEEK OF MAY 17 THROUGH MAY 23, 2015 AS NATIONAL PUBLIC WORKS WEEK IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA D. 15 -0195 PRESENTATION OF A PROCLAMATON TO BAYVIEW BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CAMPUS CLUBHOUSE MEMBER DAPHNE GALANG, MHA, DECLARING MAY 2015 AS MENTAL HEALTH MONTH IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 1 - 7) The Council will enact the Consent Calendar staff recommendations by one motion, without discussion, unless a Councilmember, a member of the public, or staff requests that an item be removed for discussion. If you wish to speak on one of these items, please fill out a "Request to Speak" form (available in the lobby) and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be discussed immediately following the Consent Calendar. 1. 15 -0200 APPROVAL OF MINUTES of April 14, 2015. Staff Recommendation: Council approve the minutes. 2. 15 -0118 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING A THREE -PARTY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, DELORENZO INTERNATIONAL, AND BALDWIN AND SONS FOR PARK DESIGN SERVICES FOR OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 2, PARK P -3 (MONTECITO PARK) Department: Development Services Department Staff Recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. City of Chula Vista Page 2 Printed on 51712015 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 2 City Council Agenda May 12, 2015 3. 15 -0166 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA (1) APPROVING THE 2015 -2019 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND 2015 -2016 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG), HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP (HOME), AND THE EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS GRANT (ESG) PROGRAMS; (2) AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE AGREEMENTS FOR THE MANAGEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ELIGIBLE PROJECTS WITH EACH SUB - RECIPIENT/ CONTRACTOR/DEVELOPER IDENTIFIED IN THE ACTION PLAN; (3) AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT TO ENTER INTO A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE RECREATION AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THREE CDBG- FUNDED PROJECTS; AND (4) AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ANY AND ALL RELATED DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO OBTAIN THE HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT GRANTS Department: Development Services Department Staff Recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. 4. 15 -0180 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE 2015 REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE (AI) AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO CERTIFY AND SUBMIT THE Al TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Department: Development Services Department Staff Recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. City of Chula Vista 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 3 Printed on 51712015 Page 3 City Council Agenda May 12, 2015 5. 15 -0173 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING DONATIONS AND GRANT FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $21,223.67 FROM MULTIPLE DONORS AND GRANTORS FOR COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE COMMUNITY FUN RUN, CITYWIDE AQUATIC AND RECREATION PROGRAMS AND FACILITIES, AND AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2014/2015 RECREATION BUDGET TO REFLECT THE APPROPRIATION OF THESE DONATED, SPONSORSHIP AND GRANT FUNDS (4/5 VOTE REQUIRED) Department: Recreation Department Staff Recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. 6. 15 -0177 QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 2015 Department: Finance Department Staff Recommendation: Council accept the report. 7. 15 -0179 INVESTMENT REPORT FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 2015 Department: Finance Department Staff Recommendation: Council accept the report. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC COMMENTS Persons speaking during Public Comments may address the Council on any subject matter within the Council's jurisdiction that is not listed as an item on the agenda. State law generally prohibits the Council from discussing or taking action on any issue not included on the agenda, but, if appropriate, the Council may schedule the topic for future discussion or refer the matter to staff. Comments are limited to three minutes. PUBLIC HEARINGS The following item(s) have been advertised as public hearing(s) as required by law. If you wish to speak on any item, please fill out a "Request to Speak" form (available in the lobby) and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. City of Chula Vista 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 4 Printed on 51712015 Page 4 City Council Agenda May 12, 2015 8. 15 -0150 CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN AND THE OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, INCLUDING A NEW DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT INVOLVING PORTIONS OF THE OTAY RANCH FREEWAY COMMERCIAL PLANNING AREA 12 A. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CONSIDERING THE ADDENDUM (IS -12 -03) TO FEIR 02 -04; APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN AND THE OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO REFLECT LAND USE AND POLICY CHANGES FOR APPROXIMATELY 35 ACRES WITHIN THE OTAY RANCH PLANNED COMMUNITY, INCLUDING ASSOCIATED TEXT, MAPS, AND TABLES B. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, VILLAGE II TOWN CENTER, LLC, AND SUNRANCH CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, FOR THE FREEWAY COMMERCIAL NORTH PORTION OF OTAY RANCH PLANNING AREA 12 (FIRST READING) Department: Development Services Department Staff Recommendation: Council conduct the public hearing, adopt the resolution and place the ordinance on first reading. City of Chula Vista 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 5 Printed on 51712015 Page 5 City Council Agenda May 12, 2015 9. 15 -0178 CONSIDERATION OF WAIVING IRREGULARITIES IN THE BID RECEIVED FOR THE "PAVEMENT MINOR REHABILITATION FY14/15 (SLURRY SEAL) (STL401)" PROJECT PER CITY CHARTER SECTION 1009 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE "PAVEMENT MINOR REHABILITATION FY14/15 (SLURRY SEAL) (STL401)" PROJECT TO PAVEMENT COATINGS CO. IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,532,589.00; WAIVING IRREGULARITIES IN THE LOW BID RECEIVED; WAIVING CITY COUNCIL POLICY NO. 574 -01; AND AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF ALL AVAILABLE CONTINGENCY FUNDS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $114,944 Department: Public Works Department Staff Recommendation: Council conduct the public hearing and adopt the resolution. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS MAYOR'S REPORTS 10. 15 -0196 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE LAWN SPACE IN FRONT OF CITY HALL, KNOWN AS PLAZA DE NACION (CITY HALL URBAN PARK) COUNCILMEMBERS' COMMENTS CLOSED SESSION Announcements of actions taken in Closed Session shall be made available by noon on Wednesday following the Council Meeting at the City Attorney's office in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code 54957.7). 11. 15 -0193 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING EXISTING LITIGATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9 (a) Name of case: Samuel Escalante, et al. v. City of Chula Vista, WCAB, Case Number ADJ9571086 ADJOURNMENT to the Special City Council Workshop on May 14, 2015, at 5:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers; and thence to the Regular City Council Meeting on May 26, 2015, at 5:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers. City of Chula Vista Page 6 Printed on 51712015 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 6 City Council Agenda May 12, 2015 Materials provided to the City Council related to any open- session item on this agenda are available for public review at the City Clerk's Office, located in City Hall at 276 Fourth Avenue, Building A, during normal business hours. In compliance with the AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT The City of Chula Vista requests individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend, and /or participate in a City meeting, activity, or service, contact the City Clerk's Office at (619) 691-504 1 (California Relay Service is available for the hearing impaired by dialing 711) at least forty -eight hours in advance of the meeting. Sign up at www.chulavistaca.gov to receive email notifications when City Council agendas are published online. City of Chula Vista 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 7 Printed on 51712015 Page 7 CITY OF CHULA VISTA File #: 15 -0156, Item #: A. City of Chula Vista Staff Report PRESENTATION OF A PROCLAMATION TO CHULA VISTA POLICE DEPARTMENT AGENT MATT SHERARD PROCLAIMING MAY 15, 2015 AS PEACE OFFICERS MEMORIAL DAY IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA City of Chula Vista 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 1 of 1 Printed on 5/7/2015 powered by LegistarT" Page 8 CITY OF CHULA VISTA File #: 15 -0182, Item #: B. City of Chula Vista Staff Report PRESENTATION BY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT HOUSING MANAGER LEILANI HINES AND PROJECT COORDINATOR JOSE DORADO OF A RUBY AWARD FROM THE SAN DIEGO HOUSING FEDERATION TO THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL City of Chula Vista 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 1 of 1 Printed on 5/7/2015 powered by LegistarT" Page 9 CITY OF CHULA VISTA File #: 15 -0190, Item #: C. City of Chula Vista Staff Report PRESENTATION OF A PROCLAMATION TO PUBLIC WORKS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING BILL VALLE PROCLAIMING THE WEEK OF MAY 17 THROUGH MAY 23, 2015 AS NATIONAL PUBLIC WORKS WEEK IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA City of Chula Vista 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 1 of 1 Printed on 5/7/2015 powered by LegistarT" Page 10 CITY OF CHULA VISTA File #: 15 -0195, Item #: D. City of Chula Vista Staff Report PRESENTATION OF A PROCLAMATON TO BAYVIEW BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CAMPUS CLUBHOUSE MEMBER DAPHNE GALANG, MHA, DECLARING MAY 2015 AS MENTAL HEALTH MONTH IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA City of Chula Vista 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 1 of 1 Printed on 5/7/2015 powered by LegistarT" Page 11 CITY OF CHULA VISTA File #: 15 -0200, Item #: 1. City of Chula Vista Staff Report APPROVAL OF MINUTES of April 14, 2015. RECOMMENDED ACTION Council approve the minutes. City of Chula Vista Page 1 of 1 Printed on 5/7/2015 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 12 City of Chula Vista Meeting Minutes - Draft Tuesday, April 14, 2015 4:00 PM Council Chambers 276 4th Avenue, Building A Chula Vista, CA 91910 REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CALL TO ORDER A Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista was called to order at 4:01 p.m. in the Council Chambers, located in City Hall, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California. ROLL CALL: Present: Councilmember Aguilar, Deputy Mayor Bensoussan, Councilmember McCann, Councilmember Miesen and Mayor Salas Also Present. City Manager Halbert, City Attorney Googins, Assistant City Clerk Bigelow, and Deputy City Clerk Kansas PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG AND MOMENT OF SILENCE Councilmember Aguilar led the Pledge of Allegiance. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY Item I was taken out of order and heard before Item A. I. 15 -0064 PRESENTATION OF THE RIDA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, IRA MITZNER Port Commissioner Ann Moore introduced Ira Mitzner, Chief Executive Officer of RIDA Development Corporation. Mr. Mitzner played a video with examples of other RIDA Development projects, gave a presentation on the organization, and spoke regarding Chula Vista's Bayfront. Mayor Salas announced that Items 20 and 21 would be continued to a future date. A. 15 -0122 PRESENTATION BY POLICE CHIEF BEJARANO OF EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH SHELLY ROBILLARD, SECRETARY Police Captain Kennedy introduced employee of the month Shelly Robillard. Mayor Salas read the proclamation and Councilmember Aguilar presented it to Ms. Robillard. B. 15 -0128 PRESENTATION OF A PROCLAMATION TO CHULA VISTA POLICE DISPATCH SUPERVISOR CARLA EVEN, PROCLAIMING APRIL 12 THROUGH APRIL 18, 2015 AS NATIONAL PUBLIC SAFETY TELECOMMUNICATIONS WEEK IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Mayor Salas read the proclamation and Deputy Mayor Bensoussan presented it to Police Dispatch Supervisor Even. City of Chula Vista Page 1 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 13 City Council Meeting Minutes - Draft April 14, 2015 C. 15 -0093 PRESENTATION OF A PROCLAMATION TO SOUTHWESTERN SUN STUDENT EDITOR LINA CHANKAR FOR BEING NAMED 2014/2015 NATIONAL COLLEGE REPORTER OF THE YEAR BY THE ASSOCIATED COLLEGIATE PRESS Mayor Sa /as read the proclamation and Councilmember McCann presented it to Ms. Chankar. D. 15 -0097 PRESENTATION OF A PROCLAMATION TO TREE SAN DIEGO PRESIDENT LAURIE BROEDLING PROCLAIMING FRIDAY, APRIL 24, 2015 AS ARBOR DAY IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Mayor Sa /as read the proclamation and Councilmember Miesen presented it to Ms. Broedling. E. 15 -0098 PRESENTATION OF A PROCLAMATION TO CSA SAN DIEGO COUNTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ESTELA DE LOS RIOS, EXECUTIVE BOARD PRESIDENT JOSE PRECIADO AND EXECUTIVE FAIR HOUSING DIRECTOR YVONNE KOVATCH PROCLAIMING APRIL 2015 AS FAIR HOUSING MONTH IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Mayor Sa /as read the proclamation and Councilmember Aguilar presented it to Ms. de los Rios. F. 15 -0126 PRESENTATION OF AN EPA CLIMATE LEADERSHIP AWARD FOR THE SAN DIEGO REGIONAL CLIMATE COLLABORATIVE BY LAURA ENGEMAN, COLLABORATIVE MANAGER, AND RECOGNITION OF CHULA VISTA'S CONTRIBUTIONS AS A FOUNDING MEMBER OF THE COLLABORATIVE Laura Engeman, Collaborative Manager, representing the San Diego Regional Climate Collaborative, presented the City with an EPA Climate Leadership Award. G. 15 -0135 EMPLOYEE SERVICE RECOGNITION HONORING STAFF WITH MILESTONE SERVICE ANNIVERSARIES City Manager Halbert recognized City staff with milestone work anniversaries in the first quarter of 2015. H. 15 -0144 PRESENTATION OF A PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING TUESDAY, APRIL 7, 2015 AS NATIONAL SERVICE RECOGNITION DAY IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Mayor Sa /as read the proclamation and Deputy Mayor Bensoussan presented it to volunteers of the City. Item I was taken out of order and heard before Item A. CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 1 - 18) Items 9 and 14 were removed from the Consent Calendar by Mayor Sa /as and Councilmember Aguilar, respectively. 1. 15 -0140 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MARCH 17, AND APRIL 2, 2015 City of Chula Vista Recommended Action: Council approve the minutes. Page 2 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 14 City Council Meeting Minutes - Draft April 14, 2015 2. 15 -0112 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS A. Memorandum from Councilmember Aguilar requesting an excused absence from the March 17, 2015 City Council meeting. B. Letter of resignation from Aliitama Sotoa, Board of Ethics. C. Letter of resignation from Georgie Stillman, Historic Preservation Commission. D. Letter of resignation from Joseph Boehm, Parks and Recreation Commission. Recommended Action: Council excuse the absence and accept the resignations. 3. 15 -0143 ORDINANCE NO. 33380F THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA REPEALING SECTION 10.68.500 (SUNSET CLAUSE) OF CHAPTER 10.68 (CAR SHARING PROGRAM AND PERMIT) OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE (SECOND READING AND ADOPTION) Recommended Action: Council adopt the ordinance. 4. 15 -0087 ORDINANCE NO. 3339 OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 19.09 (GROWTH MANAGEMENT) (SECOND READING AND ADOPTION) Recommended Action: Council adopt the ordinance. 5. 15 -0102 RESOLUTION NO. 2015 -064 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING REGULATORY AGREEMENT RELATED TO LAKE POI NTE BETWEEN THE CITY AND LENNAR HOMES OF CALIFORNIA, INC. AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO RELEASE THE ATTENDANT SECURITY AGREEMENT AND BOND UPON COMPLETION OF THE RECORDATION OF THE REGULATORY AGREEMENT AND PAYMENT OF THE IN -LIEU FEE TO THE CITY'S INCLUSIONARY FUND AS PROVIDED FOR IN THE REGULATORY AGREEMENT (Continued from March 17, 2015) Recommended Action: Council adopt the resolution. City of Chula Vista Page 3 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 15 City Council Meeting Minutes - Draft April 14, 2015 6. 15 -0058 RESOLUTION NO. 2015 -065 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2014/2015 CIP BUDGET AND ESTABLISHING A NEW CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT "EMERGENCY STORM DRAIN REPAIRS AT 1515 OLEANDER AVENUE" (DR201); APPROPRIATING $191,987 FROM THE AVAILABLE BALANCE OF THE GAS TAX FUND TO CIP DR201; ACCEPTING THE FINAL REPORT OF EXPENDITURES FOR DR201; MAKING A FINDING THAT AN EMERGENCY EXISTED; AND RATIFYING THE CONTRACT WITH TC CONSTRUCTION, INC. FOR SAID EMERGENCY REPAIR (4/5 VOTE REQUIRED) Recommended Action: Council adopt the resolution. 7. 15 -0061 RESOLUTION NO. 2015 -066 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH SAN DIEGO MECHANICAL ENERGY IN THE AMOUNT OF $62,128 TO UPGRADE THE CENTRAL PLANT CONTROLS AT THE POLICE HEADQUARTERS Recommended Action: Council adopt the resolution. 8. 15 -0100 RESOLUTION NO. 2015 -067 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING MULTIPLE PROPOSAL SUBMITTALS TO THE SAN DIEGO FOUNDATION AND THE SAN DIEGO REGIONAL CLIMATE COLLABORATIVE'S BUILDING REGIONAL RESILIENCE GRANT PROGRAM Recommended Action: Council adopt the resolution. Item 9 was removed from the Consent Calendar. 10. 15 -0113 RESOLUTION NO. 2015 -069 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF TWO (2) COMBINATION SEWER CLEANING TRUCKS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE CITY OF VENTURA BID NUMBER B- 130000153 AND PURCHASE ORDER NUMBER 100002553, AND THE CITY OF ESCONDIDO BID NUMBER 13 -07, 2014 AND PURCHASE ORDER NUMBER ESC - 0000034389 Recommended Action: Council adopt the resolution. 11. 15 -0115 RESOLUTION NO. 2015 -070 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA REJECTING ALL BIDS FOR THE "OUTDOOR SOCCER ARENA RENOVATIONS" (PR322) PROJECT AT SALT CREEK PARK AND DIRECTING STAFF TO RE- ADVERTISE THE PROJECT City of Chula Vista Recommended Action: Council adopt the resolution. Page 4 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 16 City Council Meeting Minutes - Draft April 14, 2015 12. 15 -0116 RESOLUTION NO. 2015 -071 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF TWO (2) VEHICLES FROM NATIONAL AUTO FLEET GROUP IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF NATIONAL JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY BID NUMBER 102811 AND ONE (1) VEHICLE FROM ALTEC, INC. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF NATIONAL JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY BID NUMBER 031014 AND APPROPRIATING $180,000 TO THE EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND (4/5 VOTE REQUIRED) Recommended Action: Council adopt the resolution. 13. 15 -0099 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 2.52 TO ADJUST THE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMIT FOR ANY ELECTION HELD ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2016 (FIRST READING) Recommended Action: Council place the ordinance on first reading. Item 14 was removed from the Consent Calendar. 15. 15 -0107 RESOLUTION NO. 2015 -073 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING $16,000 FROM THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO AND $173,188 FROM THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO AND APPROPRIATING $69,188 TO THE POLICE GRANT FUND FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY REALIGNMENT (4/5 VOTE REQUIRED) Recommended Action: Council adopt the resolution. 16. 15 -0109 A. RESOLUTION NO. 2015 -074 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA WAIVING THE COMPETITIVE FORMAL BID REQUIREMENT AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO PURCHASE UNIFORMS FROM ACE UNIFORMS City of Chula Vista B. RESOLUTION NO. 2015 -075 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA WAIVING THE COMPETITIVE FORMAL BID REQUIREMENT AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO RECEIVE SERVICES FROM MERZ CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Recommended Action: Council adopt the resolutions. Page 5 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 17 City Council Meeting Minutes - Draft April 14, 2015 17. 15 -0132 RESOLUTION NO. 2015 -076 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA REJECTING THE BID OF THE FIRST LOW BIDDER AS NON - RESPONSIVE ACCEPTING AND AWARDING THE "PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT AND INSTALLATION" PROJECT (PR320) TO PACIFIC PLAY SYSTEMS TO FURNISH AND INSTALL PLAYGROUND FACILITIES AT VALLE LINDO, LOS NINOS AND LOMA VERDE PARKS Recommended Action: Council adopt the resolution. 18. 15 -0133 RESOLUTION NO. 2015 -077 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE SEWER AND PARKING CITATION BILLING SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY AND INFOSEND, INC. AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXERCISE TWO ONE -YEAR OPTIONS TO EXTEND THE AGREEMENT Recommended Action: Council adopt the resolution. Approval of the Consent Calendar ACTION: A motion was made by Councilmember McCann, seconded by Deputy Mayor Bensoussan, to approve staff's recommendations on the above Consent Calendar items, headings read, text waived. The motion carried by the following vote: Yes: 5 - Aguilar, Bensoussan, McCann, Miesen and Salas No: 0 Abstain: 0 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR 9. 15 -0103 RESOLUTION NO. 2015 -068 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2014/2015 CIP BUDGET BY ESTABLISHING A NEW CIP PROJECT "THIRD AVENUE STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PHASE 3 (STL406)," APPROPRIATING $150,000 FROM THE AVAILABLE BALANCE OF THE TRANSNET FUND TO STL406, APPROVING THE AMENDMENT OF THE TRANSNET LOCAL STREET IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2014/2015 THROUGH 2018/2019 TO ADD FUNDING FOR CHV73 FOR INCLUSION IN THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, AND PROVIDING THE CERTIFICATION AND INDEMNITY STATEMENTS NECESSARY TO OBTAIN TRANSNET FUNDS (4/5 VOTE REQUIRED) (Continued from March 17, 2015) Mayor Sa /as stated she would abstain from voting on Item 9 due to a potential property- related conflict of interest. City of Chula Vista Page 6 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 18 City Council Meeting Minutes - Draft April 14, 2015 ACTION: A motion was made by Councilmember McCann, seconded by Deputy Mayor Bensoussan, that Resolution No. 2015 -068 be adopted, heading read, text waived. The motion carried by the following vote: Yes: 4 - Aguilar, Bensoussan, McCann and Miesen No: 0 Abstain: 1 - Salas 14. 15 -0104 RESOLUTION NO. 2015 -072 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING $566,925 FROM THE CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES, WAIVING THE CONSULTANT SELECTION PROCESS, APPROVING THE CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT WITH SOUTH BAY COMMUNITY SERVICES AND APPROPRIATING $94,488 TO THE POLICE GRANT FUND FOR THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE RESPONSE TEAM (4/5 VOTE REQUIRED) In response to questions from Councilmember Aguilar, Administrative Services Administrator Alegre provided information on the item. ACTION: A motion was made by Councilmember McCann, seconded by Councilmember Aguilar, that Resolution No. 2015 -072 be adopted, heading read, text waived. The motion carried by the following vote: Yes: 5 - Aguilar, Bensoussan, McCann, Miesen and Salas No: 0 Abstain: 0 PUBLIC COMMENTS (Part 1 of 2) Drew Norhal, Chula Vista resident, expressed concern regarding erosion and issues related to homelessness near his property. Part 2 of Public Comments was taken after Item 21. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Part 1 of 2) 19. 14 -0604 CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN AND RELATED REZONING ACTIONS City of Chula Vista A. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN TO: 1) REZONE CERTAIN APARTMENT RESIDENTIAL (R -3) ZONED PARCELS AND CERTAIN COMMERCIAL ZONED PARCELS FOR CONSISTENCY WITHIN THEIR UCSP SUBDISTRICT AREA EXCLUDING THE FOLLOWING SUBDISTRICTS: V -1; V -2; V -3; UC -12; AND UC -14; 2) REMOVE THE MINIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO IN CERTAIN SUBDISTRICTS; 3) REMOVE LOT COVERAGE AS A MANDATORY DEVELOPMENT STANDARD; AND 4) MAKE MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO ENSURE CONSISTENCY WITH CITY POLICIES, PROCEDURES, AND PROCESSES (FIRST READING) Page 7 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 19 City Council Meeting Minutes - Draft April 14, 2015 B. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN TO: 1) REZONE CERTAIN APARTMENT RESIDENTIAL (R -3) ZONED PARCELS AND CERTAIN COMMERCIAL ZONED PARCELS FOR CONSISTENCY WITHIN THEIR UCSP AREA; 2) REMOVE THE MINIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO IN CERTAIN SUBDISTRICTS; 3) REMOVE LOT COVERAGE AS A MANDATORY DEVELOPMENT STANDARD; AND 4) MAKE MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO ENSURE CONSISTENCY WITH CITY POLICIES, PROCEDURES, AND PROCESSES (FIRST READING) C. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE MATRIX TO ALLOW CERTAIN DELETIONS AND ADDITIONS OF LAND USES AND PERMIT PROCESSES (FIRST READING) D. RESOLUTION NO. 2015 -078 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA FINDING THAT THE REZONING OF PROPERTIES CURRENTLY BEING OPERATED AS TRAILER PARKS HAVE COMPLIED WITH REQUIRED PROVISIONS OF LUT SECTION 7.17 OF THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN Councilmember Miesen stated he would abstain from voting on Item 19 due to a potential financial - related conflict of interest. He left the dais during discussion and voting on the item. Mayor Salas stated she would abstain from voting on Item 19 B through D due to a potential property- related conflict of interest. Development Services Director Broughton introduced the item and provided information on public feedback that had been received related to the item. Senior Planner Walker gave a presentation on the item. Mayor Salas opened the public hearing. Matt Adams, representing the Building Industry Association of California, spoke in support of staff's recommendation and commended City staff for their work. Kevin O'Neill, Chula Vista resident, spoke in support of staff's recommendation. Jeff Stephenson, Chula Vista resident, expressed support for additional grocery stores in Chula Vista. There being no other members of the public who wished to speak, Mayor Salas closed the public hearing. Staff responded to questions and comments from the Council. Councilmember McCann spoke in support of the Urban Core Specific Plan and also promoting new stores, restaurants, and quality housing. City of Chula Vista Page 8 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 20 City Council Meeting Minutes - Draft April 14, 2015 Deputy Mayor Bensoussan stated she generally supported staffs recommendation and made the following comments and recommendations on the Draft Chula Vista Urban Core Specific Plan: - Spoke in opposition to changing parking requirements near transit; - Allow for flexibility and anticipate growth in the areas that are not addressed; - Address inaccuracies and add all of Chula Vista's historic - designated sites to Figure 4.5; - Reference the most recent historic resources survey and refer to the historic preservation ordinance, - Update the SWOT analysis on page IV -21 to include current information, including marketing, branding, and environmental tourism, - Evaluate Figure 5.25, regarding parking on 3rd Avenue, to determine its current applicability and whether the plan is already addressed in the Streetscape Master Plan, - She expressed concern regarding the implementation and oversight of the Land Use Matrix, as well as existing non - conforming uses, especially in the V -2 district. She spoke in support of additional flexibility in the V -1 district. - She referenced an ATM that was installed in a vintage building facade and expressed concern regarding permitted commercial uses in the V -2, V -3, and V -4 districts, unless design guidelines are implemented; - Allow some non - permitted uses V -1 district, such as galleries, artisanal shops, small restaurants, and other flexible uses. - Develop specific plans for marijuana stores, should the sale of marijuana be legalized in the future. City Manager Halbert responded that the state would be creating model regulations. - Specify specific brew house and tasting room uses in the municipal code, as suggested by Development Services Director Broughton, - Allow coffee houses and cafes in the V -1 district; - Proactively engage in outreach efforts, as suggested by Development Services Director Broughton, to ensure design guidelines are used, monitored, and adhered to, - Review page V111-8, regarding the reference to two travel lanes between G Street and K Street, for accuracy,- - Ensure the implementation of the Design Review Process, referenced on page XI -4; - Correct outdated information in the appendix and include a table of contents, and - Allow plazas smaller than 5, 000 square feet. Councilmember Aguilar made the following comments and recommendations on the Draft Chula Vista Urban Core Specific Plan: - Allow some residential along H Street; - She expressed concern regarding the low minimum parking requirement in the Transit Focus Areas, - Bring document up to date to include historic - related information, in agreement with Deputy Mayor Bensoussan's recommendation, - Implement minimum parking requirements that reflect the current parking need in the Village Area, rather than anticipated future needs that may be lower, and - Analyze referenced park sites for feasibility when developing the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. City Manager Halbert stated that staff would provide responses to Council comments and suggestions on the item. ACTION: A motion was made by Councilmember McCann, seconded by Councilmember Aguilar, that the ordinance listed above as Item 19A be placed on first reading, heading read, text waived, and that a referral be made to the City Manager to provide responses to Councilmember recommendations on the item. The motion carried by the following vote: Yes: 4 - Aguilar, Bensoussan, McCann and Salas No: 0 Abstain: 1 - Miesen City of Chula Vista Page 9 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 21 City Council Meeting Minutes - Draft April 14, 2015 ACTION: A motion was made by Councilmember McCann, seconded by Councilmember Aguilar, that the ordinances listed above as Items 19B and 19C be placed on first reading and Resolution No. 2015 -078 (Item 19D) be adopted, headings read, text waived, and that a referral be made to the City Manager to provide responses to Councilmember recommendations on the items. The motion carried by the following vote: Yes: 3 - Aguilar, Bensoussan and McCann No: 0 Abstain: 2 - Miesen and Salas 20. 15 -0076 CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENT OF CERTAIN DELINQUENT SEWER SERVICE CHARGES AS RECORDED LIENS RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ASSESSING CERTAIN DELINQUENT SEWER SERVICE CHARGES AS RECORDED LIENS UPON THE RESPECTIVE OWNER- OCCUPIED PARCELS OF LAND AND APPROVING THE PLACEMENT OF DELINQUENT CHARGES ON THE NEXT REGULAR TAX BILL FOR COLLECTION Mayor Sa /as stated that Item 20 would be continued to a future meeting. 21. 15 -0077 CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENT OF CERTAIN DELINQUENT SOLID WASTE SERVICE CHARGES AS RECORDED LIENS RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ASSESSING CERTAIN DELINQUENT SOLID WASTE SERVICE CHARGES AS RECORDED LIENS UPON THE RESPECTIVE PARCELS OF LAND AND APPROVING THE PLACEMENT OF DELINQUENT CHARGES ON THE NEXT REGULAR TAX BILL FOR COLLECTION Mayor Sa /as stated that Item 21 would be continued to a future meeting. Part 2 of Public Hearings was taken after Part 2 of Public Comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS (Part 2 of 2) Janet Wessels, Chula Vista resident, expressed concern regarding issues related to homelessness. City of Chula Vista Page 10 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 22 City Council Meeting Minutes - Draft April 14, 2015 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Part 2 of 2) 22. 15 -0121 CONSIDERATION OF WAIVING A MINOR MATHEMATICAL ERROR IN THE BID RECEIVED FOR THE "THIRD AVENUE STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, PHASE II RESOLUTION NO. 2015 -079 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA WAIVING A MINOR MATHEMATICAL ERROR; APPROPRIATING $150,000 FROM THE AVAILABLE BALANCE OF THE GAS TAX FUND TO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT STL400; ACCEPTING BIDS; AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE "THIRD AVENUE STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, PHASE II, FROM NORTH OF MADRONA STREET TO "F" STREET (CIP #STL400)" TO PALM ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,295,775.55; AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO EXECUTE ALL CHANGE ORDERS; AND AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF ALL AVAILABLE CONTINGENCY FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $230,000 (4/5 VOTE REQUIRED) Mayor Sa /as stated she would abstain from voting on Item 22 due to a potential property- related conflict of interest. She left the dais during discussion and voting on the item. Councilmember Miesen returned to the dais. Principal Civil Engineer Gomez gave a presentation on the item. Deputy Mayor Bensoussan opened the public hearing. There being no comments from members of the public, Deputy Mayor Bensoussan closed the public hearing. Principal Civil Engineer Gomez and Public Works Director Hopkins responded to questions from Deputy Mayor Bensoussan and Councilmember Aguilar. ACTION: A motion was made by Councilmember McCann, seconded by Councilmember Aguilar, that Resolution No. 2015 -079 be adopted, heading read, text waived. The motion carried by the following vote: Yes: 4 - Aguilar, Bensoussan, McCann and Miesen No: 0 Abstain: 1 - Salas Mayor Sa /as returned to the dais. At the request of Mayor Sa /as, there was consensus of the Council to take Item 25 out of order and discuss it following Item 22. MAYOR'S REPORTS (Part 1 of 2) 25. 15 -0147 RESOLUTION NO. 2015 -082 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA SUPPORTING CERTAIN EXECUTIVE ACTIONS ON IMMIGRATION TAKEN BY PRESIDENT OBAMA ON NOVEMBER 20, 2014 City of Chula Vista Page 11 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 23 City Council Meeting Minutes - Draft April 14, 2015 Councilmember McCann stated he would be abstaining from voting on the item due to his military affiliation. He left the dais during discussion and voting on the item. Mayor Salas spoke regarding the item. The following members of the public spoke in support of adoption of the proposed resolution: - Pedro Rios, Chula Vista resident, representing American Friend Service Committee and San Diego Immigration Rights Organization - Bridgette Browning, who provided English translation for speaker Silvia Ocampo, San Diego Resident, representing Unite HERE Local 30 - Elena Smith, San Diego resident, representing Unite HERE Local 30, and spoke on behalf of union member Rico - Abu Doumbia, San Diego Resident, representing Unite HERE Local 30 The following members of the public submitted written documentation in support of adoption of the proposed resolution: - Erin Tsurumoto Grassi, San Diego Resident, representing Alliance San Diego - Oscar Picaro, San Diego Resident, representing San Diego Labor Council - Francisco Herrerias, Chula Vista resident - Ma. Jeniffer Arca, Chula Vista resident - Michelle Gutierrez, San Diego Resident, representing Unite HERE Local 30 - Martin Duarte, San Diego resident, representing Unite HERE Local 30 - Lisseika Cebollos, San Diego resident, representing Unite HERE Local 30 - Sandra Lomelo, San Diego resident, representing Unite HERE Local 30 - Erinn Carter, San Diego resident, representing Unite HERE Local 30 - Eve Mendez, San Diego resident, representing Unite HERE Local 30 - Ramon E. Valverde, San Diego resident - Jessica Marin, San Diego resident, representing Justice Overcoming Boundaries - Christian Ramirez, San Diego resident, representing Alliance San Diego - Marisol Solano Escamilla, Chula Vista resident, representing Unite HERE Local 30 - Jose Rodriguez Perez, National City resident, representing Labor Council of San Diego & Imperial Counties Councilmember Bensoussan read a letter from Arnulfo Manriquez, President & CEO, representing MAAC, in support of the adoption of the proposed resolution. City Attorney Googins explained the action of the proposed resolution and stated it did not sign the City on to the amicus brief. He stated that if the item was approved, Mayor Salas could forward the resolution to appropriate parties, as desired. At the request of Councilmember Miesen, there was consensus of the Council to amend the proposed resolution to include the issuance of a request to members of Congress that urges Congress to work together in a bipartisan manner toward comprehensive immigration reform. City of Chula Vista ACTION: A motion was made by Mayor Salas, seconded by Deputy Mayor Bensoussan, that Resolution No. 2015 -082 be adopted as amended, heading read, text waived. The motion carried by the following vote: Yes: 4 - Aguilar, Bensoussan, Miesen and Salas No: 0 Abstain: 1 - McCann Page 12 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 24 City Council Meeting Minutes - Draft April 14, 2015 ACTION ITEMS 23. 15 -0130 CONSIDERATION OF AMENDING THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADDING CHAPTER 3.56 TO THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES IN WESTERN CHULA VISTA (FIRST READING) Interim Economic Development Director Crockett presented information on the item. The following members of the public spoke in support of staffs recommendation: - Matt Adams, representing the Building Industry Association - Ian Gill, San Diego resident, representing Silvergate Development, LLC, Development Services Oversight Committee - Kevin O'Neill, Chula Vista resident Cindy Gompper- Graves, representing the South County Economic Development Council, submitted written documentation in support of staffs recommendation and was not present to speak. Interim Economic Development Director Crockett responded to questions from the Council regarding fees related to development. Deputy City Attorney Miller provided information regarding the proposed ordinance. ACTION: A motion was made by Deputy Mayor Bensoussan, seconded by Councilmember McCann, that the above ordinance be placed on first reading, heading read, text waived. The motion carried by the following vote: Yes: 5 - Aguilar, Bensoussan, McCann, Miesen and Salas No: 0 Abstain: 0 24. 15 -0105 CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE PROPOSED CONTRACTS FOR PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING SERVICES RELATED TO CONTINUED PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE UNIVERSITY AND INNOVATION DISTRICT City of Chula Vista A. RESOLUTION NO. 2015 -080 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA WAIVING THE FORMAL SELECTION PROCESS, APPROVING A TWO -PARTY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND U3 ADVISORS FOR CONSULTING SERVICES RELATED TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CHULA VISTA UNIVERSITY PARTNERSHIP AND ASSISTANCE IN THE UNIVERSITY RECRUITMENT PROCESS, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT Page 13 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 25 City Council Meeting Minutes - Draft April 14, 2015 B. RESOLUTION NO. 2015 -081 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA WAIVING THE FORMAL SELECTION PROCESS, APPROVING A TWO -PARTY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND AYERS SAINT GROSS FOR CONSULTING SERVICES RELATED TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT OF VISION DOCUMENTS FOR THE UNIVERSITY AND INNOVATION DISTRICT, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT City Manager Halbert and Principal Planner Donaghe presented information on the item. In response to Councilmember Aguilar, Omar Blaik, Co -Chief Executive Officer, representing U3 Advisors, spoke regarding the hiring of a local consultant under the proposed contract. In response to Councilmember Aguilar, Adam Glaser, representing Ayers Saint Gross Architects, spoke regarding the workshops referenced in the proposed contract. ACTION: A motion was made by Deputy Mayor Bensoussan, seconded by Councilmember McCann, that Resolution Nos. 2015 -080 and 2015 -081 be adopted, headings read, text waived. The motion carried by the following vote: Yes: 5 - Aguilar, Bensoussan, McCann, Miesen and Salas No: 0 Abstain: 0 CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS There were none. MAYOR'S REPORTS (Part 2 of 2) Item 25 was taken out of order and discussed following Item 22. At the request of Mayor Salas, there was consensus of the Council to make a referral to the City Attorney to bring an item for Council consideration to include Cesar Chavez as a holiday in the Chula Vista Municipal Code, in relation to vehicles and traffic, as well as reviewing the existing code for any other applicable holidays that should be included. Mayor Salas spoke regarding the current drought situation and Governor Brown's executive order to reduce water use. She stated that the City is proactively responding to the drought order. COUNCILMEMBERS' COMMENTS Deputy Mayor Bensoussan announced the upcoming annual Immigration forum on April 18, 2015. Councilmember McCann announced National Volunteer Week and encouraged residents to engage in volunteer activities. Mayor Salas stated the meeting would be adjourned in memory of Lowell Blankfort and Gus Pappas. City Attorney Googins announced the upcoming Council Workshop on May 14, 2015, at which training would be provided on The Ralph M. Brown Act and Ethics. City of Chula Vista Page 14 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 26 City Council Meeting Minutes - Draft April 14, 2015 City Attorney Googins announced that the Council would convene in closed session to discuss the items listed below. Councilmember Miesen stated he would abstain from discussion and voting on Item 268, since he had been appointed to the Council and the matter was related to the appointment process. At 9:02 p.m., the Council convened in Closed Session with all members present, except Councilmember Miesen. CLOSED SESSION Pursuant to Resolution No. 13706 and Council Policy No. 346 -03, Official Minutes and records of action taken during Closed Sessions are maintained by the City Attorney. 26. 15 -0138 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING EXISTING LITIGATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9 (a) Name of case: A) John Hess v. Dave Hanneman, et al., United States District Court, Case No. 14cv2271 CAB JMA; B) Chris Shilling, et al. v. City of Chula Vista, et al., San Diego Superior Court, Case No. 37- 2015 - 00006097 -CU -MC -CTL C) City of Chula Vista v. Bay & E, Inc., et al., San Diego Superior Court, Case No. 37- 2013 - 00055103 -CU -MC -CTL ACTION: No reportable action. ADJOURNMENT At 10:20 p.m., Mayor Salas adjourned the meeting to the Regular City Council Meeting on April 21, 2015, at 5:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers. Kerry K. Bigelow, Assistant City Clerk City of Chula Vista Page 15 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 27 CITY OF CHULA VISTA File #: 15 -0118, Item #: 2. City of Chula Vista Staff Report RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING A THREE - PARTY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, DELORENZO INTERNATIONAL, AND BALDWIN AND SONS FOR PARK DESIGN SERVICES FOR OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 2, PARK P -3 (MONTECITO PARK) RECOMMENDED ACTION Council adopt the resolution. SUMMARY The Otay Ranch Village 2 Parks Agreement dated November 11, 2014, requires the Applicant to meet their neighborhood park obligations for the development, per Municipal Code 17.10, through the provision of turnkey parks. One of these turnkey parks for Village 2 is identified as Park P -3, Montecito Park. The Park P -3 Park Master Plan was approved at City Council on January 27, 2015. Baldwin and Sons, in conjunction with city staff, has obtained Requests for Proposals, interviewed four different design teams and selected one, DeLorenzo International, to enter into a three party agreement for the preparation of construction drawings and bid documents for this park. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Development Services Director has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the proposed project was adequately covered in the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report FSEIR 12 -01. Thus, no further environmental review or documentation is required. BOARD /COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Parks and Recreation Commission approved the Park P -3 Park Master Plan on March 20, 2014, prior to City Council approval. DISCUSSION On November 11, 2014 the City Council approved the Village 2 Parks Agreement by City Council resolution 2014 -213. The agreement allows the Applicant, Baldwin and Sons, to develop turnkey neighborhood parks in lieu of paying park development fees per the parkland Development Ordinance, Chapter 17.10 of the Municipal Code. The first neighborhood park in Village 2 required to be developed is Park P -3, Montecito Park. The Landscape Master Plan for Montecito Park was approved at City Council on January 27, 2015 by resolution 2014 -213. City of Chula Vista Page 1 of 3 Printed on 5/7/2015 powered by Leg 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 28 File #: 15 -0118, Item #: 2. One of the conditions of the Parks Agreement was that the Applicant, in conjunction with the City, would solicit the landscape architecture and design work necessary for the construction of neighborhood parks through the same Request for Proposal process that would otherwise be used by the City to engage similar services. Baldwin and Sons, in conjunction with City staff, issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for landscape architectural consultants and subsequently interviewed the four design teams who best met the criteria listed in the RFP. The consultant selected was DeLorenzo International. In accordance with the Village 2 Parks Agreement, staff is recommending that the City of Chula Vista, Baldwin and Sons and DeLorenzo International enter into a three party agreement with a scope of work to provide construction drawings, bid documents, and observation functions during the park construction. Baldwin and Sons and DeLorenzo International will also enter into a separate agreement with each other that includes details of design fees and payments for the design work. DECISION -MAKER CONFLICT Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City Council and has found no property holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property which is the subject of this action. Staff is not independently aware, nor has staff been informed by any City Councilmember, of any other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of interest in this matter. LINK TO STRATEGIC GOALS The City's Strategic Plan has five major goals: Operational Excellence, Economic Vitality, Healthy Community, Strong and Secure Neighborhoods and a Connected Community. The Park P -3 will address strategic goals 2.1.3 (quality Master Plan Communities) and 3.1 (Healthy Community) by providing increased recreational opportunities for residents in eastern Chula Vista. CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT There will be no impact to the General Fund. The applicant will fully compensate the Consultant for consulting services and will also reimburse the City for all associated staffing costs through the projects' deposit accounts. ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT Approval of the three -party Agreement will not result in on -going fiscal impacts since the applicant is solely responsible for compensating the consultant and reimbursing the City for all associated staffing costs. The production of Montecito park construction documents is a one time work effort. The construction drawings are expected to be complete by the end of the year. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution 2. Agreement between the City of Chula Vista, Baldwin and Sons and Delorenzo International for park design services for Otay Ranch Village 2, Park P -3, ( Montecito Park) 3. Conflict of interest map. City of Chula Vista Page 2 of 3 Printed on 5/7/2015 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 29 File #: 15 -0118, Item #: 2. Staff Contact: Mary Radley, landscape architect, Development Services x 3542 City of Chula Vista Page 3 of 3 Printed on 5/7/2015 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 30 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING A THREE -PARTY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, DELORENZO INTERNATIONAL AND BALDWIN AND SONS FOR PARK DESIGN SERVICES FOR OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 2, PARK P -3, (MONTECITO PARK). WHEREAS, Baldwin and Sons (Applicant) and the City entered into a certain park development agreement, "The Otay Ranch Village 2 Parks Agreement," dated November 11, 2014 (Parks Agreement); and WHEREAS, the Parks Agreement requires the Applicant to satisfy its Village 2 neighborhood park obligations, codified in Chula Vista Municipal Code section 17. 10, through the provision of turnkey parks; and WHEREAS, one of the conditions of the Parks Agreement was that the Applicant in conjunction with the City would solicit the landscape architecture and design work necessary for the construction of neighborhood parks through the same Request for Proposal process that would otherwise be used by the City to engage similar services; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the Parks Agreement, once a consultant is selected for a particular neighborhood park, the Applicant, Consultant, and the City must execute a 3 -Party Agreement in which the Applicant agrees to pay for and manage the services of the consultant, while the City would participate in the design process and review and approve plans; and WHEREAS, Park P -3 is a Neighborhood Park within Village 2 and covered by the Park Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Park P -3 Park Master Plan was approved at City Council on January 27, 2015; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the Park Agreement, Baldwin and Sons, in conjunction with City staff, issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for landscape architectural consultants and subsequently interviewed the four design teams who best met the criteria listed in the RFP. The consultant selected was DeLorenzo International; and WHEREAS, having selected DeLorenzo International, the City of Chula Vista and Baldwin and Sons would like to enter into the required three -party agreement with DeLorenzo International; and WHEREAS Baldwin and Sons and DeLorenzo International will also enter into a separate agreement with each other that includes details of design fees and payments for the design work. C:\ Users\ GRANIC— l\AppData\Local \Temp\BCL Technologies \easyPDF 7\ @BCL @C405C67F \@BCL @C405C67F.doc 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 31 Resolution No. Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, that it approves the Three -Party Agreement between the City of Chula Vista, DeLorenzo International and Baldwin and Sons, in the form presented, with such minor modifications as may be required or approved by the City Attorney, a copy of which shall be kept on file in the Office of the City Clerk and authorizes and directs the Mayor to execute same. Presented by Kelly Broughton Development Services Director Approved as to form by Glen R. Googins City Attorney 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 32 THE ATTACHED AGREEMENT HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED AS TO FORM BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND WILL BE FORMALLY SIGNED UPON APPOVAL BY THE CITYJCOUNCIL it GYen R. gins ity Attorney Dated: s- /T / i s---- THREE -PARTY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, DELORENZO INTERNATIONAL AND BALDWIN AND SONS FOR PARK DESIGN SERVICES FOR PARK P -3, MONTECITO PARK,K OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 2 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 33 Three -Party Agreement Beteveen City- of Chula Vista, DeLorenzo International and Baldivin and Sons. For Park Design Services for Park P- 3,117ontecito Park, Otay Ranch Village 2. This Three-Pam, Agreement ( "Agreement "), effective 2015. is entered into by and among the Cite of Chula Vista ( "City'), a municipal corporation of the State of California_ DeLorenzo International ( "Consultant ") whose business form and address are indicated on the attached Exhibit A. and Bald-,vin and Sons ("Applicant') whose business form and address are indicated on the attached Exhibit A. and is made with reference to the following facts set forth in Section 2-below: RECITALS A. The land which is the subject of this Agreement is generally located at 1 595 Santa Diana Road_ Chula Vista, CA 91913 (the "Property"). The Property is designated to become a Neighborhood Park known as "Montecito Park (P -3)" in the adopted Village 2 Sectional Planning Area Plan, approved on 12 -2 -14 Resolution No. 14-0606. and the `Agreement Reaardina Construction of Parks P - I. P -2. P -3. P -5 and P -6 in a portion of Otav Ranch Village 2" between City and Applicant, recorded November 21, 2014, as Document No. 2014-0509142 (the "Parks Agreement's). B. This Agreement is entered into pursuant to the Parks Agreement and a development agreement governing the Property and other land, approved on l l -18 -14 (Ordinance of the City of Chula Vista Approving a Development Agreement between the City of Chula Vista, Baldwin and Sons. LLC and Sunranch Capital Partners for Portions of Village 2.) (the "Development Agreement"), which provide, among other things, that, subject to the execution and approval by City Council of a separate reimbursement agreement for Montecito Park P -3. Applicant shall provide Montecito Park P -3 in accordance with its approved Park Master Plan C. Section 4.1 (a) of the Parks Agreement requires Applicant to enter into a three -party agreement with the City and a landscape architect to prepare construction documents for park facilities. D. Prior to entering into this Agreement. Applicant and Consultant have entered into a separate contract (the "Engagement Agreement ") governing the relationship between Applicant and Consultant. The purpose of this Agreement is to address the Applicant's. Consultant's and City's role; rights and obligations with respect to the park design for Montecito Park. E. Applicant acknowledges that the project is a public work-, as defined in the California Labor Code section 17.20. and requires the payment of prevailing wage and that Applicant shall pay prevailing wage on all work associated with the design and construction of this park for those trades that are subject to prevailing wage. Page 1 Three Pam Agreement between Citti• of Chula Vista. Applicant and Consultant for Montecito Park- 2015-0 Agenda Packet Page 34 F. Additional facts and circumstances, including Scope of Work, regarding the background for this Agreement are set forth on Exhibit A. AGREEMENT NOW. THEREFORE, for valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Employment of Consultant by Applicant. Consultant has been engaged by Applicant, not by City, and at Applicant's sole cost and expense; to perform for the primary benefit of City, and subject to City's review and approval, of the services described on the attached Exhibit A, Paragraph 4, entitled General Nature of Consulting Services ("General Services "); all of the services described in Exhibit A, Paragraph a, entitled Detailed Scope of Work ('Detailed Services"); and all services reasonably necessary to accomplish said General Services and Detailed Scope of Work. Consultant shall deliver such documents required (`Deliverables ") herein. all within the time frames herein set forth, and in particular as set forth in Exhibit A. Paragraph 7.3; and if none are set forth, within a reasonable period of time for the diligent execution of Consultant's duties hereunder. Consultant understands and agrees that time is of the essence for this Agreement. The Consultant does hereby agree to perform said General and Detailed Services to and for the benefit of the City and Applicant for the compensation herein fixed to be paid by Applicant. In delivering the General and Detailed Services hereunder, the Consultant shall do so in a good; professional manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions and in similar locations, at its own cost and expense except for the compensation and/or reimbursement, if any; herein promised, and shall furnish all of the labor, technical; administrative, professional and other personnel, all supplies and materials, machinery, equipment, printing, vehicles, transportation, office-space and facilities; calculations, and all other means whatsoever, except as herein otherwise expressly specified to be furnished by the City or Applicant, necessary or proper to perform and complete the work and provide the Services required of the Consultant. 1.1 Compensation of Consultant. Applicant shall compensate Consultant for all services rendered by Consultant pursuant to the Engagement Agreement between Applicant and Consultant. City shall not make any payments to or have any obligation to pay consultant but Consultant shall provide a duplicate invoice to the City to alloy the City to confirm that the work to be paid for has been completed to the satisfaction of City. City shall have five (5) working days from receipt of each invoice to provide its objections to Applicant regarding payment of the invoice. City may suspend its review of park plans and/or further processing of any application of Applicant should Applicant not pay Consultant. Page 2 Three ParrY Agreement between Ciro, of Chula Vista, Applicant and Consultunt_for Montecito Park. 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 35 0.1.1. Additional N ork. If Applicant, with the concurrence of Cite, determines that additional services ( "Additional Services ") are needed from Consultant of the type Consultant is qualified to render and which are reasonable related to the Services Consultant is otherwise required to provide by this Agreement, Consultant agrees to provide such additional services on a time and materials basis paid for be Applicant at the rates set forth in the separate agreement between Applicant and Consultant. 0.1.2. In the event that Cite determines that additional work is required to be performed above and beyond the scope of work herein provided in order for the Work to result in a functional park, City shall consult with Applicant regarding the additional work, and if thereupon the Applicant fails or refuses to arrange and pay for said Additional Services, City may. at its option, suspend its review of park plans and /or further processing of any application of Applicant that is dependent on this Agreement until Applicant agrees to pay the costs of the additional work which Cite determines is or may be required. Applicant shall pay any and all additional costs for the additional work. 0.1.3. Reductions in Scope of Work. Applicant may independently, or upon request from Consultant, from time to time reduce the Services to be performed by Consultant under this Agreement. Such reductions in the scope of work are subject to City review and approval prior to any reduction being made. Cite approval shall not be unreasonably withheld for any changes that are consistent with the approved entitlements for Village 2, including but not limited to the Parks Agreement. If upon receipt of such a request by Consultant, or by Applicant of its own fruition; Applicant shall notiN Cite in writing informing City of the requested reductions in the scope of work. Applicant and Consultant agree to meet in good faith and confer for the purpose of negotiating a corresponding reduction in the compensation associated with said reduction. Upon failure to agree; Consultant's compensation may be unilaterally reduced by Applicant by the amount of time and materials budgeted by Consultant for the Services deleted. 1. lion- Service Related Duties of Consultant. 1.1. Insurance. Consultant has agreed to provide insurance to Applicant in the Engagement Agreement. These Sections 2.1 and 2.2 address insurance Consultant must cam, to provide assurances to City and are in addition to insurance required by the Engagement Agreement. Consultant represents that it and its agents, staff and subconsultants employed by it in connection with the Services required to be rendered- are protected against the risk of loss by the following insurance coverages, in the following categories, and to the limits specified, policies of which are issued by Insurance Companies that have a Best's Rating of "A, Class V" or better; or shall meet with the approval of the City: 1.1.1. Statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance coverage in the amount set forth in the attached Exhibit A Paragraph 11. 1.1.2. Commercial General Liability Insurance including Business Automobile Insurance coverage in the amount set forth in Exhibit A; Paragraph 11, combined single limit applied Page 3 Three Parnr Agreement between Cin' of Chula Vista. Applicant and Consultant for Montecito Park. 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 36 separately to each project away from premises owned or rented by Consultant, which names City as an Additional Insured, and which is primary to and, policy which City may otherwise carry (Primary Coverage), and which treats the employees of the City in the same manner as members of the general public (`Cross- liability Coverage "). 1.1.3. Errors and Omissions insurance, in the amount set forth in Exhibit A. Paragraph 11, unless Errors and Omissions coverage is included in the General Liability policy. 1.2. Proof of Insurance Covera e. 1.2.1. Certificates of Insurance. Consultant shall demonstrate proof of coverage herein required. prior to the commencement of services required under this Agreement, by delivery of Certificates of Insurance demonstrating same. and further indicating that the policies may not be canceled without at least thirty (30) days written notice to the Additional Insured. 1.2.2. Policy Endorsements Required. In order to demonstrate the Additional Insured Coverage, Primary Coverage and Cross - liability Coverage required under Consultant's Commercial General'Liability Insurance Policy. Consultant shall deliver a policy endorsement to the City and Applicant demonstrating same. 1.3. Public Statements. All public statements and releases to the news media shall be the responsibility of City and Applicant. Consultant shall not publish or release news items, articles or present lectures on the Project, either during the course of the study or after its completion; except on w itten concurrence of City and Applicant. 1.4. Communication to Ci Any direct communications between the Consultant and the'City shall be in the presence of Applicant (presence meaning: physical presence, conference calls or meetings via electronic media), or if such communication between Consultant and City is by 'writing an exact copy of the communication shall be simultaneously provided to Applicant, unless Applicant expressly waives the requirement to be present or to received simultaneous communication. Consultant may request such meetings with City to ensure the adequacy of services performed by Consultant. 2. Non - Compensation Duties of the Applicant. 2.1. Documents Access. Applicant shall provide to Consultant and City, for use by Consultant and City such documents, or copies of such documents requested by Consultant or City, within the possession of Applicant reasonable), useful to Consultant and City in perfoming the services herein required of Consultant. includin(.: but not limited to those described in Exhibit A. City shall provide to Consultant, through Applicant, for the use by Consultant and Applicant, such documents, or copies Page 4 Three Parn- Agreement between Ch)- of Chula Vista, Applicaul and Consultant for Montecho Park. 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 37 of such documents requested by Consultant or Applicant, within the possession of City reasonably useful to Consultant and Applicant in performing the services herein required of Consultant, including but not limited to those described in Exhibit A. Paragraph 8. 2.2. Propem, Access. Applicant shall obtain a license permitting City and Consultant to enter and access the Property, to take any borings, make any tests. conduct any surveys or reconnaissance necessary to perform the Services of Consultant, subject to the approval of Applicant which shall not be unreasonably %vitheld. Consultant shall promptly repair any propertmr_damage occasioned by such entry and shall indemnifi . defend. and hold City and Applicant, and their agents. and employees harmless from all loss. cost. damage, expenses, claims, liens, and liabilities in connection with or arising from any such entry and access. 2.). Communication to Consultant. City shall communicate directly to Consultant in the presence of Applicant ("presence" meaning: physical presence. conference calls or meetings via electronic media), or by writing an exact copy of the communication which is simultaneously provided to Applicant, except with the express consent of Applicant. Cite may request such meetings with Applicant and Consultant as it deems necessary to ensure adequacy of services performed by Consultant. 4. Administrative Representatives. . Each pam, designates the individuals ( "Administrators ") indicated in Exhibit A. Paragraph 9, as said party's contract administrator who is authorized by said party to represent it in the routine administration of this Agreement. 5. Conflicts of Interest. 5.1. Consultant is Designated as an FPPC Filer. If Consultant is designated on Exhibit A , Paragraph 10; as an "FPPC Filer," Consultant is deemed to be a "Consultant" for the purposes of the Political Reform Act conflict of interest and disclosure provisions; and shall report its economic interests to the City Clerk on the required Statement of Economic Interests in such reporting categories as are specified in Paragraph 10 of Exhibit A. or if none are specified; then as determined by the City Attorney. 11 Decline to Participate. Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer. Consultant shall not make. or participate in making or in any way attempt to use Consultant's position to influence a governmental decision in which Consultant knows or has reason to know Consultant has a financial interest other than the compensation promised by this Agreement. Page 5 Three Pam Agreement between City of Chula Vista. Applicant and Consultant for Alontecito Park- Z, Agenda Packet Page 38 2.3. Search to Determine Economic Interests. Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant warrants and represents that Consultant has diligently conducted a search and inventory of Consultant's economic interests, as the term is used in the regulations promulgated by the Fair Political Practices Commission, and has determined that Consultant does not, to the best of Consultant's knowledge, have an economic interest which would conflict with Consultant's duties under this Agreement. 2.4. Promise Not to Ac uire Conflicting Interests. Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant further warrants and represents that Consultant will not acquire. obtain, or assume an economic interest during the term of this Agreement which would constitute a conflict of interest as prohibited by the Fair Political Practices Act. 2.5. Duty to Advise of Conflicting Interests. Regardless of « hether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant further warrants and represents that Consultant will immediately advise the City Attorney if Consultant learns of an economic interest of Consultant's which may result in a conflict of interest for the purpose of the Fair Political Practices Act; and regulations promulgated thereunder. 2.6. Specific_ Warranties Against Economic Interests. Consultant warrants and represents that neither Consultant, nor Consultant "s immediate family members, nor Consultant's employees or agents ( "Consultant Associates") presently have any interest; directly or indirectly, whatsoever in the Property ("Prohibited Interest "). Consultant further warrants and represents that no promise of future employment; remuneration, consideration, gratuity or other reward or gain has been made to Consultant or Consultant Associates by Applicant or by any other party as a result of Consultant's performance of this Agreement. Consultant promises to advise City of any such promise that may be made during the term of this Agreement, or for 12 months thereafter. Consultant agrees that Consultant Associates shall not acquire any such Prohibited Interest within the term of this Agreement, or 'for 12 months after the expiration of this Agreement. Consultant may not conduct or solicit any business for any party to this Agreement. or for any third party which may be in conflict with Consultant's responsibilities under this Agreement. 6. Default of the Consultant for Breach. This Agreement may be terminated by the City for default if Consultant or Applicant breach this Agreement or if Consultant refuses or fails to pursue the work under this Agreement or any phase of the work with such diligence which would assure its completion within a period of time as Page 6 Three Partr Agreement between City of Chula vista, Applicani and Consultant for Montecilo Park. 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 39 provided for in the Parks Agreement. Termination of this Agreement because of a default of Consultant or Applicant shall not relieve Consultant or Applicant from liability of such default. �. Cit.'s Right to Terminate Payment for Convenience- Documents. 3.1. Notvithstandina anv other section or provision of this Agreement, City, with prior written notice to the Applicant shall_have the absolute right at any time to terminate this Agreement or any work to be performed pursuant to this Agreement. 3.2. In the event of termination of this Agreement by Cite in the absence of default of Consultant. Applicant shall pay Consultant for the reasonable value of the services actually performed by Consultant up to the date of such termination, less the aggregate of all sums previoush paid to Consultant for services performed after execution of this Agreement and prior to its termination. 3.3. Consultant and Applicant hereby expressly waive any and all claims for damage or compensation arising under this Agreement, except as set forth herein; in the event of such termination. 3.4. In the event of termination of this Agreement, and upon demand of Cite or Applicant. Consultant shall. at Consultant's sole expense. deliver to the City and Applicant all field notes_ surveys. studies. reports, plans, drawings and all other materials and documents prepared by Consultant in performance of this Agreement. and all such documents and materials shall be the propert-v of the City and Applicant; provided however, that Consultant may retain copies for its own use S. Administrative Claims Requirement and Procedures. No suit shall be brought arising out of this Agreement against City unless a claim has first been presented in writing and filed with City and acted upon by City in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 1.34 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, the provisions of which are incorporated by this reference as if set fully set forth herein. 4. Hold Harmless and Indemnification. 4.1. Consultant to Indemnity Citv re. Injuries. Consultant shall defend. indemnity, protect and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officers and employees from and against all claims for damages. liability, cost and expense (including without limitation attorneys' fees) arising out of or alleged by third parties to be the result of the negligent acts, errors or omissions or the willful misconduct of Consultant, and Consultant's emplovees;vsubcontractors or other persons, agencies or firms for whore Consultant is legally responsible in connection with the execution of the work covered by this Agreement. except only for those claims, damages. liability, costs and expenses (including without limitations; attorneys' fees) Page 7 Three PaM Agreement between Cin• of Chula Vista, Applicant and Consultant for Montecito Park. 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 40 arising from the sole negligence or sole willful misconduct of the City, its officers, or employees. Also covered is liability arising from_ connected with, caused by or claimed to be caused by the active or passive negli -ent acts or omissions of the City, its agents, officers, or employees which may be in combination with the active or passive negligent acts or omissions of the Consultant; its employees, agents or officers; or any third party. With respect to losses arising from Consultant's professional errors and omissions. Consultant shall defend; indemnify. protect and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officers and employees from and against all claims for damages, liability, cost and expense (including without limitation attorneys fees) except those claims arising from the negligence or willful misconduct of City, it officers or employees. Consultant's indemnification shall include any and all costs, expenses, attornevs' fees and liability incurred by the City, its officers, agents, or employees in defending against such claims. whether the same proceed to judgment or not. Consultant's obligations under this Section shall not be limited by any prior or subsequent declaration by the Consultant. Consultant's obligations under this Section shall survive the termination of this Agreement. 4.2. Applicant to Indemnify City re. Compensation of Consultant. Applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold City harmless against and from any and all claims. losses. damages; expenses or expenditures of City, including its elected officials, officers, employees, agents, or representatives of City ("City Indemnitees "), in any way resulting from or arising out of the refusal to pay compensation demanded by Consultant for the performance of services required by this Agreement. 10. Business Licenses. Applicant and Consultant agree to obtain business licenses from City and to otherwise comply with Chula Vista Municipal Code Title 5. 11. Miscellaneous. 11.1. Consultant not authorized to Represent City. Unless specifically authorized in writing by City_neither Consultant nor Applicant shall have authority to act as City's agent to bind City to any contractual agreements whatsoever. 11.2. Notices. All notices, demands or requests provided for or permitted to be given pursuant to this Agreement must be in -,vriting. All notices, demands and requests to be sent to any party shall be deemed to have been properly given or served if personally served or deposited in the United States mail, addressed to such party, postage prepaid, registered or certified, with return receipt requested, at the addresses identified for the parties in Exhibit A. Page 8 Three Part, Agreement between Ci{p of Chula vista, Applicant and Consultant for Monlecito Purk. 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 41 11.3. Entitlement to- Subsequent Notices. No notice to or demand on the parties for notice of an event not herein legally required to be given shall in itself create the right in the parties to any other or further notice or demand in the same, similar or other circumstances. l l .4. Integration. This Agreement. together with any other written document referred to or contemplated herein. embody the entire Agreement and understanding between the parties relating to the role. ` rights and obligations of Citv concerning Consultant's design of the P -3 Montecito Park. Neither this Agreement nor any provision hereof may be amended, modified_ waived or discharged except by an instrument in writing executed by the party against which enforcement of such amendment, %waiver or discharge is sought. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to conflict with the Engagement Agreement including, but not limited to, Exhibit A Paragraph 4 "General Services," Paragraph 5 "Detailed Services;" and Paragraph 7.3 "Schedule; Milestone_ Time- Limitations within which to Perform Services." Consultant shall at all times comply with both this Agreement and the Engagement Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to constitute an amendment to any other agreement between City and Applicant, including but not limited to the Development Agreement and the Parks Agreement. 11.5. Capacity of Parties. Each signatory and party hereto hereby warrants and represents to the other party that it has legal authority and capacity and direction from its principal to enter into this Agreement; that all resolutions or other actions have been taken so as to enable it to enter into this Agreement. 11.6. Governing LaxvNenue. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the lays of the State of California. Any action arising under or relating to this Agreement shall be brought only in the federal or state courts located in San Diego County. State of California. and if applicable, the City of Chula Vista, or as close thereto as possible. Venue for this Agreement and performance hereunder, shall be the City of Chula Vista. ` 11.7. Modification. No modification or waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be effective unless the same shall be in writing and signed by the parties hereto, and then shall be valid only in the specific instance and for the purpose for which given. 11.8. Counterparts. Page 9 Three Parr• Agreement between On• of Chula l tsta. Applicant and Consultant for Montecito Park. 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 42 This Agreement may be executed in more than one counterpart, each of which shall be deemed to be an original but all of xvhich. when taken together shall constitute but one instrument. 11.9. Severabilitv. In the event that any provision of this Agreement shall for any reason, be determined to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, the parties hereto shall negotiate in good faith and agree to such amendments, modifications, or supplements to this Agreement or such other appropriate action as shall, to the maximum extent practicable in light of such determination, implement and give effect to the intentions of the parties as reflected herein. 11.10. Headings. The captions and headings in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall not define or limit the provisions hereof. 11.11. Waiver. No course of dealing or failure or delay, nor the single failure or delay, or the partial exercise of any right, power or privilege, on the part of the parties shall operate as a waiver of any rights herein contained. The making or the acceptance of a payment by either party with knowledge of the existence of a breach shall not operate or be construed to operate as a waiver of any such breach. 11.12. Remedies.. The rights of the parties under this Agreement are cumulative and not exclusive of any rights or remedies which the parties might otherwise have unless this Agreement provides to the contrary. H. 13, No Additional Beneficiaries. I Despite the fact that the required performance under this Agreement may have an effect upon persons not parties hereto. the parties specifically intend no benefit therefrom. and agree that no performance hereunder may be enforced by any person not a party to this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this is a three party agreement and the City is an express third party beneficiary of the promises of Consultant to provide services paid for by Applicant. 12. Ownership. Publication. Reproduction and Use of Material All reports, studies, information, data, statistics, forms, designs, plans, procedures, systems and any other materials or properties produced under this Agreement, with the exception of signed copies of City approved documents, shall be the sole and exclusive property of Applicant. No such materials or properties produced in whole or in part under this Agreement shall be subject to private use, copyrights or patent rights by Consultant in the United States or in any other country without the express written consent of Applicant. Applicant shall have unrestricted authority to publish, Page 10 Three Part- Agreement between Ch)-of Chula Vista, Applicant and Consultant for Montecito Park. 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 43 disclose, distribute. and otherwise use, copyright or patent. in whole or in part, any such reports: studies_ data_ statistics_ forms or other materials or properties produced under this Agreement. Signed copies of City approved documents produced under this Agreement shall be the sole property of City. 13. Entire Agreement. This Agreement supersedes any and all other agreements, either oral or written with respect to the subject matter contained herein. [Remainder of page intentionally left blank] Page 11 Three Parn- Agreement between Ch), of Chula [ rsta. Applicant and Consultant for Montecito Park. 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 44 Signature Page To the Agreement Between City of Chula Vista, DeLorenzo International and Baldwin and Sons. For Park Design Services for Park P -3, Montecito Park, Otay Ranch Village 2. (Page I of 2) NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto; having read and understood the terms and conditions of this Agreement, do hereby express their consent to the terms hereof by setting their hand hereto on the date set forth adjacent thereto. Attest: Donna Norris; City Clerk Approved as to Form: Glen R. Googins, City Attorney City of Chula Vista i Mary Salas, Mayor Consultant: DeLorenzo International N3 Signature Page To Joseph A. Contreras Chief Executive Officer Page 12 Three Purtl' Agreement between Qjt of Chula Vista, Appficant and Consultant for Montecito Park. 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 45 the Agreement Between City of Chula Vista, DeLorenzo International and Baldwin and Sons. For Park Design Services for Park P -3, Montecito Park, Otay Ranch Village 2. (Page 2 of 2) Applicant: Baldwin and Sons. LLC a California Limited Liability CompanN Bv• Its: Bv: Its: Pate intentionally blank. Page l Three Parn- Agreement between Cin, of Chula Vista. Applicant and Consultant for hlontecito Park: 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 46 Exhibit A Effective Date: The Agreement shall take effect upon full execution of the Agreement, the last party to sign shall enter the effective date on page I of the Agreement. City: City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Consultant: Business Form of Consultant: Address: Applicant: Business Form of Applicant Delorenzo International Inc. ( ) Sole Proprietorship ( ) Partnership ( X ) Corporation 3990 Old Town Avenue, Suite A 204 San Diego, CA 92110. Baldwin & Sons, LLC a California limited liability company Address: 610 W. Ash Street, Suite 1500 San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 234 -4050 1. Property (Commonly known address or General Description): P -3. Montecito Park. 2. Project Description (Project): Design of P -3, Montecito Park. 3. Entitlements applied for: N/A 4. General Nature of Consulting Services (General Services): Design of P -3, Montecito Park. 4.1 Design Development (Preliminary Construction Documents and Construction Documents) — Provide professional Landscape Architectural Services as required to prepare, submit and obtain the Approval from the Director of Development Services for Preliminary through Final construction documents for Park P -3, Montecito Park. The documents shall be prepared and all Consultant services shall be performed to the Page 14 Three Parfj• Agreement between Cite of Chula Vista. Applicant and Consulfant for Alonfecita Park. 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 47 satisfaction of the Director of Development Services. Documents shall be as outlined in Section 5 - Detailed Scope of Work. 4.2 Construction Administration - Provide professional Landscape Architectural Services as required to represent Applicant's and Citv's interest during construction of the pars: improvements. The Landscape Architect shall meet with the construction contractor to ensure the design intent of the drawings is interpreted accurately. At this time questions of interpretation are to be resolved. construction industry quality standards are to be realized, and the interest of the City is to be preserved with all matters arising to said questions. 5. Detailed Scope of Work Consultant shall provide the following services all to the satisfaction of the Applicant and City (Director of Development Services): 4 5.1 Pre - application Meeting with Staff With approval to proceed from the Applicant. the Consultant shall schedule and attend a Pre - application Meeting with the CIW. s Landscape Architecture Division and Applicant prior to preparation of the Design Development. This meeting will be used to familiarize the Consultant with design issues related to development of the park, identifi, appropriate scale, and identiA, the elements of the park budget. The primary purpose of the Pre - application meeting is for the Consultant to gather information pertaining to the park site and City= requirements that would be useful in the preparation of a design development and construction drawing package. 5.2 Deliverables 5.2.1 Design Development and Preliminary Construction Documents (Deliverable No 1) The Design Development phase of the Park Development Review Process will focus on the refinement of the Park Master Plan to a level of detail sufficient to move into the Construction Document Phase. Consultant shall prepare a preliminary set (50 percent complete) of the construction documents package (Deliverable No. 4). The content and format of the Preliminary Construction Documents shall be consistent with the requirements outlined in The Chula Vista Landscape Manual. The Landscape Manual identifies that all construction plan sheets are to be issued City sheet numbers and are to include the following types of sheets: C- Civil Engineering Sheets HC- Horizontal Control Sheets LC- Landscape Construction LI- Landscape Irrigation Page 1 Three Parts, Agreement between 04- of Chula Vista. Applicant and Consultant for Montecho Park. 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 48 LP- Landscape Planting The following information further describes required content and format of the Preliminary Construction Documents. a. Grading and Drainage Plan The Grading and Drainage Plan represents a 50 percent complete grading plan as defined by the Chula Vista Subdivision Manual Section 4 -200 Grading Plans. Grading and Drainage Plans shall be consistent with the requirements of the Chula Vista Landscape Manual and the Chula Vista Subdivision Manual Sections 4 -100 and 4 -200 as appropriate to the construction of a public park. b. Construction Plan The Construction Plan represents a 50 percent complete construction plan as defined by the Chula Vista Subdivision Manual Section 4 -200 Grading Plans. Construction Plans shall be consistent with the requirements of the Chula Vista Landscape Manual and the Chula Vista Subdivision Manual Sections 4 -100 and 4 -200 as appropriate to the construction of a public park. c. Play Area Plan The Play Area Plan represents a scaled drawing that depicts in plan view the park's play area(s). The plan shall. contain sufficient enough information to demonstrate design intent, conformance to applicable ADA requirements, safety standards and relationship of play area(s) to the park. Product literature describing play equipment components shall also be included. d. Construction Materials and Finish Schedule The Construction Materials and Finish Schedule represents a description of park paving. walkways. jogging paths, mow strips, play surfaces, monument signs, and park furnishings (benches, picnic tables, BBQ units, hot ash containers, trash receptacle, bike rack. drinking fountain, etc.). Product literature describing park furnishings and fixtures shall also be included. e. Landscape Construction Details Landscape construction details identify the manner and methods of park construction. The details should be drawn to scale and in a format suitable for inclusion in the construction documents. f. Lighting Plan and Details/ Electrical Plans Page 16 Three Parn, Agreement between Citr of Chula Vista. Applicant and Consullant for Montecilo Park. 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 49 The Lighting Plan and Details identify the location (in plan view) of site lighting including walkway /path lighting, arch itectural /site_ and security lighting. Product literature describing light fixtures shall also be included. Site electrical service and metering from San Diego Gas & Electric shall also be included. Y Q" Planting Plan The Planting Plan shall be to scale and shall include the identification of the type, size, and quantities of proposed plant materials. h. Irrigation Equipment and Details The Irrigation Equipment and Details consists of a listing of irrigation system components including irrigation heads (Manufacturer and Equipment Model numbers). Appropriate Irrigation details shall also be provided. i. Building Architecture The Building Architecture information shall be drawn to scale (typically at one inch equals four feet). Information presented shall include a floor plan and building elevation drawings and the identification of proposed construction materials and colors. The plans shall contain sufficient information to demonstrate design intent_ conformance to applicable ADA requirements, and relationship of use to the park. product literature describing fixtures and equipment shall also be included. j. Specifications Specifications shall include method of installation and set quality standards for materials and workmanship for the finished product. k. Cost estimate The consultant will provide a cost estimate for the construction of the park. including soft costs, to demonstrate that the park can be constructed within the available budget. Revisions may be necessary at this stage if the estimate exceeds the budget. Once completed, and the Preliminary Construction Documents have been given preliminary approval by the Applicant, they shall be provided to the Cit's Landscape Architecture Division. The Landscape Architecture Division Staff will distribute the information to other City Staff members for the purpose of receiving comment. City Staff will identify necessary plan corrections and provide Consultant with redlined plan check sets. The Consultant will then review the comments from staff and proceed to make changes, incorporating the changes into a 90 percent complete construction Page 17 Three Parr• Agreement between 0A. of Chula H esta. Applicant and Consultant for Montecito Park. 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 50 document package submittal. The 90 percent complete construction document package represents the next phase and is called "Task 5.2.2.2: Construction Documents ". 5.2.2 Construction Documents (Deliverable No. 2,3 & 4) The Construction Document Phase consists of the preparation, review and approval of all plans necessary for utilization by the contractor for the installation of the park. Construction documents are to be prepared by the Consultant in accordance with the requirements of applicable City codes; the Uniform Building Code, the City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual; and other pertinent park development standards and specifications. With each plan check submittal as described below, an updated estimate of probable cost shall be included. Construction Document submittals include a total of two separate submittals (90 percent and 100 percent complete). All plan check submittals to the City must be reviewed and approved by the Applicant before being submitted. a. Construction Documents (CD's); 90 Percent Complete (Deliverable No. 2) The Consultant shall prepare a second plan check that incorporates all Applicant and City comments. The Consultant shall submit the second plan check set (90 percent complete construction documents) for review by the City. The Landscape Architecture Division will distribute the construction documents to other departments to receive input and comments pertaining to the plans. b. Construction Documents (CD's), 100 Percent Complete (Deliverable No. 3) The Consultant shall prepare a third plan check that incorporates all Applicant and City comments. The Consultant shall submit the third plan check set (100 percent complete construction documents) for review by the City. The Landscape Architecture Division will distribute the construction documents to other departments to receive input and comments pertaining to the plans. c. Final Construction Documents (Deliverable No. 4) Consultant shall work with Applicant and the City to complete the construction documents until the Development Services Director, or designee, determines that construction of the park can proceed per the construction documents. Separate packages of plans may be required in order to obtain a building permit for the restroom building and other structures. 5.3 Construction Administration Phase (Deliverable No. 5) During construction of the park improvements the Consultant shall be available to coordinate throughout the construction process as needed to ensure the design intent of the drawings is interpreted accurately to ensure that the interests of the Applicant and the City are to be preserved. Possible services include: Page 18 Three Partr Agreement between Cis)- of Chula Vista, Applicant and Consultant for Montecito Park. 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 51 a. Review of contractor submittals b. Pre construction meeting attendance c. Rough & Final grade reviews d. Tree & shrucb location / layout reviews e. Water feature reviews f. Hardscape form and features review g Site lighting review h. '10 day maintenance walk i. Final acceptance walk through and certification letter Preparing and processing as built plans following the completion of park construction 6. Documents to be provided by Applicant to Consultant The Applicant will provide to the Consultant all maps, grading plans, drainage, soils and other relevant technical reports, improvement plans; landscape plans. aerial photographs, etc necessary for the Consultant to perform the services described in Sections 4 and 5 above. The City will provide the Consultant with the approved landscape master plan for the park. 7. Schedule. Milestone. Time - Limitations within which to Perform Services ger approved Design Proiect Schedule 7.1 Date for Commencement of Consultant Services: (X) Same as Effective Date of Agreement 7.2 Format of Deliverables The work for this phase will be in the form of scaled; dimensioned drawings as necessary to communicate the design intent; sizes and material selection for all scope items. The instruments will be prepared in AutoCAD on base plans issued by the City and Applicant. The base plans will be in AutoCAD, and «=ill be fully coordinated with other consultant's work prior to issuance to Consultant. Instruments of Service / Electronic Media: Hard copy, original drawings and specifications are the deliverable instruments of service. If work is prepared in electronic media format the Consultant will provide electronic copies for convenience only. Electronic media will be prepared in AutoCAD. In accepting and utilizing any drawings or other data on any form of electronic media generated and provided by the Consultant, the City and Applicant covenants and agrees that all such drawings and data are instruments of service of the Page 19 Three Pam Agreement between Citr of Chula [vista. Applicant and Consultant for Afonfecito Park 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 52 Consultant. The electronic files submitted by the Consultant to the City and Applicant are submitted for an acceptance period of five working days. Any defects the City and Applicant discovers during this period will be reported to the Consultant and will be corrected by the Consultant. 7.3 General Dates or Time Limits for Delivery of Deliverables 7.3.1 Deliverable No. 1. Design Development and Preliminanr Construction Documents (CDs). 50 % complete (First Plan Check) The followingo is due on the date stated in the approved Design Project Schedule 1. Design Development Preliminary Construction Documents (15 Copies). 2. Estimate of Probable Construction Costs with 15% contingency (One Copy). 7.3.2 Deliverable No. 2. Construction Documents (CD's), 90 Percent Complete (second plan check) The following is due on the date stated in the approved Design Project Schedule I . Construction Documents, 90 Percent Complete (10 Copies + any additional copies required to obtain a building permit for the restroom and other park structures.) 2. Estimate of Probable Construction Costs with 10% contingency (One Copy). 7.3.3 Deliverable No. 3_ Construction Documents (CD's). _1.00 Percent Complete (third plan check) The following is due on the date stated in the approved Design Project Schedule 1. Construction Documents, 100 Percent Complete (3 Copies) 2. Estimate of Probable Construction Costs with 15%.contingency (One Copy). 7.3.4 Deliverable No.4. Construction Document Mylars (CD's), 100 Percent Complete The following is due on the date stated in the approved Design Project Schedule 1. Construction Document Mylars, 100 Percent Complete (1 Copy) and three full size copies of CD set and three half -size copies of CD set. 7.3.5 Deliverable_ No.5. Project Status Memorandums and Meetings Consultant to update City Staff on the Project Status on a regular bi- monthly basis related to Consultant /Applicant meeting schedule. Updates will be in writing in a format to be agreed to by all parties. City Staff needs to be aware of all issues resolved and unresolved. Scheduled meetings may be substituted for formal written memoranda. 7.4 Project Meetings Page 20 Three Parr,• Agreement between Cin, of Chula Vista, Applicant and Consultant fnr Montecito Park. 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 53 7.4.1 Kick -off meeting with City Staff per approved Design Project Schedule. 7.4.2 Deliverable No. 1: Meet staff to present 50% design. 7.4.3 Deliverable No. 2: Consultant meets with Cite Staff per approved Design Project Schedule to discuss /resolve questions /comments. 7.4.4 Deliverable No. 3: Consultant meets with City: Staff per approved Design Project Schedule to discuss /resolve questions /comments. 7.4.E Deliverable No. 4: Consultant meets with City Staff per approved Design Project Schedule to discuss/resolve questions /comments. 7.4.6 Deliverable No. 5: Project Status reporting to City Staff through out the Contract Administration phase will be made available via the Applicant and the Consultant. Meetings to be determined. 7.5 Date for completion of all Consultant services Times for performance. as identified in the approved Design Project Schedule may be revised in the sole discretion of the Director of Development Services. 8. Documents to be provided by City to Consultant 1. Approved Park Master Plan 2. City Landscape Design Manual 3. Other engineering, planning and landscape architect standards, manuals, plans or other documents applicable to the work contemplated by this Agreement. 9. Contract Administrators Applicant: Nick Lee, Vice President Baldwin & Sons, LLC 610 W. Ash Street, Suite 1500 San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 234 -4050 City: Man: Radlev Project Manager Cihr of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Page 21 Three Part►• Agreement between Cifr of Chula 1 ista. Applicant and Consultant for Montecilo Park. 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 54 (619) 409 -5887 Consultant: Michael Spohr DeLorenzo International 3990 Old Town Avenue, Suite A 204 San Diego, CA 92110. 10. Statement of Economic Interests. Consultant Re ortin = Categories. 12er Conflict of Interest Code ( X) Not Applicable. Not an FPPC Filer. O Category No. 1. Investments and sources of income. () Category No. 2. Interests in real property. (} Category No. 3. Investments, interest in real property and sources of income subject to the regulatory, permit or licensing authority of the department. O Category No. 4. Investments in business entities and sources of income which engage in land development, construction or the acquisition or sale of real property. (} Category No. 5. Investments in business entities and sources of income of the type which, within the past two years, have contracted with the City of Chula Vista (Redevelopment Agency) to provide services, supplies, materials, machinery or equipment. O Category No. 6. Investments in business entities and sources of income of the type which, within the past two years, have contracted with the designated employee "s department to provide services, supplies, materials, machinery or equipment. O Category No. 7. Business positions. 11. Citv Insurance Requirements (X) Commercial General Liability: $1.000,000. (X) Automobile Liability: $1,000,000. (X) Worker's Compensation: Statutory (X) Employer's Liability: $1;000;000. (X) Errors and Omissions Liability: $2,000,000. Page 22 Three Partr Agreement between 00, of Chula Viva, Applicant and Consultant for Montecito Park. 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 55 [End of.4greementl Page 23 Three Part• Agreement between Cih' of Chula Vista. Applicant and Consultant for hlontecito Park. 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 56 CITY OF CHULA VISTA File #: 15 -0166, Item #: 3. City of Chula Vista Staff Report RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA (1) APPROVING THE 2015 -2019 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND 2015 -2016 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG), HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP (HOME), AND THE EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS GRANT (ESG) PROGRAMS; (2) AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE AGREEMENTS FOR THE MANAGEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ELIGIBLE PROJECTS WITH EACH SUB - RECIPIENT/ CONTRACTOR /DEVELOPER IDENTIFIED IN THE ACTION PLAN; (3) AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT TO ENTER INTO A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE RECREATION AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THREE CDBG- FUNDED PROJECTS; AND (4) AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ANY AND ALL RELATED DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO OBTAIN THE HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT GRANTS RECOMMENDED ACTION Council adopt the resolution. SUMMARY The City of Chula Vista, on an annual basis, receives Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program, and Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) Program funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to contribute towards a number of diverse programs and services to enhance the quality of life for Chula Vista's low to moderate income residents. The City prepares a Five -Year Consolidated Plan (ConPlan) for the HUD funds describing the housing and community development needs of the City's low and moderate income residents and outlines the strategies to address those needs. During the five -year ConPlan period, the City also prepares annual Action Plans to fund specific activities within each of the ConPlan program years. Both the Consolidated Plan and the Annual Action Plan are included in this report for consideration and approval. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Development Services Director has reviewed the proposed activities for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The proposed activities, with the exception of two, are not considered "Projects" as defined under Section 15378(b)(5) of the State CEQA Guidelines because the proposals consist of a reporting action, is not for a site specific project(s) and will not result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment. Therefore, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, these activities are not subject to CEQA. Under NEPA, the activities qualify for a Certification of Exemption pursuant to Title 24, Part 58.34(a)(2) &(3) of the Code of Federal Regulations and pursuant to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Environmental Guidelines. Thus, no further environmental review is necessary at this time. City of Chula Vista 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 1 of 5 Printed on 5/7/2015 powered by LegistarT" Page 57 File #: 15 -0166, Item #: 3. The remaining projects, Moss Street and Rice Elementary Fire Hydrant, are capital improvement projects which are categorically excluded under NEPA pursuant to 24 CFR 58.35 (a)(1) of the NEPA regulations. This project is also exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA guidelines Section 15301 (existing facilities). The activity will not affect density or land use and will have no significant effect on the environment. BOARD /COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Not applicable. DISCUSSION As an entitlement community with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the City receives funds under three block grant programs: • Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) • Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) • Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) The grant amounts allocated to each jurisdiction are determined using a formula based on statistical and demographic data. The funds aim to address HUD's performance measurement framework of providing decent housing, a suitable living environment, and to expand economic opportunities principally for low- and moderate - income persons. As a recipient of these funds, the City is required to prepare a Consolidated Plan (Con Plan) for these HUD funds describing the housing and community development needs of the City's low and moderate income residents and outlining strategies to address those needs over a five year period. The ConPlan provides the necessary policy guidance for implementation of programs and services to be funded by the HUD grants in addressing the needs and is detailed in its Annual Action Plan prepared each year and submitted to HUD as its application for funding. The City is currently in the last year of its 2010 -2015 Con Plan. Housing staff has prepared the Con Plan for the July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2019 period (Attachment No. 1) as well as the Action Plan for the 2015/2016 program year (Attachment No. 2). The Action Plan must be submitted to HUD 45 days prior to the beginning of the fiscal year and constitutes its application for the grant funds. Both plans will be submitted to HUD by May 15, 2015. 2015/16 Grant Funding On February 18, 2015, the City received notification of the 2015/16 funding allocations from HUD for the following programs: • CDBG: $1,769,214 • HOME: $571,833 • ESG: $153,270 In addition to the 2015/16 CDBG entitlement funds, there is $193,726 and $285,350of prior -year CDBG and HOME funds, respectively, available for reprogramming to eligible activities City of Chula Vista Page 2 of 5 Printed on 5/7/2015 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 58 File #: 15 -0166, Item #: 3. In developing its Annual Plan, the City released a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for the available HUD grant funds in January 2015. A total of twenty -two (22) applications were received and reviewed for eligibility and funding consideration. The City held a public hearing on April 21, 2015 before the City Council to review the spending plan, which is a major component of the 2015/2016 Annual Plan. The Action Plan includes the following identified CDBG Planning and Administration (Table I), Public Services (Table II), Capital Improvement and Community Development Projects (Table III), HOME Projects (Table IV) and ESG Projects (Table V). TABLE I: CDBG PLANNING AND ADMINISTRATION 1 D5D Housing Division CDBG Administration $ 316,865 2 D5D Housing Division Fair Housing Services $ 35,000 $ 357,588 S $ 35,000 $ TOTAL $ 392,588 $ TABLE II: PUBLIC SERVICES 3 C.V. Community Collaborative F.R.C. Emergency and Basic Services $ 39,312 $ 39,312 $ 4 San Diego Food Batik Food 4 Kids Backpack Program $ 15,000 $ 20,000 $ 5 Meals on Wheels Home Delivered Meals for Seniors $ 12,000 $ 12,000 $ 6 South Say Community Services South Bay Food Program $ 10,000 $ 15,000 $ 7 Interfaith Shelter Network Rotational Shelter Network $ 11,000 $ 11,000 $ 8 Family Health Centers of San Diego KidCare Express Mobile Medical Unit $ 13,600 $ 30,000 $ 9 South Bay Community Services Family Violence Treatment Program $ 39,000 $ 39,000 $ 10 South Bay Community Services At -Risk and Homeless Youth Svcs. 5 39,550 $ 39,550 $ 11 Recreation department Therapeutic Program $ 20,100 $ 20,100 $ 12 Recreation Department Norman Park Senior Center Services $ 30,000 $ 41,013 $ TOTAL 1 $ 266,975 1 $ TABLE III: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 13 Public Works Department Moss Street Sidewalk Instaliation $ - $ 543,160 14 Family Health Centers of San Diego Rice Elementary Fire Hydrant Project $ $ 20,855 ? 15 Grid Alternatives C.V. Solar Affordable Homes Pgm. $ $ 30,000 $ 16 D5D Housing Division Housing Services $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 17 DSD Housing Division Section 108 Payment $ 756,715 $ 758,243 $ TOTAL 1 $ 1,402,258 1 $ 357,588 35,000 392,588 39,312 15,000 12,000 10,000 11,000 2 7, 000 39,000 39,550 20,100 30,000 242,962 468,292 20,855 30,000 50,000 758,243 1,327,390 City of Chula Vista Page 3 of 5 Printed on 5/7/2015 powered by LegistarT' 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 59 File #: 15 -0166, Item #: 3. 1S D.SD Housing Division 19 DSD Housing Division 20 D50 Housing Division 21 South Bay Community Services 22 D5D Housing Division TABLE IV: HOME PROJECTS HOME Admin. & Planning Production of Affordable Housing TABLE V: ESG PROJECTS ESG Admin. & Planning S 53,112 1 $ 57,183 1 $ S 800,000 S 800,000 $ TOTAL $ 857,183 $ $ 10,642 I S 11,495 I $ Casa Nueva Vida 1 $ 68,277 S 63,777 $ Rapid ReHousing Program and HMIS $ 75,980 $ 78,998 $ TOTAL 1 $ 154,274 1 $ 57,183 80o,oao 857,183 11,495 62,777 78,998 153,274 At this time, staff is requesting Council's approval of the proposed activities to be included within the final 2015/16 Action Plan to be submitted to HUD by May 15, 2015. Upon HUD approval, the City will enter into a formal agreement between the City of Chula Vista and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (Attachment No. 3) for the HUD grant funds. In compliance with HUD regulations, a written contract and /or Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) will then be executed between the City and each department, non - profit, entity, and /or client that is a direct recipient and operating a project/program and beneficiaries of rental assistance funded through the CDBG, ESG and HOME grant funds. The sample Subrecipient Agreement and and MOA for the CDBG and ESG programs are included as Attachments 4 through 6. DECISION -MAKER CONFLICT Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City Council and has found no property holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the Moss Street Sidewalk Project and the Rice Elementary Health Center Fire Hydrant project. Staff is not independently aware, and has not been informed by any City Council member, of any other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of interest in this matter. LINK TO STRATEGIC GOALS The City's Strategic Plan has five major goals: Operational Excellence, Economic Vitality, Healthy Community, Strong and Secure Neighborhoods and a Connected Community. The activities funded through the federal grant programs are directed towards the revitalization of neighborhoods, economic development opportunities, and improved facilities and services. The nature of these activities is consistent with the Goals, Strategies and Initiatives in Goal 5: Connected City of Chula Vista Page 4 of 5 Printed on 5/7/2015 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 60 File #: 15 -0166, Item #: 3. Community. Strategy 5. 1: Encourage Residents to Engage in Civic Activities Initiative 5.12. Fosters an Environment of Community Involvement The City has developed a detailed Citizen Participation Plan (CPP) which requires the participation of the community. The CPP requires the City to provide citizens with reasonable and timely access to meetings, information, and records related to the grantee's proposed and actual use of funds. A minimum of two public hearings are held annually to obtain citizen participation at all stages of the Five -Year Consolidated Plan and Action Plan. This includes the identification of priorities, review of proposed activities, and review of program performance. Strategy 52. Provide Opportunities that Enrich the Community's Quality of Life Initiative 5.2.1: Provide Services and Programs Responsive to Priorities Consistent with the funding priorities established in the 2015 -2019 Consolidated Plan, the CDBG, HOME and ESG activities selected are aimed at providing affordable housing opportunities and a suitable living environment with adequate public facilities, infrastructure and services. Services that support the elderly, disabled, homeless, and youth all contribute to community's quality of life. CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT At this time, Council is approving the funding recommendations for CDBG, HOME, and ESG funds. This action does not include appropriations. Appropriations for the proposed CDBG, HOME and ESG programs will be included as part of the City Manager's FY 2015/16 proposed budget. There is no fiscal impact to the General Fund as a result of this action. In the remote event that HUD should withdraw the City's CDBG, ESG, and HOME funding; the agreements provide that the City is not obligated to compensate the sub - recipients for program expenditures. ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT There is no ongoing fiscal impact to the City's General Fund as all costs associated with the administration of the CDBG, HOME and ESG programs are covered by the respective grants. ATTACHMENTS • Attachment No. 1 • Attachment No. 2 • Attachment No. 3 • Attachment No. 4 • Attachment No. 5 • Attachment No. 6 2015 -2019 Consolidated Plan 2015 -16 Annual Action Plan Sample HUD Funding Agreement Sample CDBG Subrecipient Agreement Sample CDBG Interdepartmental MOU Sample ESG Subrecipient Agreement Staff Contact: Angelica Davis, DSD- Housing Project Coordinator City of Chula Vista Page 5 of 5 Printed on 5/7/2015 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 61 COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2015- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA (1) APPROVING THE 2015 -2019 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND 2015/2016 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG), HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP (HOME), AND THE EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS GRANT (ESG) PROGRAMS; (2) AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE AGREEMENTS FOR THE MANAGEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ELIGIBLE PROJECTS WITH EACH SUB - RECIPIENT /CONTRACTOR /DEVELOPER IDENTIFIED IN THE ACTION PLAN; (3) AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT TO ENTER INTO A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE RECREATION AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THREE CDBG FUNDED PROJECTS; AND, (4) AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ANY AND ALL RELATED DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO OBTAIN THE HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT GRANTS WHEREAS, as a Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) entitlement community, the City of Chula Vista receives grant funds under the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG), and the Home Investment Partnerships Program (HOME); and WHEREAS, staff has prepared the 2015 -2019 Consolidated Plan ( "Con Plan") defining the goals and objectives for the five -year planning period; and WHEREAS, Fiscal Year 2015/2016 Annual Action Plan ( "Action Plan ") using the goals set forth in the 2015 -2019 Con Plan and per HUD Rules and Regulations; and WHEREAS, the City will receive a Fiscal Year 2015 -16 CDBG entitlement of $1,769,214, a HOME entitlement of $571,833; and an ESG entitlement of $153,270; and WHEREAS, the City will allocate $193,726 of un- programmed CDBG funds and $285,350 of HOME funds which brings the total CDBG funding to $1,962,940 and HOME funding to $857,183 respectively; and WHEREAS, the City followed its Citizen Participation Plan and held public hearings on housing and community needs on November 18, 2014, and April 21, 2015, at which time public testimony was received and considered by the City Council with respect to the 2015 -2019 Consolidated Plan and the FY 2015 -16 Action Plan; and 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 62 Resolution No. Page 2 WHEREAS, staff has determined that the proposed activities eligible for CDBG, HOME and ESG funding meet the national objectives to benefit primarily low /income households or aid in the elimination of slums and blight; and WHEREAS, staff has determined that the sub /recipients /contractors identified in the FY 2015 -16 Action Plan and Attachment A (attached hereto) are experienced and staffed in a manner such that they can prepare and deliver the services required by the City; and WHEREAS, in the event that HUD withdraws the City's CDBG, HOME or ESG funding, the City is not obligated to compensate the sub - recipients /contractors /developers for program expenditures. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista as follows: 1. That it approves the 2015 -2019 Consolidated Plan and the Fiscal Year 2015 -16 Annual Action Plan ( "FY 2014/2015 Action Plan") for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Home Investment Partnership Act (HOME), and the Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) Programs. 2. That it authorizes the City Manager or his designee to execute agreements for management and implementation of the FY 2015 -2016 Action Plan between the City of Chula Vista and each sub - recipient/contractor /developer, identified in the FY 2015 -16 Action Plan, in substantially the form presented, and it further authorizes the City Manager or his designee to make such minor modifications as may be approved or required by the City Attorney. 3. That it authorizes the City of Chula Vista Development Services Department Director to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Directors of Recreation and Public Works for implementation of the Norman Park Senior Center Program, The Therapeutics Program and the Moss Street Capital Improvement Project, in substantially the form presented, and it further authorizes the City Manager or his designee to make such minor modifications as may be approved or required by the City Attorney. 4. That it authorizes the City Manager to execute the HUD Funding Approval Agreements and any other related documents necessary to obtain the HUD grants. Presented by: Kelly G. Broughton, FASLA Development Services Director Approved as to form by: Glen R. Googins City Attorney 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 63 ATTACHMENT A lion /Front Urgamzations: Contract (IDIS 9) Grant Program Applicant Project Amo Recommlen 1002 CDBG C.V. Community F.R.C. Emergency and $39,312 Collaborative Basic Services 1003 CDBG San Diego Food Bank Food 4 Kids Backpack $15,000 Program 1004 CDBG Meals on Wheels Home Delivered Meals for $12,000 Seniors 1005 CDBG South Bay Community South Bay Food Program $10,000 Services 1006 CDBG Interfaith Shelter Network Rotational Shelter Network $11,000 1007 CDBG Family Health Centers of San KidCare Express Mobile $27,000 Diego Medical Unit 1008 CDBG South Bay Community Family Violence Treatment $39,000 Services Program 1009 CDBG South Bay Community At -Risk and Homeless $39,550 Services Youth Svcs. 1013 CDBG Family Health Centers of San Rice Elementary Fire $20,855 Diego Hydrant Project 1014 CDBG Grid Alternatives C.V. Solar Affordable $30,000 Homes Pgm. 1020 ESG South Bay Community Casa Nueva Vida I $62,777 Services 1021 ESG South Bay Community Rapid ReHousing Program $78,998 Services and HMIS artments: 1010 CDBG Recreation Department Therapeutic Program $20,100 1011 CDBG Recreation Department Norman Park Senior $30,000 Center Services 1012 CDBG Public Works Department Moss Street Sidewalk $468,292 Installation 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 64 2015 -19 Five -Year Consolidated Plan W. 1 loll {Sa P, Attachment No. 1 2015 -2019 Consolidated Plan 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 65 TABLE OF • SP -10 Geographic Priorities — 91.215 ( a)( 1) ............................................................................. ..............................3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SP -25 Priority Needs - 91. 215( a)( 2) ........................................................................................... ..............................6 ES -05 Executive Summary - 24 CFR 91.200(c), 91. 220( b) ............................................... ..............................1 SP -30 Influence of Market Conditions - 91.215 ( b) ............................................................... .............................11 PR -05 Lead & Responsible Agencies 24 CFR 91. 200( b) ................................................... ..............................9 SP -35 Anticipated Resources - 91.215(a)(4), 91. 220( c)( 1, 2) ................................................. .............................12 PR -10 Consultation - 91.100, 91.200(b), 91.215(I) ........................................................ .............................11 SP -40 Institutional Delivery Structure — 91. 215( k) ................................................................ .............................17 PR -15 Citizen Participation ............................................................................................. .............................15 SP -45 Goals Summary -91. 215( a)( 4) ...................................................................................... .............................23 NA -05 Overview ............................................................................................................. .............................18 SP -50 Public Housing Accessibility and Involvement -91. 215( c) ........................................ .............................25 NA -10 Housing Needs Assessment - 24 CFR 91.205 (a,b,c) ......................................... ............................... 20 NA -15 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Problems- 91.205 ( b)( 2) ............... .............................31 SP -60 Homelessness Strategy — 91. 215( d) ............................................................................. .............................30 NA -20 Disproportionately Greater Need: Severe Housing Problems- 91.205 ( b)( 2) ... .............................34 SP -65 Lead based paint Hazards— 1. 215( i) ............................................................................. .............................33 NA -25 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Cost Burdens — 91.205 ( b)( 2) ....... ............................... 36 NA -30 Disproportionately Greater Need: Discussion — 91.205(b)(2) ............................ .............................37 SP -80 Monitorin — 91. 230 .......................................................................................................... .............................35 NA -35 Public Housing — 91.205(b) ............................................................................... ............................... 38 NA -40 Homeless Needs Assessment — 91. 205( c) ........................................................... .............................42 NA -45 Non - Homeless Special Needs Assessment - 91.205 ( b, d) ................................... .............................46 NA -50 Non - Housing Community Development Needs - 91.215 ( f) .............................. .............................49 MA -05 Overview .......................................................................................................... ............................... 50 MA -10 Number of Housing Units — 91. 210( a)&( b)( 2) .................................................. ............................... 61 MA -15 Housing Market Analysis: Cost of Housing - 91. 210( a) ...................................... .............................65 MA -20 Housing Market Analysis: Condition of Housing — 91. 210( a) ........................... ............................... 66 MA -25 Public and Assisted Housing — 91.210(b) ......................................................... ............................... 69 MA -30 Homeless Facilities and Services -91. 210( c) ..................................................... .............................72 MA -35 Special Needs Facilities and Services — 91. 210( d) ............................................ ............................... 73 MA -40 Barriers to Affordable Housing — 91.210(e) ..................................................... ............................... 74 MA -45 Non - Housing Community Development Assets — 91.215 (f) ........................... ............................... 78 MA -50 Needs and Market Analysis Discussion .............................................................. .............................84 STRATEGIC PLAN SP -05 Overview ......................................................................................................................... ..............................1 SP -10 Geographic Priorities — 91.215 ( a)( 1) ............................................................................. ..............................3 SP -25 Priority Needs - 91. 215( a)( 2) ........................................................................................... ..............................6 SP -30 Influence of Market Conditions - 91.215 ( b) ............................................................... .............................11 SP -35 Anticipated Resources - 91.215(a)(4), 91. 220( c)( 1, 2) ................................................. .............................12 SP -40 Institutional Delivery Structure — 91. 215( k) ................................................................ .............................17 SP -45 Goals Summary -91. 215( a)( 4) ...................................................................................... .............................23 SP -50 Public Housing Accessibility and Involvement -91. 215( c) ........................................ .............................25 SP -55 Barriers to affordable housing— 91. 215( h) ................................................................. .............................27 SP -60 Homelessness Strategy — 91. 215( d) ............................................................................. .............................30 SP -65 Lead based paint Hazards— 1. 215( i) ............................................................................. .............................33 SP -70 Anti - Poverty Strategy — 91. 215( J) .................................................................................. .............................34 SP -80 Monitorin — 91. 230 .......................................................................................................... .............................35 Consolidated Plan l able of Contents 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 66 2015 -2019 Consolidated Plan 1. Introduction Beginning in fiscal year 1995, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) required local communities and states to prepare a Consolidated Plan (ConPlan) in order to receive federal housing and community development funding. A ConPlan is required of any city, county or state that receives federal block grant funding for housing and community development funding, including the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG), the HOME Investment Partnerships Program, and the Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS ( HOPWA) program. A ConPlan is required to be prepared every three to five years; updates are required annually. The City of Chula Vista, as an entitlement jurisdiction, receives CDBG, ESG and HOME funds but does not receive HOPWA funds as these funds are granted only to the largest jurisdiction within a County. In San Diego County, these funds go to the City of San Diego. However, the City of San Diego contracts with the County of San Diego to administer the HOPWA funds for the entire San Diego Region. The federal block grants are distributed on formula basis to entitlement jurisdictions to develop viable urban communities by providing decent housing, a suitable living environment, and by expanding economic opportunities, principally for low -and moderate - income persons. HUD defines moderate income as an annual household income that is equal to or less than the Section 8 Low Income limit of 80% of the County's Area Median Income (AMI), as established by HUD. HUD defines low income as household having an income that is equal to, or less than, the Section 8 Very Low Income limit of 50% of the County's AMI. At the time of publication of this ConPlan, Program Year 2015, the San Diego County 80% AMI is $64,800 for a family of four and the San Diego County 50% AMI is $40,550 for a family of four. HUD determines the amount of each grant by using a formula comprised of measures of community need, including population, percentage of population in poverty, the number of overcrowded housing units, number of pre -1940 housing and population growth lag in relationship to other metropolitan areas. The purpose of the ConPlan is to (1) identify the City's housing and community development needs, priorities, goals and strategies, and (2) stipulate how CDBG /ESG /HOME funds will be allocated to housing and community development activities. This Five -Year ConPlan for the City of Chula Vista and covers program years 2015 -2019 and the three federal grant programs the City receives. The City's corresponding fiscal year is July 1 to June 30 of each year. Below is a summary of the three federal grant programs: Community Development Block Grant program (CDBG) CDBG program has three national objectives: 1. To benefit low -and moderate - income people 2. To prevent or eliminate slums or blight 3. To meet other community development needs having a particular urgency because existing conditions pose a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community and other financial resources are not available to meet such needs, as in the case of a federal disaster declaration. Consolidated Plan 1 1 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 67 Once it is determined that a national objective has been met, CDBG funds must then be used for eligible activities, including but not limited to, public facilities and improvements (parks, streets, sidewalks), public services within certain limits ( fair housing, health services, senior services, food distribution) and housing (development, acquisition, rehabilitation). The ConPlan process requires a public hearing to solicit comments on the goals and priorities. The Annual Action Plan (AAP) serves as the spending plan for each fiscal year. After the public review period, the ConPlan and AAP are submitted to HUD for approval. Once the documents are approved, HUD prepares a Grant Agreement authorizing the City to use Grant funds on July 1St of each year. There are several other requirements to receiving CDBG entitlement grant funds. They are: 1. Annual Action Plan (AAP). The AAP is completed each year and designates how the city will spend CDBG funds in a given program year. 2. Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Plan (CAPER).The CAPER reports on how funds were actually spent versus the proposed AAP, the households that benefitted from the CDBG funding, and the progress made toward meeting the ConPlan's annual objectives for housing and community development. 3. Fair Housing Requirement. HUD requires that cities receiving block grant funds take actions to affirmatively further fair housing choice. Cities report on the progress of affirmatively furthering fair house choice by completing an Analysis of Impediments (AI). The Al is a review of the nature and extent of impediments to fair housing choice in the San Diego Region and the City of Chula Vista. Home Investment Partnership Act Program (HOME) The HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) can be used to fund a wide range of activities including building, buying, and /or rehabilitating affordable housing for rent or homeownership or providing direct rental assistance to low- income people. HOME is the second largest Federal block grant received by the City of Chula Vista designed exclusively to create affordable housing for low- income households. HOME funds are awarded annually as formula grants to the City of Chula Vista as a participating jurisdiction (PJ). The program's flexibility allows the City to use HOME funds for grants, direct loans, loan guarantees or other forms of credit enhancements, or rental assistance or security deposits. The U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development's HOME program was designed to reinforce several important values and principles of community development: • HOME's flexibility empowers people and communities to design and implement strategies tailored to their own needs and priorities. • HOME's emphasis on consolidated planning expands and strengthens partnerships among all levels of government and the private sector in the development of affordable housing. • HOME's technical assistance activities and set -aside for qualified community -based nonprofit housing groups builds the capacity of these partners. • HOME's requirement that participating jurisdictions match 25 cents of every dollar in program funds mobilizes community resources in support of affordable housing. The eligibility of households for HOME assistance varies with the nature of the funded activity. For rental housing and rental assistance, at least 90 percent of benefiting families must have incomes that are no more than 60 Consolidated Plan 1 2 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 68 percent of the HUD - adjusted median family income for the area. In rental projects with five or more assisted units, at least 20% of the units must be occupied by families with incomes that do not exceed 50% of the HUD - adjusted median. The incomes of households receiving HUD assistance must not exceed 80 percent of the area median. HOME income limits are published each year by HUD. Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) The HEARTH Act revised the Emergency Shelter Grants Program to create the Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG) Program. The ESG Program provides funding to: (1) improve the number and quality of emergency shelters for homeless individuals and families; (2) help operate these shelters; (3) provide essential social services to shelter residents; and (4) prevent families and individuals from becoming homeless. 2. Summary of the objectives and outcomes identified in the Plan Needs Assessment The U.S. Department of HUD Community Planning and Development (CPD) dictate that all CDBG, HOME and ESG activities must meet one of the three following objectives: Suitable Living Environment, Decent Housing, or Creating Economic Opportunities. Once the objective of the activity is selected, HUD CPD provides a choice of three outcome categories to describe the outcome of the activity. The outcomes are availability /accessibility, affordability, or sustainability. The primary objectives in the City's 2015 -2019 Consolidated Plan are selected from the following objectives: Suitable Living Environment and Decent Housing. The City of Chula Vista does not currently use CDBG funds specifically for the third objective, Creating Economic Opportunities but may implement programs for economic development to achieve this objective during this ConPlan period. During the ConPlan period, the Development Services - Housing Division will work closely with the Economic Development Department to produce a comprehensive Strategic Plan to successfully implement ED activities in accordance with HUD guidelines. The objectives and outcomes are listed with the proposed activities and funding sources • Public Infrastructure Improvements • HUD CPD Objective- Creating Suitable Living Environments • HUD CPD Outcome - Availability /Accessibility • Sidewalk Improvements (CDBG, State Grant Funds) • Park Improvements (CDBG, HCD Parks Related Grant funds) • Public Facility Improvements (CDBG, HCD Parks Related Grant funds) • CIP projects to be identified in qualifying census tracts (CDBG) • Americans With Disabilities (ADA) improvements to public facilities and infrastructure (CDBG) • Housing Programs • HUD CPD Objective- Decent Housing (HOME And CDBG) • HUD CPD Outcomes - Affordability and Sustainability • Down payment assistance loans for first -time homebuyers (HOME) • Homeowner rehabilitation loans for health and safety repairs (CDBG) • Neighborhood revitalization events (CDBG) • New Construction of Affordable Rental Housing (HOME) • Acquisition and Rehabilitation of Affordable Rental Housing (CDBG, HOME) • Housing Assistance with Case Management (HOME and ESG) Consolidated Plan 1 3 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 69 • Non - Profit Coordination - Public Services • HUD CPD Objective - Suitable Living Environment • HUD CPD Outcomes - Availability /Accessibility ■ Funding to ensure the provision of information for help with primary financial, food, physical health, community development and housing needs (CDBG) • Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing • HUD CPD Objective- Decent Housing • HUD CPD Outcome - Availability /Accessibility • Fair Housing Services (CDBG) • Fair Housing Testing (CDBG) • Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (City's Pro Rata Share) (CDBG) For public service grants to non - profits, the City utilizes 15% of its CDBG annual entitlement on a competitive basis and its ESG funds to serve homeless clientele. A Notice of Funding Availability is released in the winter and invites non - profit organizations that demonstrate an ability to provide needed services that directly benefit the residents of the City of Chula Vista to apply for funding. The use of the CDBG public service funds and ESG funds, for non- profits, enables these types of organizations to leverage other funding sources for projects and activities that will serve the greatest number of residents with the limited amount of funding. 3. Evaluation of past performance Public Infrastructure. The City of Chula Vista utilizes the majority of its CDBG funding to repay a Section 108 loan that was used for public infrastructure improvements in the Castle Park area of the City. During the last Consolidated Plan (2010- 2015), the City used approximately 47% of its Entitlement funds for capital improvement projects that directly benefited area residents, as described below: Table 1. Capital Improvement Projects Funded Project Section 108 Payments (2010 -2015) $4,542,525.40 Third Avenue Streetscape $1,574,849.24 ADA Curb Cuts (2010, 2012, 2013) $514,671.55 Launderbach Facility Improvements $181,999.07 Eucalyptus Park Accessibility Improvements $175,000.00 Chula Vista Family Center Improvements $102,999.80 Total Expenditures $7,092,045.06 In addition, due to the City's proactive partnership with affordable housing developers, the City was eligible to receive funding from the State of California Housing and Community Development (State HCD) under its Parks Related Housing Grants Program in 2013. While these funds are awarded based upon production of affordable housing, the funds are used for capital improvement projects. The City has invested these dollars in capital improvement projects in Low and Moderate Income areas of the City of Chula Vista to maximize the amount of funding received by State HCD. Consolidated Plan 1 4 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 70 Table 2. HCD Housing Related Parks Grants Program (HRP) Project Name Housing Related Parks Program $488,400 Memorial Park (ADA entrance to Museum and $62,406.86 Landscaping) PR -317 Eucalyptus Park Improvements -PR -317 Renovations and $220,687.32 Improvements to the Tennis Courts Launderbach Improvements (Parking Lot Paving) $12,000.00 Norman Park (Removable Walls) $200,000.00 Woman's Center (Roof Repairs) $10,000.00 Total Expenditures (included other funding) $505,094.18* *anticipated grant award was $517,000, but the City received $488,400 from HCD. ADA Improvements. The City has used CDBG funds for improvements to City facilities and infrastructure. During the last ConPlan period, the City installed ADA curb ramps and accessible pedestrian signals throughout low and moderate income areas of the City, i, made ADA improvements to the Ken Lee Building, installed new sidewalks along C Street in front of Eucalyptus Park, and removed architectural barriers along Third Avenue (Phase I of the Third Avenue Streetscape Project). In addition, CDBG funds were used to purchase accessible doors for the Chula Vista Family Health Center. Davis Bacon Compliance. The City of Chula Vista ensures compliance with Davis Bacon prevailing wage requirements by the following actions: notifying contractors on federal construction projects of prevailing wage requirements in the bid announcement; attaching the current prevailing wage determination and HUD's Making Davis Bacon Work guide to the bid; researching contractor in the SAMS database to ensure contractor is in good standing; and obtaining self- certifications regarding disbarment and compliance with federal contracting requirements. As needed, staff attends pre -bid conference to confirm each contractor bidding on the CDBG funded project has a complete understanding of all requirements. Section 3 Compliance. The City of Chula Vista staff attended two Section 3 Compliance workshops presented by the HUD Los Angeles Office. The Section 3 training assists the City in enforcing Section 3 requirements on all construction projects using federal funds. City staff attended all pre -bid construction meetings to inform contractors performing on City projects of Section 3 compliance requirements and the importance of hiring Section 3 sub - contractors or residents if there are any new hires. The City included the required Section 3 clauses in every bid package and contract. City contracts utilizing federal funds included clauses that state compliance with federal requirements are mandatory and City requires signed certification from contractor stating they will comply with all federal contracting requirements. Fair Housing. The City of Chula Vista is committed to affirmatively furthering fair housing. The City contracted with CSA of San Diego County to provide fair housing services and testing. After the last the three rounds of testing in the last five years, there was some evidence of discrimination. CSA of San Diego County provided trainings to Property Managers and staff to educate them on compliance with the Fair Housing Act to ensure that the issues identified by the testers do not occur again. CSA also worked closely with the City's Code Enforcement staff to ensure that landlords are making the necessary repair to the rental units. The City also encouraged multi - family property managers to enroll in the City's "Crime Free Multi- Housing" program. Consolidated Plan 1 5 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 71 Continuum of Care. The City of Chula Vista is an active member of the Regional Continuum of Care (RCCC). The RCCC is a large cooperative community group consisting of representatives of the 18 cities within the county, nonprofit service providers and other interested parties. The RCCC meets on a monthly basis to identify gaps in homeless services, establish funding priorities, and to pursue an overall systemic approach to addressing homelessness. During the prior Con Plan period the City provided $473,073 in Emergency Solutions Grant funds to support Emergency Shelter, Rapid Re- Housing and Homeless Prevention activities. The City also supported the Regional Task Force on the Homeless by earmarking 5% of the sub -award to Subrecipients to ensure that non - profit providers are reporting ESG client data into the required HMIS. The HMIS funding earmark for this mandated service is supported by the local Regional Continuum of Care Council. HUD's Program Assessment. Each program year of the Consolidated Plan period, the City must submit to HUD, a Consolidated Annual Performance and Review Report (CAPER) with detailed information on progress towards the priorities, goals and objectives outlined in the Consolidated Plan. HUD conducts an annual program assessment and provides feedback on the City's use of CDBG funds. For Program Years 2012, 2013, and 2014, HUD has determined that the overall performance of the City's CDBG program was satisfactory. HUD stated, "The City has addressed its overall needs in housing and community development." HUD commended the City for its progress made in these areas and for improving the quality of life for its residents and stated that all of the activities and accomplishments were consistent with the Consolidated Plan goals and strategies. The City was monitored by HUD's CPD staff for Environmental Review compliance in July 2014. During the document review HUD praised the City for receiving the prestigious Climate Leadership award from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for its comprehensive Climate Action Plan. The City has also received recognition from the Institute for Local Government and Statewide Energy Efficiency Collaborative, which recently honored the City with three Spotlight Awards for the City's efforts to save energy, reduce greenhouse emissions and adopt policies and programs that promote sustainability. The HOME funded affordable housing development included in the monitoring, "Lofts on Landis" features a number of energy saving and sustainable features such as solar panels, drought - tolerant landscaping, high efficiency lighting and energy Star appliances. Since the City uses the majority of its funding for its repayment of the Section 108 loan payment of approximately $766,578 for (FY2015) in annual installments (thought 2028), the City has been able to meet its timeliness expenditure of grant funds each year. In addition, the City closely monitors the expenditure of CDBG funds for Capital Improvement projects to ensure that the funds are spent within 12- months. There may be certain cases, where due to the nature of the capital improvement project, the project may take 18 months to complete. The City requires all projects to spend their allocated funds in a timely manner as to not cause the City to fall into an expenditure deficiency. HUD requires that the City maintain an expenditure rate that does not fall below the "1.5 test" that must be met by May of each year. 24 CFR 570.902 (a) states, a grantee may not have more than 1.5 times the entitlement grant amount for the current year remaining undisbursed from the U.S. Treasury 60 days prior to the end of the grantee's current program year. The City has consistently complied with the CDBG regulation regarding timeliness due to the careful tracking of CDBG expenditures. Given the loss of state redevelopment agency funds, the City is grateful the United States Congress continues to fund the CDBG program to assist our City's low- and moderate - income residents, as it remains the primary source to assist public services, capital improvements, and ADA improvements in low and moderate income areas or that benefit low and moderate income clientele and or households. Consolidated Plan 1 6 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 72 4. Summary of citizen participation process and consultation process To encourage citizen participation in the preparation of the 2015 -2019 Consolidated Plan and 2015/16 Action Plan, the City of Chula Vista conducted a community needs assessment and implemented other outreach efforts to the community. • A needs assessment survey • Available in both English and Spanish • Posted in various locations on the City's website www.chulavistaca.gov; • Informational memo to City Council offices encouraging public participation • Issued press releases • Issued social media notifications with a link to the survey • Distributed surveys at public workshops • Posted Draft ConPlan and AAP on City website and at City Offices • Provided 30 day review and comment period for ConPlan and AAP • Provided advance notice of community meetings and public hearings • Received and recorded comment received at meetings and public hearings • Meetings with the community, including: • Civic Center Meeting • Southwest Chula Vista Library Community Meeting • Survey to Social Service providers (Stakeholders) • Two public hearings before the Chula Vista City Council The City did not utilize mailed surveys to the community due to the lack of response during the prior ConPlan needs assessment in 2010. The City response rate increased by 60 percent by utilizing social media such as Facebook, Nixle, and the City's website to solicit public comments and participation. The needs assessment process also included consultations with other City departments to assess needs in the City's low- and moderate - income communities. 5. Summary of public comments All of the public comments received are attached to the ConPlan as the Public Comment Attachment. 6. Summary of comments or views not accepted and the reasons for not accepting them All of the public comments received were accepted. 7. Summary During the next five years, Chula Vista will strive to build upon past experiences with improved efficiences and on the accomplishments of the 2010 Consolidated Plan Five -Year Strategic Plan as well addressing issues which have grown in importance or changing conditions. Notwithstanding, the City's basic housing and community development objectives have not changed. The City will continue to focus on using data - driven approaches and utilize various citizen and stakeholder participation techniques to validate the needs and priorities set in the ConPlan. As identified through the ConPlan process, specifically its citizen participation process, the following areas of need emerged as top priorities for the community: 1. Public Infrastructure, e.g. sidewalk improvements, street improvements Consolidated Plan 1 7 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 73 2. Public Services, e.g. anti -crime programs, youth activities, service to special needs populations, services to the elderly and disabled, services to homeless. 3. Economic Development, e.g. job creation, employment training 4. Community Facilities, e.g. parks and recreational facilities As a result of the needs assessment and other federal requirements, the City plans to include the following priorities for funding during the next five -year ConPlan period: ➢ Public Infrastructure - Capital Improvement Projects • New Streets and Sidewalks • Americans with Disabilities Improvements • Section 108 loan payment* ➢ Housing Programs • Fair Housing Services* • Residential Rehabilitation Loans • First -Time Homebuyer Assistance ** • Tenant Based Rental Assistance • New Construction of Affordable Rental Housing • Acquisition and Rehabilitation of properties for Affordable Rental Housing ➢ Community Development /Neighborhood Services • Improvements to existing neighborhood public facilities (i.e. recreation centers, parks, public facilities servicing low and moderate income clients) • Fire Stations * * ** • Public Services that serve special needs populations, youth, elderly, the homeless * City is required to pay the Section 108 debt service payment or use City General funds to repay the loan, ** The City is required to provide Fair Housing Services as a condition of receiving CDBG entitlement funds, * ** The City received a $1 million grant from HCD to serve First Time Homebuyers. * * ** Fire Station improvements are limited to Fire Station 1 or 5 that primary serve low income areas (LMA). This is subject to change depending on statistical data provided by HUD to determine LMA). The City will partner with other governmental entities to increase efficiency, coordinate service delivery, and leverage additional resources. The private sector assists with the provisions of services through for - profit housing developers, community housing development organizations (CHDOs), nonprofits, and other similar organizations. It is important to note that while the City has made progress in addressing its needs, the level of housing and community service needs cannot be totally remedied within the next five years without a substantial increase in the level of federal funds appropriated to HUD. Consolidated Plan 1 8 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 74 The Process 1. Describe agency /entity responsible for preparing the Consolidated Plan and those responsible for administration of each grant program and funding source The following are the agencies /entities responsible for preparing the Consolidated Plan and those responsible for administration of each grant program and funding source. Table 3. Responsible Agencies LEAD AND PARTICIPATING ORGANIZATIONS The City of Chula Vista's Housing Division leads the coordination of the Consolidated Planning process. The Housing Division's Grant Coordinators are the lead staff that oversee the development and administration of this strategic plan and are responsible for the administration, planning, and execution of CDBG, ESG, and HOME funding. The Housing Division also works with other City departments within the City of Chula Vista to facilitate the objectives and outcomes of this ConPlan as well as the Annual Action Plan. Other departments include: Engineering, Parks and Recreation, Economic Development, Fire Department, Police Department, Information Technology, Finance, Code Enforcement, Conservation, and Public Works. If necessary, a specialized consultant will be used by the City to facilitate the completion of the objectives and outcomes for each Annual Action Plan. The County of San Diego Department of Housing and Community Development is the responsible agency who oversees the administration and disbursement of Section 8 rental assistance funds (HCV) and the management of the four Public Housing projects in Chula Vista. The following is a brief description of the Entitlements, Section 8 HCV Program, and Public Housing that are administered by the lead and responsible agencies: CDBG The Community Development Block Grant is both the oldest and largest of the HUD programs for housing and community development. CDBG can be used for a variety of activities including: - Construction and rehabilitation of community facilities including those that help special needs populations (e.g., community centers, homeless shelters); Removal of accessibility barriers from public buildings; Loans or grants to business for job training and hiring of lower income workers; Demolition of property; Consolidated Plan 1 9 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 75 Lead Agency City of Chula Vista City Administration CDBG Entitlement City of Chula Vista Development Services - Housing Division HOME Entitlement City of Chula Vista Development Services - Housing Division ESG Entitlement City of Chula Vista Development Services - Housing Division LEAD AND PARTICIPATING ORGANIZATIONS The City of Chula Vista's Housing Division leads the coordination of the Consolidated Planning process. The Housing Division's Grant Coordinators are the lead staff that oversee the development and administration of this strategic plan and are responsible for the administration, planning, and execution of CDBG, ESG, and HOME funding. The Housing Division also works with other City departments within the City of Chula Vista to facilitate the objectives and outcomes of this ConPlan as well as the Annual Action Plan. Other departments include: Engineering, Parks and Recreation, Economic Development, Fire Department, Police Department, Information Technology, Finance, Code Enforcement, Conservation, and Public Works. If necessary, a specialized consultant will be used by the City to facilitate the completion of the objectives and outcomes for each Annual Action Plan. The County of San Diego Department of Housing and Community Development is the responsible agency who oversees the administration and disbursement of Section 8 rental assistance funds (HCV) and the management of the four Public Housing projects in Chula Vista. The following is a brief description of the Entitlements, Section 8 HCV Program, and Public Housing that are administered by the lead and responsible agencies: CDBG The Community Development Block Grant is both the oldest and largest of the HUD programs for housing and community development. CDBG can be used for a variety of activities including: - Construction and rehabilitation of community facilities including those that help special needs populations (e.g., community centers, homeless shelters); Removal of accessibility barriers from public buildings; Loans or grants to business for job training and hiring of lower income workers; Demolition of property; Consolidated Plan 1 9 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 75 Provision of operating dollars to social service organizations; Public infrastructure improvements (streets, sidewalks); and Direct homeownership assistance. HOME The HOME Investment Partnerships Program was created in 1990. This program provides federal funds for a variety of housing activities including construction of affordable housing; rehabilitation of affordable housing; acquisition of buildings for affordable housing; homebuyer down payment assistance and counseling; and tenant -based rental assistance. ESG The Emergency Solutions Grant program funds help persons who are homeless and their families. ESG can be used for shelter rehabilitation, operations and maintenance of a homeless facility, supportive services for persons who are homeless (e.g., job training or child care), and homeless prevention and rapid re- housing activities. Consolidated Plan Public Contact Information The Consolidated Plan public contacts are: Agency Role 7 Name /Title /Contact Information Department /Agen Grant Administrator Angelica Davis, Project Coordinator (619) 691 -5036 adavis @chulavistaca.eov Grant Administrator Jose Dorado, Project Coordinator (619) 476 -5375 1 idorado @chulavistaca.eov Public Housing and Section 8 (Housing Choice Voucher) Information County of San Diego Housing Authority of the County of San Diego 3989 Ruffin Road San Diego, CA 92123 (858) 694 -4801 or toll free at (877) 478 -LIST Development Services Department — Housing Division Development Services Department — Housing Division Consolidated Plan I P a g e 10 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 76 1. Introduction Provide a concise summary of the jurisdiction's activities to enhance coordination between public and assisted housing providers and private and governmental health, mental health and service agencies (91.215(1)). The City of Chula Vista is a member of two key organizations which rely heavily on public and private coordination in the region to address the needs of the low income community members. The Chula Vista Community Collaborative is collaboration among partners and stakeholders in Chula Vista which include; Residents and Parents; Schools and School District Staff; Social Service /Non - profit Agencies; Local Government; Faith -based Community; Health Professionals; and, Business Owners. Together, the Collaborative works to develop coordinated strategies and systems that protect the health, safety, and wellness of its residents as well as share information and resources that strengthen families and communities. Regular meetings are held with the goal of obtaining and sharing information about services, resources, employment and training opportunities, as well as any events accessible to the Chula Vista community. The meetings are a useful venue to network and efficiently coordinate activities with partnering agencies. The City of Chula Vista is also a member of the South Bay Homeless Advocacy Coalition which was formed to address the growing concern for homelessness and the lack of resources available. The goal is to educate the community on these issues and advocate for change to better serve homeless and near homeless families and individuals in our community. The Coalition is comprised of representatives from local government agencies, the school districts, social service agencies, faith based organizations and citizens. Chula Vista has very actively addressed housing needs by increasing the creation of affordable housing units (obtained required voter approval) and by working closely with affordable housing developers to increase the number of rental housing, preserve existing affordable housing, and /or extend affordability covenants. The City's Balanced Communities Policy has enhanced the coordination between City staff and Developers who seek to meet their obligations to provide affordable housing. It is the City of Chula Vista's goal is to utilize 100% of its entitlement grants to assist low /moderate income residents break the cycle of poverty through supporting social service programs. Many of the programs include multi- service programs to assist low income families back into the main stream. They include help with job readiness, educational training, counseling, child care, food clothing, housing assistance and a host of other service to help families and individuals escape the cycle of poverty. The following is a sample of the organizations the City partnered with the last ConPlan and may continue its partnership through the 2015 -2019 ConPlan: • Chula Vista Community Collaborative to provide case management and referral services; • Family Health Centers of San Diego to provide mobile medical services at various elementary schools located in low income census tracts; • Interfaith Shelter Network to provide rotational shelter and case management during the cold winter months; • Meals -on- Wheels to provide daily hot meal delivery to seniors in need; • San Diego Food Bank which delivers weekly backpack with food to children who are at risk of experiencing hunger through the weekend. • South Bay Community Services (SBCS) is made up of three distinct departments (Youth and Family Services, Children Services, and Family Wellness and Self Sufficiency). Their staff of over 250 serve more than 50,000 Consolidated Plan I P a g e 11 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 77 individuals and families annually in South San Diego County. South Bay Community Services was awarded a $30 Million Promise Neighborhood Grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Chula Vista Promise Neighborhood brings together a collaboration of partners focused on family, education, health and community to support academic excellence and college bound aspirations for children in the Castle Park community of Chula Vista. For more information on this program please visit the following website at http: / /cvpromise.org /. Other Collaborating Agencies The Housing Authority of the County of San Diego ( HACSD) serves as the City's public housing agency. The City of Chula Vista does not operate its own public housing agency. The HACSD operates the Section 8 rental assistance program and owns 4 public housing projects that are rent - restricted in Chula Vista. Other coalitions include: CDBG Coordinators Group; HOME Consortium; Regional Continuum of Care Council, Mortgage Credit Counselors, and San Diego Housing Federation, made up of affordable housing organizations and lenders that sponsor programs and activities in partnership with the County and cities in the region. Describe coordination with the Continuum of Care and efforts to address the needs of homeless persons (particularly chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans, and unaccompanied youth) and persons at risk of homelessness The City of Chula Vista is an active member of the San Diego Regional Continuum of Care Council (RCCC) which is a large cooperative community group consisting of representatives of the 18 cities within San Diego County, non- profit homeless service providers and other interested parties. The RCCC meets on a monthly basis to identify gaps in homeless services, establish funding priorities, and to pursue an overall systemic approach to addressing homelessness. The RCCC makes recommendations for allocation of funds available under the Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG) Program. The representatives seek ways to improve collaboration and share scarce resources. The consensus approach from service providers is to emphasize prevention of homelessness first, then transitional housing and support services for individuals and families, and finally support for chronically homeless individuals. Describe consultation with the Continuum(s) of Care that serves the jurisdiction's area in determining how to allocate ESG funds, develop performance standards and evaluate outcomes, and develop funding, policies and procedures for the administration of HMIS The RCCC directly participates with jurisdictions that are directly funded by HUD ESG, and with the California State Department of Housing and Community Development for the areas in the region that are eligible for State ESG funds, and with non - entitled areas that prepare Consolidated Plans. In each case, the RCCC consults with the jurisdiction to develop cooperative plans and strategies that leverage ESG and other resources to provide emergency shelter, prevention, and rapid re- housing services. The RCCC assists the ESG entitlement areas (ESG Area) in coordinating the prioritization and use of funds. This coordination includes each ESG area covered by the State of California and the ESG Areas in the San Diego region. The RCCC, as the CoC entity, is responsible for assisting with the evaluation of ESG project performance. In cooperation with RCCC, the ESG Area determines, based on the amount of funding received and the need of the client, the level of assistance and the duration of assistance that a household can receive. Consolidated Plan I P a g e 12 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 78 The RCCC participates in setting local priorities, reviewing and rating proposals, certifying need, and annual review of ESG programs. The RCCC has prepared an ESG Guide that includes information about the responsibilities of the CoC and ESG area, HUD regulations, cross - jurisdiction strategies, and policy statements. Because the Guide is updated at least annually, the most recent Guide is incorporated in its entirety in the Governance Charter by reference here. The general goal of ESG is to assist families and individuals out of homelessness by providing financial support for rental assistance, payment of utilities, transportation services and other essential services deemed eligible by HUD and necessary for the continued housing of a home lessor at risk of becoming homeless person, and /or families. ESG can be used to fund local homeless emergency shelter operations or physical rehabilitation of certain properties used for serving homeless persons. To this end, the ESG entitlement areas and the RCCC have established the following cross - jurisdictional strategies for use of the ESG funds in ways that: A. Further the accomplishment of actions identified in the Consolidated Plan of each jurisdiction. B. Foster greater access to permanent housing, especially helping people access housing that is affordable at 30 %areamedian income. C. Leverage existing resources to achieve the match and case management requirements and to avoid duplication of services. D. Coordinate across jurisdictions for development of standardized eligibility and assessment standards and by convening semiannual regional planning meetings. E. Support federal and local goals for priority populations, including but not limited to veterans, persons with disabilities, families and others. F. Allow for variations in ESG entitlement programs that respond to the needs and resources of the individual jurisdictions. G. Comply with eligibility and verification requirements and locally established standards (HMIS, housing status, habitability standards, homeless definitions, etc.). H. Allows each program to take responsibility for program administration including compliance with public notice requirements and timely reporting. I. Encourages all subrecipients to participate in collaborative assessment, coordinated entry, data management, and reporting systems established by the RCCC in accordance with HEARTH regulations. J. Supports timely and accurate data collection and reporting through contractual obligations with subrecipients, and through establishing common standards for vendor relationships with the HMIS Lead. The RCCC plan for ESG assistance recognizes the multiple ESG Areas contained in the San Diego Region. The RCCC works to avoid a duplication of services to ensure subrecipients do not receive multiple grants for the same services in a single service area. Sub recipients serving multiple areas may receive ESG support from the corresponding ESG Area to serve eligible clients from that service area. ESG subrecipients are responsible for assuring the provision of matching resources. The RCCC encourages subrecipients to leverage additional resources for effective operation of ESG programs. The RCCC consults with ESG Areas and sub recipients to coordinate plans for effective use of funds. HUD CoC Program- funded organizations are required to report the sources of match and leverage funds annually. These resources are verified through an annual review of agency Independent Audit as conducted in accordance with HUD regulations. Consolidated Plan I P a g e 13 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 79 2. Describe Agencies, groups, organizations and others who participated in the process and describe the jurisdictions consultations with housing, social service agencies and other entities To encourage participation in the preparation of the 2015 -2019 Consolidated Plan and 2015/16 Action Plan, the City of Chula Vista conducted a community needs assessment. The City presented the needs assessment survey in a public hearing held November 18, 2014. The following list includes organizations that the City contacted for consultation during the needs assessment for this ConPlan development, although not all agencies responded. The agencies that responded are denoted by in boldface. • South Bay Community Services • Interfaith Shelter Network • Chula Vista Community Collaborative • Chula Vista Elementary School District • San Diego Food Bank • Meals on Wheel of San Diego County • Chula Vista City Departments • Family Health Centers of San Diego • Center for Employment Opportunities • Lutheran Social Services • Social Service Provider Needs Assessment Survey • Two public hearings before the Chula Vista City Council Identify any Agency Types not consulted and provide rationale for not consulting The City of Chula Vista consulted with agencies that provide services to Chula Vista residents. Through public notices, public hearing, meetings, and social media, all groups who serve low and moderate income clients were consulted with the development of this ConPlan. Describe cooperation and coordination with other public entities, including the State and any adjacent units of general local government, in the implementation of the Consolidated Plan (92.215(1) As previously described, the City of Chula Vista participates in several working groups that are comprised of public /private agencies to enhance regional coordination on a variety of issues in San Diego County. These groups include the San Diego Regional Continuum of Care Council (RCCC), San Diego Regional Alliance for Fair Housing (SD RAFFH), San Diego Association of Government's (SANDAG's) Regional Planning Technical Group, SANDAG's Regional Housing Working Group, SANDAG's Cities /Counties Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC), South County Economic Development Council, San Diego Housing Federation, and San Diego County's CDBG Coordinator's Group. Consolidated Plan I P a g e 14 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 80 Other local /regional /state /federal planning efforts considered when preparing the Plan Table 4. Other Local Planning Efforts Considered Name of Plan Lead Organization How d. the goals goals with the plan? City of Chula Vista 2013 -2020 City of Chula Vista Aligns with the strategic plan goal of continuing to Housing Element create affordable housing units; the housing element details the existing and future housing needs. San Diego Regional Analysis City of Chula Vista Aligns with the strategic plan goal of affirmatively of Impediments to Fair further fair housing choice; the Al details the Housing (AI) 2015 -2019 impediments for the City and the region. Balanced Communities Policy City of Chula Vista The City's balanced communities policy increases the (including For Sale Policy) number of affordable rental units in new development projects over 50 units. The policy requires 5% of the units be set aside for low income households. Continuum of Care Regional Continuum of Care Council Aligns with the strategic plan goal of assisting in the Continuum of Care; the Continuum of Care works to alleviate homelessness throughout the County of San Diego. City of Chula Vista General City of Chula Vista Aligns with the strategic plan goal of improving the Plan, Urban Core Specific quality of life for Chula Vista residents, including low - Plan, Growth Management and moderate - income households /persons; the Plan, and Palomar Gateway General Plan addresses a wide range of issues that Specific Plan affect Chula Vista such as the physical development of the City and economic and social concerns that can affect the overall quality of life. Data Source: City of Chula Vista2015 1. Summary of citizen participation process /Efforts made to broaden citizen participation Summarize citizen participation process and how it impacted goal- setting Information regarding the CDBG, HOME and ESG programs, applications for funding, resources, ConPlan, and local program contact information were all posted on the City website. Public notices were published in local newspapers both in English and Spanish and sent out via social media, such as Nixle, Twitter, and Facebook, to inform the public of public meetings, public hearings and document public review periods, including the ConPlan and the 2015/16 Annual Action Plan containing the proposed activities for the program year. In compliance with federal requirements for the preparation of a ConPlan, the City has conducted a needs assessment to identify community development and housing needs of low -and moderate - income residents and to gather public input on the proposed use of CDBG funds to address the identified needs. The assessment process included outreach to the community through: a needs assessment survey, in both English and Spanish, posted on the City's website at www.chulavistaca.gov; surveys posted at City Offices and distributed via social media, press Consolidated Plan I P a g e 15 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 81 releases with a link to the survey. The City chose not to mail surveys to the community due to the lack of response during the prior ConPlan needs assessment in 2010. Community outreach included promoting the needs assessment at the following public meetings: The needs assessment process also included consultations with other City departments to assess infrastructure needs in the City's low -and moderate - income communities. Table S. Citizen Participation Outreach Order Mode of Target of Summary of Comments Comments not URL (if applicable) Outreach Outreach response/attendance 1 Social Media Non- Facebook, Nixel, Twitter None. Not applicable. No Not applicable. Outlets targeted/ announcing funding comments rejected. Broad availability and request for Community public participation (09/29/2014). 2 Newspaper Ad Non- Notice of two Public None Not applicable. Not applicable. in English targeted/ Meetings (10/03/2014) in Broad Star News Community 3 Newspaper Ad Spanish- Notice of two Public None Not applicable. Not applicable. in Spanish speaking Meetings (10/03/2014) in El Community Latino 4 Public Meetings Spanish- Public Meetings on Request for Not applicable. Not applicable. speaking 10/06/2014 and 10/08/2014 affordable Community to solicit public input. housing and Broad- opportunities Community including rehabilitation as well as youth programs. 5 Newspaper Ad Non- Notice of Public Hearing In None Not applicable. Not applicable. in English targeted/ Star News (11/07/2014) Broad Community 6 Public Hearing Non- Public Hearing conducted on None Council agreed with Not applicable. targeted/ 11/18/2014 to present the the proposed goals. Broad housing and community Community development goals. 7 Newspaper Ad Non- Notice of Funding No comments; Not applicable. Not applicable. in English targeted/ Availability (01/12/2015) however 24 Broad funding Community requests received. Consolidated Plan I P a g e 16 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 82 Order Mode Outreach Outreach response/attendance 8 Newspaper Ad Non- Notice of Public Hearing in None Not applicable. Not applicable. in English targeted/ Star News to solicit input on Broad The City's housing and Community community development needs and Public Review Period (04/10/2015) 9 Newspaper Ad Spanish- Notice of Public Hearing in None Not applicable. Not applicable. in Spanish speaking El Latino to solicit input on Community The City's housing and community development needs and Public Review Period (04/10/2015) 10 On -line Survey Non- 365 on -line surveys Comments Not applicable. No https: / /www.survey (included as targeted/ Included as comments rejected. monkey.com /r /ConPI anConsult Exhibit "B ") Broad Exhibit "C" Community Consolidated Plan I P a g e 17 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 83 Needs Assessment The City of Chula Vista covers just over 52 square miles in the South Bay area of the region. The City is located in the southern portion of San Diego County, approximately 7 miles from downtown San Diego. The City is bounded by the cities of National City (to the north) and San Diego (to the south). The City also located within District 2 of the County of San Diego. Regional access is provided by Interstates 5 & 805, north to south, and Highway 54 east /west. In the eastern part of the City, toll road access via Highway -125 links the Highway 905 to Highway 54, both of which provide north /south access. Chula Vista is also home to one community college educational facility (Southwestern Community College) and several vocational schools. In September 2014, the City initiated the Needs Assessment with a web -blast issued to recipients who had asked to receive notifications about CDBG applications, Home Investment Partnership Act, and Emergency Solutions Grant. This electronic communication solicited their input, invited them to the series of public meetings, and requested that they complete the surveys. The City of Chula Vista received data from 2 -1 -1 San Diego that details the types of calls they receive from persons seeking access to an array of services. The callers are seeking services to help build and sustain healthy lives. The data provided by 2 -1 -1 provides an ongoing needs assessment of the City's low and moderate income community. Every day, 2 -1 -1 San Diego connects residents throughout San Diego County to services that help improve the lives of those that they serve. 2 -1 -1 answered more than 111,000 calls in the first half of fiscal year 2013 -2014 from clients in San Diego County, including 7,359 calls from City of Chula Vista residents. The primary needs of Chula Vista callers were for "Basic Needs." This category includes Food, Housing /Shelter, Material Goods, Transportation and Utility Assistance. In the first half of fiscal year 2013/14, 41% of all calls from Chula Vista residents were for Basic Needs resources; 16% for income support and employment; 12% for health care, and 10% for organizational /community /international services. The majority of 2 -1 -1 callers have a need that is related to financial difficulty; whether their need is housing, food, or healthcare, all of these have a financial basis. 2 -1 -1's database system identifies these needs more specifically in order to give a better idea of what type of need it truly is, rather than simply "financial ". In the time period July 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013, 43% of the residents were seeking housing /shelter, followed by 26% requesting utility assistance. The majority of the callers were referred to the County of San Diego's Health and Human Services Agency, MAAC, South Bay Community Services, Covered California, San Diego Food Bank, Salvation Army, Legal Aid Society of San Diego, Family Health Centers of San Diego, and San Diego Gas and Electric. The demographic of callers from the City of Chula Vista to 2 -1 -1 San Diego are the following: The average caller is a Hispanic (63 %) or Caucasian (33 %) and female (76 %) The majority of callers earn less than $15,900 in annual income (80 %) and are considered "Extremely Low" income earners. These demographics show that the City of Chula Vista's poorest residents are calling 2 -1 -1 for assistance. Consolidated Plan I P a g e 18 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 84 The City of Chula Vista conducted a needs assessment for this ConPlan period. See Section ES -05, question 4 for the summary of the needs assessment process. Survey respondents have rated the following "needs" as the highest priorities for the community: 1. Public infrastructure 2. Public services 3. Community Facilities 4. Economic Development Each year, the public service requests exceed the amount of available funding. The City has approved the following funding methodology that consists of a three -tier approach, classifying each of the public services activities in the following three categories: • Tier I: Basic /Essential Needs (Food, Housing, Emergency Services) • Tier II: Special Needs (At -Risk Youth, Family Violence, Special Needs /Disabled) • Tier III: Other (Transportation Services, Case Management, Preventative Health Care Services, Recreation (non - disabled, non - emergency services) This ensures that funding serves at risk populations prior to serving the general public services. General public services are identified in Tier III. As required by HUD, the identified needs and priorities will be used to develop the ConPlan priorities. The ConPlan priorities identified will guide the allocation of funds in each of the five Annual Action Plans associated with the new ConPlan. Given the limited amount of CDBG funds allocated to the City of Chula Vista, the reduction of HOME funds, and the loss of State Redevelopment Agency funds, not all of the identified needs and priorities will be funded. Several of the identified needs are funded by other government agencies, e.g., health services by the County of San Diego, State of California Department of Housing and Community Development competitive and non - competitive grants, and other transportation service subsidies from the federal government. It is necessary to include all priorities that may be funded during this ConPlan period. If a priority is not listed in the ConPlan, it may not be funded during the five year ConPlan period without a substantial amendment to the ConPlan. As a result of the needs assessment and other federal requirements, the City plans to include the following priorities for possible funding during the next five -year ConPlan period: • Public Infrastructure ➢ Capital Improvement Projects ➢ Public Facilities improvements and Infrastructure ➢ Americans with Disabilities Improvements • Decent Housing ➢ Development of Affordable Rental Housing (new construction or acquisition /rehab) ➢ Tenant Based Rental Assistance • Housing Programs ➢ Fair Housing Services, Studies and Testing ➢ Residential Rehabilitation Loans ➢ First -Time Homebuyer Assistance ➢ Energy Efficiency programs Consolidated Plan I P a g e 19 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 85 • Community /Neighborhood Services ➢ Public Services (subject to 15% funding cap) ➢ Economic Development ➢ Housing Services Summary of Housing Needs The U.S. Census Bureau defines a household as all of the people who occupy a housing unit. A household is different than a housing unit, as a housing unit is a house, an apartment, a mobile home, a group of rooms, or a single room occupied(or if vacant, intended for occupancy) as separate living quarters. A household consists of all the people who occupy a housing unit. As defined by HUD in the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data, housing problems include: • Units with physical defects (lacking complete kitchen or bathroom); • Overcrowded conditions (housing units with more than one person per room); • Housing cost burden, including utilities, exceeding 30 percent of gross income; and • Severe housing cost burden, including utilities, exceeding 50 percent of gross income. Overall, the City has extensive needs for affordable housing. According to the Housing Authority of the County of San Diego, there are 9,794 Chula Vista residents on the Housing Choice Voucher Program (Section 8) waiting list. Chula Vista renters experience a housing issue, as referenced in the Housing Needs Summary Tables. This includes the number of Chula Vista households experiencing 1 or more housing problems such as inadequate housing, overcrowding, cost burden of 50 percent, or cost burden of 30 percent, compared to only 35 percent of owner - households. Among all households (incomes up to 100 percent AMI), Hispanic households were the most likely to experience a housing problem. Of the housing problems described above, the most common in Chula Vista is housing cost burden. The cost burden issue was affirmed by comments received during the Community Meetings. The prevalence of overcrowding in the City varies by tenure, income level and household type. This may indicate that multiple families need to pool their resources in order to afford housing in Chula Vista. Age and condition of the housing stock also present housing issues to low and moderate income households. W it h 70 percent of the housing stock over 30 years old (built before 1980), and approximately 58.7 percent is owner - occupied housing and 41.3 percent of renter - occupied housing, there is significant potential that units are in need of rehabilitation. Many low and moderate income households in Chula Vista, particularly seniors and the disabled with fixed and limited income, are unable to afford the needed repairs for their homes. In addition to the housing needs discussed above, the City of Chula Vista also has a number of infrastructure needs. Many of the City's public facilities, streets and sidewalks are in need of improvements, renovations and accessibility related modifications. These projects are necessary in order to ensure that critical services and facilities within the City remain safe and accessible to all residents of the community. Consolidated Plan I P a g e 20 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 86 To further dissect the housing problems, the following tables provide additional details: • Table 6 represents the number of households by income level and type of household (small family, large family, senior households, and families with a child under the age of 6. • Table 7 presents the number of households with one or more housing problems (inadequate housing, overcrowding, cost burden of 50 percent, or cost burden of 30 percent) by income and tenure. • Table 8 summarizes the number of households with more than one or more severe housing problems by income and tenure. Severe housing problems are: inadequate housing; severe overcrowding (1.51 persons or more per room); and housing cost burden of 50 percent. • Table 9 isolates those households with housing cost burden of over 30 percent (inclusive of those with cost burden of over 50 percent) by income and tenure. • Table 10 isolates those households with cost burden of over 50 percent. • Table 11 presents overcrowding by household type. In 2010, there were 73,633 households in the City, up from 57,626 in 2000 (a 28 percent increase). The median household income in 2010 was $65,526, up from $44,861 (a 46 percent increase). Table 6. Housing Needs Assessment Demographics Demographics Base Year: 111 2010 Population 173,556 2361218 36% Households 57,626 73,633 28% Median Income $44,861.00 $65,526.00 46% Data Source: 2000 Census (Base Year), 2006 -2010 ACS (Most Recent Year) Consolidated Plan I P a g e 21 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 87 Table 7. Number Total Households Table Housing Needs Summary Tables 1. Housing Problems (Households with one of the listed needs) Table 8. Housing Problems Table �� 'qj� 9,540 9,220 � R., I " : I I . 13,810 8,020 33,050 Total Households * Small Family Households * 3,845 4,585 7,035 4,320 20,680 Large Family Households * 720 1055 2505 1385 5080 Household contains at least one person 2,060 1,665 2,280 1,205 5,130 62 -74 years of age Household contains at least one person 1,565 1,325 1,750 940 2,220 age 75 or older Households with one or more children 6 1,845 2,045 3,299 2,055 5,615 years old or younger kitchen facilities * the highest income category for these family types is >80% HAMFI Data Source: 2006 -2010 CHAS Note: CHAS data was developed with sample data. Due to the smaller sample size, the CHAS datapresented may have significant margins of error, particularly for smaller geographies. The intent of the data is to show general proportions of household need, not exact numbers. Housing Needs Summary Tables 1. Housing Problems (Households with one of the listed needs) Table 8. Housing Problems Table �� 'qj� � Renter Owner PIPJPP i :0 3 :0 Description -3001. -3j0" 1 7A 50% 80% 100% Total LAMI 50% 80% 100% Total MI NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS Substandard 70 10 35 4 119 80 35 35 0 170 Housing - Lacking complete plumbing or kitchen facilities Severely 310 300 175 110 895 30 40 55 55 180 Overcrowded - With >1.51 people per room (and complete kitchen and plumbing) Overcrowded - 750 625 635 255 2265 25 80 250 205 560 With 1.01 -1.5 people per room (and none of the above problems) Consolidated Plan I P a g e 22 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 88 2. Housing Problems 2 (Households with one or more Severe Housing Problems: Lacks kitchen or complete plumbing, severe overcrowding, severe cost burden) Table 9. Housing Problems 2 Renter Owner �- WW_ Owner :0 >30- >50- :0 NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS :0 Description 0-30% Having 1 or more of four housing 5,400 3,195 1,750 385 10,730 1,290 1,755 3,075 1,585 7,705 50% 80% 100% 50% 80% 100% Total _Alan. AMI AMI AMI 1,dkM_1__AMI 5,440 2,540 12,030 AMI 3,540 Housing cost 4,265 2,265 905 15 7,450 1,155 1,605 2,720 1,330 6,810 burden greater Household has negative income, 195 0 0 0 195 240 0 0 than 50% of 240 but none of the other housing income (and problems none of the Data Source:2006 -2010 CHAS above problems) Housing cost 725 2,225 2,960 925 6,835 435 470 1,230 1,730 3,865 burden greater than 30% of income (and none of the above problems) Zero /negative 195 0 0 0 195 240 0 0 0 240 Income (and none of the above problems) Data Source:2006 -2010 CHAS Note: CHAS data was developed with sample data. Due to the smaller sample size, the CHAS data presented may have significant margins of error, particularly for smaller geographies. The intent of the data is to show general proportions of household need, not exact numbers. 2. Housing Problems 2 (Households with one or more Severe Housing Problems: Lacks kitchen or complete plumbing, severe overcrowding, severe cost burden) Table 9. Housing Problems 2 Note: CHAS data was developed with sample data. Due to the smaller sample size, the CHAS data presented may have significant margins of error, particularly for smaller geographies. The intent of the data is to show general proportions of household need, not exact numbers. Consolidated Plan I P a g e 23 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 89 Owner �- WW_ :� :0 NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS Having 1 or more of four housing 5,400 3,195 1,750 385 10,730 1,290 1,755 3,075 1,585 7,705 problems Having none of four housing 1,385 2,665 5,440 2,540 12,030 1,030 1,600 3,540 3,510 9,680 problems Household has negative income, 195 0 0 0 195 240 0 0 0 240 but none of the other housing problems Data Source:2006 -2010 CHAS Note: CHAS data was developed with sample data. Due to the smaller sample size, the CHAS data presented may have significant margins of error, particularly for smaller geographies. The intent of the data is to show general proportions of household need, not exact numbers. Consolidated Plan I P a g e 23 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 89 3. Cost Burden > 30% Table 10. Cost Burden > 30% Description Owner >50- 0 AMI 0-30% Owner 1 >30- AMA JM • :01, NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS Small Related 2,950 3,040 2,340 8,330 400 1,115 2,000 3,515 Large Related 570 620 665 1,855 100 240 1,155 1,495 Elderly 1,395 610 475 2,480 855 575 635 2,065 Other 1,145 1,025 710 2,880 275 250 380 905 Total need by income 6,060 5,295 4,190 15,545 1,630 2,180 4,170 7,980 Data Source: 2006 -2010 CHAS Note: CHAS data was developed with sample data. Due to the smaller sample size, the CHAS data presented may have significant margins of error, particularly for smaller geographies. The intent of the data is to show general proportions of household need, not exact numbers. 4. Cost Burden > 50% Table 11. Cost Burden > 50% f'Description'JMS Renter >50- 0 AMI 0-30% Owner 1 >30- AMA JM • :01, NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS Small Related 2,755 1,445 565 4,765 335 990 1,345 2,670 Large Related 530 375 60 965 100 160 840 1,100 Elderly 915 325 145 1,385 525 335 390 1,250 Other 1,050 465 165 1,680 225 190 270 685 Total need by income 5,250 2,610 935 8,795 1,185 1,675 2,845 5,705 Data Source: 2006 -2010 CHAS Note: CHAS data was developed with sample data. Due to the smaller sample size, the CHAS data presented may have significant margins of error, particularly for smaller geographies. The intent of the data is to show general proportions of household need, not exact numbers. 5. Crowding (More than one person per room) Table 12. Crowding Information (more than one person per room) IL - IL� 7. • :01, oil NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS Single family households 860 675 720 285 2,540 55 105 220 115 495 Multiple, unrelated family households 145 255 95 80 575 0 15 85 145 245 Other, non - family households 60 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 Total need by income 1,065 930 815 365 3,175 55 120 305 260 740 Consolidated Plan I P a g e 24 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 90 Data Source: 2006 -2010 CHAS Note: CHAS data was developed with sample data. Due to the smaller sample size, the CHAS data presented may have significant margins of error, particularly for smaller geographies. The intent of the data is to show general proportions of household need, not exact numbers. Describe the number and type of single person households in need of housing assistance. The U.S. Census Bureau defines a household as all of the people who occupy a housing unit. A household is different than a housing unit. A housing unit is a house, an apartment, a mobile home, a group of rooms, or a single room occupied (or if vacant, intended for occupancy) as separate living quarters. A household consists of all the people who occupy a housing unit. In 2010, there were 73,633 households in the City, up from 57,626 in 2000. HUD defines a household as containing one or more people. All persons occupying a housing unit constitute a household. A householder is one of the people who owns or rents the residence. Two types of households are defined by HUD, family and nonfamily. A family household has at least two members related by birth, marriage, or adoption, one of whom is the householder. A nonfamily household can be either a person living alone or a householder who shares the housing unit only with nonrelatives —for example, boarders or roommates. The nonrelatives of the householder may be related to each other. According to the 2010 Census, 40,465 households in Chula Vista were single - family households (see Table 6 Total Households Table). Housing Choice Voucher Program The Housing Authority of the County of San Diego Housing Choice Voucher Program (formerly known as Section 8) serves the City of Chula Vista and provides rent subsidies for very low- income households. The Housing Choice Voucher Program provides rental subsidies to very low- income persons that spend more than 30 percent of their gross income on housing costs. As of December 2014, the Housing Authority provided Housing Choice Voucher rental assistance to 1115 elderly, 2,380 small family, and 394 large family (5 or more in the household). The Housing Authority of the County of San Diego has an extensive waiting list. The wait for rental assistance is several years, averaging about 10 years. There are over 9,794 Chula Vista residents waiting for Section 8 rental assistance. Homeless According to Regional Task Force on the Homeless (RTFH) We All Count (Point in Time Count 2014), in Chula Vista, there were 32 persons living in an Emergency Shelter, 0 living in a Safe Haven, and 131 in Transitional Housing. The total amount of persons sheltered was 163. A total of 342 were listed as unsheltered. Of this amount, 97 were individuals, 103 were identified as living in their car /truck /RV /Van, and 35 persons were identified as living in Hand Built Structures /Tents. The RTFH conduct individual surveys of clients to identify how many persons are living in on streets are veterans, the reason for homelessness, whether they have a source of income. Many of the persons surveyed stated the downturn in the economy as a reason for homelessness. Estimate the number and type of families in need of housing assistance who are disabled or victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking. The City of Chula Vista defers to Census Data information to estimate the number of families in need of housing assistance. A review of Census Data and HUD's datasets, indicates this data is not readily available. In researching other databases and non - profit organizations calls to serves, there were 1,163 calls for domestic violence assistance in Chula Vista (see Table 12 below). Consolidated Plan I P a g e 25 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 91 Table 13. Domestic Violence Calls for Assistance, by City: 1998 to 2012 z,coo 2,500 2,000 iu .v 1,500 2 1,000 500 d # .. a. ', i s . a Definition: Number of domestic violence calls for assistance from residents of all ages, by city. Data Source: As cited on kidsdata.orq, California Dept. of Justice, Criminal Justice Statistics Center, Domestic Violence - Related Calls for Assistance Database (1998 -2009) and California Criminal Justice Profiles, 2010, 2011, and 2012. Accessed at http: / /oag.ca.gov/ crime /cjsc /criminal - justice - profiles (Jun. 2013). The City also consulted with 2 -1 -1 San Diego for data on domestic violence needs. From the time period July 2014 to March 2015, 429 calls were received by 2 -1 -1 operators (callers) who were experiencing a domestic violence situation with 427 domestic violence needs identified from transitional housing needs. The greatest needs were those seeking Transitional Housing /Shelter (315) to those seeking Domestic Violence shelters (60). Hence, the estimated need is difficult to gauge since many victims may seek assistance from faith based institutions, friends and family, or seek services from non - profit organizations. In addition, not all victims fall into the income levels to meet HUD eligibility criteria to access the following programs: • ESG funds (must be below 30% AMI), • Section HCV and Public Housing (below 50% AM I) • Other affordable housing programs with income restrictions usually below 60% AMI. What are the most common housing problems? The cost of housing in a community is directly correlated to the number of housing problems and affordability issues. High housing costs can price low- income families out of the market, cause extreme cost burdens, or force households into over - crowded or substandard conditions. According to the National Association of Home Builders' (NAHB) Housing Opportunity Index (HOI), which tracks the ability of households to afford a home, the San Diego - Carlsbad -San Marcos Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) was Consolidated Plan I P a g e 26 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 92 the 10th least affordable metropolitan area in the U.S. in the fourth quarter of last year with just 25 percent of households able to afford a median priced home. The median priced home in San Diego County (in the fourth quarter of last year) is $430,000. This is 59% higher than the recession -era low in 2009. In addition, the median household income for the San Diego - Carlsbad- Marcos (MSA) is approximately $73,000. The median price of homes sold was the 14th highest in the nation, but San Diego's median household income ranked 54tH The most common housing problems are: • A housing cost burden greater than 30% of income; • A housing cost burden greater than 50% of income; • Overcrowding; • Median Household income remains flat and homes prices have steadily increased; and • Rising housing prices are straining household budgets. HUD defines a household that spends more than 30 percent of gross annual income on housing as experiencing a housing "cost burden." Households spending more than 50 percent are considered to be "severely cost - burdened." Housing cost burdens occur when housing costs increase faster than household income. When a household spends more than 30 percent of its income on housing costs, it has less disposable income for other necessities such as health care. In the event of unexpected circumstances, such as loss of employment and health problems, lower - income households with a severe housing cost burden are more likely to become homeless. Homeowners with a housing cost burden have the option of selling the homes and become renters. Renters, on the other hand, are vulnerable and subject to constant changes in the housing market. As housing costs rise, the amount of available income available for car purchases, entertainment, and other purchases has a stain on the area economy. IOVERCROWDING In response to a mismatch between household income and housing costs in a community, some households may not be able to buy or rent housing that provides a reasonable level of privacy and space. Residents may accept smaller -sized housing or double up with other families to afford the housing costs. The federal government defines overcrowding as a situation where a household has more members than habitable rooms in a unit. An overcrowded household is defined as one with more than one person per room, excluding bathrooms, kitchens, hallways, and porches. Severely overcrowded households are households with more than 1.5 persons per room. Overcrowding contributes to increases in traffic within a neighborhood, accelerates deterioration of homes and infrastructure, can overburden utilities and services such as sewers, and results in a shortage of on -site parking. The Housing Problems Table displays the prevalence of overcrowding in Chula Vista. As indicated by the 2006 -2010 CHAS, 895 households (renters) in Chula Vista experienced severe overcrowding, with greater than 1.51 people per room. 2265 households (renters) experienced overcrowding (with 1.01 -1.05) people per room. Chula Vista homeowners experience less over - crowding conditions. The extent of overcrowding varies significantly by income, type, and size of household. Generally, very low- and low- income households and large families are disproportionately affected by overcrowding. However, cultural differences also contribute to overcrowding conditions since some cultures tend to have larger household sizes. Overcrowding is typically more prevalent among renters than among owners. Consolidated Plan I P a g e 27 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 93 COST BURDEN State and federal standards specify that households spending more than 30 percent of gross annual income on housing experience a housing cost burden. Federal and state agencies use overpayment indicators to determine the extent and level of funding and support that should be allocated to a community. Housing cost burdens occur when housing costs increase faster than household income. When a household spends more than 30 percent of its income on housing costs, it has less disposable income for other necessities such as health care. In the event of unexpected circumstances such as loss of employment and health problems, lower- income households with a burdensome housing cost are more likely to become homeless. Homeowners with a housing cost burden have the option of selling the homes and become renters. Renters, on the other hand, are vulnerable and subject to constant changes in the housing market. Are any populations /household types more affected than others by these problems? Populations The 2011 American Community Survey (ACS) data (2009 -2011) show that Hispanic workers living in Chula Vista had lower median earnings than Asians and Whites and the population as a whole. If person has lower median earnings they are more likely to experience a cost burden greater than 30% - 50% of income. Populations in the San Diego County region most affected by housing problems are low- income households, single parent households, seniors; disabled persons - particularly those who suffer from mental illness; persons with alcohol or substance abuse issues, and victims of domestic violence. Household Types Age The estimate average age of residents in Chula Vista is 34.3 years. According to the 2010 Census, a majority (59 percent) of the City's population were between the ages of 21 to 64. Children and teens aged 0 -20 years compromised 31 percent of the population, and seniors age 65 and over, represented 10 percent of the City's population. Special Needs Populations In addition to the age of the population, another important characteristic of the population are those with special needs, including individuals with physical, emotional, or psychological disabilities. The U.S. Census reports that 6 percent of Chula Vista's population had a disability. Household Size The City's average household size is increasing. In 2010, Chula Vista's average household size was 3.21 persons per household, increasing from 2.99 persons per household in 2000. In comparison, San Diego County as a whole had an estimated household size of 2.75 in 2010. With growing household sizes and overcrowding experienced by many Chula Vista residents, where feasible given the limited resources available, large household sizes those with 3 or more persons per household are in need of some type of affordable housing. The lack of units with a large number of bedrooms, especially for rental housing limits housing choices for large families and can contribute to overcrowding. Consolidated Plan I P a g e 28 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 94 Describe the characteristics and needs of Low - income individuals and families with children (especially extremely low- income) who are currently housed but are at imminent risk of either residing in shelters or becoming unsheltered 91.205(c)191.305(c)). Also discuss the needs of formerly homeless families and individuals who are receiving rapid re- housing assistance and are nearing the termination of that assistance. Based on data compiled by the RTFH's September 2014 San Diego Homeless Profile, at risk groups includes the following: • Those with severe mental health issues (36 percent of homeless adults). • Those with high level of substance abuse issues (19 percent of homeless adults). • Those with HIV /AIDS (17 percent of homeless adults). • Victims of domestic violence (22 percent of homeless adults). • Military Veterans (20 percent of homeless adults). • Families with at least one child (24 percent of homeless adults). • Older adults (26 percent of unsheltered homeless adults were 55years of age or older). • Race (16 percent of unsheltered homeless adults were African - American although 6 percent of the region's population is African - American). If a jurisdiction provides estimates of the at -risk population(s), it should also include a description of the operational definition of the at -risk group and the methodology used to generate the estimates: The City of Chula Vista does not have data on the estimated number of at -risk populations and relies on other data sources such the Homeless Point in Time Count the 2014 San Diego Regional Homeless Profile(s) published by the Regional Task Force on the Homeless. Also discuss the needs of formerly homeless families and individuals who are receiving rapid re- housing assistance and are nearing the termination of that assistance. The City uses its Emergency Shelter Grant funds for Emergency Shelters and Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re- Housing. However, each of these programs has program limits. The needs of those reaching the end of their shelter stay, homeless prevention /rapid re- housing assistance vary from household to household depending on a number of factors, including whether they continue to experience characteristics outlined above for populations at- risk of homelessness. If these issues continue, then their needs mirror the needs of at -risk populations as outlined above. According to the CoC, follow -up case management services have limited resources. However, rapid re- housing clients are encouraged to continue to maintain contact with CoC providers who offer other supports that may be needed to maintain stable independent housing, such as employment or education services, budgeting and tax preparation, food and other tangible needs or mainstream supports. The City of Chula Vista Rapid Re- Housing program allows funding to assist approximately 7 households. The program also provides case managers assigned to each client to assist them with applying for mainstream resources such as affordable housing, Housing Choice Voucher Program, Tenant Based Rental Assistance, affordable health care, food stamps, and other resources to ensure the clients are transitioned into permanent Consolidated Plan I P a g e 29 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 95 housing. A few of these clients also receive extensive case management services by the County of San Diego's behavioral health provider Telecare. The Cooperation for Supportive Housing provides technical assistance to the County to ensure that the program between all parties is successful to ensure clients remain healthy and do not return to homelessness. Since, the Rapid Re- Housing partnership is relatively new, the City does not have any historical data at this time. The RCCC supports continued to support this Rapid Re- Housing Housing First Model. One of the impediments is that ESG Rapid Re- Housing only allows clients to be assisted for two years. Hence, if clients need additional time, the City is unable to extend their assistance. The City and other non - profits are aware of this issue and continue to seek other funding source to continue the assistance until the clients and their respective case manager feel the clients can live independently without extensive case management and have the resources to pay their monthly housing costs. The City is pursing other funding sources such as HOME TBRA or asking the County of San Diego to consider setting up a priority on the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program for these clients. However, since the County administers the Section 8 HCV program in Chula Vista it is difficult to predict if Housing First Model clients, who successfully complete their 2 years in ESG Rapid Re- Housing program, will be able to transition to an independent unit without the need for some subsidy. Specify particular housing characteristics that have been linked with instability and an increased risk of homelessness Throughout the country and the San Diego region, homelessness has increased. The RCCC has no reliable numerical estimates of at -risk groups. However, the City continues to use its ESG funding to assist those clients who are experiencing homelessness. One of the specific characteristics is mental health illness. The City continued to use the ESG program regulations and guidance to determine who is a good fit for the program and uses the following guidelines: Assist families and individuals who demonstrate: 1. An income below 30 percent of median income for the geographic area; and, 2. Insufficient resources immediately available to attain housing stability. The Regional Task Force on the Homeless (Task Force) is San Diego County's leading resource for information on issues of homelessness. Established in 1985, the Task Force promotes a regional approach as the best solution to ending homelessness in San Diego County. The Task Force is a public /private effort to build a base of understanding about the multiple causes and conditions of homelessness. Factors contributing to the rise in homelessness include: • Lack of housing affordable to low- and moderate - income persons • Increases in the number of persons whose incomes fall below the poverty level • Reductions in public subsidies to the poor • High unemployment • High rates of home foreclosures • The de- institutionalization of the mentally ill The City evaluates the survey result of the Point of Time Count to best earmark its use of its limited resources. Consolidated Plan I P a g e 30 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 96 Assess the need of any racial or ethnic group that has disproportionately greater need in comparison to the needs of that category of need as a whole. According to HUD, a "disproportionate need" exists when any group has a housing need that is 10% or higher than the jurisdiction as a whole. A household is considered having a cost burden when they are paying more than 30% of their income on housing costs, which includes utilities. This is important because the goal is to ensure equal housing opportunities for all. This goal is not achieved when there is a disproportionate need. 0 % -30% of Area Median Income Table 14. Disproportionally Greater Need 0 - 30% AMI JrHousing P!roblems Jurisdiction as a whole Has one or more of four housing problems h. 6,790 I Has none of the Household has no/negative four housing income, but none of the other problems . problems 1,105 390 White 1,350 (19.88 %) 355 (32.13 %) 105 (26.92 %) Black / African American 225 (3.31%) 4(.36%) 10(2.56%) Asian 375 (5.52%) 105(9.50%) 60(15.38%) American Indian, Alaska Native 10(2.67%) 4(3.81%) 4(6.67%) Pacific Islander 0(0.00%) 0(0.00%) 0(0.00%) Hispanic 4,735 (69.73 %) 625 (56.56 %) 200(51.28% Data Source: 2006 -2010 CHAS Note: CHAS data was developed with sample data. Due to the smaller sample size, the CHAS data presented may have significant margins of error, particularly for smaller geographies. The intent of the data is to show general proportions of household need, not exact numbers. *The four housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than one person per room, 4.Cost Burden greater than 30% 30% -50% of Area Median Income Table 15. Disproportionally Greater Need 30 - 50% AMI rHousing Problems ,,, Jurisdiction as a whole Household has no/negative housing problems 6,345 ,, housing problems 11 1,460 problems 0 White 1,515 (23.88 %) 490 (33.56 %) 0 Black / African American 490(7.72%) 25(1.71%) 0 Asian 370(5.83%) 115(7.88%) 0 American Indian, Alaska Native 55(.87%) 0(0.00%) 0 Pacific Islander 0(0.00%) 0(0.00%) 0 Hispanic 3,845 (60.60 %) 790 (54.11 %) 0 Data Source: 2006 -2010 CHAS Consolidated Plan I :) a g e 31 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 97 Note: CHAS data was developed with sample data. Due to the smaller sample size, the CHAS data presented may have significant margins of error, particularly for smaller geographies. The intent of the data is to show general proportions of household need, not exact numbers. *The four housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than one person per room, and 4.Cost Burden greater than 30% 50% -80% of Area Median Income Table 16. Disproportionally Greater Need 50 - 80% AMI I Rousing .. Jurisdiction as a whole rHas one or morelprHas problems 8,290 none of the Household has no/negative problems . problems 3,940 0 White 1,800 (21.71 %) 1,545 (39.21 %) 0 Black / African American 725 (8.75%) 230(5.84%) 0 Asian 860 (10.37 %) 290(7.36%) 0 American Indian, Alaska Native 0(0.00%) 0(0.00%) 0 Pacific Islander 100(1.21%) 10(.25%) 0 Hispanic 4,720 (56.94 %) 1,795 (45.56 %) 0 Data Source: 2006 -2010 CHAS Note: CHAS data was developed with sample data. Due to the smaller sample size, the CHAS data presented may have significant margins of error, particularly for smaller geographies. The intent of the data is to show general proportions of household need, not exact numbers. *The four housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than one person per room, and 4.Cost Burden greater than 30% 80% -100% of Area Median Income Table 17. Disproportionally Greater Need 80 - 100% AMI KHousing Problems Jurisdiction as a whole I Has one or more problems 4,510 I Has none of the Household has no/negative problems . problems 3,165 0 White 1,180 (26.16 %) 1,160 (36.65 %) 0 Black / African American 160(3.55%) 75(2.37%) 0 Asian 435(9.65%) 230(7.27%) 0 American Indian, Alaska Native 30(.67%) 4(.13%) 0 Pacific Islander 35(.78%) 35(1.11%) 0 Hispanic 2,630 (58.31 %) 1,610 (50.87 %) Data Source: 2006 -2010 CHAS Note: CHAS data was developed with sample data. Due to the smaller sample size, the CHAS data presented may have significant margins of error, particularly for smaller geographies. The intent of the data is to show general proportions of household need, not exact numbers. Consolidated Plan I :) a g e 32 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 98 *The four housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than one person per room and 4.Cost Burden greater than 30% Discussion Among all households (incomes up to 100 percent AMI), Hispanic households were the most likely to experience a housing problem. Specifically, 69.7 percent at 0 -30 AMI level), 60.60 percent at 30 -50 percent level, 56.94 percent at the 50% to 80% AMI level, and 58.31 percent at the 80% -100% AMI level of Hispanic households experienced at least one housing problem. Asian and White households also disproportionately experienced at least one housing problem (please refer to tables above). Consolidated Plan I P a g e 33 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 99 Assess the need of any racial or ethnic group that has disproportionately greater need in comparison to the needs of that category of need as a whole. Introduction According to HUD, a "disproportionate need" exists when any group has a housing need or problem that is 10% or higher than the jurisdiction as a whole. This is important because the goal is to ensure equal housing opportunities for all. This goal is not achieved when there is a disproportionate need. According to HUD, the four severe housing problems are 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than 1.5 persons per room, 4.Cost Burden over 50 %. 0% -30% of Area Median Income Table 18. Severe Housing Problems 0 - 30% AMI rSevere Housing Problems* ILM FW Has one or more of four housing Has none of the four Household has no/negative income, Jurisdiction as a whole problems MlIIIIIIIIIIIIIft 5,980 •.. 1,920 housing problems 390 White 1,105 (18.48 %) 600 (31.25 %) 105 (26.92 %) Black / African American 215(3.60%) 20(1.04%) 10(2.56%) Asian 250(4.18%) 235 (12.24 %) 60(15.38%) American Indian, Alaska Native 10(.17%) 4(.21%) 4(1.03%) Pacific Islander 30(.50%) 0(0%) 0(0%) Hispanic 4,305 (71.99 %) 1,050 (54.69 %) 200 (51.28 %) Data Source: 2006 -2010 CHAS Note: CHAS data was developed with sample data. Due to the smaller sample size, the CHAS data presented may have significant margins of error, particularly for smaller geographies. The intent of the data is to show general proportions of household need, not exact numbers. *The four severe housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than 1.5 persons per room, and 4. Cost Burden over 50% 30% -50% of Area Median Income Table 19. Severe Housing Problems 30 - 50% AM Severe Housing Problems* Has one or morihimroblems Ikk four housing problems Has none of the Household has no /negative four housing income, but none of the other MJL housing problems Jurisdiction as a whole Black / African American . • .11, I , Consolidated Plan 1 :1 a g e 34 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 100 *The four severe housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than 1.5 persons per room, and 4. Cost Burden over 50% 50% -80% of Area Median Income Table 20. Severe Housing Problems 50 - 80% AMI Has one or more FSevere Housing Problems* problems Jurisdiction as a whole 4,145 r- Has none of the . .. lems 8,085 Household has no/negative -- housing problems 0 White 740 (17.85 %) 2,605 (32.22 %) 0 Black/ African American 315(7.60%) 640(7.92%) 0 Asian 455 (10.98 %) 700(8.66%) 0 American Indian, Alaska Native 0(0.00%) 0(0.00%) 0 Pacific Islander 80(1.93%) 35(.43%) 0 Hispanic 2,510 (60.55 %) 4,000 (49.47 %) 0 Data Source: 2006 -2010 CHAS Pacific Islander 30(1.56%) 40(.70%) Note: CHAS data was developed with sample data. Due to the smaller sample size, the CHAS data presented may have significant margins of error, particularly for smaller geographies. The intent of the data is to show general proportions of household need, not exact numbers. *The four severe housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than 1.5 persons per room, and 4. Cost Burden over 50% 80% -100% of Area Median Income Table 21. Severe Housing Problems 80 - 100% AN Severe Housing Problems* one Has none of the four .. has no/negative Jurisdiction as a whole ... 1,925 5,750 problems 0 White 355 (18.44 %) 1,975 (34.35 %) 0 Black / African American 45(2.34%) 185(3.22%) 0 Asian 245 (12.73 %) 415(7.22%) 0 American Indian, Alaska 30(1.56%) 4(.07%) 0 Native Pacific Islander 30(1.56%) 40(.70%) 0 Hispanic 1,185 (61.56 %) 3,060 (53.22 %) 0 Data Source: 2006 -2010 CHAS Consolidated Plan I :) a g e 35 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 101 Note: CHAS data was developed with sample data. Due to the smaller sample size, the CHAS data presented may have significant margins of error, particularly for smaller geographies. The intent of the data is to show general proportions of household need, not exact numbers. *The four severe housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than 1.5 persons per room, and 4. Cost Burden over 50% Discussion Hispanic households were most likely to experience at least one severe housing problem. 58% of the City's residents are Hispanic. Hispanic households in every income category experience severe housing problems more than any other racial or ethnic group in Chula Vista. Please refer to the severe housing problems tables listed above. Assess the need of any racial or ethnic group that has disproportionately greater need in comparison to the needs of that category of need as a whole. Introduction: According to HUD, a "disproportionate need" exists when any group has a housing need that is 10% or higher than the jurisdiction as a whole. A household is considered having a cost burden when they are paying more than 30% of their income on housing costs, which includes utilities. This is important because the goal is to ensure equal housing opportunities for all. This goal is not achieved when there is a disproportionate need. Housing Cost Burden Table 22. Greater Need: Housing Cost Burdens AMI rHouLing Cost Burden h.. . :JrrJ1L Jurisdiction as a whole =301%, 31,345 0-50% It 20,295 >50% OL 15,195 computed) No / negative income (not 425 White 12,635 (40.31 %) 5,800 (28.58 %) 3,315 (21.82 %) 105 Black/ African American 1,230 (3.92%) 1,280 (6.31%) 875(5.76%) 10 Asian 3,860 (12.31 %) 2,820 (13.90 %) 1,430 (9.41%) 60 American Indian, Alaska Native 160(.51%) 40(.20%) 65(.43%) 4 Pacific Islander 205(.65%) 135(.67%) 70(.46%) 0 Hispanic 12,665 (40.41 %) 9,960 (49.08% 9,215 (60.64 %) 235 Data Source: 2006 -2010 CHAS Note: CHAS data was developed with sample data. Due to the smaller sample size, the CHAS data presented may have significant margins of error, particularly for smaller geographies. The intent of the data is to show general proportions of household need, not exact numbers. Discussion: Consolidated Plan I P a g e 36 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 102 Overall, 40.41 percent of Hispanic households and 40.31 percent white Chula Vista households (see Table 21) are paying less than 30% of their income towards housing costs. 49% of Chula Vista Hispanic households had a housing cost burden (spent more than 30 percent of gross household income on housing), followed by white households at 28.58 %, and Asian households paying 13.90 %. About 60.64 percent of Hispanic households are experienced a severe housing cost burden (spent more than 50 percent of gross household income on housing). 21.82 percent of white households experience a severe cost burden. Hispanics were the most likely group to experience a housing cost burden than any other group. Are there any Income categories in which a racial or ethnic group has disproportionately greater need than the needs of that income category as a whole? As previously stated, Hispanic households experience a disproportionately greater need than the needs of almost every income category as a whole. If they have needs not identified above, what are those needs? The need would be to narrow the gaps that leave families with children, people with disabilities, and people of different races, colors, and national origins with more severe housing problems, aka., disproportionate housing needs. Are any of those racial or ethnic groups located in specific areas or neighborhoods in your community? Due to the fact that Hispanic households experience a disproportionately greater need than the needs of almost every income category as a whole, these households tend to be located in the City's CDBG qualifying tracts. Consolidated Plan I P a g e 37 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 103 Introduction - Totals in Use *includes Non - Elderly Disabled, Mainstream One -Year, Mainstream Five -year, and Nursing Home Transition Data Source: PIC (PIH Information Center) Characteristics of Residents Table 24. Characteristics of Public lhb� Housing Residents Certificate Mawuh� by Mod- Program Type Program IMe Public MR11ouchers Purpose based Supportive Affairs JoiHousing Unification .• Average Annual Income 0 $12,491 $18,844 $15,253 0 $15,270 $13,174 0 Average length of stay 0 3 6 6 0 6 0 0 Average Household size 0 2 2 2 0 2 1 0 # Homeless at admission 0 0 2 3 0 3 0 0 # of Elderly Program Participants ( >62) 0 18 47 3,465 0 3,432 14 0 # of Disabled Families 0 12 23 2,885 0 2,828 33 0 # of Families requesting accessibility 0 83 117 10,566 0 10,411 110 0 features # of HIV /AIDS program participants 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 # of DV victims 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Data Source:PIC (PIH Information Center) 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 104 Race of Residents Table 25. Race of Public Housing Residents by Program Type Ethnicity of Residents Table 26. Ethnicity of Public Housing Residents by Program Type Program Type Ethnicity Certificate . Mod-_"rublic Rehab Housing Iq Special Purpose Voucher Veterans Family Disabled Affairs Unification I Supportive Program Housing Not Hispanic *includes Non-Elderly Disabled, Mainstream One-Year, Mainstream Five-year, and Nursing Home Transition Data Source: PIC (PIH Information Center) 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 105 Section 504 Needs Assessment: Describe the needs of public housing tenants and applicants on the waiting list for accessible units: Most immediate needs of residents of Public Housing and Housing Choice voucher holders How do these needs compare to the housing needs of the population at large The Housing Authority of the San Diego (HACSD) owns and administers 4 public housing rental complexes located in the City of Chula Vista; with a total of 121 units. The units are available to low - income families, senior citizens and disabled persons: • Dorothy Street Manor (22 family units located in Chula Vista) • L Street Manor(16 family units located in Chula Vista) • Melrose Manor Apartments (24 family units located in Chula Vista) • Town Centre Manor(59 senior units located in Chula Vista) In addition, the HACSD manages the Housing Choice Voucher program in the City of Chula Vista. As of the period ending December 31, the following numbers of people are leased under the HCV Program. Table 27. Housing Choice Voucher Participants Table 28. Housing Choice Voucher Waiting List As outlined in the HACSD 2015 -19 PHAPlan, FY2014 -15 update, and the Section 8 Administrative Plan, these respective plans describe the procedures for public housing tenants and applicants on the waiting list to request an accessible unit. The HACSD continues to offer scholarships to public housing residents who are attending two -or four - year colleges or vocational training. For the 2013 -14 school year, 11 students were awarded a total of $3,500 in scholarships. In the past five years, the scholarship program has awarded over $25,000 to 38 students. In order to stimulate public housing resident interest and involvement, the HACSD produces monthly public housing resident newsletters. The news letters publicize important information of interest to the residents, such as ROSS grant programs, activities and achievements. Consolidated Plan 1 40 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 106 Housing Choice 1,115 2,830 394 3,224 Voucher Program Table 28. Housing Choice Voucher Waiting List As outlined in the HACSD 2015 -19 PHAPlan, FY2014 -15 update, and the Section 8 Administrative Plan, these respective plans describe the procedures for public housing tenants and applicants on the waiting list to request an accessible unit. The HACSD continues to offer scholarships to public housing residents who are attending two -or four - year colleges or vocational training. For the 2013 -14 school year, 11 students were awarded a total of $3,500 in scholarships. In the past five years, the scholarship program has awarded over $25,000 to 38 students. In order to stimulate public housing resident interest and involvement, the HACSD produces monthly public housing resident newsletters. The news letters publicize important information of interest to the residents, such as ROSS grant programs, activities and achievements. Consolidated Plan 1 40 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 106 In FY2012- 13, the HACSD was awarded $243,000 ROSS Service Coordinator grant. The grant funds a service coordinator to coordinate supportive services and other activities designed to help and encourage the involvement of public housing residents in attaining economic and housing self - sufficiency. The coordinator provides services to residents of the HACSD's 117 rent - restricted public housing units. Services provided, thus far, include assistance in establishing a food delivery program to the senior /disabled complex, disaster preparedness plans, vials of life to record pertinent medical information ,resume' building workshops, access to career fairs, community resource guides, resources to provide low cost eyeglasses and assistance with the disability benefits application process. Services were provided to 126 residents in FY2013 -14. As discussed in the PHA plan, public housing residents are encouraged to join the Resident Advisory Board (RAB), which meets several times a year. In FY2013 -2014, public housing and /or HCV program participants attended the October 2013 RAB meeting and nine attended the December 2013 meeting. In FY2014 -15, according to the draft 2015 PHA Plan annual update, RAB meetings were held in October and December 2014 with a combined total of 39 attendees. RAB meeting topics included the public housing scholarship program, the public housing budget, 2015 Consolidated Plan overview, fair housing, security deposit and homeless assistance, communication barriers for those with limited English proficiency, family self- sufficiency, the ROSS grant, efforts to end homelessness, and the new on -line application portal. Annually, residents are encouraged to attend a Capital Funding and Resident Services meeting. The November 2013 meeting discussed the many services available to residents including: transportation to medical appointments and stores, transportation to domestic violence groups, senior /disabled transportation to special events on weekends, emergency food assistance, employment services, fair housing services, clothing assistance as well as many other services. The residents were informed about proposed capital improvement activities, educated on the benefits of the joining the ROSS program, asked for input on needed capital improvements, and encouraged to conserve water and make energy efficiency a priority. In November2014, according to the draft 2015 PHA Plan, discussion topics included the public housing Real Estate Assessment Center(REAC) score of 96 percent, coordinating community services to provide residents with needed resources, the needs of residents, and the monthly news- letter. For additional information, please visit the County of San Diego's Department of Housing and Community Development website at www.sdhcd.com or call their offices. Public Housing and Section 8 (Housing Choice Voucher) Information County of San Diego Housing Authority of the County of San Diego 3989 Ruffin Road San Diego, CA 92123 (858) 694 -4801 or toll free at (877) 478 -LIST Consolidated Plan 1 41 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 107 Introduction: The Regional Task Force on the Homeless (Task Force) is San Diego County's leading agency for information on issues of homelessness. Established in 1985, the Task Force promotes a regional approach as the best solution to ending homelessness in San Diego County. The Task Force is a public /private effort to build a base of understanding about the multiple causes and conditions of homelessness. According to the Task Force, the San Diego region's homeless population can be divided into two general groups: 1) urban homeless and 2) rural homeless, including farm workers and day laborers who live in the hillsides, canyons, and fields of the northern regions of the county. It is important to recognize that homeless individuals may fall into more than one category (e.g., a homeless individual may be a veteran and a substance abuser), making it difficult to accurately quantify and categorize the homeless. The homeless population is very difficult to quantify. Census information on homeless populations is often unreliable due to the difficulty of efficiently counting a population without permanent residences. Given this impediment, local estimates of the homeless and anecdotal information are often where population numbers of the homeless come from. The Task Force produces estimates that are obtained using observations of homeless service providers; estimates from local officials; reports from local surveys and studies; utilization rates of homeless facilities, services, and meal programs; and estimated counts of persons observed at known location. The Regional Task Force on the Homeless conducted a Point -In -Time (PIT) count in 2014 which resulted in an estimate of 8,506 individuals who are homeless in the San Diego region (both sheltered and living on the street). In Chula Vista, 342 homeless persons were identified living on the streets during the 2014PIT count. Among neighboring cities, the City of Imperial Beach(48) had the lowest homeless count, while City of San Diego and National City (284) had the highest homeless counts. In addition to the homeless population living in shelters or on the streets, many residents —due to high housing cost, economic hardships, or physical limitations— live on the brink of homelessness yet are housed temporarily through friends or families. Experts estimate that 2 to 3 families are on the verge of homelessness for every family staying in a homeless shelter. The "at- risk" population is comprised of families and individuals living in poverty, who, upon loss of employment or other emergency requiring financial reserves, would lose their housing and become homeless. These families are generally experiencing a housing cost burden, paying more than 30 percent of their income for housing. According to the 2009 -2013 American Community Survey estimates, 24.20 percent of the City's renters earn less than $19,999 per year and may fall under the extremely low- income renter - households category (0 -30% AMI). Approximately 57 percent of the City's residents are very low or low income renters earning between $20,000 to $74,999). Estimated earnings for households living in owner occupied units is 13.80 percent fall below $0 to $19,999 per year, and 42.70 percent fall under the $20,000 to $74,999 range. 38.9 percent of owner occupied units are paying over $2,000 or more in monthly housing costs. 15.9 percent of renters are paying over $2,000 or more in housing costs. A large majority of renters are paying more than 30% of their income in rent. Residents earning less than $49,999 have the highest percentage of paying over 30% of their income in rent. These households are considered most vulnerable and at risk of becoming homeless. Consolidated Plan 1 42 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 108 If data is not available for the categories "number of persons becoming and exiting homelessness each year," and "number of days that persons experience homelessness," describe these categories for each homeless population type (including chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth): Response: The Regional Task Force on the Homeless collects data using HMIS to track the number of persons becoming and existing homelessness each year. However, due to the transient nature of this population moving from one place to another, it is difficult to gauge how many new homeless persons are entering our region that may be receiving services from a neighboring jurisdiction. The City of Chula Vista continues to work closely with the Continuum of Care to develop a Coordinated Assessment approach to providing real time data of how many homeless persons are entering homeless or who have successfully transitioned into permanent housing. Homeless Population City 014 Bonita 6 0 Total 6 2013 5 2013 0 Total 5 Chula Vista 163 342 505 194 301 495 Coronado 0 10 10 0 14 14 Imperial Beach 0 48 48 0 41 41 National City 18 266 284 29 128 157 City of San Diego 2731 2468 2468 2618 3115 5733 Unincorporated County 0 226 226 0 123 123 San Diego Region 4,521 3759 8506* 4305 4451 8879* Regional Task Force on the Homeless (RTFH) - WeALLCount(Point -In -Time Count) 2014 and 2013, *includes Unincorporated County Estimate the number and type of families in need of housing assistance for families with children and the families of veterans. Response: The Regional Task Force's 2014 San Diego Regional Homeless Profile estimates of the 2007 persons in homeless families, 68% (1,355) were sheltered in transitional housing programs, and about 17% (343) were at local emergency shelters. However, it is also estimated that approximately 15% (309) of persons in families were without any shelter on the Point in Time (PIT) date. The number of homeless veterans in San Diego County is 790 sheltered and 517 unsheltered for a total of 1307. The City continued to work with the local Continuum of Care to assist populations who are unsheltered. Describe the Nature and Extent of Homelessness by Racial and Ethnic Group. Response: The Regional Task Force's 2014 San Diego Regional Homeless Profile estimates the following characteristics of unsheltered homeless that were surveyed in the 2014 PIT. Consolidated Plan 1 43 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 109 Table 30. Demographics Characteristics of Unsheltered Homeless Surveyed Adult Households Characteristics # of Individuals Percentage of Total 74.00/a 25.40/6 0 -3% 03% 5.1% 1220/e 16.6 1/6 32.70/a 22.3% 4.0% Characteristics # of Individuals Percentage of Total Gender Ethnicity Male 550 HupammILahne Na, H,,p i,1I -afro, Messing 146 546 51 19.70/o 73.5% 6.9% Female 189 Trrsns der 2 Missitt 2 Age Group Education 1824 38 K-Sth Grade Sorue Hg& Schaal Hi ,0 Schoal Graduak GE-+D Completed Trade Schaol Sarre College (.r2yr. degee) College Grnd (4 yr. degree) Past Graduate Other 1Aefused1Mi ing 48 162 207 67 11 169 66 9 4 6.5% 21.8% 27.9% 9.0% 1.511/. 22.7% 8.9% 1.2% 0.5% 15-34 91 35-" 123 4554 243 5544 166 65+ 30 Missing 52 7.0% 0.8% 16.0% 03% 52% 3 -0% 69.7% 5.0% Race Asian 6 African- Anaerisan/Bfnck 119 Mixed Baer or Other 2 NahwAmencanorAlaskam 39 Pacific Inlander 22 518 Wbdw Hrfased/Zlnkxo" 37 Source: 2014 San Diego Regional Homeless Profile http: / /www.rtfhsd.org /publications/ Consolidated Plan 1 44 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 110 Table 31. 2014 Total Sheltered and Unsheltered Count by San Diego Region Hor22eless Persor2s San Diego County Regior2s Sheltered Unsheltered Total % by Region Cdy of San Dug. 2731 3Varth Caunh Irrlsard 769 2468 5799 61.1% 263 1024 12.0% Saut$ Carroty 787 Last G aunty I 476 IVarih Corrtiy Coastal 426 666 316 8.5.3 J94 10.0% 9.3 la 210 3985 636 8506 7.3% 100% San Diego County 4521 Source: 2014 San Diego Regional Homeless Profile http: / /www.rtfhsd.org /publications/ Figure 2: 2014 Point -In -Time count Regional Breakdown of Homelessness in San Diego County (Chula Vista within the South County) PA=RCM , NORTH COUNTY Bma INLAND NGRTH CouNTY COASTAL _ 1,024 (12.0 %) 636 (T.5 °fa) ( OL'lANyL VLSfA SA[: MARf� - F�NDIDD CART -58AD n _ EFCal'fA4 SAN DIEGU $AhwNA POWAY D 6 EAST COUNTY CITY OF SAN DIEGO CITY OF 7 SAN DIFao 794 (9.3 %) ALPINE 5,199 (61.1 %) Ei Cuter CRESS - Ln DEHESA Id.— VuLE Dx w_. S➢xuro ORO VALLEY C­u . IT..xi ,aiwai�. IAmm� C— (.KUU Vlsrx SOUTH COUNTY c 853(10.0' *E! x Source: 2014 San Diego Regional Homeless Profile http: / /www.rtfhsd.org /publications/ Consolidated Plan 1 45 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 111 Describe the Nature and Extent of Unsheltered and Sheltered Homelessness. Discussion: The Regional Task Force on the Homeless conducted a Point -In -Time (PIT) count in 2014 which resulted in an estimate of 8,506 individuals who are homeless in the San Diego region (both sheltered and living on the street). This represents a regional decrease of 4.2% since the PIT count in 2013 (8879 total homeless in the San Diego Region. In Chula Vista, 342 homeless persons were identified living on the streets during the 2014 PIT count and 163 living in a shelter, for a total of 505 homeless persons. In the 2013 PIT, 194 were living in a shelter and 301 were unsheltered, for a total of 495. This represents a 2% increase in the number of homeless from last year. Among neighboring cities, Imperial Beach and Coronado had the lowest homeless count, while City of San Diego and National City had the highest homeless counts. A full copy of the 2014 San Diego Homeless Profile: Veterans and the general 2014 San Diego Regional Homeless Profile can be viewed at the Regional Task Force on the Homeless website: http: / /www.rtfhsd.org /publications/ Introduction: Certain households, because of their special characteristics and needs, may require special accommodations and may have difficulty finding housing due to special needs. Special needs groups may include the elderly, persons with disabilities, persons with HIV /AIDS, female- headed households, large households, and homeless persons and persons at -risk of homelessness. The following paragraphs generally summarize the nature and extent of housing and supportive service needs of special needs groups identified in the Consolidated Plan regulations. Describe the characteristics of special needs populations in your community: Seniors: According to 2010 Census data, an estimated 34 percent of households in the City had at least one individual who was 65 years of age or older. The majority of senior householders owned their homes (21.5 percent), while 12.8 percent were renters. Seniors may be considered a special needs group because of their typically limited incomes and need for health care and other supportive services. Persons with Disabilities: According to the 2009 -2013 American Community Survey (ACS) estimates, 8.7 percent of the City's population was affected by one or more disabilities (non - institutionalized population). Among persons living with disabilities in the City, ambulatory disabilities were most prevalent (26 percent for age 65 years and over, 3.1% for 18 -64, and 0.5% 5 to 17 years), followed by cognitive disabilities (11.6% age 65 years and over, 2.8% for 18 -64, and 2.2% age 5 to 17 percent). Persons with disabilities often have limited incomes, but extensive needs for a variety of services. Furthermore, as the majority of the City's housing stock was constructed prior to 1990 (before the passage of the American with Disabilities Act), accessible housing is also limited in supply. Consolidated Plan 1 46 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 112 Large Households: Large households are those with five or more members. According to the 2010 Census, approximately 38.5 percent of the households in Chula Vista were large households (4 or more). Large households may experience overcrowding or cost burden issues due to lack of affordable housing. Single- Parent Households: Single- parent households, particularly female- headed families with children, often require special consideration and assistance because of their greater need for affordable housing and accessible day care, health care, and other supportive services. Female- headed families with children are a particularly vulnerable group because they must balance the needs of their children with work responsibilities, often while earning limited incomes. As of 2010, an estimated 17.9 percent of Chula Vista households were headed by single parents; 7.7 percent of were headed by males, and 10.2 percent were headed by females. Victims of Domestic Violence: Many single women and women with children become homeless as the result of domestic violence. According to the 2012 PIT Count for the County, it is estimated that nearly 1,080 homeless adults were a victim of domestic violence at some point in the past, and an estimated 600 adult domestic violence victims were unsheltered on the night of Describe the characteristics of special needs populations in your community and state what the housing and supportive service needs of these populations are and how are these needs determined? Certain groups have more difficulty in finding decent, affordable housing due to their special circumstances. Special circumstances may be related to one's income earning potential, family characteristics, the presence of physical or mental disabilities, or age - related health issues. As a result, certain groups typically earn lower incomes and have higher rates of overpayment for housing, or they live in overcrowded residences. The special needs groups usually include the elderly, people with disabilities, single parents, large households, homeless people, farm workers, and students. Many of these groups overlap; for example, some veterans are homeless, but also fall into the elderly or disabled categories. The majority of these special needs groups would be assisted by an increase in affordable housing, especially housing located near transit stations. The 2013 -2020 Chula Vista Housing Element includes the central goal to assist persons with special needs in meeting their housing needs. The needs of specific population groups are addressed below: Many senior - headed households have special needs due to their relatively low incomes, disabilities or limitations, and dependency needs. Specifically, many people aged 62 years and older live alone and may have difficulty maintaining their homes, are usually retired and living on a limited income, and are more likely to have high health care costs and rely on public transportation, especially those with disabilities. The limited income of many elderly persons often makes it difficult for them to find affordable housing. In the San Diego region, the elderly spend a higher percentage of their income for food, housing, medical care, and personal care than non - elderly families. In 2010, there were 5,275 senior persons (65 years and over) living in Chula Vista. The housing needs of seniors (over 65 years of age) are diverse. Senior homeowners often have limited retirement income and /or increasing physical limitations, and could benefit from homeowner assistance. In addition to disabilities, seniors who rent housing have greater needs, in that rental assistance may be required to continue affording housing. The following affordable senior apartments are located in Chula Vista, most of which have long waiting lists (depending on affordability): Consolidated Plan 1 47 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 113 • Canterbury Court Senior Apartments; 336 C Street • Park Fifth Avenue: 364 Fifth Avenue • Town Center Manor Senior Housing (Public Housing): 464 F Street • Congregational Tower (Project Based Section 8): 288 F Street • Silvercrest Senior Apartments (Project Based Section 8): 636 Third Avenue • Seniors on Broadway 825 Broadway • Garden Villas (FKA Kiku Gardens) Senior Apartments (Project Based Section 8): 1260 Third Avenue • Oak Terrace Senior Apartments: 423 Church Avenue • Villa Serena Senior Apartments 1231 Medical Center Drive • Rolling Hills Gardens Senior Apartments: 2290 Mackenzie Creek Road Several programs address the non - housing needs of seniors in the City. • The Meals on Wheels of San Diego senior nutrition program brings meals to seniors. • Norman Park Senior Center(various services, Cool -Zone) • MAAC Project- Senior Food Program, Jacobs and Cushman San Diego Food Bank The Census Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS) identifies persons as having a disability as those who exhibit difficulty with specific functions and may, in the absence of accommodation, have a disability. According to the ACS, disability exists where this interaction results in limitations of activities and restrictions to full participation at school, at work, at home, or in the community. For example, disability may exist where a person is limited in his or her ability to work due to job discrimination against persons with specific health conditions; or, disability may exist where a child has difficulty learning because the school cannot accommodate the child's deafness. Both mentally and physically disabled residents face housing access and safety challenges. Disabled people, in most cases, are of limited incomes and often receive Social Security income only. As such, the majority of their monthly income is often devoted to housing costs. In addition, disabled persons may face difficulty finding accessible housing (housing that is made accessible to people with disabilities through the positioning of appliances and fixtures, the heights of installations and cabinets, layout of unit to facilitate wheelchair movement, etc.) because of the limited number of such units. The City works with a number of local agencies that provide housing and /or service to persons with special needs and their families including the City of Chula Vista's Recreation Department Therapeutics program. Every day, 2 -1 -1 San Diego connects residents throughout San Diego County to services that help improve the lives of those that they serve. 2 -1 -1 answered more than 111,000 calls in the first half of fiscal year 2013 -2014 from clients in San Diego County, including 7,359 calls from City of Chula Vista residents. The primary needs of Chula Vista callers were for "Basic Needs." This category includes Food, Housing /Shelter, Material Goods, Transportation and Utility Assistance. In the first half of fiscal year 2013/14, 41% of all calls from Chula Vista residents were for Basic Needs resources; 16% for income support and employment; 12% for health care, and 10% for organizational /community /international services. The majority of 2 -1 -1 callers have a need that is related to financial difficulty; whether their need is housing, food, or healthcare, all of these have a financial basis. 2 -1 -1's database system identifies these needs more specifically in order to give a better idea of what type of need it truly is, rather than simply "financial ". In the time period July 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013, 43% of the residents were seeking housing /shelter, followed by 26% requesting utility assistance. The majority of the callers were referred to the County of San Diego's Health and Human Services Agency, MAAC, South Consolidated Plan 1 48 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 114 Bay Community Services, Covered California, San Diego Food Bank, Salvation Army, Legal Aid Society of San Diego, Family Health Centers of San Diego, and San Diego Gas and Electric. The demographic of callers from the City of Chula Vista to 2 -1 -1 San Diego are the following: The average caller is a Hispanic (63 %) or Caucasian (33%), female (76%), and the majority of callers earn less than $15,900 in annual income (80 %) and are considered "Extremely Low" income earners. These demographics show that the City of Chula Vista's poorest residents are calling2 -1 -1 for assistance. Discuss the size and characteristics of the population with HIV /AIDS and their families within the Eligible Metropolitan Statistical Area: Please refer to the County of San Diego and City of San Diego's Consolidated Plans this data. The following County website provides links to services and data from its 2009 San Diego County HIV /AIDS Plan Update. http: / /www.sandiegocounty.gov/ content /sdc /sdhcd /organizations /about hopwa.html Describe the jurisdiction's need for Public Facilities, Public Infrastructure and Public Improvements: The City of Chula Vista conducted a workshop on public infrastructure workshop on April 2, 2015. This assessment was a comprehensive inventory of City infrastructure for the purpose of estimating deferred replacement /rehabilitation costs and future replacement /rehabilitation costs for city facilities and infrastructure. A 2014 estimate of deferred maintenance (non CFD areas) is $80 million (Replacement of Drainage Facilities, CMP, Canyon /Channel Erosion, etc). It is also estimated that the City will have a total of $60 million in deferred maintenance of buildings and facilities (replacement of roofing, HVAC, plumbing, electrical) costs. How were these needs determined? The needs were determined through a thorough assessment of a backlog of deferred community needs assessment and consultations with other City divisions presented at the workshop on April 2, 2015. Describe the jurisdiction's need for Public Services and how were these needs determined: Given the City's diverse population and concentration of lower and moderate income population, the City has extensive need for a myriad of services. Service needs in the City include, but are not limited to, the following: • Youth services, especially services for at -risk youth ; • Anti -crime programs; • Childcare services and recreational activities; • Homeless (shelter) and homeless prevention services; • Emergency services; Consolidated Plan 1 49 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 115 • Fair housing and legal services; • Senior services, including case management and advocacy, and services for home- bound residents; • Services for special needs groups (i.e. early release ex- offenders, veterans, substance abusers, victims of domestic violence, disabled, mentally ill) • Employment services; • Health Services; • Food ; • Services for the disabled; • Coordination of services. How were these needs determined? Public service needs in the City were determined based on the following: • Comments received during the community and stakeholder outreach process; • Service records from the 2 -1 -1 San Diego; • Responses from the Housing and Community Development Needs Survey; • Regional Continuum of Care Council; and • Regional Task Force on the Homeless Point in Time Count. Housing Market Analysis Housing Market Analysis Overview: A community's housing stock is defined as the collection of all housing units located within the jurisdiction. The characteristics of the housing stock, including growth, type, age and condition, tenure, vacancy rates, housing costs, and affordability are important in determining the housing needs for the community. This section details the housing stock characteristics of Chula Vista to identify how well the current housing stock meets the needs of current and future City residents. Population Growth Table 34 shows that since 1990, the City's population growth has almost doubled. Chula Vista had the second highest population growth in the County from 2000 to 2010. The majority of neighboring jurisdictions of Imperial Beach and National City saw little population growth during 2000 -2010. Consolidated Plan 1 50 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 116 Table 32. Population Growth 1990 -2020 Urban County Coronado 26,540 24,100 24,697 23,634 -8.7% 2.5% -4.3% Del Mar 4,860 4,389 4,161 4,399 -9.7% -5.2% 5.7% Imperial Beach 26,512 26,980 26,324 27,506 1.8% -2.4% 4.5% Lemon Grove 23,984 24,954 25,320 26,884 4.0% 1.5% 6.2% Poway 43,516 48,295 47,811 50,026 11.0% -1.0% 4.6% Solana Beach 12,962 12,887 12,867 13,376 -0.6% -0.2% 4.0% Unincorporated 398,764 441,919 486,604 543,545 10.8% 10.1% 11.7% Total Urban County 537,138 583,524 627,784 689,370 8.6% 7.6% 9.8% Entitlement Jurisdictions Carlsbad 63,126 77,998 105,328 118,450 23.6% 35.0% 12.5% Chula Vista 135,163 173,860 243,916 287,173 28.6% 40.3% 17.7% El Cajon 88,693 94,819 99,478 102,761 6.9% 4.9% 3.3% Encinitas 55,386 58,195 59,518 62,908 5.1% 2.3% 5.7% Escondido 108,635 133,528 143,911 165,095 22.9% 7.8% 14.7% La Mesa 52,931 54,751 57,065 61,102 3.4% 4.2% 7.1% National City 54,249 54,405 58,582 62,342 0.3% 7.7% 6.4% Oceanside 128,398 160,905 167,086 177,840 25.3% 3.8% 6.4% San Diego 1,110,549 1,223,341 1,301,617 1,453,267 10.2% 6.4% 11.7% San Marcos 38,974 55,160 83,781 98,915 41.5% 51.9% 18.1% Santee 52,902 53,090 53,413 59,497 0.4% 0.6% 11.4% Vista 71,872 90,131 93,834 96,993 25.4% 4.1% 3.4% Total County 2,498,016 2,813,833 3,095,313 3,435,713 12.6% 10.0% 11.0% Sources: Bureau of the Census, 1990 -2010 Census; SANDAG Regional Growth Forecast, 2010 Housing Growth Housing data from 2000 and 2010 Census reveals that the San Diego County housing stock increased by almost 12 percent between 2000 and 2010. Among the various jurisdictions in the County, the City of San Marcos experienced the largest housing growth (close to 52 percent) followed by Chula Vista (37.6 percent) and Carlsbad (32.3 percent). Several jurisdictions within the Urban County experienced housing growth of less than 2 percent (Coronado, Del Mar, Imperial Beach, Lemon Grove, and Solana Beach). In the unincorporated areas, housing growth was slightly higher than countywide figures. SANDAG growth forecasts estimate that by 2020, the County's housing stock will increase by close to eight percent. The cities of Chula Vista, Escondido, and San Marcos are expected to see housing stock growth that in excess of eight percent (13.8 percent, 11.7 percent, and 15.8 percent, respectively). The Consolidated Plan 1 51 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 117 estimated population growth for the County is expected to outpace housing production by three percent. The inability to produce enough housing units to accommodate the increasing number of households reduces vacancy rates and drives up market prices, along with other issues such as overcrowding. Table 33. Housing Unit Growth Jurisdiction #of Units #of Units % Change 2000 2010.dMA2000 to Urban County Coronado 9,494 9,634 1.5% Del Mar 2,557 2,596 1.5% Imperial Beach 9,739 9,882 1.5% Lemon Grove 8,722 8,868 1.7% Poway 15,714 16,715 6.4% Solana Beach 6,456 6,540 1.3% Unincorporated 154,737 173,756 12.3% Total Urban County 207,419 227,991 9.9% Entitlement Cities Carlsbad 33,798 44,673 32.2% Chula Vista 57,705 79,416 37.6% El Cajon 35,190 35,850 1.9% Encinitas 23,843 25,740 8.0% Escondido 45,050 48,044 6.6% La Mesa 24,943 26,167 4.9% National City 15,422 16,762 8.7% Oceanside 59,581 64,435 8.1% San Diego 469,689 515,275 9.7% San Marcos 18,862 28,641 51.8% Santee 18,833 20,048 6.5% Vista 29,814 30,986 3.9% Total County 1,040,149 1,164,028 11.9% Sources: Bureau of the Census, 2000 and 2010 Census Consolidated Plan 1 52 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 118 HOUSING TYPE A region's housing stock generally includes three categories: single - family dwelling units, multi - family dwelling units, and other types of units such as mobile homes. Single- family units are attached or detached dwelling units usually on individual lots of land. As shown in Table 33, approximately 52% of the housing units in the Chula Vista are single - family dwellings. As compared to region, the Chula Vista's is in line with the County average. Table 34. Housing Stock Mix ( 2014) Jurisdiction Mobile Detached Attached Total 2 UVILinits Total Homes AMM M n I& Urban County Coronado 45.5% 10.7% 56.2% 6.7% 37.1% 43.8% 0.0% Del Mar 51.1% 19.9% 71.0% 7.7% 21.3% 29.0% 0.0% Imperial Beach 39.4% 7.8% 47.1% 11.9% 37.7% 49.7% 3.2% Lemon Grove 66.4% 8.9% 75.3% 7.4% 16.4% 23.8% 0.9% Poway 75.0% 4.1% 79.0% 2.4% 13.7% 16.1% 4.9% Solana Beach 47.7% 19.4% 67.1% 6.2% 26.5% 32.7% 0.2% Unincorporated 68.5% 6.0% 74.5% 4.6% 12.5% 17.0% 8.4% Total Urban County 65.9% 6.8% 72.7% 5.0% 15.3% 20.3% 7.0% Entitlement Jurisdictions Carlsbad 52.9% 16.7% 69.6% 5.6% 22.0% 27.6% 2.8% Chula Vista 54.7% 10.3% 64.9% 5.5% 24.6% 30.1% 5.0% El Cajon 40.8% 4.9% 45.7% 7.9% 41.1% 49.0% 5.3% Encinitas 57.6% 18.8% 76.4% 7.0% 14.0% 21.0% 2.6% Escondido 50.8% 6.2% 57.0% 6.9% 28.3% 35.2% 7.8% La Mesa 47.2% 6.0% 53.3% 9.2% 36.7% 45.9% 0.9% National City 44.4% 9.6% 54.0% 9.4% 34.0% 43.4% 2.6% Oceanside 52.8% 11.7% 64.5% 8.6% 21.9% 30.5% 5.0% San Diego 45.6% 8.8% 54.5% 8.5% 35.7% 44.2% 1.3% San Marcos 52.6% 7.4% 60.0% 4.0% 25.0% 29.0% 11.0% Santee 55.0% 8.9% 63.9% 6.0% 18.7% 24.8% 11.3% Vista 50.6% 7.8% 58.3% 7.5% 28.2% 35.7% 6.0% Total County 51.7% 8.9% 60.6% 7.2% 28.3% 35.5% 3.9% Source: California Department of Finance. E -5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State - January 1, 2011- 2014. Sacramento, California, May 2014. Consolidated Plan I P a g . 53 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 119 HOUSING TENURE AND VACANCY Housing tenure describes the arrangement by which a household occupies a housing unit; that is, whether a housing unit is owner - occupied or renter - occupied. Tenure preferences are primarily related to household income, composition, and age of the resident. Communities need to have an adequate supply of units available both for rent and for sale in order to accommodate a range of households with varying incomes, family sizes, composition, life styles, etc. A person may face different housing issues in the rental housing market versus the for -sale housing market. Residential stability is also influenced by tenure with ownership housing resulting in a much lower turnover rate than rental housing. San Diego County has a higher proportion of owner - occupied housing (54.4 percent) than renter - occupied housing (45.6 percent). The ownership level fell by one percent between 2000 and 2010, but was still below the national level of 65.1 percent and slightly lower than the 56.0 percent State figure for housing ownership. Most cities in the County had more owner - occupied housing units than renter - occupied units. Exceptions include Coronado, Imperial Beach, El Cajon, La Mesa, National City, and San Diego. The tenure distribution in Coronado, Imperial Beach, and National City may be attributed to the large proportion of military families in those cities living off base due to the lack of, or demand for, housing and the close proximity of the cities to military bases. The large proportion of renters in El Cajon is partially explained by the large amount of multi - family housing in the City. Table 35. Housing Tenure and Vacancy Jurisdiction Percent Owner-Occupied Urban County Coronado 48.9% 51.1% 23.1% Del Mar 53.9% 46.1% 20.5% Imperial Beach 30.2% 69.8% 7.8% Lemon Grove 54.6% 45.4% 4.9% Poway 74.4% 25.6% 3.5% Solana Beach 60.2% 39.8% 13.6% Unincorporated 68.7% 31.3% 8.3% Total Urban County 65.8% 34.2% 8.7% Entitlement Jurisdictions Carlsbad 64.8% 35.2% 7.4% Chula Vista 58.1% 41.9% 4.9% El Cajon 41.3% 58.7% 4.8% Encinitas 63.1% 36.9% 6.4% Escondido 52.2% 47.8% 5.3 La Mesa 45.8% 54.2% 6.3% National City 33.5% 66.5% 7.5% Oceanside 59.1% 40.9% 8.1% San Diego 48.3% 51.7% 6.4% San Marcos 62.8% 37.2% 5.0% Santee 70.3% 29.7% 3.7% Consolidated Plan 1 54 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 120 Vista 51.8% 48.2% 5.4% Total County 54.4% 45.6% 6.7% Sources: Bureau of the Census, 2010 Census HOUSING AGE AND CONDITION Assessing housing conditions in the County can provide the basis for developing policies and programs to maintain and preserve the quality of the housing stock. Housing age can indicate general housing conditions within a community. Housing is subject to gradual deterioration over time. Deteriorating housing can depress neighboring property values, discourage reinvestment, and impact the quality of life in a neighborhood. State and federal housing programs typically consider the age of a community's housing stock when estimating rehabilitation needs. In general, most homes begin to require major repairs or have significant rehabilitation needs at 30 or 40 years of age. Furthermore, housing units constructed prior to 1979 are more likely to contain lead -based paint. The housing stock in San Diego region is older with a majority of the housing units (61 percent) built before 1979. According to the 2009 -2013 ACS data shown in Table 35, more than half of the County's housing stock is over 30 years of age in 2010 and close to 56 percent was over 50 years old. The highest percentages of pre -1980 housing units are generally found in the older, urbanized neighborhoods of the cities of La Mesa, Lemon Grove, El Cajon, San Diego, Coronado and National City and will most likely have the largest proportions of housing units potentially in need of rehabilitation. Home rehabilitation can be an obstacle for senior homeowners with fixed incomes and mobility issues. Please refer to the Table below for Chula Vista specific figures. Table 36. Housing Jurisdiction Coronado Age Built Built Built Before Median 1960-1979 • -0 41.0% 18.5% 13.4% 1973 Del Mar 45.7% 19.3% 3.6% 1973 Imperial Beach 44.7% 29.3% 3.2% 1969 Lemon Grove 32.9% 38.8% 4.5% 1964 Poway 51.5% 7.4% 0.6% 1977 Solana Beach 55.1% 13.9% 2.8% 1975 Unincorporated 36.3% 10.9% 2.5% -- Total Urban County 38.5% 13.0% 3.0% -- Carlsbad 28.2% 4.2% 0.9% 1986 Chula Vista 30.6% 15.5% 1.5% 1982 El Cajon 49.8% 22.9% 1.5% 1972 Encinitas 42.5% 10.7% 2.9% 1978 Escondido 44.1% 7.4% 2.0% 1979 La Mesa 42.7% 33.1% 4.3% 1967 National City 39.0% 30.0% 6.7% 1968 Oceanside 35.0% 7.2% 1.4% 1982 Consolidated Plan 1 55 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 121 San Diego 35.3% 17.9% 6.9% 1975 San Marcos 28.3% 1.9% 0.5% 1988 Santee 54.5% 8.2% 0.4% 1977 Vista 38.8% 7.4% 0.9% 1981 Total County 36.7% 14.9% 4.3% 1978 HOUSING COST AND AFFORDABILITY The cost of housing in a community is directly correlated to the number of housing problems and affordability issues. High housing costs can price low- income families out of the market, cause extreme cost burdens, or force households into overcrowded or substandard conditions. According to a study conducted by the Center for Housing Policy, more than a third of working households in the San Diego MSA are paying more than half the income towards housing. As cost of living is consistently on the rise, housing affordability drops, and lower- income families are most acutely affected. The Center on Policy Initiatives noted that a single parent in the San Diego area making only the minimum wage of $9.75 per hour (as of January 1, 2015 in the City of San Diego) would have to earn more than twice the minimum wage in order to afford a place with two bedrooms. The California Housing Partnership (CHPC) estimates that median rents in San Diego County increased by 23 percent between 2000 and 2012, while the median income declined by seven percent, significantly driving up the percentage of income that households must spend on rent. Rents increase in response to demand and more renter households have entered the San Diego market since 2006, many because of displacement during the foreclosure crisis. Even as San Diego County's shortfall of affordable homes has become more acute, funding for affordable housing has dropped significantly. CHPC estimates that there has been a 78- percent decrease in state and federal funding for affordable homes in San Diego since 2008. Error! Reference source not found. displays median home sale prices for each jurisdiction in San Diego County. For 2014, the median sales price for homes in San Diego County was $430,000, an increase of 3.6 percent from 2013. Home prices vary by area /jurisdiction, with very high median prices in coastal areas such as the cities of Coronado, Del Mar, Solana Beach, and the La Jolla area of the City of San Diego. National City had the lowest median sales price among the incorporated jurisdictions. Table 37. Median Home Sale Prices by Jurisdiction County/City/Area # .. Median Median Price % Change Price . 014 dM Nov. 2014 Urban County Coronado 13 $1,059,500 $1,017,500 4.13% Del Mar 23 $1,249,000 $1,095,000 14.06% Imperial Beach 8 $427,000 $355,000 20.28% Lemon Grove 24 $331,750 $339,000 -2.14% Poway 35 $558,409 $520,000 7.39% Solana Beach 24 $1,022,500 $1,020,000 0.25% Unincorporated Communities Alpine 1 23 $457,500 $443,000 3.27% Consolidated Plan 1 56 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 122 Bonita 13 $580,000 $430,000 34.88% Bonsall 3 $677,500 $375,000 80.67% Borrego Springs 2 $95,000 $244,000 - 61.07% Campo 5 $214,500 $160,750 33.44% Fallbrook 45 $418,500 $425,000 -1.53% Jamul 4 $725,000 $545,000 33.03% Julian 12 $295,000 $453,000 - 34.88% Lakeside 31 $428,000 $395,000 8.35% Pine Valley 3 $330,000 $340,000 -2.94% Ramona 48 $401,250 $407,500 -1.53% Rancho Santa Fe 10 $2,185,000 $2,650,000 - 17.55% Spring Valley 40 $362,500 $285,000 27.19% Valley Center 16 $415,000 $430,000 -3.49% Entitlement Jurisdictions Carlsbad 121 $687,500 $616,250 11.56% Chula Vista 214 $405,000 $375,000 8.00% El Cajon 116 $365,000 $345,000 5.80% Encinitas 60 $768,000 $683,000 12.45% Escondido 117 $394,000 $363,000 8.54% La Mesa 69 $417,000 $390,000 6.92% National City 16 $277,500 $266,000 4.32% Oceanside 164 $392,500 $395,000 -0.63% San Diego 1,023 $439,500 $425,000 3.41% La Jolla' 47 $1,030,000 $975,000 5.64% San Marcos 81 $422,500 $501,000 - 15.67% Santee 53 $350,000 $392,500 - 10.83% Vista 83 $420,000 $400,000 5.00% San Diego County 2,614 $430,000 $415,000 3.61% Source: DQNews.com, California Home Sale Activity by City, November 2014. Accessed January 15, 2015 OWNERSHIP HOUSING The median price for single - family homes sold in Chula Vista in January 2015 was $405,000. Prices are rising throughout Southern California mainly because the share of foreclosures, which are typically lower priced, has fallen significantly in the last year or so. 37 presents current foreclosure data by jurisdiction. Between 2012 and February 2015, less than one percent of the County's housing stock was in one of the various stages of foreclosure. Homes in foreclosure comprised a similar proportion of the housing stock (about 0.2 percent) in all of San Diego County's incorporated cities. The unincorporated areas of San Diego County also have a similar proportion of foreclosed homes. Table 37 and Figure XX illustrates foreclosure "hot spots" in San Diego Consolidated Plan 1 57 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 123 County based on the number of foreclosures per 1,000 housing units. The hot spots are concentrated in Chula Vista, National City, and East San Diego areas. Foreclosures (February 2015) Jurisdiction Carlsbad Pre- Foreclosur 91 Bank- Owned 8 Auction 45 Total 144 % of Total Housing 0.3% Chula Vista 172 29 115 316 0.4% Coronado -- -- -- 0 0.0% Del Mar 6 -- 3 9 0.3% El Cajon 82 19 54 155 0.4% Encinitas 25 1 12 38 0.2% Escondido 104 27 53 184 0.4% Imperial Beach 6 3 5 14 0.1% La Mesa 28 6 24 58 0.2% Lemon Grove 19 4 12 35 0.4% National City 27 7 10 44 0.3% Oceanside 96 26 76 198 0.3% Poway 22 4 17 43 0.3 San Diego 488 86 358 932 0.2% San Marcos 57 13 37 107 0.4% Santee 37 4 19 60 0.3% Solana Beach 6 -- 3 9 0.1% Vista 43 16 37 96 0.3% Unincorporated County Alpine 10 7 8 25 -- Bonita 10 3 13 26 -- Fallbrook 26 4 26 56 -- La Jolla 14 -- 13 27 -- Lakeside 26 6 14 46 -- Ramona 30 8 22 60 -- Rancho Santa Fe 14 1 5 20 -- Spring Valley 55 10 32 97 -- Valley Center 19 3 17 39 -- Unincorporated Area S3 42 15 26 83 -- Total County 1,555 310 1,056 2,921 0.3% Notes: Foreclosure numbers for unincorporated San Diego County were estimated from foreclosure activity in the unincorporated neighborhoods of Bonsall, Borrego Springs, Boulevard, Campo, Cardiff -by- the -Sea, Descanso, Dulzura, Guatay, Jacumba, Jamul, Julian, Pacific Beach, Pauma Valley, Pine Valley, Potrero, and Warner Springs. Sources: www.realtytrac.com, 2015; U.S. Census, American Community Survey (ACS), 2008 -2012. Consolidated Plan 1 58 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 124 San Diego County 2015 Foreclosures Percent of Housing Unit Hot Spot Analysis i O "r PACIFIC OCEAN a �1 A San Diego County 2015 Foreclosures Percent of Housing Units Hot Spot Analysis _ No Foreclosures Reported Cold Spot - 99% Confidence Cold Spot - 95% Confidence Cold Spot - 90% Confidence Not Significant Hot Spot - 90% Confidence Hot Spot- 95% Confidence Hot Spot -99 %Confidence y � � ps N. a q, Consolidated Plan 1 59 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 125 San Diego County 2015 Foreclosures (By Census Block Groups) %A i PFD CIFIC OC TA i San Diego County 2015 Foreclosures Percentage of Housing Units' ; By Census Block Group - 0% - 001% -015% 0.16%-0 25% 026 % -05% 0.51%-C 75 % 0.76% -1.96% Consolidated Plan 1 60 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 126 Introduction All residential properties by number of units Table 38. Residential Properties by Unit Number Table 39. Unit Size by Tenure Number % 1 -unit detached structure 14,300 53% 1 -unit, attached structure 1,991 7% 2 -4 units 1,068 4% 5 -19 units 3,577 13% 20 or more units 2,768 10% Mobile Home, boat, RV, van, etc 3,114 12% Total 26,818 100% Data Source: 2006 -2010 ACS Table 39. Unit Size by Tenure Number % Number No bedroom 12 0% 269 3% 1 bedroom 209 1% 1,614 17% 2 bedrooms 3,884 24% 4,178 45% 3 or more bedrooms 12,139 75% 3,316 35% Total 16,244 100% 9,377 100% Data Source: 2006 -2010 ACS Describe the number and targeting (income level /type of family served) of units assisted with federal, state, and local programs. The City uses various funding sources to preserve and increase the supply of affordable housing through new construction and the acquisition and /or rehabilitation of renter - occupied units. Affordability covenants in Chula Vista include developments that hold federal subsidy contracts, received tax credits or mortgage revenue bonds, were created through the City's Balanced Community's Policy, and /or were financed by redevelopment funds or non - profit developers. Table 41 presents the inventory of affordable housing developments in Chula Vista. As of December 31, 2014, 27 affordable housing developments were located in Chula Vista, providing approximately 2,176 affordable units to lower- income households (senior and non - senior). Additional units are available but they are set aside for special needs populations (former foster youth, victims of domestic violence, and other special needs). These units are not included in the list below. A county wide resource directory is available at the following weblink: http: / /www.sandiegocounty.gov /sdhcd /docs /housing resource.pdf Consolidated Plan I P a g e 61 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 127 Table 40. Affordable Housing Units Name Type Total Affordable Total Affordability Town Center Manor Senior Senior 62+ /Public Units 58 59 30% of tenant's Apts. Housing income (Project 434 F Street Based Section 8) Silvercrest Senior Housing Senior 74 75 30% of tenant's income (Project Based Section 8) Seniors on Broadway Senior 41 42 30%,45%,50% 845 Broadway L Street Manor General /Public 15 16 30% of tenant's 584 L Street Housing income (Project Based Section 8) Dorothy Street Manor General /Public 21 22 30% of tenant's 778 Dorothy Housing income (Public Housing) Los Veci nos General 41 42 30%,45%,50%,60% 1501 Broadway Brisa del Mar General 105 106 50%,60% 1689 Broadway Melrose Manor General /Public 23 24 Public Housing (30% 1678 Melrose Avenue Housing of tenants income) Villa Serena Apartments Senior 131 132 50%,60% 1201 Medical Center Drive Park Village Apartments General 28 28 50%,60% 1246 Third Avenue Cordova Village Apartments General 39 40 45%,50%,60% 12801 East J Street Trolley Terrace General 18 18 50%,60% 750 Ada Sunrose Apartments General 89 90 50%,60% 1325 Santa Rita Harvest Ridge Apartments Senior 179 181 50%,60% 1325 Santa Rita St. Regis Park General 118 119 50%,60% 1025 Broadway Teresina Apartments General 88 91 50%,60% 1250 Santa Cora Rosina Vista Apartments General 24 240 60% The Landings I General 90 91 30%,50%,60% 2122 Burdock Way The Landings 11 General 141 143 50%,60% 1764 Java Way Rancho Buena Vista Apts. General 149 150 50%,60% Consolidated Plan 1 62 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 128 2155 Corte Vista Oxford Terrace Apartments General (Project Based 105 132 30% of income 555 Oxford Street Section 8) Palomar Apartments General (Project Based 167 168 30% of income 171 Palomar Section 8) Rolling Hills Gardens Apts. Senior 116 116 Fair Market Rents Congregational Tower Senior (Project Based 184 186 30% of income 288 F Street Section 8) Garden Villas (FKA Kiku Senior(Project Based 99 100 30% of income Gardens) Section 8) 1260 Third Avenue Lofts on Landis General 32 33 30%,45%,50%,60% 240 Landis Total Units 2,176 2,081 Source: City of San Chula Vista, 2014 In addition to the units listed in Table 41, at the time of initial occupancy, two for sale projects results in 102 units, 70 units at Marbrisa (San Miguel Ranch), and 32 units at Sedona (Rolling Hills Ranch) that were affordable to households earning 80% of the Area Median Income. The City requires that the housing be owner occupied and the residents qualified as low income residents when prior to occupancy. A recorded deed restriction serves as an affordability covenant that restricts the income level of a person who initially occupies the property, and ensures the property will remain available for low- to moderate- income persons through the affordability period. A county wide resource directory is available at the following web -link: http: / /www.sandiegocounty.gov /sdhcd /docs /housing resource.pdf Provide an assessment of units expected to be lost from the affordable housing inventory for any reason, such as expiration of Section 8 contracts. A large portion of the affordable housing stock was created via the City's Balanced Communities Policy. These properties were constructed from the late 1990s to the present. A handful of projects were also created in the 1980s or early 1990s using HUD's Project Based Section 8 program, Low Income Housing Tax Credits, or Tax Exempt Bond Financing. Most of these projects are under a 55 -year affordability term. As many of these units were built between the 1980 to the present, the affordability covenants do not expire within the next 5 years. Another subset of affordable units were developed by non - profit, affordable housing developers which do not intend to convert their units to market -rate apartments. There are no federally assisted units in the City at risk of market rate conversion. During the time period 2005 to 2015, the following project have extended their affordability covenant(s) by another 55 Years: • Congregational Tower (2013) • Garden Villas (formerly known as Kiku Gardens) (2014) • Oxford Terrace (1999) • Palomar Apartments (1998), Based on City records and the City's 2013 -2020 Housing Element, the following is a list of Projects that are at risk of losing affordability. None of the projects are at risk of losing Section 8 contracts. Does the availability of housing units meet the needs of the population? Consolidated Plan 1 63 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 129 No, it does not. 47% (12,130 households) of the City's households are extremely low- income, very low - income and low- income, with incomes ranging from 0% -80% of the County's Area Median Income (AMI). 11% of the City's housing stock is deed restricted as affordable housing. Please refer to Table 40 for a list of the affordable communities in Chula Vista. Describe the need for specific types of housing: Table 41. Summary of Existing Housing Need Discussion Several factors influence the degree of demand, or "need," for housing in Chula Vista. The major needs include: • Housing needs resulting from the overcrowding of units Housing needs that result when households pay more than they can afford for housing Housing needs of "special needs groups" such as elderly, large families, female- headed households, households with a disabled person, farmworkers, students, and the homeless Consolidated Plan 1 64 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 130 Summary of Households /Persons with Identified Housing Need Percent of Total City Population/ Households Households Overpaying for Housing: • of Renter Households Overpaying 62% • of Owner Households Overpaying 44% • of Extremely Low Income Households (0 -30% AMI) Overpaying 85% • of Very Low Income Households (31 -50% AMI) Overpaying 77% • of Low Income Households (51 -80% AMI) Overpaying 61% Overcrowded Households: • of Overcrowded Renter Households 6% • of Overcrowded Owner Households 2% • of All Overcrowded Households 3% Special Needs Groups: Elderly Households 10% of Population 20% of Households Disabled Persons 8% of Population Developmentally Disabled Persons 1.8% of Population Large Households 18% of Households Female Headed Households 11% of Households Female Headed Households with Children 7% of Households Farmworkers 2% of Labor Force Homeless 37 persons Students 7,946 students Affordable Housing Units At -Risk of Conversion to Market Rate Costs 0 Source: Census 2010, Census 2010 ACS Estimates, HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 2009 Discussion Several factors influence the degree of demand, or "need," for housing in Chula Vista. The major needs include: • Housing needs resulting from the overcrowding of units Housing needs that result when households pay more than they can afford for housing Housing needs of "special needs groups" such as elderly, large families, female- headed households, households with a disabled person, farmworkers, students, and the homeless Consolidated Plan 1 64 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 130 Cost of Housing Table 42. Cost of Housing 11 111 . 1 1 Median Home Value 178,400 441,400 147% Median Contract Rent 744 1,171 57% I Data Source: 2000 Census (Base Year). 2006 -2010 ACS (Most Recent Year) I Table 43. Rent Paid Table 44. Housing Affordabilitv Less than $500 678 7.2% $500 -999 2,349 25.1% $1,000 -1,499 3,980 42.4% $1,500 -1,999 1,569 16.7% $2,000 or more 801 8.5% Tota 1 9,377 100.0% Data Source: 2006 -2010 ACS Table 44. Housing Affordabilitv Note: CHAS data was developed with sample data. Due to the smaller sample size, the CHAS data presented may have significant margins of error, particularly for smaller geographies. The intent of the data is to show general proportions of household need, not exact numbers. Table 45. Monthly Rent Bedroom Monthly Rent ($) Efficiency (no 1 .. m 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom h ffm bedroom) Fair Market Rent $939 $1,032 1,345 $1,969 $2,398 High HOME Rent $910 $977 $1,177 $1,351 $1,488 Low HOME Rent $712 $764 $918 $1063 $1187 Data Source: HUD FMR and HOME Rents Consolidated Plan 1 65 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 131 rHAUA 325 No Data 960 925 80% HAM Fl 5,230 1,935 100% HAM Fl No Data 2,955 Tota 1 6,515 5,815 Data Source: 2006 -2010 CHAS Note: CHAS data was developed with sample data. Due to the smaller sample size, the CHAS data presented may have significant margins of error, particularly for smaller geographies. The intent of the data is to show general proportions of household need, not exact numbers. Table 45. Monthly Rent Bedroom Monthly Rent ($) Efficiency (no 1 .. m 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom h ffm bedroom) Fair Market Rent $939 $1,032 1,345 $1,969 $2,398 High HOME Rent $910 $977 $1,177 $1,351 $1,488 Low HOME Rent $712 $764 $918 $1063 $1187 Data Source: HUD FMR and HOME Rents Consolidated Plan 1 65 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 131 Discussion: Is there sufficient housing for households at all income levels? The simple answer is no. Housing affordability within the City is a reflection of a region -wide phenomenon. The cost of both land and housing (for sale and for rent) is high in Chula Vista, on average, higher than many areas of the county. This makes it increasingly challenging to create and maintain affordable housing. How is affordability of housing likely to change considering changes to home values and /or rents? Safe, secure and affordable housing will become more out of reach due to the high increase in equity and rents during the past year. In the past year we have seen the for -sale market jump 17 -20% in value with little inventory available. First -time home buyers have been priced out of the market by all -cash investors running up home costs. And the rental market reflects the lack of affordable for -sale homes with high rents. How do HOME rents / Fair Market Rent compare to Area Median Rent? How might this impact your strategy to produce or preserve affordable housing? The HOME /Fair Market Rents are far below the area market rents. This has made it difficult for developers to choose to produce affordable rental units under our inclusionary housing ordinance due to the potential loss of income over the 55 -year life span of an affordable unit. This has resulted in the City being the driving force behind the production of affordable rental units. Introduction HOUSING AGE AND CONDITION The age and condition of the housing stock in Chula Vista is an indicator of potential rehabilitation needs. Commonly, housing over 30 years of age needs some form of major rehabilitation, such as a new roof, foundation work, plumbing, etc. The age of a jurisdiction's housing stock is an important characteristic because it is often an indicator of housing condition and indicative of potential rehabilitation needs. Many federal and state programs use age of housing as one factor to determine housing needs and the availability of funds for housing and /or community development. East of the 1 -805, the housing stock in Chula Vista is relatively new in the Master Planning Communities of Otay Ranch, Rolling Hills Ranch, San Miguel Ranch, Winding Walk, Eastlake, and Bonita Long Canyon. Although the Census does not include statistics on housing condition based upon observations, it includes statistics that correlate closely with substandard housing conditions such as lack of plumbing or kitchen facilities. Consolidated Plan 1 66 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 132 The information presented below can only give indirect indication of housing conditions. Table 46. Condition of Units Table 47. Year Unit Built Year Unit Built 2000 or later • • •- r 4,907 % 30% Renter-Occupied Number 2,415 % 26% 1980 -1999 5,822 With one selected Condition 7,346 45% 5,658 60% With two selected Conditions 249 2% 618 7% With three selected Conditions 0 0% 0 0% With four selected Conditions 0 0% 0 0% No selected Conditions 1 8,649 1 53% 1 3,101 1 33% Total 1 16,244 100% 9,377 100% Data Source: 2006 -2010 ACS Table 47. Year Unit Built Year Unit Built 2000 or later • • •- r 4,907 % 30% Renter-Occupied Number 2,415 % 26% 1980 -1999 5,822 36% 3,984 34% 42% 1950 -1979 5,429 33% 2,854 30% Before 1950 86 1% 124 79% 1% Total 16,244 100% 9,377 99% Data Source: 2006 -2010 CHAS Table 48. Risk of Lead -Based Paint Table 49. Vacant Units Limited data is available and no data was provided through HUD's Information Database. A review of HUD's datasets for the Neighborhood Stabilization Program data sets at the following web -link http: / /www.huduser.org /portal /datasets /nsp /nsp fc a- f.html includes limited data on estimated Consolidated Plan 1 67 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 133 Total Number of Units Built Before 1980 5,515 34% 2,978 32% Housing Units build before 1980 with children present 1,820 11% 7,415 79% Data Source: 2006 -2010 ACS (Total Units) 2006 -2010 CHAS (Units with Children present) Note: CHAS data was developed with sample data. Due to the smaller sample size, the CHAS datapresented may have significant margins of error, particularly for smaller geographies. The intent of the data is to show general proportions of household need, not exact numbers. Table 49. Vacant Units Limited data is available and no data was provided through HUD's Information Database. A review of HUD's datasets for the Neighborhood Stabilization Program data sets at the following web -link http: / /www.huduser.org /portal /datasets /nsp /nsp fc a- f.html includes limited data on estimated Consolidated Plan 1 67 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 133 number of foreclosures, foreclosure rate, and vacancy rates. However, due to the low amount of inventory on the market, these properties do not remain vacant for very long. As of 04/16/2015, a search of Fannie Mae's Foreclosure listing in Chula Vista, there were no active listing available on https: / /www.homepath.com /. Need for Owner and Rental Rehabilitation Estimated Number of Housing Units Occupied by Low or Moderate Income Families with LBP Hazards Discussiondt is very difficult to count the number of low- and moderate - income families occupying housing units with lead -based paint so we can't provide an estimate. The CHAS data on the risk of lead paint total units is sample data which may haves significant margins of error. It is estimated that there are approximately 7415 rent occupied housing units in Chula Vista built before 1979 and the overall ban of lead -based paint in 1978. The most common source of lead is house paint, especially paint manufactured before 1950. Since approximately 70% of the City's housing stock was constructed prior to 1980, there is a need to educate tenants and landlords about potential lead based paint hazards. CDBG and HOME programs require compliance with all of HUD's regulations concerning lead -based paint. All housing programs operated by the City are in compliance with HUD's most recent standards regarding lead -based paint. The City's homeowner rehabilitation loan program meets the federal requirements for providing lead -based paint information with each rehabilitation loan and requiring paint testing of disturbed surfaces for lead in all single family homes constructed before 1978. If a home was found to have lead -based paint, the cost of lead -based paint removal is an eligible activity under the homeowner rehabilitation program. The City's building inspectors are alert to any housing units that apply for a permit for construction or remodeling, which may contain lead -based paint and other lead hazards. The County of San Diego's Childhood Lead Poising Prevention Program ( CLPPP), a division of the San Diego Health and Human Services Agency provides outreach and education programs and case management services for San Diego County residents, including Chula Vista residents. Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program - CLPPP is a Public Health Services program that seeks to eliminate childhood lead poisoning by caring for lead- poisoned children and identifying and eliminating sources of lead exposure. Services provided include nursing case management for children as well as education to health care providers, communities, and families. More information about this program can be obtained by visiting the County of San Diego's Website at: http: / /www.sandiegocounty.gov /hhsa /programs /phs /child lead poisoning prevention program/ Table 50. San Diego County CLPPP Cases by City (2009 -2013) Carlsbad 2(1-9) NationarCity 3 (2. 9) Chula Vista 6 (5.7) Ocean9 (g.6) El Cajon 8(7.6) Poway 0 (0.0) San Diego 49 [46.7] Encinitas Z (1.9) Escondido 6(5.7) San Marcos 6 (5.7) Santee O (0.0) Vista 7(6.7) Unincorporated 5(4.8) Imperial Beach 0(0.0) La Mesa 1(1-0) Leman Grove 0(0.0) Consolidated Plan 1 68 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 134 Table 51. Total Number of Units by Program Type Describe the supply of public housing developments: Describe the number and physical condition of public housing units in the jurisdiction, including those that are participating in an approved Public Housing Agency Plan: The City of Chula Vista does not have a public housing authority. The Housing Authority of the County of San Diego serves as the City's public housing authority. As outlined above, the HACSD has 117 public housing units available to residents plus four resident - manager units, for a total of 121. These units are addressed in the HACSD PHA Plan. The HACSD received a Public Housing Assessment System (PHAS) physical score of 30 out of a possible 40 points for the fiscal year ending on June30, 2013. However, the HACSD was awarded 10 points out of a maximum score of 10 for its administration of its Capital Fund Program. The HACSD continues to improve its Public Housing stock with funding from its Capital Fund Program. The 2014 PHAS score was not yet released at the time of the preparation of the Consolidated Plan. Consolidated Plan 1 69 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 135 Table 52. Public Housing Condition HACSD Public Housine Proeram(CA108) 1 30 Describe the restoration and revitalization needs of public housing units in the jurisdiction: The approximate ages of the HACSD's four developments are: • Dorothy Street Manor — approximately 25 years; • L Street Manor — approximately 20 years; • Town Centre Manor — approximately 30 years; and, • Melrose Manor - approximately 28 years. As is the case with complexes of this age, major systems and components begin to meet or exceed their life expectancies and must be restored or replaced at an accelerating rate, which often exceeds the funding available to take the appropriate actions in a timely manner. According to the HACSD's March 2011 Energy Audit, the following restoration and /or revitalization efforts must be made, as funding permits: • Replacement of aging roofing. • Replacement of deteriorating weather - stripping. • Maintenance of heating ducts. • Replacement of windows. • Caulking of windows and doors. • Maintenance of existing systems. • Replacement of appliances and heating systems that have exceeded their life expectancies. In addition, the HACSD Public Housing Agency Plan (PHA plan) has established the following revitalization goals: • Energy upgrades. • Develop /implement community gardens at each public housing development. InJune2011, ROEL Consulting Services examined the physical needs of the HACSD's public housing. ROEL determined that approximately $123,000 was needed to address high priority issues in the four public housing sites including: windows, fire /health and safety, plumbing, HVAC, walls, and structural. Consolidated Plan 1 70 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 136 Describe the public housing agency's strategy for improving the living environment of low- and moderate - income families residing in public housing: Discussion: The City of Chula Vista does not have a public housing authority. The Housing Authority of the County of San Diego serves as the City's public housing authority. The HACSD holds an annual Capital Improvement and Resident Services meeting with public housing residents to receive information, feedback and recommendations for future capital fund projects and other resident needs. The HACSD works with residents to prioritize resident needs so that funds are directed first to higher priority items with a priority focus on energy efficiency improvements. A contracted property management company is directed to promptly address all needed repairs and the HACSD conducts annual quality control inspections. The HACSD is utilizing ROSS grant funds for a resident service coordinator to work with residents on obtaining needed services, such as transportation to doctor's appointments, so that their overall living environment is improved. As was discussed above, as the HACSD public housing ages, restoration and rehabilitation needs are expected to increase at an accelerating rate. However, income from rents generally remains level, while other sources of income, such as capital funding, do not necessarily rise at the same rate as accelerating costs. The HACSD is seeking other options, such as conversion of the public housing units, in order to provide these affordable housing units over the long -term. Consolidated Plan 1 71 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 137 Table 53. Facilities and Housing Targeted to Homeless Households Emergency Shelter Beds Transitional Permanent Supportive Housing Beds Beds Year Round Beds Voucher /Seasonal Current &New Current &New Under (Current &New) /Overflow Beds Development Households with Adult(s) and 32* 131* 0 0 Child(ren) Households with Only Adults 0 0 0 0 0 Chronically Homeless Households 0 0 0 0 0 Veterans 0 0 0 0 0 Unaccompanied Youth 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Source: 2014 Point in Time Count - Regional Task Force on the Homeless *some of these shelter beds and transitional housing units may be occupied by one of the other categories. However, these beds are not specific for chronic homeless, adults only, veterans, or unaccompanied youth. Consolidated Plan 1 72 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 138 Describe mainstream services, such as health, mental health, and employment services to the extent those services are used to complement services targeted to homeless persons List and describe services and facilities that meet the needs of homeless persons, particularly chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth. If the services and facilities are listed on screen SP -40 Institutional Delivery Structure or screen MA -35 Special Needs Facilities and Services, describe how these facilities and services specifically address the needs of these populations. The County of San Diego is the lead Agency to mainstream services such as health, mental health, and employment services, and serves as the public housing authority for the City of Chula Vista. In the region, the San Diego Workforce Partnership provides job training programs throughout the region. There are also various community colleges in the region that provide no to low costs educational opportunities. As previously mentioned previously, the City of Chula Vista participates in the Regional Continuum of Care Council. MA -35 SPECIAL NEEDS FACILITIES AND SD S =ES - 91.210(D) W Introduction Including the elderly, frail elderly, persons with disabilities (mental, physical, developmental), persons with alcohol or other drug addictions, persons with HIV /AIDS and their families, public housing residents and any other categories the jurisdiction may specify, and describe their supportive housing needs Describe programs for ensuring that persons returning from mental and physical health institutions receive appropriate supportive housing Specify the activities that the jurisdiction plans to undertake during the next year to address the housing and supportive services needs identified in accordance with 91.215(e) with respect to persons who are not homeless but have other special needs. Please refer to the 2015 Annual Action for the one - year goals 91.315(e). For entitlement /consortia grantees: Specify the activities that the jurisdiction plans to undertake during the next year to address the housing and supportive services needs identified in accordance with 91.215(e) with respect to persons who are not homeless but have other special needs. Please refer to the 2015 Annual Action for the one -year goals (91.220(2)). The 2015 -2019 Consolidated Plan for the City of Chula Vista addresses the three statutory program goals with local goals, objectives, strategies /activities and anticipated outcomes. The City has established priorities for each of the community development objectives based on established need, availability of funds to address the need, anticipated outcomes, and the most effective use of limited funds and resources. Priorities for specific objectives were reviewed during the Consolidated Plan planning process and revised based on public response and information on availability of federal, state and local funds. The community development objectives, including those addressing needs of the non - homeless special needs populations in the Strategic Plan are prioritized in accordance with HUD categories, as follows: Consolidated Plan 1 73 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 139 a. High Priority —The City will use federal funds to support activities that address the objectives included in this Consolidated Plan, either alone or by leveraging the investment of other public and private funds during the five -year period of the Plan. b. Medium Priority - If funds are available, the City will use federal funds to support activities that address these objectives, either alone or by leveraging with the investment of other public and private funds during the five -year period of the Plan. c. Low Priority - The City will not fund activities to address these objectives during the five -year period of the Plan, unless the City obtains other public or private funds designated for the objective. The City will provide letters certifying consistency with the consolidated plan for local agencies when applying for federal assistance, when the application is directly related to objectives in the five -year plan. The primary obstacle to overcoming the gap between needs and available services and housing for the special needs population is a lack of available funds and human resources for the tasks. The State of California has made significant cuts in current funding for social and health services, and insecurity as to future funding. Local government officials are reluctant to expand budgets without clear direction from the State Legislature as to how property funds will be divided between the State budget and local jurisdictions. At the same time, funding for federal programs for this population from the Department of Health and Human Services has not kept pace with increasing needs in the community; even funds for competitive programs are reduced through "earmarks" in appropriation bills. Other obstacles are ones that are known to all communities: One is a lack of public awareness of or support for particular problems, such as the unique problems of housing and supportive services for homeless persons with mental illnesses, or the long -term housing needs for developmentally disable persons. A second is local resistance to small residential facilities for persons in recovery or persons with development disabilities. A third obstacle is the increasingly limited funding to support residential and treatment care for special needs populations who have been "de- institutionalized," leading to a low -paid workforce and high turnover among such workers. A fourth is the increasing number of families without health insurance, leading to a lack of family funding for early treatment of mental illness, developmental disorders and other special needs. The trend toward reduced funding for these programs will only exacerbate the problem in coming years. At the same time, many families are unaware of health programs and services for which they are eligible, leading to a gap between providers and eligible recipients. The City also works with a number of local agencies that provide housing and /or service to persons with special needs and their families. • The Norman Park Senior Center provides an array of services. • Two other organizations assist in feeding low- income seniors in Chula Vista are Meals on Wheels, Salvation Army, and MAAC project's senior meal program in partnership with Feeding America. Meals- on- Wheels provides home delivery of meals five days a week to seniors who are homebound, and to persons with disabilities that make it difficult for the person to get out. • MAAC project provides food distribution site, in collaboration with the San Diego Food Bank, to low- income seniors at the MAAC office at 1385 Third Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91911. • South Bay Community Services also operates its South Bay Food Program at various locations in the City of Chula Vista. Consolidated Plan 1 74 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 140 Negative Effects of Public Policies on Affordable Housing and Residential Investment Governmental constraints can limit the operations of the public, private and nonprofit sectors making it difficult to meet the demand for affordable housing and limiting supply in the region. Governmental constraints are policies, development standards, requirements and actions imposed by the various levels of government upon land and housing ownership and development. These constraints may include land use controls, growth management measures, zoning and building codes, fees, processing and permit procedures, and site improvement costs. LACK OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUNDS With the dissolution of redevelopment in California, the City of Chula Vista has lost its most powerful tool and funding mechanism to provide affordable housing in the community. Funding at the State and Federal levels has also continued to experience significant cuts. With reduced funding and increased housing costs, the City faces significant challenges in providing affordable and decent housing opportunities for its lower and moderate income residents, especially with extremely low incomes. REGULATORY COMPLIANCE In 2013, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) released an update to the HOME Investment Partnership Act program (HOME). HOME funds is one of the primary funding sources for the creation of affordable housing in the City of Chula Vista. With the new definition of what is considered a "HOME Commitment" the City must ensure public, private, and non - profit sectors understand these new rules. These additional regulations may affect the development of affordable residential units. For a comprehensive list of the new HOME rules, please visit the HUD website at: https : / /Portal.hud.gov /hudportal/ HUD ?src= /hudprograms /home - program Other earmarks that may affect the ability to create affordable housing include the following: • 25% HOME match requirement • 15% CHDO set aside requirement • Commitment and Expenditure Requirements • 221 (d) (3) limit • 95% after rehab value • Other program updates that are releases without additional funding (non- funded mandates) LAND USE CONTROLS Land use controls take a number of forms that affect the development of residential units. These controls include General Plan policies, zoning designations (and the resulting use restrictions, development standards, and permit processing requirements), development fees and local growth management programs. PARKING REQUIREMENTS Parking requirements do not stain the development of housing directly. However, the costs of parking may increase total development costs. Consolidated Plan 1 75 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 141 STATE PREVAILING WAGE REQUIREMENTS The State Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) expanded the types of projects that require the payment of prevailing wages. Labor Code Section 1720, which applies prevailing wage rates of public works contracts over 1,000, now defines public works to mean construction, alteration, installation, demolition, or repair work done under contract and paid for in whole in part out of public funds. Prevailing wage adds to the overall costs of development. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION State law (Construction Environmental Quality Act, California Endangered Species Act) and federal law (National Environmental Protection Act, Federal Endangered Species Act), regulations require environmental review of proposed discretionary projects (e.g., subdivision maps, use permits, etc.). Costs resulting from environmental review process are also added to the cost of housing. DAVIS -BACON PREVAILING WAGES A prevailing wage must be paid to laborers when federal funds are used to pay labor costs for any project over $2,000 or on any multi - family rehabilitation project over eight units using CDBG funds and applies to HOME funded projects requiring more than 11 HOME units to be restricted units (based on the City's investment). The prevailing wage requirements are usually higher than competitive wages, raising the costs of housing production and rehabilitation activities. Davis -Bacon also adds to housing costs by requiring documentation of the prevailing wage compliance. These requirements often restrict participation by small minority contractors. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FEES Development fees and taxes charged by local governments also contribute to the costs of housing. Building, zoning, and site improvement fees can significantly add to the costs of construction and have a negative effect on the production of affordable housing. In addition, developers are required to pay local impact fees to local school districts. The City of Chula Vista fees to offset the costs associated with permit processing. When compared to other agencies in the region, Chula Vista permitting processing costs may affect overall development budgets. PERMIT AND PROCESSING PROCEDURES The processing time required to obtain approval of development plans is often cited as a contributing factor to the high cost of housing. For some proposed development projects, additional time is needed to complete the environmental review process before an approval can be granted. Unnecessary delays add to the cost of construction by increasing land holding costs and interest payments. Compared to other California cities, the City of Chula Vista processed entitlements and permits quickly and offers affordable housing developers the opportunity to participate in the City's expedite permit process. PUBLIC OPPOSITION TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING Not- in -My- Back -Yard (NIMBY) is a term used to describe opposition by local residents to construction, typically of affordable housing, though also in public facilities. Public opposition to affordable housing Consolidated Plan 1 76 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 142 projects can cause delays in the development review process and sometimes can lead to project denial. A large amount of funds can be spent by developers of affordable housing but ultimately with a proposed project being denied during the public hearing process due to public opposition. INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRAINTS Chula Vista strives to maintain existing infrastructure and meet the future demands. Challenges posed by new development including extending service to unserved areas, keeping pace with construction, and adjusting for changes in designated density. Challenges posed by density increases in older parts of the City including repairing existing deficiencies and maintaining and possible upsizing older infrastructure. STRATEGY TO REMOVE OR AMELIORATE THE BARRIERS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING The City of Chula Vista works to remove barriers to affordable housing and the financial impact efforts to protect the health and safety of its residents by taking actions to reduce costs or providing off - setting financing incentives to assist in the production of safe, high quality, affordable housing. To mitigate the impacts of these barriers the City may: • Apply for State and federal funding to gap finance affordable housing production and rehabilitation of existing affordable housing stock. • Continue to streamline the environmental review process for housing developments, using available state categorical exemptions and federal categorical exclusions, when applicable. Also, send staff to CEQA and NEPA trainings as needed to gain expertise in the preparation of environmental review documents. • Continue to improve the permit processing and planning approval processes to minimize delay in housing development in general and affordable housing development in particular. • Continue providing rehabilitation assistance and homeownership assistance, and to assist in the construction and preservation of affordable housing. • Encourage public participation when a proposed project is being considered for approval. • Implement policies and strategies identified in the 2013 -2020 Housing Element. Please refer to the 2013 -2020 Chula Vista Housing Element for a comprehensive list of Barriers to Housing: http: / /www.chulavistaca.gov/ departments /development- services /housing. Consolidated Plan 1 77 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 143 Introduction Economic Development Market Analysis Table 54. Business Activity Agriculture, Mining, Oil & Gas Extraction Number of 480 .� 125 2 .. 1 .� -2 Arts, Entertainment, Accommodations 3,036 3,103 13 13 -1 Construction 1,425 2,016 6 8 2 Education and Health Care Services 2,668 3,002 12 12 0 Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 1,276 932 6 4 -2 Information 613 278 3 1 -2 Manufacturing 3,292 4,806 14 20 5 Other Services 1,111 1,158 5 5 0 Professional, Scientific, Management Services 2,569 1,487 11 6 -5 Public Administration 466 124 2 1 -2 Retail Trade 2,683 3,106 12 13 1 Transportation and Warehousing 434 643 2 3 1 Wholesale Trade 1 1,407 1 1,467 1 6 1 6 1 0 Total 1 21,460 1 22,247 1 -- I -- I -- Data Source: 2006 -2010 ACS (Workers), 2010 Longitudinal Employer - Household Dynamics (Jobs) Table 55. Labor Force • '•• •• 36,942 Civilian Employed Population 16 years and over 34,020 Unemployment Rate 7.91 Unemployment Rate for Ages 16 -24 19.57 Unemployment Rate for Ages 25 -65 4.77 Data Source: 2006 -2010 ACS Consolidated Plan 1 78 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 144 Table 56. Employment by Industry Industry Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining Employment 2% p. 1% Median months . $22,304 Construction 6% 6% $38,105 Manufacturing 12% 9% $50,693 Wholesale trade 4% 3% $42,948 Retail trade 12% 11% $24,008 Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 3% 4% $47,316 Information 2% 2% $55,966 Finance and insurance, and real estate and rental and leasing 7% 7% $43,640 Professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste management services 15% 14% $47,486 Educational services, and health care and social assistance 19% 20% $37,314 Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation and food services 10% 11% $18,803 Other services, except public administration 5% 5% $22,597 Public administration 3% 6% $59,156 Total 100% 100% -- Table 57. Travel Time Travel Time < 30 Minutes Number 19,691 Percentage 61% 30 -59 Minutes 9,775 30% 60 or More Minutes 2,754 9% Total 32,220 100% Data Source: 2006 -2010 ACS Education Consolidated Plan 1 79 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 145 Table 58. Educational Attainment by Employment Status (Population 16 and Older) Labor Educational Attainment In by Age .. 18-24 yrs 323 Civilian Employed Unemployed Not in Labor 1,532 828 Force Less than high school graduate 5,003 353 2,097 High school graduate (includes 4,950 547 2,260 equivalency) 2,606 2,092 Some college or Associate's degree 8,749 613 2,935 Bachelor's degree or higher 10,014 423 2,071 Data Source: 2006 -2010 ACS 1,762 Associate's degree Table 59. Educational Attainment Educational Attainment Less than 9th grade by Age .. 18-24 yrs 323 25-34 yrs 1,521 .. 1,419 1,532 828 9th to 12th grade, no diploma 1,016 1,022 1,180 779 620 High school graduate, GED, or alternative 1,972 2,606 2,092 3,071 2,175 Some college, no degree 2,949 2,496 2,319 3,535 1,762 Associate's degree 1,220 1,240 1,197 1,767 745 Bachelor's degree 397 2,470 3,326 2,993 933 Graduate or professional degree 26 897 1,472 1,623 540 Data Source: 2006 -2010 ACS Table 60. Educational Attainment - Median Earnings in the Past 12 Months Educational Attainment Less than high school graduate Median Earnings in the Past 12 Months 20,550 High school graduate (includes equivalency) 27,324 Some college or Associate's degree 38,937 Bachelor's degree 57,742 Graduate or professional degree 71,464 Data Source: 2006 -2010 ACS Based on the Business Activity table above, what are the major employment sectors within your jurisdiction? Chula Vista's strategic location near the U.S Border with Mexico and other assets make it the retail, manufacturing, and service hub of South San Diego County. Within Chula Vista, the major employment sectors are Retail Trade; Education and Health Care Services; and Manufacturing. These three sectors represent approximately a large percent of the employment opportunities available in the City. Generally, South San Diego County is strong in manufacturing. Consolidated Plan 1 80 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 146 Describe the workforce and infrastructure needs of the business community: The recession hit the manufacturing industry in the region especially hard with losses of over 33,000 jobs during the past decade. Still with these challenges the manufacturing industry remains a vital component to San Diego County's economy. To prepare for the influx of manufacturing opportunities, the South County Economic Development Council (SCEDC) surveyed over 280 manufacturers between October 2011 and June 2012 to identify challenges and opportunities for local manufacturers. The survey reflects the majority of manufacturers are satisfied with their current location. However, manufacturers felt they were overburdened by regulations. The complexity of the regulations, the compliance requirements and the multiplicity of agencies was cited as putting them at a disadvantage. In addition, manufacturers expressed difficulty in finding qualified employees noting many of the training programs have been downsized or no longer exist due to budget cuts. There is a need to retrain current employees and offer additional training classes related to computerized manufacturing equipment. Also, taxes in California were compared unfavorably with taxes in other states. Furthermore, the labor force in South San Diego County is not as well educated as the average adult in California. South San Diego County also face many infrastructure challenges including an international border that needs major infrastructure investment. The efficient movement of goods and people safely through these ports of entry are critical to the region's economy and provide a competitive advantage. Funding is also needed for construction of new roadways, expansion and maintenance of existing roadways, and other infrastructure projects to accommodate current and projected growth demands. Within the City of Chula Vista, aging infrastructure continues to present challenges to the City in facilitating the revitalization of neighborhoods. The City completed the following planning documents: 1. Urban Core Specific Plan 2. Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan 3. Bayfront Specific Plan The documents in its entirety can be viewed at the City's Planning website at www.chulavistaca.gov/ departments /development- services /planning Describe any major changes that may have an economic impact, such as planned local or regional public or private sector investments or initiatives that have affected or may affect job and business growth opportunities during the planning period. Describe any needs for workforce development, business support or infrastructure these changes may create. The local economy currently and historically has been heavily influenced by the presence of the U.S. military and Department of Defense. The use of private contractors by this sector of the economy has been a major revenue and job generator. Despite projected cuts to future Defense budgets, the San Diego region stands to be a net gainer owing to its increasing military utility and shift of military focus to the West Coast. Both the Navy and Marine Corps also are slated to spend large amounts on Consolidated Plan 1 81 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 147 local construction projects in the coming years according the 2011 San Diego Military Economic Impact Study commissioned by the San Diego Military Advisory Council (SDMAC). While south and east San Diego County is associated with much of the R &D and more advanced or technical manufacturing in the region, as global competition increases, many manufacturing firms are forced to look overseas for additional or more affordable manufacturing. Some production will continue to move overseas. Being able to stay within the U.S. may enable more manufacturing firms in the region to take advantage of the military and /or defense department markets and provide more - skilled and better paying jobs. To protect this valuable asset it is critical that jurisdictions and service providers in South and East San Diego County strive to ensure the workforce, infrastructure, business resources, and general business climate stays competitive and is conducive to building this sector of the economy. How do the skills and education of the current workforce correspond to employment opportunities in the jurisdiction? The majority of Chula Vista residents who are employed have some college or associate degree level of education. However, only 26.9 percent have attained a bachelor's degree or higher. This will limit the types of industries that the region can currently support. Chula Vista continues to pursue a local University and continues on the planning efforts. A University in the City will most likely boost educational attainment and skills training; thereby, improving the region's competitive economic position. An educated and highly trained workforce would support existing and new businesses and remove limitations that lead to low- education and low -skill industry growth. Describe any current workforce training initiatives, including those supported by Workforce Investment Boards, community colleges and other organizations. Describe how these efforts will support the jurisdiction's Consolidated Plan. A number of workforce training initiatives and programs are available to Chula Vista residents. The following discussion provides details on the region's major programs: • San Diego Workforce Partnership (SDWP): SDWP has established programs and services promoting self- sufficiency and addressing the current and long -term needs of the region's employers and job seekers. The network of One -Stop Career Centers and the service providers offer adult and youth employment and training programs, labor market information, employment resources, summer and after - school jobs for youth, and job training for dislocated workers. In addition, SDWP's Adult Programs Committee provides governance to Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Adult funded programs. • Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS): Through the Workforce Development Service providers and partnerships established in the CEDS Study Area, job seekers can receive skills training for a wide range of occupations that support existing and emerging businesses. • San Diego and Imperial Counties Labor Council: The Labor Council is the local central body affiliate of the AFL -CIO. It includes 125 affiliated labor groups within San Diego County. Nearly every sector of the workplace is represented in the membership, including the building and construction trades, hotel workers, longshoremen, nurses, fire fighters, teachers and more. The Consolidated Plan 1 82 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 148 Labor Council provides training in a variety of skills and trades from entry level to journeyman. In the past, the Labor Council has worked alongside the SDWP, community colleges, and local employers to provide a range of job training programs and help meet employers' need for skilled workers. The Labor Council's programs also include Vocational English as a Second Language (VESL), pre- employment training in employer and workplace expectations, work ethics, resume preparation and job interviewing skills. A state -of- the -art computer technology center is available to help job seekers improve their English, math, and general computer skills, thereby improving their chances for better jobs. Technical skills are also taught in several trades so clients can be placed with some of the area's largest union employers. • AB109 Public Safety Realignment: Under the direction of the Community Corrections Partnership (CCP), the San Diego Public Safety Agencies, including the Probation Department, Sheriff's Department, District Attorney's Office, Public Defender's Office, came together with the San Diego Superior Court and other key partners, including the Health and Human Services Agency, to develop an AB 109 Implementation Plan focused on maintaining the highest level of public safety and ultimately, striving to reduce recidivism. As the agency charged with managing the realigned population, Probation will also engage community providers to obtain reentry services including, educational, job preparation, and vocational training /employment services, cognitive behavioral treatment, family strengthening strategies, restorative justice programs, and housing resources. Does your jurisdiction participate in a Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS)? If so, what economic development initiatives are you undertaking that may be coordinated with the Consolidated Plan? If not, describe other local /regional plans or initiatives that impact economic growth. In October2008,the South County Economic Development Council (SCEDC) received an Economic Development Administration (EDA) grant to create a Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS). The resulting 2011 CEDS is a collaborative effort between SCEDC, the East County Economic Development Council (ECEDC), the City of San Diego, and the County of San Diego. The CEDS study area consists of the southern and eastern portions of San Diego County (which includes the City of El Cajon) and the City of San Diego. The 2011 CEDS outlines the following goals and initiatives that work to foster economic growth and workforce development: Goal 1: Collaboration and Leadership • Communicate CEDS vision and goals throughout the CEDS Study Area. • Build a regional leadership base that is well- informed, economic development savvy, ethnically, politically and geographically diverse and includes multiple generations. Goal 2: Business Development and Entrepreneurship • Establish private and public partnerships to capture cross - border (U.S.- Mexico and San Diego County) economic development opportunities. • Develop and implement a strategy to fully realize the potential of the existing and emerging industries; develop and recruit new industries. • Encourage the development and growth of renewable energies and resources. Consolidated Plan 1 83 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 149 • Encourage the growth of innovative and creative entrepreneurial and home -based businesses throughout the CEDS Study Area, particularly in the rural areas. • Ensure that businesses have access to financing programs and credit assistance. Strive to improve the regional business climate and where possible the California business climate. Goal 3: Education and Workforce Development • Strengthen the connections between businesses and educators in an effort to prepare workers for jobs in the target industry groups. • Provide opportunities for the CEDS Study Area youth to obtain work skills and business experiences. • Improve the educational attainment and skill -based training in the CEDS Study Area. Goal 4: Infrastructure Development • Work to ensure local, state, and federal political representatives recognize and understand the importance of maintaining, improving, and expanding the infrastructure of the US- Mexico border to support commerce and security. • Support regional efforts to enhance, improve, and expand infrastructure within the CEDS Study Area and the border ports of entry. • Explore, expand and improve the passenger and cargo transportation infrastructure in the CEDS Study Area to ensure there are secure and efficient trade corridors that support business development and facilitate the efficient movement of goods and people across borders. • Support and promote existing and planned infrastructure projects. • Support and assist existing proposed infrastructure projects, including for Gillespie Field and highway improvements. Goal 5: Quality of Life • Expand arts, cultural, recreation, and entertainment activities that are readily accessible to people from both US and Mexico and would be attractive to international visitors. • Support and encourage unique retail and downtown renovation and development. • Work towards a jobs /housing balance. • Recognize the diversity (age, ethnicity, background, etc) of the CEDS Study Area's population as an asset and strive to meet their needs. A 2015, South /East San Diego County Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy and a report on accomplishment (February 2015), can be viewed at the following website: www. southcountVedc .com / #!southandeastcountyceds /clqml Are there areas where households with multiple housing problems are concentrated? (include a definition of "concentration ") Housing problems impact lower and moderate income households disproportionately, compared to non -low and moderate income households. Therefore, areas with concentrations of low and moderate income households are likely to have high rates of housing problems. Consolidated Plan 1 84 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 150 A low and moderate income concentration is defined as a block group where at least 51 percent of the population is low and moderate income. T h e m a p below presents the geographic concentration of low and moderate income population by block group. Overall, low and moderate income block groups cover more than half of the City, with high concentrations of low and moderate income households in the central core of the City. CENSUS 2010 BLOCK GROUPS LOWIMODERATE INCOME BG 11 _ CM STA C©BG Census Block Groups 0 0.5 1 2 Mlles Are there any areas in the jurisdiction where racial or ethnic minorities or low- income families are concentrated? (include a definition of "concentration ") According to the 2010 Census, the racial /ethnic composition of Chula Vista's population was: 20.4 percent White (non- Hispanic or Latino); 58.2 percent Hispanic; 4.6 percent Black or African American; 14.4 percent Asian; and approximately 2 percent indicating other ethnic group. A concentration of racial /ethnic population is defined as a block group with above County level of the same population. With Hispanics being the largest minority group in Chula Vista, a mapping of concentrations is prepared for this Consolidated Plan and included in Appendix B. The geographic concentrations of the Hispanic population generally overlap with the concentrations of low and moderate income residents. Consolidated Plan 1 85 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 151 The City also has a large population of Asian residents. While Asian residents still make up a small proportion of the City (approximately 14.4 percent), the proportion of Asian residents in C h u I a V i s t a is slightly higher than the California overall. Refer to map below for minority concentration areas. What are the characteristics of the market in these areas /neighborhoods? X00 Census [inority Pop. ;oncentration racts Legend F eemayc Majer Reads MINORITY NON - MINORITY N In Chula Vista, the areas of low and moderate income concentrations and minority concentrations generally overlap. These areas also correlate with the concentration of the City's multi - family housing and rental housing. According to the 2010 Census, Chula Vista has a 58.7 percent homeownership rate. Which translates into approximately 41.3% of City households are renters. The average household size for households (3.25 persons) in Chula Vista was higher than the California as a whole of 2.94 persons). As previously discussed, lower income renter - households had disproportionate affordable housing needs. All these characteristics point to significant housing assistance needs among lower income renter - households in these areas. Consolidated Plan 1 86 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 152 Are there any community assets in these areas /neighborhoods? The City has a strong network of active and dedicated nonprofit organizations and community groups that work to address the housing and community development needs in these neighborhoods and the City at large. The following service agencies are located in lower and moderate income neighborhoods: • Salvation Army • San Ysidro Health Clinic • Family Health Centers of San Diego • South Bay Community Services • MAAC Project • South County Economic Development Cooperation • Various churches who provide meals and services to the homeless • Catholic Charities • Chula Vista Friends of the Library • Police Activity League (Chula Vista) Are there other strategic opportunities in any of these areas? Yes, there are other strategic opportunities in some of these areas, including the Chula Vista Bayfront. There are other properties in Low and Moderate Income Areas that have development opportunities. Other sections of the City have been rated as potential developable using sustainability measures. Consolidated Plan 1 87 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 153 I. STRATEGIC PLAN The Strategic Plan is the centerpiece of the Consolidated Plan program years 2015 - 2019 (January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2019). It describes the City of Chula Vista's priorities and proposed actions for the Consolidated Plan which relate to affordable housing, homeless assistance, and construction of infrastructure and community facilities. Resources are targeted to meet the needs of a wide range of City residents including the elderly, homeless, special needs persons, and low- and moderate - income persons. More specifically, the Strategic Plan describes: • General priorities for addressing the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD's) primary objectives including: Suitable Living Environment, Economic Development, and Decent Housing • Objectives identifying the use of funds. • Programs that may be carried out for the Plan period. The objectives and outcomes are listed with the proposed activities and funding sources. PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS • HUD CPD Objective- Creating Suitable Living Environments • HUD CPD Outcome - Availability /Accessibility • Sidewalk Improvements (CDBG, Federal & State Grant funds) • Park improvements (CDBG, Federal & State Grant funds) • Americans With Disabilities (ADA) improvements to public facilities and infrastructure (CDBG) • CIP projects to be identified in qualifying census tracts (CDBG) HOUSING PROGRAMS • HUD CPD Objective- Decent Housing • HUD CPD Outcomes - Affordability and Sustainability • Down payment assistance loans for first -time homebuyers (CalHome Program,HOME) • Homeowner rehabilitation loans for health and safety repairs (CDBG funds) NON - PROFIT COORDINATION • HUD CPD Objective - Suitable Living Environment • HUD CPD Outcomes - Availability /Accessibility o Funding to ensure the provision of information for help with primary financial, food, physical health, community development and housing needs (CDBG) AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING SP 1 2015- 05 -0%�W &PaWW"(., DIVI51011 Page 154 • HUD CPD Objective- Decent Housing • HUD CPD Outcome - Availability /Accessibility • Fair Housing Services (CDBG) • Fair Housing Testing (CDBG) • Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (City's Pro Rata Share) (CDBG) The Strategic Plan also addresses the following areas: • Anti - poverty strategy; • Lead -based paint hazard reduction; • Reduction of barriers to affordable housing; and • Institutional structure /coordination among agencies. Chula Vista's Strategic Plan strives to build on the accomplishments of the 2010 Consolidated Plan Five - Year Strategic Plan as well addressing issues which have grown in importance or changing conditions. Notwithstanding, the City's basic housing and community development objectives have not changed. The City partners with other governmental entities to increase efficiency, coordinate service delivery, and leverage additional resources. The private sector assists with the provisions of services through for - profit housing developers, community housing development organizations (CHDOs), nonprofits, and other similar organizations. It is important to note that while the City has made progress in addressing its needs, the level of housing and community service needs cannot be totally remedied within the next five years without a substantial increase in the level of federal funds appropriated to HUD. SP .�.++►- 2015- 05 -0%�W &PaWW"(" ❑IVI51011 Page 155 GEOGRAPHIC AREA r-Im CENSUS 2010 ^O SWCKMOU's LOWIMOMMIE INCOME 6G CDBG Census Block Groups 0 OS l 2 Miles GENERAL ALLOCATION PRIORITIES Describe the basis for allocating investments geographically within the jurisdiction (or within the EMSA for HOPWA) Once the largest lemon growing center in the world, Chula Vista has rapidly grown, developed and expanded to become one of the nation's fastest growing cities. Chula Vista had the eighth fastest growth percentage rate nationally since 2010 U.S. Census for cities with a population over 100,000. Now home to nearly a quarter - million residents, Chula Vista is the second largest city in San Diego County. The City encompasses approximately 52 square miles of land area from San Diego Bay eastward to Otay Lakes and includes most of the land between Sweetwater River to the north and the Otay River to the south. The Bayfront, rivers, hills define Chula Vista. Located minutes from downtown San Diego and the U.S- Mexico border, Chula Vista has convenient access to the regions cultural, recreational, educational, and business opportunities. SP 3 z Cfl'}'UF -I �. 2015- 05 -0*kk A* Ya�R ING DIVISION Page 156 The City's communities can be distinguished by geographic planning areas that follow the overall development patterns of the City. • Northwest — That area north of L Street and east of Interstate 5, also referred to as the City's historic urban core; • Southwest — That area south of L Street, generally encompassing those neighborhoods included within the Montgomery annexation of 1985; • East — That area east of Interstate 805, generally encompassing master planned communities developed from the early 1990's; and, • Bayfront — That area west of Interstate -5 and north of L Street, currently underdeveloped with some development and large vacant waterfront properties. The City of Chula Vista focuses on each of the four geographic planning areas to target appropriate programs and activities given their unique physical, economic, and cultural characteristics. By utilizing a geographic focus area approach, the City is able to implement programs that better address the growing needs of the Chula Vista community. Within the older neighborhoods of the Northwest and Southwest Planning Areas, policies and programs are focused on the preservation and maintenance of housing and neighborhoods and revitalization of these areas with newer development. Although eastern Chula Vista has developed significantly in the past decade, most new development in Chula Vista will continue to be in that area of the City. While the City has not established specific target areas to focus the investment of CDBG /HOME /ESG funds, specific geographic distribution of investments, infrastructure improvements and public facilities will be focused primarily in areas of concentrations of low and moderate income population which are primarily located within the Northwest and Southwest areas of the City. The map above contains a list of block groups illustrating the low and moderate income areas in the City (defined as a block group where at least 51 percent of the population with incomes not exceeding 80 percent of the Area Median SP 4 z Cfl'}'UF -I �. 2015- 05 -0*kk A* Ya�R ING DIVISION Page 157 Income). For community -wide activities, income verification is used to ensure low -to moderate - income beneficiary levels. Investments in public facilities, including capital improvement projects, and services serving special needs populations and primarily low and moderate income persons can be made throughout the City so long as the activity meets a HUD National objective and there is demonstrated significant benefit to low and moderate income persons. The general basis used for prioritizing investments includes the total number of residents benefited, the urgent need of a given community within the City, environment issues that threaten life or property, the need for improved access, and other important needs of the community as a whole. For public services, the City utilizes 15 percent of its Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) allocation to provide small grants to non - profit organizations that demonstrate an ability to provide needed services that directly benefit the low and moderate income residents of the City of Chula Vista. By directing public service funds as grants to these non - profits, the City is able to leverage its CDBG funds for projects and activities that serve the greatest number of residents with this limited amount of funding. Housing assistance will be available to income - qualified households. Due to aging housing stock in Northwest and Southwest Chula Vista, priority will be given to those households who wish to participate in owner occupied residential rehabilitation programs to maintain safe housing and for revitalization of neighborhoods. New construction of affordable housing will likely occur in East Chula Vista with its available undeveloped land and to provide for a more diverse and varied housing stock in the area. The City utilizes CDBG funds for Capital Improvement Projects (CIPS) for the objective of creating a suitable living environment and utilizing HUD performance measurements /outcomes of availability /sustainability. The City has a detailed list of approved Capital Improvement Projects that demonstrate a general public need but, due to budget constraints, funding may not be available for those smaller projects. Priority for allocating CDBG funding is given to capital improvement projects located within an approved HUD qualifying census tract and /or census block group. Capital Improvement Project priorities are assigned based on a number of factors including: the total number of residents benefited; areas of other projects; phase of improvement project; needs assessment results; and budget prioritization of Capital Improvement Projects, assuming the project is within a qualifying census tract. Priorities for CIP projects are addressed by the City Council and the budget for the City during each fiscal year (July 1 to June 30). SP 5 .�.++►- 2015- 05 -0%�W &PaWW"(" ❑IVISK)" Page 158 The City of Chula Vista has established the following priority needs which guide funding during the five - year Consolidated Planning period. The Priorities and Annual Action Plan goals are described below: A. HOUSING PRIORITIES The City's top housing priorities during the next 5 years are: PRIORITY 1: AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING FOR LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSEHOLDS The City of Chula Vista's 2013 -2020 Housing Element Policy 2.2 states the City will utilize available resources, seek to preserve and provide sufficient, suitable, and varied housing by small and large family size, type of unit, and cost particularly permanent affordable housing that meets the needs of existing and future residents of Chula Vista. Input from stakeholders and survey results identified programs that prevent and mitigate homelessness as a high priority as well as those projects and programs that serve special needs populations. Priority will be given to programs /projects that provide assistance to extremely low, very low and moderate income households and special needs households. The development of affordable rental housing also meets the City's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) goals to provide for the new construction of housing units to meet the anticipated growth in population in the San Diego County region. Per the 2013 -2020 Housing Element the City's RHNA goals are the following: Table 1. Chula Vista Housing Needs Assessment Goals Income Category RHNA Construction Need Extremely Low 1,605 Very Low 1,604 Low 2,439 Moderate 2,257 Above Moderate 4,956 Total 12,681 Priority: Produce affordable rental units for low and moderate income households. Objective: Provide 230 affordable housing units (approximately 3 affordable housing projects during the ConPlan). Resources: Development Services - Housing Division: Production of Affordable Housing: HOME entitlement funds will be utilized for affordable housing development, housing site improvements, predevelopment costs and other activities to stimulate housing for lower income persons in the City. SP 6 r� 2015- 05 -fD** V] &Pad` k" ,[' D1111510n Page 159 Balanced Communities - Affordable Housing Policy: The City of Chula Vista's Housing Element of the General Plan states that any development over 50 units must provide 10 percent of the units for low and moderate income households, with at least one -half of those units (5 percent of project total) being designated for low- income households. PRIORITY 2: MAINTENANCE AND PRESERVATION OF EXISTING HOUSING STOCK The age of the housing is often an indicator of housing conditions. Housing over 50 years old is considered aged and more likely to generate major repairs. In Chula Vista, 15 percent of The City's housing units were built prior to 1960, approximately 47 percent of the housing units were built prior to 1980, therefore, the majority (62 percent) of Chula Vista's housing is at least 30 years or older, and may be in need of repairs. The City will provide financial assistance to income - eligible households to rehabilitate owner - occupied single family homes as well as multi - family units in an effort to preserve or increase The City's affordable housing stock. The City of Chula Vista's 2013 -2020 Housing Element Policy 2.1 establishes a need for rehabilitation of the City's housing stock and preserving the integrity of residential neighborhoods by preventing deterioration and leveraging housing programs with planned capital improvements that encourage further capital investment in neighborhoods. The City will utilize community -based rehabilitation programs such as CHIP and other programs supported by local utilities and regional partners to encourage the maintenance and enhancement of residential quality and sustainability. This activity will complement the San Diego Association of Government's (SANDAG's) Sustainability Communities Strategy. Priority: Maintain and preserve the city's housing stock. Objective: Maintain and /or preserve 55 Housing Units (approximately 10 housing units per year) Resources: Community Housing Improvement Program (CHIP): Continued successful implementation of the City's Community Housing Improvement Program (CHIP) which provides favorable loans to low- income homeowners to preserve and rehabilitate deteriorating homes and to provide greater accessibility for those with physical disabilities. Eligible rehabilitation activities include water conservation, energy efficiency, and lead -based paint abatement. PRIORITY 3: HOMEOWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES An Affordability Gap analysis indicates that households must earn $75,000 a year to afford a median priced home in Chula Vista. Sale prices, especially for detached homes, are still largely unaffordable in Chula Vista. Input from stakeholders and survey results identified First Time Homebuyer programs as a Priority. SP 7 r� 2 015- 05 -0%�W &PaWk" ,[, DIVIS10% Page 160 The City may leverage its Cal -Home funds from the State of California Housing and Community Development (State HCD) to assist homebuyers. Priority: Provide homeownership assistance and other programs to help renters become homeowners. Objective: Provide 20 affordable housing units (3 to 5 households annually). Resources: Mortgage Credit Certificate Program (MCC): The MCC program allows eligible buyers to take 20 percent of their mortgage interest as a tax credit on the federal income taxes. To be eligible for the MCC program in non - targeted Census tracts, a household must be a first -time homebuyer, buy a home in Chula Vista, and earn less than 115 percent of area median income. Chula Vista Pre- and Post - Purchase Counseling Program: Courses are held throughout the region with pre- and post- purchase counseling services. Chula Vista First Time Homebuver Program: This City program helps families earning up to 80 percent of AMI through a soft second on their first home purchase. Chula Vista's Cal Home First -Time Homebuver Program: The City received a $1 million grant award from the State of California to provide homebuyer assistance to approximately 16 households. Reissued Mortgage Credit Certificate Program (RMCQ: This program allows an existing MCC holder to refinance their mortgage and continue utilizing the benefit of having an MCC. B. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES The City's top community development priorities during the next 5 years are based on a review of the City of Chula Vista infrastructure needs and proposed economic development strategies: Priority 1: Infrastructure improvements Priority: Infrastructure improvements in low and moderate income neighborhoods. Targeted activities: • Street and sidewalk improvements in low income areas. • Flood prevention and drainage improvements. SP 8 r� 2015- 05- 0%�W*aiPaWWE '(' DIVI510% Page 161 PRIORITY 2: Community Enhancement Priority will be given to improvements made to facilities serving youth, park, recreational and neighborhood facilities, facilities serving other special needs populations, health and child care facilities. Priority: Community facilities Targeted groups: • Facilities serving youth. • Park and recreational and neighborhood facilities. • Facilities serving other special needs populations. • Health and child care facilities. PRIORITY 3: Public ServicesFORSpecial Needs and Homeless Priority is given to fund the maximum amount allowable (15% of the annual CDBG entitlement) to services that benefit low /moderate income, special needs and homeless populations. With limited funding available and to effectively serve the greatest needs and the most vulnerable populations groups, highest priority is given to programs providing basic/ essential services (food, housing, emergency services). Medium priority is given to special needs populations (at -risk youth, family violence, disabled persons, and elderly persons). Low Priority will be given to all other categories. These priorities are consistent with community surveys responses that were received during the public outreach process and call logs from 2 -1 -1 San Diego. The City may utilize the funding methodology below that consists of a three -tier approach, classifying each of the activities in the following three categories for Public Services activities: Tier I: Basic /Essential Needs (Food, Housing, Emergency Services) Tier II: Special Needs (At -Risk Youth, Family Violence, Special Needs /Disabled) Tier III: Other (Transportation Services, Case Management, Preventative Health Care Services, Crime Prevention (for non -at risk populations) Recreation (non - disabled, non- emergency services) PRIORITY 4: Economic Development priorities Input from stakeholders and survey results identified programs to increase employment opportunities for low and moderate income persons, including job training opportunities. The San Diego Work Force Partnership and the South Bay Career Center provide some of these services for Chula Vista residents. However, the City will continue to seeking funding opportunities such as HUD's Promise Zone program and other economic development grants and incentives that are available to local government agencies to assist with meeting these goals. Note: The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development advised the City not to fund any economic development activities until further notice due to audit of the City's programs in 2005. The SP 9 r� 2015- 05- 0%�W*aiPaWWE '( D1111510% Page 162 City was advised to submit an economic development Strategic Plan (SP) that includes underwriting and public benefit standards for HUD's approval. The SP should include the types of activities that the City may fund using Community Development Block Grant funds and how the City or its Subrecipients will monitor for compliance with the Low and Moderate income Benefit National Objective standards. Due to limited resources and no interest in these types of programs, a plan has not been submitted to HUD for review and approval. During this ConPlan period, if the City receives enough interest in funding these types of activities (identified above as a priority below), Housing staff will utilize the resources of the Economic Development Department. Priority: The city may provide funding for local small businesses by funding job creation/ job training activities. Activities will include job training opportunities to assist low and moderate income person obtain /retain full -time employment. SP I P a g e 10 .�.++►- 2015- 05 -0%�W &PaWW"(` ❑IVI51011 Page 163 Table 2. Influence Affordable of Market Conditions Housing Type Tenant Based the use of funds available for housing type The City of Chula Vista receives approximately $500,000 annually in HOME funds. Rental Assistance Approximately 3,224 households are already participating in the Housing Choice Voucher (TBRA) Program (Section 8 program). There are 4 existing public housing projects in Chula Vista. Given the limited funding and existing rental assistance programs, the City may utilize HOME TBRA funds to specifically assist special needs population and /or displaced residents. The higher market -rate rents in East Chula Vista will limit the ability of Housing Choice Voucher holders and TBRA programs to successfully obtain rental housing within this area. TBRA for Non- The City of Chula Vista receives approximately $500,000 annually in HOME funds. Homeless Special Approximately 3,224 households are already participating in the Housing Choice Voucher Needs Program (Section 8 program). There are 4 existing public housing projects in Chula Vista. Given the limited funding and existing rental assistance programs, the City does not plan to utilize HOME TBRA funds to assist Non - Special needs households. High market -rate rents in East Chula Vista will limit the ability of Housing Choice Voucher holders and TBRA programs to successfully obtain rental housing within this area. New Unit The majority of the City's lower and moderate income households (67 %) experience a Production housing cost burden, paying more than 30% of their income towards housing costs. The supply of affordable housing is limited compared to the need. For the 2010 -2020 planning period, Chula Vista has a Regional Housing Need for 5,648 newly constructed units for low income households to meet the expected population growth. Based on funding availability and allocations, the City may allocate a portion of its HOME or CDBG funds to increase the supply of safe, decent, affordable housing for lower income households (including extremely low income households), particularly for those large families, disabled, the homeless, and those at risk of homelessness. Rehabilitation The age of the housing is often an indicator of housing conditions. In general, housing that is 30 years or older may need minor repair, with housing over 50 years old more likely to generate major repairs. In Chula Vista, the majority (62 percent) of Chula Vista's housing is at least 30 years or older. The City will provide assistance to rehabilitate owner occupied single family homes and to rehabilitate multi - family units to preserve or increase the City's affordable housing stock. No funding will be spent on owner occupied rehabilitation for properties built after 1985. Acquisition, The 2013 -2020 Housing Element identified 501 assisted housing units that are considered including "at risk" of converting to market -rate housing over the next ten years. The City will work preservation toward the preservation of these units. The City will also pursue acquisition /rehabilitation of multi - family housing and deed restricting the improved units as affordable housing. SP I P a g e 11 r� 2015- 05- 0%�W&PaWRP ,[ DIVI510% Page 164 SP -35 ANTICIPATED RESOURCES - 91.215(A)(4), 91.220(C)(1,2) Table 3. Anticipated Resources 2015 -05 -1 g a Packe� � CHl LAVISTA I HOUSING DIVISION SPIPage12 Page 165 Program Source of Funds UsesofFunds Expected Amount Annual Available Program Year 1 Prior Year Total: Expected Amount Available Remaining Narrative Description Housing Services Allocation: Income: Resources: of Con Plan CDBG Federal Public $1,769,214 $100,000 $0 $1,869,214 $7,075,856 In 2015, the City will Improvements receive$ 1,769,214 In CDBG ■ Public Facilities entitlement funds from the • ADAlmprovements US Department of Housing • Program and Urban Development. Administration The City anticipates Fair Housing receiving approximately Services $100,000 in Program income & Fair Housing Testing from loan payoffs or & Public Services - payments from assessment Non- profit districts. Organizatlonsthat serve low and Anticipated resources may moderate income be decreased if HUD reduces the entitlement and can persons range from 5% to 10 %. ■ Homeowner Rehabilitation Homebuyer Assistance ■ Community Policing ■ Economic Development • Administration HOME Federal a Acquisition $571,833 $0 $0 $571,833 $2,287.332 In 2015, the City will ■ Rehabilitation receive$571,833 in HOME • Homebuyer entitlement funds from the Assistance US Department of Housing New Construction of and Urban Development. Multi- family • Tenant Based Rental Anticipated resources may Assistance be decreased if HUD reduces the entitlement and can range from 5% to 10%. ■ Administration ESG Federal ■ Shelter $153,270 $0 $0 $153,270 $613,080 In 2015, the City will ■ Shelter outreach receive$153,270 in E5G ■ HMIS entitlement funds from the ■ Homeless US Department of Housing Prevention and Urban Development. • Rapid Re- Housing Anticipated resources may be decreased if HUD reduces the entitlement and can range from 5% to 10 %. 2015 -05 -1 g a Packe� � CHl LAVISTA I HOUSING DIVISION SPIPage12 Page 165 Explain how federal funds will leverage those additional resources (private, state and local funds), including a description of how matching requirements will be satisfied. City staff, in its funding applications, emphasizes the need to leverage federal, state and local resources. Applications are evaluated based upon the program and organization's ability to leverage and its fiscal stability and sustainability. These efforts have been fruitful and projects funded under CDBG, HOME, and ESG have substantially exceeded the accomplishments that could have been achieved from federal funds alone. Although there is no official match requirement in the CDBG program, in most cases, other funds, such as private funds received through donors or fund raising activities, commercial loans, Gas Tax funds, non - federal funds, are used to supplement and defray project costs. HOME funds require a 25% match and ESG funds require a dollar for dollar match. The HOME program requires that for every HOME dollar spent, the City must provide a 25 percent match with non - federal dollars. In the past, Redevelopment Low and Moderate Income Housing funds were the City's primary source for leveraging or providing matching funds for the City's Housing programs. With the dissolution of redevelopment in California, the City no longer has access to this funding source. With the City's proactive production of affordable housing, the City maintains an excess of funds leveraged from previous fiscal years that will fulfill the City's HOME match requirements for future years. The ESG program requires that for every ESG dollar spent, the City must provide a 100 percent match with non - federal dollars. The matching funds are met by the non - profit organizations themselves through the leveraging of their other non - federal funds, such as private donations. The City utilizes additional Federal, State and Local funding sources to leverage the HUD Community Planning and Development (CPD) funds that the City or its Subrecipients receive, as further described below and detailed within the City's 2013 -2020 Housing Element, Appendix C Section 3.0. FEDERAL PROGRAMS Rental Assistance Program (Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program): The Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program provides almost $85 million annually in tenant -based rental assistance for very low - income households residing in privately owned rental units. Program participants typically pay between 30 to 40 percent of their monthly- adjusted incomes for rent and utilities. The Housing Authority of the County of San Diego (HACSD) administers the program in the City of Chula Vista and issues the assistance payments directly to the landlords on behalf of the assisted households. Supportive Housing Program (SHP): SHP provides grants to improve the quality of existing shelters and transitional housing, and increases the availability of transitional housing facilities for the homeless. SHP is the primary program supporting transitional housing for the homeless. For a comprehensive list of projects that received an award under this program, please visit the following weblink: http: / /www.sdcounty.ca.gov /sdhcd /homeless /supportive housing program.html Or by visiting HUD's website at the following link: https: / /www.onecpd .info /resource /1237 /usich- opening- doors - federal - strategic -plan- end - homelessness/ Strategic Plan I P a g e 13 01� OF r� CHULAVIST.-N ry(7iJ$Iti[, L)IVI %Y, 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 166 National Housing Trust Fund: Approved by Congress but still unfunded, the National Housing Trust Fund could at some point become a new source for new affordable and supportive housing. At the time of this writing, however, funding has not been identified. Project Based Section 8: The County of San Diego Housing and Community Development Department issues a Notice of Funding Availability for Project -based Section 8 voucher for special needs populations, contingent on funding availability. Using these funds for operations will allow developers to leverage other funds to develop additional housing units in Chula Vista. Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) Program: The City of Chula participates in the San Diego Regional MCC Program developed and administered by County Department of Housing and Community Development. The Program provides home purchase assistance to low- and moderate - income first -time homebuyers with incomes at or below 115% of the State Median Income. Homebuyers receive a federal income tax credit equal to 20% of the annual interest on their mortgage loan. The County's program includes the City of Chula Vista. First Time Homebuyers are encouraged to apply. STATE PROGRAMS California Department of Housing and Community Development (State HCD): State HCD administers a number of programs that provide funds that can be combined with other federal and local funds. Low- Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC): Federal and State tax credits are used by developers of multi- family housing in return for reserving a portion of the development for moderate -, low -, and very low - income households at affordable rents. These Federal and State tax credits are allocated by the State based on a priority scoring system. Over the years, several non - profit organizations, assisted with City funds, have received LIHTC funds. City will continue to encourage organizations to apply for and utilize these funds consistent with the 2010 -2015 City of Chula Vista Consolidated Plan. Mental Health Services Act (MHSA): The passage of Proposition 63 (MHSA) in November 2004, provided the first opportunity in many years for the State Department of Mental Health to provide increased funding for personnel and other resources to support county mental health programs and monitor progress toward statewide goals for children, transition age youth, adults, older adults and families. The Act addresses a broad continuum of prevention, early intervention and service needs and the necessary infrastructure, technology and training elements that will effectively support this system. It is anticipated that the MHSA housing funding may be leveraged with the City of Chula Vista's housing programs (based on availability of funding). Cal -HOME Program: A Notice of Funding Availability is released each year through a competitive application process that provides funds for mortgage assistance to low- income first -time homebuyers. In the event the City is successful in its grant application, these funds would be used to supplement HOME funds and would be awarded in conjunction with The City's Homebuyer Assistance Program. The California Housing Finance Agency (CaIHFA): CalHFA supports the needs of renters and first -time homebuyers by providing financing and programs that create safe, decent and affordable housing opportunities for individuals within specified income ranges. Established in 1975, CalHFA was chartered Strategic Plan 14 01� OF r� CHULAVIST.4 HotJYMI 171111510', 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 167 as the State's affordable housing bank to make below market -rate loans through the sale of tax - exempt bonds. The bonds are repaid by revenues generated through mortgage loans and not taxpayer dollars. State of California Multi- family Housing Program (MHP): This program provides permanent financing for affordable multi - family housing development, in the form of low- interest loans to developers for new construction, rehabilitation, or acquisition and rehabilitation of permanent or transitional rental housing, and the conversion of nonresidential structures to rental housing. The Landings I affordable housing project in Chula Vista received MHP funds during fiscal year 2008 -2009. City will encourage affordable housing developers to apply for these funding opportunities as they are available. However, in 2010, the State MHP issued, what was the reported as, the final MHP Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA). No new source of funding has been identified. City will continue to explore funding availability as the State identifies new sources to fill this gap. State of California Emergency Housing Assistance Program (EHAP): This program funds emergency shelters, transitional housing, and services for homeless individuals and families. EHAP funds operating costs and support services through grants. Capital development funding is structured as forgivable loans. Federal Home Loan Bank Affordable Housing Program (AHP): The Affordable Housing Program provides grants and subsidized loans to support affordable rental housing and homeownership opportunities. Housing Related Parks Grant (HRP): State HCD provides funding through the Housing - Related Parks (HRP) Program (Program). The HRP Program is designed to encourage cities and counties to develop new residential housing by rewarding those jurisdictions that approve housing affordable to lower - income households and are in compliance with State housing element law. The HRP Program was funded through Proposition 1C, the Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act of 2006, Health and Safety Code Section 53545, subdivision (d) and originally established pursuant to Chapter 641, Statutes of 2008 (AB 2494, Caballero), at Chapter 8 of Part 2 of Division 31 of the Health and Safety Code (commencing with Section 50700) and subsequently amended pursuant to Chapter 779, Statutes 2012 (AB 1672, Torres). The Program awards funds on a per- bedroom basis for each residential unit affordable to very lowand low- income households permitted during the designated Program year. The Program provides funds for parks and recreation projects that benefit the community and add to the quality of life. LOCAL PROGRAMS City Density Bonus Programs: The City's density bonus program is administered by the City of Chula Vista's Development Services Housing Division (City HD). City HD administers the occupancy requirements as they relate to eligible income and rent requirements for units developed under these programs. In conformance with State Density Bonus Law, these programs establish provisions by which densities may exceed those set by the City Zoning Ordinance or further described in applicable specific plans if the developer reserves some or all of the proposed units for various periods of time for very low and low- income families and seniors. Strategic Plan 15 01� OF r� CHULAVIST.4 HotJYMI 171111510', 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 168 Balanced Communities Policy: The Housing Element of The City's General Plan (2013 -2020) establishes goals and policies for the City to address a number of important housing related issues. One of the focus areas is to ensure the City supports varied housing opportunities for the diverse needs of residents including the establishment of permanent affordable housing opportunities for low- and moderate - income households. Adopted in 1981, the Balanced Communities Policy ( "Policy') was established to increase the diversity of housing prices /rents throughout the Chula Vista community and ensure that the range of prices /rents continues over time. The Policy requires certain residential development of 50 units or more to provide 10% of the total number of dwelling units as affordable to low (5%) and moderate (5%) income households. Conventional Lending Industry: Banks have participated in providing conventional loans for development of affordable rental units. The banking industry is also active in providing first -time homebuyer assistance in conjunction with State and federal programs. Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC): LISC helps resident -led, community -based development organizations transform distressed communities and neighborhoods into healthy ones. By providing capital, technical expertise, training and information, LISC supports the development of local leadership and the creation of affordable housing, commercial, industrial and community facilities, businesses and jobs. Federal Home Loan Bank Community Investment Fund: Grants and loans are made through the Federal Home Loan Bank System, with more than 200 member savings and loan associations. Loans are made through member banks to sponsors of affordable housing and other community revitalization and development activities. If appropriate, describe publically owned land or property located within the jurisdiction that may be used to address the needs identified in the plan. Discussion The City as Successor Housing Agency to the former Redevelopment Agency (RDA), has a number of vacant properties that may be used to support additional affordable housing projects over the next five to ten years. These properties must be used to further the goal of the City in the development of additional affordable housing units. In addition, The City's Housing Authority, acting as the Successor Housing Agency to the former Redevelopment Agency (RDA), oversees all housing assets and functions acquired or assisted with Low and Moderate Income Housing Funds in February 2012. Although no new Low and Moderate Income funds will be available, the Chula Vista Housing Authority has accepted the responsibility for the physical housing assets and loan portfolio which may continue to generate income as loans are repaid. The Chula Vista Housing Authority will have the responsibility of determining the direction and focus of any investment of the income generated from original Low and Moderate Income Housing Funds. These funds may be used to purchase property to meet the goals and objectives included in this Plan. Strategic Plan 16 01� OF CHULAVIST.4 H0 tJSJNQ L)JVJ%IC , 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 169 Explain the institutional structure through which the jurisdiction will carry out its consolidated plan including private industry, non - profit organizations, and public institutions. Table 4. Institutional Structure Responsible Entity Responsible Entity Type Role Geographic Area Served City of City Chula Local Government Oversight and Administration of CDBG, Jurisdiction Vista HOME and ESG funds. These funds serve low and moderate income persons /households with an array of services. Services /Programs /Projects include the following: Decent Housing, Economic Development, Public Infrastructure Improvements, Public Facility Improvements, Public Services. Housing Authority Local Government Oversight and Administration of Jurisdiction of the City of Chula Housing Asset Fund (formerly known Vista as the Redevelopment Low and Moderate Income Housing fund). These funds are used to provide affordable housing opportunities for low and moderate income persons /households. County of San Local HOPWA Region Diego Government /PHA Section 8 Public Housing Regional Community Homelessness Region Continuum of Care Collaboration Council (RCCC) Strategic Plan 1 17 CPTYOF CHULAVII fR HOUSIM1IG DIVI514h 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 170 ASSESS OF STRENGTHS AND GAPS IN THE INSTITUTIONAL DELIVERY SYSTEM Housing, supportive services, and community development activities for residents in Chula Vista are delivered by a public agencies, non - profit organizations, private entities, and churches. The City has identified the following gaps and strengths in the delivery system. GAPS: • Continued high cost of living in the City of Chula Vista and the San Diego County region. • Wages throughout the region do not correspond to high cost of living, especially for low -to moderate - income families. • Structural issues with the State of California budgeting process which leads to fiscal instability and reduced funding for public services. • Continued financial difficulties for the State's education system. • Fragmentation of certain programs serving special needs populations; there is a lack of resources to form a comprehensive approach to care. • Drastically limited amount of funds available from federal and state agencies for social services, health services, community development and rental assistance programs. • The State of California's elimination of redevelopment. This has seriously impaired the City's ability to partner with the private sector to leverage government funds for development projects that serve as an economic boost to the City as well as providing a safe and affordable housing for Chula Vista residents. STRENGTHS: • The City's cultural and philosophical commitment to the provision of affordable housing for low and moderate - income residents of Chula Vista through its Balanced Communities Policy. • The City's cultural and philosophical commitment to creating a more suitable quality of life for all of the residents of Chula Vista. • The City continues to seek large retail lenders offering conventional interest rate mortgage loans to assist First -Time Homebuyers. • The City has developed positive working relationships with existing private and nonprofit affordable housing developers to enhance the production of affordable rental and for -sale housing projects in Chula Vista to mitigate the impact of the current economy and high cost of living in Chula Vista. • The City may still be able to provide gap financing to assist affordable housing developers in the production of affordable housing. Currently, the City (the second largest City in the County) has one of the highest number of affordable housing units in the County. These units were created as a result of the City's Balanced Communities Policy and its financial assistance through its former Redevelopment funds and HUD, NSP, HOME and CDBG funds. • The City of Chula Vista continues to be an active participant in regional and sub - regional planning projects for economic development, housing, and transportation. We collaborate with the South Bay Homeless Advocacy Coalition, San Diego Regional Continuum of Care Council (RCCC), San Diego Association of Government's (SANDAG's) Regional Planning Technical Group, San Diego Regional Alliance for Fair Housing (SDAFFH), SANDAG's Regional Housing Working Group, SANDAG's Strategic Plan 18 01� OF r� CHULAVIST.4 HotJYMI 171111510', 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 171 Cities /Counties Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC), South County Economic Development Council, Third Avenue Village Association, and the San Diego County's CDBG Coordinator's Group. • The City continues to focus on development projects that serve as an economic boost to the City as well as providing a safe and affordable housing for Chula Vista residents. • The City's most current, adopted Housing Element identifies the housing needs of the City, serves as a planning tool, and establishes a multi -year action plan to meet these needs. • The City has an Economic Development Department that supports the economic, educational, and cultural interests of the community and seeks to provide a link to the business community with educational, governmental, and non - profits organizations. • The City is fortunate to have the Chula Vista Charitable Foundation whose mission is to provide funds for non - profit agencies that provide valuable services to the community. • The City participates in the Regional CDBG Coordinator Group meetings with other entitlement jurisdictions in San Diego County, the San Diego Regional Fair Housing Alliance, Regional Continuum of Care Council, and the San Diego Housing Federation. • The City participated the 2015 -2019 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI). • The City is able to leverage CDBG funds, awarded state grant funds, and local funds for the construction of much needed capital improvement projects. Strategic Plan 19 01� OF CHULAVIST.4 HO tJSJNQ UIVJ%Y, 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 172 Table 5. Availability of services targeted to homeless persons and persons with HIV and mainstream services Homelessness Prevention Available in the Targeted to Targeted to People Services Community Homeless with H IV* Homelessness Prevention Services Counseling /Advocacy X X X Legal Assistance X Mortgage Assistance X Rental Assistance X X X Utilities Assistance X X Street Outreach Services Law Enforcement X X Mobile Clinics X Other Street Outreach Services X X Supportive Services Alcohol & Drug Abuse X X X Child Care X Education X Employment and Employment Training X Healthcare X X HIV /AIDS X X X Life Skills X X Mental Health Counseling X X Transportation X X Other Foreclosure Prevention X *HIV /AIDS services are provided by the County of San Diego and its contractors with funding through HOPWA and Ryan White. Strategic Plan 20 01� OF r� CHULAVIST.4 HotjYMI 171111510', 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 173 Describe how the service delivery system including, but not limited to, the services listed above meet the needs of homeless persons (particularly chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth). The City of Chula Vista participates in the regional approach to end chronic homelessness and homeless prevention efforts. This is accomplished through membership in the South Bay Homeless Advocacy Coalition and the Regional Continuum of Care Council (CoC). Both organizations include representation from the County of San Diego, the City of Chula Vista, the Chula Vista Elementary School District and various social service agencies. The City of Chula Vista will utilize Emergency Solutions Grant funds in accordance with guidelines established by the RCCC Steering Committee, as described below: • Leverage existing resources to achieve the program's match and case management requirements; • Coordinate across regional entitlement jurisdictions by utilizing standardized eligibility and assessment tools; • Support federal and local goals for priority populations, including but not limited to veterans, families and other special needs populations; • Allow for variations in the program design that responds to the needs and resources of the jurisdiction; • Comply with new eligibility and verification requirements (HMIS, housing status, habitability standards, homeless definitions, etc.); and • Allow each program to take responsibility for arranging intake, assessment, case management, reporting, and meeting public notice requirements. While services are available to Chula Vista residents, the level of services available is not adequate to meet the needs. With an ESG entitlement of $153,270, and a 15% public services cap of $265,000, there is limited funding to deliver services to all of the groups listed above. Describe the strengths and gaps of the service delivery system for special needs population and persons experiencing homelessness, including, but not limited to, the services listed above There is a variety of services for special needs populations and persons in experiencing homelessness in Chula Vista. However, major gaps in service delivery system exist: • Inadequate funding to provide the level of services needed (ESG Entitlement of $153,270, and 15% public services cap of $265,000); • Lack of coordination among regional efforts; • Prioritizing which population groups to serve with limited resources; and • Lack of sustainable funding sources Strengths include working with the local Regional Continuum of Care to establish coordinated efforts to serve special needs populations and those experiencing homelessness. One of the models that is being used is the Housing First model, where homeless individuals who are high utilizers of public services are provided with housing along with extensive case management and health services. The services usually include mental health services. Strategic Plan 21 01� OF r� CHULAVIST.4 HotJYMI 171111510', 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 174 In addition, the local groups such as Keys to Housing, and the San Diego Housing Federation policy group are just a few key organizations that are working with local governmental entities and non - profits to map out how to best serve these population groups. Provide a summary of the strategy for overcoming gaps in the institutional structure and service delivery system for carrying out a strategy to address priority needs. The City continues to participate in regional planning groups and forums to foster collaboration with other agencies and organizations. Through collaboration, the City identifies common goals and strategies to avoid overlaps in services and programs and identify potential leveraging resources. To help bridge the funding gap, the City allocates the maximum allowable 15 percent of the CDBG funds to support much needed services. In addition, the City proactively pursues funding at the local, State, and Federal funds to leverage CDBG and HOME funds. The extraordinary efforts the City undertook to achieve a Housing Element certification from the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) were intended to maintain the City's eligibility for State housing funds. Strategic Plan I P a g e 22 .'"•"�- CHULAVIST.4 H0 tJSJNQ UIVJ%Y, 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 175 Table 6. Five Year Goals Goal Name Start Year End Year Category Geographic Area Needs Addressed Funding Source Funding Amount Goal Outcome Indicator Five Year Goals Public Infrastructure 2015 2019 Infrastructure: Non- Income Creating Suitable Living CDBG $1,00,000 Improved 30,000 Needs & ADA Housing Community Qualifying Census Environments Availability/ Improvements Development Tracts Accessibility Public Facility 2015 2019 Non - Housing Community Income Creating Suitable Living CDBG $234,946 Improved 2 Improvements Development Qualifying Census Environment Availability/ Tracts Accessibility City Rehabilitation 2015 2019 Low and Moderate City wide, priority Creating Suitable Living CDBG $500,000 Improved 50 Loan Program Income Housing to homes built Environments Availability/ Section 108 Loan 2015 2019 Infrastructure Castle Park Creating Suitable Living CDBG $3,760,000 Improved n/a Repayment (Southwest) Environment Availability/ Housing Services 2015 2019 Affordable Housing City -wide Decent Housing CDBG $250,000 Availability/ 84 Accessibility Public Services 2015 2019 Public Services City -wide Create Suitable Living CDBG $1,326,911 Availability/ 7,500 Environment Accessibility Affordable Rental 2015 2019 Low and Moderate City /Wide Decent Housing HOME $2,573,249 Availability/ 20 and Homeownership Income Rental Accessibility Opportunities Housing/Homeownershi p Affirmatively Further 2015 2019 Administration City -wide Creating Suitable Living CDBG $175,000 Availability/ n/a Fair Housing Environments Accessibility Homeless Services 2015 2019 Public Services Citywide Creating Suitable Living ESG $708,874 Availability/ 2,500 Environments Accessibility Strategic Plan 1 :1 a g e 23 CITY CIF CHULAVISfA HOUSING DIVISION 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 176 GOAL DESCRIPTIONS The loss of redevelopment and the Redevelopment Low and Moderate Income Housing fund has significantly impaired the production of affordable housing in the City of Chula Vista. The City plans to use CDBG funds for public infrastructure needs in the City's CDBG income qualifying census tracts and to mitigate architectural barriers at City facilities /infrastructure for persons with disabilities. The City will seek gap financing funding to continue to assist in the creation of affordable rental and homeowner housing. The City will also continue to collaborate with the San Diego Regional Alliance for Fair Housing (SDRAAFH) to achieve the goal of equal housing for all. During this Consolidated Plan period, the City will continue to fund the Regional Task Force on the Homeless as the Continuum of Care Council approved HMIS provide for the local CoC. Estimate the number of extremely low- income, low- income, and moderate - income families to whom the jurisdiction will provide affordable housing as defined by HOME 91.315(b)(2) The number of units and the targeted type of household planned for this Consolidated Plan period are as follows: • Provide rehabilitation assistance to 15 single family homes and 40 mobilehome units; • Provide first time homebuyer assistance to 20 households; and • Expand the City's affordable housing inventory by 230 units through new construction or acquisition with or without rehabilitation. • Provide Tenant Based Rental Assistance to 20 households t1k I !� [in nt CHULAVIST.4 HOUSIV UIVISIO', Strategic Plan 1 24 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 177 Need to Increase the Number of Accessible Units (if Required by a Section 504 Voluntary Compliance Agreement (VCA)) The Housing Authority of the County of San Diego is the lead agency responsible for the public housing units in the City of Chula Vista. The HACSD is not under a VCA. Activities to Increase Resident Involvements The Housing Authority of the County of San Diego ( HACSD) is the lead agency responsible for the public housing units in the City of Chula Vista. As outlined in the HACSD 2015 -19 PHA Plan, FY 2014 -15 update, in order to encourage and increase public housing resident involvement, the HACSD continues to offer scholarships to public housing residents who are attending two- or four -year colleges or vocational training. For the 2013 -14 school year, 11 students were awarded a total of $3,500 in scholarships. In the past five years, the scholarship program has awarded over $25,000 to 38 students. In order to stimulate public housing resident interest and involvement, the HACSD produces monthly public housing resident newsletters. The newsletters publicize important information of interest to the residents, such as ROSS grant programs, activities and achievements. In FY 2012 -13, the HACSD was awarded a $243,000 ROSS Service Coordinator grant. The grant funds a service coordinator to coordinate supportive services and other activities designed to help and encourage the involvement of public housing residents in attaining economic and housing self - sufficiency. The coordinator provides services to residents of the HACSD's 117 rent - restricted public housing units. Services provided, thus far, include assistance in establishing a food delivery program to the senior /disabled complex, disaster preparedness plans, vials of life to record pertinent medical information, resume' building workshops, access to career fairs, community resource guides, resources to provide low cost eyeglasses and assistance with the disability benefits application process. Services were provided to 126 residents in FY 2013 -14. As discussed in the PHA plan, public housing residents are encouraged to join the RAB, which meets several times a year. In FY 2013 -14, 14 public housing and /or HCV program participants attended the October 2013 RAB meeting and nine attended the December 2013 meeting. In FY 2014 -15, according to the draft 2015 PHA Plan annual update, RAB meetings were held in October and December 2014 with a combined total of 39 attendees. RAB meeting topics included the public housing scholarship program, the public housing budget, 2015 Consolidated Plan overview, fair housing, security deposit and homeless assistance, communication barriers for those with limited English proficiency, family self- sufficiency, the ROSS grant, efforts to end homelessness, and the new on -line application portal. Annually, residents are encouraged to attend a Capital Funding and Resident Services meeting. The November 2013 meeting discussed the many services available to residents including: transportation to medical appointments and stores, transportation to domestic violence groups, senior /disabled transportation to special events on weekends, emergency food assistance, employment services, fair housing services, clothing assistance as well as many other services. The _tlR �t " VCfl }'CIF CHULAVISR HOUSING DIVISION Strategic Plan 1 25 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 178 residents were informed about proposed capital improvement activities, educated on the benefits of the joining the ROSS program, asked for input on needed capital improvements, and encouraged to conserve water and make energy efficiency a priority. In November 2014, according to the draft 2015 PHA Plan, discussion topics included the public housing Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC) score of 96 percent, coordinating community services to provide residents with needed resources, the needs of residents, and the monthly newsletter. Is the public housing agency designated as troubled under 24 CFR part 902? The City of Chula Vista does not operate its own public housing agency. The Housing Authority of the County of San Diego ( HACSD) serves as the City's public housing agency. HACSD is not designated as a troubled agency. Plan to remove the 'troubled' designation: Not applicable. tit�l�� Strategic Plan 26 CHULAVIST.4 HOUSIV UIVISIO', 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 179 LACK OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUNDS With the dissolution of redevelopment in California, the City of Chula Vista has lost its most powerful tool and funding mechanism to provide affordable housing in the community. Funding at the State and Federal levels has also continued to experience significant cuts. With reduced funding and increased housing costs, the City faces significant challenges in providing affordable and decent housing opportunities for its lower and moderate income residents, especially with extremely low incomes. LAND USE CONTROLS Land use controls take a number of forms that affect the development of residential units. These controls include General Plan policies, zoning designations (and the resulting use restrictions, development standards, and permit processing requirements), development fees and local growth management programs. PARKING REQUIREMENTS Parking requirements do not stain the development of housing directly. However, the costs of parking may increase total development costs. STATE PREVAILING WAGE REQUIREMENTS The State Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) expanded the types of projects that require the payment of prevailing wages. Labor Code Section 1720, which applies prevailing wage rates of public works contracts over 1,000, now defines public works to mean construction, alteration, installation, demolition, or repair work done under contract and paid for in whole in part out of public funds. Prevailing wage adds to the overall costs of development. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION State law (Construction Environmental Quality Act, California Endangered Species Act) and federal law (National Environmental Protection Act, Federal Endangered Species Act), regulations require environmental review of proposed discretionary projects (e.g., subdivision maps, use permits, etc.). Costs resulting from environmental review process are also added to the cost of housing. DAVIS -BACON PREVAILING WAGES A prevailing wage must be paid to laborers when federal funds are used to pay labor costs for any project over $2,000 or on any multi - family rehabilitation project over eight units using CDBG funds and applies to HOME funded projects requiring more than 11 HOME units to be restricted units (based on the City's investment). The prevailing wage requirements are usually higher than competitive wages, raising the costs of housing production and rehabilitation activities. Davis -Bacon also adds to housing costs by requiring documentation of the prevailing wage compliance. These requirements often restrict participation by small minority contractors. _tlR �t " VCfl }'UF CHULAVISTA HOUSING DIVISION Strategic Plan 1 27 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 180 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FEES Development fees and taxes charged by local governments also contribute to the costs of housing. Building, zoning, and site improvement fees can significantly add to the costs of construction and have a negative effect on the production of affordable housing. In addition, developers are required to pay local impact fees to local school districts. The City of Chula Vista charges fees to offset the costs associated with permit processing. When compared to other agencies in the region, Chula Vista permitting processing costs are comparable. While development and permit fees may affect overall development budgets, these fees ensure quality development and the provision of adequate public services to the community. The City does offer the deferral and /or waiver of some of its development charges to encourage the development of affordable housing. PERMIT AND PROCESSING PROCEDURES The processing time required to obtain approval of development plans is often cited as a contributing factor to the high cost of housing. For some proposed development projects, additional time is needed to complete the environmental review process before an approval can be granted. Unnecessary delays add to the cost of construction by increasing land holding costs and interest payments. Compared to other California cities, the City of Chula Vista processed entitlements and permits quickly and offers affordable housing developers the opportunity to participate in the City's expedite permit process. PUBLIC OPPOSITION TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING Not- in -My- Back -Yard (NIMBY) is a term used to describe opposition by local residents to construction, typically of affordable housing. Public opposition to affordable housing projects can cause delays in the development review process as concerns are raised. Comments and concerns raised may result in redesign or other costs to the project to mitigate those issues raised with the goal of securing approval of the project through the discretionary permitting process. INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRAINTS Chula Vista strives to maintain existing infrastructure and meet the future demands. Challenges posed by new development including extending service to unserved areas, keeping pace with construction, and adjusting for changes in designated density. Challenges posed by density increases in older parts of the City including repairing existing deficiencies and maintaining and possible upsizing older infrastructure. STRATEGY TO REMOVE OR AMELIORATE THE BARRIERS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING The City of Chula Vista works to remove barriers to affordable housing while still protecting the health and safety of its residents by taking actions to reduce costs or providing off - setting financing incentives to assist in the production of safe, high quality, affordable housing. To mitigate the impacts of these barriers the City may: • Apply for State and federal funding to gap finance affordable housing production and rehabilitation of existing affordable housing stock. • Continue to streamline the environmental review process for housing developments, using available state categorical exemptions and federal categorical exclusions, when applicable. Provide training _t�slf " VCfl }'UF CHULAVISTA HOUSING DIVISION Strategic Plan 1 28 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 181 opportunities in the area of CEQA and NEPA as needed so staff gains expertise in the preparation of environmental review documents. • Continue to improve the permit processing and planning approval processes to minimize delay in housing development in general and affordable housing development in particular. • Continue providing rehabilitation assistance and homeownership assistance, and to assist in the construction and preservation of affordable housing. • Encourage public participation when a proposed project is being considered for approval. • Implement policies and strategies identified in the 2013 -2020 Housing Element. Strategic Plan 29 CHUL VISM HOUSIVI UIVISIO', 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 182 Reaching out to homeless persons (especially unsheltered persons) and assessing their individual needs Addressing the emergency and transitional housing needs of homeless persons Helping homeless persons (especially chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth) make the transition to permanent housing and independent living, including shortening the period of time that individuals and families experience homelessness, facilitating access for homeless individuals and families to affordable housing units, and preventing individuals and families who were recently homeless from becoming homeless again. The City will utilize Emergency Solutions Grant funds in accordance with the guidelines established by the RCCC Steering Committee to assist homeless persons, including those accessing emergency and transitional housing detailed below: • Leverage existing resources to achieve the program's match and case management requirements; • Coordinate across regional entitlement jurisdictions by utilizing standardized eligibility and assessment tools; • Support federal and local goals for priority populations, including but not limited to veterans, families and other special needs populations; • Allow for variations in the program design that responds to the needs and resources of the jurisdiction; • Comply with new eligibility and verification requirements (HMIS, housing status, habitability standards, homeless definitions, etc.); and • Allow each program to take responsibility for arranging intake, assessment, case management, reporting, and meeting public notice requirements. While services are available to Chula Vista residents, the level of services available is not adequate to meet the needs. With an ESG Entitlement of $153,270, and 15% public services cap of $265,000, there is limited funding to deliver services to all of the groups listed above. For homeless services, each Subrecipient Agreement includes goals and objectives to ensure that clients make the transition from being homeless to having a permanent residence. The two social service providers that serve these populations in Chula Vista are South Bay Community Services and Interfaith Shelter Network. The Chula Vista Police Department also provides some level of services to residents who are being discharged from local jail facilities. The South Bay Homeless Advocacy Coalition and the City of Chula Vista may continue to support the Project Homeless Connect in the South San Diego region. This one -day event provides a one -stop shop for homeless individuals and families to access valuable resources such as social service benefits, medical attention, showers, haircuts, flu shots and spiritual guidance. Hygiene packs, socks, t- shirts, undergarments and sweatshirts and food was provided to participants. In 2014/2015, a total of 100 Strategic Plan 30 CHUL VISTA HOUSIV D11,1510', 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 183 persons were assisted with one or more of the provided services. The services were a result of over 100 volunteers from the community, including local government agencies, social service agencies and resident volunteers. We expect to continue to provide this service to connect homeless individuals with services during the 2015 -2019 Consolidated Plan and in this one year 2015 -2016 Annual Action Plan. Additionally, the South Bay Homeless Advocacy Coalition developed the Resource Pocket Guide, which contains a list of all services available, including medical food services and shelter. Help low- income individuals and families avoid becoming homeless, especially extremely low- income individuals and families who are likely to become homeless after being discharged from a publicly funded institution or system of care, or who are receiving assistance from public and private agencies that address housing, health, social services, employment, education or youth needs FOSTER CARE The County of San Diego's Foster Care System discharge planning protocol is in development and includes the following information and /or steps: • Written information about the youth's dependency case, including family and placement histories and the whereabouts of any siblings who are under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court; • Anticipated termination date of court jurisdiction; • Health plans (if not already covered by Medi -Cal); • Legal document portfolio that includes: Social Security Card, Certified Birth Certificate, Driver's License and /or DMV identification card, copies of parent(s) death certificate(s), and proof of citizenship /residence status; • Housing plans including referral to transitional housing or assistance in securing other housing; • Employment or other financial support plans; and, • Educational /vocational plans including financial aid, where appropriate. HEALTH CARE The County of San Diego Health and Human Services Agency contracted with the Abaris Group (a trauma, emergency and medical services consultants group) to research the access to health, mental health and substance abuse services in six regions throughout the County. Included in the study was a special focus on the healthcare, mental health and substance abuse treatment needs of homeless persons. The final Healthcare Safety Net Study Core Report was released in September 2006, including recommendations for public policy administration. In addition, the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency's Departments of Mental Health, Environmental Health, Drug and Alcohol Services and Aging and Independence Services, in collaboration with private entities and the City of San Diego, organized in 2006 to improve the structural approach for prevention and response to the to the health care needs of homeless persons. MENTAL HEALTH tit�l�� Strategic Plan 31 CHUL VISTA HOUSIV D11,1510', 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 184 The mental health care system in San Diego County has formalized plans and protocol for low income and no income individuals. At the present time, homeless persons are eligible for a series of services through referral on release from inpatient or emergency medical facilities. After release, access to service information remains available through the San Diego Center and the Network of Care Program. Services include: • Health Insurance Counseling and Advocacy Program (HICAP) • NeedyMeds Program; and • Mobile Units that provide access to care in remote locations. The Network of Care Program offers specific information for homeless persons. The Center reduces barriers to care by providing information in seven languages. Resources are updated through the United Way 2 -1 -1 San Diego social service line to ensure regular updates. Funding from the State of California Mental Health Services Act has enabled the County of San Diego to implement the approved plan and protocol for housing and services of homeless mentally ill persons, frequent users of emergency health care and persons with mental health issues exiting correctional facilities. CORRECTIONS Services and discharge planning for individuals released from County correctional facilities are found in the Public Information Handbook prepared by the San Diego (SD) County Sheriff's Department. Services are summarized in the SD County Sheriff's Health & Mental Health Services Discharge Plan —form J266. The SD County Sheriff's Department has designated staff positions as homeless liaisons, mental health specialists, and an American with Disabilities Coordinator to assist with individual discharge plans for inmates who have received health or mental health services while in custody. The Mental health Psychiatric Security units of the jail (licensed by the State Department of Mental Health) operate under the purview of the state level discharge plan. A multi - disciplinary team working with the homeless provides discharge plans and case management to ensure continuity of care upon release. Please note that this section addresses local jails and not state or federal prisons. tit�l�� Strategic Plan 32 CHULAVIST.4 HOUSIV UIVISIO', 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 185 Actions to address LBP hazards and increase access to housing without LBP hazards The City of Chula Vista has a two - tiered approach to the evaluation and elimination of lead -based paint hazards where the problem has been determined to be most prevalent. The County of San Diego's lead - based paint hazard evaluation program, known as the Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program (CLPPP), involves outreach, screening, case management, and public education. The overall lead poisoning program is administered through the County of San Diego, Department of Health Services (DHS). The City of Chula Vista also has in place a loan /grant program to assist homeowners alleviate lead -based paint hazards through the Community Housing Improvement Program (CHIP). The City utilizes Community Development Block Grant funds for this purpose. As part of the City's HOME - First -time Homebuyers Program, HOME - Tenant Based Rental Assistance Program, and CDBG - Residential Rehabilitation Program, lead -based paint hazard evaluation and remediation is incorporated into these programs as follows: Owners are provided with information regarding: 1) Sources of LBP, 2) Hazards and Symptoms, 3) Blood Lead Level Screening, 4) Precautions, 5) Maintenance and Treatment of LBP Hazards, 6) Tenant and Homebuyer responsibilities prior to rehabilitation loan /grant approval, the homeowner read and sign a copy of information received. In addition, the City's Development Services Building and Housing staff or the City's First Time Homebuyer administrator checks for signs of LBP for properties being assisted, and abatement should occur based on federal guidelines pertaining to the amount of assistance given. The City will also pursue a Lead Hazard Protection grant funds that are available. The Environmental Health Coalition is supportive of The City's interest in obtaining grant funds. How are the actions listed above related to the extent of lead poisoning and hazards? Please see description above. How are the actions listed above integrated into housing policies and procedures? CDBG and HOME programs require compliance with all of HUD's regulations concerning lead -based paint. All housing programs operated by the City are in compliance with HUD's most recent standards regarding lead -based paint. The City's homeowner rehabilitation loan program meets the federal requirements for providing lead -based paint information with each rehabilitation loan and requiring paint testing of disturbed surfaces for lead in all single family homes constructed before 1978. If a home was found to have lead -based paint, the cost of lead -based paint removal is an eligible activity under the homeowner rehabilitation program. City building inspectors are alert to any housing units that apply for a permit for construction or remodeling, which may contain lead -based paint and other lead hazards. The County of San Diego's Childhood Lead Poising Prevention Program (CLPPP), a division of the San Diego Health and Human Services Agency provides outreach and education programs and case management services for San Diego County residents, including Chula Vista residents. Strategic Plan 33 CHULAVISM HOUSIM D11,1510', 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 186 Jurisdiction Goals, Programs and Policies for reducing the number of Poverty -Level Families How are the Jurisdiction's poverty reducing goals, programs, and policies coordinated with this affordable housing plan. Anti - Poverty Strategy: It is the City of Chula Vista's goal is to utilize 100% of its entitlement grants to assist low /moderate income residents break the cycle of poverty through supporting social service programs. Many of the programs include multi- service programs to assist low income families back into the main stream. They include help with job readiness, educational training, counseling, child care, food clothing, housing assistance and a host of other service to help families and individuals escape the cycle of poverty. Following is a sample of the organizations the City partnered with for the 2015/2016 program year: • Chula Vista Community Collaborative to provide case management and referral services; • Family Health Centers of San Diego to provide mobile medical services at various elementary schools located in low income census tracts; • Interfaith Shelter Network to provide rotational shelter and case management during the cold winter months; • Meals -on- Wheels to provide daily hot meal delivery to seniors in need; • San Diego Food Bank which delivers weekly backpack with food to children who are at risk of experiencing hunger through the weekend. • South Bay Community Services (SBCS) is made up of three distinct departments and has a staff of over 250 that serve more than 50,000 individuals and families annually in South San Diego County. Approximately, 15 percent of Chula Vista residents live below the poverty level according to the U.S. Census data from 2008 -2012 (http: / /www .city- data.com /poverty /poverty- Chula- Vista - California.html). Unfortunately, solving the problem of poverty involves a number of economic, social, institutional and policy issues that are well beyond the City's jurisdiction. Promoting community development with the City's Capital Improvement Projects and increasing the amount of affordable housing available for households in the lowest income brackets (0 -30% of Area Median Income) are the City's programs to help alleviate poverty. The City will continue to explore the possibility of funding economic development activities using CDBG funds. This may alleviate poverty in the city by providing microenterprise loans to businesses located in CDBG qualifying areas. Microenterprise loans can help alleviate poverty by introducing new opportunities to create work, income and assets for low income residents since these businesses will be located in a CDBG qualifying area and are typically owned by low- income entrepreneurs and employ low income residents of the neighborhood. The City's antipoverty strategy of providing safe, affordable housing will assist in reducing the number of poverty level families in Chula Vista based on the following. By providing safe, affordable housing for those on a limited income, those families will be able to live in an environment were no more than 30% Strategic Plan 34 CHUL VISTA HOUSIV D11,1510', 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 187 of their limited income is spent on housing. In addition, the City requires that affordable housing developments provide programs (e.g. after school, computer labs, budgeting and language classes) to assist residents in excelling in both school and the work environment. These affordable housing developments thus assist families in moving up the economic ladder by providing the tools that add in their success. Describe the standards and procedures that the jurisdiction will use to monitor activities carried out in furtherance of the plan and will use to ensure long -term compliance with requirements of the programs involved, including minority business outreach and the comprehensive planning requirements MONITORING PUBLIC SERVICES ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS GRANT): Monitoring for the City of Chula Vista is directed toward programmatic, financial and regulatory performance. The primary objects are to ensure that all sub - recipients: • Comply with pertinent regulations governing their administrative, financial, programmatic operations; • Achieve their performance objectives within schedule and budget; and, • Access capabilities and /or any potential needs for training or technical assistance in these areas. Careful evaluation of the housing and public service delivery system can be the most effective tool in detecting gaps and making appropriate modifications. As such, the City of Chula Vista monitors and evaluates its sub - recipients and CBDO's as part of the pre -award assessment. Evaluation of the nature of the activity, proposed plan for carrying out the activity, the organization's capacity to do the work, and the possibility of potential conflicts of interest are within the pre -award assessment. After awards have been made Quarterly Progress reports are required of each sub - recipient, which must be current prior to approval of any request for reimbursement of expenditures. In addition to the Quarterly Progress reports, annual monitoring is conducted to ensure compliance with federal regulations. Agreements made with sub - recipients encourage uniform reporting to achieve consistent information on beneficiaries. Technical assistance is provided throughout the year, in addition to the City's annual Subrecipient training for new applicants. Subrecipients are monitored annually, with an onsite visit every other year and a desk audit annually, at a minimum. MONITORING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS (CDBG): During FY 2015 -2016, the City of Chula Vista will hold quarterly meetings with internal staff to ensure CDBG Program requirements are being met including program performance, monitoring, program income tracking, and to meet the CDBG 70% annual benefit test and expenditure standard by the deadline of April 30, 2016. The CDBG regulations require that at least 70% of annual expenditures benefit lower- income people. City sponsored projects are monitoring by program staff. _t�slf " V«rte CHULAVISTA HOUSING DIVISION Strategic Plan 1 35 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 188 MONITORING AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS& PROGRAMS (ACQUISITION, ACQUISITION REHABILITATION, REHABILITATION, NEW CONSTRUCTION, TENANT BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE): For the City's affordable housing projects, the City conducts regular ongoing site visits, as well as an annual occupancy monitoring program of the government- funded programs to ensure compliance with program goals and applicable regulatory agreements. Property inspections are required and conducted as prescribed by HUD. Properties are closely monitored beginning at the time funds are committed to the completion of construction or rehabilitation, with monitoring that will follow in subsequent years. The Development Services Housing Division and Code Enforcement Division maintain an affordable housing inspection program that ensures that a representative percentage of its deed - restricted affordable units are inspected along with the common areas of the affordable housing communities. Owner Occupied Rehabilitation Loans and First Time Homebuyer Program are monitored for continued occupancy by occupancy certification mailed to each borrower and the use of computer matching records such as Property Tax rolls, Homeowner exemption filing, and Property Insurance verification. Minority Business OUTREACH By policy, the City prohibits discrimination against any person in pursuit of business opportunities on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, disability or veteran status. It is also City policy to provide minorities, women, and small businesses equal opportunity for participating in all aspects of the City's contracting and procurement programs, including but not limited to construction, development projects, procurement, professional services and lease agreements. In support of this, the City includes equal opportunity language in its requests for contracting opportunities. Additionally, Development Services will carry out the following activities to ensure the inclusion, to the maximum extent possible, of minorities and women in all contracting activities entered into by the City to facilitate the provision of affordable housing under the National Affordable Housing Act or any other applicable federal housing law: • Maintenance of a bid registry which includes minority- and woman -owned business enterprises (M /WBE) participating in the housing rehabilitation program. • Property owners are encouraged to select a contractor on their own and obtain bids for the rehabilitation work from contractors on the City's bid solicitation list. City encourages M /WBE to apply to be on the City's contractor list. • All general contractors are encouraged to utilize M /WBE subcontracts and to take affirmative steps to do so. Provisions describing appropriate actions are made a part of each construction agreement. • The City continually seeks to increase the total number of qualified M /WBEs on the bid solicitation list. • Development Services Department provides informational materials in bid packages about housing and development related contracting opportunities for M /WBEs. �ts�r Cfl }'UF CHULAVISTA HOUSING DIVISION Strategic Plan 1 36 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 189 • The City will place a notice in the Star News describing the availability of contracting opportunities, as needed, to encourage contracting opportunities/ for M /WBEs. • Notices of announcements for HOME and other housing related activities will be sent to appropriate community, trade, and nonprofit organizations throughout San Diego County when formal advertising is required. • The City of Chula Vista Development Services Division will participate in and /or conduct M /WBEs business opportunity - related meetings and seminars upon request. • CDBG Coordinator will maintain HUD -2516 records and steps taken to implement outreach activities to minority -owned and female -owned businesses including data on racial /ethnic or gender character of each business entity receiving a contract or subcontract of $10,000 or more paid, or to be paid, with CDBG or HOME funds; the amount of the contract or subcontract, and documentation of affirmative steps to assure that minority business and women's business enterprises have as equal opportunity to obtain or compete for contracts and subcontracts as sources of supplies, equipment, construction, and services. The City of Chula Vista's goals for monitoring during this Consolidated Plan period are to ensure that all grant- funded activities comply with federal, state and local regulations governing administrative and financial requirements, that, to the maximum extent feasible, performance outcomes are met within budget and on schedule; and to ensure that all City departments utilizing grant funds are advised of and in compliance with of all grant fund regulations. City staff has attended CDBG training and HOME trainings to ensure long -term compliance with CDBG and HOME program requirements. Staff also attended a recent Environmental Review training offered through UCLA Extension. The City has approximately ten sub - recipients that receive CDBG funding, the City ensures that all aspects of projects funded using CDBG funds are in full compliance with HUD regulations. Two Housing and Grants Coordinators are responsible for ensuring that CDBG, HOME, and ESG funds are being used appropriately and that all requirements have been met. The Development Services Housing Manager is responsible for the general supervision of staff responsible for the administration of the CDBG, HOME, and ESG program. The City will continue to conduct on -site audits of its sub - recipients to ensure compliance with all regulations established by HUD. tit�l�� Strategic Plan 37 CHULAVIST.4 HOUSIVI UIVISIO', 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 190 HUD Federal Grants Annual Action Plan CITY OF CHULA VISTA 2H1 Q "t aU[V 1 S 1 O N -Mod TABLE OF CONTENTS FIRST YEAR ANNUAL ACTION PLAN (AP) AP -05 Executive Summary 24 CFR 91.200(c), 91. 220( b) ................................................. ..............................1 PR -05 Lead & Responsible Agencies — 91.200(b): ......................................................................................... 4 AP -10 Consultation — 91.100, 91.200(b), 91. 215( I) ......................................................... ..............................4 AP -12 Participation — 91.105, 91.200(c) ........................................................................ ............................... 6 AP -15 Expected Resources — 91.220(c)(1,2) ................................................................... ..............................9 AP -20 Annual Goals and Objectives ............................................................................... .............................14 AP -35 Projects — 91.220(d) ............................................................................................ .............................16 AP -38 Projects Summary Project Summary Information ............................................... .............................16 AP -50 Geographic Distribution — 91. 220( f) .................................................................... .............................30 AP -55 Affordable Housing- 91.220(g) .......................................................................... .............................32 AP -60 Public Housing -91. 220( h) .................................................................................. .............................33 AP -65 Homeless and Other Special Needs Activities — 91. 220( i) ................................. ............................... 33 AP -75 Barriers to affordable housing — 91.220(j) .......................................................... .............................36 AP -85 Other Actions — 91.220(k) ................................................................................. ............................... 38 AP -90 Program Specific Requirements — 91.220(I)(1,2,4) ............................................. .............................43 Community Development Block Grant Program ( CDBG) ............................................... .............................44 HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) ......................................................... .............................44 Emergency Solutions Grant ( ESG) .................................................................................. .............................46 Appendices................................................................................................................................... .............................53 Exhibit "A ": Public Notices Exhibit "B ": On -line Survey Exhibit "C: Survey Comments Exhibit "D ": ESG Written Standards Exhibit "E ": Citizen Participation Plan Exhibit "F ": Application for Federal Assistance (HUD Form SF -424) for CDBG, HOME and ESG Exhibit "G ": Certifications Exhibit "H ": Area Income Limits Exhibit "I ": Map - Low /Moderate Income Areas Exhibit "J ": Map — Minority Concentration 1A [(/1 Table of Contents '"_'~— 2015- 05- 1�-Vg' ` vackotjSING DIVISION Page 192 CITY OF CHULA VISTA FIRST YEAR ANNUAL ACTION PLAN FY 2015/16 Introduction: The City Chula Vista 2015 -2019 Consolidated Plan outlines the community's strategies for meeting its identified housing and community development needs, developed through a citizen participation process as detailed in the 2015 -2019 Citizen Participation Plan, attached as Exhibit "E ". The five -year Consolidated Plan includes a needs assessment, market analysis, and identification of priority needs and long -term strategies. An Annual Action Plan implements the strategies and provides a basis for allocating Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Home Investment Partnerships Act (HOME), and Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) resources. This document represents the City of Chula Vista's program year 2015 -16 CDBG Action Plan. It identifies the goals and programming of funds for activities to be undertaken in the first year of the five -year Consolidated Plan. Summarize the objectives and outcomes identified in the Plan During the formulation of the Consolidated Plan, the City of Chula Vista conducted a needs assessment and market analysis to inform the process on the community's needs. Community input obtained through public hearings, public meetings and consultation with local stakeholders helped establish Chula Vista's priority needs and develop long -term goals and strategies. Through the process, an overall focus for CDBG activities will be assistance to the most vulnerable population, households with incomes below 50% of median income and persons with disabilities. 41,4 Annual Plan 1 CHULAVI51A HOUSING DIVISION 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 193 The following are the goals for the first year of the Consolidated Plan. Table 1. Housing and Community Development Goals Evaluation of past performance Each program year of the Consolidated Plan period, the City must submit to HUD, a Consolidated Annual Performance and Review Report (CAPER) with detailed information on progress towards the priorities, goals and objectives outlined in the Consolidated Plan. HUD conducts an annual program assessment and provides feedback on the City's use of CDBG, HOME and ESG funds. For Program Years 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 HUD has determined that the overall performance of the City's CDBG program was satisfactory. HUD stated, "the City has addressed most strategic program goals and objectives which give context and meaning to annual and cumulative accomplishments. All major program requirements are in compliance with regulatory requirements. " The City has consistently complied with the CDBG regulation regarding timeliness. 24 CFR 570.902 (a) states, a grantee may not have more than 1.5 times the entitlement grant amount for the current year remaining undisbursed from the U.S. Treasury 60 days prior to the end of the grantee's current program year. Summary of Citizen Participation Process and consultation process During the consolidated planning process, the City implemented a process for obtaining input from citizens through public hearings, public meetings, and an on -line survey to identify the needs and long- term goals and strategies for use of the federal funds. In drafting the 2015/16 Annual Action Plan, contact was made with representatives of local social service agencies which serve LMI clients to see what types of activities they considered a priority for the community they served. In addition, an advertisement was placed in the local newspaper of general circulation which solicited proposals for 2015/16 CDBG, HOME and ESG projects. Once activities were selected for programming, another advertisement was published to announce the public hearing date and solicited comments during the 30 -day public comment period on the proposed projects to be funded. A public hearing was 41,4 Annual Plan 2 CHULAV151A HOUSINNCDIVISION 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 194 New construction of rental housing, t. Production Acquisition and rehabilitation for rental Housing housing Priorities 2. Affordable Housing First-time homebuyer programs Program Tenant -based rental assistance Special needs /disabled 1. Public Services Youth Elderly Homeless Community Development 2. Infrastructure AAA improvements Priorities Improvements New streets)sidewalks Section 108 loan payments Park and recreational facilities 3. Public Facility Improvements Neighborhood facilities Fire stations Evaluation of past performance Each program year of the Consolidated Plan period, the City must submit to HUD, a Consolidated Annual Performance and Review Report (CAPER) with detailed information on progress towards the priorities, goals and objectives outlined in the Consolidated Plan. HUD conducts an annual program assessment and provides feedback on the City's use of CDBG, HOME and ESG funds. For Program Years 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 HUD has determined that the overall performance of the City's CDBG program was satisfactory. HUD stated, "the City has addressed most strategic program goals and objectives which give context and meaning to annual and cumulative accomplishments. All major program requirements are in compliance with regulatory requirements. " The City has consistently complied with the CDBG regulation regarding timeliness. 24 CFR 570.902 (a) states, a grantee may not have more than 1.5 times the entitlement grant amount for the current year remaining undisbursed from the U.S. Treasury 60 days prior to the end of the grantee's current program year. Summary of Citizen Participation Process and consultation process During the consolidated planning process, the City implemented a process for obtaining input from citizens through public hearings, public meetings, and an on -line survey to identify the needs and long- term goals and strategies for use of the federal funds. In drafting the 2015/16 Annual Action Plan, contact was made with representatives of local social service agencies which serve LMI clients to see what types of activities they considered a priority for the community they served. In addition, an advertisement was placed in the local newspaper of general circulation which solicited proposals for 2015/16 CDBG, HOME and ESG projects. Once activities were selected for programming, another advertisement was published to announce the public hearing date and solicited comments during the 30 -day public comment period on the proposed projects to be funded. A public hearing was 41,4 Annual Plan 2 CHULAV151A HOUSINNCDIVISION 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 194 held before the Chula Vista City Council at its regularly televised meeting on April 21, 2015, and public comment on the plan was again invited. Summary of public comments No comments were received at the public hearing or during the 30 -day comment period. Summary of comments or views not accepted and the reasons for not accepting them. Not applicable. Annual Plan cm V CHULAVISfA HOU5INC DIVISION 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 195 AGENCY /ENTITY RESPONSIBLE FOR PREPARING /ADMINISTERING THE CONSOLIDATED PLAN Describe the agency /entity responsible for preparing the Consolidated Plan and those responsible for administration of each grant program and funding source. Table 2. Responsible Agencies Grant Administrator Grant Administrator Narrative Angelica Davis, Project Coordinator (619) 691 -5036 adavis @chulavistaca.gov Jose Dorado, Project Coordinator (619) 476 -5375 idorado @chulavistaca.�ov Development Services Department— Housing Division Development Services Department— Housing Division The City has established the Development Services Department Housing Division (DSD- Housing) as the primary entity responsible for administering the City's HUD federal grant programs (CDBG, HOME, ESG). DSD- Housing coordinates the planning process, works closely with agencies and nonprofit organizations on both planning and implementation, manages the CDBG, HOME and ESG programs and resources to assure that HUD requirements are met, evaluates project progress and reports on performance to the City Council and HUD. A wide range of local housing and services providers partner with the City to carry out activities identified in the Annual Action Plan. Consolidated Plan Public Contact Information The primary contacts for the CDBG, HOME and ESG programs and the consolidated planning process are identified in Table 1 above. Provide a concise summary of the jurisdiction's activities to enhance coordination between public and assisted housing providers and private and governmental health, mental health and service agencies (91.215(1)) In the process of developing the 2015 -2019 Consolidated Plan, the City consulted with community members and representatives from a number of local organizations providing housing and services to low and moderate income households. In addition to public meetings, a survey containing the City's funding goals and objectives was distributed. Many of the social service providers noted a continued need for funding sources for additional social services and public service programs; however, no more than 15% of a CDBG award may be used for funding public services. 44 Annual Plan 4 (M Of CHULAVISfA HOUSING DIVISION 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 196 Throughout the year, Chula Vista staff meets with other representatives of various non - profit, public, and private agencies that serve the needs of the homeless, persons at risk of homelessness, persons with mental health conditions, the disabled, and other low- to moderate - income persons. Table 2 — Agencies, groups, organizations who participated Describe Agencies, groups, organizations and others who participated in the process and describe the jurisdiction's consultations with housing, social service agencies and other entities Agency /Group /Organization South Bay Community Services Organization Type . Services- Children • Services- Elderly Persons 1 • Services - homeless • Services - Health • Services - Education • Services - Employment Section of Plan Addressed • Homeless Needs - Chronically homeless • Homeless Needs - Families with children • Non - Homeless Special Needs How Consulted /Anticipated Outcomes/ Areas The City partners with this organization to provide services to the most vulnerable of Improved Coordination of our community. The City consulted with the organization by distributing a survey containing the proposed Housing and Community Development funding priorities. In addition, the City receives quarterly updates on the services provided by the organization to meet the needs with the resources available. Agency /Group /Organization Chula Vista Community Collaborative • Services - Children Organization Type • Services - homeless 2 • Homeless Needs - Chronically homeless Section of Plan Addressed • Homeless Needs - Families with children • Non - Homeless Special Needs How Consulted /Anticipated Outcomes/ Areas The City partners with this organization to provide services to the most vulnerable of Improved Coordination of our community. The City consulted with the organization by distributing a survey containing the proposed Housing and Community Development funding priorities. In addition, the City receives quarterly updates on the services provided by the organization to meet the needs with the resources available. Agency /Group /Organization Family Health Centers of San Diego Organization Type • Services - Health 3 Section of Plan Addressed • Homeless Needs — Families with children • Non - Homeless Special Needs How Consulted /Anticipated Outcomes/ Areas The City partners with this organization to provide services to the most vulnerable of our community. The City consulted with the organization by distributing a survey Annual Plan cM Or r� CHULAVISTA Ho tjJ l',(; L)JVJ%), 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 197 Identify any Agency Types not consulted and provide rationale for not consulting. Not applicable. No major agencies involved in housing or community development were intentionally excluded from consultation. Other local /regional /state /federal planning efforts considered when preparing the Plan Table 3 — Other local / regional / federal planning efforts San Diego City and County Governance Charter San Diego Regional • Increase progress towards ending chronic Continuum of Care Increase housing stability Council • Increase project participants income- * Increase number of participants receiving benefits -Rapid rehousing • Coordination with ESG Entitlement Jurisdictions • Coordinated Assessment efforts Summary of citizen participation process /Efforts made to broaden citizen participation homelessness- main stream Information regarding the CDBG, HOME and ESG programs, applications for funding, resources, and local program contact information were all posted on the City website. Public notices were published in local newspapers both in English and Spanish and sent out via social media, such as Nixle, Twitter, and Facebook, to inform the public of public meetings, public hearings and document public review periods, including the 2015/16 Annual Action Plan containing the proposed activities for the program year. Copies of the public notices are included with the Plan in Exhibit "A" (Public Notices). 4.10,46 CHULAVI51A HOUSING DIVISION Annual Plan 1 6 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 198 of Improved Coordination containing the proposed Housing and Community Development funding priorities. In addition, the City receives quarterly updates on the services provided by the organization to meet the needs with the resources available. Agency /Group /Organization Meals -on- Wheels Organization Type • Services - Elderly 4 Section of Plan Addressed • Non - Homeless Special Needs How Consulted /Anticipated Outcomes/ Areas The City partners with this organization to provide services to the most vulnerable of Improved Coordination of our community. The City consulted with the organization by distributing a survey containing the proposed Housing and Community Development funding priorities. In addition, the City receives quarterly updates on the services provided by the organization to meet the needs with the resources available. Identify any Agency Types not consulted and provide rationale for not consulting. Not applicable. No major agencies involved in housing or community development were intentionally excluded from consultation. Other local /regional /state /federal planning efforts considered when preparing the Plan Table 3 — Other local / regional / federal planning efforts San Diego City and County Governance Charter San Diego Regional • Increase progress towards ending chronic Continuum of Care Increase housing stability Council • Increase project participants income- * Increase number of participants receiving benefits -Rapid rehousing • Coordination with ESG Entitlement Jurisdictions • Coordinated Assessment efforts Summary of citizen participation process /Efforts made to broaden citizen participation homelessness- main stream Information regarding the CDBG, HOME and ESG programs, applications for funding, resources, and local program contact information were all posted on the City website. Public notices were published in local newspapers both in English and Spanish and sent out via social media, such as Nixle, Twitter, and Facebook, to inform the public of public meetings, public hearings and document public review periods, including the 2015/16 Annual Action Plan containing the proposed activities for the program year. Copies of the public notices are included with the Plan in Exhibit "A" (Public Notices). 4.10,46 CHULAVI51A HOUSING DIVISION Annual Plan 1 6 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 198 Citizen Participation Outreach Table 3. Citizen Participation Outreach Order Mode of Target of Summary of Comments Comments not UIRL (if applicable) Outreach Outreach response/attendance •. 1 Social Media Non- Facebook, Nixel, Twitter None. Not applicable. No Not applicable. Outlets targeted/ announcing funding comments rejected. Broad availability and request for Community public participation (09/29/2014). 2 Newspaper Ad Non- Notice of two Public None Not applicable. Not applicable. in English targeted/ Meetings (10/03/2014) in Broad Star News Community 3 Newspaper Ad Spanish- Notice of two Public None Not applicable. Not applicable. in Spanish speaking Meetings (10/03/2014) in El Community Latino 4 Public Meetings Spanish- Public Meetings on Request for Not applicable. Not applicable. speaking 10/06/2014 and 10/08/2014 affordable Community to solicit public input. housing and Broad- opportunities Community including rehabilitation as well as youth programs. 5 Newspaper Ad Non- Notice of Public Hearing In None Not applicable. Not applicable. in English targeted/ Star News (11/07/2014) Broad Community 6 Public Hearing Non- Public Hearing conducted on None Council agreed with Not applicable. targeted/ 11/18/2014 to present the the proposed goals. Broad housing and community Community development goals. 7 Newspaper Ad Non- Notice of Funding No comments; Not applicable. Not applicable. in English targeted/ Availability (01/12/2015) however 24 Broad funding Community requests received. _Y-�Ifl, Annual Plan cM Or r� (-.HLJLAVISTA Ho tjJ l',(; L)JVJ %), 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 199 Order Mode of Target of Summary of Comments Comments not URL (if applicable) Outreach Outreach response/attendance •. 8 Newspaper Ad Non- Notice of Public Hearing in None Not applicable. Not applicable. in English targeted/ Star News to solicit input on Broad The City's housing and Community community development needs and Public Review Period (04/10/2015) 9 Newspaper Ad Spanish- Notice of Public Hearing in None Not applicable. Not applicable. in Spanish speaking El Latino to solicit input on Community The City's housing and community development needs and Public Review Period (04/10/2015) 10 On -line Survey Non- 365 on -line surveys Comments Not applicable. No https: / /www.survev (included as targeted/ Included as comments rejected. monkey.com /r /ConPI anConsult Exhibit "B ") Broad Exhibit "C" Community _Y_�Ifl, Annual Plan I P a g 8 ._ cM Or - CHULAVISTA HC)U514[i DI�'I51C ?� 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 200 Introduction The City of Chula Vista is a CDBG, HOME, and ESG Entitlement jurisdiction and anticipates receiving $1,769,214 in CDBG funds, $571,837 in HOME funds, and $153,270 in ESG funds for FY2015. The City of Chula Vista does not receive Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS ( HOPWA) programs. Please refer to the County of San Diego (www.sdhcd.com) and City of San Diego (www.sandiego.gov) Annual Action Plans for more details on the goals and distribution of HOPWA funds. In recent years, the levels of entitlement funds received from HUD for CDBG, HOME, and ESG have been primarily trending downward. In estimating the amounts of funding available over this Consolidated Plan period, the City is taking a conservative approach and assuming an annual five percent reduction. For program income, the City does not anticipate a steady stream of program income over the course of this Consolidated Plan. During the last five years, the level of program income received varied widely from $50 to $25,000. Program income received from the repayment of rehabilitation loans (CDBG and HOME), First Time Homebuyer loan, and residual receipt payments will be automatically re- programmed for loan activities in those same or similar programs from which the funds were originally provided to the greatest extent possible. If additional program income funds are received that are not automatically re- programmed, specific projects will be identified during the mid -year re- allocation process or Annual Action Plan. 41,4 Annual Plan 9 CHULAVISTA HOUSING DIVISION 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 201 Table 4. Expected Resources — Priority Table Program Source ofFunds Uses of Funds Annual Expected Amount Program Available Year Prior Year I Total: Expected Amount Available Remainder of Consolidated Narrative Description CDBG Federal • Housing Services Public Improvements Allocation: $1,769,214 income: $ $0 Resources: $ $193,726 $1,962,940 $0 The City anticipates a five to ten • Public Facilities percent reduction in CDBG • ADA Improvements funding during this Consolidated • Program Administration Plan period. • Fair Housing Services • Fair Housing Testing • Public Services- Non - profit Organizations that serve low and moderate income persons • Homeowner Rehabilitation • Homebuyer Assistance • Community Policing • Economic Development HOME Federal • Administration $571,833 $0 $285,350 $857,183 $0 The City anticipates a 5 -10% • Acquisition reduction in HOME funding during • Rehabilitation this Consolidated Plan period. • Homebuyer Assistance • New Construction of Multi- family • Tenant Based Rental Assistance ESG Federal • Administration *HMIS $153,270 $0 $0 $153,270 $0 • Shelter *Rapid Re- Housing • Shelter Outreach *Homeless Prevention HCD Parks State *Park Improvements $900,000 $0 $0 $900,000 (approx.) $0 Related (approx.) Grant CalHOME State • First Time Homebuyer Program $1,000,000 $0 $0 $1,000,000 $0 CalHome provides downpayment and closing costs assistance to First Time Homebuyers earning less than 80% of the Area Median Income. 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 202 Discussion Explain how federal funds will leverage those additional resources (private, state and local funds), including a description of how matching requirements will be satisfied. To address the priority needs and specific objectives in the 2015 -2019 Consolidated Plan, non - profit, for profit and non - profit developers, or residents may apply for and receive the following federal and state funds: • Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program • Low Income Housing Tax Credits • Community Development Block Grant funds • Emergency Solutions Grant Funds (Federal and State) • Home Investment Partnership Act funds • Public Housing Assistance • McKinney -Vento funds • Private funds As of February 2015, 3,224 households are currently being assisted with Section 8 funds. The City does not receive a direct allocation of McKinney -Vento Act funds. However, South Bay Community Services currently receives these funds to assist Chula Vista residents with transitional housing. The City of Chula Vista has relied heavily on the use of LIHTC to leverage funds from private developers to build affordable housing in the City. Since 1993, the City has 18 properties that were awarded LIHTC for a total production of 1,846 low- income units. In 2014, Lofts on Landis received 9% LIHTC. This project is under construction and scheduled to be completed in the Fall of 2015. The City will continue to support applications to the California tax Credit Allocation Committee for projects that benefit Chula Vista residents. AP 11 CHULAVISfA HO tJSJNQ L)JVJ%IC , 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 203 HUD ID Project Name: Project Address: Project State: Project Total Low- Inclusionary Redev. HUD Number: ZIP Units: Income Housing Project Project Code: Units: (yes or no) Vouchers CAA1993195 PARK VILLAGE APARTMENTS 1246 3RD AVE CA 91911 28 28 No Yes No CAA1998105 CORDOVA VILLAGE 1280 E J ST CA 91910 40 39 Yes Yes No CAA1999575 TERESINA AT LOMAS VERDES 1250 SANTA CORA CA 91913 91 88 Yes Yes No CAA1999635 TROLLEY TERRACE 750 ADA ST CA 91911 18 18 Yes Yes No CAA2000535 ST REGIS PARK 1025 BROADWAY CA 91911 119 118 No Yes No CAA2000660 VILLA SERENA APARTMENTS 1201 MEDICAL CA 91911 132 131 Yes Yes CAA2003490 SOUTH BAY COMMUNITY VILLAS 1325 SANTA RITA E CA 91913 271 269 Yes Yes No CAA2005495 RANCHO BUENA VISTA APTS. 2155 CORTE VIS CA 91915 150 149 Yes Yes No CAA2005730 BRISA DEL MAR VILLAGE APTS. 1689 BROADWAY CA 91911 106 105 Yes Yes No CAA2007525 SENIORS ON BROADWAY 845 BROADWAY CA 91911 42 41 No Yes No CAA2008600 OXFORD TERRACE APARTMENTS 555 OXFORD ST CA 91911 132 105 No No Yes CAA2008805 LANDINGS 2122 BURDOCK WAY CA 91915 92 91 No Yes No CAA2009250 LOS VECI NOS APARTMENTS 1501 BROADWAY CA 91911 42 41 No Yes No CAA2009615 PALOMAR APARTMENTS 171 PALOMAR ST CA 91911 168 167 No No Yes CAA2011235 LANDINGS PHASE 2 1764 JAVA WAY CA 91915 143 141 Yes Yes No CAA2012896 Congregational Tower 288 F St. CA 91910 143 141 Yes Yes Yes CAA2013182 Lofts On Landis 240 Landis CA 91910 33 32 Yes Yes No CAA2014854 Garden Villas 1260 Third Ave CA 91911 100 99 No No Yes 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 204 In 2013, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development updated the HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) regulations. This may severely impact the ability to complete certain types of affordable housing development projects within the City of Chula Vista. The new funding regulations state that before the City can commit its HOME funds, the project Sponsor or Developer must obtain funding commitments from all of the other funding sources before the City is allow to count those funding commitments in meet HUD's timeliness deadline. The City of Chula Vista will continue to work with Sponsors and Developers to ensure that the City's ability to provide funding to support the development of affordable rental housing is not impacted by this new rule. The new rule does not affect the City's ability to fund smaller projects that do not rely on substantial private and State funding sources such as Low Income Housing Tax Credits and Tax Exempt Bond financing projects. The new rule also does not impact the City's ability to fund a Tenant Based Rental Assistance Program. The City of Chula Vista has successfully leveraged funds from federal, state, local and private resources to complete several Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) and affordable housing developments in the City's low income communities. The most recent CIP project with leveraged funds is the Third Avenue Streetscape Project. The most recent affordable housing development with leveraged funds, Lofts on Landis, is scheduled to be completed in the Fall of 2015. This development used LIHTC, private financing to construct 33 affordable units. If appropriate, describe publically owned land or property located within the jurisdiction that may be used to address the needs identified in the plan The City as Successor Housing Agency to the former Redevelopment Agency (RDA), has a number of vacant properties that may be used to support additional economic development activity within the City of Chula Vista. A developer may propose a mixed use project that includes an affordable housing component. However, at the time of this report, the City's Successor Agency (former Redevelopment Agency) is working on its Long Range Planning goals for the use of these properties. If the properties were purchased using Low and Moderate Income Housing funds and under the control of the Chula Vista Housing Authority, acting as the Successor Housing Agency, then there is already a requirement that the resale of these properties must be used to further the goals of the City in the development of additional affordable housing units. AP 13 2015-05-1 Pack7U51f V-1 DIv1510', Page 205 Goals Summary Information Table 5- Cnnl Desrrintinn Sort Goal Name Sta rt End Category Geographic Area Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator Ord er 1 Provide Decent 2015 2019 Affordable Housing City -wide Conserve and improve CDBG Rental Units rehabilitated: 4 and Affordable existing affordable housing $500,000 Household Homeowner Rehabilitation: Housing (preservation), Provide HOME 15 homeownership assistance, $2,500,000 Direct financial assistance to First Time assist in the development of Homebuyers: 5 affordable housing New Construction of Affordable Housing: 200 units 2 Promote Equal 2015 2019 Fair Housing Services, City wide Promote Equal Housing $175,000 Availability of Service to all Chula Vista Opportunity Tenant Landlord Services, Opportunity ($35,000 each residents and landlords seeking services Affirmatively Further Fair year) Housing Choice 3 Support 2015 2019 Homeless Services City wide Provide Needed Community CDBG: 15% CDBG: Public Services activities that Continuum of Services and Supportive public services benefit Low /Moderate Income persons, Care System for Services cap which may ESG funds: Extremely Low Income the Homeless fund Homeless Persons for Homeless Prevention and Services Rapid Re- Housing, Low Income for ESG: $750,000 Emergency Shelter. (Annual Entitlement of $150,000) 4 Provide 2015 2019 Non - Homeless, Special Citywide Provide Needed Community CDBG Public Services activities: Community and Needs Populations, Senior Services and Supportive Availability /Accessibility Supportive Services, Non Housing Services Services Community Development 4 Provide 2015 2019 Non - Housing Low Income Census Provide funding for Facilities Availability /Accessibility Community Tracts (LMA) or and Infrastructure Facilities and projects serving Low Infrastructure Income Persons (LMC) 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 206 The City has a detailed list of approved Capital Improvement Projects that demonstrate a general public need but, due to the loss of redevelopment, funding is scarce. Federal funds are used to serve the target community, meet the established goals for these funds, and to serve the greatest number of members of the community. The City will use its existing HOME Investment Partnership funds to provide First Time Homebuyer assistance, Acquisition and Rehabilitation of existing housing stock for affordable housing, preservation of affordable housing, and new construction of affordable housing. For public services, the City utilizes CDBG funds. CDBG regulations, limit the amount the City can spend on public services and is capped at 15% of the City's annual entitlement (currently at $255,000). The City provides funding to non - profit organizations that demonstrate an ability to provide needed services that directly benefit the residents of the Chula Vista. The use of the City of Chula Vista CDBG funds for public services enables non - profit organization and City Departments to leverage these funds with other funding sources for projects and activities that serve the greatest number of residents with the limited amount of funding. APIPage15 2015-05-1 � Pack7U51f V-1 DIv1510', Page 207 AP -35 PROJECTS - 91.220(D) 'M9 Introduction For FY 2015/16, the City will receive $1,769,214 in CDBG entitlement funds and has $193,726 in unencumbered funds from the prior year. If Congress readjusts the City's allocation, the percentage increase or decrease in funding will be allocated among the Annual Action Plan's Capital Improvement Project. The City will also receive $571,833 in HOME funds and has prior year unencumbered funds of $285,350, and $153,270 in Emergency Solutions Grant funds. Table 6. Plan Project # 1 CDBG Project information CDBG Project Name Chula Vista Housing - CDBG Administration and Planning 2 Chula Vista Housing - Fair Housing Services 3 Chula Vista Community Collaborative - Emergency and Basic Services 4 San Diego Food Bank - Food 4 Back ack Program 5 Meals on Wheels — Home Delivered Meals for Seniors 6 South Bay Community Services — Food Program 7 Interfaith Shelter Network— Rotational Shelter Network 8 Family Health Centers of San Diego — Mobile Medical Unit 9 South Bay Community Services — Family Violence Treatment Program 10 South Bay Community Service — At Risk and Homeless Youth Services 11 Chula Vista Recreation - Thera eutic Program 12 Chula Vista Recreation — Norman Park Senior Center Services 13 Chula Vista Public Works — Moss Street Sidewalks 14 Family Health Centers of San Diego — Rice Elementary Fire Hydrant 15 GRID Alternatives — Chula Vista Solar Affordable Homes Program 16 Chula Vista Housing — Housing Services 17 Chula Vista Housing — Section 108 Payment �«Ir T:,w�T AP 16 (' IT) Y 1F- CHULAVISfA HOUSING DIVISION 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 208 Table 7. HOME Project information Describe the reasons for allocation priorities and any obstacles to addressing underserved needs The City Council of Chula Vista approved the funding priorities for the FY 2015 -2019 Five Year Consolidated Plan in November 2014, which forms the basis for establishing objectives and outcomes in the FY 2015 -2016 Action Plan are as follows: CDBG funded Public Services Activities The funding methodology consists of a three -tier approach, classifying each of the activities in the following three categories for Public Services activities: Tier I: Basic /Essential Needs (Food, Housing, Emergency Services) Tier II: Special Needs (At -Risk Youth, Family Violence, Special Needs /Disabled) Tier III: Other (Transportation Services, Case Management, Preventative Health Care Services, Crime Prevention (for non -at risk populations) Recreation (non - disabled, non- emergency services) CDBG- Funded Capital Improvement Projects The funding methodology consists of the following: • Be shovel ready • Project can be completed within 12 months • Meet one of the three national objectives for the use of CDBG funding. • There are no anticipated obstacles (i.e. environmental concerns, community opposition, funding gaps to complete the project. nthpr CrltPrla' Project should be listed in the Capital Improvement Budget approved by City Council and preferably on the City's Critical Needs List. t1k I !� ++ AP 17 CHUL VISTA HOUSIVI DIVIS10% 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 209 Table 9. Projects Summary �!z AP 16 CHULAVISfA HOUSING DIVISION 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 210 Project Name C CDBG Administration Target Area I IDIS does not allow us to enter this information. Goals Supported N Not Applicable Needs Addressed N Not Applicable Funding $ $ 357,58 in CDBG grant funds. Description P Planning and administration of the grant program. Target Date J June 30 2016. 1 t Estimate the number and type of families N N/A Location Description N N/A Planned Activities F Funds will be used for the staff costs associated with the management and administration of Chula Vista's CDBG program. This includes preparation of the required planning documents, regulatory compliance, contract oversight of the partnering agencies, environmental reviews and fiscal management. Eligibility: Matrix Code and National 2 21A - General Program Administration - (570.206), Not applicable to Project Name F Fair Housing Services Target Area I IDIS does not allow us to enter this information. Goals Supported N Not Applicable Needs Addressed N Not Applicable 2 Funding $ $ 35,000 in CDBG grant funds. Description P Provide fair housing services. Target Date J June 30 2016. Estimate the number and type of families H Households AP 16 CHULAVISfA HOUSING DIVISION 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 210 tIk I !� ++ AP 17 CHUL VISTA HOUSIVI DIVIS10% 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 211 Location Description City Wide Planned Activities Cities receiving CDBG funds have the obligation to affirmatively further fair housing by providing fair housing related services which include anti - housing discrimination and tenant - landlord education services to advise persons of their rights under the Fair Housing Act. Eligibility: Matrix Code and National Objective) 21D - Fair Housing Activities, National Objective code not applicable to planning activities. Project Name F.R.C. Emergency and Basic Services Target Area IDIS does not allow us to enter this information. Goals Supported Public Services Needs Addressed Services to low moderate income persons. Funding $ 39,312 in CDBG grant funds. Description Provide public service to low moderate income persons. Target Date June 30 2016. 3 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 325 Youth Location Description Beacon FRC (540 G Street), New Directions (915 Fourth Avenue), Fair Winds (1450 Loma Lane), Rayo de Esperanza (1671 Albany Avenue), Open Door (480 Palomar Street) Planned Activities Low income and vulnerable families in Chula Vista will be provided emergency and basic needs services. Families in crisis or emergency situations will be provided with emergency food boxes, grocery store gift cards, clothing, uniforms, ancillary and transportation services as well as assessed for additional and ongoing services. Eligibility: Matrix Code and National Objective) General Public Services - [570.201(e)], Low /Mod Limited Clientele - 570.208(a)(2) Project Name Food 4 Kids Backpack Program Target Area IDIS does not allow us to enter this information. 4 Goals Supported Public Services Needs Addressed Services to low moderate income persons. Funding $ 15,000 in CDBG grant funds. Descri tion Provide public service to low moderate income persons. tIk I !� ++ AP 17 CHUL VISTA HOUSIVI DIVIS10% 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 211 tIk I !� ++ AP 18 CHUL VISTA HOUSIVI DIVIS10% 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 212 Target Date June 30, 2016. Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 100 Youth Location Description Montoomery Elementary (1601 Fourth Avenue), Harborside Elementary (681 Naples St.), Lauderbach Elementary (390 Palomar) Planned Activities The Food 4 Kids Backpack Program provides food to elementary school children who receive free /reduced price school meals during the week, but risk hunger during the weekends when school meals are Eligibility: Matrix Code and National Objective) 05D - Youth Services [570.201(e)], Low /Mod Limited Clientele - 570.208(a)(2) Project Name Home Delivered Meals for Seniors Target Area IDIS does not allow us to enter this information. Goals Supported Public Services Needs Addressed Services to low moderate income persons. Funding $ 12,000 in CDBG grant funds. Description provide public service to low moderate income persons. Target Date June 30 2016. 5 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 200 Elderly Location Description City Wide Planned Activities Meals -on- Wheels prepares and delivers two fresh meals daily to homebound seniors living in Chula Vista as well as daily wellness checks, social interaction, social interaction, and referrals to other providers when necessary. Eligibility: Matrix Code and National Objective) 05A - Senior Services [570.201(e)], Low /Mod Limited Clientele - 570.208(a)(2) Project Name South Bay Food Program 6 Target Area IDIS does not allow us to enter this information. Goals Supported Public Services Needs Addressed Services to low /moderate income persons. tIk I !� ++ AP 18 CHUL VISTA HOUSIVI DIVIS10% 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 212 t1k I !� ++ AP 19 CHUL VISTA HOUSIV DIVIS10', 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 213 Funding $ 10,000 in CDBG grant funds. Description provide public service to low /moderate income persons. Target Date June 30, 2016. Estimate the number and type of families 300 Youth that will benefit from the proposed activities Location Description 430 F Street, 707 F Street, 160 Quintard Street Planned Activities The South Bay Food Program includes Thursday's Meals (weekly hot meals), a community food distribution (operating out of 707 F Street, Castle Park Middle School), and SBCS' in -house Emergency Food Program for homeless and needy Chula Vista families and residents in nee of food services and support. Eligibility: Matrix Code and National 05W - Food Banks [570.201(e)], Low /Mod Limited Clientele Objective) 570.208(a)(2) Project Name Rotational Shelter Network Target Area IDIS does not allow us to enter this information. Goals Supported Public Services Needs Addressed Services to low moderate income persons. Funding $ 11,000 in CDBG grant funds. Description provide public service to low moderate income persons. Target Date June 30 2016. Estimate the number and type of families 30 Homeless Individuals and Families 7 that will benefit from the proposed activities Location Description City Wide Planned Activities The project will provide seasonal, night -time emergency shelter to homeless low -to- moderate income families and individuals and services to assist moving individuals and families towards transitional or permanent housing. Shelter guests are referred to sub - contracted social service agencies for intake, screening, and on -going case Eligibility: Matrix Code and National 05 - Public Services [570.201(e)], Low /Mod Limited Clientele - Objective) 570.208(a)(2) t1k I !� ++ AP 19 CHUL VISTA HOUSIV DIVIS10', 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 213 AP 20 •�- CHLJLAVIST.4 HOUSING DIVISIO', 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 214 Project Name KidCare Express Mobile Medical Unit Target Area IDIS does not allow us to enter this information. Goals Supported Public Services Needs Addressed Health services to low moderate income persons. Funding $ 27,000 in CDBG grant funds. Description rovide ublic service to low moderate income persons. Target Date June 30 2016. 8 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 4500 Low /Moderate Income Persons Location Description Vista Square (540 G Street), Halecrest Elementary (475 E. J Street), Castle Park Elementary (25 Emerson St.) Planned Activities The program provides high quality primary healthcare to low /moderate income persons including homeless individuals and families. The MMU is a licensed medical clinic that provides immunizations, illness management, and health screenings, thereby eliminating financial, cultural, linguistic and transportation barriers to preventative healthcare. Eligibility: Matrix Code and National Objective) 05M - Health Services [570.201(e)], Low /Mod Limited Clientele - 570.208(a)(2) Project Name Family Violence Treatment Program Target Area IDIS does not allow us to enter this information. Goals Supported Public Services Needs Addressed Public services to low moderate income persons Funding $ 39000 in CDBG grant funds. 9 Description Provide ublic service to low moderate income persons. Target Date June 30 2016. Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 389 Low /Moderate Income Persons Location Description 430 F Street AP 20 •�- CHLJLAVIST.4 HOUSING DIVISIO', 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 214 AP 21 .�- CHULAVISTA HOUSING DIVISIO', 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 215 Planned Activities The Family Violence Treatment Program provides therapeutic counseling and crisis intervention services to adult and children, victims of family violence. Eligibility: Matrix Code and National Objective) 05G - Services for Battered and Abused Spouses [570.201(e)], Low /Mod Limited Clientele - 570.208(a)(2) Project Name Services for High Risk and Homeless Youth Target Area IDIS does not allow us to enter this information. Goals Supported Public Services Needs Addressed Public services to at -risk youth. Funding $ 39550 in CDBG grant funds. Description rovide ublic service to low moderate income persons. Target Date June 30 2016. 10 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 240 Low /Moderate Income Youth Location Description 430 F Street Planned Activities South Bay Community Services will provide services, support, and opportunities for high -risk and homeless youth to avoid first -time or repeat contact with law enforcement, homelessness, substance abuse, and /or gang involvement and assist them in building healthy, stable and productive lives. Eligibility: Matrix Code and National Objective) 05D - Youth Services [570.201(e)], Low /Mod Limited Clientele - 570.208(a)(2) Project Name Therapeutic Recreation Program and Classes Target Area IDIS does not allow us to enter this information. Goals Supported Public Services 11 Needs Addressed Services to ersons with special needs. Funding $ 20,100 in CDBG grant funds. Description rovide ublic service to low moderate income persons. Target Date June 30 2016. AP 21 .�- CHULAVISTA HOUSING DIVISIO', 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 215 AP 22 CHLJLAVIST.4 HOUSIN''G DIVISIO', 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 216 Estimate the number and type of 30 low /Moderate Income Specia Needs /Disabled families that will benefit from the proposed activities Location Description Heritage Recreation Center, Norman Park Center and Parkway Recreation Center Planned Activities The Therapeutic Recreation programs and classes provides persons with disabilities the opportunity to participate in recreation programs specifically designed for persons with developmental and /or physical disabilities. Programs, day camp, and special events are designed for ages five through adult and occur on a weekly basis year round. these programs include sports programs, dance classes, creative and enrichment activities, exercise and fitness classes, special events, Camp Sunrise and Learn to Swim programs all offered in a fun, safe and supportive Eligibility: Matrix Code and National 05B - Handicapped Services [570.201(e)], Low /Mod Limited Clientele - Objective) 570.208(a)(2) Project Name Norman Park Center Senior and Disabled Svcs. Target Area IDIS does not allow us to enter this information. Goals Supported Public Services Needs Addressed Services to low moderate income elderly. Funding $ 30,000 in CDBG grant funds. 12 Description Provide ublic service to low moderate income elderly. Target Date June 30 2016. Estimate the number and type of Low /Moderate Income Elderly families that will benefit from the proposed activities Location Description 270 "F" Street AP 22 CHLJLAVIST.4 HOUSIN''G DIVISIO', 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 216 AP 23 CHULAVISTA HOUSIN''G DIVIS10', 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 217 Planned Activities Provide a multitude of unique services and support programs to the elderly including those with disabilities during the hours of Mondays through Thursday 12pm -5pm. Program examples include: summer cool zone, low cost special events that include meals, assistance in completing Christmas in October paperwork, free computer and fitness classes, conversational Spanish, designated "Cool Zone" activities, blood pressure screenings, health and wellness fairs and workshops, information and referral services, "RUCK" phone calls made to those homebound /medically fragile, enrichment classes, social events, support groups, low /cost free meeting space for non - profit groups to provide a one -stop shop serving the elderly including partnerships with Elder Law, Southern Caregivers Resource Center, Parkinson's' Association, AARP (American Association of Retired Persons), Health & Human Services Agency HHSA , Aging & Independence Services (AIS) and Meals on Eligibility: Matrix Code and National 05A - Senior Services [570.201(e)], Low /Mod Limited Clientele - Objective) 570.208(a)(2) Project Name Moss Street Sidewalk Installation Target Area IDIS does not allow us to enter this information. Goals Supported Public Infrastructure Needs & ADA Improvements Needs Addressed Funding 469047 in CDBG grant funds. Description Provide financial assitance for the future development of affordable Target Date June 30 2016. 13 Estimate the number and type of 1,300 Low /Moderate Income Persons in the area families that will benefit from the proposed activities Location Description Moss Street (Broadway and 4th) Planned Activities Project provides for the installation of curb, gutters and sidewalks, American with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant pedestrian ramps and driveway aprons, pavement and other incidental items along Moss Street between Broadway and Fourth Avenue Eligibility: Matrix Code and National 03K - Street Improvements [570.201(c)], Low /Moderate Income Area Objective) Benefit 570.208(a)(1) =4Project Name Rice Elementary Fire Hydrant Project AP 23 CHULAVISTA HOUSIN''G DIVIS10', 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 217 AP 24 - CHULAVISTA HOUSIN''G DIVIS10', 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 218 Target Area IDIS does not allow us to enter this information. Goals Supported Public Infrastructure Needs & ADA Improvements Needs Addressed New Fire H drant Funding $ 20,855 in CDBG grant funds. Description Com lete infrastructure improvements. Target Date June 30, 2016. Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities The project will benefit the users of the Rice Elementary Family Health Center. Approximately 1,500 beneficiaries. Location Description 915 Fourth Avenue Planned Activities Eligibility: Matrix Code and National Objective) 03K - Street Improvements [570.201(c)], Low /Moderate Income Area Benefit 570.208(a)(1) Project Name Chula Vista Solar Affordable Homes Program Target Area IDIS does not allow us to enter this information. Goals Supported Preserve and expand affordable housing. Needs Addressed ency upgrades. Funding $ 30,000 in CDBG grant funds. Description Provide installation of solar panels to income-eligible homeowners. 15 Target Date June 30 2016. Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 12 Low /Moderate Income Households Location Description City Wide Planned Activities GRID Alternatives' Chula Vista Solar Affordable Homes Program provides solar electric systems for low- income homeowners using a "barn- raising" model that engages job trainees, community volunteers, and the homeowners themselves. GRID will serve 12 Chula Vista families, saving them approximately 75% on their monthly electricity bill. AP 24 - CHULAVISTA HOUSIN''G DIVIS10', 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 218 AP 25 •�- CHLJLAVIST.4 HOUSING ❑IVISIO', 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 219 Eligibility: Matrix Code and National Objective) 14F - Rehab: Energy Efficiency Improvements [570.202), Low Moderate Income Housing 570.208(a)(3) Project Name Housing Services Target Area IDIS does not allow us to enter this information. Goals Supported Preserve and expand affordable housing. Needs Addressed Affordable housing Services Funding $ 50,000 in CDBG grant funds. Description Not a licable. Target Date June 30 2016. 16 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities N/A Location Description N/A Planned Activities Funds are used to cover staff costs associated with projects and programs funded through the HOME program. Examples of services provided include the following: Energy auditing, preparation of work specifications, reviewing of applications, loan processing, inspections, tenant selection, and assisting owners, tenants, contractors, and other entities participating or seeking to participate in housing projects assisted with the HOME program. Eligibility: Matrix Code and National Objective) 14J - Housing Services (570.202), Low Moderate Income Housing 570.208(a)(3) Project Name Section 108 Payment Target Area IDIS does not allow us to enter this information. Goals Supported Public Infrastructure Needs & ADA Improvements Needs Addressed Section 108 Loan Payment 17 Funding $ 758,243 in CDBG grant funds. Description Not a licable. Target Date June 30 2016. Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities N/A AP 25 •�- CHLJLAVIST.4 HOUSING ❑IVISIO', 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 219 AP 26 CHULAVISTA HOUSIN''G DIVIS10', 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 220 Location Description N/A Planned Activities Funds will be used for the debt service payment of the $9.5million Section 108 Loan which was received in 2007 for the Castlepark Infrastructure Program. The project consisted of completion of 11 new streets, including: sidewalks, curbs, gutters, lighting and signage. This represents year eight of the twenty year term loan. Eligibility: Matrix Code and National 19F - Planned Repayment of Section 108 Loan (570.202), Not applicable. Objective) Project Name HOME Program Administration & Planning Target Area IDIS does not allow us to enter this information. Goals Supported Not Applicable Needs Addressed Not A licable Funding $ 57,183 in HOME grant funds. Description Not a licable. Target Date June 30 2016. 18 Estimate the number and type of N/A families that will benefit from the proposed activities Location Description N/A Planned Activities Funds will be used for the staff costs associated with the management and administration of Chula Vista's HOME program. This includes preparation of the required planning documents, regulatory compliance, contract oversight of the partnering agencies, environmental reviews and fiscal management. Eligibility: Matrix Code and National 21A - General Program Administration - (570.206), Not applicable. Objective) Project Name Production of Affordable Housing Target Area IDIS does not allow us to enter this information. 19 Goals Supported Preserve and expand affordable housing. Needs Addressed New affordable housing units. Funding $ 800,000 in HOME grant funds. AP 26 CHULAVISTA HOUSIN''G DIVIS10', 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 220 AP 27 - CHULAVISTA HOUSIN''G DIVISIO', 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 221 Description Production of affordable housing. Target Date June 30, 2016. Estimate the number and type of 80 Households families that will benefit from the proposed activities Location Description To be determined Planned Activities HOME funds will be used to provide financial assistance to a housing developer for the development of very low to low -come housing units within the community. Eligibility: Matrix Code and National 13 - Construction of Housing - 570.201(m), To be determined. Objective) Project Name ESG Program Administration & Planning Target Area IDIS does not allow us to enter this information. Goals Supported Not Applicable Needs Addressed Not A licable Funding $ 11,495 in ESG grant funds. Description Not a licable. Target Date June 30 2016. 20 Estimate the number and type of N/A families that will benefit from the proposed activities Location Description N/A Planned Activities Funds will be used for the staff costs associated with the management and administration of Chula Vista's ESG program. This includes preparation of the required planning documents, regulatory compliance, contract oversight of the partnering agencies, environmental reviews and fiscal management. Eligibility: Matrix Code and National 21A - General Program Administration - (570.206), Not applicable. Objective) Project Name Casa Nueva Vida I 21 Target Area IDIS does not allow us to enter this information. AP 27 - CHULAVISTA HOUSIN''G DIVISIO', 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 221 AP 28 CHULAVISTA HOUSIN''G DIVISIO', 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 222 Goals Supported Homeless Services Needs Addressed Provide homeless services. Funding $ 62,777 in ESG grant funds. Description Provide services to very low income persons. Target Date June 30 2016. Estimate the number and type of 90 Persons families that will benefit from the proposed activities Location Description 430 "F" Street Planned Activities SBCS' Casa Nueva Vida I offers the only permanent short -term shelter /housing program for homeless families (with children) in the South Bay region, including victims of domestic violence. Staff utilize a comprehensive strengths -based assessment, after which together with clients they develop an individualized treatment plan, to include any number of services including case management, counseling, employment assistance, childcare, etc., so each client can work to re- establish a self - sufficient lifestyle free from homelessness. Eligibility: Matrix Code and National 03T - Operating Costs Homeless Facilities, Low /Mod Limited Clientele - Objective) 570.208(a)(2) Project Name Rapid ReHousing Program and HMIS Target Area IDIS does not allow us to enter this information. Goals Supported Homeless Services Needs Addressed Provide rental assistance and case management. Funding $ 78,998 in ESG grant funds. 22 Description Provide rental assitance to persons at risk of homelessness. Target Date June 30 2016. Estimate the number and type of 5 Households families that will benefit from the proposed activities Location Description City Wide AP 28 CHULAVISTA HOUSIN''G DIVISIO', 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 222 APIPage29 CHULAVISTA HOUSIN''G DIVIS10', 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 223 Planned Activities HPRP is a rental assistance program designed to help prevent and end homelessness by paying a portion a participants rent; up to a maximum of $1,000 per month and up to a maximum of $1,000 for the security deposit. The tenant's portion of the rent is flexible based on their current income. Qualifying apartments must be in the City of Chula Vista and under Fair Market Rent. Apartment size is determined by family size. SBCS will also administer the subcontract for the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS), which is a local information technology system used to collect client -level data and data on the provision of housing and services to homeless individuals and families and persons at Eligibility: Matrix Code and National 05S - Rental Housing Subsidies, Low Moderate Income Housing Objective) 570.208(a)(3) APIPage29 CHULAVISTA HOUSIN''G DIVIS10', 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 223 Description of the geographic areas of the entitlement (including areas of low- income and minority concentration) where assistance will be directed Map 1: CDBG /HOME Qualifying Areas Rationale for the priorities for allocating investments geographically Discussion Now home to nearly a quarter - million residents, Chula Vista is the second largest city in San Diego County. The City encompasses approximately 52 square miles of land area from San Diego Bay eastward to Otay Lakes and includes most of the land between Sweetwater River to the north and the Otay River to the south. The Bayfront, rivers, hills define Chula Vista. Located minutes downtown San Diego and the U.S- Mexico border Chula Vista has convenient access to the regions cultural, recreational, educational, and business opportunities. If the City has identified capital improvement project funding that can be leveraged with CDBG funds, priority for allocating CDBG funding is given to projects located within an approved HUD qualifying 4.109141 AWMLI. CM OF CHULAVISTA HOUSING DIVISION AP IPage30 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 224 PROCT'OR�pue► . 05- q L CENSUS 2010 °� T L 5� `J & CK G 1D r LCO MOMRATE INCOME 66 _ �Crr __- CDBG Census Block Groups 0 0.5 1 a N11IC; Rationale for the priorities for allocating investments geographically Discussion Now home to nearly a quarter - million residents, Chula Vista is the second largest city in San Diego County. The City encompasses approximately 52 square miles of land area from San Diego Bay eastward to Otay Lakes and includes most of the land between Sweetwater River to the north and the Otay River to the south. The Bayfront, rivers, hills define Chula Vista. Located minutes downtown San Diego and the U.S- Mexico border Chula Vista has convenient access to the regions cultural, recreational, educational, and business opportunities. If the City has identified capital improvement project funding that can be leveraged with CDBG funds, priority for allocating CDBG funding is given to projects located within an approved HUD qualifying 4.109141 AWMLI. CM OF CHULAVISTA HOUSING DIVISION AP IPage30 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 224 census tract and /or census block group, primarily in Western City neighborhoods, See attached map of CDBG Qualifying Census Tracts. For community -wide activities, income verification is used to ensure low -to moderate - income beneficiary levels. Investments in public facilities, including capital improvement projects, and services serving special needs populations and primarily low and moderate income persons can be made throughout the City so long as the activity meets a HUD National objective and there is demonstrated significant benefit to low and moderate income persons. The general basis used for prioritizing investments includes the total number of residents benefited, the urgent need of a given community within the City, environment issues that threaten life or property, the need for improved access, and other important needs of the community as a whole. For public services, the City utilizes 15 percent of its Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) allocation to provide small grants to non - profit organizations that demonstrate an ability to provide needed services that directly benefit the low and moderate income residents of the City of Chula Vista. By directing public service funds as grants to these non - profits, the City is able to leverage its CDBG funds for projects and activities that serve the greatest number of residents with this limited amount of funding. Housing assistance will be available to income - qualified households. Due to aging housing stock in Northwest and Southwest Chula Vista, priority will be given to those households who wish to participate in owner occupied residential rehabilitation programs to maintain safe housing and for revitalization of neighborhoods. New construction of affordable housing will likely occur in East Chula Vista with its available undeveloped land and to provide for a more diverse and varied housing stock in the area. The City has a detailed list of approved Capital Improvement Projects that demonstrate a general public need but, due to budget constraints, funding may not be available for those smaller projects. Priority for allocating CDBG funding is given to capital improvement projects located within an approved HUD qualifying census tract and /or census block group. Capital Improvement Project priorities are assigned based on a number of factors including: the total number of residents benefited; areas of other projects; phase of improvement project; needs assessment results; and budget prioritization of Capital Improvement Projects, assuming the project is within a qualifying census tract. Priorities for CIP projects are addressed by the City Council and the budget for the City during each fiscal year (July 1 to June 30). The City of Chula Vista primarily utilizes the available CDBG funds for repayment of a Section 108 loan payment. However, approximately $350,000 remains to fund Capital Improvement Projects (CIPS) for meeting HUD's Performance Measurement objectives of creating a suitable living environments for its residents and meeting HUD's outcome measures that provides increased availability /accessibility to residents. CDBG funds may also be used to address HUD's Decent Housing objective (servicing clients who earn less than 80% of the Area Median Income) by providing rehabilitation loans or grants to assist owner occupants of single family homes or mobile homes that are built prior to 1980 that are primarily in Western Chula Vista. 4 kl e AP 31 4 .�- CHULAVIST.4 HOUSING ❑IVISIO', 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 225 Introduction The Production of New Affordable Housing Units - Funding Commitment able One Year Goals for the Nu Rehab of Existing Units - Single Family Homes and /or Mobilehomes Homeless 109 Casa Nueva Vida (90 clients), and Interfaith Shelter Network (12), ESG Rapid Re- Housing (7) Total Non - Homeless 10 Special -Needs 0 Total 119 Tenant Based Rental Assistance 10 The Production of New Affordable Housing Units - Funding Commitment 87 Rehab of Existing Units - Single Family Homes and /or Mobilehomes 10 Acquisition of Existing Units - Purchase an additional property using NSP funds 1 Total 206 Discussion The loss of the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency has significantly impaired the production of affordable housing in the City of Chula Vista. For FY 2015 -2016, or Program Year 2015, the City of Chula Vista's Successor Housing Agency (CV -SHA) plans to contribute funding available towards the Production of Affordable Housing. For rehabilitation of existing housing units, the City expects to fund ten residential rehabilitation loans to low -and moderate - income homeowners with CDBG funds. The City does not have any plans for acquisition of existing units. The City will continue to leverage its CalHome funds with its HOME funds to assist First -time homebuyers. For Program Year 2015, the City's One -Year Objectives are: • Providing funding commitment towards the production of affordable housing: Millenia Affordable Housing Project will create 87 affordable rental units utilizing HOME funds and an additional 123 units utilizing City Housing Authority funds. • Provide 5 to 10 homeowner rehabilitation loans (Existing CDBG funds). For mobile -homes the forgivable loan may not exceed $8,500 and for single family homes the assistance may not exceed $24,999; • Assist 5 low and moderate income households earning less than 80% of the Area Median Income become First Time Homebuyer loans. This may also include leveraging other assistance programs including CalHOME). HOME assistance may not exceed $70,000. • Provide shelter for 119 homeless clients (ESG & CDBG funds); 4«4 AP IPage32 CM OF �. CHULAVISTA HOUSING DIVISION 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 226 • Provide case management and rental assistance funds to homeless persons or at risk of becoming homeless (7 households); • Assist at risk populations, including displaced households, with up to 12- months tenant based rental assistance (approximately 10 households). Introduction Actions planned during the next year to address the needs to public housing Actions to encourage public housing residents to become more involved in management and participate in homeownership If the PHA is designated as troubled, describe the manner in which financial assistance will be provided or other assistance Discussion The City of Chula Vista does not operate a public housing agency. The Housing Authority of the County of San Diego (HACSD) serves as the City's public housing agency for the four Public Housing projects located in the City of Chula Vista. Please refer to the County of San Diego's 2015 -2019 Consolidated Plan and 2015 -2016 Annual Action Plan and 2015 Public Housing Plan that describes the planned actions during the next year to address the needs of public housing residents, to encourage participation, and to increase homeownership. Please visit www.sandiegocounty.gov /sdhcd for more information. Introduction Describe the jurisdictions one -year goals and actions for reducing and ending homelessness including Reaching out to homeless persons (especially unsheltered persons) and assessing their individual needs Addressing the emergency shelter and transitional housing needs of homeless persons Helping homeless persons (especially chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth) make the transition to permanent housing and independent living, including shortening the period of time that individuals and families experience homelessness, facilitating access for homeless individuals and families to affordable housing units, and preventing individuals and families who were recently homeless from becoming homeless again Helping low- income individuals and families avoid becoming homeless, especially extremely low- income individuals and families and those who are: being discharged from publicly funded institutions and systems of care (such as health care facilities, mental health facilities, foster care and other youth ;4 EI AP 33 CPTYQF �. CHULAVISTA HOUSING DIVISION 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 227 facilities, and corrections programs and institutions), or, receiving assistance from public or private agencies that address housing, health, social services, employment, education, or youth needs Discussion The City will utilize Emergency Solutions Grant funds in accordance with guidelines established by the RCCC Steering Committee: • Leverage existing resources to achieve the program's match and case management requirements; • Coordinate across regional entitlement jurisdictions by utilizing standardized eligibility and assessment tools; • Support federal and local goals for priority populations, including but not limited to veterans, families and other special needs populations; • Allow for variations in the program design that responds to the needs and resources of the jurisdiction; • Comply with new eligibility and verification requirements (HMIS, housing status, habitability standards, homeless definitions, etc.); and • Allow each program to take responsibility for arranging intake, assessment, case management, reporting, and meeting public notice requirements. ELIMINATING CHRONIC HOMELESSNESS AND HOMELESS PREVENTION ACTIVITIES. The City of Chula Vista participates in the regional approach to end chronic homelessness and homeless prevention efforts. This is accomplished through membership of the South Bay Homeless Advocacy Coalition and the Regional Continuum of Care Council (CoC). Both organizations include representation from the County of San Diego, the City of Chula Vista, the Chula Vista Elementary School District and various social service agencies. The CoC's continues to develop a Strategic Planning Objectives, which serve as the Homeless Strategic Plan for the region. A copy of the Strategic Planning Objectives can be found at the RCCCs website at http: / /www.sandiegococ.org/ Foster greater access to permanent housing, that is affordable to person at or below 30% of the area median income. The City will utilize Emergency Solutions Grant funds in accordance with guidelines established by the RCCC Steering Committee: • Leverage existing resources to achieve the program's match and case management requirements; • Coordinate across regional entitlement jurisdictions by utilizing standardized eligibility and assessment tools; 4 kl e AP 34 4 .�- CHULAVIST.4 HOUSING ❑IVIS10', 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 228 • Support federal and local goals for priority populations, including but not limited to veterans, families and other special needs populations; • Allow for variations in the program design that responds to the needs and resources of the jurisdiction; • Comply with new eligibility and verification requirements (HMIS, housing status, habitability standards, homeless definitions, etc.); and • Allow each program to take responsibility for arranging intake, assessment, case management, reporting, and meeting public notice requirements. Other Objectives to address these needs includes funding Public Services up to the maximum cap of 15 percent of the annual CDBG entitlement as an available funding source: The following inventory lists some of the homeless resources located in the South Bay area of the region. • Emergency Solutions Grant Program: HUD - funded Emergency Solutions Grant Program provides funding for shelter outreach, emergency shelter, HMIS services, and Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re- Housing. • South Bay Food Program: This program provides meals to homeless families and low income individuals. • Interfaith Shelter Network: Provide rotational winter night time shelter at nine congregations in the South Bay for approximately 18 weeks. Services include meals, overnight supervision, showers, and case management. • Regional Task Force on the Homeless — Regional Task Force on the Homeless: The RTFH provides information and referral services to homeless service agencies, individuals and local government jurisdictions and publishes for the public homeless information reports that address homeless services, the homeless population profile and homeless funding. The RTFH also operates a HUD mandated Homeless Management Information System that allows service agencies to track homeless client information through a central database and conducts the homeless count needed to pursue HUD's Supportive Housing Program funding for the region. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I TRANSITIONAL HOUSING /HOMELESS SHELTERS The City will continue to assist homeless service providers proposing to construct transitional housing or homeless shelters in Chula Vista and find appropriate sites for development. Developers are encouraged to review the 2013 -2020 Housing Element includes potential sites or zones for development or to schedule a consultation meeting with Planning and Housing staff. The City will also continue to participate in sub - regional efforts to provide these facilities. 4 kl e AP 35 4 CHULAVIST.4 HOUSING ❑IVIS10', 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 229 The City may assist in the development of these types of projects using the following funding sources: • City's affordable housing in -lieu fund. • Community Development Block Grant • Home Investment Partnership Act funds (note these funds cannot be used to build emergency shelters) • Low Moderate Income Housing fund Funding for on- going operational costs may be include the following funding sources: • Emergency Solutions Grant (note: cannot be used for transitional housing) • Community Development Block Grant (note: public service funds are limited) • Supportive Housing Program • State Funding • Charitable foundations • Fund raising INTRODUCTION: Actions it planned to remove or ameliorate the negative effects of public policies that serve as barriers to affordable housing such as land use controls, tax policies affecting land, zoning ordinances, building codes, fees and charges, growth limitations, and policies affecting the return on residential investment,. DISCUSSION: The City of Chula Vista works to remove barriers to affordable housing and the financial impacts of efforts to protect public health and safety by taking actions to reduce the costs or provide off - setting financial incentives to assist in the production of safe, high quality, affordable housing. For FY 2015 -2016, the City plans to allocate approximately $800,000 towards the production of affordable housing for continuing authorized housing activities including the HOME - funded New Construction of affordable rental housing. In the past, the City has used HOME funds for the production of affordable housing, first time homebuyer program and tenant based rental assistance. The City will support developers for the creation of affordable rental housing, and residents who seek funding opportunities to become first time homebuyers. The following measures may be taken to alleviate the barriers to affordable housing: • Apply for State and federal funding to gap finance affordable housing production and rehabilitation of existing affordable housing stock. ;4 EI AP 36 (Ll ) (f. CHULAVIS -k HOUSING DIVISION 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 230 • Continue to support applications for Tax Exempt Bond financing from the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee. • Continue to support applications for Low - Income Housing Tax Credits from the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee. • Continue to streamline the environmental review process for housing developments, using available state categorical exemptions and federal categorical exclusions, when applicable. Also, send staff to CEQA and NEPA trainings as needed to gain expertise in the preparation of environmental review documents. • Continue to apply for State funding to assist First Time Homebuyers. • Continue to improve the permit processing and planning approval processes to minimize delay in housing development in general and affordable housing development in particular. • Continue providing rehabilitation assistance and homeownership assistance, and to assist in the construction and preservation of affordable housing. • Encourage public participation when a proposed project is being considered for approval. • Implement policies and strategies identified in the 2013 -2020 Housing Element. 4 kl.�e APIPage37 :. -'"."%- - CHULAVIST.4 HOUSIN''G DIVISIO', 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 231 INTRODUCTION: HUD requires that cities receiving block grant funds take actions to affirmatively further fair housing choice. Fair housing choice is achieved by ensuring that persons are not denied housing opportunity because of their race, ethnic origin, religion, disability, or familial status (family with children). Cities report on the progress of affirmatively furthering fair house choice by completing an Analysis of Impediments (AI). The Al is a review of the nature and extent of impediments to fair housing choice in the San Diego County and the City of Chula Vista. The last two Als have been produced in collaboration with the San Diego Regional Alliance for Fair Housing ( SDRAFH), formerly known as the Fair Housing Resources Board (FHRB). The SDRAFH is a dedicated group of professionals who work together to ensure that all residents in San Diego County have equal access to housing. It is comprised of members of the fair housing community, local jurisdictions, enforcement agencies and housing providers. This group leverages the region's CDBG funds to produce the Al for the region. The SD RAFH completed an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) for the period of 2010 through 2015. The City of Chula Vista is an active member of the San Diego Regional Alliance for Fair Housing and serves as the member of the Steering Committee. The City of Chula Vista affirmatively furthers fair housing by contracting for the provision of fair housing services and conducting fair housing testing to detect any fair housing violations. The services include education and outreach to residents and housing providers, assistance with submitting fair housing complaints to HUD, legal services, and tenant /landlord mediation. The City has also entered into a contract for non - complaint based testing to determine if housing providers are engaging in discriminatory practices in violation of federal and state fair housing laws. The City continues to work collaboratively with local jurisdictions who serve on the Fair Housing Resources Board and our fair housing provider to overcome the impediments identified in the 2010- 2015 Regional San Diego Analysis to Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI). City staff also provides technical support to the SDRAFH by serving as a member. Below are the impediments that were part of the 2015 update to the San Diego Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice. Various land use policies, zoning provisions, and development regulations may affect the range of housing choice available. ■ Recent Changes to Density Bonus Law: The City of Chula Vista is required to amend its zoning ordinance(s) to reflect SB 1818 requirements of Density Bonus law that are effective January 1, 2015 (AB 2222) regarding replacement requirements and extended affordability covenant to 55 years. City response: The City is aware of the update and plans to submit an update its Zoning Ordinance by 2016. ■ Large Residential Care Facilities (for Seven or More Persons): The zoning ordinance of Chula Vista does not contain provisions for larger residential care facilities. 4 kl e AP 38 r4 .�- CHULAVIST.4 HOUSING ❑IVIS10', 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 232 City response: The City is aware of the zoning requirement and plans to update its Zoning Ordinance by 2016. The City of Chula Vista has recently approved the following Residential Care Facilities: • St. Paul's Plaza at Otay Ranch (built in 2015) • Westmount at San Miguel Ranch (built in 2014) • ActiveCare at Rolling Hills Rach (built in 2013) ■ Emergency Shelters: the City of Chula Vista does not have adequate provisions for emergency shelters in its zoning ordinances. City Response: The City is aware of the zoning requirement and plans to update its Zoning Ordinance by the end of 2015. As required by Housing Element law, the City is required to update its zoning ordinance. ■ Transitional and Supportive Housing: Chula Vista does not have zoning ordinances that permit transitional and supportive housing consistent with the requirements of SIB 2. City response: The City of Chula Vista anticipates completing this update by 2016. ■ Farmworker Housing /Employee Housing: Most jurisdictions in San Diego have no provisions for farmworker or employee housing in their zoning ordinances. City response: The last parcel of farmland was sold in 2014. Farmworkers can apply for the Brisa del Mar affordable housing project that has units set aside for Farmworker's. The City is proud to report that it has eliminated a few of the impediments to fair housing choice as stated in previous Als due to the 2015 update. Some of the impediments are carried over to the 2010- 2015 Al, but primarily are planning functions /administrative actions and are tied to Housing Element Law and /or State Legislation. The City has been working on addressing these impediments since they were identified in 2010. The City expects to eliminate these impediments by 2017. The City will continue to affirmatively further fair housing using its CDBG Administration funds (subject to HUD's funding cap) through the following approaches: • Continue to participate in the regional San Diego Regional Alliance for Fair Housing (SD RAFFH) and continue address the 2010 and 2015 update to the San Diego Regional Analysis of Impediments (AI) to Fair Housing Choice; • Provide content updates for the San Diego Regional Alliance for Fair Housing website; • Conduct non - complaint based testing to determine if housing providers are engaging in discriminatory practices in violation of federal and state fair housing laws; • Provide assistance to tenants in completing and submitting HUD fair housing complaint forms • Sponsor public awareness and education programs, including Fair Housing Month in April; • Distribution of fair housing material in English and Spanish at City offices and community resource centers; 4 kl e AP 39 r4 CHULAVIST.4 HOUSING ❑IVIS10', 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 233 • Educate landlords and property managers through training workshops; • Distribute fair housing pamphlets in Spanish and English to tenants and landlords, and make these materials available for general distribution at City facilities, the community resource centers located in low- income neighborhoods, and at The City's mobilehome parks that are covered by The City's Rent Review ordinance; and • Promote fair housing choice on The City's website. Actions planned to address obstacles to meeting underserved needs The primary obstacle in meeting the underserved needs is the continued lack of available funding for community development and housing activities, including public services and other programs. Given the federal budget and drastic state budget cuts, local jurisdictions like Chula Vista and the County of San Diego, are being forced to cut social service programs. In Southern California, the continued high cost of living, housing costs for both rental and ownership, and the reduction of funds all combine to create a major obstacle in providing affordable housing that is truly affordable. The City is eager to work more closely with social service providers in order to combine efforts to ensure that the available federal -funds are being used in the most effective way possible. The Chula Vista Community Collaborate continues to hold its City quarterly social service provider meetings in Chula Vista to facilitate networking for solutions to the underserved needs. Actions planned to foster and maintain affordable housing The City has two programs to foster and maintain affordable housing; the Balanced Communities Policy and the affordable housing inspection program. The Balanced Communities Policy fosters the development of affordable housing in that it requires all developers of new for -sale housing units to either provide 10% of those units at affordable prices, or pay a housing in -lieu fee to the City. The Developers also have the option of building affordable rental housing. The City's inspection program insures that the City's 2,000+ units of affordable rental housing are maintained in a clean and safe condition and that the incomes of those families living in the different sections of the City have been verified as meeting the limits required by the funding source that help build the units. Actions planned to reduce lead -based paint hazards The City will continue to inform residents applying for loans or grants through its First Time Homebuyer Program and Rehabilitation program about the hazards of lead -based paint. Code Enforcement and building inspectors will continue to identify lead -based paint hazards as part of their ongoing activities, if the scope of the complaint allows them into the unit, or if it is part of an on -going investigation. CDBG and HOME programs require compliance with all of HUD's regulations concerning lead -based paint. All housing programs operated by the City are in compliance with HUD's most recent standards regarding lead -based paint. • City's First -Time Homebuyer Program, lead abatement disclosure is the responsibility of the seller, and the City will not participate in any homebuyer assistance if the seller refuses to abate known lead hazards. Each homebuyer is required to obtain an independent third party inspection report. 4 kl e AP 40 4 .�- CHULAVIST.4 HOUSING ❑IVIS10', 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 234 • City's Homeowner Rehabilitation Loan Program meets the federal requirements for providing lead - based paint information with each rehabilitation loan and requiring paint testing of disturbed surfaces for lead in all single family homes constructed before 1978. If a home was found to have lead -based paint, the cost of lead -based paint removal is an eligible activity under the homeowner rehabilitation program. City building inspectors are alerted to any housing units that apply for a permit for construction or remodeling, which may contain lead -based paint and other lead hazards. • The City of Chula Vista will work closely, if needed, with the County of San Diego's Childhood Lead Poising Prevention Program (CLPPP), a division of the San Diego Health and Human Services Agency. The CLPPP provides outreach and education programs and case management services for San Diego County residents, including Chula Vista residents. • City's Acquisition Rehabilitation Program and Homeowner Rehabilitation Loan Program guidelines describe the level of abatement that is needed if lead hazards are present. LEAD BASED PAINT REQUIREMENTS AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPERS Each Developer of affordable rental housing must ensure that all housing constructed, redeveloped, rehabilitated, or acquired with HOME and or CDBG funds must comply with applicable provisions of Lead -Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act (42 U.S.C. 4821 - 4846), the Residential Lead -Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 4851 - 4856), and implementing regulations at 24 CFR part 35, subparts A, B, J, K, M and R upon completion of the development. The chart below summarizes the requirement based on the amount of HOME funds subsidizing each HOME - assisted unit. Table 12. Rehabilitation: Required Activities to Address Lead -Based Paint Approach to Lead Do no harm Identify and control lead Identify and abate Hazard Evaluation and hazards lead hazards Reduction Notification Yes Yes Yes Lead Hazard Evaluation •Paint testing of surfaces •Paint Testing of surfaces •Paint Testing of to be disturbed by to be disturbed by surfaces to be rehabilitation rehabilitation disturbed by •Risk Assessment rehabilitation •Risk Assessment Lead Hazard Reduction •Repair surfaces •Interim controls •Abatement disturbed during •Safe work practices •Safe work practices rehabilitation •Clearance of unit •Clearance of unit •Safe work practices •Clearance of work site Ongoing Maintenance For HOME rental Properties only Or HOME -like Programs Funded By Other Sources EBL No No No 4 kl e AP 41 :. -'"."%- - CHULAVIST.4 HOUSIN''G DIVIS10', 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 235 Actions planned to reduce the number of poverty -level families As previously stated, the City's antipoverty strategy of providing safe, affordable housing will assist in reducing the number of poverty level families in Chula Vista based on the following. By providing safe, affordable housing for those on a limited income, those families will be able to live in an environment were no more than 30% of their limited income is spent on housing. In addition, Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) funding requires affordable housing developments provide programs (e.g. after school, computer labs, budgeting and language classes) to assist residents in excelling in both school and the work environment. These affordable housing developments thus assist families in moving up the economic ladder by providing the tools that add in their success. LIHTC continues to be the most important source for leveraging the City's HOME, and CDBG funds for affordable housing development projects. The City is also researching using CDBG funds for economic development during this Consolidated Plan period and will continue to seek funding opportunities including HUD's Economic Development Partnerships. Actions planned to develop institutional structure Developing institutional and enhancing coordination between public and private agencies: The City of Chula Vista is a member of two key organizations which rely heavily on public and private coordination in the region to address the needs of the low income community members. The Chula Vista Community Collaborative is collaboration among partners and stakeholders in Chula Vista which include; Residents and Parents; Schools and School District Staff; Social Service /Non - profit Agencies; Local Government; Faith -based Community; Health Professionals; and, Business Owners. Together, the Collaborative works to develop coordinated strategies and systems that protect the health, safety, and wellness of its residents as well as share information and resources that strengthen families and communities. Regular meetings are held with the goal of obtaining and sharing information about services, resources, employment and training opportunities, as well as any events accessible to the Chula Vista community. The meetings are a useful venue to network and efficiently coordinate activities with partnering agencies. The City of Chula Vista is also a member of the South Bay Homeless Advocacy Coalition which was formed to address the growing concern for homelessness and the lack of resources available. The goal is to educate the community on these issues and advocate for change to better serve homeless and near homeless families and individuals in our community. The Coalition is comprised of representatives from local government agencies, the school districts, social service agencies, faith based organizations and citizens. Although the City of Chula Vista administers the CDBG, ESG, and HOME programs, the City does engage in contracts with outside agencies for the delivery of services to the public, other than the required fair 4 kl �e w 4 CHULAVIST.4 HOUSING ❑IVIS10', AP 1 42 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 236 housing services and funding requests received from City Departments. Non - profits apply for public service funds, capital improvement, and creation of affordable housing. The City monitors the affordable housing programs for all properties in its portfolio including those owned by private parties, under a deed restriction between the City and the respective party. The City has developed a strong relationship with both affordable and for - profit housing developers in not only the creation of affordable units but the ongoing maintenance of the developments as well. Actions planned to enhance coordination between public and private housing and social service agencies Non - profit social service agencies continue to play an important role in serving the needs of low -and moderate - income residents in Chula Vista, There is a 15% cap on the amount of public service funds to be used from its CDBG Allocation. The City surveyed social service providers who serve Chula Vista during the needs assessment process and will continue to attend the Chula Vista Community Collaborative meetings to foster networking among the providers. Introduction: The City of Chula Vista, as an entitlement jurisdiction, receives Community Development Block Grant, Home Investment Partnership Act, and Emergency Solutions Grant from the U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development. Described below are the Program Specific Requirements for each of these programs. 4«4 AP IPage43 CM OF �. CHULAVISTA HOUSING DIVISION 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 237 REFERENCE 24 CFR PART 91.220(L)(1) Projects planned with all CDBG funds expected to be available during the year are identified in the Projects Table. The following identifies program income that is available for the use that is included in the projects to be carried out. OTHER CDBG REQUIREMENTS 1. The amount of urgent need activities $0 The City is required to provide a 25 percent match for HOME funds used for rental assistance, housing rehabilitation, and acquisition and rehabilitation of housing. Due to the vast investment of Redevelopment Low and Moderate Income housing funds, the City has excess match from "Home Like" projects (that serve as match). Some examples include, land value (donated), on and off -site improvements, waiver of local and state taxes or fees, low- interest loans below market, and inclusionary housing obligations. The City exceeds the required yearly match, in which case the excess credit is applied to future projects. For fiscal year 2015/2016 the City has over $25 million in excess match carried over. Specific match dollar amounts are reported to HUD in the CAPER though its submittal of the HUD forms 40107 -A HOME Match Log. 4.1-41114 AWMLI. CM OF CHULAVISTA HOUSING DIVISION AP IPage44 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 238 1. The total amount of program income that will have been received before the start of the next program year and that has not yet been reprogrammed $100,000 2. The amount of proceeds from section 108 loan guarantees that will be used during the year to address the priority needs and specific objectives identified in the grantee's strategic plan $0 3. The amount of surplus funds from urban renewal settlements $0 4. The amount of any grant funds returned to the line of credit for which the planned use has not been included in a prior statement or plan. $0 5. The amount of income from float- funded activities $0 Total Program Income $100,000 OTHER CDBG REQUIREMENTS 1. The amount of urgent need activities $0 The City is required to provide a 25 percent match for HOME funds used for rental assistance, housing rehabilitation, and acquisition and rehabilitation of housing. Due to the vast investment of Redevelopment Low and Moderate Income housing funds, the City has excess match from "Home Like" projects (that serve as match). Some examples include, land value (donated), on and off -site improvements, waiver of local and state taxes or fees, low- interest loans below market, and inclusionary housing obligations. The City exceeds the required yearly match, in which case the excess credit is applied to future projects. For fiscal year 2015/2016 the City has over $25 million in excess match carried over. Specific match dollar amounts are reported to HUD in the CAPER though its submittal of the HUD forms 40107 -A HOME Match Log. 4.1-41114 AWMLI. CM OF CHULAVISTA HOUSING DIVISION AP IPage44 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 238 1. A description of other forms of investment being used beyond those identified in Section 92.205 is as follows: Response: None 2. A description of the guidelines that will be used for resale or recapture of HOME funds when used for homebuyer activities as required in 92.254, is as follows: Response: The City of Chula Vista will invest its HOME funds in accordance with the forms of assistance listed in §92.205(b)(1). The City will use its HOME funds to assist income eligible household to purchase single - family, condominiums, townhomes in the City of Chula Vista. The assistance will be in the form of loans and each borrower must meet the following conditions: • Must income qualify and meet the First Time Homebuyer Program requirements, as detailed in the First Time Homebuyer Manual • Assistance is provided in the form of a deferred payment loan that accrues 3% simple interest; • The loan documents include provisions to recapture the principal amount and interest upon non - occupancy /transfer of the unit for a specified affordability period; and • A HOME Regulatory Agreement will be recorded against the property during the affordability period. • In the event upon transfer where the market value is less than time acquisition costs to repay the City loan in full, the City shall apply HUD's net proceeds formula. 3. A description of the guidelines for resale or recapture that ensures the affordability of units acquired with HOME funds? See 24 CFR 92.254(a)(4) are as follows: Response: To ensure affordability, the City requires that each borrower sign a Deed of Trust, Promissory Note, and HOME Regulatory Agreement. These documents provide details to ensure that the borrower is in compliance with the terms and conditions included in those documents. Pursuant to 24 CFR 94.254(a)(ii), the City requires that the HOME funds be recaptured if the housing does not meet HUD's definition of homeownership. The borrower of HOME funds from the City must continue to occupy the Property as their principal place of residence for the duration of the period of affordability. If all or part of the Property or any interest in it is sold, rented, refinanced, conveyed or transferred (or if a beneficial interest in Borrower is sold, rented, refinanced, conveyed, transferred and Borrower is not a natural person), the loan is due and payable along with any accrued interest. In the event that no Net Appreciation exists at the time of the transfer or open and competitive sale, and no conflict of interest exists, the HOME funds may still be due and payable. In the event that a negative Net Appreciation situation exists, and the full amount of the HOME funds are not available to be recaptured, the amount of HOME funds required to be repaid to the City will be set forth in 24 CFR 92.254 (a)(ii)(A)(3). The formulas are as follows: 4 kl e AP 45 4 .�- CHULAVIST.4 HOUSING ❑IVIS10', 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 239 HOME investment x Net proceeds= HOME amount to be recaptured HOME investment + homeowner investment Homeowner investment x Net proceeds = Amount to homeowner HOME investment + homeowner investment 4. Plans for using HOME funds to refinance existing debt secured by multifamily housing that is rehabilitated with HOME funds along with a description of the refinancing guidelines required that will be used under 24 CFR 92.206(b), are as follows: Response: The following are conditions under which the City may refinance existing debt secured by multifamily housing that is being rehabilitated: • Complete a City of Chula Vista affordable housing application and meet City funding guidelines. • Agree to a minimum affordable period of 55 Years. • The property has not previous received HOME funds (exception may be made for trouble projects, with HUD approval). • The project must be located in the City of Chula Vista. • Subsidy amount must not exceed HUD limits. • Subject to approval by local governing bodies • May be subject to HUD approval. Reference 91.220(1)(4) The City's ESG grant is small ($153,270 in FY 2015 -16). The match obligation is $153,270. South Bay Community Services sub -grant is for $62,277 for Shelter and $78,998 for HMIS services and Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re- Housing activities. A portion of the ESG funds will be used to cover Administration of the grant. SBCS will meet their dollar for dollar match requirement by providing matching funds from their annual fundraising and foundation activities that specifically supports their programs in the amount of $153,270. The remaining match will come from in -kind services and leveraging of other funding. Therefore, the ESG funding match identified exceeds or meets the required minimum amount (100 %). Discussion Questions Include written standards for providing ESG assistance Response: The City's written standards are attached as Exhibit "C. `LEI �� AP � 46 . ;w�:. CPTYOF �. CHULAVISTA HOUSING DIVISION 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 240 Response: The City of Chula Vista's written standards for providing ESG Assistance address the following main topics: • Standards for providing ESG assistance • Centralized assessment system, as approved by the San Diego Regional Continuum of Care The City of Chula Vista grant administration manual and this Annual Action Plan covers the following: • Identifies the process for making awards and how the City of Chula Vista intends to make its allocation available to nonprofit organizations • The Action Plan describes the performance standards for evaluating ESG activities? • The Action Plan describe consultation with each Continuum of Care that serves the jurisdiction in determining how to allocate ESG funds, develop performance standards, evaluate outcomes of activities assisted by ESG funds, and develop funding, policies, and procedures for the administration and operation of the HMIS. Response: The City of Chula Vista has put together four distinct standards, policies, and other programmatic materials that address the five items listed above. The last item is the Strategic Plan developed by the RCCC. The City and RCCC documents include the following: • The City of Chula Vista 2015 -2016 Notice of Funding Availability • The City of Chula Vista's ESG Written Standards • The City of Chula Vista ESG Program Guidelines • The City of Chula Vista Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual • San Diego Cityand County CoC GovernanceCharter(2014) Electronic or hard copies of these documents are available upon request by contacting the City Grant Coordinators. If the Continuum of Care has established centralized or coordinated assessment system that meets HUD requirements, describe that centralized or coordinated assessment system. Response: The San Diego City and County Continuum of Care (hereinafter referred to as the "CoC" )includes all of the geography within the County of San Diego, including the City of Chula Vista. The City of Chula Vista is required to consult with the CoC on funding priorities using ESG funds. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) charges communities that receive funds under the Homeless Continuum of Care Program (hereinafter referred to as "CoC Program ") of the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act (HEARTH Act) with specific responsibilities. Section 578.5ofthe HEARTH Interim Rule published in July2012 (Interim Rule), defines a Continuum of Care (CoC) as "the group organized to carry out the responsibilities required under this part and that is composed of representatives of organizations, including nonprofit homeless providers, victim service providers, faith -based organizations, governments, businesses, advocates, public housing agencies, school districts, social service providers, mental health agencies, hospitals, universities, affordable housing developers, law enforcement, organizations that serve homeless and formerly homeless 4 kl e AP 47 4 CHULAVIST.4 HOUSING ❑IVISIO', 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 241 veterans, and homeless and formerly homeless persons to the extent these groups are represented within the geographic and are available to participate." Relevant organizations in the San Diego CoC Region established the Regional Continuum of Care Council (RCCC) in 1998, which has served as the CoC coordinating body acknowledged by HUD. Planning and operations of the San Diego CoC have historically been facilitated through the RCCC, an unincorporated association as defined under Section 18035 of the California Corporations Code. As a result, the general operations of the CoC have been guided through the By Laws, structure, and action of the RCCC. The CoC have adopted the following Governance Charter (Article XI) that describes the oversight of ESG Entitlements within its jurisdiction, as described below: ESG ENTITLEMENTAREAS Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG) are awarded to the San Diego ESG entitlement areas "ESG Area" by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the purpose of providing Essential Services and Shelter Operations to persons who are homeless or at risk of being homeless in the ESG entitlement Areas. The ESG Area makes these funds available to local service providers, as well as itself, via a Request for Proposals (RFP) process upon notification from HUD of the amount of ESG funds allocated to the ESG Area for the program year. The public notification of the RFP is placed in a local newspaper, on the ESG Area websites and electronically distributed by the Continuum of Care homeless service providers. The ESG Area may reserve up to 7.5 percent of the HUD award to administer the program. The RCCC directly participates with jurisdictions that are directly funded by HUD ESG, with the California State Department of Housing and Community Development for the areas in the region that are eligible for State ESG funds, and with non - entitled areas that prepare Consolidated Plans. In each case, the RCCC consults with the jurisdiction to develop cooperative plans and strategies that leverage ESG and other resources to provide emergency shelter, prevention, and rapid re- housing services. The RCCC assists the ESG entitlement areas (ESG Area) in coordinating the prioritization and use of funds. This coordination includes each ESG area covered by the State of California and the ESG Areas in the San Diego region. The RCCC, as the CoC entity, is responsible for assisting with the evaluation of ESG project performance. In cooperation with RCCC, the ESG Area determines, based on the amount of funding received and the need of the client, the level of assistance and the duration of assistance that a household can receive. The RCCC participates in setting local priorities, reviewing and rating proposals, certifying need, and annual review of ESG programs. The RCCC has prepared an ESG Guide that includes information about the responsibilities of the CoC and ESG area, HUD regulations, cross - jurisdiction strategies, and policy statements. Because the Guide is updated at least annually, the most recent Guide is incorporated in its entirety in the Governance Charter by reference here. The general goal of ESG is to assist families and individuals out of homelessness by providing financial support for rental assistance, payment of utilities, transportation services and other essential services deemed eligible by HUD and necessary for the continued housing of a homeless or at risk of becoming homeless person, and /or families. ESG can be used to fund local homeless emergency shelter operations or physical rehabilitation of certain properties used for serving homeless persons. 4 kl e AP 48 4 CHULAVIST.4 HOUSING ❑IVIS10', 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 242 To this end, the ESG entitlement areas and the RCCC have established the following cross - jurisdictional strategies for use of the ESG funds in ways that: A. Further the accomplishment of actions identified in the Consolidated Plan of each jurisdiction. B. Foster greater access to permanent housing, especially helping people access housing that is affordable at 30% area median income. C. Leverage existing resources to achieve the match and case management requirements and to avoid duplication of services. D. Coordinate across jurisdictions for development of standardized eligibility and assessment standards and by convening semiannual regional planning meetings. E. Support federal and local goals for priority populations, including but not limited to veterans, persons with disabilities, families, and others. F. Allow for variations in ESG entitlement programs that respond to the needs and resources of the individual jurisdictions G. Comply with eligibility and verification requirements and locally established standards (HMIS, housing status, habitability standards, homeless definitions, etc.). H. Allows each program to take responsibility for program administration including compliance with public notice requirements and timely reporting. I. Encourages all subrecipients to participate in collaborative assessment, coordinated entry, data management, and reporting systems established by the RCCC in accordance with HEARTH regulations. J. Supports timely and accurate data collection and reporting through contractual obligations with subrecipients, and through establishing common standards for vendor relationships with the HMIS Lead. The RCCC plan for ESG assistance recognizes the multiple ESG Areas contained in the San Diego Region. The RCCC works to avoid a duplication of services to ensure subrecipients do not receive multiple grants for the same services in a single service area. Subrecipients serving multiple areas may receive ESG support from the corresponding ESG Area to serve eligible clients from that service area. ESG subrecipients are responsible for assuring the provision of matching resources. The RCCC encourages subrecipients to leverage additional resources for effective operation of ESG programs. The RCCC consults with ESG Areas and sub recipients to coordinate plans for effective use of funds. HUD CoC Program- funded organizations are required to report the sources of match and leverage funds annually. These resources are verified through an annual review of agency Independent Audit as conducted in accordance with HUD regulations. 4 kl e AP 49 4 .�- CHULAVIST.4 HOUSING ❑IVISIO', 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 243 ESGPROJECT RECIPIENTS AND SUBRECIPIENTS ESG project recipients may include non - profit organizations, public housing agencies; or governmental entities that receive HUD CoC Program- funding. Recipients have a grant agreement with and receive funding directly from HUD; subrecipients have agreements with and receive funding from recipients. ESG recipient and subrecipient organizations certify to ten program assurances concerning: A. Confidentiality; B. Consistency with the applicable Consolidate Plan; C. discharge policies and protocols; D. education assurances for households with children; E. essential services; F. HMIS participation; G. inclusion of homeless persons in decision - making and Section 3 activities as practicable; H. restrictive covenants for facilities receiving ESG funds for renovation or major rehabilitation; matching funds; safe and sanitary facilities; and K. supportive services. ESG recipient to organizations must meet additional requirements established annually by contractual agreement with the ESG Area; for participation in RCCC review and reporting requirements for project evaluation. Identify the process for making sub - awards and describe how the ESG allocation available to private nonprofit organizations (including community and faith -based organizations). Response: The City of Chula Vista releases a funding of Notice Availability inviting all non - profit organizations who serve eligible ESG clients to submit a proposal. The process below is included in The City's Federal Grants Administrative Manual: COMPONENT 1: INTAKE (ON -LINE APPLICATION /PLAN DEVELOPMENT AND SUBMISSIONS) • Development and Maintenance of Applicant /Grantee Mailing List • Each non - profit organization is provided with a Notice of Funding Availability and a copy of the ESG application (depending on the type of funding request) • Staff reviews the submission of completed applications • The City acknowledges the receipt of applications 4«4 AP IPage50 CM OF �. CHULAVISTA HOUSING DIVISION 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 244 COMPONENT 2: EVALUATION • City staff reviews applications for eligibility • Staff reviews applications with consistency with the Consolidated Plan Goals and Objectives • Staff conduct scoring • Staff conduct ranking COMPONENT 3: AWARD • Apportion, allocate, and assign funds • Complete environmental review • Commitment of funds • Negotiate Agreements • Issue authorization to incur costs • Develop funding agreement COMPONENT 4: GRANT ADMINISTRATION AND DRAWDOWN • Set up thresholds and performance measurements • Receive and review quarterly performance reports • Record matching funds • Receive and approve reimbursement requests • IDIS drawdowns and approvals • IDIS record performance and beneficiary data COMPONENT 5: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT /CLOSEOUT • Performance baselines • Risk assessments • Monitoring activities • Technical assistance If the jurisdiction is unable to meet the homeless participation requirement in 24 CFR 576.405(a), the jurisdiction must specify its plan for reaching out to and consulting with homeless or formerly homeless individuals in considering policies and funding decisions regarding facilities and services funded under ESG. Response: Not applicable. The City has met the homeless participation requirement. Describe performance standards for evaluating ESG. Response: The ESG entitlement areas and the RCCC have established the following cross - jurisdictional strategies for use of the ESG funds in ways that that set performance standards for each subrecipient: ■ Further the accomplishment of actions identified in the Consolidated Plan of each jurisdiction. 4.109141 AWMLI. CM OF CHULAVISTA HOUSING DIVISION AP IPage51 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 245 ■ Foster greater access to permanent housing, especially helping people access housing that is affordable at 30% area median income. • Leverage existing resources to achieve the match and case management requirements and to avoid duplication of services. • Coordinate across jurisdictions for development of standardized eligibility and assessment standards and by convening semiannual regional planning meetings. • Support federal and local goals for priority populations, including but not limited to veterans, persons with disabilities, families and others. • Allow for variations in ESG entitlement programs that respond to the needs and resources of the individual jurisdictions. • Comply with eligibility and verification requirements and locally established standards (HMIS, housing status, habitability standards, homeless definitions, etc.). • Allows each program to take responsibility for program administration including compliance with public notice requirements and timely reporting. ■ Encourages all subrecipients to participate in collaborative assessment, coordinated entry, data management, and reporting systems established by the RCCC in accordance with HEARTH regulations. ■ Supports timely and accurate data collection and reporting through contractual obligations with subrecipients, and through establishing common standards for vendor relationships with the HMIS Lead. 2015 -2019 NEEDS ASSESSMENT PUBLIC COMMENTS During the month of September, the City initiated the public comment period to determine the housing and community development needs of the community. The outreach process included two public meetings, two City Council Public Hearings and a survey (in Spanish and English). A total of 365 surveys were submitted, which included comments detailed in Exhibit "B ". 4 kl e �:. .'"."%-- CHULAVIST.4 HOUSING DIVISIO', AP 1 52 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 246 Exhibit "A ": Public Notices Exhibit "B ": On -line Survey Exhibit "C: Survey Comments Exhibit "D ": ESG Written Standards Exhibit "E ": Citizen Participation Plan Exhibit "F ": Application for Federal Assistance (HUD Form SF -424) for CDBG, HOME and ESG Exhibit "G ": Certifications Exhibit "H ": Area Income Limits Exhibit "I ": Map — Low /Moderate Income Areas Exhibit "J ": Map — Minority Concentration 4 kl e r4 .-"%-- CHULAVIST.4 HOUSING DIVISIO', Annual Action Plan Exhibits 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 247 N O H+ U7 O H+ N ro N co co Tell us what The City of Chula . vista receives limited federal grant fund's each year to use for housing and community development projects that benefit our low and moderate income families; we are holding two community meetings to hear from you on hove the City should spend these funds. Monday, October b, 2014 4:00 - 6:30 pm C. V. Housing office 276 Fourth Ave, Bldg. C Wednesday, October 8, 2014 6:00 - 7:30 pm South Library 389 Orange Ave. If you can't attend a meeting, you can still have your voice heard by taking our survey. Survey: www.surveymonkey.com/s/CVConplan For more information on the federal grant funds or to stay involved in this planning process, please contact: Angelica Davis, Project Coordinator, at adavis@chulavistaca.gov or ( 19 ) 691-5036. f a 3 ' Octubre 3 al 9 del 2014 , Reparac�ones,� � gut tEte�t�w��c��� ��;n►�cims &G l ..:` corrIr ptamrr Lees Caws gg pp yy 3 1 - � SE VENICE LOTE sta utilidades ind. 75 mensuales 20x 20 Lomas Altas en Rosarito. Se aceptan 100 Uep.(NO ninos) ofertas 619 475.2439 s Con Manuel TERRENOS EIS ECfl TIJUANA 10x201112. ESE Celas, ? S8.000 dfls. clu. Fracc. QUARTO En chula 619- 873 -7378 sta utilidades ind. 75 mensuales I -TEC 3985 2 colores 100 Uep.(NO ninos) Medida 13114 x 18. Si 9 63$ -0455 esta interesado Ilarcat al 619 475 -2439 LENTO MARTO Para otertas hablar 80 Ublidades con Manuel cluidas. Imperial 0.BTEN $T'000 diet ach, Deposilo sego- Sglo paga.$38 QUirtG = able fit 9 565 -0105 oalos i>t ere"s purjtual; E .COMPARTE ,UARTO a (1} per na solo sin vicios, ue sea responsable 19 8fit -1754 INVITATION FOR BIDS �04 4 {s��l _ � L4; DOWNTOWN BUS RAPID TRANSIT 1?���ii38��3iS P�f I YCI�tE (IIT Pliti,iECT et CIP 1201549 (IFI3 5007003) I � , CES PS �CA�FIALE The SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (SANDAG), 401 B Street, Suite 800, San Diego, CA 92101- �4tt2pp31,��iggs ¢requesting bids to perform the 'c:OCfCr�['��i��rt�rrev,r�iavera r aiziU y .ci,- modification; installation of asphaltic concrete (A.C.) pavement and crushed agggregate base; pavement milling and A.0 overlay; pavement striping, and marking, traffic signal modifications; pedestrian and street fighting modifica- tions; traffic control and stage construc- tion; landscape planting and irrigation; and protection and restoration of existing improvements. The Engineer's Estimate is $6,212,436. There is no DBE goal. The prime contrac- tor must have an A license. The Prime contractor must perform with their own organization at least 35 percent of the work. For the SWPPP, this project is a Risk Level 1. A non- mandatory prebid meeting will be held on October 8, 2014, at SANDAG, 401 B Street, 7th Floor, in the Wells Fargo Building. Networking for subs and primes will be conducted at: 10:00- 10:30a.m. Pre -bid starts at 10:30 a.m. This IFB package can be downloaded at no charge from the SANDAG website at www.sandag.orglcontracts. Register in SANDAG's online database and download the IFB and plans. SANDAG is the only source of accurate information about SANDAG projects. The IFB may be reviewed at SANDAG and/or the Contract- ing Opportunities Center.located at 4007 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 210, San Diego, CA. Bids must be received by 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, November 6, 2014, at SANDAG, on the 7th Floor, attention: Kelly Mikhail. Bids arriving later than 2:04 p.m., or at a location other than 401 B Street, on the 7th Floor, will not be considered. SANDAG is an equal opportunity employer and, as a matter of pa icy, encourages the participation of small businesses that are owned and controlled by minorities and women, Joint ventures are also encouraged where feasible. on El Latino Newspaper 1013114 FA Estimaclones Gratis. REPARAC110 DE L"ADORAS, re- frigeradores, secado ras. (7 dial) Predos bajos (619) .994 -5681 (619) 403 -0873 Diganos t que pliensaf Si no puede asistir a Una reuni6n, usted todavia puede darns su epink)n prat rnedio de nuestra encuesta at= www.surveymo-nkey.com/s/C.onPlanESP Paxa obtener mas infortnacion sabre los Tondos del gobieTno federal o para participar en es €e proceso de planifi.caci6n, por favor p6nggase en contacto con: Angcliea Davis, C'oordinadora del Proyccto, a: adavisrii chulavistaca.go-v o (4519) 691 -5036. _ o En 0 N AFFP 57317 clerk cdbg /home Affidavit of Publication STATE OF CALIFORNIA} SS COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO} I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above - entitled matter. I am the principle clerk of the printer of THE STAR -NEWS, a newspaper of general circulation, published ONCE WEEKLY in the city of Chula Vista and the South Bay Judicial District, County of San Diego, which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of California, under the date of January 18, 1973, Case Number 71752; that the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to -wit: November 07, 2014 That said newspaper was regularly issued and circulated on those dates. SIGNED: 9-1_1� al_� Subscribed to and sworn by me this 7th day of November 2014. Chula Vista, San Diego County, California 01100031 00029566 CV -CITY OF CHULA VISTA - LEGALS 276 FOURTH AVE CHULA VISTA, CA 91910 CITY OF CHULA VISTA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO SOLICIT PUBLIC INPUT ON CHULA VISTA'S HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NEEDS AND ITS HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT FEDERAL GRANT PROGRAMS Notice is hereby given that the City of Chula Vista will conduct a public hearing on November 18, 2014, to solicit public comment on the housing and community development needs of lower income households in Chula Vista. The City is currently eligible to receive approximately $2,500,000 from the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program, the HOME Investment Partnership Program and the Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) Program to fund programs and projects that benefit low /moderate income persons in the community. All those interested in the matter are invited to attend, which will commence at 2:00 p.m. in City Council Chambers located at 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Angelica Davis, Project Coordinator, at (619) 691 -5036 or adavis @chulavistaca.gov. CV57317 11/7/2014 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 250 AFFP 57616 pd funding avail Affidavit of Publication STATE OF CALIFORNIA } SS COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO } I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above - entitled matter. I am the principle clerk of the printer of THE STAR -NEWS, a newspaper of general circulation, published ONCE WEEKLY in the city of Chula Vista and the South Bay Judicial District, County of San Diego, which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of California, under the date of January 18, 1973, Case Number 71752; that the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to -wit: January 23, 2015 That said newspaper was regularly issued and circulated on those dates. SIGNED: Subscri ed to and sworn by me this 23rd day of January 2015. Chula Vista, San Diego County, California 01100031 00030819 CV -CITY OF CHULA VISTA - LEGALS 276 FOURTH AVE CHULA VISTA, CA 91910 City Of Chula Vista Notice of Funding Availability The City of Chula Vista invites organizations to submit proposals to provide affordable housing, and community development activities and supportive service programs to residents of Chula Vista. The City will allocate public resources to activities which can be coordinated to meet mutual City and local community needs under one funding allocation process. The funding allocation process will distribute available funds from the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Partnership Investment Act funds (HOME), and Emergency Shelter Grant funds (ESG) to organizations serving low and moderate income households and special needs populations residing in Chula Vista. The City anticipates allocating three sources of funding. The amounts are: approximately $1.7million for CDBG; $500,000 for HOME; and, $140,000 for ESG. Applications are currently and are due by the close of business on February 5, 2015. To request an application, please contact Angelica Davis, Project Coordinator for the City of Chula Vista at (619) 691 -5036 or via email at adavis @chulavistaca.gov. CV57616 1/23/2015 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 251 AFFP 57973 cdd public comment Affidavit of Publication STATE OF CALIFORNIA } SS COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO } I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above - entitled matter. I am the principle clerk of the printer of THE STAR -NEWS, a newspaper of general circulation, published ONCE WEEKLY in the city of Chula Vista and the South Bay Judicial District, County of San Diego, which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of California, under the date of January 18, 1973, Case Number 71752; that the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to -wit: April 10, 2015 That said newspaper was regularly issued and circulated on those dates. SIGNED: Subscn ed to and sworn by me this 10th day of April 2015. Chula Vista, San Diego County, California 01100031 00032352 CV -CITY OF CHULA VISTA - LEGALS 276 FOURTH AVE CHULA VISTA, CA 91910 CITY OF CHULA VISTA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ON THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DRAFT 2015 -2019 CONSOLIDATED PLAN, 2015 ACTION PLAN AND THE 2015 -2019 ANALISYS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE The Consolidated Plan is a planning document which sets local strategies and priorities for allocating the federal funding over the five -year timeframe. It acts as a combined plan and application to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for federal funds including Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME), and Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) programs. The Annual Action Plan is the annual component of the Consolidated Plan that specifically describes how Chula Vista will spend federal resources over a one -year period for activities serving low/ moderate - income persons, the homeless, and persons with special needs. The Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing is an analysis that represents conclusions about impediments to fair housing choice in our City, as well as actions necessary to address any identified impediments. The draft documents will be available for public review and comment from April 10 through May 11, 2015 by accessing the City's website at: www.chulavistaca.gov /cvrh or by contacting Angelica Davis, Project Coordinator, at adavis @ci. chula- vista.ca.us or (619) 691 -5036. PUBLIC HEARING The City Council will then conduct a Public hearing on Tuesday, April 21, 2015 at 5:00 pm to further solicit input on the Spending Plan. The Public Hearing will be held in Civic Center - City Hall, City Council Chambers located at 276 Fourth Avenue in Chula Vista. Comments received through the Public Hearing and 30 -day Review Period will be incorporated into the corresponding final planning documents (ConPlan, Action Plan, and Al), which will be submitted for approval to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) The City, in complying with the Americans With Disabilities Act, requests individuals who require special accommodation to access, attend and /or participate in a City meeting, activity or service request such accommodation at least 48 hours in advance for meetings, and 5 days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact the City Clerk's Office for assistance at (619) 691 -5041. Service for the hearing impaired is available at (619) 585 -5647 (TDD). CV57973 4/10/2015 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 252 APROPEDADES En NONeces(tasegrfo CONTRATANDO Para o d e: 0TR"AsAa , LIMPIEZAYEVCER ORES No Deje Ws tempo POW alt 'Chulavlita e1 • i K0n1211. � nip iEJd EL • • Escondido, • AA 6817981 IOS! PRECIOS! Carlsbad, . de - 'rC7 e ELECTRIQST CO TIS A Condado de Sari Di(,-go. Turnos disponibles: Hay varios turnos disponibles li Suen Pago, Mas Seneficios Aplicar en persona de Lunes a Vlernes 8:00 am - 3:30 pm ISONIDO AUDIOVISUAL (619) 207 -6925 8ppt Vickers Street,San Diego CAOil GUAL01IEREAL BCDAS , XV ANUS (619) 300 -3518 para toda clase de eventos Xv, Boda, restauracldn de fotos, tel760 -603 -2896 Leather Repair /Master Cobier Wanted for hangbag and shoe re- pair. Finest, quality of work required. San Diego Full Time. Call Carl 858-349-1289 C BRALES ELECTRICIDAD PLOMERO, DRENAJES Reparaciones insta- Iaciones;.,Bod frs, drenajes,'llaues, banns. sent io 7/24 hrs. (61 9) 288 (619) 827 -5660. (61 9) 827 -5660 PLOME, Instaladones, r pa- radones, drenajes y reemplazo de t/rbedas. Calfdadame' rprecio. Mi n "dad, es May eferenda! (619) 301 -7832 (619) 410 -5585 (619) 474 -6165 152 *1018934 *4 arturosrepair @att,net iATE NCIbN,'_i- REPARACION DE Lavadoras, refrige- radores,secadoras. �61 7 d ias) Precios bajos 619) 994 -5681 91403 -0873 REPARACIONES E INSTALACIONES De.plomer(ay gas. Presup_Ostc GRATIS! Ilamar a Samuel 619 552 -638$ REPRESEN1ANiE IND�PENDI�N1� 1 T � °I °I ONA Usted el,�, i (619) 474 8899, (61a954 13 ' Prablsma� ae: De resi& (Wrolesuiogrese fhonririoo '�Q;or Un Rgalo ron (wato mu��Oom Baja Autoestima Ansiedayyd ilndepeodicese ilol Mismo! A V 0 N ) 50 9)d866-6925 . escuehta AVI50 DE AUDIENCIA PGBLICAY PERIODO DE COMENTARIOS PUBLICOS DE LA CIUDAD DE CHULA VISTA PARA EL PLAN CONSOLIDADO DEL 2015 -2019, PLAN ANNUAL DEL 2015 Y EL ANRLISIS DE LOS IM E DIMENTOS PARA VIVi ENDA JU STA El Wan Consolidado es un documento de planificacion que establece las estrategias y las prioridades tocales parael use defondos federalesdurante el plazo de c1ncoanos.E1 plan sirvecomo un plan al igual que is solicitud formal al Departamento deVivienda y Desarrollo Urbana (HUD) para fondosfedera- ies incluyendo Emergency Solutions Grant (E5G),Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnership Act (HOME). El Plan Anual es la portion anual del Plan Consoltdado que describe espe- cificamente c6mo Chula Vista gastara recursos federales durante el periodo de on ano para las actividades que ayudan a personas de ingresos bajos y moderados, incluyendo las personas indigentes y las personas con necesi- dades especiales. El Analfsis de los Impedimentos para Vivienda Justa es un analisis que describen los impedimentos para election de vivienda justa en nuestra ciudad, asi Como las actions necesarias para hater frente a los obstaculos identificados. Los docu mentor estaran disponibles para su revision y comentariosa panir del 10deabril114 demayo2015 por media de la pagina web:vvww.chula- Astaca.gov /cwh o poniendose en contacto con Angelica Davis,Coordinado- ra de Proyectos:adavis @chulav slaca.govo ai (619) 697 a 5036. AUDIENCIA PUBLICA Se reatzara una audiencia p6blica el 21 de abrR 2015 a las 590 pm para solicitar mas comentarios sabre los docume ntos.La audiencia publica se lle- vara a Cabo en el Centro CMco (City Hall) ubicado en 276 Fourth Avenue en Chula Vista. Los comentarios recibidas atraves de la audiencia publica y durante el pe- r(odo de revisi6n seran incorporados en los documentos de planificaaon finales que se someteran a la aprobaci6n del Departamento de Vivienda y Desanollo Urbana (HUD). CUMPLIM IENTO DEAmerfcans with Disabilities Act (ADA): La ciudad, en el cumplimiento de las Ley de Estadounidenses con Discapaddades, asistira a personas que requieren asistencia especial de ac- ceso para asistiry /o participaren una reunion de la ciudad. Porfavoravise nos al menos 48 horas antes de la reunion. Para este sendi ic, p6ngase en contacto con la Oftcina del Secret-anode la Ciudad para la asistencia al (619) 691- 5041.Servido para personas con discapacidad auditiva esta disponible en (619) 585 -5647 (TDD). Abril 10 al 16 del 2015 i UNETEA .1 1 '1 Hoy Prueba nuestras mascariilas de Colageno en Diferentes Sabores; calla una para diferente propbsito segun to tipo de pie]. El colageno aliade estructura a la piel, dandole elasticidad AVIVA Mascarillas to da la flexiblidad de Trabajar desde casa y en to pro ' 0. Liamenos para mas information al`� (619) 671.7071 EXAMEN DE SEND Y MAMOGRANIA Si necesitas tratamiento met Nosotrosteapoyar .1, De 9:00 am. a IDOp,m. 2937 Beyer Blvd, « San Diego Ca., 921 A a a v a N H N O N H O N NONeces(tasegrfo NDNecesi�hacerrjfa ` tVFSUPPORTU Y°A +F9Vz�°.E rxi:6Y4�E. ?�! SU5004• alt 'Chulavlita e1 • i K0n1211. � A a a v a N H N O N H O N The City of Chula Vista receives limited federal grant funds each year to use for housing and community development projects that benefit our low and moderate income families. We want to hear from you so please take a few minutes and complete our Community Needs Survey! This survey is your opportunity to have a voice in how the City spends these funds. Your responses are anonymous and will be reported only in group form. THAN K YOU for caring about your community and providing us your valuable feedback! Zip Code Select your zip code from the drop -down menu. Senior? (62 +) O Yes O No Do you have children (17 years of age or younger) living in your home? O Yes O No Do you have a disability? O Yes O No Do you rent or own your home? O Rent O Own Zip Code Page 1 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 254 *There are 6 basic eligible categories where Chula Vista could invest its federal grant funds. What do you consider to be the highest priority for the Chula Vista community? O1) Community Facilities (ie. Recreation Centers, Parks) O2) Streets /Sidewalks (ie. ADA Curb Cuts, Streets, Sidewalks) O3) Community Services (ie. Senior, Youth, Disabled, Homeless) O4) Neighborhood Svcs. (ie. Grafitti Removal, Code Enforcement) O5) Businesses and Jobs (Business Assistance, Job Creation /Retention) O6) Housing (ie. Rehab, Construction, Homebuyer Assistance) * 1) Under, COMMUNITY FACILITIES what do you think has the highest priority? OSenior Centers OYouth Centers OChild Care Centers OPark and Recreational Facilities OHealth Care Facilities OCommunity Centers OFire Stations /Equipment OLibraries OHomeless Centers *2) Under, STREETS /SIDEWALKS what do you think has the highest priority? ODrainage Improvements OWater /Sewer Improvements OStreet /Alley Improvements OStreet Lighting OSidewalk Improvements OAccesibility Improvements (ADA Ramps) Page 2 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 255 *3) Under, COMMUNITY SERVICES what do you think has the highest priority? OSenior Activities OYouth Services OChild Care Services OTransportation Services OFood Programs OAnti -Crime Programs OHealth Care Services OServices for Disabled OHomeless Services OSubstance Abuse OVictims of Domestic Violence *4) Under, NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES what do you think has the highest priority? OTree Planting OTrash and Debris Removal OGraffit Removal OCode Enforcement OParking Facilities OCleanup of Abandoned Lots /Buildings *5) Under, BUSINESSES AND JOBS what do you think has the highest priority? OStart -Up Business Assistance OSmall Business Loans OJob Creation /Retention OJob Skill Training OSmall Business Facade Improvement OBusiness Mentoring OCommercial /Industrial Rehabilitation Page 3 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 256 *6) Under, HOUSING what do you think has the highest priority? OHousing Rehab for Owner - Occupied OHousing Rehab for Rentals OHomeownership Assistance OAffordable Rental Housing - General OAffordable Rental Housing - Special Needs OAffordable Rental Housing - Seniors OHousing for Foster Youth OHousing for Homeless OLead -Based Paint Test /Abatement OEnergy Efficiency Improvements Please write in any needs not listed above. We value your time and appreciate your input. For more information on the federal grant funds or how to stay involved in this planning process, please contact Angelica Davis, Project Coordinator, at adavis @chulavistaca.gov. 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 257 Housing and Community Development Needs Survey Q13 Please write in any needs not listed above. Answered: 53 Skipped: 302 # Responses L. Date 1 We need more pools in Chula Vista. 230,000 residents and only 2 pools. 10/27/2014 1:59 PM 2 Day center for homeless with acess to showers, message /mail center, and resources. After school Drop in 10/14/2014 9:25 PM center for youth with help with tutering, computer skills, entrepreneurship, and weekend dances, counseling, safe zone, resources and volunteering or giving back to the community by the cildren that are being helped by the center Removal of Bars close or directly behind homes. Recreational facility improvement of pool facilities. 3 10/8/2014 2:47 PM 4 10/6/2014 12:20 PM 5 Pool Facilities need to be addressed. Open Hours on weekends, fees, need more pools 10/4/2014 9:33 AM 6 Aquatic facilities!!! Fund your city pools, increase the hours they are open. Our aquatic facilities and their staff 10/3/2014 5:22 PM provide our community with not only a great source of recreation but also vital safety training in teachimg water safety courses. 7 Healthy kids help make healthy communities. Help youth development. 10/3/2014 4:06 PM 8 Chula Vista rates among the top higest in San Diego County, yet we only have two swimming pools. As it is 10/3/2014 3:55 PM apartments are closing down their pools, We need a third aquatic facility to better serve the residents of Chula Vista and their families. 9 The West side of Chula Vista is deteriorating and my major concern is the amount of properties that have 10/2/2014 10:55 AM vehicles parked on the front lawns. Code Enforcement needs additional help to bring this epidemic under control. 10 A third aquatic facility to better serve the residents of Chula Vista since we are the second largest city in San 10/1/2014 2:37 PM Diego. The aquatic centers can serve more people and we won't be limited to serve only a few residents. We can also create more job openings by opening a third facility. 11 Our City is the second largest city in San Diego county, yet we only have two swimming pools. We need a third 10/1/2014 1:58 PM aquatic facility to serve the residents on the east side of Chula Vista. 12 A pool on the east side . We only have two pool in Chula Vista. There were 172 drowning is the US from 9/30/2014 9:03 AM Memorial to Labor Day. Another pool is needed to help children learn to swim in the East Side. 13 The Hilltop elementary school has needed a new baseball field for years. 9/27/2014 3:25 PM 14 We need to bring in larger companies that provide careers not just jobs. We need to make ourselves an attrative 9/26/2014 12:23 AM city for industry. Stop pretending to be a small city that refuses to grow and adapt. 9/25/2014 4:18 PM 15 Under #4, the trash and weeds by the freeways, road dividers, and freeway ramps are awful. It is seldom that anything seems to be done to clean up these entrances to our city. They should be kept clean and tidy all the time for the residents and visitors alike. In all the categories, every suggestion has need for addressing. All we need is money & desire. 16 Several parks have become homeless shelters which impacts the residents who wish to use their community 9/25/2014 8:19 AM park. Staff becomes personal cleaners of the homeless and they should not have to do that as a function of their duties. Time for Chula Vista to partner with someone and help the homeless situation for all to possibly benefit. Tree trimming and removal of huge trees that the CITY planted and now only maintain when called and won't 9/24/2014 5:29 PM 17 remove. Repair and resurfacing of streets. 18 Cleaning up third ave and broadway. There are areas that look trashing and low rent. Businesses with ugly signs 9/24/2014 3:06 PM and to many signs. Exhibit "C" Survey Comments 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet 1/3 Page 258 Housing and Community Development Needs Survey 19 This survey isn't clear. Are you asking what needs attention or what we view as being given highest priority 9/24/2014 2:16 PM currently? I think the west side of Chula Vista is in need of several renovations. Properties look abandoned, graffiti and trash fill the streets and there seems to be high turnover for small businesses. I would love to see the city cleaned up to attract younger families. We have a phenomenal location and with the bayfront renovations ahead our city could really benefit. Rain water claiming. Do not allow 90 percent of water to travel to the ocean when we finally get it. 9/24/2014 12:14 PM 20 21 HOUSING, HOBS AND CRIME PREVENTION IS ONE OF THE KEY TO LEAD TO A HEALTHY COMMUNTY 9/24/2014 9:31 AM 22 You need to considered the access to PARKWAY, I used to play volleyball twice a week, and we were almost 50 9/24/2014 8:46 AM people on the gym, seniors and young people gatering for the same interest. and now you have to pay 70 dll x hour to use the facilities. this is not fair. we need to encourage our kids to stay safe from drugs doing some healthy and what we have ? ? ?, gyms closing dors to this population of people-thanks and I encourage you to open the gym if is not goint to be free, you can ask for individual payment.... 23 We need more education on how to own a home. Renters are getting too expensive with their tentants, bringing 9/24/2014 8:43 AM their prices up each year while there isn't any employment or any raises at the current jobs. The new minimum is still not enough... 24 We need more officers patrolling the streets. I never see officers unless a crime has occurred. We need a 9/24/2014 8:30 AM substation out East not just a store front. More officer presence. The streets are terrible 25 9/23/2014 9:16 PM 26 More affordable housing and more jobs. And a safe place for our children. mental health services 9/23/2014 9:04 PM 27 9/23/2014 7:27 PM 28 It's difficult to pick one thing on these categories when there is so many needs 9/23/2014 7:12 PM 29 Like to see efforts made with single mothers trying to afford housing in Chula Vista 9/23/2014 6:16 PM 30 1 think our neighborhoods are deteriorating on the west side. Owners don't take care of their yards, there is trash, 9/23/2014 5:25 PM mattresses, courches etc left on the streets, graffitti and youth openly smoking pot in the parks. I don't shop on 3rd because of the homeless and parolees lingering and loitering. 31 Would be interested in the breakdown of how you spent the money in the most recent 2 years. Thanks Scott 9/23/2014 4:28 PM Vinson 32 west of the 805 is in need of low or no interest rate home improvement loans. 9/23/2014 4:20 PM 33 take away some of these don't turn on red signs for instinst 4th and cst.terrible back up of traffic heavy area due 9/23/2014 3:19 PM to motor vehicles ,coming going can't get out parking lot or in jack and box from c.st,traffic backs up can't enter c st even back to 4 way stop before c st.ck it out .thanks 34 Residential street repair not only main fairway 9/23/2014 3:10 PM 35 Real Affordable Housing for seniors. I live in "Affordable" senior housing for seniors at Harvest Ridge in East 9/23/2014 2:48 PM Lake on Palomar Street. I pay $898.00 per month in Rent. $898.00 is not affordable. 36 Swimming pools especially on the East side of town. Our students get scholarships for aquatic sports, especially 9/23/2014 2:30 PM girls and there aren't enough pools to cover all of the students who swim and play water polo. It seems silly but it's truly important. 9/23/2014 2:15 PM 37 It would be great if funding was used for more affordable housing projects. My family and I have been on waiting lists for several years to obtain affordable housing and it is disillusioning to still not have any openings in the Eastlake area. We owned homes in Eastlake before the housing crisis and ended up losing our home to foreclosure. We did not want to move our kids away from their schools and choose to stay in this neighborhood. There are a lot of people in our same situation who also need some type of rental assistance but are unable to locate affordable housing in our area. The other issue I would like to address is the need for more jobs in Chula Vista. It would be nice if there was funding to go toward job creations for this area. I have to commute over 45 minutes outside of Chula Vista and would love to be able to work closer to home. Thank you for allowing my input. 38 Need to keep freeway access areas clean from litter so the city looks nice ( H street on and off ramps) 9/23/2014 1:49 PM 39 Too many transients begging for money, especially on /off ramps to freeway. Dangerous, unsightly, and creates a 9/23/2014 1:39 PM bad image of our city. Exhibit "C" Survey Comments 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet 2/3 Page 259 Housing and Community Development Needs Survey 40 Seeing a lot of converted garages and building taking place that do not seem to be permitted 9/23/2014 1:19 PM 41 ENFORCE VAGRANCY LAWS AND PUBLIC INTOXICATION LAWS 9/23/2014 1:10 PM 42 This is a good neighborhood but I really think if rules were enforced by HOAs (we are told they cannot do 9/23/2014 1:05 PM anything but give a fine myabe) things might improve. People illegally park, do uturns, block intersections, let dogs loose and /or don't clean up after them, have parties later than midnight, dig into others properties and "nothing can be done" Speeding is also a big problem esp. among the younger group. Also parents BLOCK culdesacs to let children play... I have stop calling in because complaints go unheard... Neighbor broke our fence, we paid to fix it as they wouldn't and HOA said there's nothing they can do ... money is paid into what 43 Pay off my mortgage so I can retire by age 65. 9/23/2014 12:48 PM 44 Fewer palm "trees "; more leafy trees to make more shade and make city feel more cozy 9/23/2014 12:47 PM 45 This WAS mentioned above but it needs to be emphasized. Our city could be much less a ghetto city if we 9/23/2014 12:41 PM enforced the laws /rules we have on the books already. And make sure they are carried out. 46 COMMUNITY SERVICES need to include arts and after school programs 9/23/2014 12:26 PM 47 1 can easily pick more than one option under a catagory such as street /sidewalk; Youth, Child & Health centers; 9/23/2014 12:21 PM Water /Sewer; Transp., Hornless & Substance abuse; Job skills training; Housing rehab for Owners; Affordable Housing for Seniors; and add Services for Mental Illness and Behavioral problems, which affects the entire community, and it's not being addressed in many communities. 48 Open Space beautification. 9/23/2014 12:05 PM 49 Chula Vista's image needs improvement, please work with the Chamber of Commerce or other organizations to 9/23/2014 12:04 PM enhance our city's image and attract high - paying jobs and industry. 50 Repave streets 9/23/2014 12:03 PM 51 Would like to see some lights around stop signs and lights in the cross walk along E. Palomar street, dangerous 9/23/2014 9:07 AM area for pedestrians, just a matter of time before someone is killed because of stop sign runners 52 We need graffiti removal for both city owned and residential, like it was before, businesses need to comply and 9/23/2014 8:31 AM remove graffiti within 24 hours and this needs to be enforced, some home owners have graffiti and leave it there for months and it never gets removed, Need to hire back the graffiti removal team Power lines should get burried 53 9/23/2014 8:23 AM Exhibit "C" Survey Comments 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet 3/3 Page 260 WRITTEN STANDARDS FOR PROVISION OF ESG ASSISTANCE The City of Chula Vista, in accordance with Department of Housing and Urban Development guidelines, developed standard policies and procedures for evaluating individuals' and families' eligibility for Assistance under Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG). Per 24 CFR 576.401 the City and ESG sub - recipients must conduct an initial evaluation to determine each individual or family's eligibility for ESG assistance and the amount and types of assistance the individual or family needs to regain stability in permanent housing. These evaluations must be conducted in accordance with the centralized or coordinated assessment requirements set forth under §576.400(d) which is pending development by the San Diego Continuum of Care (CoC). The City and ESG sub - recipients must re- evaluate the program participant's eligibility and the types and amounts of assistance the participant needs; not less than once a year for participants who are receiving homelessness prevention assistance or receiving rapid re- housing assistance. At the City and sub - recipient's discretion, re- evaluations may be conducted more frequently than required by 24 CFR 576.401 and may also be incorporated into the case management process for homeless prevention and rapid re- housing participants — See 24 CFR 576.401(e) (i). Regardless of which timeframe is used, re- evaluations, must at minimum, establish that: • The program participant does not have an annual income that exceeds 30 percent of median family income for the area, as determined by HUD; and the program participant lacks sufficient resources and support networks necessary to retain housing without ESG assistance. To determine if an individual or family is income eligible, the City or sub - recipient must examine an individual or family's annual income to ensure that it does not exceed the most current area income limits posted on the Department of Housing and Urban Development's website webpage found at: hLtp://www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/il/il20l2/2012summM.odn Note: Annual income must be below 30% at the time of the initial evaluation. • When the program participant's income or other circumstances change (e.g., changes in household composition) that affects the program participant's need for assistance under ESG, the City and its sub - recipient must re- evaluate the program participant's eligibility and the amount and types of assistance the program participant needs. • The City may also assist each program participant, as needed, to obtain appropriate supportive services, including assistance in obtaining other permanent housing, medical health treatment, mental health treatment, counseling, supervision, and other services essential for achieving independent living; housing stability case management; and other Federal, State, local, or private assistance available to assist the program participant in obtaining housing stability including; Exhibit "D" - ESG Written Standards Page 1 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 261 • Medicaid (Medi -Cal in California) • Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Food Stamps or SNAPS) • Women, Infants and Children (WIC) • Federal -State Unemployment Insurance Program • Public Housing • Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) • Supplemental Security Income (SSI) • Child and Adult Care Food Program, and • Other mainstream resources such as housing, health, social services, employment, education services and youth programs that an individual or family may be eligible to receive HOMELESS PREVENTION AND RAPID RE- HOUSING ESG funds may be used for costs of rental assistance, security deposits, and utility deposits, as well as helping pay for any arrears (up to the program limits). Policies and procedures for determining and prioritizing which eligible families and individuals will receive homelessness prevention assistance and which eligible families and individuals will receive rapid re- housing assistance will consist of a waiting list for potentially eligible clients and those who most likely benefit from the program. Referrals from social service providers will be key to the program's success. The City of Chula Vista's program will focus on assisting special needs populations including former foster youth, victims of domestic violence, and veterans. The goal is to leverage the City's HPRP funds with those funds available to program participants that can achieve program success. The City recognizes there are some applicants who meet HPRP eligibility criteria, but only need a few months of assistance before they receive Section 8, Tenant Based Rental Assistance, County voucher for former Foster Voucher or a HUD VASH voucher (as it may take several months to finish the process). The City with its numerous partners would encourage applicants who are lined up other mainstream services to utilize the City's HPRP short term program. Another key to the success of this program is the use of a screening and assessment process, which thoroughly explores a family's or individual's situation and pinpoints their unique housing and service needs. Based upon the assessment, families and individuals should be referred to the kinds of housing and services most appropriate to their situations and need (i.e. access all available services to increase self sufficiency). Once in place, a centralized or coordinated assessment system will help to better match individuals and families with the most appropriate assistance. Under homelessness prevention assistance, funds are available to persons below 30% of Area Median Income (AMI), and are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. ESG funds can be used to prevent an individual or family from becoming homeless and /or regain stability in current housing or other permanent housing. Rapid re- housing funding will be available to those who are literally homeless to ultimately move into permanent housing and achieve housing stability. Exhibit "D" - ESG Written Standards Page 2 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 262 Standards for determining the share of rent and utilities costs that each program participant must pay, while receiving homelessness prevention or rapid re- housing assistance will consist of a subsidy calculation using a hybrid of the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program. However, the City will have the discretion to set the payment standard and maximum monthly subsidy of $1,000. The amount each program participant must pay, (a minimum rent of $100.00), will be based on the following: • Rental assistance cannot be provided for a unit unless the rent for that unit is at or below the Payment Standard, established by the City using HUD's published Fair Market Rents for the San Diego Region. A complete listing of the Fair Market Rent for San Diego can be found at the following website: htlp://www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/finr.html • The rent charged for a unit must be reasonable in relation to rents currently being charged for comparable units in the private unassisted market and must not be in excess of rents currently being charged by the owner for comparable unassisted units. See 24 CFR 574.320. • The rental unit must meet minimum habitability standards found at 24 CFR 576.403. • There must be a rental assistance agreement and lease between property manager and tenant as well as the owner of property and the City or ESG sub - recipient. • No rental assistance may be made to an individual or family that is receiving rental assistance from another public source for the same time period, and • Rental assistance may not be provided to a participant who is currently receiving replacement housing payments under Uniform Relocation Assistance. • Rental assistance may be available for Project Based Rental Assistance, based on availability of funding and vacant units. Per 24 CFR 576.106 (e), the City's or its ESG sub - recipients may make rental assistance payments only to an owner with whom the sub - recipient has entered into a rental assistance agreement. The rental assistance agreement must set forth the terms under which rental assistance will be provided, including the requirements that apply under this section. The rental assistance agreement must provide that, during the term of the agreement, the owner must give the sub - recipient a copy of any notice to the program participant to vacate the housing unit, or any complaint used under state or local law to commence an eviction action against the program participant. In the event of project based assistance, the payments would also go directly to the property owner with a rental assistance agreement in place. Exhibit "D" - ESG Written Standards Page 3 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 263 Standards for determining how long a particular program participant will be provided with rental assistance and whether and how the amount of that assistance will be adjusted over time. Currently, the period is up to 12 months. Although under 24 CFR 576.103 and 24 CFR Part 576.104, the City and its sub - recipients may provide an ESG a program participant with up to 24 months of rental assistance during any 3- year period. The City is providing a maximum of up to 12 months of rental assistance that can be in the form of short -term rental assistance is assistance for up to 3 months of rent or medium - term rental assistance is assistance for more than 3 months but not more than 12 months of rent. The amount of that assistance can be adjusted over time. Payment of rental arrears may consist of a one -time payment for up to 6 months of rent in arrears, including any late fees on those arrears. The maximum amount of rental assistance provided and, an individual or family's level of responsibility for rent payments, over time, shall be determined by the City and shall be reflective of the individual or family's need for rental assistance and the level of financial resources available to the ESG sub - recipient, noting that some families may be better suited for an emergency shelter or transitional housing before transitioning into a HPRP subsidized unit. Standards for determining the type, amount, and duration of housing stabilization and /or relocation services to provide a program participant, including the limits, if any, on the homelessness prevention or rapid re- housing assistance that each program participant may receive, such as the maximum amount of assistance, maximum number of months the program participants receives assistance; or the maximum number of times the program participants may receive assistance. Subject to the general conditions under 24 CFR 576.103 and 24 CFR Part 576.104, sub - recipients may use ESG funds to pay housing owners, utility companies, and other third parties for some or all of the following costs, as allowed under 24 CFR 576.105: • Security deposits • Last month's rent • Utility deposits • Utility payments Consistent with 24 CFR 576.105 (c), ESG sub - recipients shall determine the type, maximum amount and duration of housing stabilization and /or relocation services for individuals and families who are in need of homeless prevention or rapid re- housing assistance through the initial evaluation, re- evaluation and ongoing case management processes. Consistent with 24 CFR 576.105(d), financial assistance for housing stabilization and /or relocation services cannot be provided to a program participant who is receiving the same type of assistance through other public sources or to a program participant who has been provided with replacement housing payments under the Uniform Relocation Act (URA) during the period of time covered by the URA payments. Exhibit "D" - ESG Written Standards Page 4 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 264 EMERGENCY SHELTER Emergency Shelter Definition The term Emergency Shelter was revised by 24 CFR Part 576.2 to mean "any facility, the primary purpose of which is to provide a temporary shelter for the homeless in general or for specific populations of the homeless and which does not require occupants to sign leases or occupancy agreements. This definition excludes transitional housing. However, projects that were funded as an emergency shelter (shelter operations) under the FY 2010 Emergency Shelter Grants program may continue to be funded under the emergency shelter component under the Emergency Solutions Grants program, regardless of whether the project meets the revised definition. Admission, Diversion, Referral and Discharge ESG sub - recipients must conduct an initial evaluation of all individuals or families to determine if they should be admitted to an emergency shelter, diverted to a provider of other ESG funded components (e.g. rapid re- housing or homeless prevention assistance) and /or referred for other mainstream resources. ESG sub - recipients must determine that individuals and families meet criteria including the Homeless Definition and rate the individual or family's vulnerability to ensure that only those individuals or families that have the greatest need for emergency shelter assistance receive ESG funded assistance. ESG sub - recipients must also reassess emergency shelter participants, on an ongoing basis, to determine the earliest possible time that they can be discharged to permanent housing. Safety and Shelter Needs of Special Populations ESG funds may be used to provide services for homeless youth, victim services, and services for people living with HIV /AIDS, so long as the costs of providing these services are eligible under the regulations for the emergency shelter component found at 24 CFR Part 576.102. Consistent with ESG recordkeeping and reporting requirements found at 24 CFR Part 576.500, ESG sub - recipients must develop and apply written policies to ensure the safety of program participants through the following actions: • All records containing personally identifying information (as defined in HUD's standards for participation, data collection, and reporting in a local HMIS) of any individual or family who applies for and /or receives ESG assistance will be kept secure and confidential • The address or location of any domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking shelter project assisted under the ESG will not be made public, except with written authorization of the person responsible for the operation of the shelter, and Exhibit "D" - ESG Written Standards Page 5 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 265 • The address or location of any housing of a program participant, including youth, individuals living with HIV /AIDS, victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking; and individuals and families who have the highest barriers to housing will not be made public, except as provided under a preexisting privacy policy of the sub - recipient and consistent with state and local laws regarding privacy and obligations of confidentiality In addition, ESG sub - recipients must adhere to the following ESG shelter and housing standards found at 24 CFR Part 576.403 to ensure that shelter and housing facilities are safe, sanitary, and adequately maintained: • Lead -Based Paint Requirements. The Lead -Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act applies to all shelters assisted under ESG program and all housing occupied by program participants. All ESG sub - recipients are required to conduct a Lead -Based Paint inspection on all units receiving assistance under the rapid re- housing AND homelessness prevention components if the unit was built before 1978 and a child under age of six or a pregnant woman resides in the unit. • Structure and Materials. The shelter building should be structurally sound to protect residents from the elements and not pose any threat to health and safety of the residents. • Access. The shelter must be accessible, and there should be a second means of exiting the facility in the case of emergency or fire. • Space and Security. Each resident should have adequate space and security for themselves and their belongings. Each resident must have an acceptable place to sleep. • Interior Air Quality. Each room or space within the shelter /facility must have a natural or mechanical means of ventilation. The interior air should be free of pollutants at a level that might threaten or harm the health of residents. • Water Supply. The shelter's water supply should be free of contamination. • Sanitary Facilities. Each resident should have access to sanitary facilities that are in proper operating condition. These facilities should be able to be used in privacy, and be adequate for personal cleanliness and the disposal of human waste. • Thermal Environment. The shelter /facility must have any necessary heating /cooling facilities in proper operating condition. • Illumination and Electricity. The shelter /facility should have adequate natural or artificial illumination to permit normal indoor activities and support health and safety. There should be sufficient electrical sources to permit the safe use of electrical appliances in the shelter. Exhibit "D" - ESG Written Standards Page 6 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 266 • Food Preparation. Food preparation areas, if any, should contain suitable space and equipment to store, prepare and serve food in a safe and sanitary manner. • Sanitary Conditions. The shelter should be maintained in a sanitary condition. • Fire Safety- Sleeping Areas. There should be at least one working smoke detector in each occupied unit of the shelter facility. In addition, smoke detectors should be located near sleeping areas where possible. The fire alarm system should be designed for a hearing- impaired resident. • Fire Safety- Common Areas. All public areas of the shelter must have at least one working smoke detector. Policies and procedures for assessing, prioritizing, and reassessing individuals' and families' needs for essential services related to emergency shelter. • ESG funds may be used to provide essential services to individuals and families who are in an emergency shelter. Essential services for participants of emergency shelter assistance can include case management, child care, education services, employment assistance and job training, outpatient health services, legal services, life skills training, mental health services, substance abuse treatment services, transportation, and services for special populations. • ESG sub - recipients are responsible to assess an individual or family's initial need for emergency shelter and must re- assess their need on an ongoing basis to ensure that only those individual or families with the greatest need receive ESG funded emergency shelter assistance. • Upon completion and implementation of the CoUs centralized or coordinated assessment system, ESG recipients shall be required to use that system to help determine an individual or families need for emergency shelter or other ESG funded assistance. • Policies and procedures for coordination among emergency shelter providers, essential service providers, homelessness prevention and rapid re- housing assistance providers, other homeless assistance providers, and mainstream service and housing providers. Coordination to assist the homeless and prevent homelessness will come from the leadership of the statewide Continuum of Care. Active engagement and membership in the statewide CoC or local homeless coalition is strongly encouraged. The CoC will further engage and coordinate resources amongst other entities to improve current programs and funding. Exhibit "D" - ESG Written Standards Page 7 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 267 CITY OF CHULAV[STA HOUSING DIVISION Citizen Participation Plan 2015 -2019 Exhibit "E" - Citizen Participation Plan 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 268 The Consolidated Plan is a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requirement for a city to receive federal housing and community development funding. Each Consolidated Plan must contain a strategy for citizen participation in the Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plan process. It is the policy of the City of Chula Vista to ensure adequate citizen involvement in the planning, implementation, and evaluation of its housing and community development programs. This document outlines the City's plan for soliciting and receiving citizen input during preparation of the Five -Year Consolidated Plan covering the program years 2015 to 2019, and the individual Annual Action Plans during these same years. This Citizen Participation Plan (CPP) was drafted in accordance with Sections 91.100 and 91.105 of HUD's Consolidated Plan regulations. Administrative Responsibilities and Contact Information The City of Chula Vista (City) is the recipient of all CDBG, HOME, and ESG funds. Specific program information is available at: http: / /www.chulavistaca.gov /departments /development- services /housing The Development Services Housing Division has responsibility for administration of the Consolidated Plan process, which includes all activities related to development and dissemination of Consolidated Plans, Annual Action Plans, and Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Reports. Encouraging Public Participation It is the intent of the City of Chula Vista is to encourage and facilitate the participation of residents in the formulation of priorities, strategies and funding allocations related to the Consolidated Plan process, emphasizing involvement by low and moderate income persons, especially those living in low and moderate income neighborhoods. The City also encourages participation of minority populations, including people who do not speak English and persons with special needs. The City shall encourage the participation of residents of public and assisted housing developments, in the process of developing and implementing the Consolidated Plan. Finally, the City consults with the public and private agencies that provide housing, health and social services to City residents to identify the greatest needs of City residents, particularly low to moderate income residents and those with special needs. Role of low and moderate income people. The primary purpose of the programs covered by this CPP is to improve communities by providing decent housing, a suitable living environment, and growing economic opportunities —all principally for low and moderate income people. Because the amount of federal CDBG, HOME, and ESG money the City of Chula Vista receives and /or administers each year is primarily based on the severity of both poverty and substandard housing conditions in the City, the City recognizes the importance of public participation that genuinely involves people who have experienced these conditions. It is the City's intent to provide opportunities for meaningful involvement by low income people at all stages of the process, including: • Needs identification • Priority setting • Funding allocations • Program recommendations CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN PAGE I 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 269 Stages of the Consolidated Plan Process The policies and procedures in this CPP relate to five specific stages of action mentioned in law or regulation. These stages include: ■ Stage 1. The needs assessment stage, i.e., the identification of housing and community development needs that generally occurs during development of a Consolidated Plan. For the 2015 -2019 Consolidated Plan, this stage occurred during the development of the 2013 -2020 Housing Element, and between August 2014- April 2015. ■ Stage 2. The plan development stage, i.e., preparation of a Draft Consolidated Plan and /or Draft Annual Action Plan. This occurred during December 2014 -April 2015 for the Five -year Consolidated Plan and for the 2015 Action Plan ■ Stage 3. The approval stage, i.e., formal approval by elected officials of a final Consolidated Plan or Annual Action Plan. The timing of this stage depends on the meeting schedule of the City of Chula Vista, but generally occurs during March - April. ■ Stage 4. The amendment stage, i.e., when a change is made in the proposed use of funds in an Annual Action Plan or to the priorities established in the Consolidated Plan, a formal Substantial Amendment will be proposed, considered and acted upon. (See "Stages in the Process" of this CPP for the definition of what constitutes a substantial amendment). This stage only occurs if a substantial amendment is required. ■ Stage 5. The performance review phase, i.e., preparation of the CAPER. This occurs during August and September of each year. Program Year in the City of Chula Vista The "program year" established by the City for the use of these funds is July 1 through June 30. Plan Year 1 (2015): July 1, 2015 -June 30, 2016 Plan Year 2 (2016): July 1, 2016 -June 30, 2017 Play Year 3 (2017): July 1, 2017 -June 30, 2018 Play Year 4: (2018) July 1, 2018 -June 30, 2019 Plan Year 5: (2019) July 1, 2019 -June 30, 2020 Public Notice This section describes how the City will issue public notices about the Five -year Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plan, CAPER meetings, document draft review periods, amendments, and requests for release of HUD funds. When notice will occur. The City will provide advanced public notice once any of the following documents is available for draft review and comment: the Proposed Annual Action Plan or Consolidated Plan, any proposed Substantial Amendment, the Annual Performance Report and Notices of Intent to Request Release of Funds. In addition, the City will provide public notice of all public hearings related to the funds or to the planning process covered by this CPP. CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN PAGE 2 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 270 HUD considers two weeks advance public notice to be adequate for the public to permit informed comment. The amount of lead time can also vary, depending on the event. Specific minimum amounts of lead time for different events are described later in this CPP. Forms of public notice. Public notices will be published in an English- language and Spanish - language general circulation publications. Whenever feasible, display ads and /or press releases for publication in appropriate neighborhood and ethnic newspapers will also be used. Notice will also be given through mailings to other organizations or individuals who have requested receipt of such notices. The proposed Consolidated Plan will be published to afford citizens, public agencies and other interested parties a reasonable opportunity to examine its contents and to submit comments. The requirement for publishing will be met by publishing a summary of the proposed Consolidated Plan and proposed projects in the above - mentioned publications. Public Access to Information The City of Chula Vista will provide the public with reasonable and timely access to information and records relating to the data or content of the Consolidated Plan, as well as the proposed, actual, and past use of funds covered by this CPP. In addition, the City will provide the public with reasonable and timely access to local meetings related to the proposed or actual use of funds. Standard documents. Standard documents to which public access will be provided include: the proposed and final Annual Action Plans, the proposed and final Consolidated Plans, proposed and final Substantial Amendments to an Annual Action Plan or Consolidated Plan, Consolidated Annual Performance Reports and this Citizen Participation Plan. Availability of standard documents. In the spirit of encouraging public participation, copies of standard documents will be provided to the public. These materials will be available in a form accessible to persons with disabilities, upon request by calling (619) 691 -5047. Places where standard documents are available. Standard documents are available at the following location and website: City of Chula Vista Development Services Housing Division 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910; City of Chula Vista Development Services- Redevelopment and Housing Website at: http: / /www.chulavistaca.gov/ departments /development- services /housing Public Hearings Public hearings will be held at key stages of the process to obtain the public's views and to provide the public, to the greatest extent possible, with responses to their questions and comments. The City holds public hearings to obtain input regarding community needs during development of a Consolidated Plan, to review proposed uses of the funds in each Annual Action Plan, and to review program performance. More information about these specific hearings is contained in "Stages of the Process" of this CPP. Access to public hearings. Public hearings will be held only after there has been adequate notice as described in "Public Notice" of this CPP. At a minimum, an advertisement in an English and Spanish CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN PAGE 3 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 271 language general circulation publication, published at least ten days before the hearing, is required. The City web -site at www.chulavistaca.gov also posts the City Council meeting agendas and information on each agenda item. Public hearings are held before the City of Chula Vista Council Chambers; 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 — accessible by public transit. Public hearings and populations with unique needs. All public hearings are held at a location accessible to people with disabilities. If non - English speaking or hearing impaired residents request assistance to participate in a public hearing, the City will provide appropriate assistance to the greatest extent possible. Public Meetings The City holds public meetings related to the Consolidated Plan process in several areas in the City of Chula Vista (i.e. East, South and Northwest) in and around the month of September. Anyone interested in being notified of the meetings can call or otherwise contact the Development Services Housing Division to be placed on the community meeting mailing list. Because the housing and community development needs of low and moderate income people are so great and so diverse, priorities must be set in order to decide which needs should get more attention and more resources than other needs. This is the basic reason the Consolidated Plan exists. The City holds public meetings to obtain residents' opinions about needs and what priority those needs have during the development stage of the Consolidated Plan (every 5 years). Public meetings about needs will be completed at least 15 days before a draft Consolidated Plan is published for comment, so that the needs identified can be considered by the City and addressed in the draft Plan. Draft Annual Action Plan and /or Consolidated Plan The law providing the funds related to this CPP calls for improved accountability of jurisdictions to the public. In that spirit and in compliance with the terms of the law, the City will use the following procedures: General information. At the beginning of this stage, usually in October of each year, the City will provide public notice of the anticipated receipt of grant funds, including an estimate of the amount of CDBG, HOME, and ESG, funds it expects to receive in the following year and a description of the range of types of activities that can be funded with these resources. Also, the notice will provide an estimate of the amount of these funds that will be used in ways that will benefit low and moderate income people. Contact information will be included in the notice so that interested persons can obtain additional information. The plans of the City to minimize the extent to which low and moderate income people will have to leave their homes as a result of the use of these federal dollars (displacement) are also available at this stage. The City's "anti- displacement plan" describes how the City will compensate people who are actually displaced as a result of the use of these funds, specifying the type and amount of compensation. Technical assistance. City staff will work with organizations representative of low and moderate CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN PAGE 4 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 272 income people who are interested in submitting a proposal to obtain funding for an activity. Technical assistance workshops regarding the funding process and how to apply will be provided to interested organizations early in the process. Anti - Displacement. The City of Chula Vista strives to avoid or minimize the displacement of individuals as a result of HUD funded activities. Therefore, to the greatest extent feasible, the City: • Considers the impact of displacement in site selection, during the project planning phase. • Provides information to displaced individuals on available assistance and relocation benefits • Reviews Anti - displacement Plans and Relocation Plans prior to funding. Prior to approval of any HUD funded activity with the potential for temporary or permanent displacement of individuals, the responsible agency (City or private developer) provides a written plan of action for comparable replacement low- income housing and assistance to displaced persons, based on the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Polices Act of 1970 (URA), 49 CFR part 24). Availability of a proposed plan. Copies of Proposed Consolidated Plans and /or Annual Action Plans are made available by request. In addition, copies are made available at the locations specified above in "Public Access to Information" of this CPP. Public hearings and further action. In addition to the public meetings held in the community regarding proposed Plans, public hearings about proposed Plans are held by the City Council. All comments from the public meetings, as well as those received in writing during the 30 -day public comment period, are presented to the Chula Vista City Council for their consideration. In the event that the City receives notification of one -time federal funds or grant opportunities, the City may use the suggested public comment period. All such comments are considered by staff and presented in the final Plans. Final Annual Action Plan and /or Consolidated Plan Copies of the final Plan and a summary will be made available to the public upon request at cost. In addition, copies will be available at the locations specified above in "Public Access to Information." Substantial Amendments to the Consolidated Plan and Action Plan Occasionally, public comments warrant an amendment to the Consolidated Plan and /or Action Plan. The City will make documents available for interested parties of the draft Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plan and Executive Summary for a comment period no less than 30 -days. In the event that the City receives notification of one -time federal funds or grant opportunities, the City may use the suggested public comment period. The criteria for whether to amend a Consolidated Plan or Annual Action Plan is referred to by HUD as "Substantial Amendment Criteria." The following are defined as substantial amendments by the City and will require public notice and provision of a public comment period: ■ Over 50% of the original location of beneficiaries are impacted by the change; ■ Contract scope of work of the proposed activity is modified to the point where it would generally be considered a new activity; CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN PAGE 5 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 273 ■ Subrecipient assumes the responsibility of a project identified in the Action Plan; ■ A new program or proposed activity is proposed for funding that was not previously identified in the Consolidated Plan and Action Plans; ■ An administrative decision to reallocate funds to an activity in the Action Plan to other activities of equal or lesser priority need level, unless the decision is a result of: ■ A federal government, state government, or local government declared state of emergency. ■ A change in allocation priorities or a change in the method of distribution of funds; ■ Any use of HUD 108 financing that was not described in the Consolidated Plan; ■ Any changes in federal funding level after the Draft Consolidated Plan's comment period has expired; and ■ the resulting effect on the distribution of funds will not be considered an amendment or a substantial amendment. Public notice and public hearing for substantial amendments. The City will provide reasonable notice of a proposed Substantial Amendment so that residents will have an opportunity to review and comment on it. Notice will be made according to the procedures described in "Public Notice" of this CPP and will allow a 30 -day period for public comment. In the event that the City receives notification of one -time federal funds or grant opportunities, the City may use the suggested public comment period. In preparing a final Substantial Amendment, due consideration will be given to all comments and views expressed by the public. The final Substantial Amendment will have a section that presents all comments and explains why any comments were not accepted. Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report (CAPER) Every year, the City must submit to HUD the Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report (CAPER), within 90 days of the close of the program year, i.e., by September 28. In general, the CAPER describes how funds were actually spent and the extent to which these funds were used for activities that benefited low and moderate income people. Public notice for CAPERs The City will provide reasonable notice that the CAPER is available so that residents will have an opportunity to review and comment on it. Notice will be made according to the procedures described in "Public Notice" above. Public comments will be accepted during a 15 -day comment period described in the public notice. Copies of the CAPER will be made available to the public upon request. In addition, copies will be available at the locations listed in "Public Access to Information." In preparing a CAPER for submission to HUD, consideration will be given to all comments and views expressed by the public, orally or submitted in writing. The CAPER sent to HUD will have a section that presents all comments. Notice of Intent to Request Release of Funds (NOI /RROF) CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN PAGE C 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 274 This notice is to be published when an Environmental Review Record (ERR) is complete and has been signed by the preparer and the certifying officer. The notice must specify, at a minimum, an additional 15- calendar day period within which persons may object to the use release of funds. Complaint Procedures Written complaints from the public about the City's citizen participation process or the Consolidated Plan process will receive careful consideration and will be answered in writing within 15 working days. Written complaints should be sent to the CDBG Coordinator at the following address: City of Chula Vista Development Services Housing Division, 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Amending the Citizen Participation Plan This Citizen Participation Plan can be amended only after the public has been notified of the City's intent to modify it and only after the public has had a reasonable chance to review and comment on proposed substantial changes. CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN PAGE 7 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 275 APPENDIX A CDBG Low and Moderate Income Areas CENSUS 2010 BLOCK GROUPS LOWiMODERATE INCOME BG U `illy CHLW NSG CDBG Census Block Groups 0 0.5 1 2 Wes 0 CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN Appendix "A" 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 276 APPENDIX B Grant Descriptions Community Development Block Grant (CDBG): CFDA - 14.218 HOME Investment Partnership: CFDA — 14.239 Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) Programs: CFDA — 14.231 The City of Chula Vista Housing Division provides U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnership Act, and Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) funding to promote public serviced, capital improvement projects, economic development activities (subject to HUD approval) and production of affordable housing activities that benefit low -and moderate income persons living in Chula Vista. Please refer to the Notice of Funding Availability for a description of each of the funding sources and programmatic requirements. A brief description of each program is described below and funding is subject to the priorities listed in the Consolidated Plan and Notice of Funding Availability. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program is administered by HUD and is authorized under Title 1 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended. The purpose of the CDBG Program is to enhance and maintain viable urban communities through the provision of decent housing, a suitable living environment, and the expansion of economic opportunities, principally for low -and moderate income persons. Not less than 70 percent of CDBG funds must be used for activities that benefit low- and moderate - income persons. In addition, each activity must meet one of the following national objectives for the program: benefit low- and moderate - income persons, prevention or elimination of slums or blight, or address community development needs having a particular urgency because existing conditions pose a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community for which other funding is not available. HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM (HOME) The Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program as authorized by the 1990 National Affordable Housing Act, as amended by the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992. The intent of the HOME Program is to expand the supply of decent, safe, sanitary and affordable housing. This is done through the following: • Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDO). Home ownership assistance • Rehabilitation • New construction of affordable housing • Tenant -based rental assistance • Acquisition of property for affordable housing • Administration In order for an activity or program to be eligible for HOME funding, it must qualify by meeting the following guidelines: CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN Appendix "B" 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 277 • 100% of all funding must be used to benefit households or persons with incomes less than 60% of the area median income. • All HOME - funded projects must have 25% non - federal matching funds. • The HOME program has strict long -term affordability requirements which differ based on the type of project and the amount of funding requested per unit. • Prevailing wage requirements are different from the CDBG program. Federal prevailing wages (Davis - Bacon) are triggered when there are 8 or more units assisted with CDBG funds. For the HOME program, it is 12 or more units. Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) The ESG program provides funding to: (1) engage homeless individuals and families living on the street; (2) improve the number and quality of emergency shelters for homeless individuals and families; (3) help operate these shelters; (4) provide essential services to shelter residents, (5) rapidly re -house homeless individuals and families, and (6) prevent families /individuals from becoming homeless. For specific requirements and eligible costs, see 24 CFR 576. CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN Appendix "B" 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 278 City Council Presentation on the HUD Consolidated Plan Priorities and Annual Action Plan Process (November) Notice of Funding Availablity {NOFA} & Draft Annual Action Technical Assistance Plan {January to Workshop for Grant March} Applicants (November /December) Public Hearing No. Grant Applications 1- Applicant Grant to City Council & Funding Applicant Applications Recommendations Presentation Submittal {January} (March) {February/March} Submission of the 30 -Day Public Review Annual Action Plan to of Action PlanText HUD (submitted to HUD by May 15 or 45 HUD Approval of herePublic Hearing days before the Annual Action No. 2 of Annual Action beginning of the new Plan Plan {March /April} fiscal year) OMB Number: 4040 -0004 Expiration Date: 6/31!2016 Application for Federal Assistance SF -424 * 1. Type of Submission: ❑ Preapplication ® Application ChangedlCorrected Application ' 2. Type of Application: ® New ❑ Continuation ❑ Revision If Revision, select appropriate letter(s): ' Other (Specify): * 3. Date Received: 4, Applicant Identifier. 05/15/2015 8- 15 -MC -06 -0540 (CDBG) 5a. Federal Entity Identifier: 5b. Federal Award Identifier: State Use Only: 6. Date Received by State: E== 7. State Application Identifier: B. APPLICANT INFORMATION: a. Legal Name: city of Chula Vista * b. EmployerlTaxpayer Identification Number (EINlTIN): * c. Organizational DUNS: 0787265510000 195-6000690 d. Address: Streetl: 276 Fourth Avenue Street2: Building "C" * City: Chula Vista CountylParish: County of San Diego * State: CA: California Province: 'Country: USA: UNITED STATES * Zip! Postal Code: 91910 -2699 e. Organizational Unit: Department Name: Division Name: Housing Division Development Services Dept. f. Name and contact information of person to be contacted on matters involving this application: Prefix: tars First Name: Angelica Middle Name: . Last Name: Davis S uffix: Title: Pro }ect Coordinator Organizational Affiliation: *Telephone Number: 619- 691 -5036 Fax Number: *Email: adavis @chulavistaca.gov 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 280 Application far Federal Assistance SF -424 * 9. Type of Applicant 1: Select Applicant Type: C: City or Township Government Type of Applicant 2: Select Applicant Type: Type of Applicant 3: Select Applicant Type: Other (specify): *110. Dame of Federal Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development 11. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number. 19.218 CFA Title: Community Development Block Grant * 12. Funding Opportunity Number: N /11 * Title: N/A 13. Competition Identification Number: Title: 14. Areas Affected by Project (Cities, Counties, States, etc.): Atld Aitaehmerlf ..' Delete Attaohrilent Mew Atkachrrient 15. Descriptive Title of Applicant's Project: r 13G entitlement funds will be used for housing and community development activities including using rehabilitation, public services and capital improvement projects to benefit LMC persons. Attach supporting documents as specified in agency instructions. Add Attachmertts Lelete Attaeftnent View Attachments; 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 281 1 Application for Federal Assistance SF-424 16. Congressional Districts Of: * a. Applicant 51st * b. ProgramlProject 51st Attach an additional list of ProgramlProject Congressional Districts if needed. Add;FlttaettiTrent gelete?ttachmeht ltiewAttaohtnent ` 17. Proposed Project: * a. Start Date: 07/01/207.5 * b. End Date: 06/30/207 6 18. Estimated Funding ($): .a. Federal 1, 769, 214.00 • b. Applicant 0.00 • c. State 0.00 • d. Local 0.00 • e. Other 193,726.001 • f. Program Income 0.00 'g.TOTAL 1,962,940.00 * 19. Is Application Subject to Review By state Under Executive Order 12372 Process? ❑ a. This application was made available to the State under the Executive Order 12372 Process for review on b. Program is subject to E.O. 12372 but has not been selected by the State for review. ® c. Program is not covered by E.O.12372. * 20. Is the Applicant Delinquent On Any Federal Debt? (If "Yes," provide explanation in attachment.) El Yes ® No If "Yes ", provide explanation and attach Adtl'Attachm6ht:.Y achment '. 21. *By signing this application, I certify (1) to the statements contained in the list of certifications ** and (2) that the statements herein are true, complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I also provide the required assurances ** and agree to comply with any resulting terms if I accept an award. I am aware that any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or claims may subject me to criminal, civil, or administrative penalties. (U.S. Code, Title 218, section 1001) ® ** I AGREE ** The list of certifications and assurances, or an internet site where you may obtain this list, is contained in the announcement or agency specific instructions. Authorized Representative: Prefix: Mr. * First Name: Gary Middle Name: * Last Name: Halbert Suffix: "Title: City Manager *Telephone Number: 619- 691 --5036 Fax Number; 'Email: ghalbert @chulavistaca.gov ` Signatureof Authorized Representative: Date Signed: 05/05/2014 x J+X�4� .� 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 282 OMB Number: 4040 -0004 Expiration Date: 6131/2010 Application for Federal Assistance SF -424 * 1. Type of Submission: Preapplication ® Application ❑ Changed /Corrected Application 2. Type of Application: * If Revision, select appropriate letter(s): ®New ❑ Continuation " other (Specify): ❑ Revision * 3. Date Received: 4. Applicant identifier: 05/15/2015 5-14- Mc--06 -0540 (ESG) 5a. Federal Entity Identifier: 5b. Federal Award Identifier: State Use Only: 6, Date Received by State: 7. State Application Identifier: S. APPLICANT INFORMATION: *a. Legal Name: City of Chula vista b. EmployerlTaxpayer Identification Number (EINITIN): * c. Organizational DUNS: 0787265510000 95- 6000690 d. Address: * Street-1: 1276 Fourth Avenue Street2: Building "C" * City: Chula vista County /Parish: County of San Diego "State: CA: California Province: *Country: USA: UNITED STATES * Zip 1 Postal Code: 91910-2699 e. Organizational Unit: Department Name: Division Name: Housing Division Development Services Dept. f. Name and contact information of person to he contacted on matters involving this application: Prefix: Mrs, First Name: Angelica Middle Name: 'Last Name: Davis Suffix: I Title: Project Coordinator Organizational Affiliation: F- * Telephone Number: 619 - 691 -5036 Fax Number: *Email: adavis @chulavistaca.gav 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 283 Application for Federal Assistance SF -424 * S. Type of Applicant 1: Select Applicant Type: C: City or Township Government Type of Applicant 2: Select Applicant Type: Type of Applicant 3: Select Applicant Type: * Other (specify): * 10. Name of Federal Agency: Department of housing and Urban Development 11. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: 114.231 CFDA Title: Emergency Solutions Grant * 12. Funding Opportunity Number: IN-1 * Title: N/A 13. Competition Identification Number: Title: 14. Areas Affected by Project (Cities, Counties, States, etc.): Adtl Attacf meat ©eiet AttaCht Tent . View AifachrN * 15. Descriptive Title of Applicant's Project: ESG funds will be used for operation costs of transitional housing and rapid rehousing services. Attach supporting documents as specified in agency instructions. Add Attachments 1:; Delete Attaelments : View Pttachments S 1 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 284 Application for Federal Assistance SF -424 16. Congressional Districts Of: * a. Applicant 51st * b. Program /Project 51st Attach an additional list of Program /Project Congressional Districts if needed. Add /ltfachment 1]elete Attachment Uiew Attachment 17. Proposed Project: * a. Start Date: D7/D1/2D15 * b. End Date: 06/30/2016 18. Estimated Funding ($): a. Federal 153, 270.00 * b. Applicant 0.00 0. State 0.00 * d. Local 0.001 * e. Other 0.00 If. Program Income 0.00 *g. TOTAL 153,270.0D * 19. is Application Subject to Review By State Under Executive Order 12372 Process? ❑ a. This application was made available to the State under the Executive Order 12372 Process for review on b. Program is subject to E.O. 12372 but has not been selected by the State for review. ® c. Program is not covered by E.O. 12372. * 20. is the Applicant Delinquent On Any Federal Debt? (if "Yes," provide explanation in attachment.) ❑ Yes ®No If "Yes ", provide explanation and attach Add:AttacYii .., De €ete, Attachment VlewAttaohment . ,! 21. *By signing this application, I certify (1) to the statements contained in the list of certifications— and (2) that the statements herein are true, complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I also provide the required assurances ** and agree to comply with any resulting terms if I accept an award. I am aware that any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or claims may subject me to criminal, civil, or administrative penalties. (U.S. Code, Title 218, Section 1001) ® ** I AGREE ** The list of certifications and assurances, or an internet site where you may obtain this list, is contained in the announcement or agency specific instructions. Authorized Representative: Prefix: Mr. * First Name: lGary Middle Name: * Last Name: Halbert Suffix: *Tide: City Manager Telephone Number: 619 -691 -5036 Fax Number: *Email: ghalbert @chulavistaca.gov *Signature of Authorized Representative: "Date Signed: 05/05/2014 g 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 285 OMB Number: 4040 -0004 Expiration Date: 8131/2016 Application for Federal Assistance SF -424 * 1. Type of Submission: Preapplication ® Application ❑ Changed /Corrected Application * 2. Type of Application: ' If Revision, select appropriate letter(s): ® New ❑ Continuation " Other (Specify): ❑ Revision * 3. Date Received: 4. Applicant Identifier: 05/15/2015 M- -15 --MC -0606 (HOME) 5a. Federal Entity Identifier: 5b. Federal Award Identifier: State Use Only: G. Date Received by State: 7. State Application Identifier: 8. APPLICANT INFORMATION: * a. Legal Name: City of Chula Vista * b. Employer/Taxpayer Identification Number (EIN /TIN): * c. Organizational DUNS: 0787265510 OD0 95- -6000690 d. Addross: • Streetl: 276 Fourth Avenue Stree12: Building "C" • City: Chula Vista CountylParish: County of San Diego • State: CA: California Province: • Country: USA: UNITED STATES • zip / Postal Code: 91910-2699 e. Organizational Unit, Department Name: Division Name: Housing Division Development Services Dept. f. Name and contact information of person to be contacted on matters involving this application: Prefix: Mrs " First Name: Middle Name: Angelica * Last Name: Davis Suffix: Title: project Coordinator Organizational Affiliation: *Telephone Number: 619 -691 -5036 Fax Number: "Email: adavis @ehulavistaca.gov 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 286 Application for Federal Assistance SF -424 * 9. Type of Applicant 1: Select Applicant Type: . City or Township Government Type of Applicant 2: Select Applicant Type: Type of Applicant 3: Select Applicant Type: * Other (specify): * 10. Name of Federal Agency: IDepartment. of Housing and Urban Development 11. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: 19.239 CFDA Title: Home Investment Partnerships Act (HOME) * 12. Funding Opportunity Number: N/A * Title: N/A 13. Competition Identification Number- Title: 14. Areas Affected by Project (Cities, Counties, States, etc.): Acid Attachment beleteAtthrrent , :View Attachment * 15. Descriptive Title of Applicant's Project: HOME funds will be used to provide a variety of affordable housing opportunities 'through rental assistance programs, new rental and first time homebuyer programs. Attach supporting documents as specified in agency instructions. ;Add, Attachments is oefte /kttacll[rien #s Uievu Attaclimetits l 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 287 Application for Federal Assistance SF -424 16. Congressional Districts Of: • a. Applicant 51st • b. Program /Project 51st Attach an additional list of Program /Project Congressional Districts if needed. Dee Aachment View A#acfiment Add Attachment. let 17. Proposed Project: * a. Start Date: 07/01/2015 ' b. End Date: 06/30/2015 18. Estimated Funding ($): • a. Federal 571,833.001 • b. Applicant 0.00 • c. State 0.00 • d. Local 0.00 • e. Other 265, 350. b0 • f. Program Income 0.00 •g. TOTAL �— 857, 283.00 * 19. Is Application Subject to Review By State Under Executive Order 12372 Process? a. This application was made available to the State under the Executive Order 12372 Process for review on b. Program is subject to E.O. 12372 but has not been selected by the State for review. ® c. Program is not covered by E.O. 12372. * 20. Is the Applicant Delinquent On Any Federal Debt? (If "Yes," provide explanation in attachment.) ❑ Yes ® No If "Yes", provide explanation and attach Add'Attachment C}plefe,A tachmerit View Ritachment 21. *By signing this application, I certify (1) to the statements contained in the list of certifications— and (2) that the statements herein are true, complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I also provide the required assurances ** and agree to comply with any resulting terms if I accept an award. I am aware that any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or claims may subject me to criminal, civil, or administrative penalties. (U.S. Code, Title 218, Section 1001) ® ** I AGREE ** The list of certifications and assurances, or an internet site where you may obtain this list, is contained in the announcement or agency specific instructions. Authorized Representative: Prefix: Mr. * Flrst Name: Gary Middle Name: * Last Name: Halbert Suffix: `Title: City Manager • Telephone Number: 619- 691 -5036 Fax Number: *Email: ghalhert @chulavistaca.gov • Signature of Authorized Representative: •Date Signed: 05/05/2014 X 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 288 CERTIFICATIONS In accordance with the applicable statutes and the regulations governing the consolidated plan regulations, the jurisdiction certifies that: Affirmatively Further Fair Housing -- The jurisdiction will affirmatively further fair housing, which means it will conduct an analysis of impediments to fair housing choice within the jurisdiction, take appropriate actions to overcome the effects of any impediments identified through that analysis, and maintain records reflecting that analysis and actions in this regard. Anti - displacement and Relocation Plan -- It will comply with the acquisition and relocation requirements of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, and implementing regulations at 49 CFR 24; and it has in effect and is following a residential antidisplacement and relocation assistance plan required under section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, in connection with any activity assisted with funding under the CDBG or HOME programs. Anti - Lobbying -- To the best of the jurisdiction's knowledge and belief: 1. No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of it, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement; 2. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, it will complete and submit Standard Form -LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its instructions; and 3. It will require that the language of paragraph 1 and 2 of this anti - lobbying certification be included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers (including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements) and that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly. Authority of Jurisdiction -- The consolidated plan is authorized under State and local law (as applicable) and the jurisdiction possesses the legal authority to carry out the programs for which it is seeking finding, in accordance with applicable HUD regulations. Consistency with plan -- The housing activities to be undertaken with CDBG, HOME, ESG, and HOPWA funds are consistent with the strategic plan. Section 3 -- It will comply with section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, and implementing regulations at 24 CFR;Part 135. A Gary Halbert, hula Vista City Mana er Date 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 289 Specific CDBG Certifications The Entitlement Community certifies that: Citizen Participation -- It is in full compliance and following a detailed citizen participation plan that satisfies the requirements of 24 CFR 91.105. Community Development Plan -- Its consolidated housing and community development plan identifies community development and housing needs and specifies both short -term and long -term community development objectives that provide decent housing, expand economic opportunities primarily for persons of low and moderate income. (See CFR 24 570.2 and CFR 24 part 570) Following a Plan -- It is following a current consolidated plan (or Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy) that has been approved by HUD. Use of Funds -- It has complied with the following criteria: 1. _Maximum Feasible Priority. With respect to activities expected to be assisted with CDBG funds, it certifies that it has developed its Action Plan so as to give maximum feasible priority to activities which benefit low and moderate income families or aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight. The Action Plan may also include activities which the grantee certifies are designed to meet other community development needs having a particular urgency because existing conditions pose a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community, and other financial resources are not available); 2. Overall Benefit. The aggregate use of CDBG funds including section 108 guaranteed loans during program year 2015 (a period specified by the grantee consisting of one, two, or three specific consecutive program years), shall principally benefit persons of low and moderate income in a manner that ensures that at least 70 percent of the amount is expended for activities that benefit such persons during the designated period; 3. Special Assessments. It will not attempt to recover any capital costs of public improvements assisted with CDBG funds including Section 108 loan guaranteed funds by assessing any amount against properties owned and occupied by persons of low and moderate income, including any fee charged or assessment made as a condition of obtaining access to such public improvements. However, if CDBG funds are used to pay the proportion of a fee or assessment that relates to the capital costs of public improvements (assisted in part with CDBG funds) financed from other revenue sources, an assessment or charge may be made against the property with respect to the public improvements financed by a source other than CDBG funds. The jurisdiction will not attempt to recover any capital costs of public improvements assisted with CDBG funds, including Section 108, unless CDBG funds are used to pay the proportion of fee or assessment attributable to the capital costs of public improvements financed from other revenue sources. In this case, an assessment or charge may be made against the property with respect to the public improvements financed by a source other than CDBG funds. Also, in the case of properties owned and occupied by moderate - income (not low - income) families, an assessment or charge may be made against the property for public improvements financed by a source other than CDBG funds if the jurisdiction certifies that it lacks CDBG funds to cover the assessment. Excessive Force -- It has adopted and is enforcing: 1. A policy prohibiting the use of excessive force by law enforcement agencies within its jurisdiction against any individuals engaged in non - violent civil rights demonstrations; and 2. A policy of enforcing applicable State and local laws against physically barring entrance to or exit from a facility or location which is the subject of such non - violent civil rights demonstrations within its jurisdiction; 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 290 Compliance With Anti - discrimination laws -- The grant will be conducted and administered in conformity with title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 USC 2000d), the Fair Housing Act (42 USC 3601- 3619), and implementing regulations. Lead -Based Paint -- Its activities concerning lead -based paint will comply with the requirements of 24 CFR Part 35, subparts A, B, J, K and R; Compliance with Laws -- it will comply with applicable laws. x- 't�', - _/ Gary �}bert, C ula ista City ana er Date 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 291 OPTIONAL CERTIFICATION CDBG Submit the following certification only when one or more of the activities in the action plan are designed to meet other community development needs having a particular urgency as specified in 24 CFR 570.208(c): The grantee hereby certifies that the Annual Plan includes one or more specifically identified CDBG- assisted activities which are designed to meet other community development needs having a particular urgency because existing conditions pose a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community and other financial resources are not available to meet such needs. Gary Ha ert, C ula Vista City Mana er Date 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 292 Specific HOME Certifications The HOME participating jurisdiction certifies that: Tenant Based Rental Assistance --If the participating jurisdiction intends to provide tenant -based rental assistance: The use of HOME funds for tenant -based rental assistance is an essential element of the participating jurisdiction's consolidated plan for expanding the supply, affordability, and availability of decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable housing. Eligible Activities and Costs -- it is using and will use HOME funds for eligible activities and costs, as described in 24 CFR § 92.205 through 92.209 and that it is not using and will not use HOME funds for prohibited activities, as described in § 92.214. Appropriate Financial Assistance -- before committing any funds to a project, it will evaluate the project in accordance with the guidelines that it adopts for this purpose and will not invest any more HOME funds in combination with other Federal assistance than is necessary to provide affordable housing; Gary H A ert, la ista City Man ger Date 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 293 ESG Certifications The Emergency Solutions Grants Program Recipient certifies that: Major rehabilitation /conversion — if an emergency shelter's rehabilitation costs exceed 75 percent of the value of the building before rehabilitation, the jurisdiction will maintain the building as a shelter for homeless individuals and families for a minimum of 10 years after the date the building is first occupied by a homeless individual or family after the completed rehabilitation. If the cost to convert a building into an emergency shelter exceeds 75 percent of the value of the building after conversion, the jurisdiction will maintain the building as a shelter for homeless individuals and families for a minimum of 10 years after the date the building is first occupied by a homeless individual or family after the completed conversion. In all other cases where ESG funds are used for renovation, the jurisdiction will maintain the building as a shelter for homeless individuals and families for a minimum of 3 years after the date the building is first occupied by a homeless individual or family after the completed renovation. Essential Services and Operating Costs — In the case of assistance involving shelter operations or essential services related to street outreach or emergency shelter, the jurisdiction will provide services or shelter to homeless individuals and families for the period during which the ESG assistance is provided, without regard to a particular site or structure, so long the jurisdiction serves the same type of persons (e.g., families with children, unaccompanied youth, disabled individuals, or victims of domestic violence) or persons in the same geographic area. Renovation —Any renovation carried out with ESG assistance shall be sufficient to ensure that the building involved is safe and sanitary. Supportive Services — The jurisdiction will assist homeless individuals in obtaining permanent housing, appropriate supportive services ( including medical and mental health treatment, victim services, counseling, supervision, and other services essential for achieving independent living), and other Federal State, local, and private assistance available for such individuals. Matching Funds —The jurisdiction will obtain matching amounts required under 24 CFR 576.201. Confidentiality — The jurisdiction has established and is implementing procedures to ensure the confidentiality of records pertaining to any individual provided family violence prevention or treatment services under any project assisted under the ESG program, including protection against the release of the address or location of any family violence shelter project, except with the written authorization of the person responsible for the operation of that shelter. Homeless Persons Involvement — To the maximum extent practicable, the jurisdiction will involve, through employment, volunteer services, or otherwise, homeless individuals and families in constructing, renovating, maintaining, and operating facilities assisted under the ESG program, in providing services assisted under the ESG program, and in providing services for occupants of facilities assisted under the program. Consolidated Plan — All activities the jurisdiction undertakes with assistance under ESG are consistent with the jurisdiction's consolidated plan. Discharge Policy —The jurisdiction will establish and implement, to the maximum extent practicable and where appropriate policies and protocols for the discharge of persons from publicly funded institutions or systems of care (such as health care facilities, mental health facilities, foster care or other youth facilities, or correction programs and institutions) in order to prevent this discharge from immediately resulting in homelessness for these persons. Gary alber , C ula Visa CityVlanager Date 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 294 APPENDIX TO CERTIFICATIONS INSTRUCTIONS CONCERNING LOBBYING: A. Lobbying Certification This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by section 1352, title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure. 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 295 San Diego - Carlsbad -San Marcos, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) Household Income Limits HUD Method Note: The following household income limits are adjusted for a high cost area as San Diego - Carlsbad -San Marcos, CA MSA per the Federal Housing Act of 1937 and calculated using HCD methodology to U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development comply with Health and Safety Code Sections 50052.5 and 50093. March 6, 2015 Effective Date 2015 $ 73,000 Note: Income levels 80% and below are adjusted by a HUD high cost area allowance. This general income information is calculated from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) income figures. Specific program requirements may vary. Prepared by Affordable Housing Services Information, LLC © 2015 Web: www.AHSinfo.com Phone (858) 832 -1460 Exhibit H - Income Limits 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 296 Extremely Low Income Moderate Income Low Income 30% 90% 35% 100% 40% 110% 45% 120% Hshold Hshold Size Annual Monthly 30.00% Annual Monthly 30.00% Annual Monthly 30.00% Annual Monthly 30.00% 30.00% Income Income Monthly Income Income Monthly Income Income Monthly Income Income Monthly ONE $17,050 $1,421 $426 $19,850 $1,654 $496 $22,700 $1,892 $568 $25,550 $2,129 $639 TWO $19,450 $1,621 $486 $22,700 $1,892 $567 $25,950 $2,163 $649 $29,200 $2,433 $730 THREE $21,900 $1,825 $547 $25,550 $2,129 $638 $29,200 $2,433 $730 $32,850 $2,738 $821 FOUR $24,300 $2,025 $607 $28,350 $2,363 $708 $32,400 $2,700 $810 $36,450 $3,038 $911 FIVE $28,410 $2,368 $710 $30,650 $2,554 $766 $35,000 $2,917 $875 $39,400 $3,283 $985 Six $32,570 $2,714 $814 $32,900 $2,742 $822 $37,600 $3,133 $940 $42,300 $3,525 $1,058 SEVEN $36,730 $3,061 $918 $35,200 $2,933 $880 $40,200 $3,350 $1,005 $45,200 $3,767 $1,130 EIGHT $40,890 $3,408 $1,022 $37,450 $3,121 $936 $42,800 $3,567 $1,070 $48,150 $4,013 $1,204 Note: Income levels 80% and below are adjusted by a HUD high cost area allowance. This general income information is calculated from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) income figures. Specific program requirements may vary. Prepared by Affordable Housing Services Information, LLC © 2015 Web: www.AHSinfo.com Phone (858) 832 -1460 Exhibit H - Income Limits 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 296 Very Low Income Moderate Income Low Income 50% 90% 60% 100% 70% 110% 80% 120% Hshold Hshold Size Annual Monthly 30.00% Annual Monthly 30.00% Annual Monthly 30.00% Annual Monthly 30.00% 30.00% Income Income Monthly Income Income Monthly Income Income Monthly Income Income Monthly ONE $28,350 $2,363 $708 $34,050 $2,838 $851 $39,700 $3,308 $992 $45,400 $3,783 $1,135 TWO $32,400 $2,700 $810 $38,900 $3,242 $972 $45,400 $3,783 $1,135 $51,850 $4,321 $1,296 THREE $36,450 $3,038 $911 $43,750 $3,646 $1,093 $51,050 $4,254 $1,276 $58,350 $4,863 $1,458 FOUR $40,500 $3,375 $1,012 $48,600 $4,050 $1,215 $56,700 $4,725 $1,417 $64,800 $5,400 $1,620 FIVE $43,750 $3,646 $1,093 $52,500 $4,375 $1,312 $61,250 $5,104 $1,531 $70,000 $5,833 $1,750 SIX $47,000 $3,917 $1,175 $56,400 $4,700 $1,410 $65,800 $5,483 $1,645 $75,200 $6,267 $1,880 SEVEN $50,250 $4,188 $1,256 $60,300 $5,025 $1,507 $70,350 $5,863 $1,758 $80,400 $6,700 $2,010 EIGHT $53,500 $4,458 $1,337 $64,200 $5,350 $1,605 $74,850 $6,238 $1,871 $85,550 $7,129 $2,138 Note: Income levels 80% and below are adjusted by a HUD high cost area allowance. This general income information is calculated from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) income figures. Specific program requirements may vary. Prepared by Affordable Housing Services Information, LLC © 2015 Web: www.AHSinfo.com Phone (858) 832 -1460 Exhibit H - Income Limits 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 296 Moderate Income 90% 100% 110% 120% Hshold Size Annual Monthly 30.00% Annual Monthly 30.00% Annual Monthly 30.00% Annual Monthly 30.00% Income Income Monthly Income Income Monthly Income Income Monthly Income Income Monthly ONE $46,000 $3,833 $1,150 $51,100 $4,258 $1,277 $56,250 $4,688 $1,406 $61,350 $5,113 $1,533 TWO $52,600 $4,383 $1,315 $58,400 $4,867 $1,460 $64,250 $5,354 $1,606 $70,100 $5,842 $1,752 THREE $59,150 $4,929 $1,478 $65,700 $5,475 $1,642 $72,300 $6,025 $1,807 $78,850 $6,571 $1,971 FOUR $65,700 $5,475 $1,642 $73,000 $6,083 $1,825 $80,300 $6,692 $2,007 $87,600 $7,300 $2,190 FIVE $71,000 $5,917 $1,775 $78,850 $6,571 $1,971 $86,750 $7,229 $2,168 $94,650 $7,888 $2,366 SIX $76,250 $6,354 $1,906 $84,700 $7,058 $2,117 $93,150 $7,763 $2,328 $101,650 $8,471 $2,541 SEVEN $81,500 $6,792 $2,037 $90,550 $7,546 $2,263 $99,600 $8,300 $2,490 $108,650 $9,054 $2,716 EIGHT $86,750 $7,229 $2,168 $96,400 $8,033 $2,410 $106,000 $8,833 $2,650 $115,650 $9,638 $2,891 Note: Income levels 80% and below are adjusted by a HUD high cost area allowance. This general income information is calculated from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) income figures. Specific program requirements may vary. Prepared by Affordable Housing Services Information, LLC © 2015 Web: www.AHSinfo.com Phone (858) 832 -1460 Exhibit H - Income Limits 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 296 46 CENSUS 2010 BLOCK GROUPS 4OwlmomRAYE INCOME BG C CDBG Census Block Groups R�tJwi�RyTn _ 0 0.5 1 2 Mile= . e.. r .a.�unaenar�+a�,w�x,..�aee.,n.e en.: v�a�e�vacni �a v i Q GJ E O v G to i GJ O 3 O J s x W r- CI N cn d x u R. IC c N Ln O V7 O N N O N U7 O U7 N N 04 a ro w ro w Oc N co co m x S r+ v I 0 r-r 0 n rD r-r v r-r 0 2000 Census sr.N NEC- Minority Pop. Concentration Tracts NATIONni : L6N�'� 21303 13410 a 3 crop vu, Legend 3 13411 13417 13418 11 S UME eRVOIR Freeways � 12303 R„ro� 13412 1x76 13415 Major Roads 0 ^ r r `c N �° "° d 13413 + MINORITY 12500 0 e NON - MINORITY 13415 3311 7 00 1 13405 13414 1331 LO ROTAYR - 13301 13 w s N r=s 1310 13 f°A 13313 3303 13 03 i ,i ilii� ,I ilal N! 1 3 132061 3312 1 205 1 1 204 1 07 0 Mi1.6 13300 ' 0 0,25 0,5 1 iMn -1.32 mb. a1 10014 3 Funding Approval /Agreement Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act (Public Law 930383) HI- 00515R of 20515R 1. Name of Grantee (as shown in item 5 of Standard Form 424) City of Chula Vista 2. Grantee's Complete Address (as shown in item 5 of Standard Form 424) 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Community Planning and Development Community Development Block Grant Program OMB Approval No. 2506 -0193 (exp 113112015) 3a. Grantee's 9 -digit Tax 3b. Grantee's DUNS Number: 4. Date use of funds may ID Number: 079726551 95- 6000690 5a. Projecl/Grant No. 1 B- 14 -MC -06 -0540 5b. Project/Grant No. 2 5c, Project/Grant No. 3 begin (mmlddlyyyy): 7/1/2014 6a. Amount Approved $1,719,498 6b. Amount Approved 6c. Amount Approved Grant Agreement: This Grant Agreement between the Department of Housing and Urban Development (BUD) and the above named Grantee is made pursuant to the authority of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as aniended, (42 USC 5301 et seq.), The Grantee's submissions for "fide 1 assistance, the IIUD regulations at 24 CFR Part 570 (as now in effec€ and as may be aniended froin time to tine), and this Funding Approval, including any special conditionsladdendums, constitute part of the Agreement. Subject to Cho provisions of this Grant Agreement, HUD will snake the funding assistance specified here available to the Grantee. upon execution of the Agreement by the parties. The funding assistance specified in the Funding Approval may be used to pay costs incurred after the dale specified in itern 4 above provided the activities to which such costs sue related are carried out in compliance with ail applicable requirements. Pre - agreement costs may not be paid wi(b funding assistance specified here unless they are authorized in HUD regulations or approved by waiver and listed in (he special conditions to the Funding Approval. The Grantce agrees to assume all of the responsibilities for environmental review, decision making, and actions, as specified and required in regulations issued by the Secrettu•y pursuant to Section 104(8) of Title l and published in 24 Cp'R Part 58. The Grantce further acknowledges its responsibility for adherence to (lie Agreement by sub - recipient entities to which it makes Funding assistance hereunder available. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development {By Name) Grantee Name William Vasquez Gary Halbert Title Title Direct of ,oni!,T6wfirKy planning and Development City Manaoer Sign Date (mm l Signatu Date (m ddly yy) 7. caTocPirf-ofTitrol Vsistance for t Fundi g Act' (check only one) 8. Sp; al C Ions {c ck a ) 9 . Date H e ived Submission 51151 014 10. check one ® a. Orig. Funding © a. Fntillement, Sec 106(b) ❑ b. State Administered, Sec 1 (1 } SAMPLE ❑ c. HUD - Administered Small Cities, Soo 106(d)(2)(B) ❑ d. Indian CDBG Programs, Sec 106(x)(1) ❑ e. Surplus Urban Renewal Funds, Sec 112 (b) ❑ I. Special Purpose Grants, Sec 107 ❑ g. Loan Guarantee, Sec 108 None © Attached Approval ❑ b. Amendment Amendment Number 9b. Date Grantee Notified 7/11/2014 9c. Date of Start of Program Year 711(2014 11. Amount of Community Development Block Grant FY (2014) FY ( ) FY { ) a. Funds Reserved for this Grantee $1,719,498 b. Funds now being Approved $1,719,498 Or Reservation to be Cancelled (1 is minus 11 b 12a. Amount of Loan Guarantee Commitment now being Approved 12b. Name and complete Address of Public Agency Loan Guarantee Acceptance Provisions for Designated Agencies: The public agency hereby accepts (lie Grant Agreement executed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development on the above date with respect it) the above grant number(s) as Grantee designated to receive loan guarantee assistance, and agrees to comply with the terrus and 12c. Name of Authorized Official for Designated Public Agency conditions of the Agreement, applicable regulations, and other Title requircntenls of HUD now or hereafter in effect, pertaining to the assistance provided it. Signature HUD Accounting use Only Effective Date Batch TAC Program Y A Reg Area Document No. Project Number Category Amount (mmlddlyyyy) F FM 1 7 6 UD ❑❑❑ m Project Number Amount Y Project Number Amount Date Entered PAS (mmlddlyyy) Dale Entered LOCCS (mmlddlyyyy) Batch Number Transaction Code Entered By Verflietl By 24 CFR 570 form HUD -7082 (11110) ATTACHMENT N0. 3: 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet SAMPLE HUD AGREEMNY 99 Funding Approval and HOME Investment Partnerships Agreement Title 11 of the National Affordable Housing Act U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Community Planning and (Development Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. This agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless that collection displays a valid OMB control number. The HOME statute imposes a significant number of data collection and reporting requirements. This includes information on assisted properties, on the owners or tenants of the properties, and on other programmatic areas. The. information will be used: 1) to assist HOME participants in managing their programs; 2) to track performance of participants in meeting fund commitment and expenditure deadlines; 3) to permit HUD to determine whether each participant meets the HOME statutory income targeting and affordability requirements; and 4) to permit HUD to determine compliance with other statutory and regulatory program requirements. This data collection is authorized under Title II of the Cranston - Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act or related authorities. Access to Federal grant funds is contingent on the reporting of certain project- specific data elements. Records of information collected will be maintained by the recipients of the assistance. Information on activities and expenditures of grant funds is public informat #on and is generally available for disclosure. Recipients are responsible for ensuring confidentiality when public disclosure is not required. 1. Participant Name and Address City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 2. Participant Number M- 14 -MC -06 -0505 3. Tax Identification Number 95- 6000690 4. DUNS Number 078726551 4. Appropriation Number 5. FY (yyyy) 2014 6. Previous Obligation (Enter "0" for initial FY allocation) $0.00 a. Formula Funds $ b. Community Housing Development Org. (CHDO) Competitive $ 7. Current Transaction (+ or $ a. Formula Funds $631,125 1. CHDO (For deobligations only) $ 2. Non- CHDO (For deobligations only) $ b. CHDO Competitive Reallocation or Deobligation (see 418 below) $ 8. Revised Obligation $ a. Formula Funds $ b. CHDO Competitive Reallocation $ 9. Special Conditions (check applicable box) M Not applicable ❑ Attached 10. Date of Obligation (Congressional Release Date) (mmldd /yyyy) 7/1/2014 This Agreement between the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Participating Jurisdiction /Entity is made pursuant to the authority of the HOME Investment Partnerships Act (42 U.S.C. 12701 of seq.). The Participating Jurisdiction's /Entity's approved Consolidated Plan submissionlApplication and the HUD regulations at 24 CFR Part 92 (as is now in effect and as may be amended from time to time) and this HOME Investment Partnership Agreement, form HUD - 40093, including any special conditions ", constitute part of this Agreement. Subject to the provisions of this Agreement, HUD will make the funds for the Fiscal Year specified, available to the Participating Jurisdiction/Entity upon execution of this Agreement by the parties. All funds for the specified Fiscal Year provided by HUD by formula reallocation are covered by this Agreement upon execution of an amendment by HUD, without the Participating Jurisdiction's execution of the amendment or other consent. HUD's payment of funds under this Agreement is subject to the Participating Jurisdiction's /Entity's compliance with HUD's electronic funds transfer and information reporting procedures issued pursuant to 24 CFR 92.502. To the extent authorized by HUD regulations at 24 CFR Part 92, HUD may, by its execution of an amendment, deobligate funds previously awarded to the Participating Jurisdiction/Entity without the Participating Jurisdiction's/Entity's execution of the amendment or other consent. The Participating Jurisdiction/Entity agrees that funds invested in affordable housing under 24 CFR Part 92 are repayable when the housing no longer qualities as affordable housing. Repayment shall be made as specified in 24 CFR Part 92. The Participating Jurisdiction agrees to assume all of the responsibility for environmental review, decision making, and actions, as specified and required in regulation at 24 CFR 92.352 and 24 CFR Part 58. The Grantee shall comply with requirements established by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) concerning the Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS), the System for Award Management (SAM) (SAM replaces CCR), and the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA), including Appendix A to Part 25 of the Financial Assistance Use of Universal Identifier and Central Contractor Registration, 75 Fed. Reg. 55671 (Sept. 14, 2010) (to be codified at 2 CFR part 25) and Appendix A to Part 170 of the Requirements for Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act Implementation, 75 Fed. Reg. 55663 (Sept. 14, 2010) (to be codified at 2 CFR part 170). — _.P n _,ol / 11. For the U.S. Department of HUD (Name and Title of Authorized Official) 12. 13. Date William Vasquez, Director, Community Ylanuingand Development 7/1/2014 14. For the Participating Jurisdiction/Entity (Name and Title of Authorized Official) 15. ' ture 16. Date Gay Halbert, City Manager 1 1211 17. Chock one: ® Initial Agreement ❑ Amendment # 18. Funding Information: NOME Source of Funds Appropriation Code PAS Code Amount 864/60205 $ $ ATTACHMENT N0. 3: 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 1 SAMPLE HUD / GRLPIR PS Funding Approval /Agreement Emergency Solutions Grants Program Subtitle B of Title IV of the McKinney -Vento Homeless Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 11371 et seq. 1. Recipient Name and Address City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 2. Grant number: E- 14 -MC -06 -0540 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Community Planning and Development 3. Tax Identification Number 95- 6000690 4, DUNS Number 078726551 5. Fiscal Year (yyyy) 2014 6. Previous Obligation (Enter "0" for initial Fiscal Year allocation) $ 7. Current Transaction (r or $141,899 8. Revised Obligation $ 9. Date of Start of Recipient's 10. Date HUD Received Recipient's 11. Date On Which Recipient May Begin Program Year (mmlddlyyyy) Consolidated Plan Submission (mm /ddlyyyy) Incurring Costs (the later of the dates listed in 9 7/1/2014 5/15/2014 and 10) (mm /ddlyyyy) 07/01/2014 12. Type of Agreement (check applicable box) 13. Special Conditions (check applicable box) ® Initial Agreement (Purpose #1 — Initial Fiscal Year allocation) ® Not applicable ❑ Attached ❑ Amendment (Purpose #2 — Deobligation of funds) ❑ Amendment (Purpose #3 — Obligation of additional funds) This Agreement between the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Recipient is made pursuant to the authority of Subtitle B of Title IV of the McKinney -Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11371 et seq.). The Recipient's Consolidated Plan submissions (including the Recipient's approved annual Action Plan and any amendments completed in accordance with 24 CFR Part 91), the Emergency Solutions Grants Program regulations at 24 CFR Part 576 (as now in effect and as may be amended from time to time), and this Agreement, including any special conditions attached to this Agreement, constitute part of this Agreement. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, HUD will make the funds for the specified Fiscal Year available to the Recipient upon execution of this Agreement by the Recipient and HUD, and the funds may be used to pay costs incurred on or after the date specified in Box 11 above. All funds for the specified Fiscal Year that HUD provides by reallocation are covered by this Agreement upon execution of an amendment by HUD, without the Recipient's execution of the amendment or other consent. The Recipient agrees to assume all of the responsibilities with respect to environmental review, decision making, and action required under the HUD regulations at 24 CFR Part 58. The Recipient shall also comply with the universal identifier and registration requirements at 2 CFR Part 25, Appendix A to Part 25-- -Award Term, except that the internet site is now located at www.sam.gov instead of www.cor.gov. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as creating or justifying any claim against the federal government or the Recipient by any third party. 14. For the U.S. Department of HUD (Name and Title of Authorized Official) 15, Sig natu 16. Date William Vasquez, Director (Date of Obligation) Office of Community Planning and Development 51 IW- 17. For the Recipient (Name and Title of Authorized Official) 18. Si ture 19. Date Gary Halbert, City Manager (4 7 140 !� Funding Information (HUD Accounting Use Only): V PAS Cade: Appropriation: Allotment: Program Code: Region: Office: Appro Svmbol: ATTACHMENT N0. 3: 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet SAMPLE HUD AGREEMENTiS CITY CHUI-AVISTA I HOUSING DIVISION CONTRACT FOR MANAGEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROJECT 2015 -2016 This contract, numbered , is entered into by and between ( "Sub- recipient ") and the City of Chula Vista ( "City') on July 1, 2015 ( "Effective Date ") for the purpose of having Sub - recipient implement and perform work on the 2015- 2016 as set forth herein and in the incorporated documents and attachments. RECITALS WHEREAS, there has been enacted into law the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (the "Act "), Title I, Part 24, Section 570, Public Law 93 -383, 88 Stat. 633, 42 U.S.0 5301 -5321 with the primary objective of development of viable urban communities by providing federal assistance for community development activities in urban areas through the Community Development Block Grant Program (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 14.218). WHEREAS, the City, is authorized to apply for and accept Community Development Block Grant funds; WHEREAS, City incorporated the Sub - recipient's proposal for the project described in Attachment "A" hereof (hereinafter referred to as the "Project ") into the City's Community Development Block Grant /HOME Investment Partnership /Emergency Shelter Grant Annual Funding Plan which was submitted to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); WHEREAS, HUD has approved the City Annual Funding Plan for Community Development Block Grant funds; WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Sub - recipient and the City that the Project be implemented by the Sub - recipient; WHEREAS, the Sub - recipient shall undertake the same obligations to the City with respect to the Project in the City's aforesaid Annual Funding Plan for participation in the Community Development Block Grant program; and WHEREAS, Sub - recipient warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed in a manner such that they are and can deliver the services required of Sub - recipient to City within the time frames herein provided all in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City and Sub - recipient do hereby mutually agree as follows: All of the Recitals above are hereby incorporated into this Agreement. Attachment No. 4: Sample CDBG Agreement 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 302 ARTICLE I. SUB - RECIPIENT OBLIGATIONS A. General. 1 . Work to be Performed. Sub - recipient shall implement the scope of work ( "Scope of Work ") described in Attachment A, hereof fully and in accordance with the terms of the Annual Funding Plan approved by the City and submitted to HUD in application for funds to carry out the Project and the Certifications which were submitted concurrently with the Annual Funding Plan. The Annual Funding Plan and Certifications form is hereby incorporated by reference into this contract fully as if set forth herein. Sub - recipient shall also undertake the same obligations to the City that the City has undertaken to HUD pursuant to said Annual Funding Plan and Certifications. The obligations undertaken by Sub - recipient include, but are not limited to, the obligation to, as applicable, comply with each of the following as may be amended from time to time: a. The Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (Public Law 93 -383, as amended, 42 USC § 5301, etseq.); b. HUD regulations relating to Community Development Block Grants (24 CFR 570.1, etseq.); c. The regulations in 24 CFR Part 58 specifying other provisions of the law that further the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the procedures by which grantees must fulfill their environmental responsibilities; d. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 USC § 2000d); Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Public Law 88 -352); Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Fair Housing Act, 42 USC § 3601, et seq.); Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974; Executive Order 11246, as amended (equal employment opportunity); Executive Order 11063 (non- discrimination), as amended by Executive Order 12259; and any HUD regulations heretofore issued or to be issued to implement these authorities relating to civil rights; e. Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, as amended, 12 U.S.C. 1701u. All section 3 covered contracts shall include the following clause (referred to as the "section 3 clause "): The work to be performed under this contract is subject to the requirements of section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, as amended, 12 U.S.C. 1701u (section 3). The purpose of section 3 is to ensure that employment and other economic opportunities generated by HUD assistance or HUD - assisted projects covered by section 3, shall, to the greatest extent feasible, be directed to low- and very low - income persons, particularly persons who are recipients of HUD assistance for housing. ii. The parties to this contract agree to comply with HUD's regulations in 24 CFR part 135, which implement section 3. As evidenced by their execution of this contract, the parties to this contract certify that they are under no contractual or other impediment that would prevent them from complying with the part 135 regulations. iii. The Sub - recipient agrees to send to each labor organization or representative of workers with which the Sub - recipient has a collective bargaining agreement or other understanding, if any, a notice advising the labor organization or workers' representative of the Sub - recipient's commitments under this section 3 clause, and will post copies of the notice in conspicuous places at the work site where both employees 2015 -2016 CDBG Agreement Page 2 of 16 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 303 and applicants for training and employment positions can see the notice. The notice shall describe the section 3 preference, shall set forth minimum number and job titles subject to hire, availability of apprenticeship and training positions, the qualifications for each; and the name and location of the person(s) taking applications for each of the positions; and the anticipated date the work shall begin. iv. The Sub - recipient agrees to include this section 3 clause in every subcontract subject to compliance with regulations in 24 CFR part 135, and agrees to take appropriate action, as provided in an applicable provision of the subcontract or in this section 3 clause, upon a finding that the sub - Sub - recipient is in violation of the regulations in 24 CFR part 135. The Sub - recipient will not subcontract with any sub - Sub - recipient where the Sub - recipient has notice or knowledge that the sub Sub - recipient has been found in violation of the regulations in 24 CFR part 135. V. The Sub - recipient will certify that any vacant employment positions, including training positions, that are filled (1) after the Sub - recipient is selected but before the contract is executed, and (2) with persons other than those to whom the regulations of 24 CFR part 135 require employment opportunities to be directed, were not filled to circumvent the Sub - recipient's obligations under 24 CFR part 135. vi. Noncompliance with HUD's regulations in 24 CFR part 135 may result in sanctions, termination of this contract for default, and debarment or suspension from future HUD assisted contracts. vii. With respect to work performed in connection with section 3 covered Indian housing assistance, section 7(b) of the Indian Self- Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450e) also applies to the work to be performed under this contract. Section 7(b) requires that to the greatest extent feasible (i) preference and opportunities for training and employment shall be given to Indians, and (ii) preference in the award of contracts and subcontracts shall be given to Indian organizations and Indian -owned Economic Enterprises. Parties to this contract that are subject to the provisions of section 3 and section 7(b) agree to comply with section 3 to the maximum extent feasible, but not in derogation of compliance with section 7(b). f. The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1979, 42 USC § 4601, et seq., and regulations adopted to implement that Act in 49 CFR Part 24; g. Office of Management and Budget ( "OMB ") Circular A -122 entitled "Cost Principles for Non - Profit Organizations "; OMB Circular A -133 entitled "Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non - Profit Organizations "; and OMB Circular A -110 entitled "Uniform Administrative Requirement for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non - Profit Organizations;" h. Grant administration requirements as described in 24 CFR 570.504, which requires Sub - recipient to return any program income earned by Sub - recipient in carrying out the activities of this Contract to the City. Upon expiration of this Contract, Sub - recipient shall transfer to the City any Community Development Block Grant funds on hand at the time of expiration and any accounts receivable attributable to the use of Community Development Block Grant funds. Any real property under Sub - recipient's control acquired or improved in whole or in part with Community Development Block 2015 -2016 CDBG Agreement Page 3 of 16 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 304 Grant funds in excess of $25,000 will either be: i. Used to meet one of the CDBG National Objectives, as defined in 24 CFR 570.208, and outlined by HUD until five years after expiration of the contract; or ii. Disposed of in a manner that results in the City being reimbursed in the amount of the current fair market value of the property less any portion of the value attributable to expenditures of non - Community Development Block Grant funds for acquisition of, or improvement to, the property. Reimbursement is not required after the five -year period pursuant to 24 CFR 570.505. Program income on hand at the time of closeout and subsequently received shall continue to be subject to all applicable Community Development Block grant Program eligibility requirements, 24 CFR 570.489, and provisions of this Contract; i. 24 CFR 570.505 concerning use of real property; j. The following laws and regulations relating to preservation of historic places: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Public Law 89 -665); the Historical and Archaeological Preservation Act of 1974 (Public Law 93 -291); and Executive Order 11593; k. The Labor Standards Regulations set forth in 24 CFR 570.603; I. Labor Code section 1771 and /or Davis Bacon concerning prevailing wages as applicable; m. The Hatch Act relating to the conduct of political activities (5 U.S.C. § 1501, etseq.); n. The Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. § 4001, et seq., and the implementing regulations in 44 CFR Parts 59 -78); o. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Public Law 93 -112) as amended, including Section 504 which relates to nondiscrimination in federal programs and HUD 24 CFR Part 8; p. The Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. § 7401, etseq.) and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. § 1251, etseq.) and the regulations adopted pursuant thereto (40 CFR Part 6); q. The Drug -Free Workplace Act of 1988 (Public Law 100 -690); r. The Lead -Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act, the Residential Lead -Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992, and implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part 35; s. No member, officer or employee of the Sub - recipient, or its designee or agents, no member of the governing body of the locality in which the program is situated, and no other public official of such locality or localities who exercises any functions or responsibilities with respect to the program during his /her tenure or for one year thereafter, shall have any interest, direct, or indirect, in any contract or subcontract, or the process thereof, for work to be performed in connection with the program assisted under the Grant, and that it shall incorporate, or cause to be incorporated, in all such contracts or subcontracts a provision prohibiting such interest pursuant to the purposes of this certification; 2015 -2016 CDBG Agreement Page 4 of 16 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 305 t. The Sub - recipient certifies, that in accordance with Section 319 of Public Law 101 -121, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief that: i. No federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, in connection with the awarding of any federal contract, the making of any federal grant, the making of any federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative contract, and the extension, continuation, renewals, amendment, or modifications of any federal contract, grant loan, or cooperative contract. ii. If any funds other than federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a member of Congress, or an employee of a member of Congress in connection with this federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative contract, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form -LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying ", in accordance with its instructions; u. The Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. § 4151, etseq.); v. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Public Law 93 -112) as amended, including section 504 which related to nondiscrimination in federal programs and HUD regulations set forth in 24 CFR 8. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits discrimination against persons with disabilities in the operation of programs receiving federal financial assistance. HUD regulations implementing Section 504 contain accessibility requirements for new construction and rehabilitation of housing as well as requirements for ensuring that the programs themselves are operated in a manner that is accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities. Both individual units and the common areas of buildings must be accessible under Section 504. Section 504 states that "no qualified individuals with a disability in the United States shall be excluded from, denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under" any program or activity that receives Federal financial assistance. Requirements common to these regulations include program accessibility; effective communication with people who have hearing or vision disabilities; and accessible new construction and alterations (See 24 CFR Part 8). w. The Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12101); x. The bonding requirements described in 24 CFR Part 85.36 required for construction or facility improvement contracts or subcontracts that exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (defined at 41 U.S.C. 403(11)). These requirements are further described in Attachment A, which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference; y. Prior to award of any contracts or subcontracts, City and Contractor shall verify that contractor or subcontractor is eligible according to the Federal EPLS and LEIE databases. Documentation of such eligibility shall be maintained in the project files; z. Contractor shall comply with and make good faith and reasonable efforts to carry out the purposes of Executive Order 12166 relating to "Improving Access to Services by Persons with Limited English Proficiency ( "LEP "); 2015 -2016 CDBG Agreement Page 5 of 16 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 306 aa. Grantee shall comply with Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFAT) requirements established by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) concerning the Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS), the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) database, and the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, including Appendix A to Part 25 of the Financial Assistance Use of Universal Identifier and Central Contractor Registration, 75 Fed. Reg.55671 (Sept. 14, 2010)(to be codified at 2 CFR part 25) and Appendix A to Part 170 of the Requirements for Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act Implementation, 75 Fed. Reg. 55663 (Sept. 14, 2010)(to be codified at 2 CFR part 170), including any subsequent amendments. bb. Contractor shall comply with and make good faith and reasonable efforts to carry out the purposes of Executive Orders 12432 and 11625 related to participation in federal programs by Minority Business Enterprises ( "MBE ") and Executive Order 12138 related to participation in federal programs by Women's Business Enterprises ( "WBE "); and cc. Sub - recipient shall hold City harmless and indemnify City against any harm that it may suffer with respect to HUD on account of any failure on the part of the Sub - recipient to comply with the requirements of any such obligation. B. Compliance with Laws. Sub - recipient shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and ordinances when doing the work required by this Contract. Sub - recipient shall require sub - contractors to similarly comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and ordinances when doing the work required by this Contract. C. Insurance. Sub - recipient agrees to comply with the insurance requirements as set forth below: 1. General. Sub - recipient must procure and maintain, during the period of performance of this contract, and for twelve (12) months after completion, policies of insurance from insurance companies to protect against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property that may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work under the contract and the results of that work by the Contractor, his agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors and provide documentation of same prior to commencement of work. 2. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage must be at least as broad as: (a) CGL. Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence Form CG0001). (b) Auto. Insurance Services Office Form Number CA 0001 covering Automobile Liability, Code 1 (any auto). (c) WC. Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. (d) E &O. Professional Liability or Errors & Omissions Liability insurance appropriate to the Consultant's profession. Architects' and Engineers' coverage is to be endorsed to include contractual liability. 3. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Sub - recipient must maintain limits no less than those included in the table below: 2015 -2016 CDBG Agreement Page 6 of 16 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 307 i. General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, (including (Including death), and property damage. If Commercial General Liability insurance operations, products with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit and completed must apply separately to this project /location or the general aggregate limit operations, as must be twice the required occurrence limit. applicable) ii. Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury, including death, and property damage. iii. Workers' Statutory Compensation $1,000,000 each accident Employer's Liability: $1,000,000 disease - policy limit $1,000,000 disease -each employee iv. Professional Liability $1,000,000 each occurrence or Errors & Omissions Liability: 4. Deductibles and Self- Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self- insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either the insurer will reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self- insured retentions as they pertain to the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Sub - recipient will provide a financial guarantee satisfactory to the City guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses. 5. Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability, automobile liability, and where appropriate, the worker's compensation policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: (a) Additional Insureds. City of Chula Vista, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers are to be named as additional insureds with respect all policies of insurance, including those with respect to liability arising out of automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by or on behalf of the Contractor, where applicable, and, with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of the Contractor, including providing materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations. The general liability additional insured coverage must be provided in the form of an endorsement to the Contractor's insurance using ISO CG 2010 (11/85) or its equivalent. Specifically, the endorsement must not exclude Products /Completed Operations coverage. (b) Primary Insurance. The Contractor's General Liability insurance coverage must be primary insurance as it pertains to the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers. Any insurance or self- insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers is wholly separate from the insurance of the Sub - recipient and in no way relieves the Sub - recipient from its responsibility to provide insurance. (c) Cancellation. The insurance policies required must be endorsed to state that coverage will not be canceled by either party, except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice to the City by certified mail, return receipt requested. The words "will endeavor" and "but failure to mail such notice shall impose no obligation or liability of any kind upon the company, its agents, or representatives" shall be deleted from all certificates. 2015 -2016 CDBG Agreement Page 7 of 16 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 308 (d) Active Negligence. Coverage shall not extend to any indemnity coverage for the active negligence of the additional insureds in any case where an agreement to indemnify the additional insured would be invalid under Subdivision (b) of Section 2782 of the Civil Code. (e) Waiver of Subrogation. Sub - recipient insurer will provide a Waiver of Subrogation in favor of the City for each required policy providing coverage for the term required by this contract. 6. Claims Forms. If General Liability, Pollution and /or Asbestos Pollution Liability and /or Errors & Omissions coverage are written on a claims -made form: (a) Retro Date. The " Retro Date" must be shown, and must be before the date of the contract or the beginning of the contract work. (b) Maintenance and Evidence. Insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least five (5) years after completion of the contract work. (c) Cancellation. If coverage is canceled or non - renewed, and not replaced with another claims - made policy form with a " Retro Date" prior to the contract effective date, the Sub - recipient must purchase "extended reporting" coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after completion of contract work. (d) Copies. A copy of the claims reporting requirements must be submitted to the City for review. 7. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with licensed insurers admitted to transact business in the State of California with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A V. If insurance is placed with a surplus lines insurer, insurer must be listed on the State of California List of Eligible Surplus Lines Insurers ( "LESLI ") with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A X. Exception may be made for the State Compensation Fund when not specifically rated. 8. Verification of Coverage. Sub- recipient shall furnish the City with original certificates and amendatory endorsements affecting coverage required by Article I, section C. The endorsements should be on insurance industry forms, provided those endorsements or policies conform to the contract requirements. All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. The City reserves the right to require, at any time, complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements evidencing the coverage required by these specifications. 9. Subcontractors. Sub - recipient must include all subcontractors as insureds under its policies or furnish separate certificates and endorsements for each subcontractor. All coverage for subcontractors is subject to all of the requirements included in these specifications. 10. Not a Limitation of Other Obligations. Insurance provisions under this Article shall not be construed to limit the Consultant's obligations under this contract, including Indemnity. 2015 -2016 CDBG Agreement Page 8 of 16 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 309 ARTICLE II. CITY OBLIGATIONS A. Compensation. 1. Amounts. City shall reimburse Sub - recipient for the costs it incurs for work performed under this contract not to exceed a maximum reimbursement of $. Sub - recipient shall not submit claims to the City nor shall City reimburse Sub - recipient for costs for which Sub - recipient is reimbursed from a source other than the funds allocated for work under this contract. 2. Limitation. With regard to compensation stated in Article II, section A.1, above, Sub - recipient may be reimbursed only to the extent and in the amounts that funds have been made available pursuant to applications for Federal assistance. No City funds in excess of those provided by the Federal government under such applications may be the source of reimbursement under this Contract. 3. Compensation Schedule. City shall pay Sub - recipient quarterly progress payments upon certification and submittal by Sub - recipient of a statement of actual expenditures incurred, provided, however, that not more than 90% of the total agreed compensation will be paid during the performance of this contract. The balance due shall be paid upon certification by Sub - recipient that all of the required services have been completed. Payment by City is not to be construed as final in the event HUD disallows reimbursement for the project or any portion thereof. The 10% retention will not apply to acquisition or service contracts. a. Claim Due Dates. Contractor shall submit quarterly claims to the City by the deadlines listed below in order to meet HUD's strict expenditure standards: 1St Quarter (July 1- September 30): Due October 15 2nd Quarter (October 1 - December 31): Due January 15 3rd Quarter (Januaryl - March 31): Due April 15 4t" Quarter (April 1 —June 30): Due July 15 Failure to submit claims by these deadlines may result in recapturing of the grant funds. Any extension requests must be approved by all parties. However, costs must be incurred prior to June 30, 2016 and said extension shall be within the City's Finance Department's Fiscal Year End processing deadline. 4. Indirect Costs. If indirect costs are charged, the Sub - recipient will develop an indirect cost allocation plan for determining the appropriate Sub - recipient's share of administrative costs and shall submit such plan to the City for approval. 5. Expenditure Standard. In order to insure effective administration and performance of approved CDBG Projects and to meet HUD performance standards, Sub - recipient agrees that it shall expedite implementation of the Project described herein expending all contracted funds within the term of the contract. In the event that reasonable progress has not been made and all funds are not expended within the term period, the City shall notify the Sub - recipient of the expenditure and implementation deficiency. Sub - recipient will have a total of 60 days from the date of the City's written notification to correct the deficiency. If the deficiency is not corrected within that time, Sub - recipient agrees that the City may reallocate the amount of the expenditure deficiency. Subrecipient understands City may not reimburse project expenses that are outside the contract term. 6. Budget Adjustments. In order to insure effective administration and performance of approved CDBG Projects and to meet HUD performance standards, Sub - recipient agrees to submit budget adjustments for City approval. City will consult its Citizen Participation Plan prior to approving said amendment. Budget Adjustments received after June 1, 2016 will not be considered. 2015 -2016 CDBG Agreement Page 9 of 16 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 310 ARTICLE III. ETHICS A. Financial Interests of Contractor 1. Disclosure Required. Sub - recipient is required make the disclosures detailed in Attachment "C ". Sub - recipient may also be designated as a "Consultant" for the purposes of the Political Reform Act ( "PRA ") conflict of interest and disclosure provisions by the City, and shall report economic interests as required by the City to the City Clerk on the required Statement of Economic Interests ( "SEI ") in such reporting categories as required by the City or the City Attorney, thereby becoming an "FPPC filer." 2. No Participation in Decision. Regardless of whether Sub - recipient is designated as an FPPC Filer, Sub - recipient shall not make, or participate in making or in any way attempt to use Sub - recipient's position to influence a governmental decision in which Sub - recipient knows or has reason to know Sub - recipient has a financial interest other than the compensation promised by this contract. 3. Search to Determine Economic Interests. Regardless of whether Sub - recipient is designated as an FPPC Filer, Sub - recipient warrants and represents that Sub - recipient has diligently conducted a search and inventory of Sub - recipient's economic interests, as the term is used in the regulations promulgated by the Fair Political Practices Commission, and has determined that Sub - recipient does not, to the best of Sub - recipient's knowledge, have an economic interest which would conflict with Sub - recipient's duties under this contract. 4. Promise Not to Acquire Conflicting Interests. Regardless of whether Sub - recipient is designated as an FPPC Filer, Sub - recipient further warrants and represents that Sub - recipient will not acquire, obtain, or assume an economic interest during the term of this contract which would constitute a conflict of interest as prohibited by the Fair Political Practices Act. 5. Duty to Advise of Conflicting Interests. Regardless of whether Sub - recipient is designated as an FPPC Filer, Sub - recipient further warrants and represents that Sub - recipient will immediately advise the City Attorney of City if Sub - recipient learns of an economic interest of Sub - recipient's that may result in a conflict of interest for the purpose of the Fair Political Practices Act, and regulations promulgated there under. 6. Specific Warranties Against Economic Interests. Sub - recipient warrants, represents and agrees: (a) That neither Sub - recipient, nor immediate family members, nor Sub - recipient's employees or agents ( "Sub- recipient Associates ") presently have any interest, directly or indirectly, whatsoever in any property which may be the subject matter of Attachment A, or in any property within 2 radial miles from the exterior boundaries of any property which may be the subject matter of the Attachment A, ( "Prohibited Interest "), other than as listed on the SEI, if one was required. (b) That no promise of future employment, remuneration, consideration, gratuity or other reward or gain has been made to Sub - recipient or Sub - recipient's Associates in connection with Sub - recipient's performance of this contract. Sub - recipient promises to advise City of any such promise that may be made during the term of this contract, or for twelve months thereafter. (c) That Sub - recipient Associates shall not acquire any such Prohibited Interest within the term of this contract, or for twelve months after the expiration of this contract, except with the written permission of City. 2015 -2016 CDBG Agreement Page 10 of 16 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 311 (d) That Sub - recipient may not conduct or solicit any business for any party to this contract, or for any third party that may be in conflict with Sub - recipient's responsibilities under this contract, except with the written permission of City. ARTICLE IV. INDEMNIFICATION A. Defense, Indemnity, and Hold Harmless. 1. General Requirement. City shall not be liable for, and Sub - recipient shall defend and indemnify City and its officers, agents, employees and volunteers, against any and all injury to person, including death and dismemberment, or property (real or personal), claims, deductibles, self- insured retentions, demands, liability, judgments, awards, fines, mechanics' liens or other liens, labor disputes, losses, damages, expenses, charges or costs of any kind or character, including attorneys' fees and court costs (collectively, "Claims "), which arise out of or are in any way connected with the work covered by this contract arising either directly or indirectly from any act, error, omission or negligence of Sub - recipient or its officers, employees, agents, contractors, licensees or servants, including without limitation, Claims caused by the concurrent act, error, omission or negligence, whether active or passive, of City, and /or its agents, officers, employees or volunteers. However, Sub - recipient shall have no obligation to defend or indemnify City from a Claim if it is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction that such Claim was caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of City or its agents or employees. 2. Additional Requirement. Sub - recipient and its successors, assigns, and guarantors, if any, jointly and severally agree to indemnify, defend (with counsel selected by City), reimburse, and hold City and its officers, employees, and agents harmless from any claims, judgments, damages, penalties, fines, costs, liabilities (including sums paid in settlement of claims), or loss, including attorneys' fees, consultants' fees, and experts' fees which arise during or after the contract term for any losses incurred in connection with investigation of site conditions, or any cleanup, remedial, removal or restoration work required by any hazardous materials laws because of the presence of hazardous materials, in the soil, ground water or soil vapors on the premises (hereinafter, "Premises "), and the release or discharge of hazardous materials by Sub - recipient during the course of any alteration or improvements of the Premises of Sub - recipient, unless hazardous materials are present solely as a result of the gross negligence or willful misconduct of City, its officers, employees, or agents. The indemnification provided by this section shall also specifically cover costs incurred in responding to: (a) Hazardous materials present or suspected to be present in the soil, ground water to or under the Property before the Commencement date; (b) Hazardous materials that migrate, flow, percolate, diffuse, or in any way move on to or under the Property following the Commencement Date; or (c) Hazardous materials present on or under the Property as a result of any discharge, release, dumping, spilling (accidental or otherwise), onto the Property during or after the Term of this contract by any person, corporation, partnership or entity other than City. The foregoing environmental indemnities shall survive the expiration or termination of the contract, any or any transfer of all or any portion of the Premises, or of any interest in this contract, and shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. 2015 -2016 CDBG Agreement Page 11 of 16 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 312 3. Costs of Defense and Award. Included in the obligations to defend indemnify and hold harmless, above, is the Sub - recipient obligation to defend, at Sub - recipient' s own cost, expense and risk, any and all aforesaid suits, actions or other legal proceedings of every kind that may be brought or instituted against the City, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents and /or volunteers. Sub - recipient shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against City or its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents and /or volunteers, for any and all legal expense and cost incurred by each of them in connection therewith. 4. Insurance Proceeds. Sub - recipient obligation to indemnify shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by the City, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents, and /or volunteers. 5. Declarations. Sub - recipient's obligations under Article IV shall not be limited by any prior or subsequent declaration by the Sub - recipient. 6. Enforcement Costs. Sub - recipient agrees to pay any and all costs City incurs enforcing the indemnity and defense provisions set forth in Section Article IV. 7. Survival. The foregoing indemnities shall survive the expiration or termination of the contract any or any transfer of all or any portion of the Premises, or of any interest in this contract and shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. ARTICLE V. TERMINATION OF CONTRACT A. Termination for Convenience. Either party may terminate this contract after thirty days' written notice of intent to terminate has been given to the other party. However, no notice of termination given by Sub - recipient shall be effective unless HUD has agreed to release City from its obligations pursuant to the Project. If the contract is terminated under this paragraph, all finished and unfinished documents and other materials described herein (including, but not limited to items discussed in Attachment "A ") shall, at the option of the City, become City's sole and exclusive property. If the contract is terminated by City under this paragraph, Sub - recipient shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation, in an amount based on available funds under the CDBG Program or the Project, but not to exceed that payable under this contract, for any satisfactory work completed to the effective date of such termination. Sub - recipient hereby expressly waives any and all claims for damages or compensation arising under this contract except as set forth herein. B. Automatic Termination. This contract shall terminate at the discretion of the City if the United States Government terminates the CDBG Program or the Project. City shall provide written notice to Sub - recipient of the intent to terminate under such grounds. In that event, all finished and unfinished documents and other materials described herein (including but not limited to items discussed in Attachment "A ") shall, at the option of the City, become City's sole and exclusive property. If the contract is terminated by City as provided in this paragraph, Sub - recipient shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation, in an amount based on available funds under the CDBG Program or the Project, but not in an amount to exceed that payable under this contract, for any satisfactory work completed to the effective date of such termination. Sub - recipient hereby expressly waives any and all claims for damages or compensation arising under this Agreement except as set forth herein. C. Termination of Contract for Cause. Sub - recipient and City recognize that the City is the governmental entity which executed the grant agreement received pursuant to the City's application and that City is responsible for the proper performance of the Project. If Sub - recipient fails to fulfill in a timely and proper manner its obligations under this contract to undertake, conduct or perform the Project identified in this contract, or if Sub - recipient violates any state laws or regulations or local ordinances or regulations applicable to implementation of the Project, or if Sub- 2015 -2016 CDBG Agreement Page 12 of 16 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 313 recipient violates any provisions of this contract, City shall have the right to terminate this contract by giving at least five days written notice to Sub - recipient of the effective date of termination. Even if City terminates the contract, Sub - recipient shall remain liable to City for all damages sustained by City due to Contractor's failure to fulfill any provisions of this contract, and City may withhold any reimbursement payments from Sub - recipient for the purpose of set -off until the exact amount of damages due to City from Sub - recipient is determined. Sub - recipient hereby expressly waives any and all claims for damages for compensation arising under this contract except as set forth in this section in the event of such termination. ARTICLE VI. RECORDS RETENTION AND ACCESS A. Records and Reports. The Sub - recipient shall maintain records and make such reports as required by the City of Chula Vista, to enable the City to analyze Sub - recipient's project. All records of the Sub - recipient related to this contract or work performed under the contract shall be open and available for inspection by HUD and /or City monitors and auditors during normal business hours. B. Retention. The Sub - recipient shall retain all financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, and all other records pertinent to the contract for a period of five (5) years. The retention period begins on the date of the submission of the Grantee's annual performance and evaluation report to HUD in which the activities assisted under the contract are reported on for the final time. Notwithstanding the above, if there is litigation, claims, audits, negotiations or other actions that involve any of the records cited and that have started before the expiration of the five -year period, then such records must be retained until completion of the actions and resolution of all issues, or the expiration of the five -year period, whichever occurs later. C. Data. The Sub - recipient shall maintain data demonstrating eligibility (low- moderate locations) for services provided. Such data shall include, but not be limited to exact location of the work performed, and a description of service provided. Such information shall be made available to City monitors or their designees for review upon request. D. Disclosure. The Sub - recipient understands that client information collected under this contract is private and the use or disclosure of such information, when not directly connected with the administration of the City's or Sub - recipient's responsibilities with respect to services provided under this contract, is prohibited by federal privacy laws unless written consent is obtained from such person receiving service and, in the case of a minor, that of a responsible parent /guardian. E. Quarterly Reports /Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report (CAPER). Contractor shall provide the City with a quarterly report, submitted no later than fifteen (15) days after the last day of the previous quarter, which includes a narrative of the services provided, progress towards meeting the timeline goals stated in the contract, and an itemized accounting of the expenditures of CDBG funds during the previous quarter, and number of unduplicated clients served. In addition, Contractor will submit an annual CAPER report. Failure to submit quarterly reports and CAPER report in a timely manner will result in withholding of CDBG funds until the report has been submitted. Evidence of match must be submitted with each quarterly and annual report (CAPER). a. Due Dates. • 1St Quarter (July 1- September 30): Due October 15 • 2nd Quarter (October 1 - December 31): Due January 15 • 3rd Quarter (Januaryl - March 31): Due April 15 • 4t" and Final (April 1 —June 30): Due July 15 2015 -2016 CDBG Agreement Page 13 of 16 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 314 ARTICLE VII. PROJECT COMPLETION, AUDIT, AND CLOSEOUT A. Project Completion. Within ninety (90) calendar days following Project completion or termination by City, Sub - recipient agrees to submit a final certification of Project expenses and audit reports, as applicable. B. Audit of Consultants. Sub - recipient agrees to perform financial and compliance audits the City may require. The Sub - recipient also agrees to obtain any other audits required by City. Sub - recipient agrees that Project closeout will not alter Sub - recipient's audit responsibilities. C. Project Closeout. Project closeout occurs when City notifies the Sub - recipient that City has closed the Project, and either forwards the final payment or acknowledges that the Sub - recipient has remitted the proper refund. The Sub - recipient agrees that Project closeout by City does not invalidate any continuing requirements imposed by the contract or any unmet requirements set forth in a written notification from City. ARTICLE VIII. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS A. Contract Administration. The City Manager or designee, shall administer this contract on behalf of the City. The Executive Director shall administer this contract on behalf of the Sub - recipient. Within a reasonable time after the City makes a request, Sub - recipient shall give the City progress reports or other documentation as required by the City's Contract Administrator to audit Contractor's performance of this contract. B. Term. The term of this contract shall start on the 1" day of July 2015 and shall continue in effect until terminated as provided herein or until Sub - recipient has carried out all its obligations under the contract. Services of the Sub - recipient shall start on the 15` day of July and end on the 30`" day of June, 2016. The term of this Agreement shall not be extended. Any remaining project funds not invoiced or expended during the deadlines included in this agreement will be recaptured. C. Actions on Behalf of the City. Except as City may specify in writing, Sub - recipient shall have no authority, express or implied, to act on behalf of City in any capacity whatsoever, as an agent or otherwise. Sub - recipient shall have no authority, express or implied, to bind City or its members, agents, or employees, to any obligation whatsoever, unless expressly provided in this Agreement. D. No Obligations to Third Parties. In connection with the Project, Sub - recipient agrees and shall require that it's agents, employees, subcontractors agree that the City shall not be responsible for any obligations or liabilities to any third party, including its agents, employees, subcontractors, or other person or entity that is not a party to this contract. Notwithstanding that the City may have concurred in or approved any solicitation, subcontract, or third party contract at any tier, neither City shall have any obligations or liabilities to such other party. E. Administrative Claims Requirements and Procedures. No suit or arbitration shall be brought arising out of this contract, against the City unless a claim has first been presented in writing and filed with the City and acted upon by the City in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 1.34 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, as same may from time to time be amended, the provisions of which are incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth herein, and such policies and procedures used by the City in the implementation of same. Upon request by City, Sub - recipient shall meet and confer in good faith with City for the purpose of resolving any dispute over the terms of this Agreement. 2015 -2016 CDBG Agreement Page 14 of 16 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 315 F. Attorney's Fees. Should a dispute arising out of this contract result in litigation, it is agreed that the prevailing party shall be entitled to a judgment against the other for an amount equal to reasonable attorney's fees and court costs incurred. The "prevailing party" shall be deemed to be the party who is awarded substantially the relief sought. G. Capacity of Parties. Each signatory and party hereto hereby warrants and represents to the other party that it has legal authority and capacity and direction from its principal to enter into this contract, and that all resolutions or other actions have been taken so as to enable it to enter into this contract. H. Governing Law /Venue. This contract shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Any action arising under or relating to this contract shall be brought only in the federal or state courts located in San Diego County, State of California, and if applicable, the City of Chula Vista, or as close thereto as possible. Venue for this contract, and performance hereunder, shall be the City of Chula Vista. I. Audit Costs. Sub - recipient shall reimburse City for all costs incurred to investigate and audit Contractor's performance of its duties under the Contract if Sub - recipient is subsequently found to have violated the terms of the contract. Reimbursement shall include all direct and indirect expenditures incurred to conduct the investigation or audit. City may deduct all such costs from any amount due Sub - recipient under this contract. J. Precedence. This contract constitutes the entire agreement of the parties and supersedes any previous oral or written understandings or contracts related to the matters covered herein. This contract may not be modified except by written amendment executed by each party. K. Acknowledgement of Funding. Sub - recipient shall identify the City of Chula Vista as the source of funding, or, if applicable, one of the sources of funding in public announcements that are made regarding the Project. Acknowledgement of the City's funding roles, for example, should be included in publicity materials related to the Project. In addition, Sub - recipient agrees that the City shall be apprised of any special events linked to the Project so that a review can be made on what role, if any, the City would assume. L. No Waiver. No failure, inaction, neglect or delay by City in exercising any of its rights under this Contract shall operate as a waiver, forfeiture or abandonment of such rights or any other rights under this Contract. M. Notice. Any notice or notices required or permitted to be given pursuant to this contract shall be personally served by the party giving notice or shall be served by certified mail. Notices shall be sufficient if personally served on or if sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, addressed to: Contractor: Signature Page to Follow City: City of Chula Vista Housing Manager 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 2015 -2016 CDBG Agreement Page 15 of 16 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 316 SIGNATURE PAGE IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Consultant and City have executed this contract as of the date first written above. CITY OF CHULA VISTA Gary Halbert, City of Chula Vista City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM Glen R. Googins City Attorney ATTEST Donna Norris, City Clerk SUBRECIPIENT Employer Federal ID: DUNS ID: 2015 -2016 CDBG Agreement Page 16 of 16 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 317 ATTACHMENT A "2015 -2016 SCOPE OF WORK AND BUDGET" A. ACTIVITIES 1. General: (hereinafter, "Subrecipient ") will be responsible for administering a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program entitled, , in a manner satisfactory to the Grantee and consistent with any standards required as a condition of providing these funds consistent with regulations governing Public Services [( §570.201(e)] which applies specifically to services rendered to Elderly (HUD Eligibility Matrix Code 05A - Senior Services). 2. Program Delivery: The Subrecipient will carry out the following specific activities as part of the program: • Ensure that marketing material acknowledges the City of Chula Vista and the Department of Housing and Urban Development's support. • Services to be provided in compliance with the Policies and Procedures Manual. IUp to two meals a day will be delivered to seniors age 62 and over residing in Chula Vista . 1 At the time of meal delivery, a wellness check will be conducted. 3.Income Benefit Goals: It is anticipated that approximately 1 220 unduplicated low- to moderate - income Elderly will be served over the course of this 12 month Agreement. In addition to the required quarterly reports identified in Section 12 of this contract, the Subrecipient shall document all clients served to ensure that at least 51 percent of those served are at or below 80 percent of the Area Median Income as established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). This information is to be collected and compiled at the end of the each City of Chula Vista fiscal year (June 30th) for five (5) years, and shall be submitted to the City of Chula Vista Housing Department upon receipt of a written request and at the time of any monitoring of project records. B. NATIONAL OBJECTIVES: All activities funded with CDBG funds must meet one of the CDBG program's National Objectives: benefit low- and moderate - income persons; aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight; or meet community development needs having a particular urgency, as defined in 24 CFR 570.208. The Subrecipient certifies that the activity /activities carried out under this Agreement will meet the National Objective of Low /Mod Clientele 570.208(a)(2). C. PERFORMANCE MONITORING: The Grantee will monitor the performance of the Subrecipient against goals and performance standards as stated above. Substandard performance as determined by the Grantee will constitute noncompliance with this Agreement. If action to correct such substandard performance is not taken by the Subrecipient within a reasonable period of time after being notified by the Grantee, suspension or termination procedures will be initiated. D. ESTIMATED TIME SCHEDULE: SUBRECIPIENT will make all good faith and reasonable efforts to fulfill the project by June 30, 2015, or earlier. E. BUDGET:SUBRECIPIENT shall make all good faith and reasonable efforts to complete the work under this Contract within the following estimated budget. In no case shall SUBRECIPIENT be entitled to, nor shall City reimburse SUBRECIPIENT, more than $12,000 to be budgeted as follows: Attachment "A" — Scope and Budget 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 318 San Diego - Carlsbad -San Marcos, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) Household Income Limits HUD Method Note: The following household income limits are adjusted for a high cost area as San Diego - Carlsbad -San Marcos, CA MSA per the Federal Housing Act of 1937 and calculated using HCD methodology to U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development comply with Health and Safety Code Sections 50052.5 and 50093. March 6, 2015 Effective Date 2015 $ 73,000 Note: Income levels 80% and below are adjusted by a HUD high cost area allowance. This general income information is calculated from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) income figures. Specific program requirements may vary. Prepared by Affordable Housing Services Information, LLC © 2015 Web: www.AHSinfo.com Phone (858) 832 -1460 ATTACHMENT B - INCOME LIMITS 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 319 Extremely Low Income Moderate Income Low Income 30% 90% 35% 100% 40% 110% 45% 120% Hshold Hshold Size Annual Monthly 30.00% Annual Monthly 30.00% Annual Monthly 30.00% Annual Monthly 30.00% 30.00% Income Income Monthly Income Income Monthly Income Income Monthly Income Income Monthly ONE $17,050 $1,421 $426 $19,850 $1,654 $496 $22,700 $1,892 $568 $25,550 $2,129 $639 TWO $19,450 $1,621 $486 $22,700 $1,892 $567 $25,950 $2,163 $649 $29,200 $2,433 $730 THREE $21,900 $1,825 $547 $25,550 $2,129 $638 $29,200 $2,433 $730 $32,850 $2,738 $821 FOUR $24,300 $2,025 $607 $28,350 $2,363 $708 $32,400 $2,700 $810 $36,450 $3,038 $911 FIVE $28,410 $2,368 $710 $30,650 $2,554 $766 $35,000 $2,917 $875 $39,400 $3,283 $985 SIX $32,570 $2,714 $814 $32,900 $2,742 $822 $37,600 $3,133 $940 $42,300 $3,525 $1,058 SEVEN $36,730 $3,061 $918 $35,200 $2,933 $880 $40,200 $3,350 $1,005 $45,200 $3,767 $1,130 EIGHT $40,890 $3,408 $1,022 $37,450 $3,121 $936 $42,800 $3,567 $1,070 $48,150 $4,013 $1,204 Note: Income levels 80% and below are adjusted by a HUD high cost area allowance. This general income information is calculated from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) income figures. Specific program requirements may vary. Prepared by Affordable Housing Services Information, LLC © 2015 Web: www.AHSinfo.com Phone (858) 832 -1460 ATTACHMENT B - INCOME LIMITS 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 319 Very Low Income Moderate Income Low Income 50% 90% 60% 100% 70% 110% 80% 120% Hshold Hshold Size Annual Monthly 30.00% Annual Monthly 30.00% Annual Monthly 30.00% Annual Monthly 30.00% 30.00% Income Income Monthly Income Income Monthly Income Income Monthly Income Income Monthly ONE $28,350 $2,363 $708 $34,050 $2,838 $851 $39,700 $3,308 $992 $45,400 $3,783 $1,135 TWO $32,400 $2,700 $810 $38,900 $3,242 $972 $45,400 $3,783 $1,135 $51,850 $4,321 $1,296 THREE $36,450 $3,038 $911 $43,750 $3,646 $1,093 $51,050 $4,254 $1,276 $58,350 $4,863 $1,458 FOUR $40,500 $3,375 $1,012 $48,600 $4,050 $1,215 $56,700 $4,725 $1,417 $64,800 $5,400 $1,620 FIVE $43,750 $3,646 $1,093 $52,500 $4,375 $1,312 $61,250 $5,104 $1,531 $70,000 $5,833 $1,750 SIX $47,000 $3,917 $1,175 $56,400 $4,700 $1,410 $65,800 $5,483 $1,645 $75,200 $6,267 $1,880 SEVEN $50,250 $4,188 $1,256 $60,300 $5,025 $1,507 $70,350 $5,863 $1,758 $80,400 $6,700 $2,010 EIGHT $53,500 $4,458 $1,337 $64,200 $5,350 $1,605 $74,850 $6,238 $1,871 $85,550 $7,129 $2,138 Note: Income levels 80% and below are adjusted by a HUD high cost area allowance. This general income information is calculated from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) income figures. Specific program requirements may vary. Prepared by Affordable Housing Services Information, LLC © 2015 Web: www.AHSinfo.com Phone (858) 832 -1460 ATTACHMENT B - INCOME LIMITS 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 319 Moderate Income 90% 100% 110% 120% Hshold Size Annual Monthly 30.00% Annual Monthly 30.00% Annual Monthly 30.00% Annual Monthly 30.00% Income Income Monthly Income Income Monthly Income Income Monthly Income Income Monthly ONE $46,000 $3,833 $1,150 $51,100 $4,258 $1,277 $56,250 $4,688 $1,406 $61,350 $5,113 $1,533 TWO $52,600 $4,383 $1,315 $58,400 $4,867 $1,460 $64,250 $5,354 $1,606 $70,100 $5,842 $1,752 THREE $59,150 $4,929 $1,478 $65,700 $5,475 $1,642 $72,300 $6,025 $1,807 $78,850 $6,571 $1,971 FOUR $65,700 $5,475 $1,642 $73,000 $6,083 $1,825 $80,300 $6,692 $2,007 $87,600 $7,300 $2,190 FIVE $71,000 $5,917 $1,775 $78,850 $6,571 $1,971 $86,750 $7,229 $2,168 $94,650 $7,888 $2,366 SIX $76,250 $6,354 $1,906 $84,700 $7,058 $2,117 $93,150 $7,763 $2,328 $101,650 $8,471 $2,541 SEVEN $81,500 $6,792 $2,037 $90,550 $7,546 $2,263 $99,600 $8,300 $2,490 $108,650 $9,054 $2,716 EIGHT $86,750 $7,229 $2,168 $96,400 $8,033 $2,410 $106,000 $8,833 $2,650 $115,650 $9,638 $2,891 Note: Income levels 80% and below are adjusted by a HUD high cost area allowance. This general income information is calculated from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) income figures. Specific program requirements may vary. Prepared by Affordable Housing Services Information, LLC © 2015 Web: www.AHSinfo.com Phone (858) 832 -1460 ATTACHMENT B - INCOME LIMITS 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 319 ��Ilf OTY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Pursuant to City Council Policy 101 -01, prior to any action on a matter that requires discretionary action by the City Council, Planning Commission or other official legislative body of the City, a statement of disclosure of certain ownerships, financial interests, payments, and campaign contributions must be filed. The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the project that is the subject of the application, project or contract (e.g., owner, applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier). [Type response here.] 2. If any person* identified in section 1 above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals with an investment of 52.000 or more in the business (corporation / oartnershio) entitv. [Type response here.] 3. If any person* identified in section 1 above is a non - profit organization or trust, list the names of any person who is the director of the non - profit organization or the names of the trustee, beneficiary and trustor of the trust. [Type response here.] 4. Please identify every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent contractors, whom you have authorized to represent you before the Citv in this matter. [Type response here.] 5. Has any person* identified in 1, 2, 3, or 4, above, or otherwise associated with this contract, project or application, had any financial dealings with an official ** of the City of Chula Vista as it relates to this contract, project or application within the past 12 months? Yes❑ No❑ If yes, briefly describe the nature of the financial interest the official may have in this contract. [Type response here.] 6. Has any person* anyone identified in 1, 2, 3, or 4, above, or otherwise associated with this contract, project or application, made a campaign contribution of more than $250 within the past twelve (12) months to a current member of the Chula Vista City Council? Yes❑ No ❑ If yes, which Council member(s)? [Type response here.] 7. Has any person* identified in 1, 2, 3, or 4, above, or otherwise associated with this contract, project or application, provided more than $440 (or an item of equivalent value) to an official ** of the City of Chula Vista in the past twelve (12) months? (This includes any payment that confers a personal benefit on the recipient, a rebate or discount in the price of anything of value, money to retire a legal debt, gift, loan, etc.) Yes ❑ No❑ If Yes, list official and what was the nature of item provided? [Type response here.] 8. Has any person* identified in 1, 2, 3, or 4, above, or otherwise associated with this contract, project or application, been a source of income of $500 or more to an official ** of the City of Chula Vista in the past twelve (12) months? Yes[:] No[:] If Yes, identify the official and the nature of the income provided? [Type response here.] [Enter Date Here [Name and Title of Person Signing Signature: Person is defined as: any individual, firm, co- partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, any other county, city, municipality, district, or other political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit. ** Official includes, but is not limited to: Mayor, Council member, Planning Commissioner, Member of a board, commission, or committee of the City, and City employees or staff members. ATTACHMENT C - DISCLOSURE 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet STATEMENT Page 320 MEMORANDUMOF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN CITYOFCHULAVISTA DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENTSERVICES (HOUSING DIVISION) AND [ENTER DEPARTMENT HERE] This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is entered into this 12th day of May, 2015 between the Development Services Department Housing Division (DSD -HD) and [ENTER DEPARTMENT HERE] to work together toward the mutual goal of providing services to low and moderate income areas inthe City of Chula Vista. DSD -HD is the Grantee administrator for the City of Chula Vista receipt of federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program funds (CFDA No. 14.218). The City Council allocated CDBG program funds for a City project as described in Attachment A - "Scope of Work" (the Project). These funds are available for an eligible activity (570.201(c) are to be used for [ENTER TYPE OF PROJECT, CIP, SERVICE]. [DEPARTMENT] hasassured DSD- HDthat HUDfunds will not be used to supplant available general government funds. This Grant is made pursuant to Title of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974(41U.S.C. 5301 5320) as amended, the primary objective of which is the development of viable urban communities by providing federal assistance for community development activities in urban areas. Per §570.201(c), to be eligible for CDBG assistance, a [TYPE OF PROJECT] activity must benefit low and moderate income households. [PROJECT] must meet this requirement (Attachment "C "). This MOU will establish the working parameters for the Project activities to be accomplished with these funds. This CDBG funded activity has been incorporated into the City's annual Action Plan which was submitted and accepted bythe U.S. Department of Housingand Urban Development (HUD). The Action Plan requires DSD-HDand all recipients (CVFD) of CDBG funds to meetcertain obligations and certifications to the federal government including environmental review, anti - discrimination, and timely expenditure of funds. This Project will be implemented compliant with CDBG regulations and related federal laws. IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. TIMELY COMPLETION AND EXPENDITURE: Timely completion of the Project isthe highest priority of this agreement. To ensure timely completion and expenditures, [DEPARTMENT] will demonstrate reasonable progress in implementation of a Project as detailed in scope of Work (Attachment "A ") by completingand expending allocated CDBG Project funds byJune 30, 2016 and described in Attachment „B„ 2. QUARTERLY REPORTS: In order to more closely monitor Project completion and expenditures, the [DEPARTMENT] Project Manager will provide the DSD -HD Grant Administrator with quarterly reports, submitted no later than 15 days after the last day of the previous quarter, which includes a narrative of the activities, and /or progress towards meetingthe timeline goals. Report due dates are: October 15, January 15,April 15,and July 15. 3. PROJECT REVIEW CONFERENCE : In the event that quarterly reports indicate funds will not be expended byJune 30, 201E or within the agreed upon schedule, [DEPARTMENT] will notify DSD -HD of the completion deficiencies and will have 15 calendar days to provide its plan for meeting time and expenditure agreements. Failure to correct the deficiency within 15 calendar days will require DSD -HD to schedule a Project Review Conference. 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet 2015/16 CDBG Interdepartmental MOU Page 1 of 2 ATTACHMENT NO. 5- SAMPLM(36 Upon failure to develop a plan for meeting completion and expenditure requirements (as specified in Attachment "B "), the DSD -HD Housing Manager will schedule a Project Review Conference. Either or both Directors may assign a designee to represent their respective department during a Project Review Conference. The Project Review Conference will serve to identify reasons for delayed performance and weaknesses in the project implementation plan. Based on the Project Review Conference discussions both DSD -HD and [DEPARTMENT] will generate a remedial plan that may include but is not limited to re- design of the Project, amendments to the Project, extending the term of the Project, or re-allocation ofthe fundsto analternate Project. Such unexpended funds may also be recaptured and reallocated at the discretion of the Housing Manager of DSD -HD. The recaptured funds shall be made available for reprograming to other eligible activities as deemed appropriate by DSD -HD. 4. CDBG PROGRAMMATIC REQUIREMENTS: Project will be implemented in accordance with Community Development Block Grant requirements. HUD's Playing by the Rules Handbook is being provided to [DEPARTMENT] as a tool to carry out the project as Attachment " D " . 5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF FUNDING: [DEPARTMENT] shall identify the City of Chula Vista and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Community Development Block Grant Program as the source of funding, or, if applicable, one of the sources of funding in public announcements that are made regarding the Project. Acknowledgement of the City's funding roles, for example, should be included in publicity materials related to the Project. In addition, DSD -HD agrees that it shall be apprised of any special events linked to the Project so that a review can be made on what role, if any, the City and HUD would assume. 6. TERM: This MOU will commence when executed by both parties and shall remain in effect until HUD terminatesthe City's CDBG program. INWITNESS WHEREOF,this Memorandum of Understanding is hereby executed on the day and the year first above written. Chula Vista [ N A M E ] Department DUNS:078726551 Date: By: [NAME], Director of [DEPARTMENT] Attachment A: Scope of Services Attachment B: Expenditure Timeline Attachment C: Service Area /Income Limits Attachment D: Playing by the Rules 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Chula Vista Development Services Department — Housing Division Date: By: Kelly Broughton, Director of Development Services 2015/16 CDBG Interdepartmental MOU Page 2 of 2 Page 322 CONTRACT FOR MANAGEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF AN EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS GRANT PROJECT HOUSING PROGRAM 2015 -2016 This Contract numbered [ ]is entered into by and between South Bay Community Services ( "Contractor ") and the City of Chula Vista ( "City') on July 1, 2015. RECITALS WHEREAS, there has been enacted the Emergency Shelter Grants ( "ESG ") Program contained in subtitle B of Title IV of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (the "Act ", 42 U.S.C. 11361, et seq.). The ESG Program authorizes the Secretary, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ( "HUD "), to make grants to States, units of general local government, territories, and Indian Tribes for the rehabilitation or conversion of buildings for use as emergency shelter for the homeless; for payment of certain operating expenses and essential services in connection with emergency shelters for the homeless; and for homeless prevention activities; WHEREAS, on May 20, 2009, the President signed into law "An Act to Prevent Mortgage Foreclosures and Enhance Mortgages Credit Availability' which became Public Law . 111 -22. This new law implements a variety of new measures directed toward keeping individuals and families from losing their homes. Division B of this new law is the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to the Housing Act 2009 (HEARTH Act), which consolidates and amends the three separate homeless assistance programs carried out under title IV of the McKinney -Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11371 et seq); WHERAS, the HEARTH Act amendments to the McKinney -Vento Act contains provisions requiring coordination, collaboration, and consultation between Continuums of Care and ESG State and local government recipients; WHEREAS, the HEARTH Act, renames the former Emergency Shelter Grant program to the Emergency Solutions Grant program to broaden existing emergency shelter and homelessness prevention activities to add rapid refocusing activities; WHEREAS, the Catalog of Federal Assistance for the Emergency Solutions Grant program is 14.231; WHEREAS, the HEARTH Act also codifies in law and enhances the Continuum of Care planning process, the coordinated response to addressing the needs of homelessness established administratively by HUD in 1995; WHEREAS, City of Chula Vista is authorized to apply for and accept ESG funds and assist in the undertaking of ESG activities; WHEREAS, City incorporated the Contractor's proposal for the project described in Attachment "A" hereof (the "Project ") into the City's Community Development Block Grant /HOME Investment Partnership /Emergency Solutions Grant Annual Funding Plan ( "AFP ") which was submitted to HUD; 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet 2015 -2016 ESG Contract ATTACHMENT N0. 6 - SAMPLE ESG AGP rEM'E�T Page 323 WHEREAS, Chula Vista City Council approved the Project on May 12, 2015 and HUD has approved the City's AFP for the ESG funds; and WHEREAS, Contractor warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed in a manner such that they are and can deliver the services required of Contractor to City within the time frames herein provided all in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City and Contractor do hereby mutually agree as follows: All of the Recitals above are hereby incorporated into this Agreement. ARTICLE I. CONTRACTOR OBLIGATIONS A. General. 1. Work to be Performed. Contractor shall implement the Project described in Attachment "A" hereof (the "Scope of Work ") fully in accordance with the term of the AFP approved by the City and submitted to HUD in its application for funds to carry out the Project and the certifications which were submitted concurrently with the AFP ( "Certifications "). The AFP and Certifications form is hereby incorporated by reference into this contract fully as if set forth herein. Contractor shall also undertake the same obligations to the City that the City has undertaken to HUD pursuant to said AFP and Certifications. Contractor's obligations include, but are not limited to, compliance with the current and most up -to -date version of each of the following: (a) The ESG Program contained in subtitle B of Title IV of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11361, etseq.) as amended; (b) The Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act of 2009 (HEARTH Act); (c) HUD regulations relating to ESG Program (24 CFR Part 576), as amended; (d) HUD regulations relating to environmental review procedures for the ESG Program (24 CFR 576.57, subd. (e)); (e) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 USC § 2000d); Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Public Law 88 -352); Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Fair Housing Act, 42 USC § 3601, et seq.); § 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974; Executive Orders 11246 (equal employment opportunity) and 11063 (non- discrimination), as amended by Executive Order 12259; and any HUD regulations heretofore issued or to be issued to implement these authorities relating to civil rights; (f) Section 3 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, which includes: (1) The work to be performed under this contract is subject to the requirements of section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, as amended (12 U.S.C. 1701u). The purpose of section 3 is to ensure that employment and other economic opportunities generated by HUD assistance or HUD - assisted projects covered by section 3, shall, to the greatest extent 2015 -2016 ESG Contract Page 2 of 15 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 324 feasible, be directed to low- and very low- income persons, particularly persons who are recipients of HUD assistance for housing. (2) The parties to this contract agree to comply with HUD's regulations in 24 CFR Part 135, which implement section 3. As evidenced by their execution of this contract, the parties to this contract certify that they are under no contractual or other impediment that would prevent them from complying with the Part 135 regulations. (3) The contractor agrees to send to each labor organization or representative of workers with which the contractor has a collective bargaining contract or other understanding, if any, a notice advising the labor organization or workers' representative of the contractor's commitments under this section 3 clause, and will post copies of the notice in conspicuous places at the work site where both employees and applicants for training and employment positions can see the notice. The notice shall describe the section 3 preference, shall set forth minimum number and job titles subject to hire, availability of apprenticeship and training positions, the qualifications for each; and the name and location of the person(s) taking applications for each of the positions; and the anticipated date the work shall begin. (4) Contractor shall include the section 3 clause in every subcontract subject to compliance with regulations in 24 CFR Part 135, and shall take appropriate action, as provided in an applicable provision of the subcontract or in this section 3 clause, upon a finding that the subcontractor is in violation of the regulations in 24 CFR Part 135. Contractor will not subcontract with any subcontractor where the contractor has notice or knowledge that the subcontractor has been found in violation of the regulations in 24 CFR Part 135. (5) Contractor will certify that any vacant employment positions, including training positions, that are filled (1) after the contractor is selected but before the contract is executed, and (2) with persons other than those to whom the regulations of 24 CFR Part 135 require employment opportunities to be directed, were not filled to circumvent Contractor's obligations under 24 CFR part 135. (6) Noncompliance with HUD's regulations in 24 CFR Part 135 may result in sanctions, termination of this contract for default, and debarment or suspension from future HUD assisted contracts. (7) With respect to work performed in connection with section 3 covered Indian housing assistance, section 7(b) of the Indian Self- Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450e) also applies to the work to be performed under this contract. Section 7(b) requires that to the greatest extent feasible (i) preference and opportunities for training and employment shall be given to Indians, and (ii) preference in the award of contracts and subcontracts shall be given to Indian organizations and Indian -owned Economic Enterprises. Parties to this contract that are subject to the provisions of section 3 and section 7(b) agree to comply with section 3 to the maximum extent feasible, but not in derogation of compliance with section 7(b); (g) The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, 42 USC § 4601, and implementing regulations at 49 CFR Part 24; 2015 -2016 ESG Contract Page 3 of 15 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 325 (h) Office of Management and Budget Circular A -122 entitled "Cost Principles for Non - Profit Organizations "; Office of Management and Budget Circular A -133 entitled "Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non - Profit Organizations" and with Office of Management and Budget Circular A- 110 entitled "Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non - Profit Organizations "; (i) 24 CFR 576.51, which requires each grantee to match the funding provided by HUD as set forth in 42 U.S.C. 11375; (j) 24 CFR 576.53 concerning use of community facilities as an emergency shelter; (k) The following laws and regulations relating to preservation of historic places: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Public Law 89 -665); the Archeological and Historical Preservation Act of 1974 (Public Law 93 -291); and Executive Order 11593; (1) The Labor Standards Regulations set forth in 24 CFR 570.603; (m) The Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. § 4151, etseq.); (n) The Hatch Act relating to the conduct of political activities (Chapter 15 of Title 5, U.S.C.); (o) The Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1974 (42 USC § 4106 and the implementing regulations in 44 CFR parts 59 through 79; (p) The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Public Law 93 -112) as amended, including Section 504 which relates to nondiscrimination in federal programs and HUD regulations set forth in 24 CFR Part 8; (q) The Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. § 7401, et seq.) and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. § 1251, etseq.) and the regulations adopted pursuant thereto (40 CFR, Part 6); (r) The Drug -Free Workplace Act of 1988 (Public Law 100 -690); (s) No member, officer or employee of the Contractor, or its designee or agents, no member of the governing body of the locality in which the program is situated, and no other public official of such locality or localities who exercises any functions or responsibilities with respect to the program during his /her tenure or for one year thereafter, shall have any interest, direct, or indirect, in any contract or subcontract, or the process thereof, for work to be performed in connection with the program assisted under the Grant, and that it shall incorporate, or cause to be incorporated, in all such contracts or subcontracts a provision prohibiting such interest pursuant to the purposes of this certification; (t) Contractor certifies, that in accordance with Section 319 of Public Law 101 -121, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief that: (1) No federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, in connection with the awarding of any federal contract, the making of any federal grant, the making of any 2015 -2016 ESG Contract Page 4 of 15 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 326 federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative contract, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative contract. (2) If any funds other than federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a member of Congress, or an employee of a member of Congress in connection with this federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative contract, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form -LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying ", in accordance with its instructions; (u) The American's with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. sec. 4151. et. seq.); (v) Contractor shall comply with and make good faith and reasonable efforts to carry out the purposes of Executive Order 12166 relating to "Improving Access to Services by Persons with Limited English Proficiency ( "LEP "); (w) Contractor shall comply with and make good faith and reasonable efforts to carry out the purposes of Executive Orders 12432 and 11625 related to participation in federal programs by Minority Business Enterprises ( "MBE ") and Executive Order 12138 related to participation in federal programs by Women's Business Enterprises ( "WBE "); and (x) Contractor shall hold City harmless and indemnify City against any harm that it may suffer with respect to HUD on account of any failure on the part of the Contractor to comply with the requirements of any such obligation. (y) Contractor shall comply with Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFAT) requirements established by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) concerning the Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS), the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) database, and the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, including Appendix A to Part 25 of the Financial Assistance Use of Universal Identifier and Central Contractor Registration, 75 Fed. Reg.55671 (Sept. 14, 2010)(to be codified at 2 CFR part 25) and Appendix A to Part 170 of the Requirements for Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act Implementation, 75 Fed. Reg. 55663 (Sept. 14, 2010)(to be codified at 2 CFR part 170), including any subsequent amendments. B. Compliance with Laws. Contractor shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and ordinances when doing the work required by this Contract. Contractor shall require sub- contractors to similarly comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and ordinances when doing the work required by this Contract. C. Insurance. Contractor agrees to comply with the insurance requirements as set forth below: 1. General. Contractor must procure and maintain, during the period of performance of this contract, and for twelve (12) months after completion, policies of insurance from insurance companies to protect against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property that may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work under the contract and the results of that work by the Contractor, his agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors and provide documentation of same prior to commencement of work. 2015 -2016 ESG Contract Page 5 of 15 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 327 2. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage must be at least as broad as: (a) CGL. Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence Form CG0001). (b) Auto. Insurance Services Office Form Number CA 0001 covering Automobile Liability, Code 1 (any auto). (c) WC. Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. (d) E &O. Professional Liability or Errors & Omissions Liability insurance appropriate to the Consultant's profession. Architects' and Engineers' coverage is to be endorsed to include contractual liability. 3. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Contractor must maintain limits no less than those included in the table below: General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, (including (Including operations, death), and property damage. If Commercial General Liability insurance products and completed with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit operations, as must apply separately to this project /location or the general aggregate applicable) limit must be twice the required occurrence limit. Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury, including death, and property damage. i. Workers' Compensation Statutory Employer's Liability: $1,000,000 each accident $1,000,000 disease - policy limit $1,000,000 disease -each employee i. Professional Liability or $1,000,000 each occurrence Errors & Omissions Liability: 4. Deductibles and Self- Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self- insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either the insurer will reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self- insured retentions as they pertain to the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Contractor will provide a financial guarantee satisfactory to the City guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses. 5. Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability, automobile liability, and where appropriate, the worker's compensation policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: (a) Additional Insureds. City of Chula Vista, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers are to be named as additional insureds with respect all policies of insurance, including those with respect to liability arising out of automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by or on behalf of the Contractor, where applicable, and, with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf 2015 -2016 ESG Contract Page 6 of 15 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 328 of the Contractor, including providing materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations. The general liability additional insured coverage must be provided in the form of an endorsement to the Contractor's insurance using ISO CG 2010 (11/85) or its equivalent. Specifically, the endorsement must not exclude Products /Completed Operations coverage. (b) Primary Insurance. The Contractor's General Liability insurance coverage must be primary insurance as it pertains to the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers. Any insurance or self - insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers is wholly separate from the insurance of the contractor and in no way relieves the contractor from its responsibility to provide insurance. (c) Cancellation. The insurance policies required must be endorsed to state that coverage will not be canceled by either party, except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice to the City by certified mail, return receipt requested. The words "will endeavor" and "but failure to mail such notice shall impose no obligation or liability of any kind upon the company, its agents, or representatives" shall be deleted from all certificates. (d) Active Negligence. Coverage shall not extend to any indemnity coverage for the active negligence of the additional insureds in any case where an agreement to indemnify the additional insured would be invalid under Subdivision (b) of Section 2782 of the Civil Code. (e) Waiver of Subrogation. Contractor insurer will provide a Waiver of Subrogation in favor of the City for each required policy providing coverage for the term required by this contract. 6. Claims Forms. If General Liability, Pollution and /or Asbestos Pollution Liability and /or Errors & Omissions coverage are written on a claims -made form: (a) Retro Date. The " Retro Date" must be shown, and must be before the date of the contract or the beginning of the contract work. (b) Maintenance and Evidence. Insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least five (5) years after completion of the contract work. (c) Cancellation. If coverage is canceled or non - renewed, and not replaced with another claims -made policy form with a " Retro Date" prior to the contract effective date, the Contractor must purchase "extended reporting" coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after completion of contract work. (d) Copies. A copy of the claims reporting requirements must be submitted to the City for review. 7. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with licensed insurers admitted to transact business in the State of California with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A V. If insurance is placed with a surplus lines insurer, insurer must be listed on the State of California List of Eligible Surplus Lines Insurers ( "LESLI ") with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A X. Exception may be made for the State Compensation Fund when not specifically rated. 8. Verification of Coverage. Contractor shall furnish the City with original certificates and amendatory endorsements affecting coverage required by Article I, section C. The endorsements should be on insurance industry forms, provided those endorsements or policies conform to the contract 2015 -2016 ESG Contract Page 7 of 15 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 329 requirements. All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. The City reserves the right to require, at any time, complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements evidencing the coverage required by these specifications. 9. Subcontractors. Contractor must include all subcontractors as insureds under its policies or furnish separate certificates and endorsements for each subcontractor. All coverage for subcontractors is subject to all of the requirements included in these specifications. 10. Not a Limitation of Other Obligations. Insurance provisions under this Article shall not be construed to limit the Consultant's obligations under this contract, including Indemnity. ARTICLE II. CITY OBLIGATIONS A. Compensation. 1. Amounts. City shall reimburse Contractor for the costs it incurs for work performed under this contract not to exceed a maximum reimbursement of $[ ]. Contractor shall not submit claims to the City nor shall City reimburse Contractor for costs for which Contractor is reimbursed from a source other than the funds allocated for work under this contract. 2. Limitation. With regard to compensation stated in Article II, section A.1, above, Contractor may be reimbursed only to the extent and in the amounts that funds have been made available pursuant to applications for Federal assistance. No City funds in excess of those provided by the Federal government under such applications may be the source of reimbursement under this Contract. 3. Compensation Schedule. City shall pay Contractor quarterly progress payments upon certification and submittal by Contractor of a statement of actual expenditures incurred, provided, however, that not more than 90% of the total agreed compensation will be paid during the performance of this contract. The balance due shall be paid upon certification by Contractor that all of the required services have been completed. Payment by City is not to be construed as final in the event HUD disallows reimbursement for the project or any portion thereof. The 10% retention will not apply to acquisition or service contracts. a. Claim Due Dates. Contractor shall submit quarterly claims to the City by the deadlines listed below in order to meet HUD's strict expenditure standards: Q1. July 1 - September 30: Due October 15 Q2. October 1— December 31: Due January 15 Q3. January 1 - March 31:Due April 15 Q4. April 30- June 30: Due July 15 Failure to submit claims by these deadlines may result in recapturing of the grant funds. Any extension requests must be approved by all parties. 4. Expenditure Standard. In order to insure effective administration and performance of approved ESG Projects and to meet HUD performance standards, Contractor agrees that it shall expedite implementation of the Project described herein expending all contracted funds within the term of the contract. In the event that reasonable progress has not been made and all funds are not expended 2015 -2016 ESG Contract Page 8 of 15 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 330 within the term period, the City shall notify the Contractor of the expenditure and implementation deficiency. Contractor will have a total of 60 days from the date of the City's written notification to correct the deficiency. If the deficiency is not corrected within that time, Contractor agrees that the City may reallocate the amount of the expenditure deficiency. ARTICLE III. ETHICS A. Financial Interests of Contractor 1. Disclosure Required. Contractor is required make the disclosures detailed in Attachment "C ". Contractor may also be designated as a "Consultant" for the purposes of the Political Reform Act ( "PRA ") conflict of interest and disclosure provisions by the City, and shall report economic interests as required by the City to the City Clerk on the required Statement of Economic Interests ( "SEI ") in such reporting categories as required by the City or the City Attorney, thereby becoming an "FPPC filer." 2. No Participation in Decision. Regardless of whether Contractor is designated as an FPPC Filer, Contractor shall not make, or participate in making or in any way attempt to use Consultant's position to influence a governmental decision in which Contractor knows or has reason to know Contractor has a financial interest other than the compensation promised by this contract. 3. Search to Determine Economic Interests. Regardless of whether Contractor is designated as an FPPC Filer, Contractor warrants and represents that Contractor has diligently conducted a search and inventory of Contractor's economic interests, as the term is used in the regulations promulgated by the Fair Political Practices Commission, and has determined that Contractor does not, to the best of Contractor's knowledge, have an economic interest which would conflict with Contractor's duties under this contract. 4. Promise Not to Acquire Conflicting Interests. Regardless of whether Contractor is designated as an FPPC Filer, Contractor further warrants and represents that Contractor will not acquire, obtain, or assume an economic interest during the term of this contract which would constitute a conflict of interest as prohibited by the Fair Political Practices Act. 5. Duty to Advise of Conflicting Interests. Regardless of whether Contractor is designated as an FPPC Filer, Contractor further warrants and represents that Contractor will immediately advise the City Attorney of City if Contractor learns of an economic interest of Contractor's that may result in a conflict of interest for the purpose of the Fair Political Practices Act, and regulations promulgated thereunder. 6. Specific Warranties Against Economic Interests. Contractor warrants, represents and agrees: (a) That neither Contractor, nor Contractor's immediate family members, nor Contractor's employees or agents ( "Contractor Associates ") presently have any interest, directly or indirectly, whatsoever in any property which may be the subject matter of Attachment A, or in any property within 2 radial miles from the exterior boundaries of any property which may be the subject matter of the Attachment A, ( "Prohibited Interest "), other than as listed on the SEI, if one was required. 2015 -2016 ESG Contract Page 9 of 15 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 331 (b) That no promise of future employment, remuneration, consideration, gratuity or other reward or gain has been made to Contractor or Contractor Associates in connection with Contractor's performance of this contract. Contractor promises to advise City of any such promise that may be made during the term of this contract, or for twelve months thereafter. (c) That Contractor Associates shall not acquire any such Prohibited Interest within the term of this contract, or for twelve months after the expiration of this contract, except with the written permission of City. (d) That Contractor may not conduct or solicit any business for any party to this contract, or for any third party that may be in conflict with Contractor's responsibilities under this contract, except with the written permission of City. ARTICLE IV. INDEMNIFICATION A. Defense, Indemnity, and Hold Harmless. 1. General Requirement. City shall not be liable for, and Contractor shall defend and indemnify City and its officers, agents, employees and volunteers, against any and all injury to person, including death and dismemberment, or property (real or personal), claims, deductibles, self- insured retentions, demands, liability, judgments, awards, fines, mechanics' liens or other liens, labor disputes, losses, damages, expenses, charges or costs of any kind or character, including attorneys' fees and court costs (collectively, "Claims "), which arise out of or are in any way connected with the work covered by this Contract arising either directly or indirectly from any act, error, omission or negligence of Contractor or its officers, employees, agents, contractors, licensees or servants, including without limitation, Claims caused by the concurrent act, error, omission or negligence, whether active or passive, of City, and /or its agents, officers, employees or volunteers. However, Contractor shall have no obligation to defend or indemnify City from a Claim if it is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction that such Claim was caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of City or its agents or employees. 2. Additional Requirement. Contractor and its successors, assigns, and guarantors, if any, jointly and severally agree to indemnify, defend (with counsel selected by City), reimburse, and hold City and its officers, employees, and agents harmless from any claims, judgments, damages, penalties, fines, costs, liabilities (including sums paid in settlement of claims), or loss, including attorneys' fees, consultants' fees, and experts' fees which arise during or after the contract term for any losses incurred in connection with investigation of site conditions, or any cleanup, remedial, removal or restoration work required by any hazardous materials laws because of the presence of hazardous materials, in the soil, ground water or soil vapors on the premises (hereinafter, "Premises "), and the release or discharge of hazardous materials by Contractor during the course of any alteration or improvements of the Premises of Contractor, unless hazardous materials are present solely as a result of the gross negligence or willful misconduct of City, its officers, employees, or agents. The indemnification provided by this section shall also specifically cover costs incurred in responding to: (a) Hazardous materials present or suspected to be present in the soil, ground water to or under the Property before the Commencement date; (b) Hazardous materials that migrate, flow, percolate, diffuse, or in any way move on to or under the Property following the Commencement Date; or 2015 -2016 ESG Contract Page 10 of 15 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 332 (c) Hazardous materials present on or under the Property as a result of any discharge, release, dumping, spilling (accidental or otherwise), onto the Property during or after the Term of this contract by any person, corporation, partnership or entity other than City. The foregoing environmental indemnities shall survive the expiration or termination of the contract, any or any transfer of all or any portion of the Premises, or of any interest in this contract, and shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. Costs of Defense and Award. Included in the obligations to defend indemnify and hold harmless, above, is the Contractor obligation to defend, at Contractor' s own cost, expense and risk, any and all aforesaid suits, actions or other legal proceedings of every kind that may be brought or instituted against the City, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents and /or volunteers. Contractor shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against City or its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents and /or volunteers, for any and all legal expense and cost incurred by each of them in connection therewith. 4. Insurance Proceeds. Contractor's obligation to indemnify shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by the City, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents, and /or volunteers. 5. Declarations. Contractor's obligations under Article IV shall not be limited by any prior or subsequent declaration by the Contractor. 6. Enforcement Costs. Contractor agrees to pay any and all costs City incurs enforcing the indemnity and defense provisions set forth in Article IV. 7. Survival. The foregoing indemnities shall survive the expiration or termination of the contract any or any transfer of all or any portion of the Premises, or of any interest in this contract and shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. ARTICLE V. TERMINATION OF CONTRACT A. Termination for Convenience. Either party may terminate this contract after thirty days written notice of intent to terminate has been given to the other party. However, no notice of termination given by Contractor shall be effective unless HUD has agreed to release City from its obligations pursuant to the Project. If the contract is terminated under this paragraph, all finished and unfinished documents and other materials described herein (including, but not limited to items discussed in Attachment "A ") shall, at the option of the City, become City's sole and exclusive property. If the contract is terminated by City under this paragraph, Contractor shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation, in an amount based on available funds under the ESG Program or the Project, but not to exceed that payable under this contract, for any satisfactory work completed to the effective date of such termination. Contractor hereby expressly waives any and all claims for damages or compensation arising under this contract except as set forth herein. B. Automatic Termination. This contract shall terminate at the discretion of the City if the United States Government terminates the ESG Program or the Project. City shall provide written notice to Contractor of the intent to terminate under such grounds. In that event, all finished and unfinished documents and other 2015 -2016 ESG Contract Page 11 of 15 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 333 materials described herein (including but not limited to items discussed in Attachment "A ") shall, at the option of the City, become City's sole and exclusive property. If the contract is terminated by City as provided in this paragraph, Contractor shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation, in an amount based on available funds under the ESG Program or the Project, but not in an amount to exceed that payable under this contract, for any satisfactory work completed to the effective date of such termination. Contractor hereby expressly waives any and all claims for damages or compensation arising under this Agreement except as set forth herein. C. Termination of Contract for Cause. Contractor and City recognize that the City is the governmental entity which executed the grant agreement received pursuant to the City's application and that City is responsible for the proper performance of the Project. If Contractor fails to fulfill in a timely and proper manner its obligations under this contract to undertake, conduct or perform the Project identified in this contract, or if Contractor violates any state laws or regulations or local ordinances or regulations applicable to implementation of the Project, or if Contractor violates any provisions of this contract, City shall have the right to terminate this contract by giving at least five days written notice to Contractor of the effective date of termination. Even if City terminates the contract, Contractor shall remain liable to City for all damages sustained by City due to Contractor's failure to fulfill any provisions of this contract, and City may withhold any reimbursement payments from Contractor for the purpose of set -off until the exact amount of damages due to City from Contractor is determined. Contractor hereby expressly waives any and all claims for damages for compensation arising under this contract except as set forth in this section in the event of such termination. ARTICLE VI. RECORDS RETENTION AND ACCESS A. Records and Reports. The Contractor shall maintain records and make such reports as required by the City Manager to enable the City to analyze and audit Contractor's project. All records of the Contractor related to this Contract or work performed under this Contract shall be open and available for inspection by HUD and /or City auditors during normal business hours. Records shall be maintained for a period of at least five (5) years after the end of the grant term. This provision also applies to subcontractors and Contractor will require subcontractors to comply with this provision. B. Disclosure. The Contractor understands that client information collected under this contract is private and the use or disclosure of such information, when not directly connected with the administration of the City's or Contractor's responsibilities with respect to services provided under this contract, is prohibited by federal privacy laws unless written consent is obtained from such person receiving service and, in the case of a minor, that of a responsible parent /guardian. C. Quarterly Reports /Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report (CAPER). Contractor shall provide the City with a quarterly report, submitted no later than fifteen (15) days after the last day of the previous quarter, which includes a narrative of the services provided, progress towards meeting the timeline goals stated in the contract, and an itemized accounting of the expenditures of ESG funds during the previous quarter, and number of unduplicated clients served. In addition, Contractor will submit an annual CAPER report. Failure to submit quarterly reports and CAPER report in a timely manner will result in withholding of ESG funds until the report has been submitted. Evidence of match must be submitted with each quarterly and annual report (CAPER). 2015 -2016 ESG Contract Page 12 of 15 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 334 D. Due Dates. Q1. July 1 - September 30: Due October 15 Q2. October 1— December 31: Due January 15 Q3. January 1 - March 31:Due April 15 Q4. April 3 - June 30: Due July 15 ARTICLE VII. PROJECT COMPLETION, AUDIT, AND CLOSEOUT A. Project Completion. Within ninety (90) calendar days following Project completion or termination by City, Contractor agrees to submit a final certification of Project expenses and audit reports, as applicable. B. Audit of Consultants. Contractor agrees to perform financial and compliance audits the City may require. The Contractor also agrees to obtain any other audits required by City. Contractor agrees that Project closeout will not alter Contractor's audit responsibilities. C. Project Closeout. Project closeout occurs when City notifies the Contractor that City has closed the Project, and either forwards the final payment or acknowledges that the Contractor has remitted the proper refund. The Contractor agrees that Project closeout by City does not invalidate any continuing requirements imposed by the Agreement or any unmet requirements set forth in a written notification from City ARTICLE VIII. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS A. Contract Administration. The City Manager or designee shall administer this contract on behalf of the City. The Executive Director of South Bay Community Services shall administer this contract on behalf of the Contractor. Within a reasonable time after the City makes a request, Contractor shall give the City progress reports or other documentation as required by the City's Contract Administrator to audit Contractor's performance of this contract. B. Term. This contract shall commence when executed by the parties and shall continue in effect until terminated as provided herein or until Contractor has carried out all its obligations under the contract. Services of the Contractor shall start on the 1" day of July, 2015 and end on the 301" day of June 2016. With City approval, the term of this contract and the provisions herein shall be extended to cover any additional time period during which the Contractor remains in control of ESG funds. C. Actions on Behalf of the City. Except as City may specify in writing, Contractor shall have no authority, express or implied, to act on behalf of City in any capacity whatsoever, as an agent or otherwise. Contractor shall have no authority, express or implied, to bind City or its members, agents, or employees, to any obligation whatsoever, unless expressly provided in this Agreement. D. No Obligations to Third Parties. In connection with the Project, Contractor agrees and shall require that it's agents, employees, subcontractors agree that the City shall not be responsible for any obligations or liabilities to any third party, including its agents, employees, subcontractors, or other person or entity that is not a party to this Agreement. Notwithstanding that the City may have concurred in or approved any solicitation, subcontract, or third party contract at any tier, neither City shall have any obligations or liabilities to such other party. 2015 -2016 ESG Contract Page 13 of 15 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 335 E. Administrative Claims Requirements and Procedures. No suit or arbitration shall be brought arising out of this contract, against the City unless a claim has first been presented in writing and filed with the City and acted upon by the City in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 1.34 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, as same may from time to time be amended, the provisions of which are incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth herein, and such policies and procedures used by the City in the implementation of same. Upon request by City, Contractor shall meet and confer in good faith with City for the purpose of resolving any dispute over the terms of this Agreement. F. Attorney's Fees. Should a dispute arising out of this contract result in litigation, it is agreed that the prevailing party shall be entitled to a judgment against the other for an amount equal to reasonable attorney's fees and court costs incurred. The "prevailing party" shall be deemed to be the party who is awarded substantially the relief sought. G. Capacity of Parties. Each signatory and party hereto hereby warrants and represents to the other party that it has legal authority and capacity and direction from its principal to enter into this contract, and that all resolutions or other actions have been taken so as to enable it to enter into this contract. H. Governing Law /Venue. This contract shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Any action arising under or relating to this contract shall be brought only in the federal or state courts located in San Diego County, State of California, and if applicable, the City of Chula Vista, or as close thereto as possible. Venue for this contract, and performance hereunder, shall be the City of Chula Vista. I. Audit Costs. Contractor shall reimburse City for all costs incurred to investigate and audit Contractor's performance of its duties under the Contract if Contractor is subsequently found to have violated the terms of the contract. Reimbursement shall include all direct and indirect expenditures incurred to conduct the investigation or audit. City may deduct all such costs from any amount due Contractor under this contract. J. Precedence. This contract constitutes the entire agreement of the parties and supersedes any previous oral or written understandings or contracts related to the matters covered herein. This contract may not be modified except by written amendment executed by each party. K. Notice. Any notice or notices required or permitted to be given pursuant to this contract shall be personally served by the party giving notice or shall be served by certified mail. Notices shall be sufficient if personally served on or if sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, addressed to: Contractor: City: [ ] City of Chula Vista [ ] Housing Manager [ ] 276 Fourth Avenue [ ] Chula Vista, CA 91910 (Signature page to follow.) 2015 -2016 ESG Contract Page 14 of 15 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 336 SIGNATURE PAGE IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Contractor and City have executed this contract as of the date first written above. CITY OF CHULA VISTA Gary Halbert, City Manager, City of Chula Vista APPROVED AS TO FORM Glen R. Googins City Attorney ATTEST City Clerk SOUTH BAY COMMUNITY SERVICES [ ], Executive Director 2015 -2016 ESG Contract Page 15 of 15 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 337 ATTACHMENT A "SCOPE OF WORK" The Contractor shall provide services to the homeless in accordance with City of Chula Vista's approved application to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for Community Development Block Grant and Emergency Solutions Grant Funding. ESG funds will be used for Emergency Shelter for low income homeless families (with children), most of whom are victims of domestic violence. In addition to housing, families, Contractor will develop a treatment plan so that the client can work to re- establish self- sufficiency and end their homelessness. A. Scope of Services: • Contractor will operate an Emergency housing facility located at 31 4t" Avenue Chula Vista, CA in compliance with the Policies and Procedures Manual (that includes written standards for providing assistance) for Fiscal Year 2015 -2016. • Contractor will provide mental health counseling, trauma related services, assistance in finding housing, and substance abuse services. • Contractor will provide Child Care for clients participating in classes, job searches, and other program activities Contractor will provide bus tokens so clients can attend classes. • Contractor will provide safe and stable housing for homeless clients, most of whom are domestic violence victims, and their children. • Contractor will provide basic needs (food, shelter, clothing, and other needed items) for clients fleeing a domestic violence situation and other homeless clients. • Contractor shall only use Emergency Solution Grant funds on eligible activities in §576.102 Emergency Shelter Components. • Contractor shall operate the project in accordance with all local, state, and federal regulations, including a Conditional Use Permit, as amended. • Contractor shall enter all client information into Homeless Management Information System Emergency Solutions Grant eligible activities: § 576.102 Emergency shelter component. (a) General. Subject to the expenditure limit in § 576.100(b), ESG funds may be used for costs of providing essential services to homeless families and individuals in emergency shelters, renovating buildings to be used as emergency shelter for homeless families and individuals, and operating emergency shelters. (1) Essential services. ESG funds may be used to provide essential services to individuals and families who are in an emergency shelter, as follows: (i) Case management. The cost of assessing, arranging, coordinating, and monitoring the delivery of individualized services to meet the needs of the program participant is eligible. Component services and activities consist of: (A) Using the centralized or coordinated assessment system as required under §576.400(d); (B) Conducting the initial evaluation required under § 576.401(a), including verifying and documenting 2015 -2016 ESG Contract Attachment "A" —Scope of Work and Budget 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 338 eligibility; (C) Counseling; (D) Developing, securing, and coordinating services and obtaining Federal, State, and local benefits; (E) Monitoring and evaluating program participant progress; (F) Providing information and referrals to other providers; (G) Providing ongoing risk assessment and safety planning with victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking; and (H) Developing an individualized housing and service plan, including planning a path to permanent housing stability. (ii) Child care. The costs of child care for program participants, including providing meals and snacks, and comprehensive and coordinated sets of appropriate developmental activities, are eligible. The children must be under the age of 13, unless they are disabled. Disabled children must be under the age of 18. The child -care center must be licensed by the jurisdiction in which it operates in order for its costs to be eligible. (iii) Education services. When necessary for the program participant to obtain and maintain housing, the costs of improving knowledge and basic educational skills are eligible. Services include instruction or training in consumer education, health education, substance abuse prevention, literacy, English as a Second Language, and General Educational Development (GED). Component services or activities are screening, assessment and testing; individual or group instruction; tutoring; provision of books, supplies and instructional material; counseling; and referral to community resources. (iv) Employment assistance and job training. The costs of employment assistance and job training programs are eligible, including classroom, online, and /or computer instruction; on- the -job instruction; and services that assist individuals in securing employment, acquiring learning skills, and /or increasing earning potential. The cost of providing reasonable stipends to program participants in employment assistance and job training programs is an eligible cost. Learning skills include those skills that can be used to secure and retain a job, including the acquisition of vocational licenses and /or certificates. Services that assist individuals in securing employment consist of employment screening, assessment, or testing; structured job skills and job- seeking skills; special training and tutoring, including literacy training and prevocational training; books and instructional material; counseling or job coaching; and referral to community resources. (v) Outpatient health services. Eligible costs are for the direct outpatient treatment of medical conditions and are provided by licensed medical professionals. Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) funds may be used only for these services to the extent that other appropriate health services are unavailable within the community. Eligible treatment consists of assessing a program participant's health problems and developing a treatment plan; assisting program participants to understand their health needs; providing directly or assisting program participants to obtain appropriate medical treatment, preventive medical care, and health maintenance services, including emergency medical services; providing medication and follow -up services; and providing preventive and non - cosmetic 2015 -2016 ESG Contract Attachment "A" —Scope of Work and Budget 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 339 dental care. (vi) Legal services. (A) Eligible costs are the hourly fees for legal advice and representation by attorneys licensed and in good standing with the bar association of the State in which the services are provided, and by person(s) under the supervision of the licensed attorney, regarding matters that interfere with the program participant's ability to obtain and retain housing. (B) Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) funds may be used only for these services to the extent that other appropriate legal services are unavailable or inaccessible within the community. (C) Eligible subject matters are child support, guardianship, paternity, emancipation, and legal separation, orders of protection and other civil remedies for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking, appeal of veterans and public benefit claim denials, and the resolution of outstanding criminal warrants. (D) Component services or activities may include client intake, preparation of cases for trial, provision of legal advice, representation at hearings, and counseling. (E) Fees based on the actual service performed (i.e., fee for service) are also eligible, but only if the cost would be less than the cost of hourly fees. Filing fees and other necessary court costs are also eligible. If the Contractor is a legal services provider and performs the services itself, the eligible costs are the Contractor's employees' salaries and other costs necessary to perform the services. (F) Legal services for immigration and citizenship matters and issues relating to mortgages are ineligible costs. Retainer fee arrangements and contingency fee arrangements are ineligible costs. (vii) Life skills training. The costs of teaching critical life management skills that may never have been learned or have been lost during the course of physical or mental illness, domestic violence, substance use, and homelessness are eligible costs. These services must be necessary to assist the program participant to function independently in the community. Component life skills training are budgeting resources, managing money, managing a household, resolving conflict, shopping for food and needed items, improving nutrition, using public transportation, and parenting. (viii) Mental health services. (A) Eligible costs are the direct outpatient treatment by licensed professionals of mental health conditions. (B) ESG funds may only be used for these services to the extent that other appropriate mental health services are unavailable or inaccessible within the community. (C) Mental health services are the application of therapeutic processes to personal, family, situational, or occupational problems in order to bring about positive resolution of the problem or improved individual or family functioning or circumstances. Problem areas may include family and marital relationships, parent -child problems, or symptom management. 2015 -2016 ESG Contract Attachment "A" —Scope of Work and Budget 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 340 (D) Eligible treatment consists of crisis interventions; individual, family, or group therapy sessions; the prescription of psychotropic medications or explanations about the use and management of medications; and combinations of therapeutic approaches to address multiple problems. (ix) Substance abuse treatment services. (A) Eligible substance abuse treatment services are designed to prevent, reduce, eliminate, or deter relapse of substance abuse or addictive behaviors and are provided by licensed or certified professionals. (B) ESG funds may only be used for these services to the extent that other appropriate substance abuse treatment services are unavailable or inaccessible within the community. (C) Eligible treatment consists of client intake and assessment, and outpatient treatment for up to 30 days. Group and individual counseling and drug testing are eligible costs. Inpatient detoxification and other inpatient drug or alcohol treatment are not eligible costs. (x) Transportation. Eligible costs consist of the transportation costs of a program participant's travel to and from medical care, employment, child care, or other eligible essential services facilities. These costs include the following: (A) The cost of a program participant's travel on public transportation; (B) If service workers use their own vehicles, mileage allowance for service workers to visit program participants; (C) The cost of purchasing or leasing a vehicle for the recipient or Contractor in which staff transports program participants and /or staff serving program participants, and the cost of gas, insurance, taxes, and maintenance for the vehicle; and (D) The travel costs of recipient or Contractor staff to accompany or assist program participants to use public transportation. (xi) Services for special populations. ESG funds may be used to provide services for homeless youth, victim services, and services for people living with HIV /AIDS, so long as the costs of providing these services are eligible under paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (a)(1)(x) of this section. The term victim services means services that assist program participants who are victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, including services offered by rape crisis centers and domestic violence shelters, and other organizations with a documented history of effective work concerning domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking. (2) Renovation. Eligible costs include labor, materials, tools, and other costs for renovation (including major rehabilitation of an emergency shelter or conversion of a building into an emergency shelter). The emergency shelter must be owned by a government entity or private nonprofit organization. (3) Shelter operations. Eligible costs are the costs of maintenance (including minor or routine repairs), rent, security, fuel, equipment, insurance, utilities, food, furnishings, and supplies necessary for the operation of the emergency shelter. Where no appropriate emergency shelter is available for a homeless family or individual, eligible costs may also include a hotel or motel voucher for that family 2015 -2016 ESG Contract Attachment "A" —Scope of Work and Budget 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 341 or individual. (4) Assistance required under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (URA). Eligible costs are the costs of providing URA assistance under § 576.408, including relocation payments and other assistance to persons displaced by a project assisted with ESG funds. Persons that receive URA assistance are not considered "program participants" for the purposes of this part, and relocation payments and other URA assistance are not considered "rental assistance" or "housing relocation and stabilization services" for the purposes of this part. (b) Prohibition against involuntary family separation. The age, of a child under age 18 must not be used as a basis for denying any family's admission to an emergency shelter that uses Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) funding or services and provides shelter to families with children under age 18. (c) Minimum period of use. (1) Renovated buildings. Each building renovated with ESG funds must be maintained as a shelter for homeless individuals and families for not less than a period of 3 or 10 years, depending on the type of renovation and the value of the building. The "value of the building" is the reasonable monetary value assigned to the building, such as the value assigned by an independent real estate appraiser. The minimum use period must begin on the date the building is first occupied by a homeless individual or family after the completed renovation. A minimum period of use of 10 years, required for major rehabilitation and conversion, must be enforced by a recorded deed or use restriction. (i) Major Rehabilitation is not eligible under this contract. (ii) Conversion is not eligible under this contract (iii) Renovation is not eligible under this contract (2) Essential Services and Shelter Operations. Where the recipient or Contractor uses ESG funds solely for essential services or shelter operations, the recipient or Contractor must provide services or shelter to homeless individuals and families at least for the period during which ESG funds are provided. The recipient or Contractor does not need to limit these services or shelter to a particular site or structure, so as long as the site or structure serves the same type of persons originally served with the assistance (e.g., families with children, unaccompanied youth, disabled individuals, or victims of domestic violence) or serves homeless persons in the same area where the recipient or Contractor originally provided the services or shelter. (d) Maintenance of Effort. The maintenance of effort requirements under §576.101(c), which apply to the use of ESG funds for essential services related to street outreach, also apply for the use of such funds for essential services related to emergency shelter. B. Definition of Homeless: Contractor will use the HUD definition of homeless found in 24 CFR Part 576, as amended. Homeless Means: 1. Individuals and Families defined as Homeless under the following categories are eligible for assistance in ESG projects: • Category 1 — Literally Homeless • Category 2 — Imminent Risk of Homeless 2015 -2016 ESG Contract Attachment "A" —Scope of Work and Budget 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 342 • Category 3 — Homeless Under Other Federal Statutes • Category 4 — Fleeing /Attempting to Flee DV This final rule, published in the Federal Register (Vol. 76. No. 233) on December 5, 2011, integrates the regulation for the definition of "homeless," and the corresponding recordkeeping requirements, for the Emergency Solutions Grants program. C. Performance Measurements: The short term emergency shelter will serve 45 extremely low- income homeless individuals and families that meet HUD's definition of homelessness. Objectives Objective 1: 50% of the program participants will find stable housing within 60 days of entering the short term transitional housing with a supportive services program. Objective 2: By June 30, 2016, 80 percent of residents will complete a range of self sufficiency activities during their stay in shelter and 80 percent will demonstrate greater self determination. Outcome Evaluation Outcome 1: Maintain case files documenting beginning status of activities (e.g. housing, no income, no bank account), compared to ending status (e.g., finding stable housing, opening a bank account (if feasible), establishing income). Outcome 2: Staff will administer Customer Satisfaction Questionnaires to help determine accomplishment of case plans. Outcome 3: Ensure each program participant has applied for Affordable Housing including Section 8 rental assistance and Public Housing. D. Documentation of Homelessness (Recordingkeeping and Reporting Requirements §570.500) Maintain adequate documentation of homelessness status to determine the eligibility of persons served by HUD's homeless assistance programs. The documentation shall be obtained by the participant or a third party at the time of the referral, entry, intake, or orientation to the ESG- funded project. Contractor shall maintain and follow written intake procedures to ensure compliance with the homeless definition in §576.2. A copy of the documentation shall be maintained in the client file. E. Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) §576.107 Activities funded under this Agreement must comply with HUD's standards on participation, data collection, and reporting under a local HMIS. F. Shelter and Housing Standards §570.403 The habitability standards include Lead -Based Paint remediation and disclosure requirements. Emergency Shelter must meet minimum habitability standards adopted from the SHP regulations and current Emergency Solutions Grant guidance summarized below: 2015 -2016 ESG Contract Attachment "A" —Scope of Work and Budget 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 343 Habitability standards (24 CFR Part 583.300(b). Except for such variations as are proposed by the recipient and approved by HUD, supportive housing must meet the following requirements: (1) Structure and materials. The structures must be structurally sound so as not to pose any threat to the health and safety of the occupants and so as to protect the residents from the elements. (2) Access. The housing must be accessible and capable of being utilized without unauthorized use of other private properties. Structures must provide alternate means of egress in case of fire. (3) Space and security. Each resident must be afforded adequate space and security for themselves and their belongings. Each resident must be provided an acceptable place to sleep. (4) Interior air quality. Every room or space must be provided with natural or mechanical ventilation. Structures must be free of pollutants in the air at levels that threaten the health of residents. (5) Watersupply. The water supply must be free from contamination. (6) Sanitary facilities. Residents must have access to sufficient sanitary facilities that are in proper operating condition, may be used in privacy, and are adequate for personal cleanliness and the disposal of human waste. (7) Thermal environment. The housing must have adequate heating and /or cooling facilities in proper operating condition. (8) Illumination and electricity. The housing must have adequate natural or artificial illumination to permit normal indoor activities and to support the health and safety of residents. Sufficient electrical sources must be provided to permit use of essential electrical appliances while assuring safety from fire. (9) Food preparation and refuse disposal. All food preparation areas must contain suitable space and equipment to store, prepare, and serve food in a sanitary manner. (10) Sanitary condition. The housing and any equipment must be maintained in sanitary condition. (11) Fire safety. (i) Each unit must include at least one battery- operated or hard -wired smoke detector, in proper working condition, on each occupied level of the unit. Smoke detectors must be located, to the extent practicable, in a hallway adjacent to a bedroom. If the unit is occupied by hearing- impaired persons, smoke detectors must have an alarm system designed for hearing- impaired persons in each bedroom occupied by a hearing- impaired person. (ii) The public areas of all housing must be equipped with a sufficient number, but not less than one for each area, of battery- operated or hard -wired smoke detectors. Public areas include, but are not limited to, laundry rooms, community rooms, day care centers, hallways, stairwells, and other common areas. 2015 -2016 ESG Contract Attachment "A" —Scope of Work and Budget 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 344 G. Matching Requirement §576.201 Contractor must make matching contributions to supplement the ESG program funding received under this Agreement. Matching contributions may be obtained from any source, including any Federal source other than the ESG program, as well as state, local and private sources. However, the following requirements apply to matching contributions from a Federal source of funds: (i) The recipient must ensure the laws governing any funds to be used as matching contributions do not prohibit those funds from being used to match Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) funds. (ii) If ESG funds are used to satisfy the matching requirements of another Federal program, then funding from that program may not be used to satisfy the matching requirements under this section. (c) Recognition of matching contributions. (1) In order to meet the matching requirement, the matching contributions must meet all requirements that apply to the ESG funds provided by HUD, except for the expenditure limits in § 576.100. (2) The matching contributions must be provided after the date that HUD signs the grant agreement. (3) To count toward the required match for the recipient's fiscal year grant, cash contributions must be expended within the expenditure deadline in § 576.203, and noncash contributions must be made within the expenditure deadline in § 576.203. (4) Contributions used to match a previous ESG grant may not be used to match a subsequent ESG grant. (5) Contributions that have been or will be counted as satisfying a matching requirement of another Federal grant or award may not count as satisfying the matching requirement of this section. (d) Eligible types of matching contributions. The matching requirement may be met by one or both of the following: (1) Cash contributions. Cash expended for allowable costs, as defined in OMB Circulars A -87 (2 CFR part 225) and A -122 (2 CFR part 230), of the recipient or Contractor. (2) Noncash contributions. The value of any real property, equipment, goods, or services contributed to the recipient's or Contractor's ESG program, provided that if the recipient or Contractor had to pay for them with grant funds, the costs would have been allowable. Noncash contributions may also include the purchase value of any donated building. (e) Calculating the amount of noncash contributions. (1) To determine the value of any donated material or building, or of any lease, the recipient must use a method reasonably calculated to establish the fair market value. (2) Services provided by individuals must be valued at rates consistent with those ordinarily paid for similar work in the recipient's or Contractor's organization. If the recipient or Contractor does not have employees performing similar work, the rates must be consistent with those ordinarily paid by other employers for similar work in the same labor market. (3) Some noncash contributions are real property, equipment, goods, or services that, if the recipient or Contractor had to pay for them with grant funds, the payments would have been indirect costs. Matching credit for these contributions must be given only if the recipient or Contractor has established, along with its regular indirect cost rate, a special rate for allocating to individual projects or programs the value of those contributions. (f) Costs paid by program income. Costs paid by program income shall count toward meeting the recipient's matching requirements, provided the costs are eligible ESG costs that supplement the recipient's ESG program. H. Estimated Budget: Contractor will make all good faith and reasonable efforts to complete the work under this Contract within the following estimated budget. In no case shall Contractor be entitled to, or shall funds be reimbursed in excess of, the total compensation described in Paragraph No. 3 2015 -2016 ESG Contract Attachment "A" —Scope of Work and Budget 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 345 (COMPENSATION SECTION) of this Contract. Cost related to Emergency Shelter are subject to the expenditure limits found in 576.100(b), ESG funds may be used for costs of providing essential services to homeless families and individuals in emergency shelters, and operating emergency shelters. Expense Item Description Approved Budget Salaries $ 24,101.00 Benefits $ 9,706.00 Food $ 3,500.00 Insurance $ 3,596.00 Program Supplies $ 2,500.74 Repairs and Maintenance $ 7,500.00 Sub - Contract RTF $ 4,500.00 Telephone $ 2,101.00 Utilities $ 10,773.00 Grant Contract total $ 68,277.74 2015 -2016 ESG Contract Attachment "A" —Scope of Work and Budget 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 346 CITY OF CHULA VISTA File #: 15 -0180, Item #: 4. City of Chula Vista Staff Report RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE 2015 REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE (AI) AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO CERTIFY AND SUBMIT THE Al TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDED ACTION Council adopt the resolution. SUMMARY The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires that all entitlement communities receiving Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds prepare an Analysis to Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) and update the report every five years. The Al identifies the fair housing impediments that affect both the region and the City of Chula Vista and provides recommendations to remedy the impediments and to affirmatively further fair housing. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Development Services Director has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The proposed activity is not considered "Projects" as defined under Section 15378(b)(5) of the State CEQA Guidelines because the proposal consist of a reporting action, is not for a site specific project and will not result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment. Therefore, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, these activities are not subject to CEQA. Under NEPA, the activities qualify for a Certification of Exemption pursuant to Title 24, Part 58.34(a)(2) &(3) of the Code of Federal Regulations and pursuant to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Environmental Guidelines. Thus, no further environmental review is necessary at this time. BOARD /COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Not applicable DISCUSSION The Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (commonly known as the "Al") , presents a demographic profile of San Diego County, assesses the extent of housing needs among specific income groups, and evaluates the range of available housing choices for residents. The Al also analyses the conditions in the private market and public sector that may limit the range of housing choices or impede a person's access to housing. More importantly, this Al identifies impediments that may prevent equal housing access and develops solutions to mitigate or remove such impediments. The Al is prepared as a condition of receiving Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and City of Chula Vista Page 1 of 4 Printed on 5/7/2015 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet powered by Leg age 347 File #: 15 -0180, Item #: 4. HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The City is required to complete this update in conjunction with the adoption of City's 2015 -2019 Five -Year Consolidated Plan (Con Plan). The Con Plan is on this evening's City Council agenda for final approval and will be submitted to HUD by May 15, 2015. The Al covers the entire San Diego County, and includes the 18 incorporated cities and all unincorporated areas. The City of Chula Vista, along with the CDBG entitlement communities, contracted with Veronica Tam and Associates (VTA) to prepare the Al. In preparing the report, VTA reviewed previous Fair Housing Reports, Housing Elements, regional planning documents, and housing industry research for the San Diego region and the respective cities. VTA also held interviews with City and County staff, housing providers, members of private housing industry, fair housing service providers, members of the San Diego Regional Alliance for Fair Housing, and other oversight agencies. The San Diego Regional Analysis to Fair Housing Choice (AI) is included as Attachment No. 1 to this report. The Al has identified public policies at the jurisdictional level (see Chapter 5 of the Al) that can affect housing development, and therefore, may impact the range and location of housing choices available to residents. The 2015 Al identifies four recommended actions. These recommended actions, as well as staff's efforts over the coming years, are as follows: 1. Amend the City's Zoning Ordinance to comply with recent updates to State law, including extending the affordability period from 30 years to 55 years and a one - for -one replacement of housing units being replaced or converted which were occupied by lower income households. (AB 2222). Efforts. Staff will bring forward an amendment to Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) 19.90 (Affordable Housing Incentives - Density Bonus) and update the City's For Sale Policy 453 -02 by the end of 2016 for consistency with AB 2222. 2. Amend the City's Zoning Ordinance to expressly address and permit licensed residential care facilities consistent with the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act. Efforts. An amendment to Title 19 of CVMC (Planning and Zoning) to define residential care facilities as a use and to permit such facilities within residential zones is scheduled to be presented for City Council consideration by the end of 2015. While residential care facilities are not expressly defined within the City's Zoning ordinance, the City of Chula Vista has a number of residential care facilities and has recently approved the following residential care facilities: • St. Paul's Plaza at Otay Ranch (2015) • Westmount at San Miguel Ranch (2014) • ActiveCare at Rolling Hills Ranch (2013) 3. Amend the City's Zoning Ordinance to explicitly address and permit by right or with a Conditional City of Chula Vista Page 2 of 4 Printed on 5/7/2015 istar 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet powered by Leg age 348 File #: 15 -0180, Item #: 4. Use permit licensed residential care facilities serving seven or more people in any residential zoning district. Efforts: An amendment to Title 19 of CVMC (Planning and Zoning) to define licensed residential care facilities as a use and to permit such facilities within residential zones is scheduled to be presented for City Council consideration by the end of 2015. 4. Chula Vista does not have zoning ordinances that permit transitional housing and supportive housing consistent with the requirements of S132. Efforts: An amendment to Title 19 of CVMC (Planning and Zoning) to define transitional housing and supportive housing as a use and to permit such housing within residential zones is scheduled to be presented for City Council consideration by the end of 2015. To overcome the impediments to Fair Housing Choice, the City supports these ongoing fair and affordable housing programs and policies as outlined within the Al. The City of Chula Vista is committed to fair housing practices that protect against housing discrimination due to race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability, familial status, age, marital status, or sexual orientation, and places a high priority on promoting and ensuring open and free choice in housing for all persons. The City recognizes that free and equal access to residential housing (housing choice) is fundamental to meeting essential needs and pursuing personal, educational, employment or other goals. It is the City's intent to maintain and promote a nondiscriminatory environment in all aspects of the private and publicly funded housing markets within Chula Vista, and to foster compliance with the nondiscrimination provisions of the Fair Housing Act. DECISION -MAKER CONFLICT Staff has reviewed the decision contemplated by this action and has determined that it is not site specific and consequently, the 500 -foot rule found in the California Code of Regulations section 18704.02(a)(1) is not applicable to this decision. Staff is not independently aware, and has not been informed by any Council member, of any other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict in this matter. LINK TO STRATEGIC GOALS The City's Strategic Plan has five major goals: Operational Excellence, Economic Vitality, Healthy Community, Strong and Secure Neighborhoods and a Connected Community. The Al supports the Economic Vitality goal 2.1.2 as it seeks to lower barriers to housing in the City of Chula Vista. CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT The City's share of the cost to prepare the Al was $9,900, which was funded through the Chula Vista Housing Authority budget. There is no fiscal impact resulting from accepting of the report and submittal to HUD. ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT As a planning document, acceptance of the report will have no direct fiscal impact to the City. No additional costs will be incurred in the submittal of the report to HUD. Costs associated with City of Chula Vista Page 3 of 4 Printed on 5/7/2015 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 349 File #: 15 -0180, Item #: 4. providing services and monitoring for fair housing related actions are covered by the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. ATTACHMENTS 2015- San Diego Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice & Appendices A -D Staff Contact: Jose Dorado, Project Coordinator, Development Services Department City of Chula Vista Page 4 of 4 Printed on 5/7/2015 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 350 RESOLUTION NO. 2015- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE 2015 REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE (AI) AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO CERTIFY AND SUBMIT THE Al TO U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the City Of Chula Vista receives federal Community Development Block (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) dollars from the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); and WHEREAS, HUD requires that all state, county, and local governments receiving Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME funds prepare an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing ("Al") every five years; and WHEREAS, the Al identifies fair housing impediments that affect both the region and the City and provides recommendations to remedy the impediments and further fair housing; and WHEREAS, the City Of Chula Vista collaborated with the other entitlement jurisdictions in the San Diego Region and has contracted with Veronica Tam and associates to complete an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice on behalf of the jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public review period was held from April 10, 2015 through May 11, 2015 to consider public input on the Analysis. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by City Council of the City of Chula Vista as follows: 1. The 2015 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing ("Al") is accepted; and 2. The City Manager or designee is authorized to certify and submit the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing ("Al") to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Presented by: Kelly Broughton Development Services Director Approved as to form by: Glen R. Googins City Attorney 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 351 San Diego County Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice May 2015 Lead Agency San Diego Regional Alliance for Fair Housing http://www.sdfairhousing.org/ 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 352 SIGNATURE PAGE I, ' hereby certify that this San Diego Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice represents the `s conclusions about impediments to fair housing choice, as well as actions necessary to address any identified impediments. Name Title Date 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 353 Table of Contents ExecutiveSummary .................................................................................... ............................... ES -1 Chapter1: Introduction ..................................................................................... ..............................1 A. Purpose of Report ......................................................................................................... ..............................1 B. Fair Housing Legal Framework .................................................................................. ..............................2 C. Fair Housing Defined ................................................................................................... ..............................5 D. Organization of Report ................................................................................................ ..............................6 Chapter 2: Community Outreach ...................................................................... ..............................8 A. Outreach to the Community ...................................................................................... ............................... 8 B. Targeted Stakeholder Interviews ................................................................................ .............................11 C. Fair Housing Survey .................................................................................................... .............................13 D. Public Review of Draft Al .......................................................................................... .............................18 Chapter 3: Community Profile .......................................................................... .............................19 A. Demographic Profile ................................................................................................... .............................19 B. Household Characteristics .......................................................................................... .............................30 Overall Lending Patterns ....................................................................................... ............................... C. Special Needs Groups ................................................................................................. .............................34 Lending by Race /Ethnicity and Income .............................................................. ............................... D. Hate Crimes .................................................................................................................. .............................56 Lending Patterns by Tract Characteristics ........................................................... ............................... E. Income Profile .............................................................................................................. .............................58 Performance by Lender .......................................................................................... ............................... F. Housing Profile ............................................................................................................. .............................68 Sub -Prime Lending Market .................................................................................... ............................... I. Housing Condition ....................................................................................................... .............................73 Predatory Lending ................................................................................................... ............................... J. Housing Cost and Affordability ................................................................................. .............................76 Purchased Loans ...................................................................................................... ............................... K. Housing Problems ........................................................................................................ .............................83 Review of Lending Patterns by Specific Lender ................................................. ............................... L. Publicly Assisted Housing ........................................................................................... .............................86 Foreclosures ............................................................................................................. ............................... M. Licensed Community Care Facilities ......................................................................... .............................95 N. Accessibility to Public Transit and Services ............................................................. .............................98 O. ADA- Compliant Public Facilities (Section 504 Assessment) ........................... ............................... 105 P. Exposure to Adverse Community Factors .......................................................... ............................... 105 Chapter 4: Lending Practices ............................................ ............................... ............................110 A. Background .............................................................................................................. ............................... 110 B. Overall Lending Patterns ....................................................................................... ............................... 113 C. Lending by Race /Ethnicity and Income .............................................................. ............................... 117 D. Lending Patterns by Tract Characteristics ........................................................... ............................... 120 E. Performance by Lender .......................................................................................... ............................... 121 F. Sub -Prime Lending Market .................................................................................... ............................... 125 G. Predatory Lending ................................................................................................... ............................... 127 H. Purchased Loans ...................................................................................................... ............................... 130 I. Review of Lending Patterns by Specific Lender ................................................. ............................... 131 J. Foreclosures ............................................................................................................. ............................... 132 TABLE OF CONTENTS i 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 354 Chapter5: Public Policies ............................................................................ ............................... 137 A. Policies and Programs Affecting Housing Development ...... ............................... ............................137 B. Zoning Ordinance ........................................................................ ............................... ............................144 C. Variety of Housing Opportunity ............................................... ............................... ............................150 D. Building Codes and Occupancy Standards ............................... ............................... ............................160 E. Affordable Housing Development ............................................ ............................... ............................162 F. Other Land Use Policies, Programs, and Controls ................. ............................... ............................166 G. Policies Causing Displacement or Affect Housing Choice of Minorities and Persons with Disabilities....................................................................................... ............................... ............................170 H. Local Housing Authorities .......................................................... ............................... ............................171 I. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) ...................... ............................... ............................172 J. Community Representation and Participation ......................... ............................... ............................172 Chapter 6: Fair Housing Profile ................................................................... ............................... 174 A. Fair Housing in the Homeownership Market .......................... ............................... ............................174 B. Fair Housing in the Rental Housing Market ............................ ............................... ............................181 C. Fair Housing Services .................................................................. ............................... ............................188 D. California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) .................. ............................191 E. Fair Housing Statistics ................................................................. ............................... ............................191 F. Fair Housing Testing ................................................................... ............................... ............................197 G. California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) .................. ............................199 H. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ........ ............................... ............................199 I. Hate Crimes .................................................................................. ............................... ............................200 1. NIMBYism .................................................................................... ............................... ............................200 Chapter 7: Fair Housing Action Plan ........................................................... ............................... 202 A. Regional Impediments Continued from 2010 Al ................... ............................... ............................202 B. Jurisdiction- Specific Impediments Continued from 2010 AI .............................. ............................206 C. New Regional Impediments ....................................................... ............................... ............................207 TABLE OF CONTENTS ii 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 355 List of Tables Table 1: Community Meeting Locations ................................................................................. ..............................9 Table 2: Perpetrators of Alleged Discrimination .................................................................. .............................14 Table 3: Location of Alleged Discrimination ........................................................................ .............................15 Table 4: Basis of Alleged Discrimination ............................................................................... .............................16 Table 5: Reason for Not Reporting Alleged Discrimination ............................................... .............................17 Table 6: Basis of Alleged Hate Crime ..................................................................................... .............................17 Table 7: Population Growth 1990- 2020 ................................................................................. .............................20 Table8: Age Characteristics ..................................................................................................... .............................21 Table9: Race /Ethnic Composition ........................................................................................ .............................23 Table 10: Minority Population by Sub - region ....................................................................... .............................24 Table 11: Dissimilarity Indices for Racial /Ethnic Groups - San Diego County .............. .............................27 Table 12: Dissimilarity Indices for Minority Population by MSA ...................................... .............................28 Table 13: Language and Linguistic Isolation .......................................................................... .............................29 Table 14: Household Growth by Jurisdiction ........................................................................ .............................31 Table15: Household Type ....................................................................................................... .............................32 Table 16: Household Characteristics ....................................................................................... .............................33 Table 17: Average Household Size by Jurisdiction ............................................................... .............................34 Table 18: Residents with Special Needs ................................................................................. .............................35 Table 19: Senior Profile — San Diego County ........................................................................ .............................35 Table20: Large Households ..................................................................................................... .............................37 Table21: Disability by Age ....................................................................................................... .............................41 Table 22: Disability Characteristics ......................................................................................... .............................42 Table 23: Community of Residence at Time of AIDS Diagnosis (1981 -2011) ................ .............................46 Table24: HOPWA Program Resources ................................................................................. .............................47 Table 25: Homelessness Population by Jurisdiction - 2014 ................................................. .............................50 Table 26: Farm Worker Population of San Diego County .................................................. .............................54 Table 27: Hate Crime Statistics — 2013 ................................................................................... .............................57 Table28: Median Household Income .................................................................................... .............................60 Table 29: Income Distribution, 2007 - 2011 ............................................................................ .............................62 Table 30: Housing Assistance Needs of Low and Moderate Income Households (2007 -2011) ................63 Table31: Income by Race/ Ethnicity ...................................................................................... .............................64 Table32: Housing Unit Growth .............................................................................................. .............................69 Table33: Housing Stock Mix - 2014 ....................................................................................... .............................70 Table34: Housing Tenure and Vacancy ................................................................................ .............................71 Table35: Tenure by Income .................................................................................................... .............................72 Table 36: Housing Age and Lead - Poisoning Cases .............................................................. .............................74 Table 37: Median Home Sale Prices by Jurisdiction ............................................................. .............................78 Table 38: Average Rental Rates by Jurisdiction - Fall 2014 ................................................. .............................79 Table 39: Housing Affordability Matrix - San Diego County (2014) ............................... ............................... 82 Table40: Overcrowding by Tenure ...................................................................................... ............................... 84 Table 41: Housing Cost Burden by Tenure ........................................................................... .............................86 Table42: Public Housing Units ............................................................................................... .............................87 Table 43: Characteristics of Public Housing Residents ........................................................ .............................88 Table 44: Characteristics of Public Housing Waiting list (Households) ............................ .............................88 Table 45: Housing Choice Voucher Recipients ..................................................................... .............................90 TABLE OF CONTENTS iii 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 356 Table 46: Distribution of Housing Choice Voucher Recipients ......................................... .............................90 Table 47: Housing Choice Voucher Waidist ....................................................................... ............................... 92 Table 48: Licensed Community Care Facilities by Jurisdiction .......................................... .............................96 Table 49: Major Employers - San Diego County .................................. ............................... ............................102 Table 50: Demographics of Loan Applicants vs. Total Population ... ............................... ............................118 Table 51: Lending Patterns by Race /Ethnicity and Income ( 2008 - 2013) ........................ ............................119 65 Table 52: Outcomes Based on Census Tract Income ( 2008 - 2013) .... ............................... ............................120 67 Table 53: Outcomes by Minority Population of Census Tract ( 2008 - 2013) .................... ............................121 Table 54: Top San Diego County Lenders by City (2013) .................. ............................... ............................122 Table 55: Market Share and Disposition of Applications by Top Lenders (2008 -2013) ...........................123 Table 56: Top Lenders by Race /Ethnicity of Applicant (2013) ......... ............................... ............................125 85 Table 57: Reported Spread on Loans by Race /Ethnicity ( 2008 - 2013 ) ............................. ............................126 Table 58: Percent of Purchased Loans by Race ( 2013) ........................ ............................... ............................130 Table 59: Foreclosures (February 2015) ................................................. ............................... ............................134 Table 60: Housing Element Status for 2013 -2021 Cycle ..................... ............................... ............................139 Table 61: Typical Land Use Categories and Permitted Density by Jurisdiction .............. ............................141 Table 62: Density Bonus Ordinance Compliance ................................. ............................... ............................147 Table 63: Off - Street Parking Requirements ........................................... ............................... ............................149 Table 64: Variety of Housing Opportunity ............................................ ............................... ............................152 Table 65: Farmworker Housing by Jurisdiction .................................... ............................... ............................160 Table 66: Rent - Restricted Multi - Family Housing Units by Jurisdiction ........................... ............................163 Table 67: Planning Fees by Jurisdiction ................................................. ............................... ............................164 Table 68: Development Impact Fees by Jurisdiction ........................... ............................... ............................165 Table 69: Land Use Policies and Controls by Jurisdiction .................. ............................... ............................167 Table 70: Potential Discrimination in Listings of For -Sale Homes ... ............................... ............................175 Table 71: Potential Discrimination in Listings of Homes for Rent ... ............................... ............................183 List of Figures Figure 1: Minority Concentration Areas ................................................................................. .............................25 Figure 2: Persons with Disabilities .......................................................................................... .............................43 Figure3: Homeless Resources ................................................................................................. .............................52 Figure 4: Change in Hate Crimes between 2001 and 2013 .................................................. .............................58 Figure 5: San Diego County Household Income .................................................................. .............................59 Figure 6: Low and Moderate Income Areas ........................................................................ ............................... 65 Figure 7: Poverty Concentration Areas ................................................................................ ............................... 67 Figure 3 -8: Home Ownership by Race /Ethnicity, 2000 - 2010 ............................................ .............................72 Figure 9: Childhood Lead Poisoning Risk Areas .................................................................. .............................75 Figure 10: Housing Opportunity Index Trend ...................................................................... .............................76 Figure 11: Housing Cost Burden by Income and Tenure ................................................. ............................... 85 Figure 12: Public and Assisted Housing ................................................................................. .............................93 Figure13: Licensed Care Facilities .......................................................................................... .............................97 Figure 14: Transit Service and Major Employers .................................. ............................... ............................100 Figure 15: Transit Service and Assisted Housing .................................. ............................... ............................104 Figure16: Title I Schools .......................................................................... ............................... ............................107 Figure 17: Environmental Exposure ....................................................... ............................... ............................109 Figure 18: Conventional Home Purchase Loans (2008 versus 2013) ............................... ............................115 Figure 19: Government- Backed Home Purchase Loans (2008 versus 2013) .................. ............................116 TABLE OF CONTENTS iv 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 357 Figure 20: Foreclosures Hot Spots (February 2015) ........................................................ ............................... 135 Figure 21: Probability of Foreclosures (February 2015) ................................................. ............................... 136 Appendices Appendix A: Public Outreach Appendix B: HMDA Data Appendix C: Fair Housing Data Appendix D: Evaluation of Progress TABLE OF CONTENTS V 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 358 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AN ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE an Diego County boasts an estimated population of over three million residents, making it the second most populous county in California, and fifth in the nation. Diversity among its residents, in terms of cultural backgrounds and socioeconomic characteristics, makes San Diego County a desirable area to live. To continue nurturing this diversity, civic leaders must ensure that an environment exists where equal access to housing opportunities is treated as a fundamental right. Purpose of the Analysis of Impediments The communities within San Diego County have established a commitment to providing equal housing opportunities for their existing and future residents. This report, the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (commonly known as the "Al"), presents a demographic profile of San Diego County, assesses the extent of housing needs among specific income groups, and evaluates the range of available housing choices for residents. The Al also analyzes the conditions in the private market and public sector that may limit the range of housing choices or impede a person's access to housing. More importantly, this Al identifies impediments that may prevent equal housing access and develops solutions to mitigate or remove such impediments. Participating Jurisdictions The Al covers the entirety of San Diego County, including the 18 incorporated cities and all unincorporated areas: • City of Carlsbad • City of Chula Vista • City of Coronado • City of Del Mar • City of El Cajon • City of Encinitas • City of Escondido • City of Imperial Beach • City of La Mesa • City of Lemon Grove Community Outreach • City of National City • City of Oceanside • City of Poway • City of San Diego • City of San Marcos • City of Santee • City of Solana Beach • City of Vista • Unincorporated County The San Diego Regional Alliance for Fair Housing (SDRAFFH), comprised of representatives from the participating jurisdictions listed above, fair housing professionals, and housing advocates, helped coordinate the development of the Al, especially the outreach process. 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES -1 Page 359 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Community Workshops As part of the Al development process, six community workshops were conducted. The workshop agenda included a presentation of the project purpose and background, followed by a facilitated, large group discussion that included an educational quiz. Simultaneous translation of the proceedings from English to Spanish language was provided by a certified translator via electronic headsets, when needed. The dates and locations of the six workshops are listed below: Northern Region Southern Region Tuesday, January 20, 2015 Tuesday, January 27, 2015 Escondido City Hall City of Chula Vista Mitchell Room 276 Fourth Avenue 201 North Broadway Civic Center — Public Services North — Building C Escondido, 92025 Con£ Rooms B -111 and B -112 Chula Vista, 91910 Central Region Eastern Region Wednesday, January 21, 2015 Wednesday, January 28, 2015 Jacobs Center for City of El Cajon Neighborhood Innovation Joe & Vi Jacobs Center — Police Department Community Room Community Room ( #161) 404 Euclid Avenue 100 Civic Center Way San Diego, 92114 El Cajon, 92020 City of San Diego City of Encinitas Wednesday, February 4, 2015 Tuesday, February 10, 2015 Belden Apartments City Hall Community Room Poinsettia Room 7777 Belden Street 505 S. Vulcan Avenue San Diego, 92111 Encinitas, 92024 During the community workshops, several recurring comments were recorded: ■ Outreach and educational activities should be continued and expanded for the general public; many tenants and landlords are unaware of fair housing laws. Specifically, most participants voiced a need to better understand, accommodate or address fair housing issues regarding: • Reasonable accommodation for persons with mental and physical disabilities; • Occupancy standards vs. overcrowding concerns, especially occupancy limit terms in leases vs. discrimination based on family size; • Unequal treatment of tenants based on immigration status (e.g.; delayed repairs, new and renewed leases); • Requirements for non - English languages in federally subsidized housing, • Source of income vs. Section 8 voucher concerns; and • Emerging and expanding contexts of fair housing issues, such as: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES -2 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 360 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE • Emotional support and service animals (e.g., new requirements for property insurers; deposit requirements; animal certifications; species restrictions) • Medical directives and verification from international sources • Hoarding and the use of medical marijuana. ■ Outreach activities should be multi- faceted, utilizing different forms of media and targeting a wide variety of audiences, such as: neighborhood groups, trade organizations, etc. ■ Enforcement of fair housing laws should be pursued more rigorously. Fair housing service providers indicated that stronger enforcement would help deter housing discrimination. Additionally, publicizing the outcomes of fair housing lawsuits may help encourage victims to report housing discrimination and pursue litigation. Stakeholder Interviews One -on -one telephone interviews were conducted with housing and fair housing professionals, as well as agencies that serve and advocate for the needs of underserved groups (i.e. minorities, persons with disabilities, and other households with special needs). A total of eight interviews were conducted with representatives from the following agencies: • CSA San Diego County • Elder Help of San Diego • Fair Housing Center of the Legal Aid Society of San Diego, Inc. • La Maestra Community Health Centers • North County Lifeline • San Diego County Apartment Association • San Diego Regional Center • United Way of San Diego County The following summary of findings reflects collective input from the interviewees: ■ Challenges to building community awareness include: • Language barriers • Varying cultural norms and expectations • Confusing and conflicting laws and rules: federal, state and local • Engaging tenants and landlords before there is an issue • Lack of affordable housing • Tracking frequent changes to protected classes ■ Common fair housing misconceptions and misunderstandings include: • Confusing disability and accommodation requirements • Allowing cultural stereotypes to affect how people are served • Understanding entitlements for ADA requirements/ supports • Assuming they have more fair housing rights than is true (tenants) • Perceiving fair housing laws to be over - extended to their rights (landlords) 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES -3 Page 361 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Fair Housing SurveX A Fair Housing Survey was made available throughout the County of San Diego from January 5, 2015 through February 13, 2015. The survey was available in English and Spanish online and in hard copy format. A total of 377 persons responded to the survey. Most of the surveys were completed online (360 surveys) and a total of 17 surveys were completed in Spanish. Among the 377 responses, 366 were residents in San Diego County. The majority of the respondents felt that housing discrimination was not an issue in their neighborhood. Approximately 72 percent indicated they had not experienced housing discrimination. Among those reporting a personal experience with housing discrimination, the basis for discrimination was reported to be race (33 percent), disability (29 percent), source of income (29 percent), familial status (25 percent), and age (22 percent). Community Profile Population Growth Examination of demographic characteristics provides some insight regarding the need and extent of equal access to housing in a community. Overall, San Diego County experienced a 10 percent increase in population from 2000 to 2010. During this period, the cities of San Marcos, Chula Vista, and Carlsbad had the largest growth while the cities of Del Mar, Imperial Beach, Poway, and Solana Beach experienced a drop in population. The median age in San Diego County is increasing steadily. Based on the 2010 Census, 11.4 percent of the population in San Diego County was age 65 or over (elderly), with another 10.6 percent in the 55 to 64 age group (future elderly). Race /Ethnicit San Diego County's residents have become increasingly diverse in their race and ethnic compositions since 1970. In 2000, Whites made up the majority of the population in the San Diego region but by 2010, minority residents made up a slight majority (51.5 percent). The largest racial /ethnic group in the County is Hispanic. Racial Segregation and Linguistic Isolation When looking at Hispanic /White segregation among the largest 200 cities in the country in 2010, San Diego ranked 12th most segregated. Language barriers can be an impediment to accessing housing of choice. In San Diego County, 16.3 percent of residents indicated they spoke English "less than very well" and can be considered linguistically isolated. have the highest percentage of total residents who residents were Spanish speakers. The cities of National City, Vista, and Escondido spoke English "less than very well ". Most of these Racially /Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty RECAPs) In an effort to identify racially/ ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (RECAPS), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has identified census tracts with a majority non -White population (greater than 50 percent) and a poverty rate that exceeds 40 percent or exceeds 300% of the metro /micro tract average. Within San Diego County, there are RECAPS scattered in small sections of Oceanside, San Marcos, Escondido, El Cajon, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City, Chula Vista and Imperial Beach. Larger RECAP clusters can be seen in the central/ southern portion of the City of San Diego. In 2010, there were 173,692 persons living in a RECAP in the County, or 5.6 percent of the County's total population. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES -4 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 362 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Housing Age and Condition Assessing housing conditions in the County can provide the basis for developing policies and programs to maintain and preserve the quality of the housing stock. Housing age can indicate general housing conditions within a community. The County's housing stock is older, with a majority of the housing units (61 percent) built before 1979. The highest percentages of pre -1980 housing units are generally found in the older, urbanized neighborhoods in the cities of La Mesa, Lemon Grove, El Cajon, San Diego, Coronado and National City. These cities are the most likely to have the largest proportion of housing units in need of rehabilitation. Home rehabilitation can be an obstacle for senior homeowners with fixed incomes and mobility issues. Housing Cost and Affordability The cost of homeownership varies within San Diego County depending on the community. In 2014, the median sales price for a home in San Diego County was $430,000, an increase of 3.6 percent from 2013. Home prices vary by area /jurisdiction, with very high median prices in coastal areas such as the cities of Coronado, Del Mar, Solana Beach, and the La Jolla area of the City of San Diego. National City had the lowest median sales price among the incorporated jurisdictions. The San Diego County Apartment Association (SDCAA) publishes average rental rates biannually. The estimated average rental costs in San Diego County in the fall of 2014 were $812 for a studio, $1,066 for a one - bedroom, $1,463 for a two- bedroom, and $1,813 for a three- bedroom. Adverse Community Factors The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) developed a screening methodology, called the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (CalEnviroScreen), to help identify California communities that are disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution. The CalEnviroScreen reveals that high scoring communities tend to be more burdened by pollution from multiple sources and most vulnerable to its effects, taking into account their socioeconomic characteristics and underlying health status. In San Diego County, the areas indicated as having higher EnviroScreen scores generally match the geographic distribution of minorities, low- and moderate - income persons, and poverty concentrations. Lending Practices Overall Lending Patterns A key aspect of fair housing choice is equal access to credit for the purchase or improvement of a home, particularly in light of the recent lending /credit crisis. In 2013, a total of 32,571 households applied for conventional loans to purchase homes in San Diego County, representing a decrease of approximately 18 percent from 2008. Despite this decrease, these 2013 figures represent an increase from the number of applications recorded in 2011 and 2012. This trend is indicative of a housing market that is slowly recovering from its peak in 2006 -2007. The cities of San Diego, Chula Vista, and Oceanside recorded the most loan applications, while the cities of Del Mar, Coronado, and Solana Beach recorded the fewest due to the built out character of these small communities. Applications from the cities of Poway, La Mesa, Santee, and Encinitas generally exhibited higher approval rates (over 73 percent). By contrast, 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES -5 Page 363 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE applications from the cities of National City, Lemon Grove, and Chula Vista had slightly lower approval rates (ranging from 63 percent to 68 percent). Overall, approval rates were noticeably higher in 2013 than in 2008. Aside from income, another major impediment to securing a home loan is insufficient understanding of the homebuying and lending processes. About 14 percent of all applications countywide were withdrawn by the applicants or deemed incomplete by the financial institution in 2013. Lending by Race /EthnicitX In an ideal environment, the applicant pool for mortgage lending should be reflective of the demographics of a community. When one racial /ethnic group is overrepresented or underrepresented in the total applicant pool, it could be an indicator of unequal access to housing opportunities. Throughout San Diego County, White applicants were noticeably overrepresented in the loan applicant pool, while Hispanics were severely underrepresented. The underrepresentation of Hispanics was most acute in the cities of Imperial Beach ( -33 percent), Vista ( -35 percent), and Escondido ( -36 percent). Top Lenders In 2013, about 47 percent (79,185 applications) of all loan applications in San Diego County were submitted to one of the County's top ten lenders. The region's top three lenders have remained fairly consistent since 2008, with the only significant changes being the purchase of Countrywide Bank by Bank of America and Wells Fargo's acquisition of Wachovia Mortgage. Approval rates for the County's top lenders fluctuated substantially by institution and jurisdiction; however, as noted before, overall approval rates have increased markedly since 2008. Subprime Lending Subprime lending can both impede and extend fair housing choice. While Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data does not classify loans as subprime, it does track the interest rate spread on loans. In 2005, the Federal Reserve Board required lenders to report rate spreads for loans whose Annual Percentage Rate (APR) was above the U.S. Department of the Treasury benchmark. Loans with a reported spread are typically referred to as higher - priced or subprime loans. The number of subprime loans issued has decreased substantially over time. In 2008, about five percent of all loans issued could be considered subprime but, by 2013, less than two percent of loans issued were subprime loans. Black and Hispanic applicants seem to be significantly more likely to receive these higher -priced loans. In 2008, Blacks and Hispanics were twice as likely as Whites and Asians to receive a subprime loan. This discrepancy was less noticeable in 2013, but Black and Hispanic applicants continued to get higher - priced loans more frequently than White and Asian applicants. Distribution of Affordable Housing and Residential Care Facilities Based on the ratio of beds per 1,000 persons, licensed care facilities in San Diego County are most concentrated in Lemon Grove, Escondido, La Mesa, and El Cajon and are least concentrated in Imperial Beach. The City of El Cajon has a high concentration of Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) use. El Cajon represents about three percent of the County population but more than nine percent of the HCV use. National City also has a relatively high concentration of HCV use. National City represents about two percent of the total population but more than four percent of the vouchers issued in San Diego County. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES -6 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 364 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE San Diego County has a large inventory of affordable housing units. The distribution of these units, however, is uneven throughout the region, with dense clusters of assisted housing located in central San Diego, National City, Chula Vista and Escondido. Almost three - quarters (73 percent) of the region's rent - restricted multi - family housing stock is concentrated in these four cities. Fnreclncnrec As of February 2015, less than one percent of the County's housing stock was in one of the various stages of foreclosure. A foreclosure "hot spots" analysis using recent foreclosure data indicates that Chula Vista, National City, and East San Diego County have higher rates of foreclosure. Public Policies Housing Element Compliance Public policies established at the regional and local levels can affect housing development and therefore, may have an impact on the range and location of housing choices available to residents. A Housing Element found by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to be in compliance with State law is presumed to have adequately addressed its policy constraints. According to HCD, of the 19 participating jurisdictions (including the County), 17 Housing Elements were in compliance. The cities of Carlsbad and Encinitas have not yet adopted housing elements for the 2013- 2021 planning period. Zoning Amendments to Remove Impediments to Special Needs Housing As part of the 2013 -2021 Housing Element update, most jurisdictions have already addressed the provisions for special needs housing. However, some jurisdictions in the region have yet to address issues such as: • Definition of family • Density bonus • Residential care facilities • Emergency shelters • Transitional/ supportive housing • Single -room occupancy housing • Farmworker housing • Employee housing • Reasonable accommodation Fair Housing Data Four agencies provided fair housing services to San Diego County residents: CSA San Diego County (CSA), Legal Aid Society of San Diego (LASSD), Housing Opportunities Collaborative (HOC), and North County Lifeline (NCL). CSA San Diego County (CSA): Between FY 2009 -10 to FY 2013 -14, CSA provided fair housing services to over 700 San Diego County residents per year —for a total of 3,559 clients over the five -year EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES -7 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 365 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE period. The majority of all complaints filed pertained to allegations of discrimination due to race /color (35 percent), disability (27 percent) and national origin (12 percent). Legal Aid Society of San Diego (LASSD): Between May 2012 and December 2014, LASSD provided housing services to approximately 10,000 San Diego County residents. These housing services include: landlord /tenant disputes, foreclosure and eviction avoidance, and fair housing services. LASSD reports having investigated a total of 304 fair housing cases between May 2012 and December 2014 — about three percent of all housing complaints made to LASSD during that time period. A majority of these cases (64 percent) were complaints based on discrimination due to a disability. Another 11 and 10 percent, respectively, were complaints based on disparate treatment due to race (33 cases) and national origin (29 cases). Housing Opportunities Collaborative (HOC): In FY 2012 -13 to FY 2013 -14, HOC received 1,093 fair housing inquiries. As a result, 167 fair housing complaints were filed with the HOC and referred out for legal assistance. Over half (51 percent) of all complaints filed were related to disability. North County Lifeline (NCL): NCL provided services to 1,431 clients FY 2010 -11 and FY 2014 -15 to residents in its service area. Most clients resided in the City of Escondido (479 clients) and Oceanside (373 clients). Of the 130 cases reported, nearly 60 percent were filed based on discrimination due to a disability or the request of a reasonable accommodation or modification. In addition, as the lead agency for the North County Lifeline Collaborative, NCL oversaw fair housing services to another 2,336 clients between FY2009 -10 and FY 2013 -14. The majority of these clients resided in the County's unincorporated areas (47 percent), the City of San Diego (27 percent) and the City of Lemon Grove (10 percent). Through the NCL Housing Collaborative, 100 cases were filed and nearly 40 percent of all cases reported discrimination on the basis of disability and another 24 percent were filed on the basis of discrimination towards race /color. Other Fair Housing Agencies: In addition, fair housing complaints were filed with HUD and with the State Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) for investigation and enforcement: DFEH: Since 2009, a total of 440 fair housing complaints in the San Diego County have been filed with DFEH. The majority of complaints alleged housing discrimination based on: physical disabilities (143 instances), familial /marital status (69 instances), or race /color (58 instances). The greatest numbers of complaints were filed in the cities of San Diego, Oceanside and Chula Vista. A single complaint can involve multiple acts of discrimination. A total of 512 acts of discrimination have been recorded in San Diego County since 2009, with the cities of San Diego (228 acts), Chula Vista (35 acts) and El Cajon (33 acts) having the most number of reported incidents. "Unequal access to facilities /denied reasonable accommodation" was the most often cited act of discrimination (125 instances); but "harassment" (95 instances) and "eviction" (82 instances) were also commonly reported. HUD: From January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2014, 442 fair housing cases in San Diego County were filed with HUD, with 177 of those cases filed by residents in the City of San Diego. Overall, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES -8 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 366 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE disability- related cases were the most common — comprising 47 percent of all cases. Cases concerning race (14 percent) familial /marital status and retaliation (12 percent each), and national origin (10 percent) were also regularly reported. According to the fair housing survey conducted as part of this Al, race, disability, and source of income were identified by respondents as the leading bases for discrimination. The survey also indicated that housing discrimination in the County was severely underreported. Only 18 (25 percent) of the 90 people who experienced housing discrimination reported the incident, according to the survey results. Fair Housing Impediments Based on the analysis conducted for this Al, the following is a list of fair housing impediments identified in San Diego County: ■ Education and Outreach: Educational and outreach literature regarding fair housing issues, rights, and services on websites or at public counters is limited. Fair housing education is identified as one of the most important strategies for furthering fair housing. However, traditional outreach methods of publishing notices and press releases in newspapers and posting information on websites are not adequate to reach the general public with diverse needs and interests. Outreach methods should be expanded to include other media of communications, and also utilize networks of neighborhood groups and organizations. • Lending and Credit Counseling: Throughout San Diego County, White applicants were noticeably overrepresented in the loan applicant pool, while Hispanics were severely underrepresented. Black and Hispanic applicants also seem to be significantly more likely to receive subprime loans. The SDRAFFH and jurisdictions should meet with the lending community to discuss ways to expand access to financing for all but especially for minority households. • Overconcentration of Housing Choice Voucher's: Due to the geographic disparity in terms of rents, concentrations of Housing Choice Voucher use have occurred. El Cajon and National City continue to experience high rates of voucher use. ■ Housing Options: Housing options for special needs groups, especially for seniors and persons with disabilities, are limited. Affordable programs and public housing projects have long waiting lists. More than 25 percent of the applicant- households on the waiting lists for Housing Choice Vouchers or Public Housing include one disabled member. Approximately eight percent of the applicant- households on the waiting list for Public Housing and 10 percent on the waiting list for Housing Choice Vouchers are seniors. ■ Regional Collaboration: Fair housing services focus primarily on outreach and education; less emphasis is placed on enforcement. Rigorous enforcement of fair housing laws is most effective in deterring housing discrimination. However, not enough enforcement activities are pursued. Fair housing service providers should encourage victims to pursue litigation and refer victims to 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES -9 Page 367 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE agencies and organizations with the capacity to handle litigation. Also, favorable outcomes in litigation should be publicized to encourage other victims to come forward. Public Policies: Various land use policies, zoning provisions, and development regulations may affect the range of housing choice available. Several jurisdictions within the County have yet to update their zoning ordinances to address special needs housing. Jurisdictions should implement their Housing Element program commitments to amend the zoning ordinances in a timely manner. ■ Racial Segregation: In 2010, about 5.6 percent of the County's total population lived in a RECAP (racially /ethnically concentrated areas of poverty). These areas are also more impacted by adverse environmental factors such as hazardous materials. Local housing policies should work to promote the distribution of affordable housing throughout the community and offer a range of housing choices. Linguistic Isolation: A significant proportion of San Diego County residents indicated they spoke English "less than very well" and can be considered linguistically isolated. Entitlement jurisdictions should periodically update their Limited English Proficiency (LEP) plans to ensure language assistance reflects the changing demographics of the communities. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES -10 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 368 INTRODUCTION an Diego County, one of the most populous counties in the nation, is home to over 3 million residents and an increasingly diverse demographic. The County encompasses 19 incorporated cities and more than 25 rural and urban unincorporated neighborhoods and communities. Diversity among its residents, in terms of cultural backgrounds and socioeconomic characteristics, makes San Diego County a desirable area to live. To continue nurturing this diversity, civic leaders must ensure that an environment exists where equal access to housing opportunities is treated as a fundamental right. A. Purpose of Report The communities within San Diego County have established a commitment to providing equal housing opportunities for their existing and future residents. Through the federally funded Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) programs, among other state and local programs, the jurisdictions of San Diego County work to provide a decent living environment for all. Pursuant to CDBG regulations [24 CFR Subtitle A �91.225 (a) (1)], to receive CDBG funds, a jurisdiction must certify that it "actively furthers fair housing choice" through the following: Completion of an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI); Actions to eliminate identified impediments; and Maintenance of fair housing records. This report, the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (commonly known as the "Al"), presents a demographic profile of the County of San Diego, assesses the extent of fair housing issues among specific groups, and evaluates the availability of a range of housing choices for all residents. This report also analyzes the conditions in the private market and public sector that may limit the range of housing choices or impede a person's access to housing. CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 369 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE 1. Geographic Area Covered The Al covers the entirety of San Diego County, including the 18 incorporated cities and all unincorporated areas: • City of Carlsbad • City of Chula Vista • City of Coronado • City of Del Mar • City of El Cajon • City of Encinitas • City of Escondido • City of Imperial Beach • City of La Mesa • City of Lemon Grove • City of National City • City of Oceanside • City of Poway • City of San Diego • City of San Marcos • City of Santee • City of Solana Beach • City of Vista • Unincorporated County B. Fair Housing Legal Framework Fair housing is a right protected by both Federal and State of California laws. Among these laws, virtually every housing unit in California is subject to fair housing practices. 1. Federal Laws The Fair Housing Act of 1968 and Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (42 U.S. Code �� 3601 -3619, 3631) are federal fair housing laws that prohibit discrimination in all aspects of housing, including the sale, rental, lease, or negotiation for real property. The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination based on the following protected classes: • Race or color • Religion • Sex • Familial status • National origin • Disability (mental or physical) Specifically, it is unlawful to: ■ Refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national origin. ■ Discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national origin. CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 2 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 370 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE ■ Make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national origin, or an intention to make any such preference, limitation, or discrimination. ■ Represent to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national origin that any dwelling is not available for inspection, sale, or rental when such dwelling is in fact so available. ■ For profit, induce or attempt to induce any person to sell or rent any dwelling by representations regarding the entry or prospective entry into the neighborhood of a person or persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national origin. Reasonable Accommodations and Accessibility The Fair Housing Amendments Act requires owners of housing facilities to make "reasonable accommodations" (exceptions) in their rules, policies, and operations to give people with disabilities equal housing opportunities. For example, a landlord with a "no pets" policy may be required to grant an exception to this rule and allow an individual who is blind to keep a guide dog in the residence. The Fair Housing Act also requires landlords to allow tenants with disabilities to make reasonable access - related modifications to their private living space, as well as to common use spaces, at the tenant's own expense. Finally, the Act requires that new multi - family housing with four or more units be designed and built to allow access for persons with disabilities. This includes accessible common use areas, doors that are wide enough for wheelchairs, kitchens and bathrooms that allow a person using a wheelchair to maneuver, and other adaptable features within the units. HUD Final Rule on Equal Access to Housing in HUD Programs On March 5, 2012, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) published the Final Rule on "Equal Access to Housing in HUD Programs Regardless of Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity." It applies to all McKinney - Vento- funded homeless programs, as well as to permanent housing assisted or insured by HUD. The rule creates a new regulatory provision that generally prohibits considering a person's marital status, sexual orientation, or gender identity (a person's internal sense of being male or female) in making homeless housing assistance available. 2. California Laws The State Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) enforces California laws that provide protection and monetary relief to victims of unlawful housing practices. The Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Government Code Section 12955 et seq.) prohibits discrimination and harassment in housing practices, including: • Advertising • Application and selection process • Unlawful evictions 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 3 Page 371 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE • Terms and conditions of tenancy • Privileges of occupancy • Mortgage loans and insurance • Public and private land use practices (zoning) • Unlawful restrictive covenants The following categories are protected by FEHA: • Race or color • Ancestry or national origin • Sex • Marital status • Source of income • Sexual orientation • Familial status (households with children under 18 years of age) • Religion • Mental /physical disability • Medical condition • Age • Gender Identity • Gender Expression • Genetic Information In addition, the FEHA contains similar reasonable accommodations and accessibility provisions as the federal Fair Housing Amendments Act. The Unruh Civil Rights Act provides protection from discrimination by all business establishments in California, including housing and accommodations, because of age, ancestry, color, disability, national origin, race, religion, sex, and sexual orientation. While the Unruh Civil Rights Act specifically lists "sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, and medical condition" as protected classes, the California Supreme Court has held that protections under the Unruh Act are not necessarily restricted to these characteristics. Furthermore, the Ralph Civil Rights Act (California Civil Code Section 51.7) forbids acts of violence or threats of violence because of a person's race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, political affiliation, or position in a labor dispute. Hate violence can be: verbal or written threats; physical assault or attempted assault; and graffiti, vandalism, or property damage. The Bane Civil Rights Act (California Civil Code Section 52.1) provides another layer of protection for fair housing choice by protecting all people in California from interference by force or threat of force with an individual's constitutional or statutory rights, including a right to equal access to housing. The Bane Act also includes criminal penalties for hate crimes; however, convictions under the Act are not allowed for speech alone unless that speech itself threatened violence. CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 4 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 372 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE And, finally, California Civil Code Section 1940.3 prohibits landlords from questioning potential residents about their immigration or citizenship status. Landlords in most states are free to inquire about a potential tenant's immigration status and to reject applicants who are in the United States illegally.' In addition, this law forbids local jurisdictions from passing laws that direct landlords to make inquiries about a person's citizenship or immigration status. In addition to these acts, Government Code Sections 11135, 65008, and 65580 - 65589.8 prohibit discrimination in programs funded by the State and in any land use decisions. Specifically, recent changes to Sections 65580 - 65589.8 require local jurisdictions to address the provision of housing options for special needs groups, including: • Housing for persons with disabilities (SB 520) • Housing for homeless persons, including emergency shelters, transitional housing, and supportive housing (SB 2) • Housing for extremely low income households, including single -room occupancy units (AB 2634) • Housing for persons with developmental disabilities (SB 812) C. Fair Housing Defined In light of the various pieces of fair housing legislation passed at the Federal and State levels, fair housing throughout this report is defined as follows: A condition in which individuals of similar * come levels in the same housing market have a like range of choice available to them regardless of their characteristics asprotected under State and Federal laws. 1. Housing Issues, Affordability, and Fair Housing HUD's Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) draws a distinction between housing affordability and fair housing. Economic factors that affect a household's housing choices are not fair housing issues per se. Only when the relationship between household income, household type, race /ethnicity, and other factors create misconceptions, biases, and differential treatments would fair housing concerns arise. Tenant /landlord disputes are also typically not related to fair housing. Most disputes between tenants and landlords result from a lack of understanding by either or both parties on their rights and responsibilities. Tenant /landlord disputes and housing discrimination cross paths when the disputes are based on factors protected by fair housing laws and result in differential treatment. 1 HTTP: / /WWW.NOLO.COM /LEGAL - UPDATE /CALIFORNIA- LANDLORDS- ASK - IMMIGRATION- CITIZENSHIP- 29214.HTML 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 5 Page 373 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE 2. Fair Housing Impediments Within the legal framework of Federal and State laws, and based on the guidance provided by HUD's Fair Housing Planning Guide, impediments to fair housing choice can be defined as: ■ Any actions, omissions, or decisions taken because of the characteristics protected under State and Federal laws, which restrict housing choices or the availability of housing choices; or ■ Any actions, omissions or decisions which have the effect of restricting housing choices or the availability of housing choices on the basis of characteristics protected under State and Federal laws. To affirmatively promote equal housing opportunity, a community must work to remove impediments to fair housing choice. D. Organization of Report This report is divided into seven chapters: Chapter 1: Introduction defines "fair housing" and explains the purpose of this report. Chapter 2: Community Participation describes the community outreach program and summarizes comments from residents and various agencies on fair housing issues such as discrimination, housing impediments, and housing trends. Chapter 3: Community Profile presents the demographic, housing, and income characteristics in San Diego County. Major employers and transportation access to job centers are identified. The relationships among these variables are discussed. In addition, this section evaluates whether community care facilities, public and assisted housing projects, as well as Section 8 recipients in the County are unduly concentrated in Low and Moderate Income areas. Also, the degree of housing segregation based on race is discussed. Chapter 4: Mortgage Lending Practices assesses the access to financing for different groups. Predatory and subprime lending issues are discussed. Chapter 5: Public Policies analyzes various public policies and actions that may impede fair housing within the County and the participating cities. Chapter 6: Current Fair Housing Profile evaluates existing public and private programs, services, practices, and activities that assist in providing fair housing in the County. This chapter also assesses the nature and extent of fair housing complaints and violations in different areas of the County. Trends and patterns of impediments to fair housing, as identified by public and private agencies, are included. Chapter 7: Impediments and Recommendations summarizes the findings regarding fair housing issues in San Diego County and provides recommendations for furthering fair housing practices. CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 6 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 374 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE At the beginning of this report, are Signature Pages that include the signatures of the Chief Elected Officials, together with a statement certifying that the Analysis of Impediments represents the jurisdictions' official conclusions regarding impediments to fair housing choice and the actions necessary to address identified impediments. 1. Data Sources According to the Fair Hou ing Planning Guide, HUD does not require the jurisdictions to commence a data collection effort to complete the Al. Existing data can be used to review the nature and extent of potential issues. Various data and existing documents were reviewed to complete this Al, including: ■ 1990, 2000, and 2010 U.S. Census ■ American Community Surveysz ■ 2014 State Department of Finance Population and Housing Estimates ■ 1985 Fair Housing Assessment for the City of San Diego ■ 1988 Fair Housing Assessment for the City of San Diego ■ 1992 -2000 Fair Housing Assessment for the Urban County, City of San Marcos and City of Chula Vista ■ 1996 San Diego Regional Al ■ 1996 City of Vista Al ■ 2000 Urban County Al ■ 2000 San Diego Regional Area Al ■ 2005 San Diego Regional Al ■ 2010 San Diego Regional Al ■ Zoning ordinances, various plans, and resolutions of participating jurisdictions ■ California Department of Social Services Community Care Licensing Division ■ 2014 Employment Development Department employment and wage data ■ 2008 and 2013 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data on lending activities from LendingPatterns''M ■ Current market data for rental rates, home prices, and foreclosure activities ■ Fair housing records from the Housing Rights Center ■ Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8) data from local Housing Authorities ■ California Department of Education Sources of specific information are identified in the text, tables, and figures. 2 The 2010 Census no longer provides detailed demographic or housing data through the "long form ". Instead, the Census Bureau conducts a series of American Community Surveys (ACS) to collect detailed data. The ACS surveys different variables at different schedules (e.g. every year, every three years, or every five years) depending on the size of the community. Multiple sets of ACS data are required to compile the data for San Diego County in this report. CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 7 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 375 COMMUNITY OUTREACH his Analysis of Impediments (Al) report has been developed to provide an overview of laws, regulations, conditions, or other possible obstacles that may affect an individual's or a household's access to housing. As part of this effort, the report incorporates the issues and concerns of residents, housing professionals, and service providers. To assure the report responds to community needs, a community outreach program consisting of community workshops, targeted stakeholder interviews, and a fair housing survey was conducted in the development of this report. This chapter describes the community outreach program conducted to involve the community. A. Outreach to the Community To reach the various segments of the community, several methods were used to obtain community input: 1. Community Workshops Six community workshops Targeted stakeholder interviews to service providers and local organizations Fair housing survey Appendix A contains further background on the outreach strategy, copies of workshop flyers, surveys, and summary of meeting notes. Six community workshops were held in communities throughout the County in January and February 2015 to gather input regarding fair housing issues in the region. The locations and dates of the meetings were as follows: CHAPTER 2: COMMUNITY OUTREACH 8 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 376 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table 1: Community Meeting Locations Area Location Date North County Escondido City Hall, Escondido, CA January 20, 2015 Central County Jacobs Center for Neighborhood Innovation, San Diego, CA January 21, 2015 South County City of Chula Vista —Civic Center, Chula Vista, CA January 27, 2015 East County City of El Cajon —Police Department Community Room, El Cajon, CA January 28, 2015 City of San Diego Belden Apartments Community Room, San Diego, CA February 4, 2015 City of Encinitas City of Encinitas City Hall, Poinsettia Room, Encinitas, CA February 10, 2015 To encourage attendance and participation, the workshops were publicized through the following methods: • Flyers publicizing the four community workshops in English and Spanish were mailed to nearly 1,000 agencies and organizations and interested individuals throughout the County, including a wide range of housing service providers and community organizations such as community planning groups, housing development corporations, service providers, housing industry professionals, civic organizations, housing authorities, housing groups, business organizations, religious organizations, schools, and local elected officials' offices. • Flyers in English and Spanish were posted on the websites of the participating cities and the County. • Flyers in English and Spanish were placed at public counters such as city halls, libraries, and community centers. • Email -based ( "e- blast ") notifications through the participating agencies' email networks. • Content for participating agencies' and stakeholders' communication channels such as newsletters, public service announcements, websites, and cable television channels. • Social media: posts, tweets, and notices. • Press releases. 2. Workshop Participants A total of 81 individuals attended the community meetings. Aside from interested individuals and staff from the various cities and the County, several service providers and housing professionals participated in the fair housing workshops. These included: • Community Housing Works • CSA San Diego County - Fair Housing • Housing Navigators Homeless 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet n F: CHAPTER 2: COMMUNITY OUTREACH 9 Page 377 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE • Housing Opportunities Collaborative • Legal Aid Society San Diego • MAAC Project, Kimball • San Diego Housing Commission • Solutions for Change • Tirey & St. John LLP • San Dieguito Alliance • Community Resource Center — North Coast Community 3. Key Issues Identified In reviewing the comments received at these workshops, several key issues are noted: ■ There is need to understand and meet disability accommodation needs in emerging or expanding contexts and conditions. Issues of concern include mental health, emotional support, and addressing unique or niche disability areas (i.e. hoarding). More education of both landlords and tenants regarding accommodation procedures, requirements, and financial responsibilities are needed. ■ Residents of specific races or national origins have disproportionate or growing housing needs. Throughout the County these resident group commonly include Hispanic /Latino, African, Somali, or Middle Eastern persons. ■ The immigration status and English speaking ability of residents often leads to unfair accommodation policies and overall unequal treatment by landlords. ■ Improvements in the equal enforcement of property requirements, occupancy standards, and expectations as related to familial status are needed. ■ Education for both landlords and tenants about housing discrimination issues based on income is insufficient. ■ Tenants generally lack awareness how Home Owners Association (HOA) requirements and roles related to fair housing. ■ Home Owners' Associations (HOAs) can be overly restrictive and need to understand their limitations in enforcing policies. Fair housing education should be expanded to reach HOAs and training in fair housing regulations should be provided. ■ Specific communities and housing types (i.e. affordable, multi - family, rental) experience more fair housing issues. ■ Enforcement activities (i.e. investigations and testing) based on prevailing levels of discrimination cases are insufficient. ■ Discrimination issues are prevalent in the application process (i.e. criminal activities versus background checks). CHAPTER 2: COMMUNITY OUTREACH 10 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 378 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE ■ Many non -fair housing issues, including landlord- tenant issues, are misidentified as fair housing issues. For example: occupancy limits and control over lease terms, property rules, renter tenant influence on HOAs, domestic and family violence, Housing Choice Voucher requirements, and the protection of existing mobile home parks /organizations. ■ There is a need for more fair housing workshops that reach out to landlords. Landlords need to know their rights /limitations in selecting new tenants and removing problem tenants. Landlords need to be aware that fair housing services are also accessible to them. ■ There is a need for more fair housing education and advocacy for victims of domestic violence. Fair housing training should be used as a tool to help stabilize these individuals in their environment and teach them how to be aggressive renters in the market. It's necessary to provide support for those on the verge of homelessness. ■ Areas of fair housing that need strengthening in San Diego County: o Community outreach and understanding of fair housing practices and requirements. o Expand and enhance training, professional development and education, especially for landlords. o Expand the level of enforcement. o Simplify, streamline, and clarify processes for receiving fair housing support, particularly related to reasonable accommodation. o Reduce the costs for accessing support and participating in the legal process. The comments received during these community workshops have been incorporated into this Al as appropriate and documented in Appendix A. B. Targeted Stakeholder Interviews In addition to the input given by representatives from local organizations in attendance at the community workshops, key stakeholders were contacted for one -on -one interviews about the Al. Participants represented organizations that provide fair housing services and /or complementary and related support services. A representative from each of the following organizations participated in a telephone interview: • Affordable Housing Advocates • CSA San Diego County • Elder Help of San Diego • Fair Housing Center of the Legal Aid Society of San Diego, Inc. • La Maestra Community Health Centers 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet CHAPTER 2: COMMUNITY OUTREACH 11 Page 379 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE • North County Lifeline • San Diego County Apartment Association • San Diego Regional Center • United Way of San Diego County 1. Key Issues Identified In reviewing the comments received at these interviews, several key issues are noted: ■ There are a variety of challenges to building community awareness about fair housing: o Residents lack general knowledge of the Fair Housing Act and laws at various levels (federal, state, and local) make it even more difficult to engage. o Difficult to engage and educate a broad range of cultures, especially given a lack of education and outreach resources. o Difficult to engage and educate new landlords and prevent issues from occurring. ■ Misconceptions and misunderstandings as to what constitutes fair housing issues are pervasive throughout the County: o Barriers such as immigration status, English speaking ability, disability status, create challenges in understanding exactly what rights are protected. o Landlord assumptions of ownership rights often over extend fair housing laws. o Lacking community empathy for community members with fair housing, section 8, and affordable housing needs adds to the confusion as to when residents should seek assistance. ■ San Diego regional agencies face numerous challenges that inhibit their abilities to provide residents with services: • Limited resources make it difficult to meet demand for services, performance testing, and research and enforcement. • Overall education efforts to promote awareness to residents about who they should contact through workshops and outreach to housing complexes is not enough. • Accommodating the housing needs of persons with disabilities is difficult due to confusion with laws and requirements. • A lack of knowledge of rights is making it difficult to service the increasing number of residents with mental health issues. • Difficult to separate access and affordability from fair housing needs. ■ Service levels by protected classes vary throughout the County: o Persons with disabilities, especially the County's aging population, face growing confusion in obtaining services. CHAPTER 2: COMMUNITY OUTREACH 12 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 380 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE o Detection capability of residents with issues related to race, national origin, and language accessibility needs improvement. o Lack of focus on addressing growth in Middle Eastern cultural groups. o Additional household groups that need assistance include those who face familial status, sex and gender identity, religious, and non - violent criminal re -entry housing issues. ■ Need to partner with complementary service providers to leverage existing community assets: o Strengthen training commitments and expand opportunities. o Engage businesses, philanthropy sector, and grassroots organizations to communicate how fair housing issues affect them and why their support is needed. o Work with community leaders who are relevant to protected classes in need. ■ Expand inter- agency collaboration opportunities: • Strengthen successes of the SDRAFFH. • Increase support from municipalities' resources. • Better utilize public and corporate partners' outreach channels and strengthen connections to the network of advocacy and referral organizations. • Explore how to better leverage FHA funded agencies and partnership opportunities with partners such as San Diego Association of Governments. • Refine collective approach to serve those most in need based on demographic and community changes. ■ Need to address growing levels of segregation in communities and neighborhoods on a regional scale, which may be inadvertently creating disparate impacts. ■ Continue analyzing the Al and regional planning to sharpen focus and engage regional planning about fair housing more frequently than five years. ■ Explore a more integrated, best practice model of service integration and collaboration. The comments received during these interviews have been incorporated into this Al, as appropriate, and documented in Appendix A. C. Fair Housing Survey The Fair Housing Survey sought to gain knowledge about the nature and extent of fair housing issues experienced and also to gauge the perception of fair housing needs and concerns of County residents. The survey was made available in both English and Spanish on the websites of the County and all participating jurisdictions. Hard copies of the survey were also provided to a number of local agencies for distribution to their clients. The community workshop flyer, including links to the online survey, was also mailed to over 1,000 housing and service providers, encouraging them to provide their unique perspective by participating in the Community Needs Survey. CHAPTER 2: COMMUNITY OUTREACH 13 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 381 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Because responses to the survey were not controlled, results of the survey are used only to provide some insight regarding fair housing issues, but cannot be treated as a statistically valid survey. Furthermore, the survey asked for respondents of their perception in housing discrimination. A person responding having been discriminated does not necessarily mean discrimination has actually taken place. 1. Who Responded to the Survey? A total of 377 persons responded to the Housing Discrimination Survey. The majority of survey respondents felt that housing discrimination was not an issue in their neighborhoods. A total of 366 respondents answered questions related to fair housing (excluding responses from non - County residents). Of the 366 responses, approximately 72 percent (265 persons) had not experienced housing discrimination. A copy of the survey is included as Appendix A. 2. Who Do You Believe Discriminated Against You? 4 Among the persons indicating that they had experienced housing discrimination, 72 percent (70 persons) indicated that a landlord or property manager had discriminated against them, while 10 percent (10 persons) of respondents identified a Government staff person as the source of discrimination. Responses for the fair housing survey are not mutually exclusive; respondents had the option of listing multiple perpetrators of discrimination. Table 2: Perpetrators of Alleged Discrimination Notes: 1. Categories are not mutually exclusive. 2. Survey respondents were not required to provide answers for every question; therefore, total responses will vary by question. 3 A survey with a "controlled" sample would, through various techniques, "control' the socioeconomic characteristics of the respondents to ensure that the respondents are representative of the general population. This type of survey would provide results that are statistically valid but is much more costly to administer. 4 Because respondents could indicate multiple answers on a single questions, the percentages on these multiple choice questions do not add up to 100 percent nor do the total number answers add up to the total number of respondents. CHAPTER 2: COMMUNITY OUTREACH 14 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 382 Number Percent Landlord /Property Manager 70 72% Government Staff Person 10 10% Mortgage Lender 7 7% Real Estate Agent 3 3% Insurance Broker /Company 0 0% Total Respondents 97 -- Notes: 1. Categories are not mutually exclusive. 2. Survey respondents were not required to provide answers for every question; therefore, total responses will vary by question. 3 A survey with a "controlled" sample would, through various techniques, "control' the socioeconomic characteristics of the respondents to ensure that the respondents are representative of the general population. This type of survey would provide results that are statistically valid but is much more costly to administer. 4 Because respondents could indicate multiple answers on a single questions, the percentages on these multiple choice questions do not add up to 100 percent nor do the total number answers add up to the total number of respondents. CHAPTER 2: COMMUNITY OUTREACH 14 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 382 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE 3. Where Did the Act of Discrimination Occur? Among the persons indicating that they had experienced housing discrimination, 46 percent (45 persons) indicated that the discrimination occurred in an apartment complex. About 27 percent (26 persons) indicated that the discrimination occurred in a single- family neighborhood, 15 percent (15 persons) indicated that it took place in a public/ subsidized housing project, 15 percent (14 persons) indicated that it took place at a condo /townhome development, and another 15 percent (14 persons) indicated that it took place when applying for City /County programs.. Another four percent (four persons) indicated that the act of discrimination occurred in a mobilehome park. 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Table 3: Location of Alleged Discrimination Location Number Percent Apartment Complex 44 47% Single - Family Neighborhood 25 27% Public or Subsidized Housing Project 14 15% Condo / Townhome Development 14 15% Applying for City /County Programs 14 15% Mobilehome Park 4 4% Other 8 9% Total Respondents 94 -- Notes: 1. Categories are not mutually exclusive. 2. Survey respondents were not required to provide answers for every question; therefore, total responses will vary by question. CHAPTER 2: COMMUNITY OUTREACH 15 Page 383 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE 4. On What Basis Do You Believe You Were Discriminated Against? Of the 93 people who felt they were discriminated against, the most common causes for alleged discrimination were race, other, disability, source of income, and family status. Table 4: Basis of Alleged Discrimination Basis Number Percent Race 31 33% Disability 27 29% Source of Income 27 29% Family Status 23 25% Age 20 22% Marital Status 8 9% Color 8 9% Gender 4 4% National Origin 6 6% Religion 4 4% Ancestry 2 2% Sexual Orientation 0 0% Other 30 32% Total Respondents 93 -- N otes: 1. Categories are not mutually exclusive. 2. Survey respondents were not required to provide answers for every question; therefore, total responses will vary by question. 5. Requests for Reasonable Accommodation Among those responded to the fair housing questions, 19 percent (17 persons) indicated that they had been denied "reasonable accommodation" in rules, policies or practices for their disability. Generally, typical requests for "reasonable accommodation" include residence accessibility modifications or the allowance of a service animal. 6. Why Did You not Report the Incident? Of the survey respondents who felt they were discriminated against, 25 percent (18 persons) reported the discrimination incident. Many of the respondents who did not report the incident indicated that they don't believe it makes a difference (37 persons or 51 percent). In addition, 36 percent did not know where to report the incident, 31 percent were afraid of retaliation, and 18 percent felt it was too much trouble. CHAPTER 2: COMMUNITY OUTREACH 16 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 384 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table 5: Reason for Not Reporting Alleged Discrimination Reason Number Percent Don't believe it makes a difference 37 51% Don't know where to report 26 36% Afraid of Retaliation 22 31% Too much trouble 13 18% Other 23 32% Total 72 -- Notes: 1. Categories are not mutually exclusive. 2. Survey respondents were not required to provide answers for every question; therefore, total responses will vary by question. 7. Has Any Hate Crime Been Committed in Your Neighborhood? Of those who responded to the fair housing questions, seven percent (24 persons) indicated that a hate crime had been committed in their neighborhood. Most of these respondents (67 percent) indicated that the hate crime committed was based on race. Other notable causes of the alleged hate crimes include disability, source of income, color, other, and family status. 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Table 6: Basis of Alleged Hate Crime Notes: 1. Categories are not mutually exclusive. 2. Survey respondents were not required to provide answers for every question; therefore, total responses will vary by question. CHAPTER 2: COMMUNITY OUTREACH 17 Page 385 Number Percen Race 16 67% Disability 12 50% Color 9 38% Source of Income 8 33% Family Status 7 29% Age 4 17% National Origin 4 17% Religion 4 17% Gender 3 13% Marital Status 2 8% Ancestry 1 4% Other 12 50% Total 24 -- Notes: 1. Categories are not mutually exclusive. 2. Survey respondents were not required to provide answers for every question; therefore, total responses will vary by question. CHAPTER 2: COMMUNITY OUTREACH 17 Page 385 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE D. Public Review of Draft AI The draft Al was made available for public review in April 2015. During the 30 -day public review period, the document was made available at City Halls, County Administration Office, and other public locations. The Draft Al was considered at the following public meetings: • City of Carlsbad — City Council Meeting, May 5, 2015 • City of Chula Vista — City Council Meeting, May 12, 2015 • City of El Cajon — City Council Meeting, May 12, 2015 • City of Encinitas — City Council Meeting, May 13, 2015 • City of Escondido — City Council Meeting, May 6, 2015 • City of La Mesa — City Council Meeting, April 28, 2015 • City of National City — City Council Meeting, May 5, 2015 • City of Oceanside — City Council Meeting, May 6, 2015 • City of San Diego — City Council Meeting, April 28, 2015 • City of San Marcos — City Council Meeting, April 28, 2015 • City of Santee — City Council Meeting, April 22, 2015 • City of Vista — City Council Meeting, May 12, 2015 In addition, the SDRAFFH conducted a public hearing at the County Administration Building on April 21, 2015 to receive input on the Draft Al. CHAPTER 2: COMMUNITY OUTREACH 18 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 386 COMMUNITY PROFILE AN ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE an Diego County, boasts an estimated population of over three million residents, making it the second most populous county in California and fifth in the nation (In California, only Los Angeles County has a larger population). Encompassing 4,261 square miles, San Diego County's borders include 18 incorporated cities and numerous unincorporated neighborhoods and communities. The County stretches south from Orange County all the way to the U.S. - Mexico border. The Pacific Ocean forms the western boundary, and the County's eastern edge reaches to the Laguna Mountains and the Anza- Borrego Desert. Like many major metropolitan areas in the United States, the minority population in San Diego County has increased significantly in recent years, especially among Asian and Hispanic groups. As this Chapter and subsequent chapters will discuss, fair housing issues tend to particularly affect racial and ethnic minority groups, as well as persons with disabilities. The cost of living in San Diego County is high and getting higher than many other regions in the nation. Median household incomes have not kept pace with the rising cost of housing and living in the San Diego region; a trend seen nationwide and partially attributed to the recession of 2007. While housing affordability is not a fair housing issue per se, the increased demand for housing and the dwindling supply may create conditions where fair housing violations become a common part of the competition in the housing market. In an economic market where the need for affordable housing for the County's poorest residents remains overwhelming, various factors may affect the ability of individuals with similar incomes and needs in the same housing market to obtain a like range of housing choices. This section provides an overview of San Diego County's residents and housing stock, including population, economic, and housing trends that help identify housing needs specific to the region. This overview will provide the context for discussing and evaluating fair housing in the following chapters. A. Demographic Profile Examination of demographic characteristics provides some insight regarding the need and extent of equal access to housing in a community. Supply and demand factors can create market conditions that are conducive to housing discrimination. Factors such as population growth, age characteristics, and race /ethnicity all help determine a community's housing need and play a role in exploring potential impediments to fair housing choice. 1. Population Growth Population growth in San Diego County from 2000 to 2010 was slightly lower than the last decade. Overall, San Diego County experienced a 10 percent increase in population from 2000 to 2010 (Table 7). During this period, the cities of San Marcos, Chula Vista, and Carlsbad had the largest growth while the cities of Del Mar, Imperial Beach, Poway, and Solana Beach experienced a drop in population. The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) population projections indicate that by 2020 the County's population could reach 3,435,700, an approximately 11 percent increase from the 2010 population. Several cities are projected to have larger increases between 2010 and 2020 than the San CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 19 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 387 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Diego region as a whole, including Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Escondido, San Diego, San Marcos, Santee, and the unincorporated areas of the County. Moderate growth is expected at the County level. Table 7: Population Growth 1990 -2020 Jurisdiction Total Population 1990 Total Population 2000 Total Population 2010 Total Population 2020 (Projected) Percent Change 1990 -2000 Percent Change 2000 -2010 Projected Percent Change 2010 -2020 Urban County Coronado 26,540 24,100 24,697 23,634 -8.7% 2.5% -4.3% Del Mar 4,860 4,389 4,161 4,399 -9.7% -5.2% 5.7% Imperial Beach 26,512 26,980 26,324 27,506 1.8% -2.4% 4.5% Lemon Grove 23,984 24,954 25,320 26,884 4.0% 1.5% 6.2% Poway 43,516 48,295 47,811 50,026 11.0% -1.0% 4.6% Solana Beach 12,962 12,887 12,867 13,376 -0.6% -0.2% 4.0% Unincorporated 398,764 441,919 486,604 543,545 10.8% 10.1% 11.7% Total Urban County 537,138 583,524 627,784 689,370 8.6% 7.6% 9.8% Entitlement Jurisdictions Carlsbad 63,126 77,998 105,328 118,450 23.6% 35.0% 12.5% Chula Vista 135,163 173,860 243,916 287,173 28.6% 40.3% 17.7% El Cajon 88,693 94,819 99,478 102,761 6.9% 4.9% 3.3% Encinitas 55,386 58,195 59,518 62,908 5.1% 2.3% 5.7% Escondido 108,635 133,528 143,911 165,095 22.9% 7.8% 14.7% La Mesa 52,931 54,751 57,065 61,102 3.4% 4.2% 7.1% National City 54,249 54,405 58,582 62,342 0.3% 7.7% 6.4% Oceanside 128,398 160,905 167,086 177,840 25.3% 3.8% 6.4% San Diego 1,110,549 1,223,341 1,301,617 1,453,267 10.2% 6.4% 11.7% San Marcos 38,974 55,160 83,781 98,915 41.5% 51.9% 18.1% Santee 52,902 53,090 53,413 59,497 0.4% 0.6% 11.4% Vista 71,872 90,131 93,834 96,993 25.4% 4.1% 3.4% Total County 2,498,016 2,813,833 3,095,313 3,435,713 12.6% 10.0% 11.0% Sources: Bureau of the Census, 1990 -2010 Census; SANDAG Regional Growth Forecast, 2010 2. Age Housing demand is affected by the age characteristics of residents in a community. Different age groups are often distinguished by important differences in lifestyle, family type, housing preferences and income levels. Typically, young adult households may occupy apartments, condominiums, and smaller single - family homes because of size and /or affordability. Middle -age adults may prefer larger homes as they begin to raise their families, while seniors may prefer apartments, condominiums, mobile homes, or smaller single - family homes that have lower costs and less extensive maintenance needs. Because a community's housing needs change over time, this section analyzes changes in the age distribution of San Diego County residents and how these changes affect housing need. CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 20 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 388 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE As Table 8 shows, the median age has risen in all jurisdictions in San Diego County from 2000 to 2010. The median age was 33.2 years in 2000 and rose to 34.6 by 2010. In 2010, the median age in the various cities ranged from a low of 30.2 years in National City to a high of 48.6 years in Del Mar. Based on the 2010 Census, 11.4 percent of the population in San Diego County was age 65 or over (seniors), with another 10.6 percent in the 55 to 64 age group (future seniors). Close to 13 percent of San Diego County residents were school -age children between the ages of five and 14, and over 30 percent of residents were between the age of 15 and 34. This age structure suggests the County has a high proportion of families with children and has a rapidly increasing older population. Table 8: Age Characteristics Jurisdiction 5 -14 15 -24 -34 35 -44 45- 55 -64 65+ Median Age 2000 Median Age 2010 Urban County Coronado 4.7% 11.8% 15.7% 11.5% 11.7% 13.6% 12.6% 18.4% 34.2 40.7 Del Mar 2.8% 7.7% 8.0% 13.8% 11.9% 16.6% 18.4% 20.8% 43.5 48.6 Imperial Beach 7.5% 13.2% 18.5% 16.1% 12.8% 13.4% 9.4% 9.0% 28.6 31.0 Lemon Grove 7.0% 13.6% 15.1% 14.3% 13.0% 14.8% 11.1% 11.2% 34.7 35.0 Poway 5.1% 14.3% 13.8% 9.7 %, 12.2% 18.6% 13.9% 12.3% 36.9 41.3 Solana Beach 4.8% 10.3% 9.2% 13.4% 14.0% 15.3% 14.5% 18.7% 41.6 43.7 Unincorporated 6.4% 12.8% 16.9% 11.7% 11.7% 15.0% 12.6% 12.8% N/A N/A Entitlement Jurisdictions Carlsbad 6.0% 13.9% 10.5% 11.6% 15.0% 16.3% 12.5% 14.0% 38.9 40.4 Chula Vista 7.2% 15.6% 15.3% 13.7% 15.2% 13.8% 9.2% 10.0% 33.0 33.7 El Cajon 7.6% 13.5% 15.8% 14.7% 12.9% 14.3% 10.1% 11.0% 31.9 33.7 Encinitas 5.4% 11.6% 10.0% 13.4% 14.5% 16.9% 15.4% 12.8% 37.9 41.5 Escondido 8.1% 14.9% 15.4% 15.0% 13.5% 13.1% 9.6% 10.5% 31.2 32.5 La Mesa 6.3% 10.0% 14.4% 16.3% 13.1% 14.5% 11.2% 14.2% 37.3 37.1 National City 6.9% 13.8% 20.9% 14.7% 12.4% 12.0% 8.6% 10.6% 28.7 30.2 Oceanside 7.0% 12.7% 15.5% 14.5% 12.9% 14.0% 10.5% 12.9% 33.3 35.2 San Diego 6.2% 11.5% 16.7% 17.6% 14.1% 13.2% 10.1% 10.7% 32.5 33.6 San Marcos 8.4% 15.2% 15.3% 14.4% 15.8% 12.2% 8.7% 10.2% 32.1 32.9 Santee 6.6% 12.8% 13.9% 13.7% 14.0% 16.3% 12.0% 10.7% 34.8 37.2 Vista 8.0% 14.2% 17.1% 16.2% 13.2% 13.3% 8.7% 9.2% 30.3 31.1 Total County 6.6% 12.7% 16.0% 15.2% 13.6% 13.9% 10.6% 11.4% 33.2 34.6 Sources: Bureau of the Census, 2000 -2010 Census CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 21 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 389 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE In San Diego County, a strong correlation exists between ethnicity and age. Specifically, minorities tend to have lower median ages than White residents. For example, the median age for Hispanic residents in 2010 (26.9) was 15 years younger than that of White residents (42.2). The gap is lessened with Black (31.3) and Asian (35.9) residents; however it is still lower than White residents. The smaller age gaps may be an indication of Black and Asian households having fewer children compared than Hispanic households. 3. Racial /Ethnic Composition The San Diego region's racial and ethnic composition trends mirror those seen at the national level. The nation's demographic profiles are becoming increasingly diverse in their racial and ethnic compositions. In 2010, at least three out of ten U.S. residents were non - White. Growing Hispanic and Asian populations have contributed to a major transformation, reducing the number of White majority places and increasing the number of minority - majority and no- majority places. As of 2010, the most diverse communities in the U.S. were disproportionately western, southern, and coastal metropolitan areas and their principal cities and suburbs. Studies have found that areas with a strong government and /or the military employment base, as is the case in the San Diego region, tend to be more diverse in general. s Race and ethnicity have implications on housing choice in that certain demographic and economic variables correlate with race. For example, the average household size for San Diego County was 2.75 in 2010. The average size for Hispanic households was 3.70, while for White households the average was 2.53. In another example, per capita income for Black and Hispanic households was 78 percent and 55 percent respectively of the County per capita income, compared with White households who earned 109 percent of the County per capita income during 2009 to 2013. The State of California's and San Diego County's demographic profiles have become increasingly diverse in their race and ethnic compositions since 1970, a period that coincides with the sharp increase in immigration. As recently as 1970, the vast proportion of the population in the State was predominantly White whereas now, minorities are the majority in California. Likewise, in 2000, Whites made up the majority of the Fair Housing Case Summary — Race Discrimination — El Cajon The complainant (CP) is an African - American male. CP has lived at the complaint address for two months since initial contact on July 1, 2012. CP pays $1,150 for rent on a monthly basis. CP states that landlord discriminates against African - Americans. CP states that landlord interferes with personal business. CP states landlord does not want children playing outside. CP states landlord called children black pigs. Outcome: Referred to litigation; favorable settlement Agency: CSA San Diego County population in the San Diego region, but by 2010 minority residents made up a slight majority (51.5 percent). After White residents, the largest racial /ethnic group in the County is Hispanic. As seen in Table 9, White residents make up the single largest percentage of San Diego County residents (48.5 percent), while Hispanic residents made up 37.6 percent. Asians /Pacific Islander, Blacks, and other groups followed with 11 percent, 4.7 percent, and 3.7 percent, respectively (Table 9). The cities of National City, Chula Vista, Imperial Beach, Escondido, and Vista have significant Hispanic concentrations, while the city of Del Mar has the smallest proportion of Hispanic residents. The largest concentrations of 5 Lee, Barrett and Iceland, A. John and Sharp, Gregory. "Racial and Ethnic Diversity Goes Local: Charting Change in American Communities Over Three Decades ". Project US2010, (2012). CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 22 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 390 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Asian /Pacific Islander populations reside in National City, San Diego, and Chula Vista. The City of Lemon Grove has the highest concentration of Black residents, and El Cajon, La Mesa and San Diego have Black populations greater than the countywide proportion. Del Mar, Solana Beach, and Encinitas have the smallest proportions of Black residents. Table 9: Race /Ethnic Composition Jurisdiction White Black Hispanic Asian/ P. Isl. Other Percent Minority* 2000 Percent Minority* 2010 Urban County Coronado 79.4% 2.0% 12.2% 3.2% 3.3% 21.1% 20.6% Del Mar 90.7% 0.2% 4.2% 2.8% 2.1% 10.9% 9.3% Imperial Beach 36.0% 4.0% 49.0% 6.8% 4.2% 56.6% 64.0% Lemon Grove 34.7% 12.9% 41.2% 7.1% 4.1% 52.1% 65.3% Poway 69.1% 1.5% 15.7% 10.1% 3.5% 22.9% 30.9% Solana Beach 77.3% 0.4% 15.9% 4.1% 2.3% 21.4% 22.7% Unincorporated 61.4% 3.9% 25.5% 4.9% 4.3% 31.4% 38.6% Total Urban County 60.9% 3.9% 25.6% 5.4% 4.1% 33.7% 39.1% Entitlement Jurisdictions Carlsbad 74.9% 1.2% 13.3% 7.1% 3.5% 19.8% 25.1% Chula Vista 20.4% 4.1% 58.2% 14.2% 3.1% 68.5% 79.6% El Cajon 56.8% 6.0% 28.2% 3.8% 5.3% 36.0% 43.2% Encinitas 78.8% 0.5% 13.7% 4.0% 3.0% 20.9% 21.2% Escondido 40.4% 2.1% 48.9% 6.1% 2.5% 48.0% 59.6% La Mesa 61.9% 7.2% 20.5% 6.0% 4.5% 26.7% 38.1% National City 11.7% 4.5% 63.0% 18.5% 2.3% 85.8% 88.3% Oceanside 48.4% 4.2% 35.9% 7.6% 3.9% 46.6% 51.6% San Diego 45.1% 6.3% 28.8% 16.0% 3.8% 50.7% 54.9% San Marcos 48.6% 2.1% 36.6% 9.1% 3.5% 46.3% 51.4% Santee 73.6% 1.8% 16.3% 4.1% 4.2% 19.4% 26.4% Vista 40.8% 2.9% 48.4% 4.7% 3.2% 50.1% 59.2 0 Total County 48.5% 4.7% 32.0% 11.0% 3.7% 45.1% 51.5% Total State 40.1% 5.8% 37.6% 13.20/(, 3.30/(, 53.3% 59.9% Sources: Bureau of the Census, 2000 -2010 Census. * Minority is defined as Blacks, Hispanics, Asian/Pacific Islanders, and all others not White. CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 23 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 391 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE 4. Race /Ethnic Concentration Ethnic and racial composition of a region is useful in analyzing housing demand and any related fair housing concerns as it tends to demonstrate a relationship with other characteristics such as household size, locational preferences and mobility. Nationally, HUD data show that race -based discrimination ranks second in discrimination of protected classes, behind discrimination related to disability. Figure 1 illustrates concentrations of minority households by Census block group in San Diego County. A concentration is defined as a block group with a proportion of minority households that is greater than the overall San Diego County minority average of 51.5 percent.' The minority population in the County is described by sub - region in Table 10. In San Diego County, the minority population is concentrated in the southern areas of the City of San Diego and continuing south (Figure 1).s This pattern can be attributed to the traditional cluster of minorities living in the urban core and near the U.S. /Mexican border. Another concentration is visible in the northwestern part of the North County East sub - region just west of the Cleveland National Forest. This area is home to several Native American reservations. An additional swath of minority concentration can be found in the University and Mira Mesa communities of the City of San Diego. Clusters of minority populations are also found in the North County cities of Oceanside, Vista, San Marcos, and Escondido. According to 2013 Census data, more than half of foreign -born residents in the County are from Latin America and a large proportion of new immigrants were from Asian countries (36.2 percent). More than a third of the foreign -born Asian population came from the Philippines, a Southeast Asian country. Table 10: Minority Population by Sub - region MSA Region Minority Population Total Population % Minority in Region 2000 2010 2000 2010 2000 2010 0 Central 398,221 414,065 619,527 630,376 64.3% 65.7% 1 North City 213,863 296,118 658,877 733,866 32.5% 40.4% 2 South Suburban 221,073 312,045 307,075 385,468 72.0% 81.0% 3 East Suburban 138,917 187,436 462,492 481,993 30.0 %, 38.9% 4 North County West 125,232 149,733 364,129 405,715 34.4% 36.9% 5 North County East 166,060 226,139 380,585 431,208 43.6% 52.4% 6 East County 5,983 9,730 21,148 26,687 28.3% 36.5% Total 1,269,349 1,595,266 2,813,833 3,095,313 45.1% Sources: Bureau of the Census, 2000 -2010 Census; Compiled by SANDAG, Data Warehouse, 2014 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. "Annual Report on Fair Housing FY 2012 - 2013 ", (2013). This definition of concentration is derived from the concept of Location quotient (LQ, which is calculated by comparing the proportion of one group in a smaller geographic unit (e.g. block group) to the proportion of that group in the larger population (e.g. county). An important note on the mapping of racial /ethnic concentrations is that concentration is defined by the proportion of a racial /ethnic group in the total population of a census block group. If a census block group has low population, such as in and near the State and National Parks, the proportion of a racial /ethnic group may appear high even though the number of residents in that group may be limited. Furthermore, block group boundaries may cross jurisdictional boundaries. CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 24 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 392 N O N ur 0 sn r N na a w ro SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Figure 1: Minority Concentration Areas Orange County low I Riverside County LL. Camp Pendleton �Ibmok,�: Ad - R•- 8onsafl r.• __ 0 I'ry•_ _ - -_ -____ P 'Un -; gs Borrego Sprin'I ° Oceanstde r Uey Cent e 0 Carlsbad .: -•- - - ---/� Elul n •` - Encinitas Ramona Sarno k+ _ - ,• - -__ r Sun Diego Solana Beach Poway .f Cnuatryfstr" i ,ty; Del Mar 566 f c Santee' S + 7 Cescanso e Uw - Minority Concentration Areas 5 lakeside y t h __ Alpine Finley Census block group with 57.546 or *' more minority population (San Diego El Cajon County average). N. CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE W 25 w �� Jamul Coronado National Nr City' S0iC9 z' —� 1 , z_ »t Boulevard i Chula Vista Campo ;laarmba- . p0 r Freeways d 0 County Boundary 125 City Boundaries Imperial Beach Baja California, Mextco Community Boundaries i i Source: Bureau of the Census, 2010; Minority Concentration Areas. SanG15 Data Warehouse, 2014. CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE W 25 w SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE 5. Residential Segregation Residential segregation refers to the degree to which groups live separately from one another. The term segregation has historically been linked to the forceful separation of racial groups. However, as more minorities move into suburban areas of the County and outside of traditional urban enclaves, segregation is becoming increasingly self - imposed. Originally, many ethnic groups gravitated to ethnic enclaves where services catered to them, and not until they reached a certain economic status could they afford to move to the outer areas of the County. Unlike the original enclaves, now living in an ethnic community is often a rational choice many are making. The dissimilarity index is the most commonly used measure of segregation between two groups, reflecting their relative distributions across neighborhoods (as defined by census tracts). The index represents the percentage of the minority group that would have to move to new neighborhoods to achieve perfect integration of that group. An index score can range in value from 0 percent, indicating complete integration, to 100 percent, indicating complete segregation. An index number above 60 is considered high similarity and segregated. An index number of 40 to 50 is considered moderate segregation, and values of 30 or below are considered low levels of segregation. To put the dissimilarity index into context, the Detroit metro area was found to be the nation's most segregated metropolitan statistical areas (between Whites and Blacks in the top fifty metro areas with largest Black populations in 2010), with a 79.6 percent rating. Among the top fifty metro areas with largest Hispanic Fair Housing Case Summary — National Origin Discrimination — City of San Diego Complainants (Cps), monolingual Spanish speakers were both forced to sign 30 -day notices to terminate their tenancies of 15 years. The respondent, who receives HUD funding required the Cps to sign a document prepared by the respondent written in English, which both Cps cannot read or understand, and required the Cps to sign the notice which terminated their tenancy or risk eviction. The respondent then filed an eviction lawsuit against both Cps for failing to move out after the 30 -day notice expired. A HUD complaint was filed against the respondent. The case was accepted by HUD and was settled in conciliation. The terms of the HUD conciliation provide that the building will now translate all vital documents in Spanish, will provide fair housing training for staff, will host two fair housing trainings for tenants to be provided by the fair housing service provider originally contacted by the Cps, and will be monitored by HUD for compliance for 3 years. population, the Los Angeles -Long Beach - Glendale metro area was the most segregated (63.4 percent) and Laredo, Texas was the least segregated (50th place with 30.7 percent). The San Diego - Carlsbad -San Marcos metropolitan area ranked 14th (49.6 percent).`' Table 11 presents a comparison of the degree of racial segregation among different ethnic groups from year 2000 to 2010 in San Diego County. The highest level of segregation seems to exist between Whites and Blacks (an index of 55.5 in 2000 and 51.2 in 2010). The lowest level of racial segregation exists between Blacks and Hispanics (an index of 41.0 in 2000 and 38.4 in 2010). Asians and Pacific Islanders showed a lower level of segregation with Hispanics than with Whites. Segregation patterns in San Diego County have remained relatively stable. While numerically, there were drops in the indices, demographers interpret changes below 5 points in one decade as a small change or no real change at all. 9 Logan, John R. and Stults, Brian. "The Persistence of Segregation in the Metropolis: New Findings from the 2010 Census ". Census Brief prepared for Project US2010, (2011). CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 26 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 394 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Nonetheless, change can be cumulative, and small changes in a single decade — if they are repeated over several decades — can constitute a significant trend.1' When looking at Hispanic /White segregation among the largest 200 cities in the country in 2010, San Diego ranked 12`'' (an index of 57.8) most segregated, Escondido ranked 88th (at 39.6), Oceanside ranked 127`'' (at 32.9), and Chula Vista ranked 175`'' (at 21.7)11. Consistent with these findings, Table 12 presents a comparison of the degrees of racial segregation between the County's Minority and White population by MSA. Table 12 shows that levels of segregation between the County's Minority and White population was highest in the Central Region which encompasses the central and southern portion of the City of San Diego. Table 11: Dissimilarity Indices for Racial /Ethnic Groups - San Diego County Race /Ethnic Group Year Percent of Total Population Dissimilarity Index with Whites Dissimilarity Index with Hispanics 2000 55.0°/, -- 50.6 White 2010 58.5% -- 49.6 2000 45.0% 44.7 -- Minority' 2010 51.5% 42.7 -- 2000 26.7% 50.6 Hispanic 2010 32.0% 49.6 -- 2000 5.5% 55.5 41.0 Black 2010 4.7% 51.2 38.4 2000 9.1% 49.9 1 46.7 Asian -PI 2010 11.0% 48.2 1 45.9 Sources: Bureau of the Census, 2000 -2010 Census 10 Logan, John R. and Stults, Brian. "The Persistence of Segregation in the Metropolis: New Findings from the 2010 Census ". Census Brief prepared for Project US2010, (2011). 11 Project US2010, http: / /www.s4.brown.edu /us2010 /index.htm, accessed January 13, 2015 CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 27 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 395 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table 12: Dissimilarity Indices for Minority Population by MSA MSA Region Percent Minority Popu ation l Dissimilarity Index (Minority and Whites) 0 Central 65.7% 57.3 1 North City 40.4% 27.4 2 South Suburban 81.0% 26.0 3 East Suburban 38.9% 28.9 4 North County West 36.9% 31.0 5 North County East 52.4% 32.5 6 East County 36.5% 19.1 Sources: Bureau of the Census, 2010 Census Segregation is complex, difficult to generalize, and is influenced by many factors. Individual choices can certainly be a cause of segregation. Many residents choose to live among people of their own race /ethnic group. This does not mean that they prefer ethnically homogeneous neighborhoods, but that they feel more comfortable where members of their group commonly live. This attitude is widespread and typically more frequently found among recent immigrants, who often depend on nearby relatives, friends, and ethnic institutions to help them in their adjustment. 12 Residential segregation can also arise from preferences to avoid specific minority neighborhoods. For example, White residents leaving neighborhoods that have become diverse can affect residential segregation patterns. 13 However, individual choices may be constrained by factors outside an individual's control. A large factor in residential segregation is related to housing market dynamics. Given the relationship between race and income, policies to counteract residential segregation can target neighborhoods or individuals based on income rather than race. For example, wider availability of lending can help individual, lower income homebuyers or renters gain access to new neighborhoods. New housing construction has been found to decrease segregation for all groups but most significantly for Blacks.14 Availability of affordable housing and discrimination can also affect residential segregation. 6. Linguistic Isolation A language barrier can be an impediment to accessing housing of choice. A population that is both minority and does not speak English well may face discrimination based on national origin as well as challenges related to obtaining housing, such as communicating effectively with a property owner, landlord, rental agent, real estate agent, mortgage lender or insurance agent. According to 2009 -2013 ACS estimates, approximately 37.4 percent of County residents over the age of five spoke a language other than "English only" at home. In some cities with a large minority population, such as the cities of Imperial Beach, Lemon Grove, Chula Vista, El Cajon, Escondido, 12 Allen, James P. and Turner, Eugene. "Changing Faces, Changing Places: Mapping Southern California ". California State University, Northridge, (2002). 13 Boustan, Leah Platt. "Racial Residential Segregation in American Cities" in Oxford Handbook of Urban Economics and Planning, ed. Nancy Brooks and Gerrit Jan Knaap, Oxford University Press, (2011). 14 UCLA Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies. "Metropolitan America in Transition: Segregation and Diversity', (2001). CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 28 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 396 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE National City, San Diego, San Marcos, and Vista this figure was higher. In National City, close to three quarters of the population over the age of five years spoke a language other than English at home. A linguistically isolated household can be described as a household whose members have at least some difficulty speaking English. The ACS provides information on households with persons five years and over who speak English "less than very well." In San Diego County, 16.3 percent of residents indicated that they spoke English "less than very well" and can be considered linguistically isolated. The cities of National City, Vista, and Escondido have the highest percentage of total residents who spoke English less than "very well". Most of these residents were Spanish speakers. Table 13: Language and Linguistic Isolation Jurisdiction Speak Language Other Than English at Home Speak English Less than "Very Well" Total %Total Population Total % of Those Speaking Non - English Language %Total Population Urban County Coronado 3,534 16.3% 1014 28.7% 4.7% Del Mar 311 7.5% 40 12.9% 1.0% Imperial Beach 11,050 44.8% 3710 33.6% 15.0% Lemon Grove 9,500 39.6% 3567 37.5% 14.9% Poway 9,712 21.3% 4,591 47.3% 10.0% Solana Beach 2,810 22.5% 1120 39.9% 9.0% Unincorporated 119,919 26.1% 44,748 37.3% 9.8% Total Urban County 156,836 26.5% 7 8790 37.5% 9.9% Entitlement Jurisdictions Carlsbad 17,751 17.6% 6,869 38.7% 6.8% Chula Vista 131,562 57.1% 48,746 37.1% 21.1% El Cajon 38,917 42.1% 18,829 48.4% 20.4% Encinitas 9,687 17.1% 3861 39.9% 6.8% Escondido 64,112 48.0% 36,861 57.5% 27.6% La Mesa 11,687 21.8% 3354 28.7% 6.3% National City 40,147 72.9% 18,108 45.1% 32.9% Oceanside 54,741 34.6% 28,497 52.1% 18.0% San Diego 493,743 39.8% 201,651 40.8% 16.3% San Marcos 30,071 38.2% 20,240 67.3% 25.7% Santee 7,677 15.0% 2190 28.5% 4.3% Vista 39,250 44.5% 28,409 72.4% 32.2% Total County 1,096,181 37.4% 476,405 43.5% 16.3% Source: American Community Survey (ACS), 2009 -2013 CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 29 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 397 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Language barriers may prevent residents from accessing services, information, and housing, and may affect educational attainment and employment. Executive Order 13166 ( "Improving Access to Services by Persons with Limited English Proficiency ") was issued in August 2000, which requires federal agencies to assess and address the needs of otherwise eligible persons seeking access to federally conducted programs and activities who, due to Limited English Proficiency (LEP), cannot fully and equally participate in or benefit from those programs and activities. This requirement passes down to grantees of federal funds as well. B. Household Characteristics Household type and size, income level, the presence of persons with special needs, and other household characteristics may affect access to housing. This section details the various household characteristics that may affect equal access to housing. 1. Household Composition and Size According to the 2010 Census, there are 1,086,865 households in San Diego County, a 9.3 percent increase over 2000. The cities of San Marcos, Carlsbad, and Chula What is a Household? A household is defined by the Census as all persons occupying a housing unit. Families are a subset of households and include all persons living together who are related by blood, marriage or adoption. Single households include persons living alone but do not include persons in group quarters such Vista saw the largest increases in the number of households while several cities in the Urban County saw a decrease in household numbers. According to SANDAG, the number of households is projected to grow by 8.4 percent (to 1,178.091 households) by 2020.15 Different household types generally have different housing needs. Seniors or young adults typically constitute a majority of single - person households and tend to reside in apartment units, condominiums or smaller detached homes. Families, meanwhile, often prefer single - family homes. Household size can be an indicator of changes in population or use of housing. An increase in household size can indicate a greater number of large families or a trend toward overcrowded housing units. A decrease in household size, on the other hand, may reflect a greater number of senior or single - person households, or a decrease in family size. Household composition and size are often two interrelated factors. Communities that have a large proportion of families with children tend to have a larger average household size. Such communities have a greater need for larger units with adequate open space and recreational opportunities for children. The majority of San Diego County households are family households, with a roughly even mix between married- couple households with and without children (Table 15). Families with children account for 34.6 percent of all households in the County. "Other" families, primarily consisting of single - parent households, represent 17.3 percent of all households. Households of single senior persons make up eight percent of all households. Between 2000 and 2010, the distribution of household types remained relatively stable. 15 SANDAG Regional Growth Forecast, (2010). CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 30 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 398 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table 14: Household Growth by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Households 2000 Households 2010 % Household Growth 2000 -2010 Urban County Coronado 7,734 7,409 -4.20/,, Del Mar 2,178 2,064 -5.2 %, Imperial Beach 9,272 9,112 -1.7 %, Lemon Grove 8,488 8,434 -0.6 %, Poway 15,467 16,128 43 %, Solana Beach 5,754 5,650 -1.8 %, Unincorporated 143,871 159,339 10.8% Total Urban County 192,764 208,136 8.0 %, Entitlement Cities Carlsbad 31,521 41,345 31.2% Chula Vista 57,705 75,515 30.9% El Cajon 34,199 34,134 -0.2 %, Encinitas 22,830 24,082 5.5 %, Escondido 43,817 45,484 3.8 %, La Mesa 24,186 24,512 1.3 %, National City 15,018 15,502 3.2 %, Oceanside 56,488 59,238 4.9 %, San Diego 450,691 483,092 7.2 %, San Marcos 18,111 27,202 50.2% Santee 18,470 19,306 4.5 %, Vista 28,877 29,317 1.5% Total County 994,677 1,086,865 9.3% Sources: Bureau of the Census, 2000 -2010 Census More than 66 percent of all households within the County of San Diego are family households. Based upon common complaints received, families with children often face housing discrimination by landlords who fear that children will cause property damage, or the landlords have cultural biases against children of opposite sex sharing a bedroom. While the language in federal law about familial status discrimination is clear, the guidelines landlords can use to establish occupancy can be very vague. Although landlords can create occupancy guidelines based on the physical limitations of the housing unit, landlords often impose strict occupancy limitations precluding large families with children. Nationally, HUD data show that familial status discrimination ranks third in discrimination of protected classes, behind discrimination due to disability and race. 16 16 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. "Annual Report on Fair Housing FY 2012 - 2013 ". (2013). CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 31 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 399 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table 15: Household Type Wr Household Type 2000 2010 Number of Households Percent of Households Number of Households Percent of Households Family Households 663,170 66.7% 720,480 66.3% Married with Children 246,762 26.1% 263,046 24.2% Married — no Children 257,114 25.8% 268,879 24.7% Other Family with Children 90,063 9.1 %, 113,072 10.4% Other Family — no Children 69,231 7.0 %, 75,483 6.9% Non - Family Households 331,507 33.3% 366,385 33.7% Single, non - senior 162,247 16.3% 174,593 16.1% Single, senior 78,509 7.9% 86,624 8.0% Total County 994,677 100.0% 1,086,865 100.0 % Source: Bureau of the Census, 2000 -2010 Census Certain jurisdictions in the County had a higher than average proportion of family households with children and are, therefore, more vulnerable to this type of discrimination. The proportion of families with dependent children was highest in the City of Chula Vista (47.2 percent) and National City (47.0 percent). The proportion of families with children in the unincorporated areas (36.4 percent) is similar to the countywide proportion (34.6 percent). Close to 20 percent of households in the County included senior members and 7.5 percent of households were female- headed households with children. Single - parent households with children and households headed by seniors have unique fair housing issues as discussed later in this chapter. CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 32 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 400 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table 16: Household Characteristics Jurisdiction % Families % Families with Children % Elderly Households % Female- Headed Households w/ Children Urban County Coronado 64.4% 29.4% 31.4% 5.7% Del Mar 53.2% 16.2% 27.5% 2.8% Imperial Beach 68.2% 39.1% 15.9% 12.4% Lemon Grove 69.8% 38.5% 20.4% 10.4% Poway 80.2% 39.9% 21.1% 6.0% Solana Beach 58.1% 23.1% 28.6% 3.5% Unincorporated 76.0% 36.8% 23.7% 6.6% Total Urban County 74.6% 36.4% 23.4% 6.8% Entitlement Cities Carlsbad 67.6% 33.8% 22.6% 5.6% Chula Vista 78.7% 47.2% 17.8% 10.7% El Cajon 69.2% 38.8% 18.7% 10.5% Encinitas 62.5% 28.7% 20.4% 4.4% Escondido 72.0% 41.0% 20.3% 8.8% La Mesa 56.2% 26.9% 22.2% 7.4% National City 78.1% 47.0% 21.9% 14.5% Oceanside 68.0% 34.0% 23.5% 7.2% San Diego 59.0% 30.5% 17.8% 7.0% San Marcos 72.8% 42.7% 19.7% 7.2% Santee 72.9% 36.6% 19.1% 7.9% Vista 72.0% 40.7% 17.0% 8.9% Total County 66.3% 34.6% 19.8% 7.5% Source: Bureau of the Census, 2000 -2010 Census 2. Household Size The average size and composition of households are highly sensitive to the age structure of the population but they also reflect social and economic changes. For example, economic downturns may prolong the time adult children live at home or result in multiple families and non - family members living together to lower housing costs. The average household size countywide in 2010 was 2.75 persons per household, a very slight increase from 2000 (2.73). Average household size ranged from a low of 2.02 persons in Del Mar to a high of 3.41 in National City. Five cities had an average household size over three persons in 2010. CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 33 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 401 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table 17: Average Household Size by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Average Household Size 2000 2010 Urban County Coronado 2.28 2.31 Del Mar 2.01 2.02 Imperial Beach 2.84 2.82 Lemon Grove 2.85 2.96 Poway 3.07 2.93 Solana Beach 2.23 2.28 Unincorporated 2.90 -- Entitlement Cities Carlsbad 2.45 2.53 Chula Vista 2.99 3.21 El Cajon 2.7 2.84 Encinitas 2.52 2.45 Escondido 3.01 3.12 La Mesa 2.22 2.30 National City 3.38 3.41 Oceanside 2.83 2.80 San Diego 2.61 2.60 San Marcos 3.03 3.05 Santee 2.82 2.72 Vista 3.03 3.13 Total County 2.73 2.75 Sources: Bureau of the Census, 2000 -2010 Census C. Special Needs Groups Certain households and residents, because of their special characteristics and needs, have greater difficulty finding decent and affordable housing. These circumstances may be related to age, family characteristics, or disability. Table 18 shows a summary of this section and the special needs groups present in San Diego County. The following discussion highlights particular characteristics that may affect access to housing in a community. CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 34 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 402 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table 18: Residents with Special Needs Special Needs Group Number M Percent of County Households with a Senior (65 +) 256,623 23.8% Senior Persons (65 +) 351,425 11.4% Large Households 148,781 13.7% Female Headed Households w /Children 81,366 7.5% Disabled Persons 284,799 9.4% HIV /AIDS 14.739 Approx. 0.5% Homeless Persons (Urban and Rural) 12,817 Approx. 0.4% Farm Workers 8,500- 17,844 Approx. 0.3% to 0.6% Military Personnel and Veterans 229,0000 active duty personnel and family members; 234,211 Veterans Approx. 10% to 15% Sources: Bureau of the Census, 2010 Census; American Community Survey 1. Seniors Seniors (persons age 65 and above) are gradually becoming a more substantial segment of a community's population. Americans are living longer than ever before in our history and are expected to continue to do so. Senior households are vulnerable to housing problems and housing discrimination due to limited income, prevalence of physical or mental disabilities, limited mobility, and high health care costs. Seniors, particularly those with disabilities, may face increased difficulty in finding housing accommodations and may become victims of housing discrimination or fraud. Seniors sometimes face discrimination in the rental housing market, often based on the perception of increased risks and liabilities associated with the frail conditions or disabilities of senior tenants. A senior on a fixed income can face great difficulty finding safe and affordable housing. Subsidized housing and federal housing assistance programs are increasingly challenging to secure and often involve a long waiting list. According to the 2010 Census, 11.4 percent of all residents in San Diego County were ages 65 and over. The proportion of residents over the age of 65 years ranged from a low of nine percent in Imperial Beach to a high of 20.8 percent in Del Mar. ACS data (2009 -2013) estimates that 24 percent of households in San Diego County had at least one individual who was 65 years of age or older According to HUD's 2007 -2011 CHAS (Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy) data, a higher proportion (54.1 percent) of seniors had low and moderate incomes compared to all County residents (43.7 percent). In 2010, 35.9 percent of all disabilities were reported by residents 65 years or older. Table 19: Senior Profile — San Diego County Source: Bureau of the Census, 2010; American Community Survey (ACS), 2009 -2013; HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 2007 -2011 CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 35 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 403 Percent Households with Percent Percent of Percent with a Low /Moderate Households with Residents Population Disability Incomes IL Housing Problems Seniors 11.4% 35.9% 54.1% 42.0% All Residents 100% 9.4% 43.7% 49.0% Source: Bureau of the Census, 2010; American Community Survey (ACS), 2009 -2013; HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 2007 -2011 CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 35 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 403 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE The San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency's Aging & Independence Services (AIS) provides services to older adults, people with disabilities and their family members. AIS is the only public or private organization in the county that combines many services for older adults and disabled persons under one umbrella and mostly at no charge to county residents who use the services. AIS has experienced significant growth and change since it was established as an Area Agency on Aging in 1970. The organization is now part of the County of San Diego Health and Human Services Agency, providing or contracting for services and programs with a budget of more than $200 million. AIS provides a wide range of services, including information and access, advocacy, coordination, assessment, and authorization of direct services. Direct services are provided through contracts with vendors and agencies, and include in -home support, respite care, meals (senior dining centers and home - delivered), health promotions, legal assistance, adult day care, transportation, educational opportunities, employment, money management, and counseling programs. The City and the County of San Diego both administer a wide array of housing programs to assist in the provision of affordable housing for senior households, including funding for acquisition and construction, rehabilitation, rental assistance, and home repair. In addition to affordable housing located near transportation, the housing needs of seniors include supportive housing, such as intermediate care facilities, group homes, and other housing with a planned service component. Approximately 1,049 State - licensed residential care facilities for the elderly, 709 adult residential facilities (for individuals ages 18 through 59) and 97 adult day care facilities (for individuals 18 and over) serve the senior population throughout the County. These licensed care facilities have a combined capacity of 31,847 beds. Figure 13 shows the location of the various licensed care facilities in San Diego County. Most of the community care facilities within the County are located within the larger incorporated cities. However, there is a noticeable absence of facilities in the unincorporated areas, specifically those surrounding the incorporated cities. While most of the County's population is located within the incorporated cities, residents living in these areas would have to travel a greater distance to access the region's inventory of care facilities. Concentrations of care facilities can be seen in the North County areas in and around the cities of Vista and Escondido and in the South County in and around the cities of Chula Vista and El Cajon. In the City of San Diego clusters of care facilities can be seen in the southern portion of the City and in the Mira Mesa area. 2. Large Households Large households are defined as those with five or more members. These households are usually families with two or more children or families with extended family members such as in -laws or grandparents. It can also include multiple families living in one housing unit in order to save on housing costs. Large households are a special needs group because the availability of adequately sized, affordable housing units is often limited. Large households may face discrimination in the housing market, particularly for rental housing. Property owners and managers may be concerned with the potential increase in wear and tear and liability issues related to large households, especially those with children. Although landlords can create occupancy guidelines based on the physical limitations of the housing unit, landlords often impose strict occupancy limitations precluding large families with children. As indicated in Table 20, in 2010, close to 14 percent of all households in the County had five or more members; specifically 13 percent of owner - households and 14.5 percent of renter - households in the County were large households. The proportion of large households was highest in the cities of National City (25.4 percent), Escondido (20.7 percent), and Chula Vista (20.5 percent) indicating these cities may be the most vulnerable to housing discrimination based on family size. These three cities also had high CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 36 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 404 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE proportions of non -White population and family households in 2010. Many ethnic minority groups have a younger age profile and tend to have larger families than the White population. The 2007 -2011 CHAS data shows that close to half (48.9 percent) of large households were estimated to earn low and moderate incomes compared with 44 percent of all county households. Large households in the County can benefit from general programs and services for lower -and moderate - income persons, including the Housing Choice Voucher, Down Payment, and Housing Rehabilitation programs, and various community and social services provided by non - profit organizations in the region. Table 20: Large Households "C' Total Large Households Large Owner Households Large Renter Households of Total Households # % of Owner [Households # % of Renter Households Urban County Coronado 466 6.3% 197 5.4% 269 7.1% Del Mar 68 3.3% 47 4.2% 21 2.2% Imperial Beach 1,311 14.4% 339 12.3% 972 15.3% Lemon Grove 1,511 17.9% 850 18.4% 661 17.3% Poway 2,188 13.6% 1,457 12.1% 731 17.7% Solana Beach 357 6.3% 184 5.4% 173 7.7% Unincorporated 23,448 14.7% 14,420 13.2% 9,028 18.1% Total Urban County 29,349 14.1% 17,494 12.8% 11,855 16.6% Entitlement Cities Carlsbad 3,383 8.2% 2,182 8.1% 1,201 8.3% Chula Vista 15,479 20.5% 9,170 20.9% 6,309 19.9% El Cajon 5,346 15.7% 1,692 12.0% 3,654 18.2% Encinitas 1,740 7.2% 1,153 7.6% 587 6.6% Escondido 9,410 20.7% 3,994 16.8% 5,416 24.9% La Mesa 1,642 6.7% 768 6.8% 874 6.6% National City 3,932 25.4% 1,532 29.5% 2,400 23.3% Oceanside 8,733 14.7% 4,848 13.9% 3,885 16.0% San Diego 56,977 11.8% 27,861 11.9% 29,116 11.6% San Marcos 4,833 17.8% 2,621 15.3% 2,212 21.9% Santee 2,135 11.1% 1,356 10.0% 779 13.6% Vista 5,822 19.9% 2,426 16.0% 3,396 24.0% Total County 148,781 13.7% 77,097 13.0% 71,684 14.5% Source: Bureau of the Census, 2010 CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 37 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 405 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE 3. Families with Children and Single- Parent Families Families with children may face housing discrimination by landlords who fear that children will cause property damage. Some landlords may have cultural biases against children of the opposite sex sharing a bedroom. Differential treatments such as limiting the number of children in a complex or confining children to a specific location are also fair housing concerns. For example, some landlords may charge large households a higher rent or security deposit, limit the number of children in a complex, confine them to a specific location, limit the time children can play outdoors, or choose not to rent to families with children altogether, which would violate fair housing laws. Housing discrimination against families with children can also be masked as overcrowding issues. Even when housing providers rent openly to families with children, there can still be an issue of illegal discriminatory policies for families once they become tenants. Neutral rules are expected to apply to all tenants equally, but once a housing provider isolates a particular group upon which to singularly implement those rules, a discriminatory practice is set in motion. The proportion of families with dependent children was highest in the cities of Chula Vista and National City (Table 16). These communities may be more vulnerable to familial discrimination in the housing market because of their higher than average proportion of families with children. Single- parent households, particularly female- headed households with children, may require special consideration and assistance because of their greater need for affordable housing and accessible day care, health care, and other supportive services, and therefore HUD Consolidated Planning regulations identify this group as a special needs group. Housing in proximity to public transportation and community and recreation facilities is also important. Because of their relatively lower income, female- headed households have comparatively limited opportunities for finding affordable and decent housing. Female- headed households may also be discriminated against in the rental housing market because some landlords are concerned about the ability of these households to make regular rent payments. Consequently, landlords may require more stringent credit checks for female heads of households. The 2010 Census identified 7.5 percent of households in the County as female- headed households with children (Table 16). The proportion of female- headed households with children was highest in National City (14.5 percent) and Imperial Beach (12.4 percent). Female single- parent family households are disproportionately affected by poverty. Fair Housing Case Summary — Sexual Harassment — City of San Diego CP, a renter, was sexually harassed by the landlord days after her husband of seventeen (17) years died. The CP attempted to pay rent in person after the death of her husband. The Respondent demanded sex for rent, graphically spoke about his sexual affairs, and then forcibly kissed the CP, before she fled the building. The CP contacted the police department. The respondent proceeded to attempt to evict the CP. LASSD represented the client and filed a federal lawsuit against the respondent. After litigating the case, the respondent settled the case for a total of $147,000 in damages (includes attorney According to the 2008 -2012 ACS, about 32 percent of female single- parent family households in San Diego County lived below the poverty level (compared to ten percent of all family households in the County). Limited household income constrains the ability of these households to afford adequate housing and childcare, health care, and other necessities. Finding adequate and affordable childcare is also a pressing issue for many families with children and single - parent households in particular. CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 38 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 406 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Cities and County in San Diego region have a wide array of housing programs offering families affordable housing opportunities, including rental assistance and new construction of housing. Families with children in San Diego County can also benefit from general programs and services for lower- and moderate - income persons, including the Housing Choice Voucher, Public Housing, Down Payment, and Housing Rehabilitation programs, and various community and social services provided by non - profit organizations in the region. 4. Persons with Disabilities Affordability, design, location, and discrimination limit the supply of housing for persons with disabilities. Fair housing choice for persons with disabilities may be compromised based on the nature of their disability. Adaptable housing is the most critical housing need for persons with mobility limitations. Many single- family homes may not be adaptable to widened doorways and hallways, access ramps, or other features necessary for accessibility. Furthermore, multi- family units built prior to 1990 are often not wheel -chair accessible and the cost of retrofitting a home is often prohibitive. Many disabled individuals live in households where a member of the household is a homeowner. These disabled individuals are less likely to have accessible units, since the Fair Housing Act (FHA) does not apply to all owner - occupied dwelling units. Amendments to the Fair Housing Act, as well as state law, require ground -floor units of new multi - family construction with more than four units to be accessible to persons with disabilities. However, units built prior to 1989 are not required to be accessible to persons with disabilities. Older units, particularly in older multi - family structures, are very expensive to retrofit for disabled occupants because space is rarely available for elevator shafts, ramps, widened doorways, etc. The site, parking areas, and walkways may also need modifications to all d d lk d Th 1 f Fair Housing Case Summary — Disability Discrimination — City of San Diego The complainant (Cl?), a quadriplegic young man, was transitioning from a nursing home where he resided for three years into independent living. With the assistance of a social worker, CP applied for an affordable housing apartment complex in downtown San Diego, near the college CP was attending. After applying and touring the building, which did not have any accessible units designed for persons with disabilities as required by the law, CP requested a modification to the bathroom tub, and a keyless remote entry for the front door. The CP was approved to move in, but was prevented from moving until the respondent approved his modification. After ignoring the CP, the respondent contacted the CP's social worker to express that she thought the client was "too disabled" and was concerned he should not live at the apartment building because he could not escape in case of fire. The respondent unilaterally rescinded their previous approval for the CP to move in, and denied the modification. The CP had prepared to move into the new unit for months, and had to quickly find a place to live since he was being discharged from the nursing home. The CP found a non- accessible unit, away from the community college he would attend. lnst ramps an wi en wa ways an gates. e "cation o housing and availability of transportation is also important because disabled people may require access to a variety of social and specialized services. Persons with physical disabilities may face discrimination in the housing market because of the use of wheelchairs, need for home modifications to improve accessibility, or other forms of assistance. Landlords must allow a tenant with physical disabilities to make "reasonable modifications" to the unit in order to address accessibility issues. However, in privately owned properties, the tenant is responsible for the costs of modifications. Landlords are also required to make "reasonable accommodations" to rules and policies to accommodate a tenant's disability. A typical example is to waive the "no -pet policy" for a person with visual impairments needing a guide dog. Landlords/ owners sometimes fear that a unit may sustain wheelchair damage or may refuse to exempt disabled tenants with service /guide CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 39 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 407 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE animals from a no -pet policy. A major barrier to housing for people with mental disabilities is opposition based on the stigma of mental disability. Landlords often refuse to rent to tenants with a history of mental illness. Neighbors may object when a house becomes a group home for persons with mental disabilities. While housing discrimination is not covered by the ADA, the Fair Housing Act prohibits housing discrimination against persons with disabilities. In their 2013 Fair Housing Trends Report, the National Fair Housing Alliance indicated that disability complaints were the most prevalent type of housing discrimination complaint. The report stated that apartment owners made direct comments refusing to make reasonable accommodations or modifications for people with disabilities, making discrimination based on disability easier to detect. Discrimination against persons with disabilities also continues to be the largest category of complaints HUD receives each year." Federal laws define a person with a disability as "any person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; has a record of such impairment; or is regarded as having such an impairment." In general, a physical or mental impairment includes hearing, mobility and visual impairments, chronic alcoholism, chronic mental illness, AIDS, AIDS Related Complex, and mental retardation that substantially limits one or more major life activities. Major life activities include walking, talking, hearing, seeing, breathing, learning, performing manual tasks, and caring for oneself." The U.S. Census Bureau classifies disabilities into the following categories: • Hearing difficulty: Deaf or having serious difficulty hearing • Vision difficulty: Blind or having serious difficulty seeing, even when wearing glasses • Cognitive difficulty: Because of a physical, mental, or emotional problem, having difficulty remembering, concentrating, or making decisions • Ambulatory difficulty: Having serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs • Self -care difficulty: Having difficulty bathing or dressing • Independent living difficulty: Because of a physical, mental, or emotional problem, having difficulty doing errands alone such as visiting a doctor's office or shopping According to 2009 -2013 ACS data, close to 285,000 persons living in San Diego County had a range of disabilities, comprising 9.4 percent of the total population. A large proportion of the disabled were seniors. Of those disabled persons, less than one percent were under the age of five, 3.5 percent were between the age of five and 17, seven percent were between the age of 18 and 64, and 35.9 percent were 65 years old or older (Table 21). The cities of Lemon Grove, El Cajon, and La Mesa had the highest proportion of disabled residents (between 12 and 12.6 percent). In Imperial Beach, more than half the population aged 65 or older had a disability and El Cajon had the highest proportion of disabled residents between the age of 18 and 64. Figure 2 shows population density for disabled persons in San Diego County. Figure 2 shows that although disabled persons are geographically dispersed throughout the more urbanized areas of the County, there are significant areas with a high density of disabled 17 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. "Annual Report on Fair Housing FY 2012 - 2013 ". (2013). 18 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. "Disability Rights in Housing." (2014). http: / /portal.hud.gov /hudportal/ HUD? src= /program office s/ fair _ housing_equaLopp /disabilities /inhousing. Accessed December 23, 2014. CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 40 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 408 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE residents that coincide with minority concentration areas and RECAPS (Racially Concentrated Areas of Poverty). Specifically, concentrations of disabled residents can be seen in the North County cities of Oceanside, Vista, San Marcos, and Escondido, as well as the southern areas of the City of San Diego and southern cities near the U.S /Mexico border. Due to the presence of residential care facilities, the Mira Mesa community of the City of San Diego and the cities of El Cajon, La Mesa, and Lemon Grove also have concentrations of disabled residents. The coastal and inland areas show less dense concentrations of disabled residents, which could be due to the high price of housing (in the coastal areas) or the scarcity of facilities and services for disabled persons (inland areas). Of those disabilities tallied between 2009 and 2013 (as shown in Table 22), cognitive, ambulatory, and independent living disabilities were the most prevalent. The senior population had a significantly larger percentage of all disability types. San Diego County's senior population will grow substantially in the next 20 years. Since seniors have a much higher probability of being disabled, the housing and service needs for persons with disabilities should grow considerably, commensurate with the projected growth of this population. Table 21: Disability by Age Source: American Community Survey (ACS), 2009 -2013 CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 41 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 409 0 -5 Years 5 -17 Years 18 -64 Years 65+ Years Total Jurisdiction Urban County Coronado 16 1.7% 157 4.8% 463 4.6% 1,140 29.8% 1,776 9.8% Del Mar 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 61 2.3% 203 20.8% 264 6.3% Imperial Beach 24 1.2% 221 4.4% 1,525 9.2% 1,177 51.2% 2,947 11.4% Lemon Grove 0 0.0% 245 5.1% 1,535 9.6% 1,288 46.6% 3,068 12.1% Poway 8 0.3% 212 2.4% 1,799 6.0% 1,851 30.8% 3,870 8.1% Solana Beach 20 3.7% 40 2.4% 210 2.6% 584 22.5% 854 6.6% Unincorporated 202 0.6% 3,308 4.1% 25,127 9.0% 22,571 34.3% 51,208 11.2% Total Urban County 270 0.7% 4,183 4.0% 30,720 8.5% 28,814 34.2% 63,987 10.8% Entitlement Cities Carlsbad 19 0.3% 376 2.0% 3,283 5.0% 4,191 27.2% 7,869 7.4% Chula Vista 119 0.7% 1,484 2.9% 9,906 6.6% 9,662 38.2% 21,171 8.7% El Cajon 132 1.6% 935 5.0% 6,940 11.3% 4,442 42.9% 12,449 12.6% Encinitas 0 0.0% 213 2.4% 1,750 4.4% 2,247 28.9% 4,210 7.0% Escondido 122 1.0% 872 3.2% 6,651 7.3% 5,917 41.4% 13,562 9.4% La Mesa 29 0.7% 337 4.5% 3,078 8.3% 3,321 42.0% 6,765 12.0% National City 30 0.8% 185 1.7% 2,216 6.5% 2,409 39.9% 4,840 8.8% Oceanside 21 0.2% 716 2.5% 8,364 8.0% 7,884 37.3% 16,985 10.3% San Diego 575 0.7% 7,451 3.7% 52,335 6.1% 50,971 35.2% 111,332 8.7% San Marcos 13 0.2% 327 2.1% 2,970 5.5% 3,637 40.2% 6,947 8.2% Santee 0 0.0% 470 4.8% 3,122 9.2% 2,280 39.1% 5,872 11.1% Vista 10 0.1% 648 4.1% 4,447 7.3% 3,705 42.8% 8,810 9.6% Total County 1,340 0.6% 18,197 3.5% 135,782 7.0% 129,480 35.9% 284,799 9.4% Source: American Community Survey (ACS), 2009 -2013 CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 41 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 409 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table 22: Disability Characteristics Disability by Age and Type 5 to 17 years I 18 to 64 years 65 years and over Hearing Difficulty 0.5% 1.3% 14.8% Vision Difficulty 0.6% 1.2% 6.7% Cognitive Difficulty 2.5% 3.1% 10.7% Ambulatory Difficulty 0.5% 3.2% 22.8% Self Care Difficulty 0.9% 1.2% 9.4% Independent Living Difficulty' -- 2.6% 18.1% Total County 3.5% 7.0% 35.9% Notes: 1: Tallied only for persons 18 years and over Source: American Community Survey (ACS), 2009 -2013 As previously stated, there are approximately 1,049 State - licensed residential care facilities for the elderly, 709 adult residential facilities, and 97 adult day care facilities throughout the County. These licensed care facilities have a combined capacity of just under 32,000 beds. Persons with Developmental Disabilities: As defined by federal law, "developmental disability" means a severe, chronic disability of an individual that: • Is attributable to a mental or physical impairment or combination of mental and physical impairments; • Is manifested before the individual attains age 2219; ■ Is likely to continue indefinitely, ■ Results in substantial functional limitations in three or more of the following areas of major life activity: a) self -care; b) receptive and expressive language; c) learning, d) mobility; e) self direction; 0 capacity for independent living, or g) economic self- sufficiency; and ■ Reflects the individual's need for a combination and sequence of special, interdisciplinary, or generic services, individualized supports, or other forms of assistance that are of lifelong or extended duration and are individually planned and coordinated. According to the U.S. Administration on Developmental Disabilities (ADD), the percentage of the population that can be defined as developmentally disabled is approximately 1.5 percent. The Census does not specifically record developmental disabilities. However, using the ADD percentage to create an estimate, based on the 2010 Census population, this equates to just over 46,000 persons in the County of San Diego. 19 The State of California defines developmental disabilities slightly differently than federal law. The main difference is at the manifestation age, where California established that threshold at age 18. CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 42 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 410 N O N ur 0 ua r N OC a ro sv x ro Oran Coun Disabled • 1 Doi M RE( RadaRy/Etk Areas of Poi K Mir Census bloc more minor County ave QCounty 0 City Ba , .... s common i,... I.......— SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Figure 2: Persons with Disabilities 5ource: American Community 5uruey, 2909 -2013; Persons with Disabilities 17 HUD, 2014,SanGISData Warehouse, 2014. 7 YY CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 43 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE The San Diego Regional Center provides a range of services to persons with or affected by developmental disabilities. Services include diagnostic and eligibility assessments, program planning, case management, and other services and supports. The San Diego Regional Center has four offices in the County and is one of 21 non - profit regional centers in California providing lifelong services and support for people with developmental disabilities residing in San Diego and Imperial Counties. As of December 2014, the Regional Center had just over 19,000 clients living in San Diego County. The ARC of San Diego, and Community Interface Services offer comprehensive services for persons or individuals with developmental disabilities and their families, including diagnosis, counseling, coordination of services, advocacy and community education /training. 5. Persons with HIV /AIDS20 Persons with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS) face an array of barriers to obtaining and maintaining affordable, stable housing. For persons living with HIV /AIDS, access to safe, affordable housing is as important to their general health and well-being as access to quality health care. Increasingly, the connection between housing and health has become clearer; without stable housing, it is difficult for a person living with HIV /AIDS to maintain the complex treatment regimen required to manage this illness. For many, the persistent shortage of stable housing is the primary barrier to consistent medical care and treatment. Stable housing is shown to be cost effective for the community in that it helps decrease risk factors that can lead to HIV and AIDS transmission. Persons with HIV /AIDS require a broad range of services, including counseling, medical care, in home care, transportation, and food, in addition to stable housing. Despite federal and state anti - discrimination laws, people have faced illegal eviction from their homes when their illness is exposed. The Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, which is primarily enforced by HUD, prohibits housing discrimination against persons with disabilities, including persons with HIV /AIDS. Housing providers are barred from discriminating against people with disabilities, but they also have a responsibility to provide reasonable accommodation in housing policies and procedures. A tenant with HIV /AIDS may not need physically accessible housing when initially renting a unit, but may then develop a symptom that later requires modifications in the unit. Many landlords and tenants are not aware that a landlord is required by law to allow physical modifications to a unit to accommodate a disability. In addition, persons with HIV /AIDS may also be targets of hate crimes, which are discussed later in this document. California has the second largest number of HIV and AIDS cases in the United States; San Diego County has the third largest number of HIV and AIDS cases in California. Since the 1981 beginning of the epidemic, nearly 15,000 AIDS cases have been reported in San Diego County, as of December 31, 2011. New drugs, better treatment, and preventative education have reduced the number of fatalities. Persons with HIV /AIDS are living longer. There are currently 7,221 individuals diagnosed with AIDS in San Diego County. As of December 2011, 14,739 AIDS cases were reported in San Diego County (Table 23). Among the different jurisdictions, the City of San Diego is home to the majority of residents diagnosed with AIDS (72.7 percent); trailing far behind were the communities in unincorporated areas, where only 0.2 percent or less of the County residents were diagnosed with AIDS. Individuals diagnosed with AIDS in San 20 All statistics in Persons with HIV /AIDS section are taken from the "HIV /AIDS Epidemiology Report 2012" (County of San Diego Health and Human Services Agency, 2012) unless otherwise noted. CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 44 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 412 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Diego County are most commonly white, male, aged 30 to 39 years, and have male sex partners. Over the course of the epidemic, there has been a slow increase in the proportion of cases affecting blacks, Hispanics, women, people aged 40 or older, and those having used injected drugs. The average age at HIV diagnosis from 1981 to 2011 is 34 years, although it has increased over time from 33 to 35. As the number of individuals newly diagnosed with AIDS has been decreasing, the number of individuals living with an AIDS diagnosis continues to increase. The decrease in the annual number of AIDS diagnoses has not been uniform across racial /ethnic groups. The largest decrease has been in Whites; while diagnosis of persons of color, including Blacks and Hispanics, has proportionately increased over time. The primary source of funding for HIV /AIDS housing is HUD's Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS ( HOPWA) program. The City of San Diego is the HOPWA program grantee, but all HOPWA programs are administered by the County of San Diego Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Established in 1992, the HOPWA program is designed to provide States and localities with resources and incentives to develop long -term comprehensive strategies that meet the housing and housing- related support service needs of low- income persons living with HIV /AIDS or related diseases and their families.21 In FY 2015, the City of San Diego's Annual Action Plan included a $2.9 million budget for HOPWA programs ($2.8 million from the 2014 Program Year entitlement allocation and $100,000 from prior year funds). Programs funded through the HOPWA Program must be housing related and funding is prioritized as follows22. Activities which provide affordable housing for low- income persons living with HIV /AIDS and their families; Activities which enable low- income persons living with HIV /AIDS and their families to become housed; Services needed to enable low- income HIV /AIDS clients to remain housed, locate housing, and prevent homelessness. Several HOPWA- funded housing resources (Table 24) are in place; however, there are many more people looking for housing than there are units available, particularly affordable housing units. 21 San Diego County HIV /AIDS Housing Plan Update 2009, County of San Diego, Department of Housing and Community Development. 22 County of San Diego Department of Housing and Community Development. Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) webpage. Accessed December 26, 2014. http : / /www.sandiegocounty.gov /sdhcd /organizations/ about_hopwa.html. CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 45 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 413 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table 23: Community of Residence at Time of AIDS Diagnosis (1981 -2011) City/Community Cumulative Cases Perc San Diego 10,710 72.7% Chula Vista 569 3.9% Oceanside 423 2.9% El Cajon 304 2.1% Escondido 299 2.0% Vista 251 1.7% San Ysidro 234 1.6% La Mesa 218 1.5% Spring Valley 216 1.5% National City 214 1.5% La Jolla 151 1.0% Carlsbad 148 1.0% Lemon Grove 113 0.8% Santee 108 0.7% Encinitas 100 0.7% Imperial Beach 99 0.7% San Marcos 90 0.6% Lakeside 56 0.4% Poway 55 0.4% Coronado 44 0.3% Fallbrook 42 0.3% Del Mar 41 0.3% Ramona 36 0.2% Bonita 34 0.2% Cardiff -by -the -Sea 24 0.2% Leucadia 20 0.1% Other2 140 0.9% Total County 100% Notes: 1. Place of residence at time of diagnosis does not represent the place of HIV diagnosis /exposure. 2. The following communities had fewer than 20 cases each: Alpine, Bonsall, Borrego Springs, Boulevard, Camp Pendleton, Campo, Descanso, Dulzura, Guatay, Jamul, Julian, Mount Laguna, Pauma Valley, Pine Valley, Ranchita, Rancho Santa Fe, San Luis Rey, Santa Ysabel, Solana Beach, Valley Center. Source: HIV /AIDS Epidemiology Report 2012. County of San Diego Health and Human Services Agency CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 46 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 414 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table 24: HOPWA Program Resources CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 47 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 415 Agency /Program Units /Program Capacity Emergency Housing Townspeople - Provides emergency beds in the form of hotel /motel vouchers for up to 21 nights. 45 Licensed Care Facility Fraternity House, Inc. - Provides 18 beds through Fraternity House (8) and Michaelle House (10) for consumers who need 24 -hour comprehensive care. 18 Recovery Housing Stepping Stone of San Diego - Provides 15 beds through its Residential Treatment Program 15 located in the City Heights area in San Diego. Transitional Group Home St. Vincent de Paul Village, Inc. - Provides 38 beds through its five Josue Homes for consumers who are ambulatory, self - sufficient and recovering substance abusers. 38 Stepping Stone of San Diego - Provides 17 beds through Enya House for consumers who 17 have a minimum of 60 days sobriety and a commitment to long term recovery. Permanent Housing Community Housing Works /Marisol Apartments - 10 units in Oceanside for consumers and their families. Support services are provided. 10 Community Housing Works /Old Grove - 4 units in Oceanside for consumers and their families. Support services are provided. 4 Mariposa Apartments - 2 units in San Marcos for consumers and their families. 2 Mercy Gardens - 23 units in the Hillcrest area in San Diego for consumers and their families. 23 Paseo del Oro Apartments - 5 units in San Marcos for consumers and their families. 5 Shadow Hills - 5 units in Santee for consumers and their families. 5 Sierra Vista Apartments - 5 units in San Marcos for consumers and their families. 5 South Bay Community Services /La Posada - 12 units in San Ysidro for consumers and their families. Case management and support services are provided. 12 Sonoma Court Apartments - 2 units in Escondido for consumer and their families. 2 Spring Valley Apartments - 9 units in Spring Valley for consumers and their families. 9 The Center- Sunburst Apartments - 3 units for consumers who are between 18 -24 years of 3 age. Townspeople — 34th Street Apartments - 5 units in San Diego for consumers and their families. Case Management services are provided. 5 Townspeople — 51st Street Apartments - 3 units in San Diego for consumers and their families. Case Management services are provided. 3 Townspeople — Wilson Avenue Apartments - 4 units in San Diego for consumers and their families. Case Management services are provided. 4 Tenant Based Rental Assistance County of San Diego, Housing and Community Development (HCD) — Program provides rent subsidies /vouchers for up to 80 consumers. Applicants are placed on a waiting list and preference is given to extremely low- income households with at least one family member 80 having an AIDS diagnosis. CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 47 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 415 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table 24: HOPWA Program Resources —low Agency /Program Units /Program Capacity Support Services Being Alive San Diego - Provides consumers with moving services, housing information and referral services. County of San Diego AIDS Case Management- - Provides inpatient substance abuse treatment along with intensive case management for consumers who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. Program features immediate placement for qualified consumers and detoxification services when needed. Mama's Kitchen (HOPWA Nutrition Project - HNP) - HNP provides meal packages through a home meal delivery service to people who are HIV symptomatic or living with -- AIDS and who are not eligible to receive meals under any other program/project Source: Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) program. County of San Diego, Department of Housing and Community Development, September 2014 6. Homeless Formerly homeless persons often have a very difficult time finding housing once they have moved from transitional housing or other assistance programs. Housing affordability for those who were formerly homeless is challenging from an economics standpoint, but this demographic group may also encounter fair housing issues when property owners /managers refuse to rent to formerly homeless persons. The perception may be that they are more economically (and sometimes mentally) unstable. Homeless persons may also experience discrimination in homeless shelters. This can occur in the form of discrimination based on protected classes, rules or policies with a disparate impact on a protected class, or lack of reasonable accommodation. Fair Housing Also Applies to Homeless Shelters In 2013, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) charged a homeless shelter in Pennsylvania and one of its employees with refusing to accept a blind man and his guide dog at a homeless shelter. HUD's investigation found that the homeless man was denied a reasonable accommodation request to allow the man to keep his dog in the shelter, in violation of the Fair Housing Act. On January 4, 2012, final regulations went into effect to implement changes to HUD's definition of homelessness contained in the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing (HEARTH) Act. The definition affects who is eligible for various HUD - funded homeless assistance programs. The new definition includes four broad categories of homelessness:23 ■ People who are living in a place not meant for human habitation, in emergency shelters, in transitional housing, or are exiting an institution where they temporarily resided. ■ People who are losing their primary nighttime residence, which may include a motel or hotel or a doubled -up situation, within 14 days and lack resources or support networks to remain in housing. 23 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. "Expanding Opportunities to House Individuals and Families Experiencing Homelessness through the Public Housing (PH) and Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Programs: Questions and Answers (Q &As)." September 2013. CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 48 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 416 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Families with children or unaccompanied youth who are unstably housed and likely to continue in that state. People who are fleeing or attempting to flee domestic violence, have no other residence, and lack the resources or support networks to obtain other permanent housing. This definition demonstrates the diversity of people experiencing homelessness. The numerous places where people experiencing homelessness can be located complicate efforts to accurately estimate their total population. For example, an individual living with friends on a temporary basis could be experiencing homelessness, but would be unlikely to be identified in a homeless count. Since 2006, the San Diego Regional Task Force on the Homeless (RTFH) has conducted a point -in -time survey (PIT) to measure the County's homeless population, as well as to identify the needs of persons experiencing homelessness. The 2014 San Diego Regional Homeless Point -In -Time Count took place on the night of January 23, 2014. The 2014 PIT count identified 8,50624 homeless persons living in San Diego County (Table 25). Of the homeless persons counted, just less than half (3,985) were unsheltered — living in a place not meant for human habitation, while over 13 percent were in an emergency shelter and 37 percent in a transitional housing program. When examining the different regions within San Diego County, the City of San Diego had the largest proportion of the homeless persons (61 percent), followed by North County Inland with 12 percent of the region's homeless persons. Since 2011, the total number of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons enumerated during the annual PIT decreased by approximately six percent. While the number of homeless persons sheltered on the selected night increased 11 percent over the four -year period (4,305 to 4,521), the unsheltered homeless persons observed and counted decreased by 20 percent (4,981 in 2011 to 3,985 in 2014). When looking at the one -year change from 2013 to 2014, there was a decrease in the sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons by four percent, with the majority of the decrease occurring in the unsheltered population (13 percent decrease). Many homeless service providers attributed the decrease to the new "Housing First" model and the Continuum of Care system (described later). This approach recognizes many people and unprepared to address their other issues (e.g., employment, health, and emotional) until they have a more stable housing arrangement. The point -in -time count is just a snapshot of how many homeless people are on streets and in emergency and transitional shelters on any given day in the San Diego region. RTFH estimated that the number of people who used an emergency shelter or transitional housing program at any time from October 1, 2012 through September 30, 2013 was 12,817 persons.zs 24 The 2014 San Diego Regional Homeless Profile indicates 8,506 persons enumerated in the Point -in -Time Count. The data tables presented in the report only indicates 8,505 persons. 25 San Diego Regional Taskforce on the Homeless. "2014 San Diego Regional Homeless Profile ". (September 24, 2014). CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 49 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 417 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table 25: Homelessness Population by Jurisdiction - 2014 Jurisdiction Sheltered Unsheltered Total % of County Urban County Coronado 0 10 10 0.1% Del Mar 0 6 6 0.1% Imperial Beach 0 48 48 0.6% Lemon Grove 0 34 34 0.4% Poway 0 8 8 0.1% Solana Beach 0 42 42 0.5% Unincorporated: Bonita 6 0 6 0.1% Lakeside NA 73 73 0.9% NC Metro NA 19 19 0.2% Ramona NA 33 33 0.4% San Dieguito NA 3 3 0.0% Spring Valley NA 81 81 1.0% Valle de Oro NA 16 16 0.2% Total Urban County 6 373 379 4.5% Entitlement Cities Carlsbad 57 19 76 0.9% Chula Vista 163 342 505 5.9% El Cajon 416 97 513 6.0% Encinitas 50 38 88 1.0% Escondido 403 151 554 6.5% La Mesa 0 37 37 0.4% National City 18 266 284 3.3% Oceanside 319 105 424 5.0% San Diego 2,731 2,468 5,199 61.1% San Marcos 0 6 6 0.1% Santee 0 40 40 0.5% Vista 358 42 400 4.7% Total County 4,521 3,984 8,5051 100% Notes: The 2014 San Diego Regional Homeless Profile indicates 8,506 persons enumerated in the Point -in -Time Count. The data presented in the report only indicates 8,505. Source: San Diego Regional Taskforce on the Homeless 2014 San Diego Regional Homeless Profile. September 24, 2014 CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 50 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 418 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE The San Diego Regional Continuum of Care Council (RCCC) receives millions of dollars in federal funds to address homelessness under the Homeless Continuum of Care (CoC) Program of the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing (HEARTH) Act. The RCCC is a large cooperative community group consisting of representatives of the 18 cities within the county, nonprofit service providers and other interested parties. The RCCC meets on a quarterly basis to identify gaps in homeless services, establish funding priorities, and pursue an overall systemic approach to addressing homelessness. The San Diego Housing Commission (SDHC) has established a three -year homelessness action plan to create additional affordable housing with supportive services for as many as 1,500 homeless San Diegans. In 2014, San Diego officials announced a three -year, $200 million, five -point action plan to combat homelessness.26 The Housing First model focuses on moving the homeless individual or household immediately from the streets or homeless shelters into housing. Housing First approaches are based on the concept that a homeless individual or household's first and primary need is to obtain stable housing, and that other issues that may affect the household can and should be addressed once housing is obtained. The Housing First — San Diego program includes: ■ The renovation of the Churchill Hotel to create 72 units providing permanent supportive housing for homeless veterans and former foster children ($17 million). ■ The creation of permanent supportive housing using $30 million in funding allocated over the next three years. ■ 1,500 federal rental vouchers for at -risk low- income families and individuals ($150 million). ■ "Moving to Work," federally funded rental assistance program which will dedicate 20 percent of its San Diego units for permanent supportive housing. ■ A commitment of 25 of SDHC's own affordable units ($348,000 annually) to serve as temporary housing for homeless families and individuals. SDHC is one of the first public housing agencies in the nation to pledge affordable housing units that it owns and operates for this purpose. A variety of public and nonprofit agencies in San Diego County also offer services to assist individuals and families in obtaining and maintaining adequate housing. These agencies administer programs that include rental assistance, housing rehabilitation, shared housing, public housing, home purchasing assistance, and emergency shelters. Figure 3 shows that the majority of resources for homeless persons are located near the downtown area in the City of San Diego, as more than half (61 percent) of the region's homeless population live in the City of San Diego. In the North County areas, there are concentrations of homeless resources in the larger cities such as Oceanside, Vista, and Escondido. In the south County areas, homeless resources are clustered in the cities of Chula Vista and El Cajon. 26 San Diego Housing Commission. "SDHC's Homelessness Action Plan ". (November 12, 2014). SDHC website: http: / /www.sdhc.org/ Special - Housing- Programs.aspx ?id =7616. Accessed December 21, 2014. CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 51 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 419 N O u~i SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE r N 04 Figure 3: Homeless Resources • I'I9fG. ,a.. b Orange County x co Riverside County Comp Pendleton A d r, �f �r 0 r P d Homeless Resources • Emergency Shelter A Transitional Shelter ■ Permanent Supportive Housing A Winter Shelter • Voucher Programs — Freeways 0 county Boundary 0 City Boundaries Community Boundaries Source: 0 County of San Diego, Housing Resources Directory 2013 -2015; SanGIS Data Warehouse, 2014. b CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 52 N O � Ramona i Son Diego Poway Country Estd Jamul !Beach al BoniChula Vista 125 , J, 80nego springs 111.1-1 J a '•r Oesransa % ;1 R,"ri a 0 Potre r, Baja California, McXi(G Homeless Resources 8ansaA' j ■ i�eanside I • 78 San Mara' Carlsbad ncinitas , Ranrha i t5orrm k+ Solana Beach Del Mar 9 San Die Homeless Resources • Emergency Shelter A Transitional Shelter ■ Permanent Supportive Housing A Winter Shelter • Voucher Programs — Freeways 0 county Boundary 0 City Boundaries Community Boundaries Source: 0 County of San Diego, Housing Resources Directory 2013 -2015; SanGIS Data Warehouse, 2014. b CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 52 N O � Ramona i Son Diego Poway Country Estd Jamul !Beach al BoniChula Vista 125 , J, 80nego springs 111.1-1 J a '•r Oesransa % ;1 R,"ri a 0 Potre r, Baja California, McXi(G Homeless Resources SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE 7. Farm Workers As traditionally defined, farm workers are persons whose primary incomes are earned through permanent or seasonal agricultural labor. Permanent farm workers tend to work in fields or processing plants. During harvest periods when workloads increase, the need to supplement the permanent labor force is satisfied with seasonal workers. Often these seasonal workers are migrant workers, defined by the inability to return to their primary residence at the end of the workday. Determining the actual number of farm workers in a region is difficult due to the variability of the definitions used by government agencies and other peculiarities endemic to the farming industry. Agricultural work can include weeding, thinning, planting, pruning, irrigation, tractor work, pesticide applications, harvesting, transportation to the cooler or market, and a variety of jobs at packing and processing facilities. It is therefore difficult to estimate the number of farm workers residing in the County. According to 2009- 2013 ACS data, just over 8,500 residents of San Diego County were employed in farming, fishing, or forestry occupations. In contrast, estimates provided by other governmental agencies include 9,600 (Total Farm Employment, California Employment Development Department) and 17,844 workers (Hired Farm Labor, 2012 Census of Agriculture). The number of farm workers, however, varies depending upon the different growing seasons. The numbers can change quickly as more work becomes available. This population remains highly migratory, following the work as it becomes available and even returning home for short periods during the off - season. Over half the estimated farm worker population is located in the North County cities of Oceanside, Escondido, Vista, and San Marcos. Close to a quarter of the farm worker population resided in unincorporated areas of the County. The geographic distribution of farm workers in San Diego County generally corresponds with agricultural production areas. According to the County's Geographic Information System (GIS) data, agricultural production in the County is concentrated in the unincorporated north inland areas of the county around Interstate 15, north of the cities of vista, San Marcos, and Escondido, and west of the Cleveland National Forest areas. County land use data also indicated that most agricultural activity consists of orchards and vineyards or field crops. Only a small portion of agricultural land is used for intensive agricultural uses. CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 53 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 421 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table 26: Farm Worker Population of San Diego County Jurisdiction # of Persons Percent of All Persons Employed in Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations Urban County Coronado 10 0.1% Del Mar 0 0.0% Imperial Beach 0 0.0% Lemon Grove 0 0.0% Poway 14 0.2% Solana Beach 12 0.1% Unincorporated 2,067 24.3% Total Urban County 2,103 24.7% Entitlement Cities Carlsbad 135 1.6% Chula Vista 104 1.2% El Cajon 17 0.2% Encinitas 63 0.7% Escondido 1,772 20.8% La Mesa 24 0.3% National City 109 1.3% Oceanside 1,025 12.0% San Diego 1,376 16.2% San Marcos 611 7.2% Santee 0 0.0% Vista 1,181 13.9% Total County 8,520 100.0% Source: American Community Survey (ACS), 2009 -2013 Although there exists little consensus as to the number of farm workers in San Diego County, analysis reveals that this group has special housing needs. According to the California Employment Development Department (EDD), the average salary for farm workers and laborers working in the Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations in the San Diego - Carlsbad -San Marcos MSA in 2014 was approximately $27,191. Most rental units that are affordable and available to migrant farm workers are small, while most farm worker households are above average in size and as a result live in overcrowded housing. Thus, housing affordability and overcrowding are critical issues among this special needs group. Due to the low wages, high housing costs, and seasonal nature of this occupational category, many farm workers are homeless at their place of employment while their families may be residing elsewhere. In 2010, the Regional Homeless Profile noted that more than half of unsheltered individuals counted in North County cities were farm workers or day laborers and many occupied hillsides and canyons near the areas they worked.27 27 San Diego Regional Taskforce on the Homeless, "2014 San Diego Regional Homeless Profile ". (September 24, 2014). CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 54 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 422 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Farm workers can benefit from programs and services that provide assistance to lower and moderate - income households in general, such as the Housing Choice Voucher program, which offers rental assistance to residents. According to the County of San Diego Housing Resources Directory 2013 -2015, two developments in the City of San Marcos (Chinaberry Apartments and Firebird Manor) and one in the community of Fallbrook (Fallbrook View Apartments) provide 109 units of affordable housing for farm workers and their families. In addition, eight of the 108 units at Eucalyptus View Apartments in the City of Escondido, and another ten of the 56 affordable units at Old Grove Apartments in the City of Oceanside, are reserved for farm workers and their families. 8. Military Personnel and Veterans San Diego is one of the largest military regions in the United States. The County is the third largest in the U.S. in terms of veteran residents, and the number one destination for veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.28 San Diego County has a strong military personnel presence due to the various large military bases, including Naval Air Station North Island, Naval Station San Diego, Naval Base Point Loma, Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, and Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton. The military population increases the demand for low -cost rental housing. Military personnel generally earn lower incomes and their length of residency is often uncertain. Although the need is partially met by the supply of military housing, the demand outweighs the supply. Eligibility for military housing is based on pay grade and family size. In addition to housing concerns, veterans may experience specific difficulties when reintegrating into the civilian labor force. These include: trouble translating military experience to civilian work, lack of resume, job search, and interview experience; time needed to "decompress;" and health issues (physical and mental) from military service.29 Although less than one percent of the U.S. population lives in San Diego County, the region is home to more than eight percent of the active duty U.S. military population. Approximately 110,700 active duty personnel are stationed in San Diego County. Once spouses and dependent children are included, the military- related population in San Diego County is about 229,000.0 The 2009 -2013 ACS data estimates that veterans made up 10 percent (234,211 persons) of the adult population in the County. This proportion was significantly higher in the City of Coronado (21 percent). Due to the region's high cost of living, many families at the lower range of pay and housing allowance are barely meeting the self - sufficiency standard for San Diego. The Self- Sufficiency Standard measures how much income is needed for a family of a certain composition living in a particular county to adequately meet its basic needs. The incomes for households living below the Self- Sufficiency Standard in the San Diego region exceed federal poverty thresholds but are insufficient to cover the cost of necessities in the region. The 2014 Regional Homeless Profile estimates that 20 percent (1,307 persons) of all homeless adult persons in San Diego (6,430 persons), at a single point in time, were veterans of the U.S. Armed Forces.l 28 County of San Diego and San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce, "Military Employment in San Diego ". (January 2013). 29 County of San Diego and San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce, "Military Employment in San Diego ". (January 2013). 30 Women Give San Diego, "San Diego Women and Girls & Economic Health: Military Women and Wives ". (2010). 31 San Diego Regional Taskforce on the Homeless, "2014 San Diego Regional Homeless Profile ". (September 24, 2014). CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 55 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 423 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Housing and supportive service needs for military personnel are addressed by the Department of Defense, while the needs of veterans are addressed at the community level. The Veteran Services division of the County's Health and Human Services Agency provides benefit information and assistance, plus other support to San Diego County veterans and their families. Services offered through Veterans Services includes comprehensive benefits counseling, claims preparation and submission, claims follow -up to ensure final decisions, initiation and development of appeals, and networking and advocacy with federal, state and local agencies. The Veteran's Village of San Diego (VVSD) provides a continuum of care with a full range of comprehensive and innovative services for military veterans. VVSD has five locations throughout San Diego County where they provide services to more than 2,000 military veterans. D. Hate Crimes Hate crimes — violent acts against people, property, or organizations motivated by a bias related to victim's race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, or physical or mental disability — are a tragic part of American history. However, it was not until the early in 2000s that the federal government began collecting data on the number and type of hate crimes committed and by whom. Hate crimes become a fair housing concern when residents are intimidated or harassed at their residence or neighborhood. Fair housing violations due to hate crimes also occur when people will not consider moving into certain neighborhoods, or have been run off from their homes for fear of harassment or physical harm. The federal Fair Housing Act makes it illegal to threaten, harass, intimidate or act violently toward a person who has exercised their right to free housing choice. Persons who break the law have committed a serious crime and can face time in prison, large fines or both, especially for violent acts, serious threats of harm, or injuries to victims. In addition, this same behavior may violate similar state and local laws, leading to more punishment for those who are responsible. Some examples of illegal behavior include threats made in person, writing or by telephone; vandalism of the home or property; rock throwing; suspicious fires, cross - burning or bombing; or unsuccessful attempts at any of these. The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 greatly expanded the federal government's ability to prosecute hate crimes without having to show that the defendant was engaged in a federally protected activity. The Shepard -Byrd Act also empowers the department to prosecute crimes committed because of a person's sexual orientation, gender identity, gender or disability as hate crimes. In 2013, the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program released the first publication to present data collected under the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crime Prevention Act of 2009. As a result, the bias categories of gender (male and female) and gender identity (transgender and gender nonconforming) were added to the other bias categories of race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, and ethnicity. Table 27 shows that 99 hate crimes were reported in San Diego County in 2013. The jurisdictions with the largest number of hate crimes include San Diego (43 cases), unincorporated County (13 cases), Escondido (8 cases), and Oceanside (8 cases). More than half of reported hate crimes appear to be motivated by the victim's race or ethnicity. Close to a quarter of reported hate crimes appear to be motivated by the victim's sexual orientation. Although hate crimes have declined in San Diego region since 2001 (Figure 4), there has been a steady increase in the proportion of total hate crimes reported that are based on religion. However, reporting hate crimes is voluntary on the part of CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 56 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 424 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE the local jurisdictions. Some states started submitting data only recently, and not all jurisdictions are represented in the reports. Many jurisdictions across the country, including those with well- documented histories of racial prejudice, reported zero hate crimes. Another obstacle to gaining an accurate count of hate crimes is the reluctance of many victims to report such attacks. Table 27: Hate Crime Statistics — 2013 Jurisdiction Race Religion Sexual Orientation Ethnicity Disability Gender Gender Identity Total Urban County Cities Coronado 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Del Mar 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Imperial Beach 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 Lemon Grove 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 Poway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Solana Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Entitlement Jurisdictions Carlsbad 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 3 Chula Vista 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 El Cajon 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 Encinitas 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 4 Escondido 4 1 1 2 0 0 0 8 La Mesa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 National City 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 Oceanside 5 1 1 1 0 0 0 8 San Diego 18 12 12 1 0 0 0 43 San Marcos 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Santee 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 Vista 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 San Diego County 6 2 3 2 0 0 0 13 Total County 46 19 23 11 0 0 0 99 Percentage 46.5% 19.2% 23.2% 11.1% 0% 0% 0% 100.0% Note: Hate Crime Statistics, 2013 includes data about bias - motivated incidents reported by law enforcement agencies throughout the nation. However, no estimates are included for agencies that do not submit reports. Source: U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Hate Crime Statistics 2013 CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 57 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 425 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Figure 4: Change in Hate Crimes between 2001 and 2013 -101 Total Disability Ethnicity Sexual Orientation Religion Race -100% -80% -W/O -40% -20% 0% Note: The large drop in the number of hate crimes reported based on the victim's disability is due to the low number of incidents reported. In 2001, 2 incidents were reported and in 2013 no incidents were reported. Source: U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Hate Crime Statistics 2013 E. Income Profile Household income is the most important factor determining a household's ability to balance housing costs with other basic life necessities. Regular income is the means by which most individuals and families finance current consumption and make provision for the future through saving and investment. The level of cash income can be used as an indicator of the standard of living for most of the population. While economic factors that affect a household's housing choice are not a fair housing issue per se, the relationships among household income, household type, race /ethnicity, and other factors often create misconceptions and biases that raise fair housing concerns. 1. Household Income The 2009- 2013 ACS data shows that the median household income for San Diego County was $62,962. Just over 23 percent of the County households earned less than $30,000 in 2013. In contrast, close to 30 percent of the households earned more than $100,000 in 2013. In fact, the proportion of households earning less than $75,000 has fallen since 2000 and households earning more than $75,000 increased since 2000 as seen in Figure 5. CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 58 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 426 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Figure 5: San Diego County Household Income ay.v ra 18.0% 16.0% 14.0% 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% C$15,000 $15,000- 29,999 $30,000- $44,999 $45,000- $59,999 $60,000- $74,999 $75,000- $99,999 $100,000- ]150,000 $149,999 ■ 2000 12.58/8 18.0% 17.38/8 13.98/8 11.1°/8 11.5% 9.8% 5.9% ■ 2013 10.3% 13.0% 13.0% 11.7% 9.5% 13.1% 15.6% 13.8% Source: Bureau of the Census, 2000; American Community Survey (ACS), 2009 -2013 Median income in 2013 ranged from a high of $107,457 in Del Mar to a low of $37,933 in National City (Table 28). Not surprisingly, areas with high median household incomes are found along the coastal cities of Del Mar and Solana Beach and in Poway. The income gap between cities can be attribute to many factors, including the high cost of housing on the coast, the cities with lower incomes having significantly younger residents, having fewer professional and management employees, or having more students. Many of the cities with lower median incomes are also cities with a higher proportion of non- white population. As stated earlier in this chapter, per capita income for Blacks and Hispanics is 78 percent and 55 percent, respectively, of the County per capita income, compared with Whites who earned 109 percent of the County per capita income according to 2009 to 2013 ACS data. According to 2000 Census data and 2013 ACS data, in absolute terms, the median income in the County has risen since 2000 (Table 28). When inflation is not factored in, the County and each of the cities in the County posted significant median household income gains compared with 2000. For example, median income in Vista jumped from $43,258 to $47,346 between 2000 and 2013, a 9.5- percent gain. However, adjusting the 2000 income to 2013, the number becomes $58,521, turning the change into a 19- percent loss. When adjusted for inflation, most cities saw a decrease in median income. Percent change in income from 2000 (inflation adjusted) to 2013 ranged from a decrease of 19 percent in Vista to an increase of 6.8 percent in Chula Vista. The decrease in median income in the County reflects a national trend attributable to the economic downturn that started in 2007 and has just recently started to level off. Research shows that between 2007 and 2013, the median household income nationwide dropped by 7.3 percent.32 32 Plummer, Brad. Median Household Incomes Have Collapsed Since the Recession. Washington Post. Retrieved from http:// www. washingtonpost .com /blogs /wonkblog/ (March 29, 2013). CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 59 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 427 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table 28: Median Household Income Jurisdiction Median Household Income 2000 Adjusted for Inflation) Median Household Income 2000 (In 2013 Inflation- Adjusted Dollars) Median Household Income % Change 2000 (In 2013 Inflation- Adjusted Dollars) to 2013) Urban County Coronado $67,334 $91,091 $91,103 0.0% Del Mar $81,941 $110,852 $107,457 -3.1% Imperial Beach $36,298 $49,105 $49,268 0.3% Lemon Grove $41,214 $55,755 $51,496 -7.6% Poway $71,715 $97,018 $93,856 -3.3% Solana Beach $73,523 $99,464 $86,451 -13.1% Entitlement Jurisdictions Carlsbad $65,854 $89,089 $83,908 -5.8% Chula Vista $44,852 $60,677 $64,801 6.8% El Cajon $36,176 $48,940 $44,112 -9.9% Encinitas $64,821 $87,692 $91,795 4.7% Escondido $43,337 $58,628 $49,362 -15.8% La Mesa $41,949 $56,750 $53,605 -5.5% National City $29,981 $40,559 $37,933 -6.5% Oceanside $46,237 $62,551 $58,153 -7.0% San Diego $45,871 $62,056 $64,058 3.2% San Marcos $45,897 $62,091 $53,657 -13.6% Santee $54,150 $73,256 $70,899 -3.2% Vista $43,258 $58,521 $47,346 -19.1% Total County L $47,360 $64,070 $62,962 -1.7% State of California $47,288 $63,973 $61,094 -4.5% Source: Bureau of the Census, 2000; American Community Survey (ACS), 2009 -2013; U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics 2. Income Distribution HUD periodically receives "custom tabulations" of Census data from the U.S. Census Bureau that are largely not available through standard Census products. The most recent estimates are derived from the 2007 -2011 ACS. These data, known as the "CHAS" data (Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy), demonstrate the extent of housing problems and housing needs, particularly for low- income households. The CHAS cross - tabulates the Census data to reveal household income in a community in relation to the Area Median Income (AMI). CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 60 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 428 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE As defined by CHAS, housing problems include: • Units with physical defects (lacking complete kitchen or bathroom); • Overcrowded conditions (housing units with more than one person per room); • Housing cost burden, including utilities, exceeding 30 percent of gross income; and • Severe housing cost burden, including utilities, exceeding 50 percent of gross income. HUD has also established the following income categories based on the Area Median Income (AMI) for the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA): • Extremely Low Income (0 -30 percent of AMI) • Low Income (31 -50 percent of AMI) • Moderate Income (51 -80 percent of AMI) • Middle /Upper Income (above 80 percent of AMI) Together, extremely low and low incomes are referred to as "lower" income. According to the CHAS data in Table 29, just over 26 percent of San Diego County households were within the extremely low- income and low- income categories, 17.6 percent were within the moderate - income category, and more than half (56.3 percent) were within the middle /upper - income category. The proportion of households with extremely low -and low- incomes was highest in National City (48.8 percent) and lowest in Del Mar (10.5 percent). CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 61 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 429 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table 29: Income Distribution, 2007 -2011 Jurisdiction Total Households Extremely Low Income (0 -30 %) Low Income (31 -50 %) Moderate Income (51 -80 %) Middle /Upper Income (80 % +) Urban County Coronado 7,440 8.4% 6.4% 13.0% 72.2% Del Mar 1,990 5.0% 5.5% 11.3% 78.1% Imperial Beach 9,060 21.5% 16.7% 23.5% 38.2% Lemon Grove 8,460 20.9% 15.0% 19.1% 45.0% Poway 15,930 6.9% 6.4% 11.3% 75.5% Solana Beach 5,480 10.2% 7.7% 11.7% 70.4% Entitlement Jurisdictions Carlsbad 39,970 9.3% 8.7% 14.2% 67.8% Chula Vista 73,635 13.0% 12.5% 18.7% 55.8% El Cajon 32,380 22.7% 14.1% 20.2% 43.0% Encinitas 23,045 10.3% 8.0% 13.6% 68.1% Escondido 44,920 17.0% 16.0% 23.0% 43.9% La Mesa 23,720 15.3% 13.9% 19.9% 50.9% National City 16,065 29.0% 19.8% 22.6% 28.6% Oceanside 57,820 12.2% 12.9% 19.3% 55.6% San Diego 474,215 14.8% 11.8% 16.1% 57.3% San Marcos 26,165 13.4% 16.1% 21.9% 48.5% Santee 18,405 10.2% 10.2% 17.2% 62.4% Vista 29,075 13.2% 17.3% 24.7% 44.8% Total County 12.2% 17.6% 56.30/6 Note: Data presented in this table is based on special tabulations from sample Census data. The number of households in each category usually deviates slightly from the 100% count due to the need to extrapolate sample data out to total households. Interpretations of this data should focus on the proportion of households in need of assistance rather than on precise numbers. Source: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Data, 2007 -2011 3. Income by Household Type and Race /Ethnicity Household income often varies by household type. As shown, in Table 30, small family households make up the largest proportion of extremely low- and low- income households at 26.4 percent. Race /ethnicity can indicate housing need to the extent that different race /ethnic groups earn different incomes. Overall, lower- income households represented just over 26 percent of all households in San Diego County in 2007 -2011. However, certain groups had higher proportions of lower - income households. Specifically, Hispanic (39.7 percent) and Black (35.5 percent) households had a considerably higher proportion of lower - income households than the rest of the County (Table 31). Proportionally fewer Asian (19.8 percent) and Non - Hispanic White households (20.9 percent) fell in the lower - income category compared to the County average. CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 62 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 430 N O N 0 in r N OC a ro K ro aM�o 4- w SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table 30: Housing Assistance Needs of Low and Moderate Income Households (2007 -2011) Household by Type, Income & Housing Problem Renters Owners Total Households Elderly Small Families Large Families Total Renters Elderly Small Families Large Families Total Owners Extremely Low Income (0 -30% AMI) 21,515 37,760 11,565 105,875 21,005 9,905 2,460 42,385 148,260 # with any housing problems 75% 85% 95% 81% 70% 68% 87% 70% 78% # with cost burden > 30% 74% 83% 92% 80% 69% 66% 77% 69% 77% # with cost burden > 50% 57% 73% 79% 69% 53% 60% 68% 57% 66% Low Income (31 -50% AMI) 13,555 35,715 11,720 83,320 24,135 12,120 4,305 46,400 129,720 # with any housing problems 77% 1 89% 92% 89% 49% 80% 90% 65% 80% # with cost burden > 30% 75% 85% 80% 85% 49% 79% 80% 63% 77% # with cost burden > 50% 42% 39% 34% 43% 31% 65% 56% 46% 44% Moderate Income (51 -80% AMI) 9,665 46,880 11,665 102,200 32,725 29,895 11,620 84,650 186,850 # with any housing problems 65% 65% 12% 68% 39% 74% 82% 61% 65% # with cost burden > 30% 63% 1 59% 48% 61% 39% 73% 71% 60% 60% # with cost burden > 50% 23% 11% 6% 13% 21% 48% 40% 36% 23% Middle /Upper Income (81% + AMI) 12,625 82,645 12,585 184,880 91,380 222,585 43,195 414,340 599,220 # with any housing problems 25% 21% 52% 22% 22% 34% 48% 34% 1 31% # with cost burden > 30% 22% 1 16% 15% 17% 22% 34% 36% 33% 28% # with cost burden > 50% 6% 1% 0% 1% 6% 7% 8% 8% 6% Total Households 57,360 203,000 47,535 476,275 169,245 274,505 61,580 587,775 1,064,050 # with any housing problems 63% 55% 62% 57% 35% 42% 59% 43% 49% # with cost burden > 30% 61% 51% 58% 52% 35% 41% 48% 42% 46% # with cost burden > 50% 36% 23% 29% 26% 18% 16% 20% 18% 22% Note: Data presented in this table is based on special tabulations from sample Census data. The number of households in each category usually deviates slightly from the 100% count due to the need to extrapolate sample data out to total households. Interpretations of this data should focus on the proportion of households in need of assistance rather than on precise numbers. Source: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 2007 -2011. CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 63 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table 31: Income by Race /Ethnicity Income Level All Households White Hispanic Black Asian Extremely Low Income (0 -30% AMI) 148,260 13.9% 11.2% 20.3% 19.7% 12.9% Low Income (31 -50% AMI) 129,720 12.2% 9.7% 19.4% 15.8% 6.9 %, Moderate Income (51 -80% AMI) 186,850 17.6% 15.6% 23.1% 19.6% 15.8% Middle /Upper Income (81% + AMI) 599,220 56.3% 63.5% 37.2% 44.9% 64.5% Percent of Total Households 1,064,050 100% 59.9% 23.0% 5.0% 9.0% Note: Data presented in this table is based on special tabulations from sample Census data. The number of households in each category usually deviates slightly from the 100% count due to the need to extrapolate sample data out to total households. Interpretations of this data should focus on the proportion of households in need of assistance rather than on precise numbers. Source: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Data, 2007 -2011 4. Concentrations of Lower- and Moderate - Income Populations Figure 6 shows the Lower and Moderate Income (LMI) areas in the County by Census block group. Typically, HUD defines a LMI area as a Census tract or block group where over 51 percent of the population is LMI. However, certain communities are higher income, with few block groups qualifying as LMI using this definition. These communities are considered "exception" jurisdictions. The cities of Carlsbad, Encinitas, Santee, and the San Diego Urban County33 are identified by HUD as "exception" jurisdictions (where their LMI thresholds are not set at 51 percent). LMI areas in these communities are defined as the top 25 percent (fourth quartile) of block groups with the highest concentration of low - and moderate - income population. For 2014, the LMI thresholds for these "exception" jurisdictions are: • City of Carlsbad: 39.41 percent • City of Encinitas: 41.97 percent • City of Santee: 44.79 percent • San Diego Urban County: 50.64 Low- and moderate - income (LMI) areas are concentrated in three very general areas. In the North County area, LMI areas are seen at Camp Pendleton and in the cities of Oceanside, Vista, San Marcos, and Escondido, in a pattern generally following State Route 78. In the southern portion of the County, clusters of LMI areas are seen in the central and southern areas of the City of San Diego and continuing down to the U.S. /Mexico border. In the East County areas, there are vast LMI areas in sparsely populated parts of the unincorporated County and in the City of El Cajon. 33 Cities with a population smaller than 50,000 residents do not directly receive CDBG funds from HUD. Instead, these small cities participate in the Urban County program. The Urban County program is responsible for administering the CDBG funds received from HUD and the requirements for obtaining funds on behalf of the cities. The San Diego Urban County is comprised of. Unincorporated areas, and the cities of Coronado, Del Mar, Imperial Beach, Lemon Grove, Poway, and Solana Beach. CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 64 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 432 N O N 0 in r N OC a ro sv x co b aro 4- w w Orar CaUI - Low and A Census trot overSlpen Carlsbad, E. and the Sat are identifie jurisdiction. are notseta — Freem Count, 0 City BC ,_ -__J! [ommunityHoandaries SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Figure 6: Low and Moderate Income Areas 0 Source: HUD, 2014; SanGIS Data Warehouse 2014. Low and Moderate Income Areas CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 65 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE 5. Concentrations of Poverty National poverty data suggests that people living in poverty tend to be clustered in certain communities rather than being evenly distributed across geographic areas. Identifying concentrations of poverty is important because living in areas with many other poor people has been shown to places burdens on low- income families beyond what the families' own individual circumstances would dictate. Other research indicates that this concentration of poverty can result in higher crime rates, underperforming public schools, poor housing and health conditions, as well as limited access to private services and job opportunities." The consequences of poverty are particularly harmful to children. Children who grow up in densely poor neighborhoods and attend low- income schools face many barriers to academic and occupational achievement. Countywide, 14.4 percent of residents (or over 440,000 persons) were living below the poverty level (according to 2009 -2013 ACS data).31 Poverty was more prevalent for specific groups such as Hispanics (20.5 percent), Blacks (20.9 percent), and adults with less than a high school education (24.5 percent). In contrast, 10.5 percent of White residents and five percent of residents with at least a bachelor's degree were living below the poverty level during the same time period. Figure 7 shows the geographic concentration of poverty in San Diego County (areas where the proportion of persons living in poverty is greater than the County). Similar to low- and moderate - income areas, areas of poverty concentration are clustered in three general areas of the County. In North County, concentrations can be seen in the cities of Oceanside, Vista, San Marcos, and Escondido. In the southern portion of the County, concentrations can be seen from the southern areas of the City of San Diego and continuing south. Increasing concentrations of low income and poverty households are linked to racial and ethnic segregation. In East County, poverty concentrations can be seen in many parts of the unincorporated County and in El Cajon. Many of the areas with a concentration of poverty in the western part of the County (in and around the incorporated cities) are also areas with minority concentrations. In some areas such as La Jolla and San Marcos, the large student populations may contribute to poverty concentrations. 34 Bureau of the Census, "Areas with Concentrated Poverty: 2006 - 2010 ". American Community Survey Briefs, December 2011. 35 The U.S. Census Bureau determines poverty status by comparing annual income to a set of dollar values called poverty thresholds that vary by family size, number of children, and age of householder. If a family's before tax money income is less than the dollar value of their threshold, then that family and every individual in it are considered to be in poverty. For people not living in families, poverty status is determined by comparing the individual's income to his or her poverty threshold. CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 66 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 434 N O N 0 ur r N 04 >z ro x co b 4- w N Oran Coun Poverty Concenl 0 -14.3% Po 14.4%- 28.7 - 28.80/o +Poa 14.4% of Co below the p ® RECAPs RaciallylEth Areas of Pot — Freewa 0 County 0 City Ba _ COMMON SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Figure 7: Poverty Concentration Areas Sourm Bureau ofthe Census, 2010: NUS, 2010, SanGIS Data Warehouse, 1034. Poverty Concentration Areas CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 67 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE In an effort to identify racially /ethnically - concentrated areas of poverty (RECAPS), HUD has identified census tracts with a majority non -White population (greater than 50 percent) and has a poverty rate that exceeds 40 percent or is three times the average tract poverty rate for the metro /micro area (in 2010), whichever threshold is lower. An analysis of racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty is important because families who live in such neighborhoods encounter challenges and stresses that hinder their ability to reach their full potential, and such neighborhoods impose extra costs on neighboring communities and the region. In San Diego County, there are RECAPS scattered in small sections of Oceanside, San Marcos, Escondido, El Cajon, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City, Chula Vista and Imperial Beach. Larger RECAP clusters can be seen in the central/ southern portion of the City of San Diego. In 2010, there were 173,692 persons living in a RECAP in the County, or 5.6 percent of the County's total population. Although Census data provides a general picture of poverty, as traditionally defined, in the County, it does not account for the many poor persons and households with incomes that are above federal poverty thresholds but below the San Diego region's high cost of living. According to research by the Center for Policy Initiatives (CPI), the official rate of poverty in San Diego County does not include over 205,000 local households living below the Self- Sufficiency Standard — who make up 25.8 percent of all working -age households in the County.36 The Self- Sufficiency Standard measures how much income is needed for a family of a certain composition living in a particular county to adequately meet its minimal basic needs. In contrast, the federal poverty level varies by family size but not geographical location. The incomes for households living below the Self- Sufficiency Standard in the San Diego region exceed federal poverty thresholds but are insufficient to cover the cost of necessities in the region. The latest data show that 300,667 of the region's 796,354 households headed by someone under age 65 are living below the Self- Sufficiency Standard. This figure represents an increase of 71,472 more families with insufficient incomes than in 2007, the year before the recession began. More than 108,000 households are unable to make ends meet despite earning two or more paychecks. Among all households in the county with at least two people working, 26.7 percent had total income below the Self- Sufficiency Standard. Among households headed by someone working a full-time, year -round job, 23.5 percent had incomes below the Self- Sufficiency Standard. Half (50.7 percent) of all households with children have incomes below the Self- Sufficiency Standard. That is nearly double the rate for households with no children (28.3 percent). F. Housing Profile A discussion of fair housing choice must be preceded by an assessment of the housing market being analyzed. This section provides an overview of the characteristics of the local and regional housing markets. The Census Bureau defines a housing unit as a house, an apartment, a mobile home, a group of rooms, or a single room that is occupied (or, if vacant, is intended for occupancy) as separate living quarters. Separate living quarters are those in which the occupants live separately from any other individuals in the building and which have direct access from outside the building or through a common hall. 36 Data in the discussion related to the Self Sufficiency Standard is from the Center for Policy Initiative, "Making Ends Meet 2014: When Wages Fail to Meet the Basic Cost of Living in San Diego Count'. (2014). CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 68 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 436 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE 1. Housing Growth Housing data from 2000 and 2010 Census reveals that the San Diego County housing stock increased by almost 12 percent between 2000 and 2010 (Table 32). Among the various jurisdictions in the County, the City of San Marcos experienced the largest housing growth (close to 52 percent) followed by Chula Vista (37.6 percent) and Carlsbad (32.3 percent). Several jurisdictions within the Urban County experienced housing growth of less than 2 percent (Coronado, Del Mar, Imperial Beach, Lemon Grove, and Solana Beach). In the unincorporated areas, housing growth was slightly higher than countywide figures. SANDAG growth forecasts estimate that by 2020, the County's housing stock will increase by close to eight percent. The cities of Chula Vista, Escondido, and San Marcos are expected to see housing stock growth that in excess of eight percent (13.8 percent, 11.7 percent, and 15.8 percent, respectively). The estimated population growth for the County is expected to outpace housing production by three percent. The inability to produce enough housing units to accommodate the increasing number of households reduces vacancy rates and drives up market prices, along with other issues such as overcrowding. Table 32: Housing Unit Growth Jurisdiction # of Units 2000 # of Units 2010 % Change 2000 to 2010 Urban County Coronado 9,494 9,634 1.5% Del Mar 2,557 2,596 1.5% Imperial Beach 9,739 9,882 1.5% Lemon Grove 8,722 8,868 1.7% Poway 15,714 16,715 6.4% Solana Beach 6,456 6,540 1.3% Unincorporated 154,737 173,756 12.3% Total Urban County 207,419 227,991 9.9% Entitlement Cities Carlsbad 33,798 44,673 32.2% Chula Vista 57,705 79,416 37.6% El Cajon 35,190 35,850 1.9% Encinitas 23,843 25,740 8.0% Escondido 45,050 48,044 6.6% La Mesa 24,943 26,167 4.9% National City 15,422 16,762 8.7% Oceanside 59,581 64,435 8.1% San Diego 469,689 515,275 9.7% San Marcos 18,862 28,641 51.8% Santee 18,833 20,048 6.5% Vista 29,814 30,986 3.9% Total County 1,040,149 1,164,028 Sources: Bureau of the Census, 2000 and 2010 Census CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 69 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 437 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE 2. Housing Type A region's housing stock generally includes three categories: single - family dwelling units, multi - family dwelling units, and other types of units such as mobile homes. Single - family units are attached or detached dwelling units usually on individual lots of land. As shown in Table 33, approximately 60 percent of the housing units in the County are single- family dwellings. The cities of Del Mar, Lemon Grove, Poway, and Encinitas, as well as the unincorporated County areas, have a much larger proportion of this housing unit type, while El Cajon and Imperial Beach have a much lower proportion. Table 33: Housing Stock Mix - 2014 Jurisdiction Single Family Units Multi - Family Units Mobile Homes Detached Attached Total 2 -4 Units 5+ Units Total Urban County Coronado 45.5% 10.7% 56.2% 6.7% 37.1% 43.8% 0.0% Del Mar 51.1% 19.9% 71.0% 7.7% 21.3% 29.0% 0.0% Imperial Beach 39.4% 7.8% 47.1% 11.9% 37.7% 49.7% 3.2% Lemon Grove 66.4% 8.9% 75.3% 7.4% 16.4% 23.8% 0.9% Poway 75.0% 4.1% 79.0% 2.4% 13.7% 16.1% 4.9% Solana Beach 47.7% 19.4% 67.1% 6.2% 26.5% 32.7% 0.2% Unincorporated 68.5% 6.0% 74.5% 4.6% 12.5% 17.0% 8.4% Total Urban County 65.9% 6.8% 72.7% 5.0% 15.3% 20.3% 7.0% Entitlement Jurisdictions Carlsbad 52.9% 16.7% 69.6% 5.6% 22.0% 27.6% 2.8% Chula Vista 54.7% 10.3% 64.9% 5.5% 24.6% 30.1% 5.0% El Cajon 40.8% 4.9% 45.7% 7.9% 41.1% 49.0% 5.3% Encinitas 57.6% 18.8% 76.4% 7.0% 14.0% 21.0% 2.6% Escondido 50.8% 6.2% 57.0% 6.9% 28.3% 35.2% 7.8% La Mesa 47.2% 6.0% 53.3% 9.2% 36.7% 45.9% 0.9% National City 44.4% 9.6% 54.0% 9.4% 34.0% 43.4% 2.6% Oceanside 52.8% 11.7% 64.5% 8.6% 21.9% 30.5% 5.0% San Diego 45.6% 8.8% 54.5% 8.5% 35.7% 44.2% 1.3% San Marcos 52.6% 7.4% 60.0% 4.0% 25.0% 29.0% 11.0% Santee 55.0% 8.9% 63.9% 6.0% 18.7% 24.8% 11.3% Vista 50.6% 7.8% 58.3% 7.5% 28.2% 35.7% 6.0% Total County 51.7% 8.9% 60.6% 7.2% 28.3% 35.5% 3.9% Source: California Department of Finance. E -5 Population and Housing Eshinates for Cities, Counties and the State -January 1, 2011- 2014. Sacramento, California, May 2014. 3. Tenure and Vacancy Housing tenure describes the arrangement by which a household occupies a housing unit; that is, whether a housing unit is owner - occupied or renter - occupied. Tenure preferences are primarily related to household income, composition, and age of the resident. Communities need to have an adequate supply of units available both for rent and for sale in order to accommodate a range of households with CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 70 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 438 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE varying incomes, family sizes, composition, life styles, etc. A person may face different housing issues in the rental housing market versus the for -sale housing market. Residential stability is also influenced by tenure with ownership housing resulting in a much lower turnover rate than rental housing. As seen in Table 34, San Diego County has a higher proportion of owner - occupied housing (54.4 percent) than renter - occupied housing (45.6 percent). The ownership level fell by one percent between 2000 and 2010, but was still below the national level of 65.1 percent and slightly lower than the 56.0 percent State figure for housing ownership. Most cities in the County had more owner - occupied housing units than renter - occupied units. Exceptions include Coronado, Imperial Beach, El Cajon, La Mesa, National City, and San Diego. The tenure distribution in Coronado, Imperial Beach, and National City may be attributed to the large proportion of military families in those cities living off base due to the lack of, or demand for, housing and the close proximity of the cities to military bases. The large proportion of renters in El Cajon is partially explained by the large amount of multi - family housing in the City. Table 34: Housing Tenure and Vacancy Jurisdiction Percent Owner- Occupied Percent Renter- Occupied Vacancy Rate Urban County Coronado 48.9% 51.1% 23.1% Del Mar 53.9% 46.1% 20.5% Imperial Beach 30.2% 69.8% 7.8% Lemon Grove 54.6% 45.4% 4.9% Poway 74.4% 25.6% 3.5% Solana Beach 60.2% 39.8% 13.6% Unincorporated 68.7% 31.3% 8.3% Total Urban County 65.8% 34.2% 8.7% Entitlement Jurisdictions Carlsbad 64.8% 35.2% 7.4% Chula Vista 58.1% 41.9% 4.9% El Cajon 41.3% 58.7% 4.8% Encinitas 63.1% 36.9% 6.4% Escondido 52.2% 47.8% 5.3% La Mesa 45.8% 54.2% 6.3% National City 33.5% 66.5% 7.5% Oceanside 59.1% 40.9% 81% San Diego 48.3% 51.7% 6.4% San Marcos 62.8% 37.2% 5.0% Santee 70.3% 29.7% 3.7% Vista 51.8% 48.2% 5.4% Total County 54.4% 45.6% 6.7% Sources: Bureau of the Census, 2010 Census CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 71 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 439 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE 4. Tenure by Income and Race /Ethnicity A substantial income and housing disparity exists between owner- and renter - households. Table 35 indicates that San Diego County renters are more likely to be lower and moderate income and are more likely to experience housing problems such as cost burden and substandard housing conditions. The County's tenure distribution also has a racial and ethnic component as many ethnic minority populations in San Diego County have not achieved housing homeownership as readily as the White population. In fact as of 2010, the majority of owner - occupied households are White (Figure 3 -8). Of those who owned the housing units they occupied, 68 percent were White; 17 percent were Hispanic; 3 percent were Black; and 10 percent were Asian /Pacific Islanders. While the rate of homeownership among minorities has increased since 2000 (along with the overall minority population growth), comparing these figures to race data from the 2010 Census demonstrates that minorities in the County are underrepresented in terms of homeownership. For comparison purposes, according to Census 2010 data, Whites are 40.1 percent of the County population, Hispanics are 37.6 percent, while 13.2 percent are Asian /Pacific Islander and only 5.8 percent of the population was Black. Table 35: Tenure by Income Source: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Data, 2007 -2011 Figure 3 -8: Home Ownership by Race /Ethnicity, 2000 -2010 2000 Asian P /I,Black, 3° o Other, 2% 7% Hispanic,, 13% e, 75° 2010 A �:�� n iT Black, 3 % Other, 2% Sources: Bureau of the Census, 2000 -2010 Census 'hite, 68% A certain number of vacant units are needed to moderate the cost of housing, allow sufficient choice for residents, and provide an incentive for unit upkeep and repair. Vacancy rates are generally higher among rental properties, as rental units have greater attrition rates than owner - occupied units. A healthy vacancy rate — one which permits sufficient choice and mobility among a variety of housing units — is CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 72 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 440 Percent Low Percent with Percent with Percent of All Tenure and Moderate Housing Cost Burden Households Income Problems ( >30 %) Renters 44.8% 62.7% 56.8% 52.2% Owners 55.2% 37.3% 43.2% 41.5% All Households 100.0% 43.7% 49.3% 46.3% Source: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Data, 2007 -2011 Figure 3 -8: Home Ownership by Race /Ethnicity, 2000 -2010 2000 Asian P /I,Black, 3° o Other, 2% 7% Hispanic,, 13% e, 75° 2010 A �:�� n iT Black, 3 % Other, 2% Sources: Bureau of the Census, 2000 -2010 Census 'hite, 68% A certain number of vacant units are needed to moderate the cost of housing, allow sufficient choice for residents, and provide an incentive for unit upkeep and repair. Vacancy rates are generally higher among rental properties, as rental units have greater attrition rates than owner - occupied units. A healthy vacancy rate — one which permits sufficient choice and mobility among a variety of housing units — is CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 72 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 440 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE considered to be two to three percent for ownership units and five to six percent for rental units. Low vacancy rates can indicate a heightened likelihood of housing discrimination as the number of house - seekers increases while the number of available units remains relatively constant. Managers and sellers are then able to choose occupants based on possible biases because the applicant pool is large. The vacancy rates for the County (in 2010) were within these ranges, indicating adequate housing options and mobility for residents. The San Diego County Apartment Association (SDCAA) in 2014 estimated that the vacancy rate for the County had dropped to 2.3 percent. According to SDCAA, the vacancy rate reflects the continued high demand for rental units and the need for more supply and fewer barriers to developing multi -unit housing in the region. I. Housing Condition Assessing housing conditions in the County can provide the basis for developing policies and programs to maintain and preserve the quality of the housing stock. Housing age can indicate general housing conditions within a community. Housing is subject to gradual deterioration over time. Deteriorating housing can depress neighboring property values, discourage reinvestment, and impact the quality of life in a neighborhood. State and federal housing programs typically consider the age of a community's housing stock when estimating rehabilitation needs. In general, most homes begin to require major repairs or have significant rehabilitation needs at 30 or 40 years of age. Furthermore, housing units constructed prior to 1979 are more likely to contain lead -based paint. The housing stock in the San Diego region is older, with a majority of the housing units (61 percent) built before 1979. According to the 2009 -2013 ACS data shown in Table 36, more than half of the County's housing stock is over 30 years of age in 2010 and close to 56 percent was over 50 years old. The highest percentages of pre -1980 housing units are generally found in the older, urbanized neighborhoods of the cities of La Mesa, Lemon Grove, El Cajon, San Diego, Coronado and National City and will most likely have the largest proportions of housing units potentially in need of rehabilitation. Home rehabilitation can be an obstacle for senior homeowners with fixed incomes and mobility issues. 1. Lead -Based Paint Hazard According to the federal Centers for Disease Control (CDC), approximately 250,000 children aged one to five years in the United States have elevated levels of lead in their blood. High blood lead levels are a concern because they may be harmful to a child's developing organ systems such as the kidneys, brain, liver, and blood - forming tissues, potentially affecting a child's ability to learn. Very high blood lead levels can cause devastating health consequences, including seizures, coma, and even death. Children are much more vulnerable to lead poisoning than adults because children tend to put items into their mouths and some of these items may contain lead paint. In addition, their bodies absorb up to 40 percent of the lead with which they come into contact, as opposed to only ten percent absorbed by adults. Lead can enter the body through breathing or ingestion. Several factors contribute to higher incidence of lead poisoning: • All children under the age of six years old are at higher risk. • Children living at or below the poverty line are at a higher risk. • Children in older housing are at higher risk. • Children of some racial and ethnic groups and those living in older housing are at disproportionately higher risk. CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 73 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 441 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE According to the County Health and Human Services Agency, between 2009 and 2013, 104 cases of lead - poisoning (Blood Lead Level >14.4 ug /dL) among children were recorded. The majority of the reported cases were from City of San Diego, which has more renters than owners and a slightly larger than average proportion of older housing. In an effort to target health promotion and lead poisoning prevention activities, the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency's Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program (CLPPP) examined the risk of lead poisoning based on the percentage of families below the poverty level, number of residential structures built prior to 1980 and the total population under 5 years of age. Figure 9 shows high- and very high -risk areas for childhood lead poisoning, which cover most of the County areas with denser populations. The City of Oceanside has the 2nd highest percent of lead poisoning cases. It should be noted that testing conducted by the County Health and Human Services Agency showed higher than average levels of lead in blood tests in children in the City of Oceanside's Crown Heights neighborhood. The elevated levels have been traced to wrappers of imported candies and lead from imported cooking pots. The City of Oceanside does not consider lead -based paint to be an acute danger for its residents. Table 36: Housing Age and Lead - Poisoning Cases Jurisdiction Built 1960- 1979 Built 1940- 1959 Built Before 1940 Median Year Built Lead Poisoning Cases 2009 -2013 Urban County Coronado 41.0% 18.5% 13.4% 1973 Del Mar 45.7% 19.3% 3.6% 1973 Imperial Beach 44.7% 29.3% 3.2% 1969 Lemon Grove 32.9% 38.8% 4.5% 1964 Poway 51.5% 7.4% 0.6% 1977 Solana Beach 55.1% 13.9% 2.8% 1975 -- Unincorporated 36.3% 10.9% 2.5% -- 5 (4.8 %) Total Urban County 38.5% 13.0% 3.0% -- 5 (4.8 %) Entitlement Jurisdictions Carlsbad 28.2% 4.2% 0.9% 1986 2 (1.9 %) Chula Vista 30.6% 15.5% 1.5% 1982 6 (5.7 %) El Cajon 49.8% 22.9% 1.5% 1972 8 (7.6 %) Encinitas 42.5% 10.7% 2.9% 1978 2 (1.9 %) Escondido 44.1% 7.4% 2.0% 1979 6 (5.7 %) La Mesa 42.7% 33.1% 4.3% 1967 1 (1.0 0/0) National City 39.0% 30.0% 6.7% 1968 3 (2.9 %) Oceanside 35.0% 7.2% 1.4% 1982 9 (8.6 %) San Diego 35.3% 17.9% 6.9% 1975 49 (46.7%) San Marcos 28.3% 1.9% 0.5% 1988 6 (5.7 %) Santee 54.5% 8.2% 0.4% 1977 -- Vista 38.8% 7.4% 0.9% 1981 7 (6.7 9/6) Total County 36.7% 14.9% 4.3% 1978 104(100%) Note: Lead poisoning cases refer to children under 21 years of age with a venous BLL 14.5 ug /dL or greater. Sources: American Community Survey (ACS), 2009 -2013; County of San Diego Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program (CLPPP) Epidemiology & Immunization Services, Public Health Services, 2014. CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 74 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 442 N O N Cn O Cn N N OC a ro sv n fxD b w Orange County A d f , +r O rP 7 Figure 9: Childhood Lead Poisoning Risk Areas Carlsbad Solana Be Del Childhood Lead Poisoning Risk Areas High Risk - Very High Risk Based on the 96 of families below the povertylevel, # of residential structures built prior to 1980, and population< 5 years of age. — Freeways 0 County Boundary City Boundaries _._.1 Community Boundarfes Source: County of San Diego, HHSA, 2014; anGIS Data Warehouse, 2014, San 'f? Marcos Escondido icha ,Q k> Poway 1/ 66 San Diego Riverside County ti •i� �.•7 °, Borrega Springs 3 a 0 Afpine - pi,,', 9olfey El Cajon r•. r`Mesae •t' on Grove • )amu! -+ ri � B'oufevafd• Ala Vista !•, ornpo lammbo __- � Potreru 1125 ----� Bala California, Mexico Childhood Lead Poisoning Risk Areasm CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 75 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE J. Housing Cost and Affordability This section evaluates the affordability of the housing stock in the County to low and moderate income households. If housing costs are relatively high in comparison to household income, a correspondingly high rate of housing problems occurs. It is important to emphasize that housing affordability alone is not a fair housing issue. However, fair housing concerns may arise when housing affordability interacts with other factors covered under the fair housing laws, such as household type, composition, and race /ethnicity. 1. Housing Cost Every year, the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) tracks the ability of households to afford a home in metropolitan areas across the country. NAHB develops a Housing Opportunity Index (HOI) for a given area that is defined as the share of homes sold in that area that would have been affordable to a family earning that area's median income. Fifteen of the twenty least affordable metro areas in 2014 were located in California. The San Diego - Carlsbad -San Marcos Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) is one of the least affordable areas in the nation ranking as the ninth least affordable region in the United States in 2014. In 2014 (Third Quarter), only 23 percent of the homes sold in the San Diego MSA were affordable to a family earning the area's median income. Figure 10 shows that affordability for the region peaked in 2009 during the recession and has dropped considerably since then. 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Figure 10: Housing Opportunity Index Trend i L':I I1.i�diI1 0111 did E Note: Housing Opportunity Index represents the percentage of homes sold that were affordable to families earning the median income during the respective quarter. Source: National Association of Home Builders, The NAHB /Wells Fargo Housing Opportunity Index: Complete History by Metropolitan Area (1991- 2014). CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 76 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 444 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE According to a study conducted by the Center for Housing Policy, more than a third of working households in the San Diego MSA are paying more than half the income towards housing.' As cost of living is consistently on the rise, housing affordability drops, and lower - income families are most acutely affected. The Center on Policy Initiatives noted that a single parent in the San Diego area making only the minimum wage of $9.75 per hour (as of January 1, 2015 in the City of San Diego) would have to earn more than twice the minimum wage in order to afford a place with two bedrooms." The California Housing Partnership (CHPC) estimates that median rents in San Diego County increased by 23 percent between 2000 and 2012, while the median income declined by seven percent, significantly driving up the percentage of income that households must spend on rent.`' Rents increase in response to demand and more renter households have entered the San Diego market since 2006, many because of displacement during the foreclosure crisis. Even as San Diego County's shortfall of affordable homes has become more acute, funding for affordable housing has dropped significantly. CHPC estimates that there has been a 78- percent decrease in state and federal funding for affordable homes in San Diego since 2008." Table 37 displays median home sale prices for each jurisdiction in San Diego County. For 2014, the median sales price for homes in San Diego County was $430,000, an increase of 3.6 percent from 2013. Home prices vary by area /jurisdiction, with very high median prices in coastal areas such as the cities of Coronado, Del Mar, Solana Beach, and the La Jolla area of the City of San Diego. National City had the lowest median sales price among the incorporated jurisdictions. The San Diego County Apartment Association (SDCAA) publishes average rental rates biannually. Table 38 displays the average rent by jurisdiction. The estimated average rental costs in San Diego County in the fall of 2014 were $812 for a studio, $1,066 for a one - bedroom, $1,463 for a two- bedroom, and $1,813 for a three - bedroom. 37 Center for Housing Policy. "Housing Landscape 2103." (May 2013). 38 Center for Policy Initiative, "Making Ends Meet 2014: When Wages Fail to Meet the Basic Cost of Living in San Diego County." (2014). 39 California Housing Partnership Corporation. "How San Diego County's Housing Market is Failing to Meet the Needs of Low Income Families." (May 2014). u: California Housing Partnership Corporation. "How San Diego County's Housing Market is Failing to Meet the Needs of Low Income Families." (May 2014). CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 77 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 445 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table 37: Median Home Sale Prices by Jurisdiction County/City /Area # Sold Median Price Nov. 2014 Median Price Nov. 2013 % Change 2013 -2014 Urban County Coronado 13 $1,059,500 $1,017,500 4.13% Del Mar 23 $1,249,000 $1,095,000 14.06% Imperial Beach 8 $427,000 $355,000 20.28% Lemon Grove 24 $331,750 $339,000 -2.14% Poway 35 $558,409 $520,000 7.39% Solana Beach 24 $1,022,500 $1,020,000 0.25% Unincorporated Communities Alpine 23 $457,500 $443,000 3.27% Bonita 13 $580,000 $430,000 34.88% Bonsall 3 $677,500 $375,000 80.67% Borrego Springs 2 $95,000 $244,000 - 61.07% Campo 5 $214,500 $160,750 33.44% Fallbrook 45 $418,500 $425,000 -1.53% Jamul 4 $725,000 $545,000 33.03% Julian 12 $295,000 $453,000 - 34.88% Lakeside 31 $428,000 $395,000 8.35% Pine Valley 3 $330,000 $340,000 -2.94% Ramona 48 $401,250 $407,500 -1.53% Rancho Santa Fe 10 $2,185,000 $2,650,000 - 17.55% Spring Valley 40 $362,500 $285,000 27.19% Valley Center 16 $415,000 $430,000 -3.49% Entitlement Jurisdictions Carlsbad 121 $687,500 $616,250 11.56% Chula Vista 214 $405,000 $375,000 8.00% El Cajon 116 $365,000 $345,000 5.80% Encinitas' 60 $768,000 $683,000 12.45% Escondido 117 $394,000 $363,000 8.54% La Mesa 69 $417,000 $390,000 6.92% National City 16 $277,500 $266,000 4.32% Oceanside 164 $392,500 $395,000 -0.63% San Diego 1,023 $439,500 $425,000 3.41% La Jolla2 47 $1,030,000 $975,000 5.64% San Marcos 81 $422,500 $501,000 - 15.67% Santee 53 $350,000 $392,500 - 10.83% Vista 83 $420,000 $400,000 5.00% San Diego County 2,614 $430,000 $415,000 3.61% Note: 1. Does not include Cardiff -by- the -Sea sales data. Source: DQNews.com, California Home Sale Activity by City, November 2014. Accessed January 15, 2015 CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 78 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 446 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table 38: Average Rental Rates by Jurisdiction - Fall 2014 Jurisdiction /Area Unit Type Average Monthly Rent Change Fall 2013 Fall 2014* Urban County Coronado Studio $800 N/A N/A 1 Bedroom $1,305 $1,325 1.5% 2 Bedrooms $1,643 $1,200 -27.0% 3+ Bedrooms $3,634 $2,308 -36.5% Del Mar Studio $1,500 $1,526 1.7% 1 Bedroom $598 $1,564 161.5% 2 Bedrooms $2,014 $1,894 -6.0% 3+ Bedrooms $2,050 $2,300 12.2% Imperial Beach Studio $873 $925 6.0% 1 Bedroom $1,032 $825 -20.1% 2 Bedrooms $1,249 $1,635 30.9% 3+ Bedrooms $1,587 $1,988 25.3% Lemon Grove Studio $800 $762 -4.8% 1 Bedroom $934 $864 -7.5% 2 Bedrooms $1,156 $1,102 -4.7% 3+ Bedrooms $1,313 $1,475 12.3% Poway Studio N/A $1,012 N/A 1 Bedroom $1,061 $1,245 17.3% 2 Bedrooms $1,325 $1,325 0.0% 3+ Bedrooms $1,745 $1,842 5.6% Solana Beach Studio N/A $900 N/A 1 Bedroom $1,225 $1,656 35.2% 2 Bedrooms $1,510 $1,967 30.3% 3+ Bedrooms $2,900 $2,310 -20.3% Entitlement Jurisdictions Carlsbad Studio $1,049 $911 -13.2% 1 Bedroom $1,162 $1,168 0.5% 2 Bedrooms $1,606 $1,557 -3.1% 3+ Bedrooms $2,004 $4,525 125.8% Chula Vista Studio $667 $720 7.9% 1 Bedroom $1,020 $970 -4.9% 2 Bedrooms $1,340 $1,354 1.0% 3+ Bedrooms $1,993 $1,566 -21.4% El Cajon Studio $797 $693 -13.0% 1 Bedroom $1,028 $1,149 11.8% 2 Bedrooms $1,276 $1,069 -16.2% 3+ Bedrooms $1,724 $1,557 -9.7% CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 79 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 447 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table 38: Average Rental Rates by Jurisdiction - Fall 2014 Jurisdiction /Area Unit Type Average Monthly Rent Change Fall 2013 Fall 2014* Encinitas Studio $893 $1,362 52.5% 1 Bedroom $1,302 $1,233 -5.3% 2 Bedrooms $1,957 $1,654 -15.5% 3+ Bedrooms $2,470 $1,575 -36.2% Escondido Studio $751.00 N/A N/A 1 Bedroom $914 $739 -19.1% 2 Bedrooms $1,121 $1,116 -0.4% 3+ Bedrooms $1,409 $1,393 -1.1% La Mesa Studio $840 $875 4.2% 1 Bedroom $1,181 $1,075 -9.0% 2 Bedrooms $1,474 $1,467 -0.5% 3+ Bedrooms $1,774 $1,875 5.7% National City Studio $675 $675 0.0% 1 Bedroom $805 $809 0.5% 2 Bedrooms $1,043 $969 -7.1% 3+ Bedrooms $1,250 N/A N/A Oceanside Studio $981 $922 -6.0% 1 Bedroom $1,120 $1,106 -1.3% 2 Bedrooms $1,290 $2,217 71.9% 3+ Bedrooms $1,817 $2,018 11.1% San Diego Studio N/A $824 N/A 1 Bedroom N/A $1,075 N/A 2 Bedrooms N/A $1,496 N/A 3+ Bedrooms N/A $1,892 N/A San Marcos Studio $613 N/A N/A 1 Bedroom $949 $1,013 6.7% 2 Bedrooms $1,203 $1,267 5.3% 3+ Bedrooms $1,990 N/A N/A Santee Studio N/A $900 N/A 1 Bedroom $1,085 $1,012 -6.7% 2 Bedrooms $1,297 $1,568 20.9% 3+ Bedrooms $1,465 $2,763 88.6% Vista Studio $825 $674 -18.3% 1 Bedroom $1,157 $1,016 -12.2% 2 Bedrooms $1,311 $1,257 -4.1% 3+ Bedrooms $1,570 $1,326 -15.5% CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 80 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 448 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table 38: Average Rental Rates by Jurisdiction - Fall 2014 Jurisdiction /Area Unit Type Average Monthly Rent Change Fall 2013 Fall 2014* San Diego County Studio N/A $812 N/A 1 Bedroom N/A $1,066 N/A 2 Bedrooms N/A $1,463 N/A 3+ Bedrooms N/A $1,813 N/A Note: Fall 2014 average rents were not available for studio units in Del Mar, Imperial Beach, Poway, and Solana Beach and 3+ bedroom units in Coronado. Spring 2014 average rents are used for those values. Source: San Diego County Apartment Association. Fall 2014 Vacancy and Rental Rate Survey. December 2014 2. Housing Affordability Housing affordability can be inferred by comparing the cost of renting or owning a home in a community with the maximum affordable housing costs for households at different income levels. Taken together, this information can generally show who can afford what size and type of housing and indicate the type of households most likely to experience overcrowding and overpayment. While housing affordability alone is not a fair housing issue, fair housing concerns may arise when housing affordability interacts with factors covered under the fair housing laws, such as household type, composition, and race /ethnicity. HUD conducts annual household income surveys nationwide to determine a household's eligibility for federal housing assistance. Households in the lower end of each income category can afford less by comparison than those at the upper end. Table 39 shows the annual household income by household size and the maximum affordable housing payment based on the standard of 30 to 35 percent of household income. Also shown are general cost assumptions for utilities, taxes, and property insurance. The countywide median home price for 2014 ($430,000) places home ownership out of reach for most low- and moderate - income households. For middle /median - income families (81 -100 percent AMI) homeownership is only possible in areas such as Lemon Grove, a few unincorporated East County communities, National City, and San Ysidro. When homeownership is out of reach, rental housing is the only viable option for many low- income persons. Based on the rental data presented in Table 38, only a handful of jurisdictions had median gross rents under $1,000, which is in the range of affordability for low- income families. Table 39 shows that extremely low- income households cannot afford rents in any part of the county. Larger, low- income households can afford some of the studio and one - bedroom rental units but those would be inadequate to house a large family. Moderate - income households have more options for rentals but again, large households may encounter difficulty finding adequately sized units. The situation is most difficult for seniors with fixed incomes. When the housing market is tight, with high demand, low vacancies, and rising costs, the potential for discriminatory housing practices also increases. CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 81 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 449 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table 39: Housing Affordability Matrix - San Diego County (2014) Income Group Annual Income Limits Affordable Payment Housing Costs Maximum Affordable Price Renter Owner Utilities Taxes & Insurance (Owner) Home (purchase price) Rental (per month) Extremely Low (0 -30% AMI) 1- Person $16,600 $415 $415 $129 $83 $47,245 $286 2- Person $18,950 $474 $474 $165 $95 $49,805 $309 3- Person $21,300 $533 $533 $202 $107 $52,133 $331 4- Person $23,650 $591 $591 $238 $118 $54,693 $353 5- Person $25,550 $639 $639 $291 $128 $51,202 $348 Low (31 -50% AMI) 1- Person $27,650 $691 $691 $129 $138 $98,680 $562 2- Person $31,600 $790 $790 $165 $158 $108,687 $625 3- Person $35,550 $889 $889 $202 $178 $118,462 $687 4- Person $39,450 $986 $986 $238 $197 $128,237 $748 5- Person $42,650 $1,066 $1,066 $291 $213 $130,797 $775 Moderate (51 -80% AMI) 1- Person $44,200 $1,105 $1,105 $129 $221 $175,715 $976 2- Person $50,500 $1,263 $1,263 $165 $253 $196,661 $1,098 3- Person $56,800 $1,420 $1,420 $202 $284 $217,374 $1,218 4- Person $63,100 $1,578 $1,578 $238 $316 $238,320 $1,340 5- Person $68,150 $1,704 $1,704 $291 $341 $249,492 $1,413 Median Income (81 -100% AMI) 1- Person $51,050 $1,276 $1,489 $129 $298 $247,203 $1,147 2- Person $58,250 $1,456 $1,699 $165 $340 $277,924 $1,291 3- Person $65,500 $1,638 $1,910 $202 $382 $308,684 $1,436 4- Person $72,700 $1,818 $2,120 $238 $424 $339,405 $1,580 5- Person $78,550 $1,964 $2,291 $291 $458 $358,838 $1,673 Assumptions: California Department of Housing and Community Development 2014 income limits; 30 - 35% gross household income as affordable housing costs (depending on tenure and income level); 20% of monthly affordable cost for taxes and insurance; 10% down- payment, 40/0 interest rate for a 30 -year fixed rate mortgage loan; utilities based on Housing Authority of San Diego County 2014 Utility Allowance. Sources: California Department of Housing and Community Development, 2014; Housing Authority of the County of San Diego, 2014. CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 82 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 450 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE K. Housing Problems 1. Overcrowding Some households may not be able to accommodate high cost burdens for housing, but may instead accept smaller housing or reside with other individuals or families in the same home. Potential fair housing issues emerge if non - traditional households are discouraged or denied housing due to a perception of overcrowding. Household overcrowding is reflective of various living situations: (1) a family lives in a home that is too small; (2) a family chooses to house extended family members; or (3) unrelated individuals or families are doubling up to afford housing. However, cultural differences also contribute to the overcrowded conditions since some cultures tend to have a larger household size than others due to the preference of living with extended family members. Not only is overcrowding a potential fair housing concern, it can potentially strain physical facilities and the delivery of public services, reduce the quality of the physical environment, contribute to a shortage of parking, and accelerate the deterioration of homes. How is Overcrowding Defined? According to State and federal guidelines, overcrowding is defined as a unit with more than one person per room, including dining and living rooms but excluding bathrooms, kitchens, hallways, and porches. Severe overcrowding is defined as households with more than 1.5 persons per room. Overcrowding Threshold 0 Occupancy Standard Overcrowding thresholds only describe how a unit is occupied but by no means represent the maximum occupancy standard of a unit. In general, there are no occupancy standards except for those established in the building codes. Occupancy standards are discussed later in Chapter 5: Public Policies. As a result, some landlords or apartment managers may be more hesitant to rent to larger families, thus making access to adequate housing even more difficult. According to local fair housing service providers and property managers, addressing the issue of large households is complex as there are no set of guidelines for determining the maximum capacity for a unit. Fair housing issues may arise from policies aimed to limit overcrowding that have a disparate impact on specific racial or ethnic groups with higher proportion of overcrowding. For example, 2009 -2013 ACS data shows that close to six percent of housing units in the County are overcrowded compared with 16 percent for units with a Hispanic head of household. Approximately six percent of all households in San Diego County are overcrowded and two percent are severely overcrowded. The prevalence of overcrowding varies among jurisdictions, with the lowest percentage of overall overcrowding occurring in the City of Del Mar (no overcrowded or severely overcrowded units). National City had more than three times the County's proportion of overcrowded units. Escondido and Imperial Beach also had high levels of overcrowding. These jurisdictions also had high proportions of minority residents and lower median incomes as a whole. Table 40 also shows that overcrowding is significantly more prevalent among renter - households than among owner - households. CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 83 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 451 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table 40: Overcrowding by Tenure Jurisdiction Overcrowded (1+ occupants per room) Severely Overcrowded (1.5+ occupants per room) Renter Owner Total Renter Owner Total Urban County Coronado 2.0% 0.4% 1.2% 0.3% 0.0% 0.1% Del Mar 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Imperial Beach 16.2% 2.7% 11.8% 9.2% 1.3% 6.6% Lemon Grove 9.9% 3.9% 6.8% 3.2% 1.4% 2.3% Poway 5.7% 0.8% 2.0% 0.5% 0.3% 0.3% Solana Beach 8.2% 1.1% 3.9% 3.8% 0.3% 1.7% Unincorporated 7.4% 2.2% 3.9% 2.7% 0.5% 1.2% Total Urban County 7.8% 2.0% 4.0% 3.0% 0.5% 1.40 Entitlement Cities Carlsbad 2.2% 0.8% 1.3% 0.8% 0.1% 0.4% Chula Vista 13.8% 4.1% 8.1% 4.3% 1.2% 2.5% El Cajon 15.5% 3.8% 10.9% 3.9% 0.7% 2.7% Encinitas 2.6% 0.8% 1.4% 0.7% 0.1% 0.3% Escondido 17.8% 4.3% 11.0% 7.6% 1.0% 4.3% La Mesa 3.9% 2.1% 3.1% 1.1% 0.5% 0.8% National City 21.7% 12.5% 18.7% 6.5% 3.9% 5.7% Oceanside 8.8% 2.6% 5.2% 3.0% 0.7% 1.7% San Diego 9.5% 2.9% 6.3% 3.7% 0.8% 2.3% San Marcos 6.3% 1.5% 3.4% 2.1% 0.4% 1.1% Santee 5.2% 1.4% 2.5% 0.0% 0.4% 0.3% Vista 8.8% 2.9% 5.9% 4.0% 1.1% 2.5% Total County 9.7% 2.7% 5.9% 3.6% 0.7% 2.0% Source: American Community Survey (ACS), 2009 -2013 2. Housing Cost Burden State and Federal standards specify that a household experiences housing cost burden if it pays more than 30 percent of its gross income on housing - typically a point at which housing costs become burdensome and may affect the ability to comfortably make monthly rent or mortgage payments and /or maintain a decent standard of living. Housing cost burden is typically linked to income levels. The lower the income, the larger percentage of a household's income is allotted to housing costs. Cost burden by low income households tends to occur when housing costs increase faster than income. Figure 11 shows how dramatically the housing cost burden for owner- and renter - households is influenced by household income. As shown, among the lower income groups, larger proportions of renter - households experienced housing cost burden. Cost burden among owner households was more prevalent among the upper income groups. CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 84 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 452 $75,000+ $50,000 - $74,999 $35,000- $49,999 $20,000434,999 C$20,000 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Figure 11: Housing Cost Burden by Income and Tenure 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Source: American Community Survey (ACS), 2009 -2013 Over 46 percent of County households experience cost burden (Table 41). A higher proportion of renter - occupied households experienced cost burden (52.2 percent) compared with owner - occupied households (41.5 percent). The majority (67 percent) of lower and moderate income households experienced cost burden, and 40 percent experienced a severe cost burden. Close to three - quarters of low- and moderate - income renter - households experienced housing cost burden. 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 85 Page 453 C$20,000 $20,000434,999 $35,000449,999 $50,000474,999 $75,000+ ■ Owner 78.8% 61.3% 59.3% 54.7% 26.1% ■ Renter 92.5% 92.6% 70.7% 42.7% 11.4% Source: American Community Survey (ACS), 2009 -2013 Over 46 percent of County households experience cost burden (Table 41). A higher proportion of renter - occupied households experienced cost burden (52.2 percent) compared with owner - occupied households (41.5 percent). The majority (67 percent) of lower and moderate income households experienced cost burden, and 40 percent experienced a severe cost burden. Close to three - quarters of low- and moderate - income renter - households experienced housing cost burden. 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 85 Page 453 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table 41: Housing Cost Burden by Tenure Jurisdiction Owner- Occupied Households Renter - Occupied Households All Households Urban County Coronado 40.3% 43.7% 42.0% Del Mar 43.8% 37.8% 41.2% Imperial Beach 35.9% 56.6% 50.2% Lemon Grove 45.3% 55.4% 49.6% Poway 35.0% 48.0% 38.1% Solana Beach 40.5% 51.0% 44.8% Unincorporated 42.6% 51.8% 45.4% Total Urban County 41.8% 51.6% 45.0% Entitlement Cities Carlsbad 41.2% 52.3% 44.9% Chula Vista 47.8% 58.7% 52.2% El Cajon 42.0% 57.9% 51.2% Encinitas 50.0% 52.0% 50.7% Escondido 44.6% 59.2% 51.4% La Mesa 40.0% 53.5% 47.1% National City 43.3% 53.3% 49.8% Oceanside 43.1% 53.3% 47.3% San Diego 39.1% 50.2% 44.7% San Marcos 45.7% 60.0% 51.3% Santee 44.1% 45.1% 44.4% Vista 45.1% 54.9% 49.9% San Diego County 41.50/6 52.2% 46.3% Source: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Data, 2007- 2011Estimates L. Publicly Assisted Housing The availability and location of public and affordable housing may be a fair housing concern. If such housing is concentrated in one area of a community or a region, a household seeking affordable housing is restricted to choices within a limited geographic area. Public /affordable housing and housing assistance must be accessible to qualified households regardless of race /ethnicity, disability, or other special characteristics. 1. Public Housing Two housing authorities in the San Diego region own and operate public housing units (Figure 12 on page 3 -93) - the Housing Authority of the County of San Diego (HACSD) and the San Diego Housing Commission (SDHC). HACSD owns and administers public housing rental complexes (121 units), all of which are located in the City of Chula Vista. Eligible residents must be a senior (62 years of age or older), a disabled individual, or a low- income family and must live in one of the jurisdictions covered by CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 86 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 454 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE HACSD. The household's annual gross income must be at or below 50 percent of the San Diego AMI. As of January 2015, 712 residents were living in properties managed by HACSD. As shown in Table 43, White (28.5 percent) and Hispanic (28.9 percent) individuals make up more than half of public housing residents and less than 10 percent are seniors or disabled. As federal subsidies to operate and maintain public housing began decreasing, and City -owned units became operationally restrictive and inefficient, SDHC opted out of the Conventional Public Housing Program in 2007 (which provided for the upkeep of 1,366 units). SDHC retained only a very small portion of the units under the Public Housing program (currently at 154 units). The converted units are now rent - restricted units that have become available at a varying range of affordable rents to households earning no greater than 80 percent AMI.41 The residents living in the City -owned complexes at the time of conversion were awarded Housing Choice Vouchers (formerly Section 8), which they used to remain in their current home or to move to another rental property that would accept Housing Choice Vouchers. As of January 2015, 137 households were living in properties managed by the SDHC. As shown in Table 43 Hispanic- headed households make up more than half of all households (60.6 percent). Table 42: Public Housing Units Housing Authority Name Address Units HACSD Towncentre Manor 434 F Street 59 Units Chula Vista, CA 91910 1678 Melrose Avenue HACSD Melrose Manor Chula Vista, CA 91911 24 Units HACSD L Street Manor 584 L Street 16 Units Chula Vista, CA 91911 HACSD Dorothy Street Manor 778 Dorothy Street 22 Units Chula Vista, CA 91911 SDHC Otay Villas 649 Picador Blvd. 78 Units San Diego, CA 92154 SDHC University Canyon North 2090 Via Las Cumbres 36 units San Diego, CA 92111 351 South 33,4 Street SDHC Vista Verde 40 units San Diego, CA 92113 Sources: Housing Authority of the County of San Diego, January 2015; San Diego Housing Commission, January 2015. 41 San Diego Housing Commission, "Re- positioning of the San Diego Housing Commission's Public Housing Portfolio." Housing Authority Report (November 9, 2006). CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 87 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 455 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table 43: Characteristics of Public Housing Residents Characteristics HACSD (Residents) SDHC (Households) Senior /Disabled 67 (9.4 %) (19)14.1%/(31)22.7% Small Family 104 (14.6 0/.) (96)70.3% Large Family 13 (1.8 0/.) (22)16.4% Non - Hispanic 71(10.0%) 54 (39.4%) Hispanic 206(28.9%) 83 (60.6%) White 203(28.5%) 17 (12.4%) Black 37 (5.2 %) 37 (27.0%) American Indian 2 (0.3 %) 3 (2.2 %) Asian /Pacific Islander 9 (1.3 %) 1 (0.7 %) Total 712(100%) 137(100%) Sources: Housing Authority of the County of San Diego, January 2015; San Diego Housing Commission, January 2015. The number of persons on the waiting list for public housing far exceeds current capacity. HACSD indicates that as of January 2015, there were 41,558 households on the waiting list. Close to 40 percent of waidisted households were Hispanic and about one quarter were Black. Households with a disabled person make up over one quarter of the waiting list. There are 36,827 households on the SDHC public housing waiting list Qanuary 2015). Close to a third of SDHC waidisted households included a disabled member; 37.6 percent of households are Hispanic and 27.4 percent are Black. With the extremely limited capacity and the length of tenancy, it is unlikely that the characteristics of the public housing residents would change substantially in the near future. Table 44: Characteristics of Public Housing Waiting list (Households) Characteristics HACSD A SDH Senior 3,038 (7.3 %) 2,934 (8.0 %) Disabled 10,737 (25.8%) 10,844 (29.4%) Family 23,337 (56.2%) 18,217 (49.5%) Non - Hispanic 24,967 (60.1%) 21,233 (57.7%) Hispanic 16,346 (393 %) 13,846 (37.6%) White 27,336 (65.8%) 20725 (56.3 %) Black 10,295 (24.8%) 10,085 (27.4%) American Indian 790(l.9%) 611 (1.7 9/6) Asian /Pacific Islander 2,892 (7.0 9/6) 2,416 (6.6 %) Total j, 41,558 (100 %) 36,827 (100 %) Note: The count of White households includes Hispanic households. Data for non - Hispanic Whites is not available. Sources: Housing Authority of the County of San Diego, January 2015; San Diego Housing Commission, January 2015. CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 88 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 456 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE 2. Housing Choice Vouchers Program The Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program (formerly Section 8) is a rent subsidy program that helps low- income families and seniors pay rents of private units. HCV tenants pay a minimum of 30 percent of their income for rent and the local housing authority pays the difference up to the payment standard established by housing authority. The program offers low- income households the opportunity to obtain affordable, privately owned rental housing and to increase their housing choices. The housing authority establishes payment standards based on HUD - established Fair Market Rents. The owner's asking price must be supported by comparable rents in the area. The program participant pays any amount in the excess of the payment standard. There are currently six Housing Authorities that administer the Housing Choice Voucher program for San Diego County residents: ■ Housing Authority of the City of Carlsbad is allocated 703 Housing Choice Vouchers but due to funding limitations, was only able to utilize 532 Housing Choice Vouchers as of December 2014. There are 626 persons on the waiting list. ■ Housing Authority of the City of Encinitas is allocated 136 Housing Choice Vouchers but due to funding limitations, was only able to utilize 109 vouchers as of December 2014. There are 664 persons on the waiting list. ■ Housing Authority of the City of National City administers 1,123 vouchers as of December 2014. There are 3,614 persons on the waiting list. ■ Housing Authority of the City of Oceanside is allocated 1,373 vouchers as of December 2014 but assists an additional 156 households utilizing vouchers originating from other housing authorities. There are 6,604 persons on the waiting list. ■ San Diego Housing Commission (SDHC, City of San Diego) administers 12,685 vouchers as of January 2015. There are 53,742 persons on the waiting list. ■ Housing Authority of the County of San Diego (HACSD) administers 10,853 vouchers as of December 2014. There are 85,892 persons on the waiting list. As of December 2014 /January 2015, 26,624 San Diego County households were receiving HCV Assistance, with 87 percent of all vouchers administered by HACSD or SDHC. Table 45 summarizes the race and ethnicity of households assisted by the HCV program. Close to a third of the County's HCV recipients (32.4 percent) were Hispanic and 22 percent were Black. Senior and /or disabled households represent a significant portion of those assisted by the HCV program, making up 72.2 percent of all households receiving HCVs. Due to the geographic disparity in terms of rents, concentrations of voucher use have occurred (Table 46). For example, the City of El Cajon represents about three percent of the County population but more than 11 percent of the HCV use Furthermore, for the period ending in December 31, 2014, 28 percent (3,081 participants) of the 10,000+ vouchers administered by HACSD are concentrated in the City of El Cajon. National City also has a relatively high concentration of HCV use representing about two percent of the total population but more than four percent of the vouchers issued in San Diego County. CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 89 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 457 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table 45: Housing Choice Voucher Recipients Housing Authority Total Blac Hispanic White Other Senior Disabled City of Carlsbad 519 7.5% 24.9% 88.8 %* 3.5% 40.8% NA City of Encinitas 109 2.2% 21.1% 62.7 %* 2.2% 40.5% 36.2% City of National City 1,123 NA NA NA NA 46.6% 9.3% City of Oceanside 1,529 18.0% 30.0% 75.0 %* 6.0% 33.4% 49.9% San Diego Housing Commission (SDHC) 12,685 30.0% 33.0% 52.0 %* 17.0% 34.6% 49.9% County of San Diego (HACSD) 10,853 16% 36% 44% 4% 59 /� ° Total 26,624 21.8% 32.4% 48.7% 10.1% 72.2% *Note: The count of White households includes Hispanic households. Data for non- Hispanic Whites is not available. Source: Area Housing Authorities 2014/2105 Table 46: Distribution of Housing Choice Voucher Recipients Jurisdiction Vouchers % of All HCV Urban County Coronado 19 0.10/() Del Mar 1 0.0% Imperial Beach 458 1.7% Lemon Grove 421 1.6% Poway 135 0.5% Solana Beach 22 0.1% Unincorporated 1,501 5.6% Total Urban County 2,557 9.5% Entitlement Jurisdictions Carlsbad 501 1.9% Chula Vista 2,763 10.3% El Cajon 3,081 11.5% Encinitas 118 0.4% Escondido 1,161 4.3% La Mesa 637 2.4% National City 1,130 4.2% Oceanside 1,567 5.8% San Diego 12,685 47.3% San Marcos 278 1.0% Santee 302 1.1% Vista 550 2.0% Total County 26,832 100% Note: Assisted households exceed allocations to a jurisdiction due to voucher use outside of originating jurisdiction. Also, total number of voucher use deviates slightly from Table 45 due to different timing of data processing. Sources: Area Housing Authorities 2014/2015 CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 90 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 458 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Nationwide, nearly 4 million children live in families that receive federal rental assistance.42 This assistance helps families to afford decent, stable housing but it also has the potential to enable their children to grow up in better neighborhoods and thereby enhance their chances of long -term health and success. Historically, however, federal rental assistance programs have fallen short in helping families live in neighborhoods that provide these opportunities. In 2010, only 15 percent of the children in families that received rent subsidies through HUD lived in low- poverty neighborhoods, where fewer than 10 percent of the residents had incomes below the poverty line.43 To help with the de- concentration of HCV use and allow households to locate adequate housing at a location of their choice, SDHC's Moving Forward program works to provide families with tools to assist them to move from high - poverty neighborhoods to low- poverty neighborhoods. The ultimate goal of this initiative is to enhance opportunities for employment and education and to increase housing choices for low- income residents. The Moving Forward program is part of HUD's Moving to Work (MTW) demonstration program that allows public housing authorities (PHAs) to design and test various approaches for providing and administering housing assistance. The Choice Communities program (a subset of the Moving Forward program) provides families receiving federal rental assistance administered by the SDHC the opportunity to live in neighborhoods in the City of San Diego that offer a broader selection of schools and employment opportunities. Created by SDHC in 2010, the program offers incentives for rental assistance recipients to relocate to rental housing in nine neighborhoods designated as "Choice Communities." To make the move to a Choice Community less intimidating, the SDHC provides participants with information packets containing details about rental properties, schools, shopping centers, churches, public transportation and a city map showing parks and other neighborhood amenities. Most families receiving rental assistance typically pay no more than 40 percent of their adjusted monthly income towards their rent. However, because rents in more affluent neighborhoods are slightly higher than the citywide average, Choice Communities participants may pay up to 50 percent of their income toward their rent. Rental units in the following neighborhoods may qualify: 92106 -Point Loma 92037 -La Jolla 92119 -San Carlo 92128 - Rancho Bernardo 92124 - Tierrasanta 92127- Rancho Bernardo 92120 - Grantville 92131 - Scripps Miramar 92130 -Del Mar Heights Another important issue with the HCV program is the decreasing number of landlords willing to accept vouchers. In a tight housing market, landlords are typically able to capture high rents for the units and less likely to participate in government programs that place restrictions on rents, policies, and quality standards. Primarily in economically depressed neighborhoods, where the housing and neighborhood conditions are less than ideal, voucher recipients are most likely to find rental units that accept voucher payments. The HCV program was designed to offer families an alternative to living in conventional public housing developments. While not always true, many public housing projects were located in poor minority areas. The HCV program was intended to offer residents a chance to live in higher quality neighborhoods and have access to better schools and jobs. With owners opting out in more integrated 42 Sard, Barbara and Rice, Douglas, "Creating Opportunity for Children How Housing Location Can Make a Difference." Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. (October 2014). 43 Sard, Barbara and Rice, Douglas, "Creating Opportunity for Children How Housing Location Can Make a Difference." Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. (October 2014). CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 91 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 459 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE neighborhoods, tenants will be increasingly confined to low- income areas, defeating the original purpose of the program. Since the demand for housing assistance often exceeds the limited resources available, long waiting periods are common. The amount of time spent on the waiting list often varies, but the wait for rental assistance after a family is placed on the waiting list is usually between two and four years. These wait times can disproportionately impact seniors. As of December 2014 /January 2015, there were over 151,000 households on the HCV waiting list (Table 47). Table 47: Housing Choice Voucher Waitlist Housing Authority Total Black Hispanic White Other Senior City of Carlsbad 626 14.2% 18.5% 59.7% 8.5% 22.5% 28.0% City of Encinitas 664 9.2% 15.4% 82.4% 5.0% 28.8% 44.3% City of National City 3,614 NA NA NA NA 28.0% 21.9% City of Oceanside 6,604 17.0% 34.4% 72.7% 10.4% 9.4% 16.8% San Diego Housing Commission SDHC 53,742 24.9% 37.7% 58.2% 16.9% 9.9% 28.6% Count of San Diego (HACSD) 85.892 20.4% 35.2% 69.4% 10.2% 9.1% 23.7% Total 151,142 21.3% 35.1% 63.9% 12.3% 10.0% 25.2% Sources: Area Housing Authorities 2014/2015 CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 92 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 460 N O N Un O Un N N 04 a ro sv x co b ro Oranne Coun Public Ho 16- • 50+ Asisted H 2 -4 * 50+ • SRC *Note: An additic are available Wltl Lo — Frema County F7 City Bo 5011110,1 ,101inglurisdictions, 2014; HACSD, 7015; SOH(, 2015; SanGIS Data Warehouse, 2014. Figure 12: Public and Assisted Housing Public and Assisted Housing CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 93 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE 3. Other Affordable Housing Projects A number of developments countywide have set aside some or all of the units as affordable for low to moderate - income households. Together these projects provide approximately 32,800 units of affordable housing. The location of these units is shown on Figure 12, including Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Hotels available within the City of San Diego. As in typical urban environments throughout the country, lower- and moderate - income households tend to live in high- density areas, where the lower land costs per unit (i.e. more units on a piece of property) can result in lower development costs and associated lower housing payments. Therefore, the location of public /assisted housing is partly the result of economic feasibility. Concentrations of affordable housing are located in central San Diego, Chula Vista, National City, and Escondido. Close to 66 percent of all affordable units are located in these cities, much of that is in the City of San Diego (46.1 percent). Figure 12 also shows that in the western /coastal areas, the distribution of these units follows a somewhat similar pattern exhibited by the distribution of both low- and moderate - income population and minority population. However, this is not true for the desert communities where there is a lack of affordable housing resources but very few affordable housing units. Many residents priced out of the San Diego region have located themselves in North County Inland, where housing tends to be more affordable and the traditional single- family neighborhoods are more affordable than within San Diego proper. Many families are also moving to surrounding counties, particularly Riverside County, for affordable housing. The lack of affordable housing resources may become acute as the population in the region increases, especially given that the housing market is not keeping pace with the increasing population. The lack of affordable housing is also exacerbated by decreasing state and federal funds to purchase properties in higher- income areas to construct new affordable housing, and /or provide more first -time homebuyer assistance. Even as San Diego County's shortfall of affordable housing has become more critical, the state has reduced its direct funding for affordable housing significantly. The dissolution of redevelopment agencies led to a loss of more than $86 million annually in local investment in the production and preservation of affordable housing in San Diego County.` Exacerbating the state cuts is the simultaneous disinvestment in affordable housing by the federal government. Cuts to HOME and Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) have resulted in the loss of another $13.8 million in funding." These restrictions provide cities and counties limited ability to address the overconcentration of affordable housing in low- and moderate - income areas. Funding sources for affordable housing developments may inadvertently contribute to the concentration of affordable housing in lower income and lower opportunity areas. Local service providers indicate that specific competitive funding sources (such as tax credits) reward applications for new developments in underserved, lower income communities through a points process. as California Housing Partnership Corporation. "How San Diego County's Housing Market is Failing to Meet the Needs of Low Income Families ". (May 2014) 45 California Housing Partnership Corporation. "How San Diego County's Housing Market is Failing to Meet the Needs of Low Income Families ". (May 2014) CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 94 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 462 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE M. Licensed Community Care Facilities Persons with special needs, such as seniors and those with disabilities, must also have access to housing in a community. Community care facilities provide a supportive housing environment to persons with special needs in a group situation. Restrictions that prevent this type of housing represent a fair housing concern. According to the California Department of Social Services, Community Care Licensing Division, there are approximately 1,049 State - licensed residential care facilities for the elderly, 709 adult residential facilities, and 97 adult day care facilities throughout the County. These licensed care facilities have a combined capacity of just under 32,000 beds. The location of the various licensed care facilities in San Diego County is shown on Figure 13. Most of the community care facilities within the County are located within the larger incorporated cities. There is a noticeable absence of facilities in the unincorporated areas, specifically those surrounding the incorporated cities. While most of the County's population is located within the incorporated cities, residents living in unincorporated areas would have to travel a great distance to access the region's inventory of care facilities. Table 48 provides a tabulation of capacity of licensed care facilities for special needs persons by jurisdiction. The ratio of beds per 1,000 persons is used to identify concentration of residential care facilities. Licensed care facilities in San Diego County are most concentrated in Lemon Grove, Escondido, La Mesa, and El Cajon and are least concentrated in Imperial Beach. The Cities of San Diego, Escondido, Chula Vista, and El Cajon have the greatest number of facilities. CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 95 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 463 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table 48: Licensed Community Care Facilities by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Number of Facilities Capacity Zoning Compliant with Lanterman Act Beds Beds/1,000 Population Urban County Coronado 3 240 9.7 Yes Del Mar 4 30 7.2 Yes Imperial Beach 12 62 2.4 No Lemon Grove 28 869 34.3 Yes Poway 54 482 10.1 Yes Solana Beach 2 136 10.6 Yes Unincorporated 262 3,027 6.2 Yes Total Urban County 365 4,846 7.7 Entitlement Jurisdictions Carlsbad 44 1,042 9.9 Yes Chula Vista 130 3,325 13.6 No El Cajon 145 2,219 22.3 Yes Encinitas 20 737 12.4 Yes Escondido 177 3,902 27.1 Yes La Mesa 52 1,513 26.5 Yes National City 46 836 14.3 Yes Oceanside 63 1,574 9.4 Yes San Diego 627 8,812 6.8 Yes San Marcos 45 1,290 15.4 Yes Santee 20 244 4.6 Yes Vista 121 1,507 16.1 Yes Total County 1855 31,847 10.3 Source: State of California Department of Social Services, Community Care Licensing Division, 2014. Bureau of the Census, 2010 Census. CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 96 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 464 N O f+ Ul O Ul f+ N OC a :v ro n x co b aro N Oran - coun Licensed • Resi • Adu ■ Adu — Freewa 0 County FI City Bo s (Ommunh Figure 13: Licensed Care Facilities Source: LA Dept, of Social Services, Community Care Licensing Division, 2014: SanGIS Data Warehouse, 2014. Licensed Care Facilities CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 97 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE N. Accessibility to Public Transit and Services Having access to good schools, quality jobs, effective public transportation, and other social services helps facilitate a good quality of life and improved life outcomes. Unfortunately, research has shown that racial and ethnic minorities, individuals with disabilities, and other protected classes often have restricted access to these vital amenities. This section addresses access to public transit and employment as well as disparities in exposure to adverse community factors. 1. Public Transit Public transit should link lower - income persons, who are often transit dependent, to major employers where job opportunities exist. Access to employment via public transportation can reduce welfare usage rates and increase housing mobility, which enables residents to locate housing outside of traditionally lower- and moderate - income neighborhoods. The lack of a relationship between public transit, employment opportunities, and affordable housing may impede fair housing choice. Persons who depend on public transit may have limited choices regarding places to live. In addition, seniors and disabled persons also often rely on public transit to visit doctors, go shopping, or attend activities at community facilities. Public transit that provides a link between job opportunities, public services, and affordable housing helps to ensure that transit - dependent residents have adequate opportunity to access housing, services, and jobs. Access to public transit is of paramount importance to households affected by low incomes and rising housing prices. Public transit should strive to link lower income persons, who are often transit dependent, to major employers where job opportunities exist. Access to employment via public transportation can reduce welfare usage and increase housing mobility, which enables residents to locate housing outside of traditionally low- income neighborhoods.4(, 2009 -2013 ACS data for San Diego County shows that 3.1 percent (about 44,000) of workers 16 years or older used public transit to travel to work. Of those 44,000, over 60 percent earned incomes less than $25,000 per year and 44 percent were Hispanic. The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) is the Regional Transportation Planning Authority is responsible for planning and allocating local, state, and federal funds for the region's transportation network. Two primary agencies are responsible for transit operations and services in the County: Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) and the North County Transit District (NCTD). Transit services provided by these agencies include commuter and light rail, fixed -route bus service, demand - response service, and paratransit. Transit services are primarily provided to the larger, more urbanized communities, although limited services are available in unincorporated areas. In addition, tribal governments operating casinos and non - profit agencies also provide transit services for their clients and customers. The NCTD and MTS also own and maintain the main rail line along the coast from downtown San Diego to the Orange County line, which is shared between Amtrak intercity, COASTER, and Metrolink commuter passenger rail services. NCTD also owns the rail corridor between Oceanside and Escondido, operating SPRINTER light rail service. Figure 14 illustrates the transit routes in relation to employment centers. av Ong, Paul and Evelyn Blumenberg, "Job Accessibility and Welfare Usage: Evidence from Los Angeles ". UCLA Department of Policy Studies, (1998). CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 98 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 466 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE 2. Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) provides bus and rail services directly or by contract with private operators and covers the central, southern, and eastern areas of the county. MTS coordinates all its services and determines the routing, stops, frequencies and hours of operation. Rural transit services link the sparsely populated central and eastern portions of San Diego County to the San Diego urban core. Each rural service is linked to the San Diego Trolley and other fixed -route transit services at the El Cajon Transit Center. These lines offer much less frequent service. MTS operates three bus rapid transit (BRT) lines branded as "SuperLoop" in the University City and La Jolla Village area serving the University of California, San Diego, Westfield UTC, Veteran's Administration Hospital, and residential districts. Several express fixed -route buses run along major roadways and highways and link suburban areas to the San Diego urban area. Some of the express bus routes only operate during the morning and evening weekday commute periods. The San Diego Trolley is a light rail system known colloquially as The Trolley or by tourists as The Red Trolley. The Trolley's operator, San Diego Trolley, Inc. (SDTI), is a wholly owned subsidiary of MTS. Trolley service operates on three daily lines: the Blue, Green, and Orange lines, stopping at 53 stations and over 52 miles of double track rail. MTS Access operates wheelchair lift- equipped buses, which provide transportation to transit riders whose disabilities prevent them from using fixed route bus or Trolley services. MTS Access provides complementary services that "mirror" the level of MTS service being offered within a 3/4 -mile radius of a nearby bus or trolley station. The program is in full compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). 3. North County Transportation District (NCTD) North County Transit District (NCTD) serves more than 12 million passengers annually in North San Diego County, which includes the cities of Escondido, San Marcos, Vista, Oceanside, Carlsbad, Encinitas, Solana Beach, Del Mar, and portions of the unincorporated county. From Escondido's multimodal transit center, NCTD operates the BREEZE bus system, with bus stops located throughout the area, and manages the SPRINTER light rail line that provides passenger service from Escondido to Oceanside. The COASTER commuter train runs north and south through San Diego County, serving eight stations between Oceanside and downtown San Diego. More than 20 trains run on weekdays, with additional service on the weekends. LIFT vehicles provide origin to destination service for people with disabilities who are unable to use BREEZE buses due to their disability and have been certified for eligibility. Service is available for trips within 3/4 mile of fixed bus routes. FLEX is an on- demand service in parts of southwest Carlsbad, Encinitas, Solana Beach, and Ramona, where BREEZE service is not available. FLEX vehicles take passengers anywhere within the FLEX zone or to the nearest transfer point on the BREEZE, COASTER, or SPRINTER. CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 99 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 467 N O f+ Ul O Ul f+ N UC a ro x co T Oranne Cour Transit 5ta San MTS NCI NCI 1/4 Public Ho • 16 -45 • 50+ ut Asisted H 2-49 • 50+ ur • SROs 'Note: An additi are available wit — Freewa 0 Count) City 6C ZOMMU N Source: Participat HACSD. 2015, SDHI. SarQ5 Data Warehouse, 2014. Figure 14: Transit Service and Major Employers b CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE co 100 co IFCI11b1L at![ VIw.0 CII1U Mbbllb LI rIVUbIIIy r y SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE 4. Metrolink The Metrolink is a commuter rail system serving Southern California. The rail system consists of seven lines and 55 stations operating on 388 miles of rail network. The system operates in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura counties. The Metrolink Orange County Line ends at the Oceanside Transit Center where it connects to SPRINTER and COASTER rail service. As shown in Figure 14, public transit providers serve large portions of the western side of the County. In particular, transit use is higher in parts of the region where the greatest investment in transit service has been made: the north coastal, central and south bay regions of the County. Almost all major employment centers in San Diego are served by some form of public transit. However, having regional access to jobs by means of public transit does not necessarily translate into stable employment. Low - income workers, especially female heads of household with children, have unique travel patterns that may prevent them from obtaining work far from home, regardless of access to public transit. Women in general are disproportionately responsible for household - supporting activities such as trips to grocery stores or accompanying young children to and from schools. Women using public transit are often limited to looking for employment near home, allowing them time to complete these household - sustaining trips.47 The Center for Housing Policy' has done extensive research showing that the real cost of housing includes the cost of a household's daily commute to work, and typically low income households spend a much higher proportion of after -tax income on transportation — about one -third — than the average household.4' 5. Major Employers As one of the major metropolitan areas in the country, San Diego County has a diverse economy. The San Diego County population and employment growth rates typically correlate to national economic cycles and are sensitive to military spending. Military employment is still concentrated in the region as San Diego County is home to major naval bases and the U.S. Marine base at Camp Pendleton. San Diego is the headquarters of the U.S. Navy's Eleventh Naval District and is the Navy's principal location for West Coast and Pacific Ocean operations. Naval Base San Diego is the principal home to the Pacific Fleet. Naval Air Station (NAS) North Island is located on the north side of Coronado, and is the headquarters for Naval Air Forces and Naval Air Force Pacific, the bulk of the Pacific Fleet's helicopter squadrons, and part of the West Coast aircraft carrier fleet. Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton is the major west coast base of the United States Marine Corps and serves as its prime amphibious training base. The City of San Diego is still the main employment center in the County, but major employers are located throughout the North Coastal, Central Coastal and South Bay sub - regions. Major employers in the region include colleges, university campuses, military, federal and state government, and hospitals 47 Blumenberg, Evelyn. "Reverse Commute Transit Programs and Single Mothers on Welfare: A Policy Mismatch ? ", Institute of Transportation Studies, Volume 1 Number 2, (December 2002). as Lipman, Barbara J. "A Heavy Load: The Combined Housing and Transportation Burdens of Working Families ". Center for Housing Policy, (October 2006). 49 Giuliano, Genevieve. "The Role of Public Transit in the Mobility of Low Income Households ". School of Policy, Planning, and Development, University of Southern California (May 2001). CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 101 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 469 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE and medical centers. Inland /desert areas are still relatively scarce with regard to employment opportunities. The closest major employers to the inland /desert areas are the eight Indian casino /gaming /lodging centers. Because of its location along the Mexican border and adjacent to the Pacific Ocean, international trade is a major economic strength for the region. The border between San Diego and Mexico is the busiest in the world and the San Diego Port contributes a significant number of jobs to the region. Figure 14 shows that public transit routes provide adequate access to employment centers on the western side of the county. In the eastern inland areas, public transit access and major employers are scarce. Table 49: Major Employers - San Diego County Name Address Industry pg- 32nd St Naval Station 3445 Surface Navy Blvd San Diego Federal Government - National Security Alvarado Hospital Medical Center 6655 Alvarado Rd. San Diego Hospitals Barona Resort & Casino 1932 Wildcat Canyon Rd Lakeside Resorts City of Escondido 201 North Broadway Escondido Government City of San Diego 202 C St. San Diego Government Coronado Naval Amphibious Base 3632 Tulagi Rd Coronado Military Bases County of San Diego 1600 Pacific Hwy. San Diego Government CSU San Marcos 333 S. Twin Oaks Valley Rd. San Marcos Education Cubic Corp. 9333 Balboa Ave. San Diego High technology systems General Dynamics NASSCO 2798 Harbor Dr San Diego Ship Builders & Repairers Harrah's Rincon Casino and Resort 7777 Harrahs Rincon Way Valley Center Casino /Resort Hotel Del Coronado 1500 Orange Ave. Coronado Resort Kaiser Foundation Hospitals 4647 Zion Ave San Diego Hospitals Kyocera Communications, Inc. 9520 Towne Centre Dr San Diego Electronic Equipment Marine Corps Recruit Depot 1600 Henderson Ave San Diego Military Bases Merchants Building Maintenance 9555 Distribution Ave San Diego Janitor Service North Island Naval Air Station 4th & Quentin Roosevelt Blvd San Diego Military Bases Northrop Grumman Corp 6765 W. Bernardo Dr. San Diego Military Aircraft /Defense Pala Casino Spa and Resort 11154 Highway 76 Pala Casino /Resort Palomar College 1140 W Mission Rd. San Marcos Education Palomar Health 555 E Valley Pkwy Escondido Hospitals Palomar Pomerado Health Rehab 555 E Valley Pkwy Escondido Rehabilitation Services Qualcomm Inc 5775 Morehouse Drive San Diego Wireless Technology Rady's Children's Hospital San Diego 3020 Children Way San Diego Hospitals San Diego Naval Medical Ctr 34800 Bob Wilson Dr # 202 San Diego Medical Centers San Diego State University 5500 Campanile Drive San Diego Education San Diego Zoo 2920 Zoo Dr. San Diego Amusement & Theme Parks Seaworld San Diego 500 Sea World Dr San Diego Amusement & Theme Parks Sharp Grossmont Brier Patch 9000 Wakarusa St La Mesa Rehabilitation Services Sharp Grossmont Hospital 5555 Grossmont Center Dr La Mesa Hospitals CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 102 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 470 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table 49: Major Employers - San Diego County Name Address City Industry Sharp Mary Birch Hosp -Women 3003 Health Center Dr San Diego Hospitals Sharp Memorial Hospital 7901 Frost St San Diego Hospitals Solar Turbines, Inc. 2200 Pacific Hwy. San Diego Industrial Gas Turbines Sycuan Resort and Casino 5469 Sycuan Rd. El Cajon Casino /Resort Tri-City Medical Center 4002 Vista Way Oceanside Hospitals TSC (Training Support Center) 3975 Norman Scott Rd San Diego Military Bases Tyco Health Care 2498 Roll Dr San Diego Manufacturers UC San Diego 9500 Gillman Drive La Jolla Education UTC Aerospace Systems 850 Lagoon Dr Chula Vista Aircraft Components- Manufacturers Valley View Casino and Hotel 16300 Nyemii Pass Rd. Valley Center Casino /Resort Viejas Casino and Resort 5000 Willows Rd. Alpine Casino /Resort Source: State of California, Employment Development Division, 2015; San Diego Sourcebook http: / /sourcebook.sddt.com accessed February 2, 2015. 6. Affordable Housing and Public Transit Limited access to public transit may counteract some of the benefits of affordable housing. Current research indicates a strong connection between housing and transportation costs. Housing market patterns in parts of California with job -rich city centers are pushing lower- income families to the outskirts of urban areas, where no transit is available to connect them with jobs and services. In lower - income communities with underserved city centers, many residents must commute out to suburban job - rich areas. In an attempt to save money on housing, many lower- income households are spending disproportionately higher amounts on transportation. A study conducted by the Center for Housing Policy revealed that families who spend more than half of their income on housing spend only eight percent on transportation, while families who spend 30 percent or less of their income on housing spend almost 24 percent on transportation.S) This equates to more than three times the amount spent by persons living in less affordable housing. Figure 15 illustrates the location of the County's affordable housing stock in relation to regional transit services. Many affordable housing projects are located in close proximity to regional transit routes, with the exception of the eastern portions of the County, where few assisted units are located. Affordable housing developments that are located further than one - quarter mile from a transit stop are more prevalent in the North County area and in the northernmost areas of the City of San Diego. A noticeable cluster of affordable units in the community of Fallbrook is located further than one - quarter mile from a transit stop. 50 Lipman, Barbara J. "A Heavy Load: The Combined Housing and Transportation Burdens of Working Families." Center for Housing Policy, (October 2006). CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 103 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 471 N O N U7 O U7 N N 04 a w ro x co Oran - Cour Transit Se San MT! NC1 — NCI 1/4 Public Ho • 16 -45 • 50+ ut Asisted H • 2 -49i • 50+ ui • SROs — Freem 0 Count) 0 City BC __j COMMA Source:: Participating Jurisdictions, 2014; HACSD, 2015; SDHC, 2015; SanG15 Data Warehouse, 2014, Figure 15: Transit Service and Assisted Housing 1 3i. .1 b CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 104 N a r. Transit Service and Assisted Housing SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE O. ADA- Compliant Public Facilities (Section 504 Assessment) Access to civic life by people with disabilities is a fundamental goal of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). To ensure that this goal is met, Title II of the ADA requires State and local governments to make their programs and services accessible to persons with disabilities. This requirement not only extends to physical access at government facilities, programs, and events, but also to policy changes that governmental entities must make to ensure that all people with disabilities can take part in, and benefit from, the programs and services of State and local governments. The development of an ADA Transition Plan is a requirement of the federal regulations implementing the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which require that all organizations receiving federal funds make their programs available without discrimination to persons with disabilities. The Transition Plan (also known as a Program Access Plan) identifies physical obstacles that limit the accessibility of facilities to individuals with disabilities, describes the prescribed methods to make the facilities accessible, provides a schedule for making the access modifications, and identifies the public officials responsible for implementation of the transition plan. The County of San Diego has indicated that their government facilities are ADA- compliant. The City of San Diego conducted a Self- Evaluation as mandated under the ADA. From that analysis, a required transition plan was created which included 212 high use city facilities that needed physical modifications to make them accessible. As of 2014, the transition plan is approximately 93 percent complete and funding has been requested to address ADA improvements for the remaining seven percent of the identified facilities list. Several cities (El Cajon, Encinitas, Escondido, La Mesa, and National City) indicated that they are in substantial compliance with ADA requirements and they have or are in the process of completing a Self - Evaluation or ADA Transition Plan, which is used to prioritize needed ADA improvements. The cities of Oceanside, San Marcos, and Vista indicated that their government facilities are ADA- compliant, as all improvements identified in their ADA Transitions Plans were completed. P. Exposure to Adverse Community Factors Communities must consider fair housing when addressing environmental concerns because either the problems themselves, or treatment of the problems, may have a disproportionate effect on some residents. Of particular concern are environmental risks to vulnerable populations, including pregnant women, young children, and individuals with disabilities —all of whom are protected under fair housing law. 1. Public Schools Public schools within San Diego County are grouped by 23 elementary school districts, six high school districts, 13 unified school districts, and five community college districts. The San Diego County Office of Education provides a variety of services for these 42 school districts, 119 charter schools, and five community college districts in the County. CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 105 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 473 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE As part of President Johnson's "War on Poverty," the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), passed in 1965. The ESEA is often regarded as the most far - reaching federal legislation affecting education ever passed by Congress. The act is an extensive statute that funds primary and secondary education, while emphasizing equal access to education and establishing high standards and accountability. A major component of ESEA is a series of programs typically referred to as "Title I ". Title I provides financial assistance to states and school districts to meet the needs of educationally at- risk students. To qualify as a Title 1 school, a campus typically must have around 40 percent or more of its students coming from families who are low- income. The goal of Title I is to provide extra instructional services and activities which support students identified as failing or most at risk of failing the state's challenging performance standards in mathematics, reading, and writing. Figure 16 shows the location of Title I schools in San Diego County. While there are Title I schools in most cities, the geographic distribution of Title I schools matches the geographic distribution of minorities and low- and moderate - income persons. Addressing access to higher achieving schools is important, as studies have shown that low- income children who live in low- poverty neighborhoods and consistently attend high- quality schools perform significantly better academically than those who do not.sl 51 Sard, Barbara and Rice, Douglas. "Creating Opportunity for Children How Housing Location Can Make a Difference ". Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. (October 2014). CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 106 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 474 N O N U7 O U7 N N rta a :v ro sv x co b N orao— cour Title I Sch • Tit o NC Low and h — Freem Q Count) 0 City BC 1 Commimityeounoarm Figure 16: Title I Schools Source: CA Dept. of Eduutm 2013 -14; HUD, 2014; SaWS Data Warehouse, 2014. Title I Schools CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 107 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE 2. Environmental Exposure California state law defines environmental justice to mean "the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.iSZ As a first step to assuring that all persons have access to environmental justice, the State of California is working to identify the areas of the State that face multiple pollution burdens so programs and funding can be targeted appropriately toward improving the environmental and economic health of impacted communities. Many residents live in the midst of multiple sources of pollution and some people and communities are more vulnerable to the effects of pollution than others. The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) developed a screening methodology to help identify California communities disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution called the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (CalEnviroScreen). In addition to environmental factors (pollutant exposure, groundwater threats, toxic sites, and hazardous materials exposure) and sensitive receptors (seniors, children, persons with asthma, and low birth weight infants), CalEnviroScreen also takes into consideration socioeconomic factors. These factors include educational attainment, linguistic isolation, poverty, and unemployment. Research has shown a heightened vulnerability of people of color and lower socioeconomic status to environmental pollutants. Figure 17 shows the County's CalEnviroScreen scores. High scoring communities tend to be more burdened by pollution from multiple sources and most vulnerable to its effects, taking into account their socioeconomic characteristics and underlying health status. As expected, the areas indicated as having higher EnviroScreen scores matches the geographic distribution of minorities, low- and moderate - income persons, and poverty concentrations. 52 California Senate Bill 115 (Chapter 690, Statutes of 1999). CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 108 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 476 N O N U7 O U7 N N va a w ro sv x '0 w as ro SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Figure 17: Environmental Exposure Orange County Carlsbad i Solana BeacK Del Mai CalEnviroScreen Scores Lowest Highest Scores Scores Each color represents 10% of the scores Blank = No Data California Communities Environmental Health Screening Too/ (CalEnviroScreen) V,� Low and Moderate Income Areas — Freeways Q County Boundary City Boundaries Community Boundaries Source: CA Office of Environmer tal health Haurd Aswssment {OEHHAI, 2014; HUD, 2014, San& €S Data Warehouse, 2014. CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE 109 Riverside County c�Rainbaw rilbrook 8onsafl -' a z- ,78� Marcos Escondido s r Rand+a ' Poway auntryfsia er 56 San Diego 5 Santee Lakeside' J iee EI Cajori - !;/L'aMesar Ln Ge r emo rovti Ctiu la Vistas j �� Q�po lobim °a '125. nperial' Beach µexi[o Baja California, Environmental Exposure Areas LENDING PRACTICES A key aspect of fair housing choice is equal access to credit for the purchase or improvement of a home, particularly in light of the recent lending /credit crisis. This chapter reviews the lending practices of financial institutions and the access to financing for all households, particularly minority households. Lending patterns in low and moderate income neighborhoods and areas of minority concentration are also examined. However, publicly available data on lending does not contain the detailed information necessary to make conclusive statements of discrimination, but it can point out potential areas of concern. Furthermore, except for outreach and education efforts, local jurisdictions' ability to influence lending practices is limited. Such practices are largely governed by national policies and regulations. A. Background Discriminatory practices in home mortgage lending have evolved in the last five to six decades. In the 1940s and 1950s, racial discrimination in mortgage lending was easy to spot. From government - sponsored racial covenants to the redlining practices of private mortgage lenders and financial institutions, minorities were denied access to home mortgages in ways that severely limited their ability to purchase a home. Today, discriminatory lending practices are more subtle and tend to take different forms. While mortgage loans are readily available in low income or minority communities, by employing high- pressure sales practices and deceptive tactics, some mortgage brokers push minority borrowers into higher -cost subprime mortgages that are not well suited to their needs and can lead to financial problems. Consequently, minority consumers continue to have less- than -equal access to the best loan prices and terms that their credit history, income, and other individual financial considerations may merit. 1. Legislative Protection In the past, credit market distortions and other activities such as "redlining" were prevalent and prevented some groups from having equal access to credit. The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) in 1977 and the subsequent Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) were designed to improve access to credit for all members of the community and hold the lender industry responsible for community lending. 2. Community Reinvestment Act The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) is intended to encourage regulated financial institutions to help meet the credit needs of their entire communities, including low and moderate income neighborhoods. Depending on the type of institution and total assets, a lender may be examined by different supervising agencies for its CRA performance. CHAPTER 4: LENDING PRACTICES 110 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 478 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE CRA ratings are provided by the Federal Reserve Board (FRB), Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC), Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). However, the CRA rating is an overall rating for an institution and does not provide insights regarding the lending performance at specific locations by the institution. 3. Home Mortgage Disclosure Act In tandem with the CRA, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act requires lending institutions to make annual public disclosures of their home mortgage lending activity. Under HMDA, lenders are required to disclose information on the disposition of home loan applications and on the race or national origin, gender, and annual income of loan applicants. This section examines detailed 2008 and 2013 HMDA data for San Diego County. 13 HMDA data provide some insight into the lending patterns exist in a community. However, HMDA data are only an indicator of potential problems; the data cannot be used to conclude definite redlining or discrimination practices due to lack of detailed information on loan terms or specific reasons denial. HMDA data can indicate that potential problems but cannot conclude definite redlining or discrimination practices. the for 4. Conventional versus Government- Backed Financing Conventional financing involves market -rate loans provided by private lending institutions such as banks, mortgage companies, savings and loans, and thrift institutions. To assist lower and moderate income households that may have difficulty in obtaining home mortgage financing in the private market due to income and equity issues, several government agencies offer loan products that have below market interest rates and are insured ( "backed ") by the agencies. Sources of government- backed financing include loans insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and the Rural Housing Services /Farm Service Agency (RHA /FSA). Often government- backed loans are offered to the consumers through private lending institutions. Local programs such as first -time homebuyer and rehabilitation programs are not subject to HMDA reporting requirements and therefore are not included in this analysis. Typically, low income households have a much better chance of getting a government- assisted loan than a conventional loan. However, the pre -2009 lending market offered subprime loan options such as zero percent down, interest -only, and adjustable loans. As a result, government- backed loans were a less attractive option for many households then. In recent years, however, heightened lending restrictions were put into place to severely limit the issuance of risky subprime loans. In addition, the federal government created a government- insured foreclosure avoidance initiative in September 2007, FHASecure, to assist tens of thousands of borrowers nation -wide in refinancing their subprime home loans. As government- backed loans were again publicized and subprime loans became less of an option to borrowers, 2013 saw an increase in the number of government- backed loan applications in San Diego 53 2013 HMDA data is the most updated lending data available. 2014 HMDA data would not be available until Fall 2015. 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet CHAPTER 4: LENDING PRACTICES 111 Page 479 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE County. Expanded marketing to assist potential homeowners in understanding the requirements and benefits of these loans may still be necessary, though. 5. Financial Stability Act The Financial Stability Act of 2009 established the Making Home Affordable Program, which assists eligible homeowners who can no longer afford their home with mortgage loan modifications and other options, including short sale or deed -in -lieu of foreclosure. The program is targeted toward homeowners facing foreclosure and homeowners who are unemployed or "underwater" (i.e., homeowners who owe more on their mortgage than their home is worth). The Making Home Affordable Program includes several options for homeowners in need of assistance: ■ The Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) reduces a homeowner's monthly mortgage payment to 31 percent of their verified gross (pre -tax) income to make their payments more affordable. ■ The Second Lien Modification Program (2MP) offers homeowners a way to lower payments on their second mortgage. ■ The Home Affordable Refinance Program (HARP) assists homeowners whose mortgages are current and held by the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) or the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) refinance into a more affordable mortgage. ■ An Unemployment Program provides eligible homeowners a forbearance period during which their monthly mortgage payments are reduced or suspended while they seek re- employment The minimum forbearance period is three months, although a mortgage servicer may extend the term depending on applicable investor and regulatory guidelines. ■ The Principal Reduction Program offers homeowners who are underwater the opportunity to earn principal reductions over a three -year period by successfully making payments in accordance with their modified loan terms. ■ For homeowners who can no longer afford their homes but do not want to go into foreclosure, the Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternatives Program (HAFA) offers homeowners, their mortgage servicers, and investors incentives for completing a short sale or deed -in -lieu of foreclosure. HAFA enables homeowners to transition to more affordable housing while being released from their mortgage debt. The program also includes a "cash for keys" component whereby a homeowner receives financial assistance to help with relocation costs in return for vacating their property in good condition. 6. Helping Families Save Their Homes Act The Helping Families Save Their Homes Act was passed by Congress in May 2009 and expands the Making Home Affordable Program. This Act includes provisions to make mortgage assistance and foreclosure prevention services more accessible to homeowners and increases protections for renters living in foreclosed homes. It also establishes the right of a homeowner to know who owns their mortgage and provides over two billion dollars in funds to address homelessness. CHAPTER 4: LENDING PRACTICES 112 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 480 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE The Act targets underwater borrowers by easing restrictions on refinance and requiring principal write- downs to help these homeowners increase the equity in their homes. The new law also provides federally guaranteed Rural Housing loans and FHA loans as part of the Making Homes Affordable Program. In addition to expanding the Making Homes Affordable Program, the Act extends the temporary increase in deposit insurance, increases the borrowing authority of the FDIC and National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), and creates a Stabilization Fund to address problems in the corporate credit union sector. Under this bill, tenants also have the right to stay in their homes after foreclosure for 90 days or through the term of their lease. Prior to this bill, tenants were only guaranteed 60 days of notice before eviction and any current lease was considered terminated in the event of a foreclosure. This Act extends the 60- day notification period to 90 days and requires banks to honor any existing lease on a property in foreclosure. 7. Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act (FERA) enhances the criminal enforcement of federal fraud laws by strengthening the capacity of federal prosecutors and regulators to hold accountable those who have committed fraud. FERA amends the definition of a financial institution to include private mortgage brokers and non -bank lenders that are not directly regulated or insured by the federal government, making them liable under federal bank fraud criminal statutes. The new law also makes it illegal to make a materially false statement or to willfully overvalue a property in order to manipulate the mortgage lending business. In addition, FERA includes provisions to protect funds expended under TARP and the Recovery Act and amends the Federal securities statutes to cover fraud schemes involving commodity futures and options. Additional funds were also made available under FERA to a number of enforcement agencies in order to investigate and prosecute fraud. B. Overall Lending Patterns 1. Data and Methodology The availability of financing affects a person's ability to purchase or improve a home. Under the HMDA, lending institutions are required to disclose information on the disposition of loan applications by the income, gender, and race of the applicants. This applies to all loan applications for home purchases, improvements, and refinancing, whether financed at market rate or with government assistance. HMDA data are submitted by lending institutions to the FFIEC. Certain data is available to the public via the FFIEC site either in raw data format or as pre -set printed reports. The analyses of HMDA data presented in this Al were conducted using Lending Patterns "'M. Lending Patterns is a web -based data exploration tool that analyzes lending records to produce reports on various aspects of mortgage lending. It analyzes HMDA data to assess market share, approval rates, denial rates, low /moderate income lending, and high -cost lending, among other aspects. 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet CHAPTER 4: LENDING PRACTICES 113 Page 481 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE 2. General Overview A detailed summary of the disposition of loan applications submitted to financial institutions in 2008 and 2013 (the most recent HMDA data available) by residents (or prospective residents) of San Diego County can be found in Appendix B. Included is information on loan types and outcomes. In 2013, the cities of San Diego, Chula Vista, and Oceanside recorded the most loan applications, while the cities of Del Mar, Coronado, and Solana Beach recorded the fewest due to the built out character of these small communities. The loan approval rates varied somewhat by jurisdiction. Applications from the cities of Poway, La Mesa, Santee, and Encinitas generally exhibited higher approval rates (over 73 percent). By contrast, applications from the cities of National City, Lemon Grove, and Chula Vista had slightly lower approval rates (ranging from 63 percent to 68 percent). Overall, approval rates were noticeably higher in 2013 than in 2008. In 2008, the cities of Del Mar, Carlsbad, and Encinitas recorded the highest home loan approval rates; however, these approval rates only ranged from 64 to 67 percent. The cities with the lowest loan approval rates were the same in 2008 as in 2013 (National City, Lemon Grove, Chula Vista, and also Imperial Beach), but, again, these rates were significantly lower in 2008 (all under 54 percent). Aside from income, another major impediment to securing a home loan is insufficient understanding of the homebuying and lending processes. About 16 percent of all applications countywide were withdrawn by the applicants or deemed incomplete by the financial institution in 2008. The rate of withdrawn or incomplete applications was similar in 2013 (14 percent). Jurisdictions with the lowest approval rates (National City, Lemon Grove, and Chula Vista) also had the highest rates of withdrawn /closed applications. Withdrawn or closed applications can be indicative of a lack of knowledge about the homebuying and lending process. 3. Home Purchase Loans In 2013, a total of 32,571 households applied for conventional loans to purchase homes in San Diego County, representing a decrease of approximately 18 percent from 2008. This trend is indicative of a housing market that is slowly recovering from its peak in 2006 -2007. The approval rate countywide in 2013 for conventional home purchase loans was 76 percent, while the denial rate was 11 percent. As mentioned previously, approval rates were significantly lower in 2008. Specifically, the countywide approval rate for conventional home purchase loans was 66 percent in 2008 and the denial rate was 19 percent. When the housing market began to show signs of collapse and foreclosures were on the rise in 2007, many financial institutions instituted stricter approval criteria for potential borrowers, which caused approval rates to drop. However, as time passed, the applicant pool for mortgage lending also became smaller and increasingly selective. Applicants from recent years have generally been in much better shape financially than pre -2010 applicants, which has led to increased approval rates. CHAPTER 4: LENDING PRACTICES 114 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 482 l,ni— 0—Y Vita S,,I —. B-ch San« San Mara s Sen Dwg" Poway Clccan & National Cky La Mc lmperial B-ch Nscovdido N awes NI Cajon Del M- 0—do Chula Vista C.h,bad SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Figure 18: Conventional Home Purchase Loans (2008 versus 2013) 7 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000 Note: HMDA reports data based on census tract. To arrive at numbers for the unincorporated County areas, numbers for individual cities are subtracted from the County total. However, this methodology may underestimate the lending activities in the unincorporated areas because census tracts cross jurisdictional boundaries. Source: www.lendingl2attems.com, 2014 As an alternative to conventional home loans, potential homeowners can choose to apply for government- backed home purchase loans when buying their homes. In a conventional loan, the lender takes on the risk of losing money in the event a borrower defaults on a mortgage. For government - backed loans, the loan is insured, either completely or partially, by the government. The government does not provide the loan itself, but instead promises to repay some or all of the money in the event a borrower defaults. This reduces the risk for the lender when making a loan. Government- backed loans generally have more lenient credit score requirements, lower downpayment requirements, and are available to those with recent bankruptcies. However, these loans may also carry higher interest rates and most require homebuyers to purchase mortgage insurance. Furthermore, government- backed loans have strict limits on the amount a homebuyer can borrow for the purchase of a home. In competitive and high -end housing markets, many of the homes available for purchase exceed the maximum allowable loan amount. In 2013, 13,122 San Diego County households applied for government- backed loans — comparable in terms of the number of households who applied for this type of loan in 2008 (11,236 households), but represented a higher proportion of all loan applicants in 2013. Like approval rates for conventional loans, the approval rate for government- backed loans also increased from 2008 to 2013 (from 69 percent to 73 percent). CHAPTER 4: LENDING PRACTICES 115 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 483 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Urilvc. Couvty Vs,a Solava Beach S.- Sav M- S.. Diego Poway Cxcaysidc Natioval City Lemon Gm La Mcsa Imperial Beach nscovdiao rsvd.i., El Cajov Del Mar Comvado Chula Vista Carlslmd ■201" ■200£ Figure 19: Government - Backed Home Purchase Loans (2008 versus 2013) 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000 Carlslmd ;hula Vist Comvado Dcl Mar Ll Cajon Lvdrtiias Lsmvdido Imperial Beach La Mcsa Lemon (�mvc Nauonal City (kcaysidc Poway San Diego San Marcos Samcc Solava Beach Vista Univc. County 3,394 2,239 260 219 986 1,498 1,578 244 766 365 270 1 2,157 1 1,141 16,921 1 2,117 615 1 351 1 1,437 2,464 3,003 4,478 256 124 1,427 1,?(A 2,343 352 691 555 587 3,139 773 18,861 2,202 1,018 210 1,747 2,869 Note: HMDA reports data based on census tract. To arrive at numbers for the unincorporated County areas, numbers for individual cities are subtracted from the County total. However, this methodology may underestimate the lending activities in the unincorporated areas because census tracts cross jurisdictional boundaries. Source: www.lendingpattems.com, 2014 4. Home Improvement Loans Reinvestment in the form of home improvement is critical to maintaining the supply of safe and adequate housing. Historically, home improvement loan applications have a higher rate of denial when compared to home purchase loans. Part of the reason is that an applicant's debt -to- income ratio may exceed underwriting guidelines when the first mortgage is considered with consumer credit balances. Another reason is that many lenders use the home improvement category to report both second mortgages and equity -based lines of credit, even if the applicant's intent is to do something other than improve the home (e.g., pay for a wedding or college). Loans that will not be used to improve the home are viewed less favorably since the owner is divesting in the property by withdrawing accumulated wealth. From a lender's point of view, the reduction in owner's equity represents a higher risk. In 2013, 4,968 applications for home improvement loans were submitted by San Diego County households -lower than the number of applications for this loan type in 2008 (6,015 applications). Generally, the approval rates for home improvement loans were lower than for home purchase loans. The overall approval rate for home improvement loans in 2013 was 59 percent while 30 percent of these CHAPTER 4: LENDING PRACTICES 116 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 484 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE applications were denied. As discussed previously, countywide approval rates were even lower in 2008 (42 percent) for this loan type. 5. Refinancing Homebuyers will refinance existing home loans for a number of reasons. Refinancing can allow homebuyers to take advantage of better interest rates, consolidate multiple debts into one loan, reduce monthly payments, alter risk (i.e. by switching from variable rate to fixed rate loans), or free up cash and capital. The majority of loan applications submitted by San Diego County households in 2013 were for home refinancing (119,225 applications). This figure is nearly double the number of refinancing applications submitted in 2008 (60,844 applications). The dramatic increase in applications for refinancing may, in part, be due to the Home Affordable Refinance Program (HARP), which enables underwater homeowners (those who owe more than their house is worth) to refinance into a less costly loan. About 69 percent of refinance applications were approved and 17 percent were denied in 2013. As mentioned earlier, these approval rates represent a considerable increase from 2008, when just 52 percent of refinance applications were approved. C. Lending by Race /Ethnicity and Income The federal Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in mortgage lending based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status or handicap (disability). It is, therefore, important to look not just at overall approval and denial rates for a jurisdiction, but also whether or not these rates vary by other factors, such as race /ethnicity. (Race /ethnicity is the only personal characteristic available from the HMDA data.) 1. Loan Applicant Representation In a perfect environment, the applicant pool for mortgage lending should be reflective of the demographics of a community. When one racial /ethnic group is overrepresented or underrepresented in the total applicant pool, it could be an indicator of unequal access to housing opportunities. Such a finding may be a sign that access to mortgage lending is not equal for all individuals. As shown in Table 50, throughout San Diego County, White applicants were noticeably overrepresented in the loan applicant pool, while Hispanics were severely underrepresented. The underrepresentation of Hispanics was most acute in the cities of Imperial Beach ( -33 percent), Vista ( -35 percent), and Escondido ( -36 percent). Detailed comparisons of the applicant pool with overall demographics by jurisdiction can be found in Appendix B. CHAPTER 4: LENDING PRACTICES 117 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 485 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table 50: Demographics of Loan Applicants vs. Total Population San Diego County Percent of Applicant Pool (2013 HMDA) Percent of Total Population (2010 Census) Likelihood of Applying for a Loan White 55.1% 48.5% 114% Black 1.9% 4.7% 40% Hispanic 11.5% 32.0% 36% Asian 9.5% 10.6% 89% Notes: 1. Percent of total population estimates are based on 2013 applicant data and compared to total population estimates from the 2010 Census. 2. Percent of applicant pool does not take into account applicants indicated as "Multi Race" or whose race was" Unk /NA ". Therefore, total percentage of applicant pool does not add up to 100 %. 3. Local jurisdiction data can be found in Appendix B. Source: Bureau of the Census, 2010; www.lendingpatterns.com, 2014 2. Race by Income Level In addition to looking at whether access to lending is equal, it is important to analyze lending outcomes for any signs of potential discrimination by race /ethnicity. In 2013, in every ethnic category, San Diego did better than the nation. Nationally, 13.3 percent of Asians applying for mortgages were turned down; in the City of San Diego, the number was 11.6 percent. Nationally, 21.9 percent of Hispanics were turned down for a conventional mortgage; in San Diego, the percentage was 13.7. Nationally, 10.4 percent of whites were turned down; in San Diego, the percentage was 9.4. 14 Generally speaking, approval rates for loans tend to increase as household income increases; however, lending outcomes should not vary significantly by race /ethnicity among applicants of the same income level. Table 51 below summarizes lending outcomes by race /ethnicity and income in San Diego County. White applicants at all income levels generally had the highest approval rates. Similarly high approval rates were recorded for Asian applicants, although there was some variation by jurisdiction. Approval rates for Black and Hispanic applicants, however, were well below the approval rates for White and Asian applicants in the same income groups in 2008. These gaps had narrowed somewhat by 2013, but were still present. Specifically, Black applicants consistently had the lowest approval rates compared to other racial /ethnic groups in the same income groups. The largest discrepancies (between loan approval rates for White and Asian applicants versus Black and Hispanic applicants) in 2013 were recorded in the cities of El Cajon, Poway, and San Diego. Detailed lending outcomes by race /ethnicity and income for each jurisdiction can be found in Appendix B. While this analysis provides a more in -depth look at lending patterns, it does not conclusively explain any of the discrepancies observed. Aside from income, many other factors can contribute to the 54 Don Bauder, "San Diego, mortgage hot spot," The San Diego Reader, February 10, 2015. CHAPTER 4: LENDING PRACTICES 118 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 486 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE availability of financing, including credit history, the availability and amount of a downpayment, and knowledge of the homebuying process. HMDA data does not provide insight into these other factors. Table 51: Lending Patterns by Race /Ethnicity and Income (2008 -2013) San Diego County Approved Denied Withdrawn/ Incom lete 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 White Low (0 -49% AMI) 48.8% 58.7% 35.6% 29.1% 15.6% 12.2% Moderate (50 -79% AMI) 62.2% 67.7% 24.6% 19.3% 13.2% 12.9% Middle (80 -119% AMI) 63.9% 73.3% 21.4% 13.8% 14.7% 12.8% Upper ( >_120% AMI) 63.5% 1 75.3% 1 21.00/0 1 12.0% 1 15.5% 12.6% Black Low (0 -49% AMI) 34.4% 50.5% 49.4% 36.7% 16.3% 12.8% Moderate (50 -79% AMA 45.5% 59.3% 36.0% 22.7% 18.5% 18.0% Middle (80 -119% AMI) 42.8% 65.1% 39.8% 20.8% 17.4% 14.2% Upper ( >_120% AMI) 42.4% 67.1% 38.8% 19.5% 18.8% 13.4% Hispanic Low (0 -49% AMI) 40.2% 56.5% 45.3% 29.5% 14.5% 14.0% Moderate (50 -79% AMM 52.3% 61.0% 32.8% 24.9% 14.9% 14.2% Middle (80 -119% AMI) 51.5% 66.8% 32.4% 18.2% 16.1% 15.0% Upper ( >_120% AMA 50.4% 1 69.2% 1 32.7% 1 16.0% 1 16.9% 14.7% Asian Low (0 -49% AMI) 41.0% 57.6% 43.0% 32.0% 15.9% 10.4% Moderate (50 -79% AMM 58.0% 63.5% 24.7% 23.6% 17.4% 12.8% Middle (80 -119% AMI) 58.2% 71.1% 25.4% 15.5% 16.4% 13.4% Upper ( >_120% AMI) 61.0% 74.6% 21.3% 12.9% 17.6% 12.4% Note: Local jurisdiction data can be found in Appendix B. Source: www.lendingpattems.com, 2014. CHAPTER 4: LENDING PRACTICES 119 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 487 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE D. Lending Patterns by Tract Characteristics 1. Income Level To identify potential geographic differences in mortgage lending activities, an analysis of the HMDA data was conducted by census tract. Based on the Census, HMDA defines the following income levels:--' • Low- Income Tract - Tract Median Income less than or equal to 49 percent AMI • Moderate- Income Tract - Tract Median Income between 50 and 79 percent AMI • Middle- Income Tract- Tract Median Income between 80 and 119 percent AMI • Upper- Income Tract - Tract Median Income equal to or greater than 120 percent AMI The vast majority of census tracts in San Diego County are considered middle or upper income. Only three percent of the County's census tracts are categorized as low income by HMDA. Most loan applications were submitted by residents from one of the County's upper- income tracts. Table 52 summarizes lending outcomes by the income level of the census tract where an applicant resides. In general, home loan approval rates increased and denial rates decreased as the income level of the census tract increased. Higher income households are more likely to qualify for and be approved for loans, so this trend is to be expected. Table 52: Outcomes Based on Census Tract Income (2008 -2013) Tract Income Level Total Applicants Approved Denied Other # % # % # % # % 2008 Low 4,705 4.0% 2,272 48.3% 1,611 34.2% 822 17.5°/, Moderate 17,209 14.7% 9,152 53.2% 5,200 30.2% 2,857 16.6% Middle 45,457 38.7% 25,543 56.2% 12,324 27.1% 7,590 16.7% Upper 50,045 42.6% 31,027 62.0% 10,820 21.6% 8,198 16.4% Total 117,416 100.0% 67,994 57.9% 29,955 25.5% 19,467 16.6% 2013 Low 5,375 3.2% 3,501 65.1% 1,096 20.4% 778 14.5°/, Moderate 21,777 12.8% 14,682 67.4% 3,825 17.6% 3,270 15.0°/, Middle 61,573 36.3% 42,947 69.7% 9,834 16.0% 8,792 14.3°/, Upper 81,085 47.8% 58,483 72.1% 11,558 14.3% 11,044 13.6°/, 169,810 Too .0% 119,613 1 70.4% 1 26,313 15.5'/,T 23,884 14.1% Note: Income data was not available for 147 households in 2008 and 76 households in 2013; therefore, total number of applicants does not equal the overall total. Source: www.lendingpatterns.com, 2014. 55 These income definitions are different from those used by HUD to determine low and moderate income areas. CHAPTER 4: LENDING PRACTICES 120 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 488 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE 2. Minority Population HMDA also records lending outcomes by the proportion of minorities residing in a census tract. Much of San Diego County is comprised of census tracts where 20 to 40 percent of residents are minorities. Table 53 summarizes lending outcomes by the proportion of minority residents in a census tract. In general, approval rates steadily increased as the proportion of minority residents decreased. Table 53: Outcomes by Minority Population of Census Tract (2008 -2013) Tract Minority Level Total Applicants Approved Denied Other % # % # % % 2008 0 -19% Minority 30,019 25.6% 18,593 61.9% 6,655 22.2% 4,771 15.9% 20 -39% Minority 40,392 34.4% 24,397 60.4% 9,458 23.4% 6,537 16.2% 40 -59% Minority 17,848 15.2% 10,008 56.1% 4,821 27.0% 3,019 16.9% 60 -79% Minority 19,477 16.6% 10,433 53.6% 5,605 28.8% 3,439 17.7% 80 -100% Minority 9,683 8.2% 4,564 47.1% 3,417 35.3% 1,702 17.6% Total 117,419 100.0% 67,995 57.9% 29,956 25.5% 19,468 16.6% 2013 0 -19% Minority 22,040 13.0% 15,723 71.3% 3,294 14.9% 3,023 13.7% 20 -39% Minority 63,120 37.2% 45,577 72.2% 9,081 14.4% 8,462 13.4% 40 -59% Minority 42,768 25.2% 30,104 70.4% 6,501 15.2% 6,163 14.4% 60 -79% Minority 22,863 13.5% 15,831 69.2% 3,709 16.2% 3,323 14.5% 80 -100% Minority 19,022 11.2% 12,379 65.1% 3,728 19.6% 2,915 15.3% 169,813 100.0% 119,614 26,313 15.5% 23,886 14.1 Note: Minority data was not available for 144 households in 2008 and 73 households in 2013; therefore, total number of applicants does not equal the overall total. Source: www.lendingpattems.com, 2014. E. Performance by Lender 1. General Overview Table 54 identifies the top ten lenders in San Diego County in 2013. As shown, these top lenders were similarly active throughout most jurisdictions, though some cities (specifically Chula Vista, Imperial Beach, National City, and Solana Beach) appeared to favor a wider range of less popular financial institutions. This is a general pattern throughout California (and perhaps the nation), where communities with higher concentrations of Hispanic population tend to rely more on credit unions than commercial banks for mortgage financing. In 2013, about 47 percent (79,185 applications) of all loan applications in San Diego County were submitted to one of the County's top ten lenders. The region's top three lenders have remained fairly consistent since 2008, with the only significant changes being the purchase of Countrywide Bank by CHAPTER 4: LENDING PRACTICES 121 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 489 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Bank of America and Wells Fargo's acquisition of Wachovia Mortgage (Table 54). The region's remaining top lenders are all smaller financial institutions that each accounted for less than three percent of the County's market share. Table 54: Top San Diego County Lenders by City (2013) Notes: 1. Comparison only indicates if a top County lender was also a top lender in a city, and does not compare the specific order of top lenders in the County as a whole. 2. Data for just the unincorporated areas is not available Source: www.lendingpattems.com, 2014. CHAPTER 4: LENDING PRACTICES 122 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 490 Top 10 Lenders Jurisdiction Wells Fargo Bank, NA Bank of America, NA JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA Quicken Loans, Inc. Navy Federal Credit Union Citibank, NA Flagstar Bank, FSB US Bank, NA Nation- star Mortgage San Diego County Credit Union Carlsbad ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Chula Vista ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Coronado ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Del Mar ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ El Cajon ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Encinitas ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Escondido ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Imperial Bch. ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ La Mesa ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Lemon Grove ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ National City ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Oceanside ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Poway ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ San Diego ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ San Marcos ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Santee ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Solana Beach ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Vista ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Notes: 1. Comparison only indicates if a top County lender was also a top lender in a city, and does not compare the specific order of top lenders in the County as a whole. 2. Data for just the unincorporated areas is not available Source: www.lendingpattems.com, 2014. CHAPTER 4: LENDING PRACTICES 122 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 490 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table 55: Market Share and Disposition of Applications by Top Lenders (2008 -2013) San Diego County Overall Market Share Approved Denied Withdrawn or Closed 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 Wells Fargo Bank, NA 11.0% 10.8% 68.6% 66.0% 17.4% 17.5% 14.0% 16.4% Bank of America, NA 5.5% 6.9% 77.8°/, 64.8% 16.3% 22.4% 5.9% 12.8% P an Chase Bank, Morgan NA g 5.5% 4.5% 73.6 ° /, 59.7% 22.0% 32.8% 4.4% 7.5% Quicken Loans, Inc. 3.0% -- 85.2% -- 14.8% 0.0% -- Navy Federal Credit Union o 2.6 /° -- 0 71.0 /, -- 0 23.1 /° -- 0 5.9 /° -- Citibank, NA 2.5% 53.8°/, 17.0% 29.2% Flagstar Bank, FSB 2.4% 87.0°/, 12.9% 0.0% US Bank, NA 2.2% 60.2°/, 29.5% 10.3% Nationstar Mortgage, LLC 2.1% 55.1°/, 27.5% 17.4% San Diego County Credit Union 1.9% 2.8% 80.7% 65.6% 19.2% 18.4% <1.0% 16.0% All Lenders 100.0% 100.0% 70.4% 57.9% 15.5% 25.5% 14.1% 16.6% Source: www.lendingpattems.com, 2014. -" Indicates institution was not a top lender in 2008. 2. Approval Rates Approval rates for the County's top lenders fluctuated substantially by institution and jurisdiction; however, as noted before, approval rates have increased markedly since 2008. Overall in 2013, approval rates by top lenders ranged from 54 percent (Citibank, NA) to 87 percent (Flagstar Bank, FSB). While high approval rates do not necessarily indicate wrongdoing by a specific institution, they can be a sign of aggressive lending practices on the part of the lender. In particular, smaller, less prominent financial institutions with significantly high approval rates may be a concern. Because these institutions captured a much smaller share of loan applications than Wells Fargo Bank, NA, Bank of America, NA, and JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA, this discrepancy may not be significant. 3. Withdrawn and Incomplete Applications Under current banking regulations, lenders are required to hold a given interest rate for a borrower for a period of 60 days. Borrowers, however, are under no obligation to actually follow through on the loan during this time and can withdraw their application. In mortgage lending, fallout refers to a loan application that is withdrawn by the borrower before the loan is finalized. Typically for - profit lenders should have little fallout and none that varies by race, ethnicity or gender. Several top lenders in San Diego County had higher than average rates of withdrawn or incomplete applications in 2013. Closed applications refer to applications that are closed by the lender due to incompleteness. In instances where a loan application is incomplete, lenders are required to send written notification to the CHAPTER 4: LENDING PRACTICES 123 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 491 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE applicant and request the missing information be turned over within a designated timeframe. If this notice is given and the applicant does not comply within the specified time, the lender can close the application for incompleteness. A high rate of incomplete loans can indicate a lack of financial literacy on the part of the borrower and the process of loan application is too cumbersome to navigate. Several studies have correlated financial literacy with a borrower's income level. Specifically, lower income individuals have been found to be the least knowledgeable about finance. 16 Insufficient lender assistance during the application process can also lead to high levels of incomplete applications. The lack of lender assistance may be discriminatory in motive or outcome; however, HMDA data cannot be used to prove motive. During 2013, Citibank, NA was the only lender that had a noticeably higher rate of withdrawn and closed applications compared to other top lenders in San Diego County. A significant disparity in fallout could be an indicator of an overly complicated application process for a particular lender or suggest something even more troubling, such as screening, differential processing, HMDA Action misclassification, and /or the potential of discouragement of minority applications. Also of note, less than one percent each of applications to Quicken Loans, Inc., Flagstar Bank, FSB, and San Diego County Credit Union were withdrawn or closed in 2013. 4. Top Lenders by Race /Ethnicity Top lenders in the County varied by jurisdiction, as mentioned previously, as well as by the race /ethnicity of applicants. Certain lenders, for example, appeared to be more popular among particular racial /ethnic groups (Table 56). For example: Hispanic applicants comprised about 12 percent of the County's total applicant pool in 2013. However, they made up a slightly higher proportion of the applicant pool for Bank of America (17 percent). ■ Black applicants represented approximately two percent of the County's total applicant pool. NAVY Federal Credit Union, though, had a noticeably higher proportion of Black applicants (seven percent). Asian applicants comprised approximately ten percent of the total applicant pool in the County and appeared to heavily favor Chicago Mortgage Solutions, where Asian applicants comprised 19 percent of that particular lender's applicant pool. 56 Collins, Michael. 2009. "Education Levels and Mortgage Application Outcomes: Evidence of Financial Literacy." University of Wisconsin - Madison, Department of Consumer Science. CHAPTER 4: LENDING PRACTICES 124 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 492 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table 56: Top Lenders by Race /Ethnicity of Applicant (2013) Black Hispanic Asian % of Total % of Total % of Total Lender Lender der Applicants Applicants Applicants NAVY Federal Bank of America, Chicago Mortgage � 6.6% 16.7% 19.2% Credit Union NA Solutions Nationstar CMG Mortgage, NAVY Federal 2.8% 14.9% 17.4% Mortgage, LLC Inc. Credit Union JP Morgan Chase Quicken Loans, Inc. 2.5% ° 14.6% Flagstar Bank, FSB 15.0% Bank, NA Wells Fargo Bank, Sierra Pacific San Diego County ° 2.1 /° ° 14.0 /° ° 14.5 /° NA Mortgage Credit Union Nationstar JP Morgan Chase Bank of America 2.0% 13.7% ° 11.0 /o Mortgage, LLC Bank, NA Total All Lenders 2.0% 12.2% 10.2% Source: www.lendingpatterns.com, 2014. F. Sub -Prime Lending Market According to the Federal Reserve, "prime" mortgages are offered to persons with excellent credit and employment history and income adequate to support the loan amount. "Subprime" loans are loans to borrowers who have less -than- perfect credit history, poor employment history, or other factors such as limited income. By providing loans to those who do not meet the critical standards for borrowers in the prime market, subprme lending can and does serve a critical role in increasing levels of homeownership. Households that are interested in buying a home but have blemishes in their credit record, insufficient credit history, or non - traditional income sources may be otherwise unable to purchase a home. The subprme loan market offers these borrowers opportunities to obtain loans that they would be unable to realize in the prime loan market. Subprime lenders generally offer interest rates that are higher than those in the prime market and often lack the regulatory oversight required for prime lenders because they are not owned by regulated financial institutions. In the recent past, however, many large and well-known banks became involved in the Subprime market either through acquisitions of other firms or by initiating subprme loans directly. Though the Subprime market usually follows the same guiding principles as the prime market, a number of specific risk factors are associated with this market. According to a joint HUD /Department of the Treasury report, Subprime lending generally has the following characteristics :57 Higher Risk: Lenders experience higher loan defaults and losses by Subprime borrowers than by prime borrowers. 57 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 2000. "Unequal Burden In Los Angeles: Income and Racial Disparities in Subprime Lending." CHAPTER 4: LENDING PRACTICES 125 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 493 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE ■ Lower Loan Amounts: On average, loans in the subprime mortgage market are smaller than loans in the prime market. ■ Higher Costs to Originate: Subprime loans may be more costly to originate than prime loans since they often require additional review of credit history, a higher rate of rejected or withdrawn applications and fixed costs such as appraisals, that represent a higher percentage of a smaller loan. ■ Faster Prepayments: Subprime mortgages tend to be prepaid at a much faster rate than prime mortgages. ■ Higher Fees: Subprime loans tend to have significantly higher fees due to the factors listed above. Subprime lending can both impede and extend fair housing choice. On the one hand, subprime loans extend credit to borrowers who potentially could not otherwise finance housing. The increased access to credit by previously underserved consumers and communities contributed to record high levels of homeownership among minorities and lower income groups. On the other hand, these loans left many lower income and minority borrowers exposed to default and foreclosure risk. Since foreclosures destabilize neighborhoods and subprime borrowers are often from lower income and minority areas, mounting evidence suggests that classes protected by fair housing faced the brunt of the recent subprime and mortgage lending market collapse.-" While HMDA data does not classify loans as subprime, it does track the interest rate spread on loans. Since 2005, the Federal Reserve Board has required lenders to report rate spreads for loans whose APR was above the Treasury benchmark. Loans with a reported spread are typically referred to as higher - priced or subprime loans. Table 57: Reported Spread on Loans by Race /Ethnicity (2008 -2013) San Diego County Frequency of Spread Average Spread 2008 2013 2008 2013 White 4.0% 1.6 %, 3.99 2.55 Black 7.9% 3.2 %, 3.75 2.28 Hispanic 8.4% 3.7 %, 3.77 2.39 Asian 3.2% 1.2% 3.72 2.11 Total 4.5% 1.8% —nor 2.43 Source: www.lendingpattems.com, 2014. As shown in Table 57, the number of subprime loans issued has decreased substantially over time. In 2008, approximately five percent of all loans issued had a reported spread but, by 2013, less than two percent of loans issued were subprime loans. What appears to be most troubling, however, is that Black 58 Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. September 2007. "Foreclosure Exposure: A Study of Racial and Income Disparities in Home Mortgage Lending in 172 American Cities." CHAPTER 4: LENDING PRACTICES 126 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 494 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE and Hispanic applicants seem to be significantly more likely to receive these higher- priced loans. In 2008 and 2013, Blacks and Hispanics were twice as likely as Whites and Asians to receive a subprime loan. Since 2008, not only has there been a decline in the number of subprime loans issued, there has also been a decrease in the magnitude of spread reported on these loans. Generally, the higher the reported spread on a loan, the worse that loan is compared to a standard prime loan. In 2008, the average reported spread for a subprime loan was just under four points; by 2013, the average reported spread had dropped to below two and one -half points. There was virtually no difference in the reported magnitude of spread for subprime loans by race /ethnicity of the applicant. G. Predatory Lending With an active housing market, potential predatory lending practices by financial institutions may arise. Predatory lending involves abusive loan practices usually targeting minority applicants or those with less - than- perfect credit histories. Typical predatory lending practices include: -" ■ Inadequate or False Disclosure: The lender hides or misrepresents the true costs, risks and /or appropriateness of a loan's terms, or the lender changes the loan terms after the initial offer. • Risk -Based Pricing: While all lenders depend on some form of risk -based pricing — tying interest rates to credit history — predatory lenders abuse the practice by charging very high interest rates to high -risk borrowers who are most likely to default. • Inflated Fees and Charges: Fees and costs (e.g., appraisals, closing costs, document preparation fees) are much higher than those charged by reputable lenders, and are often hidden in fine print. • Loan Packing: Unnecessary products like credit insurance — which pays off the loan if a homebuyer dies — are added into the cost of a loan. • Loan Flipping: The lender encourages a borrower to refinance an existing loan into a larger one with a higher interest rate and additional fees. • Asset -Based Lending: Borrowers are encouraged to borrow more than they should when a lender offers a refinance loan based on their amount of home equity, rather than on their income or ability to repay. • Reverse Redlining: The lender targets limited- resource neighborhoods that conventional banks may shy away from. Everyone in the neighborhood is charged higher rates to borrow money, regardless of credit history, income or ability to repay. • Balloon Mortgages: A borrower is convinced to refinance a mortgage with one that has lower payments upfront but excessive (balloon) payments later in the loan term. When the balloon payments cannot be met, the lender helps to refinance again with another high- interest, high -fee loan. 59 Al Krulick, "Predatory Lending." www.debt.or . Accessed February 17, 2015. 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet CHAPTER 4: LENDING PRACTICES 127 Page 495 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Negative Amortization: This occurs when a monthly loan payment is too small to cover even the interest, which gets added to the unpaid balance. It can result in a borrower owing substantially more than the original amount borrowed. Abnormal Prepayment Penalties: A borrower who tries to refinance a home loan with one that offers better terms can be assessed an abusive prepayment penalty for paying off the original loan early. Up to 80 percent of subprime mortgages have abnormally high prepayment penalties. Mandatory Arbitration: The lender adds language to a loan contract making it illegal for a borrower to take future legal action for fraud or misrepresentation. The only option for an abused borrower is arbitration, which generally puts the borrower at a disadvantage. In recent years, predatory lending has also penetrated the home improvement financing market. Seniors and minority homeowners are typically the targets of this type of lending. In general, home improvement financing is more difficult to obtain than home purchase financing. Many homeowners have a debt -to- income ratio that is too high to qualify for home improvement loans in the prime market and become targets of predatory lending in the subprime market. Seniors have been swindled into installing unnecessary devices or making unnecessary improvements that are bundled with unreasonable financing terms. Predatory lending is a growing fair housing issue. Predatory lenders who discriminate get some scrutiny under the Fair Housing Act of 1968 which requires equal treatment in terms and conditions of housing opportunities and credit regardless of race, religion, color, national origin, family status, or disability. This applies to loan originators as well as the secondary market. The Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1972 requires equal treatment in loan terms and availability of credit for all of the above categories, as well as age, sex, and marital status. Lenders that engage in predatory lending would violate these Acts if they target minority or elderly households to buy higher priced or unequal loan products, treat loans for protected classes differently than those of comparably credit - worthy White applicants, or have policies or practices that have a disproportionate effect on the protected classes. Data available to investigate the presence of predatory lending is extremely limited. At present, HMDA data are the most comprehensive data available for evaluating lending practices. However, as discussed before, HMDA data lack the financial details of the loan terms to conclude that any kind of predatory lending has actually occurred. There is an effort at the national level to push for increased reporting requirements in order to identify and curb predatory lending. The State of California has enacted additional measures designed to stem the tide of predatory lending practices. Senate Bill 537 provided a funding mechanism for local district attorneys' offices to establish special units to investigate and prosecute real estate fraud cases. The law enabled county governments to establish real estate fraud protection units. Furthermore, AB 489, a predatory lending reform bill, prevents a lender from basing the loan strictly on the borrower's home equity as opposed to the ability to repay the loan. The law also outlaws some balloon payments and prevents refinancing unless it results in an identifiable benefit to the borrower. Predatory lending and unsound investment practices, central to the current home foreclosure crisis, led to a credit crunch that spread well beyond the housing market and impacted the cost of credit for local CHAPTER 4: LENDING PRACTICES 128 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 496 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE government borrowing and local property tax revenues. In response, the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation H.R.3915 in 2007, which prohibits certain predatory lending practices and makes it easier for consumers to renegotiate predatory mortgage loans. The U.S. Senate introduced similar legislation in late 2007 (S.2454). The Mortgage Reform and Anti- Predatory Lending Act (H.R.1728) was passed in the House in May 2009 and amends the Truth in Lending Act to specify duty of care standards for originators of residential mortgages. The law also prescribed minimum standards for residential mortgage loans and directs the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to establish a grants program to provide legal assistance to lower and moderate income homeowners and tenants and prohibits specified practices, including: • Certain prepayment penalties; • Single premium credit insurance; • Mandatory arbitration (except reverse mortgages); • Mortgage loan provisions that waive a statutory cause of action by the consumer; and • Mortgages with negative amortization.60 In addition to anti - predatory lending laws, the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act was enacted in 2007 and allows for the exclusion of income realized as a result of modification of the terms of a mortgage or foreclosure on a taxpayer's principal residence. While subprime lending cannot in and of itself be described as "predatory," studies have shown a high incidence of predatory lending in the subprime market. 61 Unlike in the prime lending market, overly high approval rates in the subprime market is a potential cause for concern when the target clients are considered high risk. High approval rates may indicate aggressive lending practices. Table 55 summarizes the approval rates of top lenders in San Diego County. Of these top lenders, Flagstar Bank, FSB, Quicken Loans, Inc., and San Diego County Credit Union had notably high approval rates (over 80 percent). 60 In negative amortization, a borrower pays monthly mortgage payments that are lower than the required interest payments and include no principal payments. The shortage in monthly payments is added to the principle loan. Therefore, the longer the borrower holds that loan, the more they owe the lender despite making monthly payments. 61 California Reinvestment Committee. November 2001. "Stolen Wealth, Inequities in California's Subprime Mortgage Market." CHAPTER 4: LENDING PRACTICES 129 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 497 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE H. Purchased Loans Secondary mortgage marketing is the term used for pricing, buying, selling, securitizing and trading residential mortgages. The secondary market is an informal process of different financial institutions buying and selling home mortgages. The secondary market exists to provide a venue for lending institutions to raise the capital required to make additional loans. 1. History In the 1960s, as interest rates became unstable, housing starts declined and the nation faced capital shortages as many regions, including California, had more demand for mortgage credit than the lenders could fund. The need for new sources of capital promoted Congress to reorganize the Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA) into two entities: a private corporation (today's FNMA) and a government agency, the Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA). In 1970, Congress charted the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation ( FHLMC) to purchase conventional loans. Both FHLMC and FNMA have the same goals: to increase the liquidity of the mortgage market and make homeownership more widely available to the average citizen. The two organizations work to standardize the documentation, underwriting and financing of home loans nationwide. They purchase loans from originators, hold them and issue their own debt to replenish the cash. They are, essentially, massive savings and loan organizations. These two organizations set the standards for the purchase of home loans by private lenders in the U.S. 2. Purchased Loans and Race During the peak of the housing market, the practice of selling mortgage loans by the originators (lenders that initially provide the loans to the borrowers) to other lenders and investors was prevalent. Predatory lending was rampant, with lenders utilizing liberal underwriting criteria or falsified documents to push loan sales to people who could not afford the loans. The originating lenders were able to minimize their financial risk by immediately selling the loans to other lenders or investors on the secondary market. Table 58 shows the various loan types purchased in San Diego County, as well as the race /ethnicity of the applicants, in 2013. White applicants represented the majority of all applicants and were subsequently the most likely to have their loans purchased. Among all race /ethnicities, government - backed loans were most likely to be purchased. Table 58: Percent of Purchased Loans by Race (2013) Loan Type White Black Asian Hispanic Government- Backed Purchase 22.5% 21.8% 23.7% 23.7% Conventional Purchase 11.9% 14.2% 10.4% 12.4% Refinance 8.4% 6.1% 7.7% 7.0% Home Improvement 73% 5.0% 7.5% 8 7% Source: www.lendingpattems.com, 2014. CHAPTER 4: LENDING PRACTICES 130 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 498 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE I. Review of Lending Patterns by Specific Lender Because the applicant profiles of some of the top lenders in San Diego County differ so significantly, this section looks at the underwriting outcomes of some of the major lenders in the County. 1. Wells Fargo Bank Wells Fargo was a top three lender in San Diego County in 2008 and 2013. The bank captured 11 percent of the market share in the County in 2013 and had an approval rate of 67 percent, which was slightly below the average approval rate for all lenders in the County of 70 percent. While Wells Fargo seems to be a popular option among San Diego County residents, Hispanic applicants appeared to have more difficulty obtaining loans from this bank. Hispanic applicants were less likely to be approved for loans (53 percent versus 67 percent overall) and more likely to be denied loans (25 percent versus 17 percent overall) at this institution. This could explain the popularity of smaller, lesser -known financial institutions among the County's Hispanic population (Table 56).62 2. Bank of America Bank of America was also a top three lender in the County in 2008 and 2013. This bank accounted for approximately six percent of the market share in 2013. The approval rate for this lender (78 percent) was higher than the average approval rate for all lenders in the County (70 percent). Approval rates for Black and Hispanic applicants (65 percent and 67 percent, respectively), however, were noticeably lower for this lender. Denial rates were also slightly higher for Black and Hispanic applicants (21 percent and 20 percent, respectively) than the overall denial rate for this lender of 16 percent. 3. JP Morgan Chase Bank JP Morgan Chase was a top five lender in San Diego County in both 2008 and 2013 and captured approximately six percent of the County's market share in 2013. The approval rate for this institution (74 percent) was slightly higher than the average for all lenders in the County (70 percent). Approval rates were the highest for White applicants (75 percent), while 67 percent of loan applications from Hispanics were approved. Applications from Hispanic applicants were also more likely to be denied (28 percent) versus 22 percent of all applicants. Fallout rates for this lender were lower than the average for all lenders and fairly equal among applicants of all races /ethnicities. 4. Flagstar Bank Flagstar Bank was a top lender in San Diego County in 2013, representing just over two percent of the County's market share. The bank had an approval rate that was significantly higher than the average for 62 Also, the City of Chula Vista has been in discussions with Wells Fargo Bank regarding underwriting criteria when a buyer is participating in the City's Downpayment Assistance Program (DAP). Currently Wells Fargo Bank uses standards that are higher than FHA loans for such applications. CHAPTER 4: LENDING PRACTICES 131 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 499 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE all lenders (87 percent versus 70 percent). This financial institution was also the third most prolific lender for Asian applicants in the County; however, approval, denial, and fallout rates were fairly consistent among applicants of various races /ethnicities. 5. Quicken Loans Quicken Loans was a top lender in 2013 and accounted for three percent of the County's market share. The approval rate for this lender was significantly higher than the average for all lenders in the County (85 percent versus 70 percent). Approval, denial, and fallout rates were generally consistent among applicants of various races / ethnicities. 6. San Diego County Credit Union San Diego County Credit Union was a top ten lender in San Diego County in both 2008 and 2013. The approval rate for this institution was markedly higher than the average for all lenders in the County (81 percent versus 70 percent). Approval rates were fairly consistent among applicants of all races / ethnicities; however, approval rates were the lowest (74 percent), and denial rates the highest (25 percent), among Hispanic applicants. 7. Citibank Citibank was a top ten lender in the County in 2013. The approval rate for this institution was significantly lower than the average for all lenders in the County (54 percent versus 70 percent). This lender also had a higher than average fallout rate than the average for all lenders (29 percent versus 14 percent). Approval rates were fairly consistent among applicants of all races /ethnicities. J. Foreclosures Foreclosure occurs when homeowners fall behind on one or more scheduled mortgage payments. The foreclosure process can be halted if the homeowner is able to bring their mortgage payments current. If payments cannot be resumed or the debt cannot be resolved, the lender can legally use the foreclosure process to repossess (take over) the home. When this happens, the homeowner must move out of the property. If the home is worth less than the total amount owed on the mortgage loan, a deficiency judgment could be pursued. If that happens, the homeowner would lose their home and also would owe the home lender an additional amount. Homes can be in various stages of foreclosure. Typically, the foreclosure process begins with the issuance of a Notice of Default (NOD). An NOD serves as an official notification to a borrower that he or she is behind in their mortgage payments, and if the payments are not paid up, the lender will seize the home. In California, lenders will not usually file an NOD until a borrower is at least 90 days behind in making payments. As of February 2015, 1,555 properties in the County were in this pre - foreclosure stage. CHAPTER 4: LENDING PRACTICES 132 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 500 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Once an NOD has been filed, borrowers are given a specific time period, typically three months, in which they can bring their mortgage payments current. If payments are not made current at the end of this specified time period, a Notice of Trustee Sale (NTS) will be prepared and published in a newspaper. An NTS is a formal notification of the sale of a foreclosure property. In California, the NTS is filed 90 days following an NOD when a property owner has failed to make a property loan current. Once an NTS has been filed, a property can then be sold at public auction. According to foreclosure records, 1,056 properties in the County were in the auction stage of the foreclosure process between 2013 and 2015. Many properties, however, are unable to be sold at public auction. In the event of an unsuccessful sale at auction, a property becomes classified as Real Estate Owned (REO) and ownership of it reverts back to the mortgage company or lender. In February 2015, the County had a total of 310 bank -owned properties. Table 59 presents current foreclosure data by jurisdiction. Between 2012 and February 2015, less than one percent of the County's housing stock was in one of the various stages of foreclosure. Homes in foreclosure comprised a similar proportion of the housing stock (about 0.2 percent) in all of San Diego County's incorporated cities. The unincorporated areas of San Diego County also have a similar proportion of foreclosed homes. Figure 20 illustrates foreclosure "hot spots" in San Diego County based on the number of foreclosures per 1,000 housing units. The hot spots are concentrated in Chula Vista, National City, and East San Diego areas. Figure 21 takes the hot spots analysis one step further by aggregating block groups with high rates of foreclosure to determine the probability of foreclosures based on proximity of other hot spots (GiZScore, probability of proximity analysis). The resultant "heat map" illustrates areas with concentrated hot spots. 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet CHAPTER 4: LENDING PRACTICES 133 Page 501 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table 59: Foreclosures (February 2015) Jurisdiction Pre- Forelosure Bank- Owned Auction Total of Total Housing Stock Carlsbad 91 8 45 144 0.3% Chula Vista 172 29 115 316 0.4% Coronado -- -- -- 0 0.0% Del Mar 6 -- 3 9 0.3% El Cajon 82 19 54 155 0.4% Encinitas 25 1 12 38 0.2% Escondido 104 27 53 184 0.4% Imperial Beach 6 3 5 14 0.1% La Mesa 28 6 24 58 0.2% Lemon Grove 19 4 12 35 0.4% National City 27 7 10 44 0.3% Oceanside 96 26 76 198 0.3% Poway 22 4 17 43 0.3% San Diego 488 86 358 932 0.2% San Marcos 57 13 37 107 0.4% Santee 37 4 19 60 0.3% Solana Beach 6 -- 3 9 0.1% Vista 43 16 37 96 0.3% Unincorporated County Alpine 10 8 25 -- Bonita 10 3 13 26 Fallbmok 26 4 26 56 La Jolla 14 -- 13 27 Lakeside 26 6 14 46 Ramona 30 8 22 60 Rancho Santa Fe 14 1 5 20 Spring Valley 55 10 32 97 Valley Center 19 3 17 39 Uninc000ratedAreas3 42 15 26 83 Total County 1,555 310 1,056 2,921 0.3% Notes: Foreclosure numbers for unincorporated San Diego County were estimated from foreclosure activity in the unincorporated neighborhoods of Bonsall, Borrego Springs, Boulevard, Campo, Cardiff -by- the -Sea, Descano, Dulzura, Guatay, Jacumba, Jamul, Julian, Pacific Beach, Pauma Valley, Pine Valley, Potrero, and Warner Springs. Sources: www.realtytrac.com, 2015; U.S. Census, American Community Survey (ACS), 2008 -2012. CHAPTER 4: LENDING PRACTICES 134 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 502 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Figure 20: Foreclosures Hot Spots (February 2015) PACIFIC OCEAN San Diego County 2015 Foreclosures Percent of Housing Units Hot Spot Analysis _ No Foreclosures Reported L =3 Cold Spot - 99% Confidence Cold Spot - 95°% Confidence Cold Spot - 90% Confidence Not Significant Hot Spot- 90% Confidence Hot Spot- 95% Confidence Hot Spot- 99% Confidence 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet All am 00 1 CIT, rr r . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . tivall, 116 ti. CHAPTER 4: LENDING PRACTICES 135 Page 503 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Figure 21: Probability of Foreclosures (February 2015) PACIFIC OCEAN a .. mv, ,, T San Diego County r 2015 Foreclosures Percentage of Housing Units By Census Block Group C% J 001 % -015% 0.16 % -025% 0.26% - 0.5% - 051% -075% - 0.76% - 1.96% CHAPTER 4: LENDING PRACTICES 136 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet L r---4 �J I 1_ f r VIIZ' ---� W-1 Page 504 PUBLIC POLICIES AN ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE ublic policies established at the regional and local levels can affect housing development, and therefore, may impact the range and location of housing choices available to residents. Fair housing laws are designed to encourage an inclusive living environment, active community participation, and an assessment of public policies. An assessment of public policies and practices can help determine potential impediments to fair housing opportunity. This section presents an overview of government regulations, policies, and practices enacted by each of the 19 jurisdictions in San Diego County that may impact fair housing choice. A. Policies and Programs Affecting Housing Development The General Plan of a jurisdiction establishes a vision for the community and provides long -range goals and policies to guide the development in achieving that vision. Two of the seven State - mandated General Plan elements — Housing and Land Use Elements — have direct impact on the local housing market in terms of the amount and range of housing choice. The zoning ordinance, which implements the General Plan, is another important document that influences the amount and type of housing available in a community — the availability of housing choice. In addition, 11 jurisdictions (Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, Encinitas, Imperial Beach, National City, Oceanside, Solana Beach, City of San Diego, and unincorporated areas of San Diego County) have Local Coastal Plans that also play a significant role in affordable housing in the Coastal Zone of each jurisdiction. 1. Housing Element Law and Compliance As one of the seven State - mandated elements of the local General Plan, the Housing Element is the only element with specific statutory requirements and is subject to review by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for compliance with State law. Enacted in 1969, Housing Element law requires that local governments adequately plan to meet the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community. The law acknowledges that for the private market to adequately address housing needs and demand, local governments must adopt land use plans and regulatory systems that provide opportunities for and do not unduly constrain housing development. Specifically, the Housing Element must: ■ Identify adequate sites which will be made available through appropriate zoning and development standards, with services and facilities needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels in order to meet the community's housing goals; CHAPTER 5: PUBLIC POLICIES 137 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 505 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE ■ Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of extremely low, very low, low, and moderate income households;« ■ Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities; ■ Conserve and improve the condition of the existing affordable housing stock; and ■ Promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability.64 Compliance Status Table 60 summarizes the Housing Element compliance status of jurisdictions in San Diego County. A Housing Element found by HCD to be in compliance with State law is presumed to have adequately addressed its policy constraints. According to HCD, of the 19 participating jurisdictions (including the County), 17 Housing Elements were in compliance. The cities of Carlsbad and Encinitas have not yet adopted housing elements for the 2013 -2021 planning period. The City of Carlsbad is in the process of updating its Housing element in conjunction with a comprehensive update to its General Plan. A draft of the updated Housing Element was submitted to HCD for review in July 2013. In September 2013, HCD found that the draft Housing Element, with the inclusion of suggested revisions, meets the statutory requirements of state housing element law. The City anticipates adopting the Housing Element before the end of 2015. The City of Encinitas is in the process of updating its Housing Element, in conjunction with an extensive community outreach process and proposed rezoning of properties to accommodate additional housing. The City anticipates adopting the Housing Element by the end of 2016. 63 Under the State Housing Element law, the income categories are: extremely low income (30 percent AMI); very low income (50 percent AMI); low income (80 percent AMI); moderate income (120 percent AMI); and above moderate income (greater than 120 percent AMI). 64 State Housing Element law does not cover all classes protected under State and Federal fair housing laws. The Al report expands the protected classes beyond the Housing Element law to discuss Housing Element compliance with State and Federal fair housing laws. CHAPTER 5: PUBLIC POLICIES 138 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 506 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table 60: Housing Element Status for 2013 -2021 Cycle Jurisdiction Document Status Compliance Status Carlsbad Draft Out Chula Vista Adopted In Coronado Adopted In Del Mar Adopted In El Cajon Adopted In Encinitas Draft Out Escondido Adopted In Imperial Beach Adopted In La Mesa Adopted In Lemon Grove Adopted In National City Adopted In Oceanside Adopted In Poway Adopted In San Diego (City) Adopted In San Diego (County) Adopted In San Marcos Adopted In Santee Adopted In Solana Beach Adopted In Vista Adopted In Source: Department of Housing and Community Development, State of California, February 2015. 2. SANDAG Regional Comprehensive Plan SANDAG adopted a Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) in July 2004. The RCP serves as the long- term planning framework for the San Diego region. It provides a broad context in which local and regional decisions can be made that move the region toward a sustainable future — a future with more choices and opportunities for all residents of the region. The RCP better integrates San Diego's local land use and transportation decisions, and focuses attention on where and how the region wants to grow. The RCP contains an incentive -based approach to encourage and channel growth into existing and future urban areas and smart growth communities. 3. Land Use Element The Land Use Element of a General Plan designates the general distribution, location, and extent of uses for land planned for housing, business, industry, open space, and public or community facilities. As it applies to housing, the Land Use Element establishes a range of residential land use categories, specifies densities (typically expressed as dwelling units per acre [du /ac]), and suggests the types of housing appropriate in a community. Residential development is implemented through the zoning districts and development standards specified in the jurisdiction's zoning ordinance. CHAPTER 5: PUBLIC POLICIES 139 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 507 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE 4. Residential Densities A number of factors, governmental and non - governmental, affect the supply and cost of housing in a local housing market. The governmental factor that most directly influences these market conditions is the allowable density range of residentially designated land. In general, higher densities allow developers to take advantage of economies of scale, reduce the per -unit cost of land and improvements, and reduce developments costs associated with new housing construction. Reasonable density standards ensure the opportunity for higher - density residential uses to be developed within a community, increasing the feasibility of producing affordable housing, and offer a variety of housing options that meet the needs of the community. Minimum required densities in multi - family zones ensure that land zoned for multi- family use, the supply of which is often limited, will be developed as efficiently as possible for multi- family uses. Table 61 presents a summary of allowable densities by land use type for jurisdictions in the San Diego region. While most jurisdictions have Land Use Elements that allow a range of single - family (0 -14 du /ac) and multi - family (6 -30+ du /ac) residential uses, Del Mar, Poway, and Solana Beach, due to the characteristics of existing residential neighborhoods, do not accommodate multi - family uses at a density greater than 20 du /ac without a density bonus or other incentive for affordable housing. However, as a part of its 2013 -2021 Housing Element, the City of Del Mar committed to redesignating two vacant properties in the North Commercial (NC) zone to allow residential development at a density of 20 units per acre or greater. In addition to the land use re- designation noted above, the City of Del Mar also plans to pursue amendments to the North Commercial (NC) and Professional Commercial (PC) zones expanding the list of uses allowed by right to include residential uses at a density of 20 units per acre for projects that include an affordable housing component. The City of Del Mar completed the rezoning of the vacant properties in 2014. To provide adequate sites for affordable housing development, an Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ) was established in the Poway Zoning Code for Low Income (AH -L) and Moderate Income (AH -M) households. In 2012, placement of an AHOZ designation was completed on six publicly - owned sites. An AHOZ may be applied to property within any land use category, including non- residential categories, not including the Open Space or Rural Residential categories. The Poway Municipal Code (PMC) was also amended in 2012 to provide development incentives on AHOZ sites to encourage affordable housing that is consistent with State law. Development incentives include allowing densities up to 30 dwelling units per acre on properties that have the AHOZ applied on them. In 2013, the City of Carlsbad approved General Plan land use and zoning changes to increase residential density up to 30 units per acre in portions of the northwest section of the city. Coronado, Del Mar, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City, Oceanside, Poway, the City of San Diego, the County of San Diego, and Vista either have very low or no minimum density requirements for at least some of their residentially -zoned land. State law requires a local government to make a finding that a density reduction, rezoning, or downzoning is consistent with its Housing Element prior to requiring or permitting a reduction of density of a parcel below the density used in determining Housing Element compliance. The legislation also allowed courts to award attorneys' fees and costs if the court determines that the density reduction or downzoning was made illegally. CHAPTER 5: PUBLIC POLICIES 140 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 508 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table 61: Typical Land Use Categories and Permitted Density by Jurisdiction Generalized Density Typical Residential Chula Coronado Del Land Use Range Carlsbad El Cajon Encinitas Type Vista * Mar* (By Density) (du /ac) Single family Very low- density Estate /Rural <1 unit housin g where per acre agricultural is predominant Single - family Very Low 0 -1 homes on large lots in rural areas Single - family Low 1 -3 homes on large lots Single - family Medium 3 -6 homes on medium -sized lots Smaller single- ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ High 6 -14 family homes Multi - Family Town homes, duplexes, Low 6 -15 condominiums, 0 0 0 0 0 0 and small single - story apartments One and two - Medium 15 -20 story apartment 0 0 0 0 0 0 complexes Two and three - High 20 -30 story apartment 0 0 0 0 0 0 complexes Large multi -story Very High 30 -50 apartment and 0 0 0 condo complexes High -rise Special High 50+ apartment and 0 condo complexes Source: General Plan Land Use Elements for jurisdictions in San Diego County. Note: This table represents a summary of typical land use categories, as defined by density. These categories are not necessarily representative of a specific jurisdiction's General Plan Land Use categories. Instead, they are meant to provide an overview of the type of land uses and densities permitted in that jurisdiction. The squares identify a jurisdiction as supporting land use densities within the identified range (according to the General Plan's Land Use Element). However, a jurisdiction's land use category might not include all the densities listed in that range. For example, a jurisdiction's Multi - Family Very High density category might support densities from 21 to 35 du /ac, but the High and Very High categories will be checked since the range covers both categories. *Indicates jurisdiction with very low, or no minimum density standards in land use or zoning ordinance. CHAPTER 5: PUBLIC POLICIES 141 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 509 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table 61: Typical Land Use Categories and Permitted Density by Jurisdiction Generalized Density Typical Residential Escon- Imperial Lemon National Ocean - Land Use Range La Mesa* Type dido Beach* Grove* City* side* (By Density) (du /ac) Single - family Very low- density Estate /Rural <1 unit housin g where per acre agricultural is predominant Single - family Very Low 0 -1 homes on large lots in rural areas Single - family Low 1 -3 homes on large lots Single - family Medium 3 -6 homes on medium -sized lots Smaller single - High 6 -14 family homes Multi - Family Town homes, duplexes, Low 6 -15 condominiums, and small single - story apartments One and two - Medium 15 -20 story apartment 0 0 0 0 0 0 complexes Two and three - High 20 -30 story apartment 0 0 0 0 0 0 complexes Large multi -story Very High 30 -50 apartment and 0 0 0 0 0 condo complexes High -rise Special High 50+ apartment and condo complexes Source: General Plan Land Use Elements for jurisdictions in San Diego County. Note: This table represents a summary of typical land use categories, as defined by density. These categories are not necessarily representative of a specific jurisdiction's General Plan Land Use categories. Instead, they are meant to provide an overview of the type of land uses and densities permitted in that jurisdiction. The squares identify a jurisdiction as supporting land use densities within the identified range (according to the General Plan's Land Use Element). However, a jurisdiction's land use category might not include all the densities listed in that range. For example, a jurisdiction's Multi - Family Very High density category might support densities from 21 to 35 du /ac, but the High and Very High categories will be checked since the range covers both categories. CHAPTER 5: PUBLIC POLICIES 142 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 510 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table 61: Typical Land Use Categories and Permitted Density by Jurisdiction *Indicates jurisdiction with very low, or no minimum density standards in land use or zoning ordinance. Source: General Plan Land Use Elements for jurisdictions in San Diego County. Note: This table represents a summary of typical land use categories, as defined by density. These categories are not necessarily representative of a specific jurisdiction's General Plan Land Use categories. Instead, they are meant to provide an overview of the type of land uses and densities permitted in that jurisdiction. The squares identify a jurisdiction as supporting land use densities within the identified range (according to the General Plan's Land Use Element). However, a jurisdiction's land use category might not include all the densities listed in that range. For example, a jurisdiction's Multi - Family Very High density category might support densities from 21 to 35 du /ac, but the High and Very High categories will be checked since the range covers both categories. *Indicates jurisdiction with very low, or no minimum density standards in land use or zoning ordinance. CHAPTER 5: PUBLIC POLICIES 143 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 511 W Generalized Density San San Typical Residential San Solana Land Use Range Poway* Diego Diego Santee Vista Type Marcos Beach (By Density) (du /ac) (City)* (County)* Single family Very low- density Estate /Rural <1 unit housin g where per acre agricultural is predominant Single - family Very Low 0 -1 homes on large 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 lots in rural areas Single - family Low 1 -3 homes on large 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 lots Single - family Medium 3 -6 homes on 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 medium -sized lots Smaller single- ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ High 6 -14 family homes Multi - Family Town homes, duplexes, Low 6 -15 condominiums, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 and small single - story apartments One and two - Medium 15 -20 story apartment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 complexes Two and three - High 20 -30 story apartment 0 0 0 0 0 complexes Large multi -story Very High 30 -50 apartment and 0 condo complexes High -rise Special High 50+ apartment and 0 condo complexes Source: General Plan Land Use Elements for jurisdictions in San Diego County. Note: This table represents a summary of typical land use categories, as defined by density. These categories are not necessarily representative of a specific jurisdiction's General Plan Land Use categories. Instead, they are meant to provide an overview of the type of land uses and densities permitted in that jurisdiction. The squares identify a jurisdiction as supporting land use densities within the identified range (according to the General Plan's Land Use Element). However, a jurisdiction's land use category might not include all the densities listed in that range. For example, a jurisdiction's Multi - Family Very High density category might support densities from 21 to 35 du /ac, but the High and Very High categories will be checked since the range covers both categories. *Indicates jurisdiction with very low, or no minimum density standards in land use or zoning ordinance. CHAPTER 5: PUBLIC POLICIES 143 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 511 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE B. Zoning Ordinance The zoning ordinance implements the General Plan by establishing zoning districts that correspond with General Plan land use designations. Development standards and permitted uses in each zoning district are specified to govern the density, type, and design of different land uses for the protection of public health, safety, and welfare (Government Code, Sections 65800 - 65863). The Fair Housing Act does not pre -empt local zoning laws. However, the Act applies to municipalities and other local government entities and prohibits them from making zoning or land use decisions or implementing land use policies that exclude or otherwise discriminate against protected persons, including individuals with disabilities. Another way that discrimination in zoning and land use may occur is when a seemingly neutral ordinance has a disparate impact, or causes disproportional harm, to a protected group. Land use policies such as density or design requirements that make residential development prohibitively expensive, limitations on multi - family housing, or a household occupancy standard may be considered discriminatory if it can be proven these policies have a disproportionate impact on minorities, families with children, or people with disabilities. Several aspects of the zoning ordinance that may affect a person's access to housing or limit the range of housing choices available are described below. As part of the Housing Element update, jurisdictions are required to evaluate their land use policies, zoning provisions, and development regulations and make proactive efforts to mitigate any constraints identified. However, the following review is based on the current zoning ordinances as of the writing of this Al. 1. Definition of Family A community's zoning ordinance can potentially restrict access to housing for households failing to qualify as a "family' by the definition specified in the zoning ordinance. For instance, a landlord may refuse to rent to a "nontraditional" family based on the zoning definition of a family.65 A landlord may also use the definition of a family as an excuse for refusing to rent to a household based on other hidden reasons, such as household size. Even if the code provides a broad definition, deciding what constitutes a "family' should be avoided by jurisdictions to prevent confusion or give the impression of restrictiveness. Zoning laws that are "facially neutral" (that is, they apply to all persons, not just those with disabilities) will violate the Fair Housing Act if they have a disparate impact or discriminatory effect on people with disabilities. One type of zoning law that often has been held to have a disparate impact on people with disabilities is a definition of the term "family" that allows any number of related persons to live together but limits the number of unrelated persons who may live together. Although applicable to groups of unrelated and non - disabled persons (e.g., college students, nuns, etc.), these laws may be deemed to have a disparate impact on persons with disabilities who often need to live in group settings for both programmatic and financial reasons.66 65 Most Zoning Ordinances that define families limit the definition to two or more individuals related by kinship, marriage, adoption, or other legally recognized custodial relationship. 66 Discriminatory Zoning and the Fair Housing Act. Disability Rights Network of Pennsylvania, 2007. CHAPTER 5: PUBLIC POLICIES 144 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 512 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE California court cases' have ruled that a definition of "family" that: 1) limits the number of persons in a family; 2) specifies how members of the family are related (i.e. by blood, marriage or adoption, etc.), or (3) defines a group of not more than a certain number of unrelated persons as a single housekeeping unit is invalid. Court rulings stated that defining a family does not serve any legitimate or useful objective or purpose recognized under the zoning and land planning powers of the jurisdiction, and therefore violates rights of privacy under the California Constitution. A zoning ordinance also cannot regulate residency by discriminating between biologically related and unrelated persons. Furthermore, a zoning provision cannot regulate or enforce the number of persons constituting a family. The cities of Carlsbad (2011), Del Mar (2014), National City (2011) and San Marcos (2012) recently amended or removed the definition of "family" from their zoning ordinances. Currently, only zoning ordinances for the cities of Oceanside and Solana Beach include definitions of "family" that constitute a potential impediment to fair housing choice. These cities have definitions of a family that exclude individuals. Such a definition can be considered an impediment because it may give landlords the opportunity to deny renting single- family or multi - family dwelling units to single persons. 2. Density Bonus Ordinance California Government Code Section 65915 provides that a local government shall grant a density bonus of at least 20 percent (five percent for condominiums) and an additional incentive, or financially equivalent incentive(s), to the developer of a housing development agreeing to provide at least: • Ten percent of the units for lower income households-, • Five percent of the units for very low income households; • Ten percent of the condominium units for moderate income households; • A senior housing development; or • Qualified donations of land, condominium conversions, and child care facilities. The density bonus law also applies to senior housing projects and projects which include a child care facility. In addition to the density bonus stated above, the statute includes a sliding scale that requires: An additional 2.5 percent density bonus for each additional increase of one percent Very Low income units above the initial five percent threshold; ■ A density increase of 1.5 percent for each additional one percent increase in Low income units above the initial 10 percent threshold; and ■ A one percent density increase for each one percent increase in Moderate income units above the initial 10 percent threshold. These bonuses reach a maximum density bonus of 35 percent when a project provides either 11 percent very low income units, 20 percent low income units, or 40 percent moderate income units. In addition to a density bonus, developers may also be eligible for one of the following concessions or incentives: ■ Reductions in site development standards and modifications of zoning and architectural design requirements, including reduced setbacks and parking standards; 67 City of Santa Barbara v. Adamson (1980), City of Chula Vista v. Pagard (1981), among others. CHAPTER 5: PUBLIC POLICIES 145 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 513 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Mixed used zoning that will reduce the cost of the housing, if the non - residential uses are compatible with the housing development and other development in the area; and ■ Other regulatory incentives or concessions that result in "identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions." Jurisdictions also may not enforce any development standard that would preclude the construction of a project with the density bonus and the incentives or concessions to which the developer is entitled. To ensure compliance with the State density bonus law, jurisdictions must reevaluate their development standards in relation to the maximum achievable densities for multi - family housing. The cities of Carlsbad (2014), Chula Vista (2012), Del Mar (2013), National City (2009), Oceanside (2012), and San Marcos (2012) have recently updated their density bonus ordinances to comply with State law. Most of the cities in San Diego County have density bonus ordinances that comply with the requirements of California Government Code Section 65915 that was in effect as of December 2014 (Table 62). Only the cities of Encinitas, Escondido, Imperial Beach, Lemon Grove, and Poway did not specify density bonus provisions in accordance with the 2014 requirements. The recently adopted AB 2222, however, added new requirements to the State's density bonus provisions, which took effect in January 2015. All jurisdictions in San Diego County will be required to update their density bonus ordinances again to comply with these additional requirements. The City of Carlsbad is currently drafting an updated Density Bonus Ordinance for consistency with the recently adopted changes to Government Code Section 65915 (AB 2222). Carlsbad expects to have these changes adopted before the end of 2015. The City of Chula Vista is aware of the updates required by AB 2222 and plans to amend its density bonus provisions by 2016. This amendment will include: an update to the affordability covenants extending the required affordability period to 55 years for a rental project, an update of the shared equity provisions of a for sale housing project, and an update to the definition of which types of projects are eligible for a density bonus. The City of Encinitas anticipates adopting updated density bonus provisions by the end of 2016. CHAPTER 5: PUBLIC POLICIES 146 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 514 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table 62: Density Bonus Ordinance Compliance Jurisdictions Compliance with State Density Bonus Ordinance in Effect as of December 2014 Carlsbad In Chula Vista In Coronado In Del Mar In El Cajon In Encinitas Out Escondido Out Imperial Beach Out La Mesa In Lemon Grove Out National City In Oceanside In Poway Out San Diego City In San Diego County In San Marcos In Santee In Solana Beach In Vista In Some jurisdictions have adopted density bonus provisions that are above and beyond State requirements. In addition to State mandated density bonus concessions, the City of El Cajon has adopted provisions in its Zoning Ordinance that provide for reduced parking requirements and increased density up to 50 dwelling units per net acre (in the R3 and R4 zones) for housing for seniors and persons with disabilities. The City of Carlsbad's inclusionary housing ordinance has provisions to help off -set the cost of affordable housing production, including increased density (beyond state law), development standards modifications, and financial assistance. 3. Parking Requirements Communities that require an especially high number of parking spaces per dwelling unit can negatively impact the feasibility of producing affordable housing by reducing the achievable number of dwelling units per acre, increasing development costs, and thus restricting the range of housing types constructed in a community. Typically, the concern for high parking requirements is limited to multi - family, affordable, or senior housing. The basic parking standards for jurisdictions in San Diego County are presented in Table 63. Many jurisdictions offer reductions in parking requirements in conjunction with density bonuses for affordable and senior housing. CHAPTER 5: PUBLIC POLICIES 147 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 515 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Most jurisdictions in the County have comparable parking requirements. However, Coronado, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, and Vista have parking standards for multi - family uses that make little or no distinction between parking required for smaller units (one or two bedrooms) and larger units (three or more bedrooms). Because smaller multi - family units are often the most suitable type of housing for seniors and persons with disabilities, requiring the same number parking spaces as larger multi - family units can be a constraint on the construction of units intended to serve these populations. Several of these cities, however, do offer reduced parking standards for senior housing. In Coronado, all new dwelling units generally require two parking spaces. However, the R -5 Zone requires only 1.5 spaces per unit, affordable housing requires only 1.5 spaces per unit, and senior housing requires only one space per unit. Lemon Grove requires two parking spaces (one of which must be covered) per dwelling unit, with the exception of senior complexes, which require only one parking space per unit, and studio apartments, which require only 1.5 spaces. Relief from these parking requirements can also be found in the parking standards for density bonus projects. A 100 percent senior housing project (that usually also serves disabled persons) is eligible to utilize the State density bonus parking requirements, which offer a reduced number of parking spaces for smaller units. Jurisdictions will also sometimes establish minimum standards and requirements for handicapped parking. Most of the jurisdictions in the County specify that handicapped parking must comply with the requirements and standards outlined in Title 24 of the Building Code. CHAPTER 5: PUBLIC POLICIES 148 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 516 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table 63: Off - Street Parking Requirements Jurisdictions MF SDU 1br 2br E 3br 4 +br Guest Space Carlsbad 2 1.512 2 2 2 0.25 to 0.313 1 Chula Vista 2 1.5 2 2 2 -- Coronado' 2 2 2 2 2 -- Del Mar 22 1 2 2 3 0.25 1 El Cajon 2 2 2.25 2.25 2.25 0.1 to 0.53 1 /br Encinitas 2 to 34 2 2 2.5 2.5 0.25 1 Escondido 2 1.5 1.75 2 2 0.25 1 Imperial Beach-5 2 1.5 -2 1.5 -2 1.5 -2 1.5 -2 -- La Mesa 2 2 2 2 2 -- 1 Lemon Grove 2 2 2 2 2 0.25 1 /br6 National City 27 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.5 0.5 -- Oceanside 2 1.5 2 2 2 0.1 to 0.258 -- Poway 2 1.5 to 1.75 2.25 2.75 to 3 2.75 to 3 -- 1 San Diego City 9 2 1.25 to 1.75 1.75 to 2.25 2.0 to 2.5 2.0 to 2.5 -- 1 /br San Diego County 2 1.5 1.5 2 2 0.2 2 San Marcos 2 1.5 2 2 2 0.33 1 Santee 2 1.5 2 2 2 0.25 Solana Beach 2 1.5 2 2 2 0.25 1 Vista 2 2 210 27 2- 1 0.3311 1 *Notes: SDU - second dwelling unit 1. For multiple - family dwellings in the R -5 Zone and affordable housing, only 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit are required. For senior housing, only one parking space is required for each dwelling unit. 2. For single - family dwellings with three or more bedrooms, one additional on -site parking space or a total of three garage parking spaces are required. 3. One visitor space per unit is required in the R -2 -R zone and developments in multifamily zones containing ten or more residential units must dedicate ten percent of the required spaces for visitors. 4. Three spaces required for dwelling units in excess of 2,500 square feet. 5. Residential dwelling units in the R -1 -6000, R -1 -3800, R -3000, and R- 3000 -D zones require two spaces per dwelling unit; units in the R -2000 and R -1500 require two spaces per dwelling unit; and residential dwelling units in the C -1, C -2, C -3, MU -1 and MU -2 zones require 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit. 6. Up to a maximum of two spaces per SDU. 7. Three spaces required per dwelling unit for units with more than 2,500 square feet in floor area, plus one space per bedroom proposed over four bedrooms. 8. For multiple - family projects with four to ten units, one space is required. For projects with more than ten units, one space plus 20 percent of the total number of units is required. 9. One space per bedroom required for single dwelling units with five or more bedrooms in campus impact areas. One space per bedroom, less one space also required per occupant age 18 and over in high occupancy single dwellings. Lower range of multifamily requirement is for units in transit areas or lower income units. Higher range of multifamily requirement is for units in parking impact areas. 10. Plus 0.5 open space for each additional bedroom in excess of two. 11. For two - bedroom unit, 0.5 guest space is required. 12. Within the Village outside the Coastal Zone, only 1 parking space per studio or 1 bedroom unit is required. 13. For projects up to 10 units, required guest parking is 0.3 spaces per unit; 0.25 spaces per unit for projects larger than 10 units. CHAPTER 5: PUBLIC POLICIES 149 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 517 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE C. Variety of Housing Opportunity To ensure fair housing choice in a community, a zoning ordinance should provide for a range of housing types, including single- family, multi - family, second dwelling units, mobile homes, licensed community care facilities, employee housing for seasonable or migrant workers as necessary, assisted living facilities, emergency shelters, supportive housing, transitional housing, and single room occupancy (SRO) units. Table 64 provides a summary of each jurisdiction's zoning ordinance as it relates to ensuring a variety of housing opportunities. 1. Single- and Multi- Family Uses Single- and multi - family housing types include detached and attached single- family homes, duplexes or half - plexes, townhomes, condominiums, and rental apartments. Zoning ordinances should specify the zones in which each of these uses would be permitted by right. All of the jurisdictions in San Diego County accommodate the range of residential uses described above without a use permit. In June 2014, Del Mar removed the Conditional Use Permit requirement for properties in the RM -East, RM -West, RM- Central and RM -South zones to develop at the maximum allowable density of 17.6 units per acre. Zoning ordinances should also avoid "pyramid or cumulative zoning" (e.g. permitting lower - density single - family uses in zones intended for higher density multi - family uses). Pyramid or cumulative zoning schemes could limit the amount of lower -cost multi - family residential uses in a community and be a potential impediment to fair housing choice. Most jurisdictions in the San Diego region have some form of pyramid zoning and permitting single - family residential uses in multi - family zones is the most prevalent example. Allowing or requiring a lower density use in a zone that can accommodate higher density uses is regulated by State law (SB 2292, also known as the Dutra Bill). A local government is required to make a finding that an action that results in a density reduction, rezoning, or downzoning is consistent with its Housing Element, particularly in relation to the jurisdiction's ability to accommodate its share of regional housing needs. 2. Second Dwelling Units Second dwelling units are attached or detached dwelling units that provide complete independent living facilities for one or more persons, including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, cooking and sanitation. Second units may be an alternative source of affordable housing for lower income households and seniors. These units typically rent for less than apartments of comparable size. California law requires local jurisdictions to adopt ordinances that establish the conditions under which second units are permitted (Government Code, Section 65852.2). A jurisdiction cannot adopt an ordinance that totally precludes the development of second units unless the ordinance contains findings acknowledging that allowing second units may limit housing opportunities of the region and result in adverse impacts on public health, safety, and welfare. An amendment to the State's second unit law in 2003 requires local governments to use a ministerial, rather than discretionary, process for approving second units (i.e. second units otherwise compliant with local zoning standards can be approved without a public hearing) and allows jurisdictions to count second units towards meeting their regional housing needs goals. A ministerial process is intended to reduce permit processing time frames and development costs because proposed second dwelling units that are in compliance with local zoning standards can be CHAPTER 5: PUBLIC POLICIES 150 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 518 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE approved without a public hearing. Most jurisdictions in the County currently permit second dwelling units via a variety of review processes such as a zoning clearance or an administrative permit. Imperial Beach is the only jurisdiction with adopted findings allowing it to preclude second units. Second units are allowed by -right within the City's R -3000, R -2000, and R -1500 residential zones. However, the City Council determined that allowing second units in R1 -6,000 and R1 -3,800 zones is not in the best interest of public health, safety, and welfare and adopted findings to preclude second units in those zones. Poway considers a resolution annually to prohibit these units in areas of the City deemed to have inadequate infrastructure. The resolution designates areas of Poway without adequate water, sewer, or other municipal services for second units or in which second units would have a significant adverse impact upon traffic flow. However, as a result of the City's update of its Transportation Element in 2010, second dwelling units are now permitted in larger areas of the City. In 2011, National City processed revisions to its Land Use Code that amended the City's second unit provisions to be consistent with state law. The provisions allow second units by right in all residential and mixed -use zones with no minimum lot area or discretionary review requirements. Inconsistent provisions regarding second units in the Vista Zoning Ordinance were removed in 2012. Coronado provides for accessory second -story carriage house structures on single- family lots but the lots must have both street and alley access, kitchens are prohibited, and the units are only for use by the resident of the main building or such resident's guests (i.e., cannot be rented or leased independent of main building). 3. Mobile Home Parks Provisions for mobile home parks vary among the San Diego County jurisdictions. Some jurisdictions have designated mobile home park zones specifically to provide for this type of housing (Carlsbad, Chula Vista, La Mesa, Santee, Solana Beach and Vista). The City of Encinitas provides for mobile home parks in its Mobile Home Park zone, and in higher density zones upon issuance of a Conditional Use Permit, while the City of San Diego has a mobile home park overlay zone to preserve existing sites. Other jurisdictions allow mobile home parks in some residential zones with a Conditional Use Permit (Escondido, National City, Poway, San Diego County and San Marcos). El Cajon and Vista have Mobile Home Park Overlay Zones that permit new mobile home parks and the expansion of current parks with a CUP or Site Development Plan. Coronado, Del Mar, and Lemon Grove have no provisions for mobile home parks in their Zoning Ordinances. CHAPTER 5: PUBLIC POLICIES 151 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 519 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table 64: Variety of Housing Opportunity Housing Chula Carlsbad Coronado Del Mar El Cajon Encinitas Type Vista Single -family P P P P P P Multi - family P P P P P P Second P P P1 P P P Dwelling Units Mobile Home P P P P Parks IL Manufactured P P P P P Housing Residential Care Facilities P P P P P ( <_6 persons) Residential Care Facilities C C C C C (?6 persons) Emergency P5 P P P Shelters Transitional P P P Housing Supportive P P P Housing SRO C3 C Farmworker/ Employee P /C6 Housing Notes: P — permitted by right; C — Conditionally permitted. _J - Potential impediments. 1. Permitted but with a potential impediment. 2. Second units are allowed by -right within the City's R -3000, R -2000, and R -1500 residential zones. However, they are prohibited in the R1 -6,000 and R1 -3,800 zones. 3. Referred to as "managed living units." 4. Referred to as "transient lodging." 5. Emergency shelters with no more than 30 beds or persons is allowed by right in the M and P -M zones and are conditionally allowed with more than 30 beds or persons in the same zones. 6. "Large farmworker housing complexes" are conditionally permitted: otherwise farmworker housing is permitted by right. 7. Similarly permitted as similar uses in the same zone. CHAPTER 5: PUBLIC POLICIES 152 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 520 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table 64: Variety of Housing Opportunity Housing Imperial Lemon National Escondido La Mesa Oceanside Type Beach Grove City Single -family P P P P P P/C Multi - family P P P P P P Second P Pz P P P P Dwelling Units Mobile Home C C C C P Parks Manufactured P P P P P P Housing Residential Care Facilities P P P P P ( <_6 persons) Residential Care Facilities C C C C C C (?6 persons) Emergency P P P P Shelters Transitional P P Housing Supportive P Housing SRO C4 P Farmworker/ Employee P' Housing Notes: P — permitted by right; C — Conditionally permitted. - Potential impediments. 1. Permitted but with a potential impediment. 2. Second units are allowed by -right within the City's R -3000, R -2000, and R -1500 residential zones. However, they are prohibited in the R1 -6,000 and R1 -3,800 zones. 3. Referred to as "managed living units." 4. Referred to as "transient lodging." 5. Emergency shelters with no more than 30 beds or persons is allowed by right in the M and P -M zones and are conditionally allowed with more than 30 beds or persons in the same zones. 6. "Large farmworker housing complexes" are conditionally permitted: otherwise farmworker housing is permitted by right. 7. Similarly permitted as similar uses in the same zone. CHAPTER 5: PUBLIC POLICIES 153 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 521 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table 64: Variety of Housing Opportunity Housing San Diego San Diego San Solana Poway Santee Vista Type City County Marcos Beach Single -family P P P P P P P Multi - family P P P P P P P Second P P P P P P P/C Dwelling Units Mobile Home C P C C C P P Parks Manufactured P P P P P P P Housing Residential Care Facilities P P P P P P P (<6 persons) Residential Care Facilities It: C P/C C C C C (?6 persons) Emergency P C P P P P P Shelters Transitional P P /C7 P /Cl P P P Housing Supportive P P /CI P P P Housing SRO C3 P P/C C C C P Farmworker/ Employee Pl /C P' C Housing Notes: P — permitted by right; C — Conditionally permitted. - Potential impediments. 1. Permitted but with a potential impediment. 2. Second units are allowed by -right within the City's R -3000, R -2000, and R -1500 residential zones. However, they are prohibited in the R1 -6,000 and R1 -3,800 zones. 3. Referred to as "managed living units." 4. Referred to as "transient lodging." 5. Emergency shelters with no more than 30 beds or persons is allowed by right in the M and P -M zones and are conditionally allowed with more than 30 beds or persons in the same zones. 6. "Large farmworker housing complexes" are conditionally permitted: otherwise farmworker housing is permitted by right. 7. Similarly permitted as similar uses in the same zone. CHAPTER 5: PUBLIC POLICIES 154 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 522 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE 4. Manufactured Housing State law requires local governments to permit manufactured or mobile homes meeting federal safety and construction standards on a permanent foundation in all single - family residential zoning districts (Section 65852.3 of the California Government Code). Most jurisdictions in San Diego County comply with this requirement. The cities of Coronado (2010), Del Mar (2014), El Cajon (2015), San Marcos (2012) and Vista (2012) recently amended their zoning ordinances to specifically accommodate manufactured housing. As of February 2015, only the City of Encinitas does not explicitly accommodate manufactured or mobile homes in single - family residential zoning districts consistent with State law. While, Encinitas does not explicitly provide for manufactured housing within its Municipal Code, the City does consider manufactured housing as a form of one - family dwelling. Encinitas is in the process of updating its Zoning Ordinance with explicit provisions for manufactured housing and anticipates completing this update by 2017. Mobile homes offer an affordable housing option to many low- and moderate - income households. To further preserve the affordability of mobile homes, several cities in San Diego County, including Chula Vista and Santee, have adopted rent control policies and ordinances for mobile homes. 5. Licensed Residential Care Facilities The Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act (Sections 5115 and 5116) of the California Welfare and Institutions Code declares that mentally and physically disabled persons are entitled to live in normal residential surroundings. The use of property for the care of six or fewer persons with mental disorders or disabilities is required by law. A State - authorized, certified or authorized family care home, foster home, or group home serving six or fewer persons with disabilities or dependent and neglected children on a 24- hour -a -day basis is considered a residential use to be permitted in all residential zones. No local agency can impose stricter zoning or building and safety standards on these homes (commonly referred to as "group" homes) of six or fewer persons with disabilities than are required of the other permitted residential uses in the zone. Most jurisdictions in San Diego County comply with the Lanterman Act. The cities of Coronado (2014) and San Marcos (2012) recently amended their zoning ordinances to include provisions for residential care facilities. The City of Poway amended its Zoning Ordinance in 2012 to include residential care facilities in its definition of "family "; thereby permitting this housing type in all residential zones, in accordance with the provisions of State law. As of February 2015, only Chula Vista and Imperial Beach have no provisions in their zoning ordinances for residential care facilities serving six or fewer clients. However, as shown in Table 48(Licensed Residential Care Facilities by Jurisdiction), Chula Vista (135 facilities) and Imperial Beach (12 facilities) are home to a number of existing licensed community care facilities. Though their zoning ordinances make no specific references to residential care facilities, Chula Vista and Imperial Beach allow for residential care facilities serving six or fewer persons by right in all residential zones. The City of Chula Vista is working on a draft Zoning Ordinance to be completed by 2016. 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet CHAPTER 5: PUBLIC POLICIES 155 Page 523 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Most San Diego jurisdictions also conditionally permit larger residential care facilities serving seven or more residents in residential zones. National City amended the discretionary review process in its Land Use Code for residential care facilities serving more than six persons in 2011 by changing the requirement from a conditional use permit (CUP) to a minor CUP. Coronado amended its Zoning Ordinance in 2014 to conditionally permit large residential care facilities in its R -4 zone. Imperial Beach considers large residential care facilities as boarding houses and allows this housing type in the C /MU -1 zones, with approval of a CUP. The City of San Marcos amended its Zoning Ordinance in 2012 to allow for large residential care facilities in the A -1, A -2, A -3, MHP, R -3 -6, R -3 -10, SR, MU -1 and MU -2 zones, with the approval of a Director's Permit (DP). The City of Poway allows residential care facilities serving between seven and 15 residents with a CUP. As of February 2015, only the Zoning Ordinance for the City of Chula Vista does not provide for large residential care facilities. The City is scheduled to present an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance addressing this issue to the City Council by the end of 2016. Despite not having explicit provisions for large residential care facilities in the Zoning Ordinance, the City of Chula Vista has recently approved the following facilities: St. Paul's Plaza at Otay Ranch (2015) -The four story St. Paul's Plaza, is scheduled to open June 2015 will house 156 rooms in Phase I. Phase II will add another 63 apartments to the community. A project of St. Paul's Senior Homes & Services, which has been serving seniors in San Diego for more than 50 years. The community will bring 60 unique and innovative Memory Care apartments to Chula Vista, and 94 assisted and independent living accommodations. Westmount at San Miguel Ranch (2014)- Is an independent and assisted living facility as well and offers memory care options, with amenities designed to promote optimum well-being and a positive active life style. Living options include independent living, assisted living, Alzheimer's and dementia care, and respite care. ■ ActiveCare at Rolling Hills Ranch (2013)- ActivCare at Rolling Hills Ranch in east Chula Vista is a specialized senior living community that serves the changing needs of those with memory loss (dementia, Alzheimer's) by offering a spectrum of living options. A unique feature of the community is a dedicated neighborhood for those in the initial stages of memory loss or Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI). Furthermore, the Lanterman Act covers only licensed residential care facilities. The California Housing Element law also addresses the provision of transitional and supportive housing, which includes non - licensed housing facilities for persons with disabilities. This topic is discussed later. 6. Emergency Shelters An emergency shelter is a facility that provides temporary shelter and feeding of indigents or disaster victims, operated by a public or non - profit agency. State law requires jurisdictions to identify adequate sites for housing which will be made available through appropriate zoning and development standards to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of housing types for all income levels, including emergency shelters and transitional housing (Section 65583(c)(1) of the Government Code). Recent changes in State law (SB 2) require that local jurisdictions make provisions in the zoning code to permit emergency shelters by right in at least one zoning district where adequate capacity is available to CHAPTER 5: PUBLIC POLICIES 156 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 524 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE accommodate at least one year -round shelter. Local jurisdictions may, however, establish standards to regulate the development of emergency shelters. At the writing of this report, 11 of the 19 jurisdictions in the County allow emergency shelters by right consistent with State law. The following jurisdictions: Carlsbad (2012), Coronado (2014), Del Mar (2013), El Cajon (2015), Escondido (2013), Imperial Beach (2012), National City (2011), Oceanside (2013), San Diego County (2010), San Marcos (2012), Solana Beach (2014) and Vista (2012) recently amended their zoning ordinances to permit emergency shelters, consistent with the provisions of SB 2. However, as of February 2015, the cities of Chula Vista, Encinitas, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, Poway, and San Diego (City) do not have adequate provisions for emergency shelters in their zoning ordinances. As required by Housing Element law, cities are required to update their zoning ordinances to include provisions for emergency shelters. The City of Chula Vista is scheduled to present a Zoning Ordinance amendment related to emergency shelters to the City Council by the end of 2015. The City of Encinitas anticipates amending its Zoning Ordinance by 2017. The City of San Diego is currently in the process of amending its Land Development Code. It is anticipated the amendment regarding emergency shelters will be completed during the 2016 calendar year. 7. Transitional and Supportive Housing State law (AB 2634 and SB 2) requires local jurisdictions to address the provisions for transitional and supportive housing. Under Housing Element law, transitional housing means buildings configured as rental housing developments, but operated under program requirements that require the termination of assistance and recirculation of the assisted unit to another eligible program recipient at a predetermined future point in time that shall be no less than six months from the beginning of the assistance (California Government Code Section 65582(h)). Supportive housing means housing with no limit on length of stay, that is occupied by the target population and is linked to an onsite or offsite service that assists the supportive housing resident in retaining the housing, improving his or her health status, and maximizing his or her ability to live and, when possible, work in the community. Target population means persons with low incomes who have one or more disabilities, including mental illness, HIV /AIDS, substance abuse, or other chronic health condition, or individuals eligible for services provided pursuant to the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act (Division 4.5 (commencing with Section 4500) of the Welfare and Institutions Code) and may include, among other populations, adults, emancipated minors, families with children, elderly persons, young adults aging out of the foster care system, individuals exiting from institutional settings, veterans, and homeless people (California Government Code Sections 65582(f) and (g)). Accordingly, State law establishes transitional and supportive housing as a residential use and therefore local governments cannot treat it differently from other similar types of residential uses (e.g., requiring a use permit when other residential uses of similar function do not require a use permit). The cities of Carlsbad (2014), Coronado (2014), Del Mar (2014), El Cajon (2015), National City (2011), Oceanside (2013), San Marcos (2012), Santee (2013), and Solana Beach (2014) have already amended their zoning ordinances to include these provisions for transitional and supportive housing. CHAPTER 5: PUBLIC POLICIES 157 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 525 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE The County of San Diego amended the Zoning Ordinance in 2010 to distinguish between group care facilities for six or fewer people (family care home) and group care facilities for seven or more (group care). For facilities serving six or fewer persons, a transitional or supportive housing project that requires state community care licensing would be considered a family care home by the County. For facilities serving seven or more persons, a transitional or supportive housing project that requires state community care licensing would be considered a group care facility, which is permitted in RC, C31, C34, C35, C37, and C46 zones and with a Major Use Permit in A70, A72, and all other residential zones. The City of Vista permits transitional housing facilities for battered women and children (serving six or fewer clients) in all residential zones. However, all other transitional and supportive housing facilities are permitted only in the City's RM zone. The County's and Vista's treatment of transitional and supportive housing does not fully comply with all of the requirements of SB 2 and their zoning ordinances will need to be further amended in order to maintain consistency with State law. As of February 2015, the jurisdictions of Chula Vista, Encinitas, Escondido, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, Poway, San Diego (City), San Diego (County), and Vista do not have zoning ordinances that permit transitional and supportive housing consistent with the requirements of SB 2. The City of Chula Vista anticipates completing this update by 2016. The City of Encinitas anticipates completing this update by 2017. The City of San Diego is currently in the process of amending its Land Development Code to address supportive housing. The draft Amendments are tentatively scheduled for an initial introduction to City Council Committee in May 2015. The Amendment process is anticipated to reach conclusion during the 2016 calendar year. 8. Single -Room Occupancy (SRO) AB 2634 also mandates that local jurisdictions address the provision of housing options for extremely low- income households, including Single Room Occupancy units (SRO). SRO units are one room units intended for occupancy by a single individual. It is distinct from a studio or efficiency unit, in that a studio is a one -room unit that must contain a kitchen and bathroom. Although SRO units are not required to have a kitchen or bathroom, many SROs have one or the other. The jurisdictions of Carlsbad, Coronado, El Cajon, Escondido, National City, San Diego (City), San Diego (County), San Marcos, Solana Beach, and Vista are in compliance with AB 2634. However, as of February 2015, the cities of Chula Vista, Del Mar, Encinitas, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, Oceanside, and Poway do not have adequate SRO provisions in their zoning ordinances. The City of Encinitas anticipates completing this amendment by 2017. 9. Farmworker Housing The California Employee Housing Act requires that housing for six or fewer employees be treated as a regular residential use. The Employee Housing Act further defines housing for agricultural workers consisting of 36 beds or 12 units be treated as an agricultural use and permitted where agricultural uses are permitted. Compliance with these requirements among participating jurisdictions is summarized in Table 65. Most jurisdictions in San Diego have no provisions for farmworker or employee housing in their zoning ordinances. CHAPTER 5: PUBLIC POLICIES 158 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 526 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Escondido permits living quarters, for a caretaker or for persons deriving the major portion of their income from employment on the premises in conjunction with authorized agricultural use, in its agricultural zones. Dwellings serving six or fewer employees are considered single - family dwellings, while those serving more than six employees (and also operating not - for - profit) are also permitted by right. These provisions do not meet the requirements of the State Employee Housing Act (Section 17000 of the Health and Safety Code) and will need to be amended. The City of San Diego permits employee housing in its agricultural zones with limitations. The City of San Diego's farmworker housing policies fall under the employment housing regulations for agricultural zones (i.e., 12 persons and under are permitted by right (limited use); over 12 persons require a CUP or Neighborhood Use Permit). The County of San Diego amended its Zoning Ordinance in 2009 to define farm employee housing as an accessory use to active Commercial Agriculture; however, the County Zoning Ordinance does not have provisions for employee housing. San Marcos requires a Development Permit for farmworker housing in its agricultural zones. However, other housing types, including single - family housing units, are permitted in these zones by- right. The City of Chula Vista anticipates amending its Zoning Ordinance to address farmworker and employee housing by 2016. Meanwhile, the City has several affordable housing options for farmworkers, including The Brisa del Mar affordable housing project located in southwest Chula Vista which has units set aside for farmworkers. CHAPTER 5: PUBLIC POLICIES 159 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 527 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table 65: Farmworker Housing by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Agricultural Zoning Permits Farmworker Housing in Zoning Ordinance Compliance with Employee Housing Act Carlsbad Yes Yes Yes Chula Vista Yes No No Coronado No n/a No Del Mar No n/a No El Cajon Yes Yes Yes Encinitas No n/a No Escondido Yes No No Imperial Beach No n/a No La Mesa Yes No No Lemon Grove No n/a No National City No n/a No Oceanside Yes No No Poway Yes No No San Diego (City) Yes No No San Diego (County) Yes Yes No San Marcos Yes No No Santee Yes No No Solana Beach Yes No No Vista Yes No No T1. Building Codes and Occupancy Standards 1. Building Codes Building codes, such as the California Building Standards Code 6" and the Uniform Housing Code are necessary to protect public health, safety, and welfare. However, local codes that require substantial improvements to a building might not be warranted and deter housing construction and /or neighborhood improvement. 68 California Building Standards Code, adopted by the a Building Standards Commission, is actually a set of uniform building, electrical, mechanical, and other codes adopted by professional associations such as the International Conference of Building Officials, and amended to include California- specific requirements. CHAPTER 5: PUBLIC POLICIES 160 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 528 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE The California Building Standards Code is published every three years by order of the California legislature. The Code applies to all jurisdictions in the State of California unless otherwise annotated. Adoption of the triennial compilation of Codes is not only a legal mandate, it also ensures the highest available level of safety for citizens and that all construction and maintenance of structures meets the highest standards of quality. Most jurisdictions in the San Diego region have adopted the 2013 California Building Standards Code, with the exception of Coronado, which has adopted the 2010 California Building Code. Other codes commonly adopted by reference within the region include the California Mechanical Code, California Plumbing Code, California or National Electric Code, Uniform Housing Code, and California Fire Code. Less common are the California Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, the Urban - Wildland Interface Code, and the Uniform Code for Building Conservation. Most jurisdictions have amended portions of these codes to reflect non - arbitrary local conditions including geographical and topographic conditions unique to each locality. Although minor amendments have been incorporated to address local conditions, no additional regulations have been imposed by the city or county that would unnecessarily add to housing costs. 2. Occupancy Standards Disputes over occupancy standards are typical tenant /landlord and fair housing issues. Families with children and large households may face discrimination in the housing market, particularly in the rental housing market, because landlords are reluctant or flatly refuse to rent to such households. Establishing a strict occupancy standard, either by the local jurisdictions or by landlords on the rental agreements, may be a violation of fair housing practices. "2 +1" Rule Most State and federal housing programs use the "2 +1" rule as an acceptable occupancy standard. The appropriate number of persons per housing unit is estimated at two persons per bedroom plus an additional person. For example, a two- bedroom unit could have five In general, no state or federal regulations govern occupancy standards. The State Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) uses the "two- plus -one" rule in considering the number of persons per housing unit — two persons per bedroom plus an additional person. Using this rule, a landlord cannot restrict occupancy to fewer than three persons for a one - bedroom unit or five persons for a two - bedroom unit, etc. While DFEH also uses other factors, such as the age of the occupants and size of rooms, to consider the appropriate standard, the two- plus -one rule is generally followed. Other guidelines are also used as occupancy standards. The Uniform Housing Code (Section 503.2) requires that a dwelling unit have at least one room which is not less than 120 square feet in area. Other habitable rooms, except kitchens, are required to have a floor area of not less than 70 square feet. The Housing Code further states that where two persons occupy a room used for sleeping purposes, the required floor area should be increased at a rate of 50 square feet for each occupant in excess of two. There is nothing in the Housing Code that prevents people from sleeping in the living or dining rooms, as long as these rooms have a window or door meeting all the provisions of the California Building Code for emergency egress. The Fire Code allows one person per 150 square feet of "habitable" space. These standards are typically more liberal than the "two- plus -one" rule. For example, three people could sleep in a one - bedroom apartment where the bedroom is at least 120 square feet; and where the living /dining area is at least 170 square feet, an additional three people could sleep there. Therefore, a 290- square foot one - bedroom apartment can accommodate up to six persons or a two- bedroom 410 - square foot apartment can sleep up to nine persons. CHAPTER 5: PUBLIC POLICIES 161 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 529 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE A review of occupancy standards for jurisdictions within the San Diego region revealed that none of the jurisdictions overtly limit the number of people who can occupy a housing unit. As previously discussed, court rulings stated a Zoning Ordinance cannot regulate residency by discrimination between biologically- related and unrelated persons. None of the jurisdictions in the County have a definition of "family" in their Zoning Ordinance with references to how members of a family are related or the maximum number of members in the household. However, Oceanside and Solana Beach have definitions of a "family" that exclude individuals. Such a definition can be considered an impediment because it may give landlords the opportunity to deny renting single- family or multi - family dwelling units to single persons. E. Affordable Housing Development In general, many minority and special needs households are disproportionately affected by a lack of adequate and affordable housing in a region. While affordability issues are not directly fair housing issues, expanding access to housing choices for these groups cannot ignore the affordability factor. Insofar as rent - restricted or non - restricted low -cost housing is concentrated in certain geographic locations, access to housing by lower - income and minority groups in other areas is limited and can therefore be an indirect impediment to fair housing choice. Furthermore, various permit processing and development impact fees charged by local government results in increased housing costs and can be a barrier to the development of affordable housing. Other policies and programs, such as inclusionary housing and growth management programs, can either facilitate or inhibit the production of affordable housing. These issues are examined in the subsections below. 1. Siting of Affordable Housing The San Diego region has a large inventory of rent - restricted multi - family housing units. The distribution of these units, however, is highly uneven throughout the region, with dense clusters of assisted housing located in central San Diego, National City, Chula Vista and Escondido (see Figure 12 on page 93). Almost three - quarters (73 percent) of the region's rent - restricted multi - family housing stock is concentrated in these four cities. Jurisdictions with the highest concentration of rent - restricted multi - family housing units (as measured by the ratio of rent - restricted units to total housing units) include National City (15.2 percent), San Marcos (5.7 percent) and Escondido (4.1 percent) (see Table 66). Jurisdictions with the lowest concentration of rent restricted multi - family units (as measured by the number of restricted units per 500 housing units) are Del Mar (0.0), Solana Beach (0.0), Encinitas (2.8), and Coronado (3.5). CHAPTER 5: PUBLIC POLICIES 162 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 530 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table 66: Rent - Restricted Multi- Family Housing Units by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Rent Restricted Units Total Housing Units (2014) % of Housing Stock Rent Restricted % of All Rent Restricted Units in County Rent Restricted Units per 500 Housing Units Urban County Coronado 67 9,668 0.7% 0.2% 3.5 Del Mar 0 2,956 0.0% 0.0% - Imperial Beach 129 9,911 1.3% 0.4% 6.5 Lemon Grove 284 8,931 3.2% 0.9% 15.9 Poway 577 16,840 3.4% 1.7% 17.1 San Marcos 1,729 30,128 5.7% 5.2% 28.7 Solana Beach 0 6,545 0.0% 0.0% - Unincorporated Areas 1,398 175,913 0.8% 4.2% 4.0 Entitlement Cities Carlsbad 1,816 48,958 3.7% 5.4% 18.5 Chula Vista 2,468 82,026 3.0% 7.4% 15.0 El Cajon 980 35,893 2.7% 2.9% 13.7 Encinitas 249 26,030 1.0% 0.7% 4.8 Escondido 1,967 48,295 4.1% 5.9% 20.4 La Mesa 475 26,504 1.8% 1.4% 9.0 National City 2,551 16,797 15.2% 7.6% 75.9 Oceanside 1,318 64,912 2.0% 3.9% 10.2 San Diego 19,142 522,214 3.7% 52.3% 18.2 Santee 775 20,525 3.8% 2.3% 18.9 Vista 745 31,189 2.4% 2.2% 11.9 Total County 33,382 1,004,962 3.3% 100.0% 18.2 Source: San Diego County Housing Resources Directory, 2013 -2015; California Department of Finance, 2014; HUD, California Housing Partnership, and participating jurisdictions. 2. Development Fees Housing construction imposes certain short- and long -term costs upon local government, such as the cost of providing planning services and inspections. As a result, San Diego County jurisdictions rely upon various planning and development fees to recoup costs and ensure that essential services and infrastructure are available when needed. Planning fees for the County of San Diego and its jurisdictions are summarized in Table 67. As shown, fees vary widely based on the needs of each jurisdiction. CHAPTER 5: PUBLIC POLICIES 163 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 531 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table 67: Planning Fees by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction General Plan Amend- ment CUP Variance Tract Map Parcel Map Zone Change Carlsbad $4,268 $4,484 $2,827 $8,238 $3,804 $4,903 Chula Vista $20,0001 $11,0001 $9,0001 1 $10,0001 $2,5001 $10,0001 Coronado $5,0001 $4,660 $3,010 -- $1,470 $5,0001 Del Mar $10,0001 $8,513 $5,370 $6,250 $5,240 $10,0001 El Cajon $3,475 $5,250 $788 $6,300+ $74 /lot $4,200+ $26 /lot $3,675 Encinitas $13,0001 $6,000 $3,200 $10,000 $3,500 $20,0001 Escondido $5,185 $3,050 $2,030 $4,107 $2,635 $3,900 Imperial Beach $5,000 $2,000 $1,800 -- -- -- La Mesa $14,212 $3,876 $3,850 $7,069 $5,473 $12,856 Lemon Grove $3,000 $1,500 $750 $4,500 $3,000 $1,000 National City $9,940 $7,890 $8,020 $9,940 $6,500 $9,940 Oceanside $9,234 $4,503 $4,000 Deposit $3,089 $7,424 Poway $1,917 $3,299 $799 $4,174 $2,711 $1,917 San Diego City $12,000 $8,000 $8,000 $10,000 $10,000 $12,000 San Diego County $4,371 $3,070 $2,140 -- $2,245 $2,845 San Marcos $2,500 $3,476 $564 $2,690 $2,090 $872 Santee $13,000 $15,000 $1,000 $1,000 /she et $1,000 /she et $13,000 Solana Beach 1 $10,0001 1 $9,300 $2,163 $5,777 $4,002 $10,0001 Vista $9,284 $6,958 $2,196 1 $7,518 1 $3,138 1 $8,855 Source: Participating jurisdictions, 2015. Notes: 1. Indicates initial deposit amount. Actual fee is full cost recovery. 3. Development Impact Fees Jurisdictions also charge a variety of impact fees to offset the cost of providing the infrastructure and public facilities required to serve new development. Until 1978, property taxes were the primary revenue source for financing the construction of infrastructure and improvements required to support new residential development. The passage of Proposition 13 in 1978 has limited a local jurisdiction's ability to raise property taxes and significantly lowered the ad valorem tax rate, increasing reliance on other funding sources to provide infrastructure, public improvements, and public services. An alternative funding source widely used among local governments in California is the development impact fee, which is collected for a variety of improvements including water and sewer facilities, parks, and transportation improvements. CHAPTER 5: PUBLIC POLICIES 164 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 532 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE To enact an impact fee, State law requires that the local jurisdiction demonstrate the "nexus" between the type of development in question and the impact being mitigated by the proposed fee. Also, the amount of the fee must be roughly proportional to the impact caused by the development. Nevertheless, development impact fees today have become a significant cost factor in housing development. Jurisdictions in San Diego County have imposed a variety of impact fees for new development (Table 68). Table 68: Development Impact Fees by Jurisdiction Source: Participating jurisdictions, 2015. The contribution of fees to home prices varies temporally as well as spatially. When times are good, housing production tends to lag behind demand, especially in coastal markets. Housing prices during such periods are chiefly affected by the balance between supply and demand and are much less affected by construction and development costs. When economic times are bad and demand is weak, housing prices are more sharply affected by the prices of construction inputs, including fees. The strength of the economy and housing market also determines the degree of fee shifting and who ultimately pays fees. During strong economic times, it is the final homebuyer or renter who ends up paying housing development fees; the builder or developer is mostly an intermediary. During recessionary periods, the burden of paying fees may be shifted backwards to the landowner. CHAPTER 5: PUBLIC POLICIES 165 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 533 Parks Transportation/ Traffic Public Facilities/ Sewer Public Art Carlsbad ■ ■ ■ Chula Vista ■ ■ ■ Coronado ■ ■ Del Mar ■ El Cajon ■ ■ Encinitas ■ ■ ■ Escondido ■ ■ ■ ■ Imperial Beach ■ ■ La Mesa ■ ■ ■ Lemon Grove ■ ■ ■ National City ■ ■ Oceanside ■ ■ ■ Poway ■ ■ ■ San Diego City ■ ■ ■ San Diego County ■ ■ ■ San Marcos ■ ■ ■ Santee ■ ■ ■ Solana Beach ■ ■ ■ ■ Vista ■ ■ ■ Source: Participating jurisdictions, 2015. The contribution of fees to home prices varies temporally as well as spatially. When times are good, housing production tends to lag behind demand, especially in coastal markets. Housing prices during such periods are chiefly affected by the balance between supply and demand and are much less affected by construction and development costs. When economic times are bad and demand is weak, housing prices are more sharply affected by the prices of construction inputs, including fees. The strength of the economy and housing market also determines the degree of fee shifting and who ultimately pays fees. During strong economic times, it is the final homebuyer or renter who ends up paying housing development fees; the builder or developer is mostly an intermediary. During recessionary periods, the burden of paying fees may be shifted backwards to the landowner. CHAPTER 5: PUBLIC POLICIES 165 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 533 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE 4. Linkage Fees A linkage fee is a development impact fee applied to non - residential development. This fee can be used by local governments to support affordable housing construction and it is applied in recognition of the housing needs of lower- income workers who often are employed by end users of new development. Linkage fees can facilitate de- concentration of affordable housing development and reduce the negative social and environmental effects of jobs - housing imbalances in a region if the use of this funding is combined with a policy that requires the scattering of affordable units throughout a community and /or require concurrent construction of market -rate and affordable units in new development. Currently, the City of San Diego is the only jurisdiction that charges a linkage fee to non - residential development to offset the cumulative effects of non - residential development on affordable housing and transportation. The underlying purpose of the City of San Diego's linkage fee is to ensure that new office, retail, research and development, manufacturing, warehouse, and hotel development pay a fair share of the subsidies necessary to house the low- income employees related to such development. The fees are placed in the San Diego Housing Trust Fund and can be utilized to assist the construction of affordable housing units located anywhere within the boundaries of the City of San Diego. The Municipal Code establishes a mechanism to ensure a geographic nexus between the location of new jobs and the expenditure of revenue for housing projects." F. Other Land Use Policies, Programs, and Controls Land use policies, programs, and controls can impede or facilitate housing development and can have implications for fair housing choice in a community. Inclusionary housing policies and redevelopment project areas can facilitate new affordable housing projects, while growth management programs can impede new affordable housing development. Jurisdictions that have not sought Article 34 authority may also be prevented from directly engaging in affordable housing development. Table 69 identifies jurisdictions that are affected by or have adopted land use policies, programs, and controls that may have a negative impact on housing development and fair housing choice. 69 For more information, see Chapter 9, Article 8, Division 6 of the San Diego Municipal Code. CHAPTER 5: PUBLIC POLICIES 166 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 534 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table 69: Land Use Policies and Controls by Jurisdiction Jurisdictions Article 34 Growth Management Inclusionary Housing Carlsbad ■ ■ ■ Chula Vista ■ ■ ■ Coronado ■ Del Mar ■ El Cajon ■ Encinitas ■ ■ Escondido ■ Imperial Beach La Mesa ■ Lemon Grove National City Oceanside ■ ■ Poway ■ San Diego City ■ ■ ■ San Diego County ■ San Marcos ■ ■ Santee Solana Beach ■ ■ Vista ■ ■ 1. Article 34 Article 34 of the State Constitution requires a majority vote of the electorate to approve the development, construction, or acquisition by a public body of any "low rent housing project" within that jurisdiction. In other words, for any projects to be built and /or operated by a public agency where at least 50 percent of the occupants are low- income and rents are restricted to affordable levels, the jurisdiction must seek voter approval known as "Article 34 authority' to authorize that number of units. Several jurisdictions within the San Diego region have obtained Article 34 authority to be directly involved in the development, construction, or acquisition of low -rent housing. Carlsbad voters approved an Article 34 measure to allow no more than 250 units of senior low income housing in November 1980; this authority has only been exercised twice since voter approval. The City of Chula Vista currently has 24 remaining Article 34 units allotted and on November 7, 2006 voters approved authority for an additional 1,600 units. No projects requiring Article 34 authority have been proposed in Del Mar, therefore, residents have not been asked to vote on a referendum to allow the City to develop, construct, or acquire affordable housing. The City of El Cajon has voter approval for senior projects only and complies with Article 34 for all other housing types. In 1978, La Mesa residents voted to provide the City with authority to develop, acquire, or construct 200 senior units under Article 34. To date, the City has used 128 units of its Article 34 authority for the development of La Mesa Springs and CHAPTER 5: PUBLIC POLICIES 167 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 535 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE has a remaining capacity of 72 units. Voters in the City of San Diego approved Proposition A in November 2002 to provide the City with authority under Article 34 of the California Constitution to construct up to an additional 5,000 low -rent housing units. Proposition A gave authority for the 5,000 units, in addition to the authority for several thousand units that had been approved in previous citywide propositions. The voters of the City of Vista approved Proposition W in 1980, authorizing the development of up to 95 low income rental housing units per year without going to a public vote. In the past, Article 34 may have prevented certain projects from being built because seeking voter approval for such activities was controversial and difficult. In practice, most public agencies have learned how to structure projects to avoid triggering Article 34, such as limiting public assistance to 49 percent of the units in the project. Furthermore, the State legislature has enacted Sections 37001, 37001.3, and 37001.5 of the Health and Safety Code to clarify ambiguities relating to the scope of the applicability of Article 34. 2. Growth Management Programs Growth management programs facilitate well- planned development and ensure that the necessary services and facilities for residents are provided. However, a growth management program may act as a constraint if it prevents a jurisdiction from addressing its housing needs, which could indirectly impede fair housing choice. These programs range from general policies that require the expansion of public facilities and services concurrent with new development, to policies that establish urban growth boundaries (the outermost extent of anticipated urban development), to numerical limitations on the number of dwelling units that may be permitted annually. About one -half of the jurisdictions in San Diego County have adopted Growth Management Programs. While the programs are intended to manage growth, the programs are highly variable in detail. The City of Carlsbad has a growth management program that establishes a maximum amount of dwelling units for each quadrant of the City. However, the City of Carlsbad is also recognized as having one of the State's most effective inclusionary housing policies in producing affordable housing. The Growth Management Program of Chula Vista establishes thresholds for eleven areas including traffic, police, fire and emergency services, schools, libraries, parks and recreation, water, sewer, drainage, air quality, and economics. The City of Coronado currently does not engage in growth management activities; however, a citizen initiative was approved by the electorate on November 7, 2006 that, among various actions, designated all R -113 Zone land as R -1A (e) Zone. The R -113 Zone designation allowed development of 12 dwelling units per acre on lots with a minimum size of 3,500 square feet, while the R -1A (e) designation allows 8 dwelling units per acre development on lots of at least 5,250 square feet. The City Attorney's legal analysis of the proposed initiative stated that to impact the ultimate residential build -out density of the R -113 Zone, both the zoning designation /density of the area must be changed and the resulting sub -sized lots from that change must be merged. The Coronado City Council has initiated a legal challenge to all or portions of this initiative. The Encinitas General Plan includes an annual residential building limitation along with growth management policies and guidelines. The building limitation is based on the un -built development potential of the City at mid -range density divided by the remaining years of the 25 years build -out period (January 1989 to January 2014). Low- and moderate - income units, however, are exempted from this CHAPTER 5: PUBLIC POLICIES 168 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 536 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE allocation system. Encinitas is in the process of updating its Housing Element and Land Use Element. This limitation may be deleted as part of the update. Escondido, Encinitas, and Solana Beach require voter approval for all proposals to increase residential density or non - residential intensity (such as through general plan amendments). However, Escondido does not require voter approval for increase in density in cases where affordable housing is involved to ensure compliance with housing law. In 1979, the City of San Diego implemented a Tier System to manage growth. Under this system, the Urban Core would develop first, then the outlying urban area, and finally the Future Urbanizing Area which is now being developed. Growth is managed in the unincorporated areas of San Diego County through the Multiple Species Conservation Plan (MSCP) and establishment of residential buildout ceilings and large minimum lot sizes (40 acres in some cases) within several community planning areas. The cities of Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajon, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City, Oceanside, Poway, Santee, and Vista have not adopted growth management programs. State housing law mandates a jurisdiction facilitate the development of a variety of housing to meet the jurisdiction's fair share of regional housing needs. Any growth management measure that would compromise a jurisdiction's ability to meet its regional housing needs may have an exclusionary effect of limiting housing choices and opportunities of regional residents, or concentrating such opportunities in other areas of the region. 3. Inclusionary Housing Programs Inclusionary housing describes a local government's requirement specifying a percentage of new housing units be reserved for, and affordable to, lower- and moderate - income households. The goal of inclusionary housing programs is to increase the supply of affordable housing commensurate with new market -rate development in a jurisdiction. This can result in an improved regional jobs- housing balances and foster greater economic and racial integration within a community. The policy is most effective in areas experiencing rapid growth and a strong demand for housing. Inclusionary programs can be voluntary or mandatory. Voluntary programs typically require developers to negotiate with public officials but do not specifically mandate the provision of affordable units. Mandatory programs are usually codified in the zoning ordinance and developers are required to enter into a development agreement specifying the required number of affordable housing units or payment of applicable in -lieu fee"' prior to obtaining a building permit. In San Diego County, 11 jurisdictions have adopted inclusionary housing programs. All programs in the County can be described as mandatory because they require dedication of a fixed percentage of proposed units affordable to lower or moderate income households or payment of an in -lieu fee used to build new affordable housing units in the jurisdiction. Inclusionary housing programs in the County vary considerably by jurisdiction. For example, the City of Carlsbad requires 15 percent of all base residential 70 An in -lieu fee is the payment of a specified sum of money instead of constructing the required number of affordable housing units. The fee is used to finance affordable housing elsewhere in a community. CHAPTER 5: PUBLIC POLICIES 169 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 537 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE units within any Master Plan /Specific Plan community or other qualified subdivision (currently seven units or more) to be restricted and affordable to lower- income households. Chula Vista requires the provision of 10 percent (five percent low- income and five percent moderate - income) affordable housing within projects of 50 or more dwelling units. The City of Coronado's inclusionary housing program requires that parcel or subdivision maps involving two or more lots or two or more dwelling units provide 20 percent of the total units in the development for rent to lower income households. The City of El Cajon's affordable housing requirement was based on its redevelopment housing requirement. However, with the dissolution of redevelopment in California, this requirement is no longer applicable. The City's Housing Element includes an action to evaluate the need for a citywide inclusionary housing ordinance. G. Policies Causing Displacement or Affect Housing Choice of Minorities and Persons with Disabilities Local government policies could result in displacement or affect representation of minorities or the disabled. 1. Redevelopment Activities Until recently, redevelopment activity facilitated by policies and programs implemented by city /county redevelopment agencies could have impacted protected classes either through direct displacement or by limiting housing options in redevelopment project areas. However, the State of California dissolved redevelopment agencies effective February 1, 2012. Prior to dissolution, redevelopment had been used by participating agencies as a tool to remove blighted conditions, provide economic opportunities, create housing for lower and moderate income residents, renovate or replace deteriorated or dilapidated structures, develop vacant infill and under -used properties, and provide public infrastructure and other improvements to support private investment in deteriorated areas of San Diego County. Implementation of redevelopment project plans had provided a means for increasing housing choices for lower- and moderate - income residents and those with special needs. Today, most jurisdictions have suspended significant components of their affordable housing programs until a stable source of funding can be identified. Most typical programs suspended include homebuyer assistance and new affordable housing construction, both usually require significant resources. 2. Reasonable Accommodation Under State and Federal laws, local governments are required to "reasonably accommodate" housing for persons with disabilities when exercising planning and zoning powers. Jurisdictions must grant variances and zoning changes if necessary to make new construction or rehabilitation of housing for persons with disabilities feasible, but are not required to fundamentally alter their zoning ordinance. Although most local governments are aware of State and federal requirements to allow reasonable accommodations, if specific policies or procedures are not adopted by a jurisdiction, disabled residents may be unintentionally displaced or discriminated against. Most of the region's 19 jurisdictions, including Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Coronado, El Cajon, Escondido, La Mesa, National City, Poway, CHAPTER 5: PUBLIC POLICIES 170 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 538 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Santee, San Diego (City), San Diego (County), San Marcos, Solana Beach, and Vista have explicit recognition of their obligation to reasonably accommodate the housing needs of residents in the Municipal Code. As of February 2015, the cities of Del Mar, Encinitas, Imperial Beach, Lemon Grove, and Oceanside have not adopted formal reasonable accommodation procedures. In addition to adopting a formal process for granting reasonable accommodations, the City of Del Mar is also exploring a modification of the zoning code to allow an exemption from floor area ratio (FAR) calculations for residences that require additional building area solely to meet accessibility requirements. The City of Encinitas anticipates adopting formal procedures by 2017. Currently, most of the cities with adopted reasonable accommodations procedures (with the exception of Escondido, La Mesa, National City, Oceanside, and Santee) have a definition of disabled person in their Zoning Ordinance. A jurisdiction's definition of a disabled person can be considered an impediment to fair housing if it is not consistent with the definition of disability provided under the Fair Housing Act. The Act defines disabled person as "those individuals with mental or physical impairments that substantially limit one or more major life activities." All of the definitions used by San Diego jurisdictions are consistent with the Fair Housing Act and are not considered an impediment. H. Local Housing Authorities Fair Housing Case Summary — Reasonable Accommodations — City of San Diego The complainant (CP) is a single Caucasian female with a physical disability. CP viewed an apartment she wanted to rent. CP requested a reasonable modification from the Respondent to have a patio railing taken down so the CP could install a wheelchair accessible ramp. Respondent refused to allow the modification and informed CP she needed to wait several months for another apartment unit that does not have a patio. CP contacted a local fair housing service provider for help. The service provider intervened via a conciliation process. Respondent agreed to grant the modification, rented the original apartment to CP, had all management staff take fair housing training, and posted fair housing material in the manager's office pursuant to the conciliation agreement. Outcome: Successful conciliation; included injunctive relief. Agency: Legal Aid Society of San Diego In the San Diego region, the HUD Housing Choice Voucher program is administered by six different local housing authorities, two of which also oversee a public housing program. The following housing authorities only administer housing choice vouchers: Carlsbad, Encinitas, Oceanside, and National City. The housing authorities for the City and County of San Diego also own and manage public housing in addition to administering the Housing Choice Voucher program. The availability and use of Housing Choice Vouchers and public housing units must also adhere to fair housing laws. Most local housing authorities in the County have adopted priorities or preferences for Housing Choice Vouchers and /or public housing. Typically, families with children, elderly families, disabled families, and veterans are given preferences. Section 16(a)(3)(B) of the United States Housing Act (Housing Act) mandates that public housing authorities adopt an admissions policy that promotes the deconcentration of poverty in public housing. HUD emphasizes that the goal of deconcentration is to foster the development of mixed - income 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet CHAPTER 5: PUBLIC POLICIES 171 Page 539 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE communities within public housing. In mixed- income settings, lower income residents are provided with greater access to employment and information networks. For Housing Choice Vouchers, the Housing Act mandates that not less than 75 percent of new admissions must have incomes at or below 30 percent of the Area Median Income. The remaining balance of 25 percent may have incomes up to 50 percent of the Area Median Income. For public housing, the Housing Act mandates that not less than 40 percent of new admissions must have incomes at or below 30 percent of the Area Median Income. The balance of 60 percent of new admissions may have incomes up to 50 percent of the Area Median Income. I. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) CEQA is California's broadest environmental law as it applies to all discretionary projects proposed to be conducted or approved by a public agency, including private projects that require government approval. The primary purpose of CEQA is to disclose to the public the significant environmental effects of a proposed project. CEQA also requires that public agencies disclose to the public the decision making process utilized to approve projects and is intended to enhance public participation in the environmental review process. In October 2011, the Governor signed into law SB 226, which allows for streamlined CEQA review for certain infill development projects, including some Transit Oriented Developments (TODs). The statute allows an exemption or limited environmental review of projects that meet certain criteria and are consistent with earlier policy documents such as General Plans, Specific Plans, or Master Plans. Subsequent environmental review of qualifying projects is limited to new or substantially greater impacts not adequately addressed in an earlier CEQA document. The streamlined environmental process allowed by SB 226 makes it possible for the environmental impacts of documents like a General Plan, Specific Plan, or Master Plan area to be analyzed long before a physical development project is proposed. Because SB 226 does not include a time limit, CEQA's environmental review and public comment requirements could be satisfied by a document prepared years prior to the proposal of a specific development proposal. Because infill and TOD projects are often proposed in under - served, lower- income and minority neighborhoods, the disjointed disclosure of potential environmental impacts resulting from SB 226 has potential for disproportionate adverse impacts on protected classes. J. Community Representation and Participation Adequate community involvement and representation is important to overcoming and identifying impediments to fair housing. Decisions regarding housing development in a community are typically made by the City Council or Board of Supervisors and applicable Planning Commissions. The Council or Board members are elected officials and answer to the constituents. Planning Commissioners are residents appointed by the Council or Board and often serve an advisory role. In addition to the City Council, Board of Supervisors, and Planning Commission, most jurisdictions have appointed commissions, committees, and task forces to address specific issues. Commissions dealing directly with housing issues are most common in the region's 19 jurisdictions; however, only CHAPTER 5: PUBLIC POLICIES 172 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 540 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE National City and the City of San Diego have commissions that specifically address special housing needs and only the City and County of San Diego have commissions specifically addressing the housing needs of persons with disabilities or families with children. These issues are often addressed in the remaining jurisdictions as part of a standing commission. Community participation can be limited or enhanced by actions or inaction by a public agency. According to the results of the Fair Housing Survey, ten San Diego residents reported being discriminated against by a government staff person. A broader range of residents may feel more comfortable approaching an agency with concerns or suggestions if that agency offers sensitivity or diversity training to its staff members that typically interface with the public. In addition, if there is a mismatch between the linguistic capabilities of staff members and the native languages of local residents, non - English speaking residents may be unintentionally excluded from the decision making process. Another factor that may affect community participation is the inadequacy of an agency or public facility to accommodate residents with various disabilities. Most jurisdictions in San Diego County have bi- lingual capabilities to serve Spanish - speaking residents, and many have multi - lingual capabilities. For example, the City of El Cajon offers services in Arabic. The HUD Programs Administration Office at the City of San Diego accommodates Spanish, Arabic and Tagalog speakers, and San Diego (City) has other multilingual capabilities upon request. The cities of Escondido, Oceanside and Vista, as well as the County of San Diego, have contracts with various language lines and are able to accommodate all languages. And the City of San Marcos has multi - lingual capabilities in Vietnamese, Farsi, Mandarin, Russian, Ukrainian, Arabic, Armenian, Afrikaans and Sign Language, in addition to Spanish. In addition, the city halls of all participating jurisdictions and the County Administration Buildings are accessible to persons with disabilities. Most jurisdictions in the San Diego County do not offer periodic sensitivity or diversity training for staff personnel. However, some jurisdictions do send their employees to periodic trainings. For example, both the City of Carlsbad and the City of Escondido send their employees to Respectful Workplace Training every two years. The City of Oceanside requires its Housing Staff to attend periodic trainings regarding Fair Housing Discrimination (Section 504 — Reasonable Accommodation training); these trainings are organized by North County Lifeline. The City of San Diego covers harassment and discrimination topics in its mandatory New Employee Orientation. In addition, a number of training opportunities (including EEO issues, sexual harassment prevention, reasonable accommodations, and customer service) are available to its supervisory employees. The County of San Diego provides at least two to three trainings annually for its employees. And, the City of Santee conducts mandatory training on a bi- annual basis. Topics covered in the mandatory training include: the types of behaviors that would constitute discrimination, harassment and /or retaliation as defined by the City of Santee; definitions of the types of behaviors that create a hostile, offensive and /or intimidating work environment; and what to do if an employee believes such behaviors have occurred in the workplace. 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet CHAPTER 5: PUBLIC POLICIES 173 Page 541 FAIR HOUSING PROFILE his chapter provides an overview of the institutional structure of the housing industry with regard to fair housing practices. In addition, this chapter discusses the fair housing services available to residents in San Diego County, as well as the nature and extent of fair housing complaints received by the fair housing providers. Typically, fair housing services encompass the investigation and resolution of housing discrimination complaints, discrimination auditing /testing, and education and outreach, including the dissemination of fair housing information. Tenant /landlord counseling services are usually offered by fair housing service providers, but are not considered fair housing services. A. Fair Housing in the Homeownership Market Part of the American dream involves owning a home in the neighborhood of one's choice. Homeownership is believed to enhance one's sense of well- being, is a primary way to accumulate wealth, and is believed to strengthen neighborhoods, because residents with a greater stake in their community will be more active in decisions affecting the future of their community. Not all Americans, however, have always enjoyed equal access to homeownership due to credit market distortions, "redlining," steering, and predatory lending practices. On December 5, 1996, HUD and the National Association of REALTORSO (NAR) entered into a Fair Housing Partnership. Article VII of the HUD /NAR Fair Housing Partnership Resolution provides that HUD and NAR develop a Model Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan for use by members of the NAR to satisfy HUD's Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing regulations. Yet there is still much room for discrimination in the housing market. 1. The Homeownership Process The following discussions describe the process of homebuying and likely situations when a person /household may encounter housing discrimination. However, much of this process occurs in the private housing market, over which local jurisdictions have little control or authority to regulate. The recourse lies in the ability of the contracted fair housing service providers in monitoring these activities, identifying the perpetrators, and taking appropriate reconciliation or legal actions. Advertising The first thing a potential buyer is likely to do when they consider buying a home is search advertisements either in magazines, newspapers, or the Internet to get a feel for what the market offers. Advertisements cannot include discriminatory references, such as the use of words describing: ■ Current or potential residents; CHAPTER 6: FAIR HOUSING PROFILE 174 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 542 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE • Neighbors or the neighborhood in racial or ethnic terms; • Adults preferred; • Perfect for empty- nesters; • Conveniently located by a Catholic Church; or • Ideal for married couples without kids. In a survey of online listings for homes available for purchase in San Diego County in March 2015, a limited number of advertisements included potentially discriminatory language. Of a total of 475 listings surveyed, 77 listings included references to something other than the physical description of the home or included amenities and services (Table 70). All of the potentially discriminatory advertisements were targeted specifically at families through the identification of quality school districts, nearby schools, and available family amenities. Table 70: Potential Discrimination in Listings of For -Sale Homes Discrimination Type Number of Potentially Discriminatory Language Listings No Discriminatory 398 Language Disability Related 0 -- Income Related 0 -- ■ GREAT FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD CLOSE TO SCHOOLS • Home boasts ocean views and is ideal for any expanding family • Walking distance to Elementary and Middle Schools • Conveniently located close to schools Household Size /Family �� Your children will enjoy the top- ranked Coronado school Related district • Walk to Del Mar Hills Elementary school • This is a GREAT starter home to get into the Prestigious Poway Unified • Walk to one of the top Elementary Schools in the City • Quiet, child friendly neighborhood. • Separate entrance there. Extended family? Spanish Only Ads 0 -- Note: 1-xamples are direct quotes from the listings (including punctuation and emphasis). Source: realtorcom, accessed March 2015. Advertising has become a sensitive area in real estate. In some instances advertisements published in non - English languages may make those who speak English uncomfortable, yet when ads are only placed in English they place non - English speaking residents at a disadvantage. While real estate advertising can be published in other languages, by law, an English version of the ad must also be published. However, monitoring this requirement is difficult, if not impossible. CHAPTER 6: FAIR HOUSING PROFILE 175 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 543 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Even if an agent does not intend to discriminate in an ad, it would still be considered a violation to suggest to a reader whether or not a particular group is preferred. Litigation has also set precedence for violations in advertisements that hold publishers, newspapers, Multiple Listing Services, real estate agents, and brokers accountable for discriminatory ads. Lending Initially, buyers must find a lender that will qualify them for a loan. This part of the process entails an application, credit check, ability to repay, amount eligible for, choosing the type and terms of the loan, etc. Applicants are requested to provide a lot of sensitive information including their gender, ethnicity, income level, age, and familial status. Most of this information is used for reporting purposes required of lenders by the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) and the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA). However, the recent mortgage lending crisis has demonstrated widespread misuse of the information, where lower income households and minorities have been targeted for predatory lending. Lending discrimination can occur during advertising /outreach, pre - application inquiries, loan approval /denial and terms /conditions, and loan administration. Further areas of potential discrimination include: differences in the level of encouragement, financial assistance, types of loans recommended, amount of down payment required, and level of customer service provided. Real Estate Agents Real estate agents may act as agents of discrimination. Some unintentionally, or possibly intentionally, may steer a potential buyer to particular neighborhoods by encouraging the buyer to look into certain areas; others may choose not to show the buyer all choices available. Agents may also discriminate by who they agree to represent, who they turn away, and the comments they make about their clients. The California Association of REALTORSO (CAR) has included language on many standard forms disclosing fair housing laws to those involved. Many REALTORO Associations also host fair housing trainings /seminars to educate members on the provisions and liabilities of fair housing laws, and the Equal Opportunity Housing Symbol is also printed on all CAR forms as a reminder. Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC &Rs) Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC &Rs), are restrictive promises that involve voluntary agreements, running with the land with which they are associated and are listed in a recorded Declaration of Restrictions. The Statute of Frauds (Civil Code Section 1624) requires them to be in writing, because they involve real property. They must also be recorded in the County where the property is located in order to bind future owners. Owners of parcels may agree amongst themselves as to the restrictions on use, but in order to be enforceable they must be reasonable. The California Department of Real Estate reviews CC &Rs for all subdivisions of five or more lots, or condominiums of five or more units. This review is authorized by the Subdivided Lands Act and mandated by the Business Professions Code, Section 11000. The review includes a wide range of issues, CHAPTER 6: FAIR HOUSING PROFILE 176 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 544 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE including compliance with fair housing law. The review must be completed and approved before the Department of Real Estate will issue a final subdivision public report. This report is required before a real estate broker or anyone can sell the units, and each prospective buyer must be issued a copy of the report. If the CC &Rs are not approved, the Department of Real Estate will issue a "deficiency notice ", requiring the CC &Rs be revised. CC &Rs are void if they are unlawful, impossible to perform or are in restraint on alienation (a clause that prohibits someone from selling or transferring his /her property). However, older subdivisions and condominium /townhome developments may contain illegal clauses which are enforced by the homeowners associations. Homeowners Insurance Industry Insurance is the cornerstone of credit. Without insurance, banks and other financial institutions lend less. Fewer loans lead to fewer new homes constructed and more existing homeowners will forgo repairs leaving buildings to deteriorate faster.71 Many traditional industry underwriting practices which may have some legitimate business purpose also adversely affect lower income and minority households and neighborhoods. For example, if a company excludes older homes from coverage, lower income and minority households who may only be able to afford to buy in older neighborhoods may be disproportionately affected. Another example includes private mortgage insurance (PMI). PMI obtained by applicants from Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) protected neighborhoods is known to reduce lender risk. Redlining of lower income and minority neighborhoods can occur if otherwise qualified applicants are denied or encouraged to obtain PMI.'Z Underwriting guidelines are not public information; however, consumers have begun to seek access to these underwriting guidelines to learn if certain companies have discriminatory policies. The California Fair Access to Insurance Requirements (FAIR) Plan was created by the Legislature in 1968 after the brush fires and riots of the 1960s made it difficult for some people to purchase fire insurance due to hazards beyond their control. The FAIR Plan is designed to make property insurance more readily available to people who have difficulty obtaining it from private insurers because their property is considered "high risk." The California Organized Investment Network (COIN) is a collaboration of the California Department of Insurance, the insurance industry, community economic development organizations, and community advocates. This collaboration was formed in 1996 at the request of the insurance industry as an alternative to state legislation that would have required insurance companies to invest in underserved communities, similar to the federal Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) that applies to the banking industry. COIN is a voluntary program that facilitates insurance industry investments, which provide profitable returns to investors, and economic and social benefits to underserved communities. 71 National Advisory Panel on Insurance in Riot Affected Areas, 1968. 72 "Borrower and Neighborhood Racial Characteristics and Financial Institution Financial Application Screening"; Mester, Loretta J; Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics; 9 241 -243; 1994 CHAPTER 6: FAIR HOUSING PROFILE 177 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 545 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Credit and FICO Scores Credit history is one of the most important factors in obtaining a home purchase loan. Credit scores determine loan approval, interest rates associated with the loan, as well as the type of loan an applicant will be given. Applicants with high credit scores are generally given conventional loans, while lower and moderate range scores revert to FHA or other government- backed loans. Applicants with lower scores also receive higher interest rates on the loans as a result of being perceived as a higher risk to the lender, and may even be required to pay points depending on the type of lending institution used. Fair Isaac and Company (FICO), which is the company used by the Experian (formerly TRW) credit bureau to calculate credit scores, has set the standard for the scoring of credit history. Trans -Union and Equifax are two other credit bureaus providing credit scores, though they are typically used to a lesser degree. In short, points are awarded or deducted based on certain items such as how long one has had credit cards, whether one makes payments on time, if credit balances are near maximum, etc. Typically, the scores range from the 300s to around 850, with higher scores demonstrating lower risk. Lower credit scores require a more thorough review than higher scores and mortgage lenders will often not even consider a score below 600. FICO scores became more heavily relied on by lenders when studies demonstrated that borrowers with scores above 680 almost always made payments on time, while borrowers with scores below 600 seemed fairly certain to develop problems. Some of the factors that affect a FICO score are: • Delinquencies • New accounts (opened within the last twelve months) • Length of credit history (a longer history of established credit is better than a short history) • Balances on revolving credit accounts • Public records, such as tax liens, judgments, or bankruptcies • Credit card balances • Number of inquiries • Number and types of revolving accounts However, the recent mortgage lending crisis was, in part, a result of lenders providing mortgage financing to borrowers who are not credit worthy, or steering borrowers who can qualify for lower cost loans to the subprime market. 2. National Association of REALTORS® (NAR) The National Association of REALTORSO (NAR) has developed a Fair Housing Program to provide resources and guidance to RF_.AI,TORSO in ensuring equal professional services for all people. The term REALTORO identifies a licensed professional in real estate who is a member of the NAR; however, not all licensed real estate brokers and salespersons are members of the NAR. CHAPTER 6: FAIR HOUSING PROFILE 178 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 546 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Code ofEthics Article 10 of the NAR Code of Ethics provides that " REALTORSO shall not deny equal professional services to any person for reasons of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, national origin, sexual orientation, or gender identity. REALTORSO shall not be parties to any plan or agreement to discriminate against a person or persons on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, national origin, sexual orientation, or gender identity." A REALTORO pledges to conduct business in keeping with the spirit and letter of the Code of Ethics. Article 10 imposes obligations upon REALTORSO and is also a firm statement of support for equal opportunity in housing. A REALTORO who suspects discrimination is instructed to can the local Board of REALTORSO. Local Boards of REALTORSO will accept complaints alleging violations of the Code of Ethics filed by a home seeker who alleges discriminatory treatment in the availability, purchase or rental of housing. Local Boards of REALTORSO have a responsibility to enforce the Code of Ethics through professional standards procedures and corrective action in cases where a violation of the Code of Ethics is proven to have occurred. Additionally, Standard of Practice Article 10 -1 states that, "When involved in the sale or lease of a residence, REALTORSO shall not volunteer information regarding the racial, religious or ethnic composition of any neighborhood nor shall they engage in any activity which may result in panic selling, however, REALTORSO may provide other demographic information." Standard of Practice 10 -3 adds that " REALTORSO shall not print, display or circulate any statement or advertisement with respect to selling or renting of a property that indicates any preference, limitations or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, national origin, sexual orientation, or gender identity." Diversity Certification NAR has created a diversity certification, "At Home with Diversity: One America" to be granted to licensed real estate professionals who meet eligibility requirements and complete the NAR "At Home with Diversity' course. The certification will signal to customers that the real estate professional has been trained on working with diversity in today's real estate markets. The coursework provides valuable business planning tools to assist real estate professionals in reaching out and marketing to a diverse housing market. The NAR course focuses on diversity awareness, building cross - cultural skills, and developing a business diversity plan. 3. California Department of Real Estate (DRE) The California Department of Real Estate (DRE) is the licensing authority for real estate brokers and salespersons. As noted earlier, not all licensed brokers and salespersons are members of the National or California Association of REALTORSO. The DRE has adopted education requirements that include courses in ethics and in fair housing. To renew a real estate license, each licensee is required to complete 45 hours of continuing education, including three hours in each of the four mandated areas: Agency, Ethics, Trust Fund, and Fair 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet CHAPTER 6: FAIR HOUSING PROFILE 179 Page 547 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Housing. The fair housing course contains information that will enable an agent to identify and avoid discriminatory practices when providing real estate services to clients. For the initial renewal, the law requires, as part of the 45 hours of continuing education, completion of five mandatory three -hour courses in Agency, Ethics, Trust Fund Handling and Fair Housing and Risk Management. These licensees will also be required to complete a minimum of 18 additional hours of courses related to consumer protection. The remaining hours required to fulfill the 45 hours of continuing education may be related to either consumer service or consumer protection, at the option of the licensee. 4. California Association of REALTORSO (CAR) The California Association of Realtors (CAR) is a trade association of realtors statewide. As members of organized real estate, realtors also subscribe to a strict code of ethics as noted above. CAR has recently created the position of Equal Opportunity /Cultural Diversity Coordinator. CAR holds three meetings per year for its general membership, and the meetings typically include sessions on fair housing issues. Current outreach efforts in the Southern California area are directed to underserved communities and state - licensed brokers and sales persons who are not members of the CAR. REAL TORO Associations Serving San Diego County REALTOR® Associations are generally the first line of contact for real estate agents who need continuing education courses, legal forms, career development, and other daily work necessities. The frequency and availability of courses varies amongst these associations, and local association membership is generally determined by the location of the broker for which an agent works. Complaints involving agents or brokers may be filed with these associations. Monitoring of services by these associations is difficult as detailed statistics of the education /services the agencies provide or statistical information pertaining to the members is rarely available. The following associations serve San Diego County: • Greater San Diego Association of REALTORS (SDAR) • North County Association of REALTORS (NSDCAR) • Pacific Southwest Association of REALTORS (PSAR) The Realtor Associations that serve San Diego County use the Sandicor (San Diego County's Regional Multiple Listing Service). Complaints against members are handled by the associations as follows. First, all complaints must be in writing. Once a complaint is received, a grievance committee reviews the complaint to decide if it warrants further investigation. If further investigation is necessary, a professional standards hearing with all parties involved takes place. If the member is found guilty of a violation, the member may be expelled from the association, and the California Department of Real Estate is notified. CHAPTER 6: FAIR HOUSING PROFILE 180 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 548 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE B. Fair Housing in the Rental Housing Market 1. Rental Process Advertising San Diego County, like most parts of California, is facing a shortage of rental housing. Most rental properties have low vacancy rates and do not require published advertising. Often, vacancy is announced either via word of mouth of existing tenants or a for -rent sign outside the property. Unless one happens to drive by the neighborhood or have friends or families currently residing at the property, one may not have access to information regarding vacancy. Furthermore, this practice tends to intensify segregation of neighborhoods and properties that already have a high concentration of a racial /ethnic group. When advertising is done, no checks - and - balances mechanism exists to ensure English advertising is provided. A large number of rental listings in San Diego County contain potentially discriminatory language, such as encouraging or discouraging family living, or potentially discouraging persons with disabilities by emphasizing a no -pet policy without clarifications that service /companion animals are allowed. Like with ad listings for for -sale homes, rental advertisements cannot include discriminatory references. A total of 475 rental listings were surveyed in March 2015 and 141 advertisements were found to contain potentially discriminatory language (Table 71). The problematic language typically involved references to household size, familial status, schools or children (63 ads) and pets (74 ads). Fair Housing Case Summary — Reasonable Accommodation for Person with Disabilities — City of San Diego Facts: The complainant (CP) is minor child with mental health disabilities. CP made a reasonable accommodation request to have an assistance animal dog. CP provided a doctor letter from her doctor who practices in Mexico, five (5) miles from the apartment building. Management refused to process the accommodation because the doctor was from Mexico and they stated that because the doctor is not from the United States, the respondent could not verify the disability and the need for request. LASSD intervened via conciliation, and the respondent agreed to grant the reasonable accommodation, have all staff members attend fair housing training, and provide fair housing materials to all residents. Outcome: Sustains allegations; Successful conciliation Agency: Legal Aid Society of San Diego Under California's fair housing law, source of income is a protected class. It is, therefore, considered unlawful to prefer, limit, or discriminate against a specific income source for a potential homebuyer. Section 8 is not included as a part of this protected class, however, and rental advertisements that specifically state Section 8 vouchers are not accepted are considered legal. However, this language tends to give the impression of discrimination. Rental advertisements with references to pets in San Diego County were a significant issue in the listings surveyed. Persons with disabilities are one of the protected classes under fair housing law, and apartments must allow "service animals" and "companion animals," under certain conditions. Service animals are animals that are individually trained to perform tasks for people with disabilities such as 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet CHAPTER 6: FAIR HOUSING PROFILE 181 Page 549 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE guiding people who are blind, alerting people who are deaf, pulling wheelchairs, alerting and protecting a person who is having a seizure, or performing other special tasks. Service animals are working animals, not pets. Companion animals, also referred to as assistive or therapeutic animals, can assist individuals with disabilities in their daily living and as with service animals, help disabled persons overcome the limitations of their disabilities and the barriers in their environment. Persons with disabilities have the right to ask their housing provider to make a reasonable accommodation in a "no pets" policy in order to allow for the use of a companion or service animal. However, in the case of rental ads that specifically state "no pets," some disabled persons may not be aware of their right to ask for an exception to this rule. Because of this, a person with a disability may see themselves as limited in their housing options and a "no pets" policy could, therefore, be interpreted as potentially discriminatory. Of the rental listings surveyed, 74 ads included language to specifically ban Pets. CHAPTER 6: FAIR HOUSING PROFILE 182 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 550 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table 71: Potential Discrimination in Listings of Homes for Rent Discrimination Type Number of Listings Potentially Discriminatory Language No Discriminatory 334 -- Language • Deposits & Fees: Cat - $300 per apartment; $25 Cat Premium per cat, Dog - $750 per apartment; $50 Dog Premium per dog. • Pets above 251bs may not reside in an upstairs unit. • Sorry NO PETS! • PET POLICY: One (1) cat allowed, with additional deposit. No dogs, as area is not fenced, and no other pets. Disability Related 74 0 SORRY BUT WE ARE UNABLE TO PERMIT ANY PETS. • Sorry, pets are not accepted at this property. • Sorry, NO pets • Cats okay, but sorry, no pooches. • No Pets Allowed • WE ARE UNABLE TO PERMIT ANY PETS. • Sorry, no dogs. ■ — no pets. Income Related 4 ■ $40 cash for the credit check /application fee for each adult over 18 (or $40 per married couple). ■ $2000 month for one occupant. $2400 month for two occupants. ■ Perfect for college student, single mom or couple. ■ Close to schools!! ■ we are adjacent to distinguished National Blue Ribbon Schools ■ Community has children's playground ■ The property is ideal for a small family or two couples looking for a vacation getaway in North County San Diego. ■ Schools K -12 nearby Household Close to schools and preschools /daycare providers. Size /Family Related 63 0 Within the award winning Poway Unified School District ■ In the highly rated Poway Unified School District ■ -- -Poway School District - -- ■ Home has beautiful pool and spa with security fence to protect children and animals. ■ Invite family over for that nice afternoon BBQ! ■ Nearby Schools: Twin Oaks Elementary (top 5% in Academic Performance Index), Woodland Park Middle, Mission Hills High School, Palomar College, CSU San Marcos ■ Great walkability to great schools, San Elijo Middle School and San Elijo Elementary School. ■ Walk to great schools Spanish Only Ads 0 -- Notes: 1. Examples are direct quotes from the listings (including punctuation and emphasis). 2. Ads may contain multiple types of potentially discriminatory language. Source: www.craigshst.org, accessed December 5, 2014. CHAPTER 6: FAIR HOUSING PROFILE 183 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 551 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Responding to Ads Differential treatment of those responding to advertisements is a growing fair housing concern. In a 2011 study conducted nationally, comprehensive audit -style experiments via email correspondence were used to test for racial discrimination in the rental housing market. This study was particularly unique because it tested for two variables — discrimination based on race and social class. By responding to online rental listings using names associated with a particular racial /ethnic group and varying message content grammatically to indicate differing levels of education and /or income (i.e. social class), researchers found that, overall, Blacks continued to experience statistically significant levels of discrimination in the rental housing market. This discrimination was even more pronounced when the housing inquiry was made to look like it originated from a Black individual of a lower social class.' The Los Angeles area was one of the metropolitan regions included in this particular study, which found that the Los Angeles and Boston areas exhibited some of the highest levels of discrimination in the country. Viewing the Unit Viewing the unit is the most obvious place where the potential renters may encounter discrimination because landlords or managers may discriminate based on race or disability, or judge on appearance whether a potential renter is reliable or may violate any of the rules. In a follow up to the study discussed above, researchers developed an experiment to test for subtle discrimination. Subtle discrimination is defined as unequal treatment between groups that occurs but is difficult to quantify, and may not always be identifiable through common measures such as price differences. Researchers found that, in general, landlords replied faster and with longer messages to inquiries made from traditional "white" names. The study also found that landlords were more likely to use descriptive language, extend invitations to view a unit, invite further correspondence, use polite language, and make a formal greeting when replying to e -mail inquiries from a white home seeker.74 Credit /Income Check Landlords may ask potential renters to provide credit references, lists of previous addresses and landlords, and employment history /salary. The criteria for tenant selection, if any, are typically not known to those seeking to rent. Many landlords often use credit history as an excuse when trying to exclude certain groups. Legislation provides for applicants to receive a copy of the report used to evaluate applications. 73 Do Landlords Discriminate in the Rental Housing Market? Evidence from an Internet Field Experiment in U.S. cities. Andrew Hanson and Zackary Hawley. May 2011. 74 Subtle Discrimination in the Rental Housing Market: Evidence from E -mail Correspondence with Landlords. Andrew Hanson, Zackary Hawley, and Aryn Taylor. September 2011. CHAPTER 6: FAIR HOUSING PROFILE 184 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 552 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE The study on subtle discrimination mentioned earlier found no statistically significant evidence of discrimination in using language related to fees, asking for employment or rental history, or requesting background information. The Lease Most apartments are rented under either a lease agreement or a month -to -month rental agreement. A lease is favorable from a tenant's point of view for two reasons: the tenant is assured the right to live there for a specific period of time and the tenant has an established rent during that period. Most other provisions of a lease protect the landlord. Information written in a lease or rental agreement includes the rental rate, required deposit, length of occupancy, apartment rules, and termination requirements. Typically, the lease or rental agreement is a standard form completed for all units within the same building. However, the enforcement of the rules contained in the lease or agreement may not be standard for all tenants. A landlord may choose to strictly enforce the rules for certain tenants based on arbitrary factors, such as race, presence of children, or disability. In recent years, complaints regarding tenant harassment through strict enforcement of lease agreements as a means of evicting tenants have increased significantly. Lease - related language barriers can impede fair housing choice if landlords and tenants do not speak the same language. In California, applicants and tenants have the right to negotiate lease terms primarily in Spanish, Chinese, Tagalog, Vietnamese or Korean. If a language barrier exists, the landlord must give the tenant a written translation of the proposed lease or rental agreement in the language used in the negotiation before the tenant signs it.75 This rule applies to lease terms of one month or longer and whether the negotiations are oral or in writing. Also, h 1- dl d d h 1 h h A- Fair Housing Case Summary — Reasonable Accommodation for Person with Disabilities — Chula Vista The complainant (Cp) is a single, Hispanic female. Cp has a disability that severely impacts her mobility. Cp is a Section 8 recipient. Cp placed a deposit of $943.00 on her apartment. Cp signed a lease agreement to move into her apartment as of May 3, 2014. Cp states that residential manager told her she could not move into the apartment until May 27, 2014. Cp states residential manager refused to return security deposit. Cp requests to move to another location and does not go through with move. Cp decided to try and work things out with current living situation. On July 22, 2014 Cp contacted CSA to notify that she had no parking spot. On July 29, 2014 Fair housing counselor contacted owner via written, mail correspondence. On July 30, 2014, fair housing counselor sent Reasonable Accommodations packet to Cp. On August 12, 2014, Fair Housing counselor contacted Cp's Section 8 worker to update on case. Cp and family met with housing attorney on September 12, 2014. Housing attorney visits Cp at home and documents conditions of apartment on September 23, 2014. Cp states that she received 30- Day Notice to Vacate on November 25, 2014. Outcome: Sustains allegation (needs reasonable accommodation); Referred to litigation; Favorable settlement. Agency: CSA San Diego County L e n or must prowl e t e trans atlon w et er or not e tenant requests it. The translation must include every term and condition in the lease or rental agreement. A translation is not required if the tenant provides his or her own adult interpreter. 75 California Civil Code Section 1632(b) 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet CHAPTER 6: FAIR HOUSING PROFILE 185 Page 553 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Security Deposit A security deposit is typically required. To deter "less -than- desirable" tenants, a landlord may ask for a security deposit higher than for others. Tenants may also face discriminatory treatment when vacating the units. For example, the landlord may choose to return a smaller portion of the security deposit to some tenants, claiming excessive wear and tear. A landlord may also require that persons with disabilities pay an additional pet rent for their service animals, a monthly surcharge for pets, or a deposit, which is also a discriminatory act. During the Tenancy During tenancy, the most common forms of discrimination a tenant may face are based on familial status, race, national origin, sex, or disability. Usually this type of discrimination appears in the form of varying enforcement of rules, overly strict rules for children, excessive occupancy standards, refusal to make a reasonable accommodation for handicapped access, refusal to make necessary repairs, eviction notices, illegal entry, rent increases, or harassment. These actions may be used as a way to force undesirable tenants to move on their own without the landlord having to make an eviction. 2. Apartment Association of California The California Apartment Association (CAA) is the country's largest statewide trade association for rental property owners and managers. The CAA was incorporated in 1941 to serve rental property owners and managers throughout California. CAA represents rental housing owners and professionals who manage more than 1.5 million rental units. Under the umbrella agency, various apartment associations cover specific geographic areas. The California Apartment Association has developed the California Certified Residential Manager (CCRM) program to provide a comprehensive series of courses geared towards improving the approach, attitude and professional skills of on -site property managers and other interested individuals. The CCRM program consists of 31.5 hours of training that includes fair housing and ethics along with the following nine course topics: • Preparing the Property for Market • Professional Leasing Skills and the Application Process • The Move -in Process, Rent Collection and Notices • Resident Issues and Ending the Tenancy • Professional Skills for Supervisors • Maintenance Management: Maintaining a Property • Liability and Risk Management: Protecting the Investment • Fair Housing: It's the Law • Ethics in Property Management In order to be certified one must successfully score 75 percent or higher on the comprehensive CCRM final exam. CHAPTER 6: FAIR HOUSING PROFILE 186 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 554 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE The CAA supports the intent of all local, State, and federal fair housing laws for all residents without regard to color, race, religion, sex, marital status, mental or physical disability, age, familial status, sexual orientation, or national origin. Members of the CAA agree to abide by the provisions of their Code for Equal Housing Opportunity. 3. The National Association of Residential Property Managers (NARPM) The National Association of Residential Property Managers promotes a high standard of property management business ethics, professionalism and fair housing practices within the residential property management field. NARPM is an association of real estate professionals who are experienced in managing single - family and small residential properties. Members of the association adhere to a strict Code of Ethics to meet the needs of the community, which include the following duties: • Protect the public from fraud, misrepresentation, and unethical practices of property managers. • Adhere to the Federal Fair Housing Stature. • Protect the fiduciary relationship of the Client. • Treat all Tenants professionally and ethically. • Manage the property in accordance with the safety and habitability standards of the community. • Hold all funds received in compliance with state law with full disclosure to the Client. In addition to promoting high standards of business ethics, professionalism and fair housing practices, the Association also certifies its members in the standards and practices of the residential property management industry and promotes continuing professional education. NARPM offers three designations to qualified property managers and property management firms: 1. Residential Management Professional, RMP 2. Master Property Manager, MPM 3. Certified Residential Management Company, CRMC Various educational courses are offered as part of attaining these designations including the following fair housing and landlord /tenant law courses: • Ethnics (required for all members every four years) • Habitability Standards and Maintenance • Marketing • Tenancy • ADA Fair Housing • Lead -Based Paint Law CHAPTER 6: FAIR HOUSING PROFILE 187 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 555 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE 4. Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association (WMA) Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association (WMA) is a nonprofit organization created in 1945 for the exclusive purpose of promoting and protecting the interests of owners, operators and developers of manufactured home communities in California. WMA assists its members in the operations of successful manufactured home communities in today's complex business and regulatory environment. WMA has over 1,700 member parks located in all 58 counties of California. WMA offers an award winning manager accreditation program as well as numerous continuing education opportunities. The Manufactured Home Community Manager (MCM) program is a manager accreditation program that provides information on effective community operations. WMA's industry experts give managers intensive training on law affecting the industry, maintenance standards, HCD inspections, discrimination, mediation, disaster planning, and a full range of other vital subjects. In addition, WMA offers the following services: • Toll-free hotline for day -to -day management advice • Resident Screening Program • Group Workers' Compensation Program • Legal Advice • Industry Referrals • Manager Referral Service • Educational seminars on a variety of key topics C. Fair Housing Services In general, fair housing services include the investigation and resolution of housing discrimination complaints, discrimination auditing and testing, and education and outreach, including the dissemination of fair housing information such as written material, workshops, and seminars. Landlord /tenant counseling is another fair housing service that involves informing landlords and tenants of their rights and responsibilities under fair housing law and other consumer protection regulations, as well as mediating disputes between tenants and landlords. This section reviews the fair housing services available in San Diego County, the nature and extent of fair housing complaints, and results of fair housing testing /audits. 1. CSA San Diego County (CSA) The CSA San Diego County (CSA), is an agency whose mission is to actively support and promote fair housing through education and advocacy. CSA provides the following fair housing related services: • Tenant - Landlord mediation • Fair housing counseling and dispute mediation • Educational fair housing seminars for tenants and landlords (English and Spanish and other languages upon request) CHAPTER 6: FAIR HOUSING PROFILE 188 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 556 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE • Services to tenants, landlords, and apartment managers • Real estate and rental practice discrimination audits • Free rental housing handbooks in English, Spanish, and Arabic • Legal services and advocacy • Enforcement of fair housing laws through conciliation, litigation, or administrative referrals. CSA assists residents and reports fair housing data for the cities o£ • Carlsbad 0 El Cajon 0 National City • Chula Vista ■ La Mesa ■ Santee 2. Fair Housing Center of the Legal Aid Society of San Diego (LASSD) The Legal Aid Society of San Diego (LASSD) provides fair housing services to guarantee equal housing opportunity for San Diego City and County residents. LASSD provides support through outreach, education, and enforcement of both federal and state fair housing laws. To receive services provided by LASSD the act of housing discrimination must have occurred within the County of San Diego. The LASSD Housing Team is the only full service resource in the County, providing counseling, direct legal intervention and in -Court representation for eligible San Diego County residents. LASSD provides the following services: • Assist or advise eligible clients • Educate community groups and tenants to increase awareness of tenant's rights and the workings of the judicial system • Conduct outreach • Assist tenants in organizing themselves to take legal action LASSD is currently under contract with the City of San Diego to provide fair housing services. However, the agency assists residents throughout the County. 3. Housing Opportunities Collaborative (HOC) The Housing Opportunities Collaborative (HOC) is a non - profit organization consisting of housing counseling and fair housing agencies, housing related nonprofits and business organizations, and governmental agencies. By consolidating housing resources and related information, HOC makes fair housing resources easily accessible to the public. HOC provides counseling on home - ownership and landlord- tenant rights and responsibilities. Allegations filed with HOC that are deemed true fair housing allegations are referred to Legal Aid Society of San Diego ( LASDD) for investigation and litigation. HOC provides the following services to residents of the City of San Diego: • Monitoring compliance • Outreach and education • Counseling and referrals • Workshops and training 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet CHAPTER 6: FAIR HOUSING PROFILE 189 Page 557 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE 4. North County Lifeline North County Lifeline (NCL) is a non - profit agency providing fair housing services to San Diego's north county communities. Through Facilitative Mediation, NCL provides tools for dispute resolution in order to resolve conflicts outside of court. For those in need of additional assistance, North County Lifeline also provides a monthly legal clinic to provide legal advice to residents in need of counseling. Fair housing services are provided to the following service areas: Encinitas, Escondido, Oceanside, San Marcos and Vista. North County Lifeline services include: Mediation Services o Dispute Resolution Program o Peer Mediation o Small Claims Court Mediation Program Fair Housing and Education Services o Direct client assistance o Complaint intakes o Mediation o Education and outreach o Testing o Enforcement Legal Clinic o Legal Consult Additionally, North County Lifeline is the lead agency of the NCL Fair Housing Collaborative (which includes CSA San Diego, North County Lifeline and South Bay Community Services). The NCL Housing Collaborative provides services to the cities of Coronado, Del Mar, Imperial Beach, Lemon Grove, Poway, Solana Beach and the County unincorporated areas. 5. Overall Service Coverage Overall, the region is well served by multiple agencies for fair housing services. However, residents may find it hard to navigate the service system and identify the appropriate agency for contact, as commented by some workshop participants. A jurisdiction's contract for fair housing service providers may also change year to year. To ensure the public is well aware of available services, the SDRAFFH and local jurisdictions should update their websites and outreach materials frequently. Furthermore, consistent recordkeeping formats would assist in the compilation and analysis of fair housing data across agencies. CHAPTER 6: FAIR HOUSING PROFILE 190 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 558 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE D. California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) investigates complaints of employment and housing discrimination based on race, sex, religious creed, color, national origin, medical condition (cured cancer only), ancestry, physical or mental disability, marital status, or age (over 40 only). DFEH also investigates complaints of housing discrimination based on the above classes, as well as children /age, and sexual orientation. DFEH established a program in May 2003 for mediating housing discrimination complaints, which is a first for the State of California and is the largest fair housing mediation program in the nation to be developed under HUD's Partnership Initiative with state fair housing enforcement agencies. The program provides California's tenants, landlords, and property owners and managers with a means of resolving housing discrimination cases in a fair, confidential, and cost - effective manner. 76 Key features of the program are: 1) program is free of charge to the parties; and 2) mediation takes place within the first 30 days of the filing of the complaint, often avoiding the financial and emotional costs associated with a full DFEH investigation and potential litigation. After a person calls in for a complaint, an interview takes place, documentation is obtained and issues are discussed to decide on the course to proceed. Mediation /conciliation is offered as a viable alternative to litigation. If the mediation /conciliation is successful, the case is closed after a brief case follow -up. If the mediation /conciliation is unsuccessful, the case is then referred to DFEH or HUD. If during case development further investigation is deemed necessary, testing may be performed. Once the investigation is completed, the complainant is advised of the alternatives available in proceeding with the complaint, which include: mediation/ conciliation, administrative filing with HUD or DFEH, referral for consideration to the Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Housing and Civil Enforcement Section, or referral to a private attorney for possible litigation. E. Fair Housing Statistics As part of the enforcement and tracking services provided by the above mentioned fair housing service providers, intake and documentation of all complaints and inquiries result in the compilation of statistics provided to each jurisdiction in the form of quarterly and annual reports. However, because the various agencies that provide fair housing services in the County each have their own intake forms, the amount and specificity of available fair housing data is highly uneven throughout the County and difficult to use for regional comparisons and analyses. The following sections summarize fair housing statistics in San Diego County using available data and sources: 76 DFEH News Brief, May 29, 2003 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet CHAPTER 6: FAIR HOUSING PROFILE 191 Page 559 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE 1. Fair Housing Survey A total of 366 residents provided responses to the fair housing survey conducted as part of this Al. According to the survey, race (33 percent), disability (29 percent), and source of income (29 percent) were identified as the leading bases for discrimination by respondents. The survey also indicated that housing discrimination in the County was severely underreported. Only 18 (25 percent) of the people who experienced housing discrimination reported the incident —even though a total of 90 people reported being discriminated against. Among those who had not reported the issue, the majority cited they did not believe it would make a difference as the reason for not reporting the incident. 2. CSA San Diego County (CSA) Housing Discrimination Complaints Between FY 2009 -10 and FY 2013 -14, CSA provided fair housing services to over 700 San Diego County residents per year —for a total of 3,559 clients over the five -year period. The majority of CSR's clients during this time period came from: El Cajon (54 percent), La Mesa (16 percent) and Carlsbad (10 percent). Statistics reported throughout San Diego County indicate that low- income persons, regardless of race, are the most frequently impacted by fair housing issues. The vast majority of CSR's clients (95 percent) between FY 2009 -10 and FY 2013 -14 were either extremely low or very low income. Consistent with the demographic makeup of the region, White residents reported the majority of housing complaints (56 percent). However, there is some indication that fair housing issues seemed to disproportionately affect certain racial /ethnic groups. For example, Black residents made up less than five percent of the population in the cities that CSA serves, but represented 11 percent of fair housing complainants. A detailed breakdown of clients by jurisdiction can be found in Appendix C. Fair Housing Cases Between FY 2009 -10 and FY 2013 -14, only 136 persons (four percent) reported allegations of housing discrimination to CSA and even fewer turned into actual cases where further investigations or actions were warranted. Often, complaints of alleged discrimination do not constitute actual or potential violations of fair housing laws. The majority of fair housing complaints made to CSA involved discrimination based on race /color (35 percent), disability (27 percent), and national origin (12 percent). The jurisdictions of El Cajon (73 complaints) and La Mesa (21 complaints) recorded the most complaints. A detailed breakdown of complaints by jurisdiction and basis of discrimination can be found in Appendix C. Tenant /Landlord Counseling In addition to investigating allegations of housing discrimination, CSA provides tenant /landlord counseling services. In fact, the overwhelming majority of those contacting CSA for assistance are in need of these counseling services. Of the clients served by CSA during FY 2009 -10 to FY 2013 -14, CHAPTER 6: FAIR HOUSING PROFILE 192 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 560 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE 3,423 residents (96 percent) contacted CSA with requests for assistance with landlord /tenant issues. The number of residents seeking counseling services has steadily increased over time —from 265 persons in FY 2009 -10 to 1,064 persons in FY 2013 -14. Education and Outreach Efforts Education is one of the most important components of providing fair housing services. Outreach and education give residents the knowledge to understand their rights and responsibilities, to recognize discrimination, and locate resources if they need to file a complaint or need general assistance. The following discussion highlights some of the educational /outreach efforts undertaken by CSA. CSA conducts regular workshops and educational presentations, including general Fair Housing workshops and also those specifically held to educate and address the needs of small property owners. Workshops and presentations cover a wide range of issues including tenant and landlord rights and responsibilities, notices to vacate, substandard conditions, and foreclosures. Some presentations have previously included a volunteer attorney who discussed legality of evictions and new law inclusions. In recent years, presentations have been given to Cajon Valley Union School District Home Start, Catholic Charities, Kurdish Human Rights Watch, International Rescue Committee and Adult Protective Services and Access to Independence. Additionally, as chairs of the EI Cajon Newcomers Group, which provides resources to new and non - English speaking immigrants /refugees, CSA commits to providing services to the local immigrant community. These include helping develop and distribute resource guides for this community such as the English as a Second Language (ESL) Resource Guide, and being a resource for landlord/ tenants' rights, hate crime prevention and immigration advocacy. To remain involved and up -to -date on issues concerning fair housing, CSA attends the quarterly meetings and serves on the steering committee of the San Diego Regional Alliance for Fair Housing (SDRAFFH). During these meetings CSA and other fair housing providers discuss challenges, resources and strategies for addressing fair housing in San Diego County. 3. Fair Housing Legal Aid Society San Diego (LASSD) Between May 2012 and December 2014, LASSD opened over 10,000 housing intake applications for San Diego County residents. The majority of LASSD client households during this time period resided in the City of San Diego (52 percent), El Cajon (eight percent) and the unincorporated County (eight percent). A detailed breakdown of cases by jurisdiction can be found in Appendix C. Housing Discrimination Complaints Approximately 38 percent of LASSD clients were White. However, based on the data reported by LASSD, fair housing issues did seem to disproportionately affect some San Diego County residents. For example, Black residents made up less than five percent of the total County population, yet represented 24 percent of fair housing complainants. 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet CHAPTER 6: FAIR HOUSING PROFILE 193 Page 561 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Between May 2012 and December 2014, almost one - quarter of LASSD's cases involved complainants suffering from a physical disability and another 10 percent involved complainants suffering from a mental disability. About 12 percent of case complainants suffered from both physical and mental disabilities. During this time period, 1,167 cases (approximately 11 percent) involved senior complainants (62 years and older) and over 3,500 (approximately 35 percent of all) involved female - headed households. Fair Housing Cases After screening all housing discrimination complaints, LASSD reports having investigated a total of 304 meritorious fair housing cases between May 2012 and December 2014 — only about three percent of all calls concerning housing complaints during that time period. A majority of these cases (64 percent) were complaints based on discrimination due to a disability. Complaints based on disparate treatment due to race (33 cases or 11 percent) and national origin (29 cases or 10 percent) were also fairly common. Two cases were litigated in federal court with a total judgment amount over $400,000. Tenant /Landlord Counseling LASSD provided counseling to a majority of the clients that contacted the agency with housing complaints. The majority of complaints filed were not deemed to be fair housing issues. About 10,000 San Diego County residents contacted LASSD with tenant /landlord counseling issues between May 2012 and December 2014. The majority of these tenant /landlord complaints concerned evictions (40 percent), lease terminations (5 percent) and substandard conditions /a landlord's warranty of habitability (5 percent). Education and Outreach Efforts LASSD is currently working with the San Diego Housing Commission to develop a strategy for the de- concentration of Housing Choice Vouchers. In addition, 6,609 multilingual brochures were distributed to promote equal access to information. Brochures were made available in the following languages: English, Spanish, Vietnamese, Chinese, and Tagalog. LASSD also meets monthly with the City of San Diego and Housing Opportunities Collaborative in order to evaluate service gaps and to ensure an adequate level of service is available to all residents. In addition, LASSD has established a Fair Housing Hotline to ensure its Fair Housing services are readily available to the community and that a resident may promptly report any act of housing discrimination that may have occurred. 4. Housing Opportunities Collaborative (HOC) Housing Discrimination Complaints Between FY 2013 -2014 and FY 2014 -15 (as of March 2015), a total of 7,854 San Diego residents contacted HOC with requests for assistance. HOC estimates that 18.2 percent were clients HOC served CHAPTER 6: FAIR HOUSING PROFILE 194 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 562 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE and who reside outside of the city of San Diego; and whose requests were outside of the Fair Housing Services agreement. Fair Housing Cases Only 157 requests for assistance (eight percent) were related to housing discrimination and only a small portion of these discrimination complaints (approximately 21 percent or 33 complaints) were referred to LASSD for further legal assistance. Based on the data reported by HOC, 39 percent of clients between FY 2012 -13 and FY 2013 -14 were White, 27 percent were Hispanic, and another 17 percent identified as Other /Multiple Race. Over one -half (51 percent) of all housing discrimination complaints filed involved allegations of discrimination based on disability. Common disability discrimination complaints include the permitting of service animals in a residence or allowing for reasonable accommodations. An additional 27 percent reported discrimination complaints on the basis of race. A breakdown of complaints by basis of discrimination can be found in Appendix C. Tenant /Landlord Counseling Like other fair housing service providers in the County, HOC also provides tenant /landlord counseling services. A total of 1,968 San Diego County residents contacted HOC for assistance with landlord /tenant issues and complaints between FY 2013 to FY 2015 (as of March 2015). Issues brought up during tenant /landlord disputes ranged from eviction to lease terms. The most common topics mentioned were evictions and notices (39 percent) and repairs (36 percent). HOC records identified the following as the most common complaints made by residents: • Evictions /Notices — 39 percent • Repairs /Notices — 36 percent • Security Deposit — 21 percent • Other: 4 percent (ex. Parking, Small Claims) Education and Outreach Efforts Outreach and education is a key component of HOC's services. HOC promotes equal access to housing by educating the public regarding home ownership and landlord- tenant rights and responsibilities, seeking financial and capacity building resources, and providing financial and other resources, and monitoring compliance with housing related laws. Specifically, HOC sponsors and conducts educational workshops such as Personal Financial Management workshops throughout the region. 5. North County Lifeline (NCL) NCL provided services to 1,431 clients FY 2010 -11 and FY 2014 -15 to residents in its service area. Most clients resided in the City of Escondido (479 clients) and Oceanside (373 clients). In addition, as the lead agency for the North County Lifeline Collaborative, NCL oversaw fair housing services to CHAPTER 6: FAIR HOUSING PROFILE 195 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 563 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE another 2,336 clients between FY2009 -10 and FY 2013 -14. Within its service area, the majority of these clients resided in the County's unincorporated areas (47 percent), the City of San Diego (27 percent) and the City of Lemon Grove (10 percent). Fair Housing Cases Between FY 2010 -11 and FY 2014 -15, a total of 130 fair housing cases were filed with NCL. Approximately 60 percent of all cases originated in the City of Escondido (41 cases) and the City of Oceanside (38 cases). In Escondido, over half of all cases filed reported discrimination on the basis of a disability, or the refusal to provide a reasonable accommodation or modification. Similarly in Oceanside, over 70 percent of all cases were filed based on discrimination due to a disability or the request of a reasonable accommodation or modification. Cases were also filed in cities of Vista (22 cases), San Marcos (21 cases), and Encinitas (8 cases). Almost half of all cases in each city were based on discrimination on the basis of disability, or allowing for a reasonable accommodation or modification. Through the NCL Housing Collaborative, 100 cases were filed and nearly 40 percent of all cases reported discrimination on the basis of disability and another 24 percent were filed on the basis of discrimination towards race /color. Tenant /Landlord Counseling NCL also provides tenant /landlord counseling services. The majority of those that contact NCL for assistance are in need of housing counseling services. Of the services provided by NCL during FY 2010- 10 to FY 2014 -15, 1,301 residents (91 percent) contacted NCL with requests for assistance with landlord /tenant issues. The most common landlord tenant complaints were in regards to notices for eviction, habitability, and "other." Additionally, the North County Lifeline Collaborative also provided tenant and landlord counseling services to over 2,200 residents. Education and Outreach Efforts NCL offers assistance to low- income tenants and homebuyers to obtain and /or maintain decent housing through education. The agency also provides outreach information to residents, businesses, and schools. In addition, through a telephone hotline and /or website, low- income residents can receive "on- the- spot" education and assistance. NCL also provides training services to property managers and landlords. In 2011, NCL updated its website for hearing impaired persons. The agency also updated their flyers (available in both English and Spanish), which were made available during classes, trainings, community events, and various locations throughout the County. Additionally, NCL developed a plan for Limited English Proficiency (LEP) clientele, which identifies when translation of documents into languages other than English are necessary. CHAPTER 6: FAIR HOUSING PROFILE 196 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 564 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE F. Fair Housing Testing The purpose of fair housing testing is to determine if, and to what extent, discriminatory business practices exist in apartment rental housing and related markets. In response to the recommendation from the previous Al, some jurisdictions have begun to conduct fair housing testing routinely. Other jurisdictions contracted for fair housing testing for the purpose of this Al report in order to provide additional information on potential housing discrimination in their communities. However, it should be noted that since fair housing testing was not conducted consistently and systematically by all jurisdictions, more findings of discriminatory practices in one community that conducts regular fair housing tests cannot be interpreted as having more extensive housing discrimination, compared to other communities that have not conducted testing as frequently. Methodologg Methodologies may vary, but generally, testing involves volunteer testers screened for appropriateness and then trained. Training may include an overview and history of fair housing laws, methodology of testing, and reinforcement of the qualities needed in a tester. Those qualities include objectivity, reliability, flexibility and the ability to maintain confidentiality throughout the project. A practice test and /or role - playing a site visit are also included to assure that testers are fully prepared. The project supervisor will find apartment vacancies by viewing advertisements on Craig's List, For Rent Magazine, other rental guides and online resources. A matched pair of testers, one representing the variable being tested, and the other as a control are then assigned and given their identity for each project. Testing Results Carlsbad: As part of testing conducted in the search for discrimination business practices in the apartment rental housing market, the City of Carlsbad tested for unequal treatment on the basis of sexual orientation in FY 2014 -15. Of the five sites tested, one showed unequal treatment to the potential renter. Chula Vista: Chula Vista tested for discrimination on the basis of race (African American /Caucasian) in FY 2012 -13, FY 2013 -14 and in FY 2014 -15. In FY 2012 -13, 20 percent of sites showed unequal treatment to the African American tester. In FY 2013 -14, two out of five sites showed indication of disparate treatment. In FY 2014 -15 tests were conducted on three sites, and one site showed an indication of disparate treatment based on race. El Cajon: In FY 2013 -14 and in FY 2014 -15, audit tests were conducted in the city of El Cajon for race (African America /Caucasian), disability and sexual orientation. Disparate treatment and /or terms in rental housing were found in at least 30 percent of sites tested for each variable. When testing for sexual orientation, two out of five sites tested showed disparate treatment. Additionally, El Cajon is retesting the five sites where disparate treatment or terms were found in the FY 2013 -14 round of audit tests. 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet CHAPTER 6: FAIR HOUSING PROFILE 197 Page 565 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE One site has been retested (for disability), and found that there is a new manager who is well versed in housing laws as it relates to disability and was willing to allow for modifications (door widening and grab bars in the bathroom). The remaining four sites are pending to be re- tested due to lack of vacancies. Encinitas: In Encinitas, during tests conducted in FY 2012 -13 through FY 2013 -14, two out of three sites showed some disparity in treatment when testing for race; three out of four sites showed disparate treatment when testing for disability; and out of three sites tested, none showed disparate treatment when testing for familial status. At one site the manager showed a definite preference for the tester with children. Escondido: Five sites were tested in Escondido for national origin (Hispanic). Of the five tests, only one showed disparate treatment. The other four were in complete compliance. La Mesa: La Mesa tested for race (African American /Caucasian) in FY 2014 -15, and one out of four sites found disparate treatment and /or terms in rental housing. National City: National City conducted tests at five sites in FY- 2012 -13. The protected class variable tested in this particular study was familial status (families with children). In one of the five sites tested, disparate treatment and /or terms in rental housing were found. Oceanside: Oceanside tested for discrimination in apartment rental housing in FY 2012 -13 and FY 2013 -14. In FY 2012 -13, in ten sites tested for discrimination based on race (African American /Caucasian), four sites showed disparate treatment towards the testers; in FY 2013 -14, in ten sites tested for discrimination based on familial status, two sites showed unequal treatment. San Marcos: In all audit tests conducted in the City of San Marcos between FY 2011 -12 through FY 2013 -14 on the variables of disability and race (African- American /Caucasian), no discriminatory treatment was found. San Diego City: The City of San Diego conducted audit testing in FY 2012 -13 and FY 2013 -14. The following variables were tested in the rental housing market: disability (service animals and accessibility), familial status, race /national origin (African- American /Caucasian, Hispanic /African - American and Asian /Caucasian) and same sex partnerships. When testing for disability in San Diego, it was more likely to find disparate treatment or terms when requesting permission for a service animal in the residence. Additionally, in FY2012 -13, the City conducted testing for discriminatory treatment and biases in property insurance sales, mortgage lending practices, and in the housing sales market. When testing against a Caucasian control tester, it was found that a tester was more likely to experience unequal treatment in the housing sales market as a Hispanic renter (56 percent of sites showed disparate treatment) than as an African - American renter (45 percent of sites showed disparate treatment). Santee: In FY 2014 -15, the City of Santee tested for race and found disparate treatment at one out of four sites. Vista: In the fair housing testing conducted in the City of Vista, between FY 2011 -12 to FY 2013 -14, three variables were tested: familial status, race and disability (10 test sites for each variable). The tests CHAPTER 6: FAIR HOUSING PROFILE 198 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 566 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE found that individuals were slightly more like to be discriminated against on the basis of familial status (4 sites) than for race (2 sites) or disability (1 site). San Diego Urban County: Testing was conducted in the County between FY 2011 -12 to FY 2013 -14, with a total of 40 sites tested for each variable (race, disability and familial status). Disparate treatment was found at 28 percent of sites tested for disability, 25 percent on the basis of race (African American /Caucasian) and at 20 percent on the basis of familial status. A detailed breakdown of tests by jurisdiction and testing variables can be found in Appendix C. G. California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) The mission of the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) is to protect Californians from employment, housing and public accommodation discrimination, and hate violence. To achieve this mission, DFEH keeps track of and investigates complaints of housing discrimination, as well as complaints in the areas of employment, housing, public accommodations and hate violence. Since 2009, a total of 355 fair housing complaints in San Diego County have been filed with DFEH. The greatest number of complaints were filed in the cities of San Diego, Oceanside and Chula Vista. A single complaint can be filed alleging multiple bases of discrimination and can also involve multiple acts of discrimination. For example, a landlord can discriminate against race and sexual orientation, as well as harass a tenant and unfairly raise his /her rent. The majority of complaints alleged housing discrimination based on: physical disabilities (143 instances), familial /marital status (69 instances), or race /color (58 instances). A total of 512 acts of discrimination were recorded in San Diego County since 2009, with the cities of San Diego (228 acts), Chula Vista (35 acts) and El Cajon (33 acts) having the most number of reported incidents. "Unequal access to facilities /denied reasonable accommodation" was the most often cited act of discrimination (125 instances); but "harassment" (95 instances) and "eviction" (82 instances) were also commonly reported. A detailed breakdown of the number of complaints filed, alleged acts of discrimination, and disposition of fair housing cases by jurisdiction can be found in Appendix C. H. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) maintains a record of all housing discrimination complaints filed in local jurisdictions. These grievances can be filed on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, disability, religion, familial status and retaliation. From January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2014, 439 fair housing complaints in San Diego County were filed with HUD. About 40 percent of complaints filed were from residents of the City of San Diego. A fair number of complaints were also filed from residents of Chula Vista (nine percent) and El Cajon (eight percent). Overall, disability - related discrimination was the most commonly reported — comprising 47 percent of all cases. Complaints concerning race (14 percent), familial /marital status (12 percent), retaliation (12 CHAPTER 6: FAIR HOUSING PROFILE 199 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 567 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE percent), and national origin (10 percent) were also regularly reported. Over one -half of all complaints filed (58 percent or 253 cases) were deemed to have no cause and another 22 percent (98 cases) were conciliated or settled. A detailed breakdown of the number of cases filed, alleged acts of discrimination, and disposition of fair housing cases by jurisdiction can be found in Appendix C. I. Hate Crimes Hate crimes are crimes that are committed because of a bias against race, religion, disability, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. In an attempt to determine the scope and nature of hate crimes, the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) Uniform Crime Reporting Program collects statistics on these incidents. To a certain degree, hate crimes are an indicator of the environmental context of discrimination. These crimes should be reported to the Police or Sheriff's department. On the other hand, a hate incident is an action or behavior that is motivated by hate but is protected by the First Amendment right to freedom of expression. Examples of hate incidents can include name calling, epithets, distribution of hate material in public places, and the display of offensive hate - motivated material on one's property. The freedom guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, such as the freedom of speech, allows hateful rhetoric as long as it does not interfere with the civil rights of others. Only when these incidents escalate can they be considered an actual crime. Statistics compiled by the FBI found that a total of 714 hate crimes were committed in San Diego County from 2007 to 2013. Race -based hate crimes were the most common (44 percent); though, hate crimes motivated by sexual orientation (21 percent), ethnicity (18 percent), and religion (17 percent) were also commonly reported. During the seven -year period from 2007 to 2013, the incidence of reported hate crimes in all of San Diego County was less than one per 1,000 people (0.23 per 1,000 persons). This figure has also substantially declined from a decade earlier (the seven -year period from 1997 to 2003) when the incidence of hate crimes in the County was 0.49 per 1,000 persons. Hate crime statistics varied somewhat from jurisdiction to jurisdiction —with the cities of Solana Beach (zero incidents), Carlsbad (0.05), and El Cajon (0.06) having the lowest incidence rates and the cities of Del Mar (0.48), Santee (0.45), and Oceanside (0.45) having the highest incidence rates. It should be noted that these statistics may also reflect a higher incidence of reporting crime in certain communities, which consistently have very low overall crime rates. J. NIMBYism Many people agree that a variety of housing should be available for people with special needs, such as homeless shelters, affordable housing, and group homes for people with disabilities. However, whether or not these types of housing should be located within their own community is another matter. The following discussion on NIMBYism is not specific to San Diego County and is included below simply to provide context for the analysis of SB 1721 and SB 2 that concludes this chapter. CHAPTER 6: FAIR HOUSING PROFILE 200 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 568 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE The Not- in -My- Back -Yard sentiment (NIMBYism) can serve as the most significant constraint to the development of affordable or even market -rate multi - family housing. NIMBYism describes opposition by residents and public officials alike to additional or different kinds of housing units in their neighborhoods and communities. The NIMBY syndrome often is widespread, deeply ingrained, easily translatable into political actions, and intentionally exclusionary and growth inhibiting. NIMBY sentiment can reflect concerns about property values, service levels, community ambience, the environment, or public health and safety. It can also reflect racial or ethnic prejudice masquerading under the guise of a legitimate concern. NIMBYism can manifest itself as opposition to specific types of housing, as general opposition to changes in the community, or as opposition to any and all development. Community opposition to high- density housing, affordable housing, and housing for persons with special needs (disabilities and homeless) is directly linked to the lack of such housing options for residents in need. In particular, community opposition is typically strongest against high - density affordable housing and group homes for persons with mental disabilities. Community residents who are especially concerned about the influx of members of racial and ethnic minority groups sometimes justify their objections on the basis of supposedly objective impacts like lowered property values and increased service costs. Racial and ethnic prejudice often is one root of NIMBYism, although NIMBY concerns still exist where racial or ethnic differences are not involved. The California legislature has passed various Anti- NIMBYism housing bills to prevent communities from rejecting affordable housing projects, including: ■ SB 1721 - The bill stipulates that a local agency shall not disapprove an affordable housing development project, including agricultural worker housing, or condition approval, including through the use of design review standards, in a manner that renders the project infeasible for development for the use of very low, low- or moderate - income households. ■ SB 2- Expands the Housing Accountability Act, to prohibit localities from denying a proposal to build an emergency shelter, transitional housing or supportive housing if it is needed and otherwise consistent with the locality's zoning and development standards. 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet CHAPTER 6: FAIR HOUSING PROFILE 201 Page 569 FAIR HOUSING ACTION PLAN his chapter builds upon the previous analyses and presents a list of specific actions jurisdictions in the region are planning to undertake in order to address the impediments. Impediments and recommendations are grouped in the following categories: A. Regional Impediments Continued from 2010 AI The following is a summary of recommended actions to address regional impediments carried over from the 2010 Al. Impediments and recommended actions are modified to reflect current conditions, feasibility, and past efforts. 1. Education and Outreach Impediments: Educational and outreach literature regarding fair housing issues, rights, and services on websites or at public counters is limited. The cities of Carlsbad, Imperial Beach, and Solana Beach do not have links to fair housing resources on city websites, and Coronado does not have the most up -to -date information on its website. Recommended Actions: CHAPTER 7: FAIR HOUSING ACTION PLAN 202 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 570 Timeframe oU o o o r� o C) (1) Cz Z Ensure ease of access to o information about fair housing on d �, websites with links between Q U o jurisdictions and contracted .4 service provider. Prominently display information on public 1� y 1� � °p 21 21 21 21 °p °q 21 � � 't o 21 21 °q counters and other points of u o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U o 21 0 21 0 81 public contact such as libraries N 0 C O O O C O O C O O 2 O '� y O O C O and community centers. o y x a, Increase knowledge of the process of reporting complaints B o and access /referral to government o Q entities i.e. DFEH /HUD /DO . V CHAPTER 7: FAIR HOUSING ACTION PLAN 202 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 570 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE 2. Lending and Credit Counseling Impediments: Hispanics and Blacks continue to be under - represented in the homebuyer market and experienced large disparities in loan approval rates. • White applicants were noticeably overrepresented in the loan applicant pool, while Hispanics were severely underrepresented. The underrepresentation of Hispanics was most acute in the cities of Imperial Beach ( -33 percent), Vista ( -35 percent), and Escondido ( -36 percent). • Approval rates for Black and Hispanic applicants were well below the approval rates for White and Asian applicants in the same income groups. Specifically, Black applicants consistently had the lowest approval rates compared to other racial /ethnic groups in the same income groups. The largest discrepancies (between loan approval rates for White and Asian applicants versus Black and Hispanic applicants) in 2013 were recorded in the cities of El Cajon, Poway, and San Diego. • Black and Hispanic applicants continued to get higher -priced (subprime) loans more frequently than White and Asian applicants. Recommended Actions: Timeframe o o :7� CIS U a� o o a o 0 M U 0 U 0 0 0 �, c U ° M C u U v v W W W Z O O Continue to utilize the SDRAFFH to coordinate and promote outreach and education Ongoing activities in the region. 2. Lending and Credit Counseling Impediments: Hispanics and Blacks continue to be under - represented in the homebuyer market and experienced large disparities in loan approval rates. • White applicants were noticeably overrepresented in the loan applicant pool, while Hispanics were severely underrepresented. The underrepresentation of Hispanics was most acute in the cities of Imperial Beach ( -33 percent), Vista ( -35 percent), and Escondido ( -36 percent). • Approval rates for Black and Hispanic applicants were well below the approval rates for White and Asian applicants in the same income groups. Specifically, Black applicants consistently had the lowest approval rates compared to other racial /ethnic groups in the same income groups. The largest discrepancies (between loan approval rates for White and Asian applicants versus Black and Hispanic applicants) in 2013 were recorded in the cities of El Cajon, Poway, and San Diego. • Black and Hispanic applicants continued to get higher -priced (subprime) loans more frequently than White and Asian applicants. Recommended Actions: CHAPTER 7: FAIR HOUSING ACTION PLAN 203 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 571 Timeframe o o "R U a� bp bp o U ° u U Z Coordinate with the Reinvestment Task Force to receive annual reporting from the Task Force on Annually progress in outreach and education. CHAPTER 7: FAIR HOUSING ACTION PLAN 203 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 571 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE 3. Overconcentration of Housing Choice Vouchers Impediments: Due to the geographic disparity in terms of rents, concentrations of Housing Choice Voucher use have occurred. ■ El Cajon and National City continue to experience high rates of voucher use. Recommended Actions: 4. Housing Options Impediments: Housing choices for special needs groups, especially persons with disabilities, are limited. ■ Housing options for special needs groups, especially for seniors and persons with disabilities, are limited. Affordable programs and public housing projects have long waiting lists. ■ More than 25 percent of the applicant- households on the waiting lists for Housing Choice Vouchers or Public Housing include one disabled member. ■ Approximately eight percent of the applicant- households on the waiting list for Public Housing and 10 percent on the waiting list for Housing Choice Vouchers are seniors. CHAPTER 7: FAIR HOUSING PLAN 204 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 572 Timeframe C C U a� o o � o U ° a� U ° M cl Q U Q Z Expand the affordable housing inventory, as funding allows. ongoing Promote the Housing Choice Voucher program to rental property owners, in collaboration Ongoing with the various housing authorities in the region. Increase education of Housing Choice Voucher recipients as to choice and availability, in Ongoing collaboration with the various housing authorities in the region. Work collaboratively with local housing authorities and affordable housing providers to ensure Ongoing affirmative fair marketing plans and deconcentration policies are implemented. 4. Housing Options Impediments: Housing choices for special needs groups, especially persons with disabilities, are limited. ■ Housing options for special needs groups, especially for seniors and persons with disabilities, are limited. Affordable programs and public housing projects have long waiting lists. ■ More than 25 percent of the applicant- households on the waiting lists for Housing Choice Vouchers or Public Housing include one disabled member. ■ Approximately eight percent of the applicant- households on the waiting list for Public Housing and 10 percent on the waiting list for Housing Choice Vouchers are seniors. CHAPTER 7: FAIR HOUSING PLAN 204 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 572 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Recommended Actions: 5. Enforcement Impediments: Enforcement activities are limited. ■ Fair housing services focus primarily on outreach and education; less emphasis is placed on enforcement. ■ Fair housing testing should be conducted regularly. Recommended Actions: Timeframe o "R U a� bb � o o a U ° M 0 v U M U ° M Z u U U U W W W M O V5 � Increase housing options for special needs populations, Provide press releases to local including persons with disabilities, Ongoing senior households, families with Semi - annually children, farmworkers, the complaints and litigation. homeless, etc. Support stronger and more Encourage universal design persistent enforcement activity by principles in new housing Ongoing Ongoing developments. Educate city /county building, planning, and housing staff on Ongoing accessibility requirements Encourage inter - departmental Ongoing collaboration 5. Enforcement Impediments: Enforcement activities are limited. ■ Fair housing services focus primarily on outreach and education; less emphasis is placed on enforcement. ■ Fair housing testing should be conducted regularly. Recommended Actions: CHAPTER 7: FAIR HOUSING ACTION PLAN 205 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 573 Timeframe o o U a� o bp o a bp o o a M U ° M 0 u U U U W W W M O V5 � Provide press releases to local medias on outcomes of fair housing Semi - annually complaints and litigation. Support stronger and more persistent enforcement activity by Ongoing fair housing service providers. CHAPTER 7: FAIR HOUSING ACTION PLAN 205 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 573 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE B. Jurisdiction - Specific Impediments Continued from 2010 AI The following is a list of actions that will be taken to address jurisdiction- specific impediments carried over from previous AIs. Impediments and recommended actions are modified to reflect current conditions, feasibility, and past efforts. 1. Public Policies Impediments: Various land use policies, zoning provisions, and development regulations may affect the range of housing choice available. ■ Recent Changes to Density Bonus Law: Most jurisdictions have amended their zoning ordinances to reflect SB 1818 requirements of Density Bonus law but have not addressed the most recent changes effective January 1, 2015 (AB 2222) regarding replacement requirements and extended affordability covenant to 55 years. The City of Chula Vista anticipates amending its Zoning Ordinance to address this by 2016. ■ Definition of Family: The zoning ordinances of Oceanside and Solana Beach contain a definition of family that may be considered discriminatory. ■ Large Residential Care Facilities (for Seven or More Persons): The zoning ordinance of Chula Vista does not contain provisions for larger residential care facilities. The City of Chula Vista anticipates amending its Zoning Ordinance to address this by 2016. ■ Emergency Shelters: the cities of Chula Vista, Encinitas, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, Poway, and San Diego (City) do not have adequate provisions for emergency shelters in their zoning ordinances. The City of Encinitas anticipates amending its Zoning Ordinance by 2017. The City of Chula Vista anticipates amending its Zoning Ordinance to address this by 2015. ■ Transitional and Supportive Housing: Chula Vista, Encinitas, Escondido, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, Poway, San Diego (City), San Diego (County), and Vista do not have zoning ordinances that permit transitional and supportive housing consistent with the CHAPTER 7: FAIR HOUSING PLAN 206 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 574 Timeframe o (D o o � C) U Q o Q U c ° M 0 U z Conduct random testing on a regular basis to identify issues, trends, and problem properties. Expand testing Conduct testing every other year or as warranted by emerging trends to investigate emerging trends of suspected discriminatory practices B. Jurisdiction - Specific Impediments Continued from 2010 AI The following is a list of actions that will be taken to address jurisdiction- specific impediments carried over from previous AIs. Impediments and recommended actions are modified to reflect current conditions, feasibility, and past efforts. 1. Public Policies Impediments: Various land use policies, zoning provisions, and development regulations may affect the range of housing choice available. ■ Recent Changes to Density Bonus Law: Most jurisdictions have amended their zoning ordinances to reflect SB 1818 requirements of Density Bonus law but have not addressed the most recent changes effective January 1, 2015 (AB 2222) regarding replacement requirements and extended affordability covenant to 55 years. The City of Chula Vista anticipates amending its Zoning Ordinance to address this by 2016. ■ Definition of Family: The zoning ordinances of Oceanside and Solana Beach contain a definition of family that may be considered discriminatory. ■ Large Residential Care Facilities (for Seven or More Persons): The zoning ordinance of Chula Vista does not contain provisions for larger residential care facilities. The City of Chula Vista anticipates amending its Zoning Ordinance to address this by 2016. ■ Emergency Shelters: the cities of Chula Vista, Encinitas, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, Poway, and San Diego (City) do not have adequate provisions for emergency shelters in their zoning ordinances. The City of Encinitas anticipates amending its Zoning Ordinance by 2017. The City of Chula Vista anticipates amending its Zoning Ordinance to address this by 2015. ■ Transitional and Supportive Housing: Chula Vista, Encinitas, Escondido, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, Poway, San Diego (City), San Diego (County), and Vista do not have zoning ordinances that permit transitional and supportive housing consistent with the CHAPTER 7: FAIR HOUSING PLAN 206 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 574 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE requirements of SB 2. The City of Encinitas anticipates completing this update by 2017. The City of Chula Vista anticipates amending its Zoning Ordinance to address this by 2016. ■ Farmworker Housing /Employee Housing: Most jurisdictions in San Diego have no provisions for farmworker or employee housing in their zoning ordinances. The City of Chula Vista anticipates amending its Zoning Ordinance to address this by 2016. Recommended Actions: C. New Regional Impediments The following is a list of actions that will be taken to address new regional impediments that may exist in the San Diego region. 1. Outreach and Education Impediment: Today, people obtain information through many media forms, not limited to traditional newspaper noticing or other print forms. CHAPTER 7: FAIR HOUSING ACTION PLAN 207 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 575 Zoning Amendments L O CL) Q O Q v U n bA w J bQ 0 0 o H n O x P� bQ O '� o w N bQ Q" o Carlsbad 2015 Chula Vista 2016 2016 2015 2016 2017 2016 2016 Coronado 2017 2017 Del Mar 2017 2017 2017 El Cajon 2017 2017 Encinitas 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 Escondido 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 Imperial Beach 2017 2017 2017 2017 La Mesa 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 Lemon Grove 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 National City 2017 2017 Oceanside 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 Poway 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 San Diego City 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 San Diego County 2017 2017 2017 San Marcos 2017 2017 2017 Santee 2017 2017 2017 Solana Beach 2017 2017 2017 2017 Vista 2017 2017 2017 C. New Regional Impediments The following is a list of actions that will be taken to address new regional impediments that may exist in the San Diego region. 1. Outreach and Education Impediment: Today, people obtain information through many media forms, not limited to traditional newspaper noticing or other print forms. CHAPTER 7: FAIR HOUSING ACTION PLAN 207 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 575 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE ■ Increasingly fewer people rely on the newspapers to receive information. Public notices and printed flyers are costly and ineffective means to reach the community at large. ■ Frequent workshops with targeted population should be conducted to allow for meaningful discussions and dissemination of useful information. Recommended Actions: 2. Racial Segregation and Linguistic Isolation Impediment: Patterns of racial and ethnic concentration are present within particular areas of the San Diego region. ■ Regarding Hispanic /White segregation among the largest 200 cities in the country in 2010, San Diego County ranked 12th most segregated. ■ In San Diego County, 16.3 percent of residents indicated they spoke English "less than very well" and can be considered linguistically isolated. ■ The cities of National City, Vista, and Escondido have the highest percentage of total residents who spoke English "less than very well". Most of these residents were Spanish speakers. ■ Within San Diego County, there are RECAPS (Racially /Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty) scattered in small sections of Oceanside, San Marcos, Escondido, El Cajon, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City, Chula Vista and Imperial Beach. Larger RECAP clusters can be seen in the central/ southern portion of the City of San Diego. In 2010, there were 173,692 persons living in a RECAP in the County, or 5.6 percent of the County's total population. CHAPTER 7: FAIR HOUSING PLAN 208 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 576 Timeframe o o "R a� � bo o Q Q w w Z o � Education and outreach activities need to be expanded to have a multi -media coverage, including social media such as Facebook, Twitter, and Ongoing Instagram, as well as other meeting /discussion forums such as chat rooms and webinars. Involve neighborhood groups and other community organizations ongoing when conducting outreach and education activities. Include fair housing outreach as Ongoing art of community events. 2. Racial Segregation and Linguistic Isolation Impediment: Patterns of racial and ethnic concentration are present within particular areas of the San Diego region. ■ Regarding Hispanic /White segregation among the largest 200 cities in the country in 2010, San Diego County ranked 12th most segregated. ■ In San Diego County, 16.3 percent of residents indicated they spoke English "less than very well" and can be considered linguistically isolated. ■ The cities of National City, Vista, and Escondido have the highest percentage of total residents who spoke English "less than very well". Most of these residents were Spanish speakers. ■ Within San Diego County, there are RECAPS (Racially /Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty) scattered in small sections of Oceanside, San Marcos, Escondido, El Cajon, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City, Chula Vista and Imperial Beach. Larger RECAP clusters can be seen in the central/ southern portion of the City of San Diego. In 2010, there were 173,692 persons living in a RECAP in the County, or 5.6 percent of the County's total population. CHAPTER 7: FAIR HOUSING PLAN 208 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 576 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Recommendations: CHAPTER 7: FAIR HOUSING ACTION PLAN 209 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 577 Timeframe o o "R a� ° o a.) U ° M C v U Diversify and expand the housing stock to accommodate the varied Ongoing housing needs of different groups. Promote equal access to information for all residents. Update LEP plan to reflect Periodically but at least when new Census data become available demographic changes in community, Work collaboratively with local housing authorities and affordable housing providers to ensure Ongoing affirmative fair marketing plans and deconcentration policies are implemented. CHAPTER 7: FAIR HOUSING ACTION PLAN 209 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 577 PUBLIC UTREACH AN ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE rom December 2014 through February 2015, the San Diego Regional Alliance for Fair Housing (SDRAFFH) conducted outreach to the community and key stakeholders to inform development of San Diego Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing (AI) for the period of Fiscal Year 2015/2016 to Fiscal Year 2019/2020. This report summarizes the comprehensive outreach process undertaken to build awareness of and engagement in the analysis process across the San Diego region, as well as detailed findings. A.1 Outreach Summary Background The SDRAFFH is the leading voice for fair housing advocacy in the San Diego region; working to eliminate housing discrimination and to ensure equal housing opportunity for all people through leadership, education, outreach, public policy initiatives, advocacy and enforcement. SDRAFFH includes the geographic area of the San Diego region, including the 18 incorporated cities and all unincorporated areas. This includes the HUD entitlement jurisdictions of Carlsbad, Chula Vista, El Cajon, Encinitas, Escondido, La Mesa, National City, Oceanside, San Diego, San Marcos, Santee, and Vista, and the County of San Diego (with the participating jurisdictions of Coronado, Del Mar, Imperial Beach, Lemon Grove, Poway, Solana Beach and the unincorporated areas of the County). The Fair Housing Act specifies that the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall administer programs and activities relating to housing and urban development in a manner that affirmatively furthers the policies outlined in 42 USC 3608 / Title VIII of the 1968 Civil Rights Act, Section 808 (e) 5. This responsibility is assigned to HUD - funded grant recipients as well. The Al is a comprehensive review of an entitlement jurisdiction's laws, regulations and administrative policies, procedures and practices. The Al involves an assessment of how these laws, regulations, policies and procedures affect the location, availability, and accessibility of housing, and how conditions, both private and public, affect fair housing choice. The outreach approach focused on engaging the key stakeholders and the general public to educate them on the Al process and outcomes, and to provide the process with qualitative, first -hand experiences and knowledge related to fair housing in the San Diego region's communities. The end result is an adopted Al developed through a rigorous technical process and informed by public involvement and direct experiences from the San Diego region's communities. APPENDIX X: PUBLIC OUTREACH A -1 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 578 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Outreach Goals The overall outreach goal was to educate and engage key stakeholders and the public related to the Al process and outcomes. To do so, the outreach goals included: • Develop an inclusive and expansive database of key stakeholders and interested parties to involve in the process • Create and communicate clear, consistent and understandable explanations and messages about the purpose, process, and desired outcomes for the SDRAFFH and Al • Engage key stakeholders and interest groups early in the process to: • build interest in, commitment to and trust in the process; • develop initial understandings of issue areas, opportunities and constraints across the region and within specific communities; and • extend outreach through their networks to hard -to -reach stakeholders • Apply a selection of targeted communications and public participation activities that meet stakeholders' varying needs and ways of accessing information, and that best inform the technical process • Identify stakeholders' needs and priorities for fair housing at the local and levels to effectively inform the Al Stakeholders The list below represents key stakeholder groups that formed the basis of the outreach database. • Elected officials • Executive staff from local jurisdictions and partner agencies • Housing advocates • Disability advocates • Minority advocates • Real estate industry • Apartment management associations and representatives • Legal aid • Non - profit and social service providers • Neighborhood organizations Outreach Activities The project team implemented a range of outreach activities and tools based on the experiences of the SDRAFFH participating agencies' recommendations and the consultant teams' experience and expertise. Steps included: • Developing an outreach database compiled from the participating agencies that includes individuals and organizations to be engaged, as well as contact information gathered during the outreach process APPENDIX X: PUBLIC OUTREACH A -2 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 579 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE • Designing and deploying a fair housing survey for residents that assesses their personal experiences with fair housing discrimination. The survey included web -based and hardcopy formats, as well as English and Spanish languages • Producing an educational quiz to build the public's understanding about the myths and facts about fair housing, which was conducted in a presentation and discussion format during community workshops • Conducting stakeholder interviews with key stakeholders to develop initial understandings of issue areas, opportunities and constraints across the region and within specific communities. Invited participants included: • Fair Housing service providers: Fair Housing Council of San Diego; North County Lifeline; South Bay Community Services; and Center for Social Advocacy; Housing Opportunities Collaborative and the Fair Housing Center of the Legal Aid Society of San Diego County. • Housing and disability advocates • Apartment associations: SD County Apartment Association; California Apartment Association San Diego • Conducting 6 community workshops (4 conducted by the SDRAFFH project team and two additional meetings conducted by the City of Encinitas and City of San Diego) throughout the region to educate about the Al process and outcomes, and to generate their input about experiences and priority areas. • Public notifications of the survey, quiz and workshops occurred through multiple methods including: • direct mailings to the participating agencies' mailing lists (over 1,000 agencies contacted), • email -based ( "e- blast' notifications through the participating agencies' email networks • content for participating agencies' and stakeholders' communication channels such as newsletters, public service announcements, websites, and cable television channels • social media: posts, tweets, and notices • press releases More details and samples of these outreach activities and tools are provided in this Appendix. APPENDIX X: PUBLIC OUTREACH A -3 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 580 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Outreach Findings: Stakeholder Interviews Format Project team members engaged key stakeholders who responded to requests for one -on -one interviews about the Al. Participants represented organizations that provide fair housing services and /or complementary and related support services. A representative from each of the following organizations participated in a telephone interview with a project team member: • CSA San Diego County • Elder Help of San Diego • Fair Housing Center of the Legal Aid Society of San Diego, Inc. • La Maestra Community Health Centers • North County Lifeline • San Diego County Apartment Association • San Diego Regional Center • United Way of San Diego County Questions focused on: • the agency's role in fair housing, • challenges to building community awareness; • misconceptions and misunderstandings about fair housing; • challenges to their agency in meeting fair housing needs; • protected classes who are well- served vs. under - served; • existing community assets for fair housing, and • improvements to inter - agency collaboration The following summary of findings reflects collective input from all interviewees. Challenges to Building Community Awareness • Lacking knowledge and awareness of the Fair Housing Act purpose and broader protections: • Discrimination versus landlord /tenant issues • Complaint process • Breadth of protected classes, particularly beyond race ■ Engaging and educating a broad range of cultures • Language barriers • Varying cultural norms and expectations • Focusing efforts on common themes about discrimination • Understanding cultural sensitivities and traditions • Lacking education and outreach resources to close gaps and build awareness of rights • Clarifying the differences between fair housing, Section 8 and affordable housing. • Confusing and conflicting laws and rules: federal, state and local • Building policymakers' appreciation of the Fair Housing Act's benefit and resources to the community. • Communicating the breadth of developmental disabilities related to fair housing APPENDIX X: PUBLIC OUTREACH A -4 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 581 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE • Reaching new landlords or property owners who lease shared spaces • Engaging tenants and landlords before there is an issue • Lacking affordable housing • Tracking frequent changes to protected classes • Addressing abuses of fair housing laws Misconceptions and Misunderstandings • Confusing disability and accommodation requirements • Assistance animals versus service dogs • Documentation and process requirements • Lacking community empathy for community members with fair housing, section 8 and affordable housing needs • Limiting fair housing rights of undocumented immigrants • Allowing cultural stereotypes to affect how people are served • Understanding entitlements for ADA requirements/ supports • Assuming they have more fair housing rights than is true (tenants) • Perceiving fair housing laws to be over - extended to their rights (landlords) • "I own the property, I can do it the way I want" • "I can pick who I like the best" ■ Understanding complex fair housing processes and procedures • Applying to the system • Navigating the system • Addressing language barriers • Perceiving HUD guidelines for number of people allowed as law • Equating fair housing with low income housing • Limiting fair housing to multi - family housing /apartments o A place versus policy ■ Promoting safety by limiting children's' access to outside spaces and higher floors. • Sources: • General lack of knowledge • Confusion in public media /internet • Varying documentation sources • Unclear authority/ sources • Other states Agency Challenges • Ensuring the population is aware of who to contact with complaints • Meeting all requests with limited resources in a large county • Varying levels of enforcement in different locations • Dedicating enough time needed to do testing, research and enforcement • Conducting frequent and well- attended training workshops: going to the people • Working with complex managers to host them on -site • Reaching clients with limited transportation resources • Meeting the needs of growing numbers of mental health disabilities; lack of knowledge of rights APPENDIX X: PUBLIC OUTREACH A -5 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 582 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE • Supporting tenants who are over - demanding via their rights • Addressing evolving rules regarding comfort /support animals • Understanding and communicating differences in responsibilities between Fair Housing Act and Americans with Disabilities Act • Connecting with designated contacts at fair housing providers who can meet language and specialized training needs • Working with fair housing providers who are motivated and engaged in their work • Holding enough classes to meet the needs of clients • Finding more opportunities to educate the community • Separating access and affordability needs from fair housing needs Protected Classes: Well- Served vs. Under - Served • Well served (or have improved): • Disability: good responsiveness, though still significant number • Race: though can go underground • Senior citizens • Single mothers • Greatest needs for improved service: • Persons with disabilities: aging population, growing confusion • Race: strengthen our focus as it's harder to detect now • National origin and language access • Improving detection capability • Addressing limited English proficiency rules (e.g., landlords translating does) • Addressing growth in Middle Eastern cultural groups, especially their lack of lease agreements • Familial status: • Clarifying occupancy policies for large and extended families • Addressing overly restrictive rules • Sex and gender identity: lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender • Seniors: growing population • Religion: supporting Muslim community members • Non - violent criminals re- entering society from incarceration Leveraging Existing Community Assets • Partnering with complementary service providers who can reach similar clients to extend outreach • Strengthening annual training commitments for municipalities and their grantees who are funded by the Fair Housing Act • Model the City of San Diego's effort City of SD has started to do so • Consider broadening to related topic areas such as social welfare, and health • Empower people on front lines in the community to provide referrals • Communicating to businesses how impediments affect them to build their understanding and support APPENDIX X: PUBLIC OUTREACH A -6 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 583 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE • Expanding locations and facilities for trainings at nominal /free -cost to reach more people (e.g., chambers of commerce) • Building awareness in philanthropy sector and among the region's Social Equity Funders • Engaging grassroots organizations (e.g. Resident Leadership Academies, San Diego Organizing Project) to extend outreach • Focusing on empowering /educating community leaders who are relevant to protected classes in need • Learning from other models for outreach and service to protected classes: • Corporation for Supportive Housing • San Diego Youth Services (LGBT and emancipated /transitional/ foster youth) Inter - Agency Collaboration • Continuing to strengthen and build on the success of the SDRAFFH network • Leveraging partners' openness to working /sharing on a regional level • Engaging landlords, owners, managers and property owners proactively to build understanding and reduce problems • Increasing support levels from municipalities' resources: • Code enforcement • Public safety • Referral networks • Public information offices • Utilizing public and corporate partners' communication channels o Expand recent public service announcements through the City of San Diego and local cable providers • Strengthening connections to the network of advocacy and referral organizations with shared client bases • Researching additional organizations • Identifying common goals and outreach • Leveraging the County of San Diego's leadership to facilitate partnerships /convening with other partners • Working with case managers • Increasing info /data sharing, where appropriate and consented • Providing demographic information • Filling gaps in referral networks • Identifying how FHA funded agencies' respective assets and strengths can be better leveraged and complementary. • Exploring partnership opportunities with San Diego Association of Governments • Refining our collective approach to serving needs based on upcoming changes in to the regions demographics and communities • Communicating the links to other equity issues in community planning and development such as public infrastructure Additional Comments • Address the growing levels of segregation in communities and neighborhoods on a regional scale, which may be inadvertently creating disparate impacts APPENDIX X: PUBLIC OUTREACH A -7 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 584 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE • Development policies, especially for affordable housing, need to better enable diverse, mixed communities • Diverse communities produce better quality of life outcomes on many levels • Continue utilizing the Al and regional planning to sharpen our focus • Addressing legacy impediments • Planning regionally more frequently than five years; constant change • Tracking special populations that evolve quickly (e.g., Chaldeans, Burmese, etc.) • Explore a more integrated, best practice model of service integration and collaboration • Address whether testing professionals are pushing landlords to take trainings that are financially beneficial to the testers, instead of being the subject of a complaint or enforcement Outreach Findings: Community Workshops Format The workshop agenda included a presentation of the project purpose and background, followed by a facilitated, large group discussion that included the educational quiz. Upon signing in, participants received a collection of handouts in English or Spanish languages as requested including agenda, information sheet of local fair housing resources, and a comment card (see section A.2 of this Appendix). Simultaneous translation of the proceedings from English to Spanish language was provided by a certified translator via electronic headsets. During the discussion, the facilitator recorded key discussion points on a large wall-sized paper in real -time using "facilitation graphics." Additionally, participants were encouraged to submit written comments via the comment cards. A total of 81 individuals attended the community meetings. The following summary of findings reflects discussion points from all workshops conducted as noted in the meeting notes, wallgraphics and submitted comment cards. Photo - reduced copies of the wallgraphics are included on the pages following this summary. Issues for Protected Classes Participants identified fair housing issues, challenges and experiences related to specific protected classes. Disabled • Understanding and meeting accommodation needs in emerging or expanding contexts and conditions: • Mental health • Emotional support and service animals (e.g., new requirements for property insurers; deposit requirements; animal certifications; species restrictions) • Medical directives and verification from international sources • Educating landlords and tenants regarding accommodation processes, requirements, and financial responsibilities • Market rate versus federally - subsidized properties • Americans with Disability Act (ADA) • Specific amenities and features • Addressing unique or niche disability areas: APPENDIX X: PUBLIC OUTREACH A -8 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 585 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE • Hoarding • Use of medical marijuana Race and National Origin • Addressing landlords' unequal treatment of tenants (e.g., repairs, new and renewed leases) based on immigration status • Understanding the extent of landlords' accommodation requirements for non - English languages in federally - subsidized housing • Focusing on specific race and national origin classes who have disproportionate or growing needs: • Hispanic /Latino • African • Somali • Middle Eastern Familial Status and Steering • Understanding occupancy limit terms in leases versus discrimination based on family size • Conducting testing of a landlord where no children are tenants at specific properties • Requiring that "no play" requirements on a property apply to all tenants, not just children Sex • Harassing single women Income • Clarifying for tenants and landlords that debt -to- income ratio considerations are allowed, but income level and source are not. Additional Issue Areas Participants identified additional issue areas in fair housing. • Limited awareness of homeowners associations' (HOA's) requirements and roles related to fair housing • Growing concentration of housing types and opportunities (i.e., affordable, multi - family, rental) that experience higher numbers of fair housing issues in only a few communities in the region • Increasing role of real estate property management companies as landlords • Clarifying accommodation requirements for renters with Section 8 housing vouchers versus Section 8 housing units • Providing fair housing support to renters and landlords • Conducting an adequate amount of enforcement (investigations and testing) based on prevailing levels of discrimination cases • Addressing discrimination based on perceived criminal activities of tenants versus background checks during the application process Non -Fair Housing Issue Areas Participants identified other issue areas that may be perceived as fair housing issues by some community members, but are typically landlord- tenant or other housing issues. APPENDIX X: PUBLIC OUTREACH A -9 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 586 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE • Occupancy limits: evolving case law regarding landlords' control over lease terms • Smoking: landlord and jurisdiction - specific rules for smoking inside rental /lease homes and multi - family housing • Renters and HOAs: representation and voice in HOA decision - making, particularly in properties with a high proportion of renters • Domestic and family violence • Section 8: rules, requirements, eligibility and processes • Protecting existing mobile home parks /organizations Opportunities Participants identified opportunities for strengthening fair housing in the San Diego region. • Increase community outreach and understanding about fair housing practices and resources • Strengthen existing relationships with and increase the numbers of informed community partners who help to extend outreach (e.g., social service providers, faith community, community collaboratives etc.) • Attend community -based events to connect with community members • Pursue earned /proactive media coverage about solution- focused enforcement and successes • Build policymakers' understanding of resources and issue areas • Provide clear and accessible web -based information • Continue to build awareness of SDRAFFH's role as a regional resource • Expand and enhance training, professional development and education, particularly for landlords • Target outreach and education to single- property landlords • Emphasize building trust between fair housing providers /advocates and landlords • Link with crime -free multi - housing training efforts • Coordinate efforts with associations that represent and train landlords and property managers • Expand the level of enforcement o Create a stronger and mutually - reinforcing connection with education and testing efforts • Simplify, streamline, and /or clarify processes for receiving fair housing support, particularly related to accommodation • Reduce the costs for accessing support and participating in the legal process San Diego Community Workshop: February 4, 2015 Location: Belden Apartments Accomm ods tions/Modifica Lions • The laundry room is not as friendly for those in wheelchairs. A few attendees expressed their concerns about the difficulty of opening the laundry, especially for those who are physically disabled. Assistance vs. SeMce Animals APPENDIX X: PUBLIC OUTREACH A -10 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 587 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE • There seems to be some confusion between the two definitions. Attendees inquired about the differences as well as the potential abuses of the policies. Disability • The attendees inquired about what is covered in the Fair Housing Act and what is not covered in the ADA re: disability. This also stemmed from the previous point re: Assistance vs. Service animals. City of Encinitas Community Workshop: February 10, 2015 Location: City Hall — Poinsettia Room Fair Housing Educa trop • Need more Fair Housing workshops that reach out to landlords. Landlords need to be aware of their rights and limitations in selecting tenants and removing problem tenants. Landlords need to be aware that Fair Housing services are accessible to them. Home Owners Associations • HOAs can be overly restrictive and need to understand their limitations in enforcing policies. Fair Housing education should be expanded to reach Home Owner's Associations and training in Fair Housing regulations should be provided. Smoke-Free Housing • Smoke -free housing policies are frequent requests in the City. Victims ofDomestic Violence • There is a need for more Fair Housing education and advocacy for victims of domestic violence. Fair Housing training should be used as a tool to help stabilize these individuals in their environment and teach them how to be aggressive renters in the market. It's necessary to provide support for those on the verge of homelessness. Wallgraphics /Discussion Notes The following pages display the wallgraphics that encompass the key discussion points from the four workshops conducted by the SDRAFFH project team and the discussion notes from the City of San Diego workshop. APPENDIX X: PUBLIC OUTREACH A -11 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 588 N O H N O N H N a a ro SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE tw 9 Ad,I. wA"j p *W ' r i Ld'd,`fSIS o �'N b (�fl LGJ12� � 071 Yclas Y (D1IRCSD iAN 04F?Jl B�Aj T , NuNktrSl��'�` .CND UE CQ11�11 1- �r'gp�- Ir�x�.lD k 1 N�\cpou r ikX I;E�S 4Lbtp,cwp 7WQV&, b APPENDIX X: PUBLIC OUTREACH v, A -12 co ID M ':�KNII Cfti- t l -� Iv*eN PZA kN ND NIRvCf� btu UN (oN,QI�' �ue�E ti �: +� Wilk ��' 4�,-Tw 7m -Tkpae aut ?9Ni w cz,� 1 fj� T 3 LE6- 6N u u ftvR � '►� lhratR`t" KE�AR UE�sSWtbs INWN�i` '_LPv�pnRA L�rAUCEUW��y1 •�4ND�ll�D�y¢vL.�$ vc�1'•i�i7 %'v�'4T Csµi �SAp}'0 l'4��I�K1�����rE•Pt1�1� f.0 uk �OgpIUo�Ei:vt� s i axe , No (p}�j4 Cho f of 1 COW) -Qt E�GEN90 -�J fy`S �Ie7PRID �j t,W.la�p'�. �aE ."�iwiotiAV05 �GsA� MvAkl I- 7{Wjf 0cal, d'L bs PNkMPL'5S dr. 50wt, -iv .A I ►�/�►116R•A�C1s�4 RSF*47LS : 1W 16;& Sao N >� IvkG�4P. v;Y� W1 u a (otiikfn� i� PkaiEN I MIL.P.i"L�' �'7 Y�• � 1 R �i'f..r1� �� �bN p.�}lOyRGDNFS 7 L-'r W n 90NNM46 (DW )ODYKC104 S "MaLWgr- W-A-00� yJ 1ck T t.AHRIo hT- E-MWRA 010 O alw- @Pte. may! L- FNu�U4 %W IDA OF- Y�Rylae�.lt+5 �. ti�5�i M!K Yh,F�M1�rq� O W� a w A w U O x U z 0 x w 0 N N w A w w 0 I 14 V A oc 0 It M W � 0 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 590 N O H N O N H N a a w ro SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE D I W pet�V I- sd,E1h1 FE�?- f�J[l 4kX IW 6r of IM rWF-1\ '-P FA (K jAa -'554 lllz�0 -, >"t \7 "N " ►AIL � � wppwAaA vs v4w�' b APPENDIX X: PUBLIC OUTREACH v, A -14 N NW? iWPPW*b C N vas. t,Y S+WAVZW:, LN(r LAW P'i L inCklVE y�Y/� W v l� � M�Jlr 10L4q-i pc lwtl�+al�tCl� FL'L�. _�NIS ,►��„�I 1�0 rreg��"* LAW pL^ • �rr't'�x�zrK*E o �'b �a -�ao� ©1Nreaost p��, W, - pubuc, s+�sr , � RLMCM. 0wr N O N ui 0 in r N OC G. ro SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE �L V640 RFC Pd�VcLS/ ' NPf l� /��o� �1'F '�PQaC�cRY ta 1 :;t0w h/`� ?A�-7 c� r —Iow P�S�' g �11 r 1 1 `= as Lb� q�T -ia �r o�t1eN� t3 rI. r V'V �Nc.r 1 f%`�7 Al a <�X * \Jv6j - i ° P- s - .5sartc�8 �I � , Ui C + c Pt�l► 4aSoM?i� twAros � �U'(O - \AMP9, ' s� ti� —VAC 'p 1wilL "��� MVT � �j �Wtis S u.� 01 "�8�.� — �'�spe�I�11N�rS'. 8+7- AOR 06,'FbP j7QEt'��'f�� �� hNG�•Dl� t��� 'N�. b APPENDIX X: PUBLIC OUTREACH v, A -15 N SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE K7 APPENDIX X: PUBLIC OUTREACH aro v, A -16 w fj� VQt uc(/ oll-2eSe�) Workshop Photos i r r i r !Iry f A 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE ■ APPENDIX X: PUBLIC OUTREACH A -17 Page 594 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE �� ff I i APPENDIX X: PUBLIC OUTREACH A -18 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 595 A.2 Outreach Materials Fair Housing Survey SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE SDRAFFH Housing Discrimination Survey Federal and State Fair Housing laws prohibit discrimination in all aspects of housing, including home sales, rentals, housing policies and finand". Each resident is entitled to equal access to housing opportunities regardless of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability /medical conditions, familial status, marital status, age, ancestry, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expnmslon, source of income, or any other arbitrary reason - The San Diego Regional Alliance far Fair Housing is conducting this survey on behalf of all the participating Cities i ncl uding unincarpo rated San Diego County. We want to hear about your experience with housing discrimination issues and concerns. Please fill oul the following survey. The survey is being conducted anonymously, so please be honest and complete in your answers. Responses will be summarised and individual responses will not be reported in any way- 1 hank you! (Onfine survey also available, please we page 2 far de raifsi. T- In what city do you reside? 2. HaveY2U personally over experienced d1SCr1m1naf1*r1 in housing? _ YES NO (It you answered "YES- please answer questions #3 - p5. If you answered "NO" please proceed to quasnon #Q 3. It you believe you have been discriminated against: a) Who do you betieve discriminated against you? {check all that apply) i.andtord /Property Manager _ Real Estate Agent _ Insurance Esker /Company Mortgage lender _ Government Staff Person Other b) Where did the act Of discrimination occur? (check all that apply) Apartment Complex _ Condo/Townhome Oevelopment Other Single•Famify Neighborhood _ Public or Subsidized Housing Project Mobilehome Park f When Applying for CitylCounty Programs U On what basis do you believe you were discriminated against? (check all that apply) _ Race _ Color _ Religion National Origin _ Ancestry _ Gender _ Marital Status _ Sexual Orientation _ Age Family Status _ Source of Income _ DisabiliWlVledical Conditions Se -g- single- parent with children, te.g- welfare. unemployment teither you or someone dose to you] family with children or vxpecting a inwrance) chili) Other (please explain): a) How were you discriminated against7 kheck all that apply) _ Not Shown Apartment _ Higher Rent Higher Security Deposit Provided Different Housing Services or Facilities Other 4. Reasonable modifications and reasonable accommodations allow for certain changes or flexibility in the rules. policies, or procedures set by housing providers- This allows a resident with a disabitity an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a housing unit. A reasonable modification is a structural change made to the premises while a reasonable accommodation is a change, exception or adjustment to a rule, policy, practice or service. For example, installing a ramp for an individual who uses a wheelchair or grab bars in the bathroom are reasonable modificaftris. A reasonable accommodation would include making an exception to an existing'no pet' rule to permit a service dog- Have you ever been denied &: "Reasonable Modification' "Reasonable Accommodation^ (check all that apply) _ NIA a) If YES. what was your request? APPENDIX X: PUBLIC OUTREACH A -19 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 596 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE S. if you believe you have been discriminated against, have you reported the incident? _ YES —NO a) If NO -Why? _ Don't Know Where to Report _ Afreid of Retaliation Other _ Don't Be lieve it Makes Any _ Too Much Trouble Difference b) If YES, how did you report the incident? c) If you reported the complaint, what is the status? _Unresolved _ unresolved, Pending Resolution Other Resolved via Mediation _ In Litigation b. A hate crime is a criminal act or attempted criminal act against an individual or group of individuals because of their actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, gender, marital status, sexual orientation, age, family status, scurce of income or disability. 7 a- 9. Are you aware of a hate crime having been committed in your neighborhood? YES NO Don't Know response Will allow us to better serve the catnmunity. Your Individual a) If YES, in what city did the hate crime occurl Please return surveys to: b) What was the basis? (check all that apply) Mayra Navarro _ Race _ Color _ Religion National Origin _ Ancestry _ Gender Marital Status _ Sexual Orientation _ Age Family Status Source of Income _ Disability /Medical Conditions Other (please elaborate: I Have you ever attended a Fair Housing Training? _ YES —NO a) If YES, was it free or was there a fee? _ Free _ Required a Fee b) If YES, where was the training? Home _ Work City of Have you ever seen or heard a Fair Housing PSA on TV/Radio/Online? YES How did you hear about this survey? Lo= NO ------------------------ - - - - -- Optional ----------------------------------- Questions 10.15 are optional; however, your response Will allow us to better serve the catnmunity. Your Individual response will be confidential. Please return surveys to: 10. Ethnic Categories (select one) Mayra Navarro Hispanic or Latino _ Not - Hispanic or Latino 11. Racial Categories [select one or more] 107 S. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 212 American Indian or Black or Alaska Native Asian African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Other 12. Do you rent or own your home? Rent _Own 13. Age: 18 -24 25.34 35-44 45.54 55-64 65- 14. Do you have a disability? (circle one( Yes 1 No is. Do you have children under the age of 18 ears old in your home? lcircie one) Yes 1 No THANK YOL11 THIS SURVEY 15 ALSO AVAILABLE ONLINE AT Please return surveys to: http: / /www.surveymonkey.coffVvSanDreg Lfoglish Mayra Navarro Fsta enruesta esta tantblen dls m6ble on Espa,Sol mayra0vtaplanning.[om Pangase an cantacto con personal de is crudadpara obtener una 107 S. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 212 copis o ennrentre 6 encuesta en imernei on la srguiente &reccidn: Pasadena. CA 41105 htW,/ /es.survaymonkey.com/s/Sa DiegoAl_Spanish 2 APPENDIX X: PUBLIC OUTREACH A -20 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 597 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Outreach Flyer Your input is important to understanding the 9r community's needs and potential solutions for reducing housing discrimination. Attend a workshop near your community, from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.: NORTHERN REGION Tuesday, January 20, 2015 Escondido City Hall Mitchell Room 201 North Broadway Escondido, 92025 CENTRAL REGION Wednesday, January 21, 2075 Jacobs Center for Neighborhood Innovation Joe & Vi Jacobs Center - Community Room 404 Euclid Avenue San Diego, 92114 SOUTHERN REGION Tuesday, January 27, 2075 City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Civic Center - Public Services North - Building C Conf. Rooms B -111 and B -112 Chula Vista, 91910 EASTERN REGION Wednesday, January 28, 2015 City of El Cajon Police Department Community Room (#161) 100 Civic Center Way El Cajon, 92020 For more information, reasonable accommodation or translation service requests, please contact Andy Pendoley 72 hours before the workshop by phone (619- 677 -2003 ext. 322) or email (info @sdfairhousing.org). SDRAFFH Plea"IMmplete the brief online survey at: www.sdfairhousing.org Surveys are available in alternative formats and languages upon request. APPENDIX X: PUBLIC OUTREACH A -21 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 598 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Su participation es importante para comprender las necesidades de la comunidad y las posibles + soluciones para reducir la discrimination en materia de vivienda. Asista a un taller cerca de su comunidad, de b p.m. a 8 p.m.: REGION NORTE Martes, 20 de enero, 2015 Ayuntamiento de la Cuidad de Escondido Cuarto "Mitchell" 201 North Broadway Escondido, 92025 REGION CENTRAL Miercoles, 21 de enero, 2015 Jacobs Center for Neighborhood Innovation Joe & Vi Jacobs Center — Sala Comunitaria 404 Euclid Avenue San Diego, 92114 REGION SUR Martes, 27 de enero, 2015 Ciudad de Chula Vista 275 Fourth Avenue Centro Civico - "Public Services North" [Edificio Cj Cuartos de Conferencias B -111 y B -112 Chula Vista, 91910 REGION ESTE Miercoles, 28 de enero de 2015 Ciudad de El Cajon Departamento de Policia Sala Comunitaria ( #161) 100 Civic Center Way El Cajon, 92020 Para obtener mis informaci6n, solicitar acomodaciones especiales, o Para pedir servicios de traducci6n, pdngase en contacto con Andy Pendoley 72 horas antes del taller por telefono (619 -677 -2003 ext. 322) o por correo electr6nico (info @sdfairh ousing. org). APPENDIX X: PUBLIC OUTREACH A -22 SDRAFFH Por favor complete una breve encuesta por internet en: www.sdfairhousing.org La encuesta esij disponible on formatos alternarivos y of ros idiomas a petict6n. ._ 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 599 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Postings My agency ;A Map dale 52015 Goggle Terms of Use Repo VIEWING_ City of Carlsbad U INWe want to hear from you Ju Courtney Enriquez from City of Carlsbad The City of Carlsbad is part of the San Diego Regional Alliance for Fair Housing, which is conducting outreach to address housing descrimination issues, concerns and solutions. Your participation and input are important to fair housing in our community. Please complete the following survey, httpsJlwww suweymonkey.comislSDFairhfou... or in Spanish at https:/Ies.sLirveymankey.com/s/SDFairHous Thank you for participating in this regional discussion! Have a great weekend! Shared with City of Carlsbad in General REPLY low &S hI, /• w,clszntee,c. . P- C OT eLfty es— tome € APPENDIX X: PUBLIC OUTREACH A -23 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 600 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE City of El Cajon I Facebook i 1 •r Page I of 8 Cmaxor PhwK Pasrrord OD m ❑ h:Eep"logw m fagot Mf ya5,,,M? MPLE IWW[ a About Events Pharos More 506 WAS AROW Our M lswn tre A quality amnky &--o reSpt Sb10 m C�npC,7alKruplS krpMWnhenk and superb whtic servke.' Vaa W ohaf kajw.us- raw/wn codekaw -W City nF 43mes • l t:uted ted F* Hxtft Workshops io the fbunty - 10 El Caen, the nnrlcslwp IS on ]anoary X See the flyer bebw...also, take a tlrld "Falr HuusiW survey -dck on one of the fp60pkq Knks: Englt$h: �rlh' n'+ w• �M1' eY�N• COrhY7�I50Fa1rHDUSirxJ _F�91�Sn... Sce r+cre 4 SDRMPkk VIDEOS H 6 htEpsl/www.facebook.00ni/CityOfElCajon on APPENDIX X: PUBLIC OUTREACH A -24 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet -- I re Cn„ w.,h sl�re +,rte aty -r Et cajon zvmy 10 at 12:59pm ' 5WA ' If you are 50 yearx Of age or older and loakhag fora gear, rewarding wknleer OPPDFOJ^KY • P16M see this page: hKtP' flK+ o+ v. ekajonPdlce .orgJa6wt- uWdlvisarrslrsvP! RSVP I El Cajon Police Department The Er 0*0r, Pdlpp Peve"FLf's AsSted Somw VOWW r Patrol Progrerna conmitad to the rear*'Mt developww. end monoonof twor"d seftr vokmeans nho Prwi- Ureic ekilia it r work envlronr tWhkhv rip riopeji in 1/13/2015 Page 601 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Workshop Agenda .( - O /Vll SDRAFFH The San Diego Regional Alliance for Fair Housing Community Workshop: San Diego Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing A G E N D A ....................... ............................... Workshop Objectives: 1. Explain the purpose of and background for the Analysis 2. Review the definitions and requirements for fair housing 3. Learn about typical scenarios of fair housing impediments and solutions 4. Collect community input regarding ongoing public information, outreach, issues and opportunities 6:00 p.m. I. Welcome and Workshop Overview • Introductions • Purpose and Objectives 6 :10 p.m. II. What Is Fair Housing? • Definitions • Federal and State Laws • Local Resources 6:20 p.m. III. Did You Know? Testing Our Knowledge • Scenarios of Fair Housing Issues • Questions and Answers 7 :20 p.m. IV. Discussion: Fair Housing in Our Communities • Issues and Challenges • Opportunities and Ideas 7:50 p.m. V. Summary and Next Steps 8:00 P.M. Close 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet APPENDIX X: PUBLIC OUTREACH A -25 Page 602 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE SDRAFFH La Alianza Regional de Vivienda Justa de San Diego Talleres Comunitarios: An6lisis de Impedimentos para Opciones de Vivienda Justa en la Regi6n de San Diego . ....... ......................................................... ............................... . . . -- ... ......._............_ A G E N D A Objetivos del Taller: 1. Explicar el prop6sito y antecedentes para el Analisis 2. Revisar las definiciones y los requisitos de Vivienda Justa 3. Informaci6n sobre escenarios tipicos de los obstaculos a la Vivienda Justa y las soluciones 4. Pedir opiniones de la comunidad sobre informaci6n publica disponible, las actividades de divulgaci6n, problemas y oportunidades 6:00 p.m. I. Bienvenida y Descripci6n del Taller • Introducci6n • Prop6sito y objetivos 6 :10 p.m. II. ZQu6 es Vivienda Justa? • Definiciones • Leyes Estatales y Federales • Recursos Locales 6 :20 p.m. III. ZSabia usted? Prueba de Conocimiento • Escenarios Relacionados con la Vivienda Justa • Preguntas y Respuestas 7 :20 p.m. IV. Discusi6n: Vivienda Justa en Nuestras Comunidades • Problemas y Retos • Oportunidades a Ideas 7:50 p.m. V. Resumen y Pr6ximos Pasos 8: 00 P.M. Cierre APPENDIX X: PUBLIC OUTREACH A -26 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 603 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Workshop Handout: Fair Housing Resources —/V1 SDRAFFH The San Diego Regional Alliance for Fair Housing ........................................................................................................................ ............................... . FAIR HOUSING ASSISTANCE ----------- ------- ------- -------- - - - - -- ---- --- - - - --- ------------------------------------------ ------------- -------- - - - - - -- ------------------ - - - - - -- For more information and assistance with fair housing, please contact an organization in your community. Carlsbad Chula Vista Coronado Del Mar El Cajon Encinitas Escondido Imperial Beach La Mesa Lemon Grove National City Oceanside Poway San Diego City San Marcos Santee Solana Beach Vista Unincorporated County www.sdfairhousing.org 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet * APPENDIX X: PUBLIC OUTREACH A -27 Page 604 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE 1 /YON SDRAFFH La Alianza Regional de Vivienda ]usta de San Diego .......................................................................................................................... ............................... ASISTENCIA: IGUALIDAD EN LA VIVIENDA ......................................................................................................................... ............................... Para obtener mas informaci6n y asistencia corn las !eyes de igualdad en is vivienda, p6ngase en contacto con una organizaci6n cerca de su comunidad. Carlsbad Chula Vista Coronado Del Mar El Cajon Encinitas Escondido Imperial Beach La Mesa Lemon Grove National City Oceanside Poway San Diego City San Marcos Santee Solana Beach Vista Unincorporated County www.sdfairhousing.org APPENDIX X: PUBLIC OUTREACH A -28 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet * Page 605 Comment Cards SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE ; -f - �VA4 SDRAFFH The San Diego Regional Alliance for Fair Housing Community Workshop: San Diego Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing ...... .. ...................... .......... . ............................... ............ _...... _...... _.................... . COMMENT CARD Your comments are important to us! Please use this form to provide written comments about the discussion topics and any other items. Please return the form to the facilitators at the end of the event. Thank You! Please share any comments about the SDRAFFH or the purpose of this project. Over.. APPENDIX X: PUBLIC OUTREACH A -29 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 606 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Test your knowledge of fair housing! As the presenters review the scenarios, check whether you believe each scenario is ok, or not ok. Scenario OK Not OK 1- Source of Income 2. Animals 3. Disabled Tenant 4. Large Families 5. Children Please share your knowledge and ideas about fair housing in your community including issues and challenges, as well as opportunities and ideas for improvement. Issues and Challenges: OPTIONAL: Name: Opportunities and Ideas: Contact (phone, email): Please return this form to the workshop facilitators at the end of the event. APPENDIX X: PUBLIC OUTREACH A -30 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 607 N O u~, SAN DIEGO REGIONAL uo, ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE N OC b Fair Housing Test x co Ana" lisis de Impedimentos a la Vivienda Justa en la Region de San Diego Taller Comunitario -.4 10 SDRAFFH La Alianza Regional de Vivienda Justa de San Diego va APPENDIX X: PUBLIC OUTREACH CD o A -31 co o N O N N O N N yN M fD 7 a w ro w x co b aro �o a, 0 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Clases protegidas a nivel federal y estatal • Raza • Estado civil Color • Ascendencia • Religion • Edad • Sexo • Fuente de ingresos • Origen nacional • Identidad de genero • Condition familiar • Expresi6n de ganero • Discapacidad mental • Informaci6n genetica ylo fisica • Factores arbitrarios • Orientaci6n sexual l--4014 SDRAFFH n Ua aka �]�n;l .�n;l�s �f I• -�:.p� a 4a.• H� APPENDIX X: PUBLIC OUTREACH A -32 atras leyes de California • Estado migratorio • Libre de violencia yle intimidation (delito motivado por discrimination) A, SDRAFFH _ =.jo +ew a Ana:;- of i m�-dimems to F— Houarg N O f+ uF 0 crF N OQ CY 0. ro w x co C :3I Un propietario nega rentarle a usted un apartamento porque su primaria fuente de ingresos es la aseguranza del desempleo. ZEsto es aceptable? ❑ SI es aceptable 0 NO es aceptable 9DRgFli{ son Casa #2 Un posible inquilino trae a su animal de servicio a una comunidad de apartamentos. El propietario niega permitir que el animal entre a la oficina del alquiler. LEsto es aceptable? ❑ SI es aceptable 0 NO es aceptable SGROMN $in DMQO Wg10 o1 An�s a W00<1,"MS IG Fri, MWF+ -: SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Sabia usted? Es ilegal discriminar contra la " fuente de ingresos" de un individual — cual puede incluir, pero no se limita a, Seguro Social, Seguridad de Ingress Suplementario (SSI), aseguranza del desempleo o beneficios de veteranos. SDRAFFH $, n O+egD Rgipnl Aryys6 Df IrryKdinynry rp Fyr Xwyng Sabia usted? E derecho de ser acompanada por un perro on un Iugar publica bajo la Ley sobre Estado u nide nses con Discapacidades (ADA) apliCa solo a Ios animals de servicio. jB=que tal animales de terapia (Ios quo proveen terapia psicoldgica * fisioI6gi�:a Fmra per snnasdistintas de sus cuidadores)? 0 anlma{es de apoyo emotional (Ios que proveen sus duenos eon apoyo emotional)? A estos animales se les di rig* en leyes de vivenda justa, per* no on el ADA. SDRAFFH $=n O:,gD R�gep�al Anaysa Df Irrylinyrnsw FrrXwyng IV APPENDIX X: PUBLIC OUTREACH a A -33 0 N O N N O N N yN M fD 7 a w ro w x co b aro �o SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Caso #3 Un inquilino discapacitado requlere que bajen la altura de los mostradores en su cocina y en su bano. E1 propietario esta de acuerdo, pero le pide a la inquilina que ella misma pague por los cambios. �Esto es aceptable? 0 SI es aceptable ❑ NO es aceptable l SORAPFH San Diego Regional Analyses of Impedimenes is Fan MCUSi R_: Caso #4 Un propietario no quiere alquilar una unidad de segundo piso a una familia con ninos pequenos porque teme que los ninos se puedan caer y lastimarse. ZEsto es aceptable? ❑ SI es aceptable 0 NO es aceptable D SINIAFFH San Diegn Regional Analyses of Impefbmerus ea Fan Mousing APPENDIX X: PUBLIC OUTREACH A -34 Sabia usted? Inquilinos discapacitados son financieramente responsables por cambios necesarios en su unidad de vivienda. Pero, si la unidad es parte de un proyecto de vivienda subvencionado por el gobierno o recibe fondos del gobierno, el propietario seria financieramente responsable. SDRAFFFI San Sabia usted? Esto se llama "conduccibn" (steering) y es ilegal. Un propietario no puede poner restricciones a ciertos inquilinos para unidades especificas o porciones de la comunidad. SDRRFFH San Diego Regional AMk%6 of lnV edim %w Fair HM509 N O f+ ur 0 crr N OQ CY 0. ro w x co Caso #5 Una pareja ha estado pagando $1,000 al mes en renta por un apartamento de una recamara. La pareja recien a tenido un bebe, y cuando se da cuenta el propietario ella les sube la renta a $1,250. GEsto es aceptable? ❑ SI es aceptable 0 NO es aceptable SDRAFFN San Diagn Regioral Anay —d Inpedi —ws to Fair Rousing Caso #6 Un propietano niega alguilar a inquilinos afroamericanos. ZEsto es aceptable? ❑ SI es aceptable 0 No es aceptable SDRAFFH San Diego Regional Anay —d Impediments to Fair Housing SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Sabia usted? Variando la renta de una unidad dependiendo del numero de inquilinos — a veces se le refiere como "head rent" — discrimina contra familias grandes. Pero. que tal si la adicion de una tercera person es un amigo sin relation familiar? Que tal si es nuestra pareja? Que tai si es nuestra pareja del misma sexo? Jn numero de factures pueden influir si el aumento a la renta viola Ias leyes de vivienda justa. Si esto le ha pasado, pbngase en contacto con un profesionaI de vivenda justa para que le aconsejen. SDRAFFH San Diego Regional AnalJseaf lnpadiments[a Far Houvrrg Sabia usted? Es ilegal discriminar contra personas sobre la base de su raza. SDRAFFH San Diego Regional Analysis oflmpedimenato Fair Housing It APPENDIX X: PUBLIC OUTREACH o A -35 N N O N N O N N yN �Q fD 7 a w ro w x co b aro �o w SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Caso #7 Un propietario requiere un cobra de aplicacian de $25 por persona por dos personas, o $25 por pareja casada. �Esto es aceptable? ❑ SI es aceptable 0 NO es aceptable m SDRAFFH Sin Dno Rig� l An "q d hrpe*t rAslo Fyir Hp HV Caso #8 Ur edificio de apartamentos se encuentra en un barrio predominantemente hispano. Para anunciar una unidad vacante, ei propietario solo publica anundos en un periddico espanol. JEsto es aceptable? ❑ Si es aceptable 0 NO es aceptable 01 SDRAFFH Sin Dno Rags 4 An "p d Inpv*i Ns to Fyir Hp HV APPENDIX X: PUBLIC OUTREACH A -3G Sabia usted? Es ilegal discriminar contra el estado civil de inquilinos. S,RAFFH San D*go Rogip al Ani 5y Of l mppdi"MS to Fwr Hwy ng 5abia usted? Si publicidad se realiza solo en un lenguaje, el lenguaje debe de ser ingl6s. SDRAFFH Sa n Dago Rpgiony Ani qm of l nippdinvMs to For Hwyng N O f+ ur 0 crr N DQ CY 0. ro sv x co Caso #9 Su proprietario constantemente hace comentarios sabre su aparencia. Recientemente, ha comenzado a aparecer en su apartamento sin invitaci6n —con el pretexto de hater reparaciones — y se queda hasta tarde en la noche. Su comportamiento la hace sentir inc6moda. zEsto es aceptable? ❑ SI es aceptable © NO es aceptable SDRAFFH San Diego Reg�onel Anelrwsd Inpadmanls to Fair Flousirrg Caso #10 La mayoria de residentes de un edificio de apartamentos son hispanos y muchos solo hablan espanol. El propietario s6lo habla ingles y proporciona todos avisos escritos en ingles. Esto es aceptable? ❑ SI es aceptable 0 NO es aceptable SDRAFFH San Diege Regonal Analysis of Irrpadim nls to Fair Hous— SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Sabia usted? Esto es un tipo de disciminaci6n de genero y es ilegal. Su propietario no tiene el derecho ha crear un ambiente hostil en su propio hogar. SDRAFFH San Diego Regional AnalJseaf lnpadirrentsm Far Houvng Sabia usted? Esto es considerado discrimination por origen national y es ilegal. SDRAFFH San Diego Regional Anaysis of l nVedim t Fair Ha Sirng IV APPENDIX X: PUBLIC OUTREACH ro o A -37 N DETAILED HMDA DATA Lending Summary by Jurisdiction Table B -1: Disposition of Home Loans APPENDIX B: DETAILED HMDA DATA B -1 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 615 Total Applicants Percent Approved Percent Denied Percent Other' Jurisdiction 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 Carlsbad Government 275 585 66.2% 75.0% 15.6% 13.0% 18.2% 12.0% Backed Purchase Conventional 3,003 3,384 71.3% 77.2% 15.5% 10.4% 13.2% 12.4% Purchase Refinance 4,702 8,766 1 59.9% 70.5% 23.3% 15.3% 16.8% 14.2% Home 286 295 51.0% 62.4% 30.1% 27.1% 18.9% 10.5% Improvement Total 8,266 13,030 63.9% 72.3% 20.5% 14.2% 15.6% 13.5% Chula Vista Government 2,246 2,304 66.7% 76.7% 14.9% 11.3% 18.4% 12.0% Backed Purchase Conventional 4,478 2,239 61.1% 74.2% 22.2% 13.8% 16.7% 11.9% Purchase Refinance 5,247 11,141 1 43.3% 66.4% 36.7% 18.1% 20.0% 15.6% Home 580 481 37.1% 52.0% 46.6% 35.6% 16.4% 12.5% Improvement Total 12,551 16,165 53.5% 68.5% 28.1% 17.0% 18.4% 14.5% Coronado Government 9 45 77.8% 73.3% 0.0% 2.2% 22.2% 24.4% Backed Purchase Conventional 256 260 67.6% 71.5% 14.5% 12.3% 18.0% 16.2% Purchase Refinance 566 852 1 59.5% 69.8% 21.4% 19.5% 19.1% 10.7% Home 62 31 56.5% 67.7% 29.0% 22.6% 14.5% 9.7% Improvement Total 893 1,188 61.8% 70.3% 19.7% 17.3% 18.5% 12.4% Del Mar Government 3 11 33.3% 63.6% 33.3% 18.2% 33.3% 18.2% Backed Purchase Conventional 124 219 67.7% 72.6% 12.9% 12.3% 19.4% 15.1% Purchase Refinance 284 784 68.3% 69.5% 22.5% 16.3% 9.2% 14.2% APPENDIX B: DETAILED HMDA DATA B -1 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 615 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table B -1: Disposition of Home Loans APPENDIX B: DETAILED HMDA DATA B -2 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 616 Total Applicants Percent Approved Percent Denied Percent Other' Jurisdiction 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 Home 34 15 52.9% 66.7% 26.5% 26.7% 20.6% 6.7% Improvement Total 445 1,029 66.7% 70.1% 20.2% 15.6% 13.0% 14.3% El Cajon Government 541 549 72.5% 74.0% 13.3% 11.8% 14.2% 14.2% Backed Purchase Conventional 427 986 64.7% 7% 0 74.3 /0 0 21.9 /0 0 14.3 /0 0 13.5 /0 0 11.4 /, Purchase Refinance 2,181 4,128 50.0% 70.0% 33.7% 16.1% 16.4% 13.9% Home 270 203 40.0% 52.2% 44.1% 36.0% 15.9% 11.8% Improvement Total 4,419 5,866 56.9% 70.5% 28.0% 16.1% 15.1% 13.4% Encinitas Government 61 160 67.2% 74.4% 14.8% 11.9% 18.0% 13.8% Backed Purchase Conventional 1,204 1,498 70.3% 77.6% 15.2% 9.6% 14.5% 12.8% Purchase Refinance 2,522 5,151 62.1% 71.5% 22.0% 14.8% 16.0% 13.7% Home 190 185 46.3% 65.4% 30.0% 21.6% 23.7% 13.0% Improvement Total 3,977 6,994 63.9% 72.7% 20.2% 13.8% 15.9% 13.5% Escondido Government 932 847 71.1% 77.9% 13.8% 11.1% 15.0% 11.0% Backed Purchase Conventional 2,343 1,578 65.0% 77.2% 20.3% 12.0% 14.7% 10.8% Purchase Refinance 3,142 6,314 1 52.0% 67.3% 31.3% 17.5% 16.7% 15.2% Home 323 290 33.1% 61.0% 46.1% 28.6% 20.7% 10.3% Improvement Total 6,740 9,029 58.3% 69.8% 25.8% 16.3% 16.0% 13.9% Imperial Beach Government 92 113 63.0% 71.7% 14.1% 14.2% 22.8% 14.2% Backed Purchase Conventional 352 244 60.5% 73.8% 26.4% 13.5% 13.1% 12.7% Purchase Refinance 443 869 1 46.7% 64.7% 36.3% 20.7% 16.9% 14.6% Home 54 44 37.0% 63.6% 48.1% 31.8% 14.8% 4.5% Improvement Total 941 1,270 52.9% 67.0% 31.1% 19.1% 15.9% 13.9% La Mesa Government 219 331 68.9% 77.6% 11.9% 7.3% Backed Purchase APPENDIX B: DETAILED HMDA DATA B -2 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 616 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table B -1: Disposition of Home Loans APPENDIX B: DETAILED HMDA DATA B -3 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 617 Total Applicants Percent Approved Percent Denied Wilercen t Other' Jurisdiction 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 JjkWj0L 2013 Conventional 691 766 64.7% 79.5% 18.2% 7.6% 17.1% 12.9% Purchase Refinance 1,310 2,966 53.8% 71.9% 29.8% 14.9% 16.4% 13.1% Home 149 153 48.3% 60.8% 37.6% 29.4% 14.1% 9.8% Improvement Total 2,369 4,216 58.0% 73.4% 25.2% 13.5% 16.7% Lemon Grove Government 333 324 70.3% 79.0% 14.1% 10.2% 15.6% 10.8% Backed Purchase Conventional 555 365 63.4% 75.3% 20.7% 11.8% 15.9% 12.9% Purchase Refinance 1,034 1,933 1 40.0% 66.0°/, 1 41.8% 17.4% 18.2% 16.6% Home 151 83 37.1% 50.6% 53.0% 39.8% 9.9% 9.6% Improvement Total 2,073 2,705 50.9% 68.4% 32.5% 16.5% 16.5% 15.2% National City Government 314 287 62.4% 70.4% 16.6% 13.2% 21.0% 16.4% Backed Purchase Conventional 587 270 57.6% 68.1% 25.6% 17.0% 16.9% 14.8% Purchase Refinance 1,000 1,597 1 41.1% 61.7% 1 41.2% 21.2% 17.7% 17.1% Home 159 86 39.0% 50.0% 45.9% 36.0% 15.1% 14.0% Improvement Total 2,060 2,240 48.9% 63.2% 33.3% 20.2% 17.8% 16.6% Oceanside Government 1,095 1,124 68.0% 75.4% 14.8% 13.1% 17.2% 11.5% Backed Purchase Conventional 3,139 2,157 66.7% 76.3% 18.3% 11.8% 15.0% 11.9% Purchase Refinance 4,560 8,364 1 50.5% 68.3% 1 31.3% 16.6% 18.2% 15.1% Home 427 373 44.0% 58.2% 41.9% 30.0% 14.1% 11.8% Improvement Total 9,221 12,018 57.8% 70.1% 25.4% 15.8% 16.8% 14.1% Poway Government 132 222 72.7% 79.7% 15.9% 10.8% 11.4% 9.5% Backed Purchase Conventional 773 1,141 73.9% 81.3% 13.6% 8.6% 12.5% 10.1% Purchase Refinance 2,003 4,286 1 60.2% 72.2% 1 25.1% 14.9% 14.7% 12.9% Home 186 170 48.9% 63.5% 37.6% 25.3% 13.4% 11.2% Improvement Total 3,094 5,819 63.4% 74.0% 22.6% 13.8% 14.0% 12.2% APPENDIX B: DETAILED HMDA DATA B -3 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 617 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table B -1: Disposition of Home Loans APPENDIX B: DETAILED HMDA DATA B -4 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 618 Total Applicants Percent Approved Percent Denied Percent Other' Jurisdiction 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 San Diego Government 4,018 5,196 68.1% 69.6% 15.6% 12.5% 16.3% 17.9% Backed Purchase Conventional 18,861 16,921 66.7% 76.7% 17.6% 10.3% 15.7% 13.0% Purchase Refinance 28,523 59,087 54.1% 69.4% 28.6% 16.3% 17.3% 14.3% Home 2,837 2,240 44.0% 61.4% 39.7% 27.7% 16.3% 10.8% Improvement Total 54,239 83,444 59.0% 70.7% 24.4% 15.2% 16.6% 14.2% San Marcos Government 405 655 72.8% 76.3% 13.3% 13.6% 13.8% 10.1% Backed Purchase Conventional 2,202 2,117 67.5% 76.2% 18.9% 12.6% 13.6% 11.2% Purchase Refinance 3,157 5,662 1 54.0% 69.3% 28.5% 15.7% 17.4% 14.9% Home 220 228 42.7% 54.8% 41.8% 33.8% 15.5% 11.4% Improvement Total 5,984 8,662 59.9% 71.2% 24.4% 15.3% 15.7% 13.6% Santee Government 500 514 71.6% 78.8% 13.4% 9.9% 15.0% 11.3% Backed Purchase Conventional 1,018 615 68.2% 78.5% 17.1% 10.1% 14.7% 11.4% Purchase Refinance 1,644 3,213 1 50.2% 72.4% 32.5% 14.2% 17.3% 13.4% Home 174 179 49.4% 57.5% 38.5% 30.2% 12.1% 12.3% Improvement Total 3,336 4,521 58.8% 73.4% 25.2% 13.8% 15.9% 12.8% Solana Beach Government 8 19 75.0% 73.7% 12.5% 5.3% 12.5% 21.1% Backed Purchase Conventional 210 351 70.0% 73.2% 14.8% 11.7% 15.2% 15.1% Purchase Refinance 447 955 1 61.7% 70.6% 25.1% 15.5% 13.2% 13.9% Home 56 33 41.1% 66.7% 30.4% 21.2% 28.6% 12.1% Improvement Total 721 1,358 62.7% 71.2% 22.3% 14.5% 15.0% 14.3% Vista Government 571 665 67.1% 73.4% 16.5% 11.9% 16.5% 14.7% Backed Purchase Conventional 1,747 1,437 66.3% 74.8% 18.4% 12.4% 15.3% 12.8% Purchase Refinance 2,934 4,991 51.0% 67.2% 32.0% 17.5% 17.1% 15.3% APPENDIX B: DETAILED HMDA DATA B -4 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 618 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table B -1: Disposition of Home Loans Source: www.lendingpattems.com, 2014 Note: 1. "Other ": Withdrawn /Incomplete APPENDIX B: DETAILED HMDA DATA B -5 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 619 Total Applicants Percent Approved Percent Denied ercent Other' Jurisdiction 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 Home 295 224 42.0% 49.1% 40.7% 37.9% 17.3% 12.9% Improvement Total 5,547 7,317 57.0% 68.7% 26.6% 16.6% 16.5% 14.7% Unincorporated County Government 1,126 1,790 71.0% 74.6% 13.3% 11.8% 15.7% 13.6% Backed Purchase Conventional Purchase 2,869 2,464 63.3% 73.3% 20.7% 13.1% 16.0% 13.5% Refinance 5,984 10,367 48.3% 67.1% 34.8% 17.3% 16.9% 15.7% Home 600 519 41.7% 57.0% 40.2% 31.8% 18.2% 11.2% Improvement Total 10,579 15,140 54.4% 68.6% 29.0% 16.5% 16.6% 14.9% San Diego County Government Backed Purchase 11,236 13,122 68.6% 73.2% 14.7% 12.1% 16.7% 14.7% Conventional Purchase 39,468 32,571 65.9% 76.3% 18.7% 11.0% 15.4% 12.6% Refinance 60,844 119,225 52.3% 69.0% 30.4% 16.5% 17.3% 14.5% Home 6,015 4,968 42.4% 59.1% 41.0% 29.8% 16.6% 11.2% Improvement Total 117,563 169,886 57.9% 70.4% 25.5% 15.5% 16.6% Source: www.lendingpattems.com, 2014 Note: 1. "Other ": Withdrawn /Incomplete APPENDIX B: DETAILED HMDA DATA B -5 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 619 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Lending Patterns by Race /Ethnicity and Income Level Loan AppEcantRepresentatton Table B -2: Demographics of Loan Applicants vs. Total Population Jurisdiction Total Applicants Percent of Applicant Pool Percent of Total Population Variation Carlsbad White 10,496 67.9% 74.9% -7.0% Black 102 0.7% 1.2% -0.5 %, Hispanic 580 3.8% 13.3% -9.5 %, Asian 1,066 6.9% 7.0% -0.1% Chula Vista White 6,197 31.7% 20.4% 11.3% Black 639 3.3% 4.1% -0.8 %, Hispanic 6,152 31.5% 58.2% - 26.7% Asian 2,301 11.8% 13.8% -2.0 %, Coronado White 957 72.8% 79.4% -6.6% Black 7 0.5% 2.0% -1.5 %, Hispanic 53 4.0% 12.2% -8.2 %, Asian 26 2.0% 2.9% -0.9 %, Del Mar White 753 64.6% 90.7% - 26.1% Black 5 0.4% 0.2% 0.2% Hispanic 32 2.7% 4.2% -1.5 %, Asian 74 6.4% 2.8% 3.6 %, El Cajon White 4,467 64.2% 56.8% 7.4 %, Black 87 1.3% 6.0% -4.7 %, Hispanic 665 9.6% 28.2% - 18.6% Asian 179 2.6% 3.4% -0.8% Encinitas White 5,833 71.7% 78.8% -7.1% Black 21 0.3% 0.5% -0.2% Hispanic 241 3.0% 13.7% -10.7% Asian 315 3.9% 3.8% 0.1% Escondido White 6,140 56.8% 40.4% 16.4% Black 149 1.4% 2.1% -0.7 %, Hispanic 1,414 13.1% 48.9% - 35.8% Asian 765 7.1% 5.9% 1.2 %, APPENDIX B: DETAILED HMDA DATA B -6 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 620 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table B -2: Demographics of Loan Applicants vs. Total Population Jurisdiction Total Applicants Percent of Applicant Pool Percent of Total Population Variation Imperial Beach White 833 57.1% 36.0% 21.1% Black 8 0.5% 4.0% -3.5% Hispanic 236 16.2% 49.0% -32.8% Asian 39 2.7% 6.2% -3.5% La Mesa White 31306 65.7% 61.9% 3.8% Black 72 1.4% 7.2% -5.8% Hispanic 376 7.5% 20.5% -13.0% Asian 187 3.7% 5.5% -1.8% Lemon Grove White 11364 42.0% 34.7% 7.3% Black 231 7.1% 12.9% -5.8% Hispanic 628 19.3% 41.2% -21.9% Asian 305 9.4% 6.1% 3.3% National City White 653 24.8% 11.7% 13.1% Black 89 3.4% 4.5% -1.1% Hispanic 11045 39.6% 63.0% -23.4% Asian 296 11.2% 17.8% -6.6% Oceanside White 81303 58.2% 48.4% 9.8% Black 324 2.3% 4.2% -1.9% Hispanic 11688 11.8% 35.9% -24.1% Asian 871 6.1% 6.4% -0.3% Poway White 3,954 57.2% 69.1% -11.9% Black 49 0.7% 1.5% -0.8% Hispanic 301 4.4% 15.7% -11.3% Asian 11020 14.8% 9.9% 4.9% San Diego White 50,574 51.6% 45.1% 6.5% Black 21164 2.2% 6.3% -4.1% Hispanic 10,108 10.3% 28.8% -18.5% Asian 13,051 13.3% 15.6% -2.3% Santee White 31704 68.3% 73.6% -5.3% Black 46 0.8% 1.8% -1.0% Hispanic 379 7.0% 16.3% -9.3% APPENDIX B: DETAILED HMDA DATA B -7 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 621 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table B -2: Demographics of Loan Applicants vs. Total Population Jurisdiction Total Applicants Percent of Applicant Pool Percent of Total Population Variation Asian 159 2.9% 3.7% -0.8% Solana Beach White 1,140 73.4% 77.3% -3.9% Black 9 0.6% 0.4% 0.2% Hispanic 24 1.5% 15.9% - 14.4% Asian 61 3.9% 3.9% 0.0% Vista White 5,153 59.1% 40.8% 18.3% Black 135 1.5% 2.9% -1.4 %, Hispanic 1,143 13.1% 48.4% - 35.3% Asian 481 5.5% 4.1% 1.4% Unincorporated County White 11,517 64.0% 61.4% 2.6% Black 447 2.5% 3.9% -1.4% Hispanic 1,847 10.3% 25.5% - 15.2% Asian 430 2.4% 4.6% -2.2 %, San Diego County White 110,616 55.1% 48.5% 6.6% Black 3,856 1.9% 4.7% -2.8 %, Hispanic 23,156 11.5% 32.0% - 20.5% Asian 19,109 9.5% 10.6% -1.1% Note: 1. Percent of total population estimates are based on 2013 applicant data and compared to total population estimates from the 2010 Census. 2. Percent of applicant pool does not take into account applicants indicated as "MultiRace" or whose race was" Unk /NA ". Therefore, total percentage of applicant pool does not add up to 100°/x. Source: www.lendingpatterns.com, 2014 APPENDIX B: DETAILED HMDA DATA B -8 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 622 Income Level SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table B -3: Lending Patterns by Race /Ethnicity Jurisdiction Approved Denied Withdrawn/ Incomplete Carlsbad White Low (0 -49% AMI) 48.3% 36.1% 15.5% Moderate (50 -79% AMI) 65.8% 24.9% 9.2 %, Middle (80 -119% AMI) 71.7% 14.4% 13.9% Upper ( >_120% AMI) 76.2% 11.7% 12.1% Black Low (0 -49% AMI) 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Moderate (50 -79% AMI) -- -- -- Middle (80 -119% AMI) 53.8% 38.5% 7.7% Upper ( >_120% AMI) 77.4% 12.9% 9.7% Hispanic Low (0 -49% AMI) -- -- -- Moderate (50 -79% AMI) 60.0% 20.0% 20.0% Middle (80 -119% AMI) 64.2% 19.8% 16.0% Upper ( >_120% AMI) 71.7% 16.2% 12.1% Asian Low (0 -49% AMI) 52.6% 42.1% 5.3 %, Moderate (50 -79% AMI) 63.6% 30.3% 6.1 %, Middle (80 -119% AMI) 74.6% 19.3% 6.1 %, Upper ( >_120% AMI) 72.8% 11.2% 15.9% Chula Vista White Low (0 -49% AMI) 69.2% 17.9% 12.8% Moderate (50 -79% AMI) 72.0% 14.0% 14.0% Middle (80 -119% AMI) 73.3% 14.5% 12.1% Upper ( >_120% AMI) 75.3% 12.4% 12.4% Black Low (0 -49% AMI) 80.0% 20.0% 0.0% Moderate (50 -79% AMI) 71.4% 11.9% 16.7% Middle (80 -119% AMI) 67.8% 14.7% 17.5% Upper ( >_120% AMI) 69.0% 16.1% 14.9% Hispanic Low (0 -49% AMI) 59.7% 27.8% 12.5% Moderate (50 -79% AMI) 65.0% 20.2% 14.8% Middle (80 -119% AMI) 67.5% 18.1% 14.4% Upper ( >_120% AMI) 67.4% 18.0% 14.6% APPENDIX B: DETAILED HMDA DATA B -9 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 623 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table B -3: Lending Patterns by Race /Ethnicity Jurisdiction Approved Denied Withdrawn/ Incomplete Asian Low (0 -49% AMI) 44.8% 43.1% 12.1% Moderate (50 -79% AMA 57.8% 26.1% 16.1% Middle (80 -119% AMI) 70.4% 16.6% 13.00 Upper ( >_120% AMI) 68.8% 17.8% 13.40 Coronado White Low (0 -49% AMA -- -- -- Moderate (50 -79% AMM -- -- -- Middle (80 -119% AMI) 68.1% 18.8% 13.0% Upper ( >_120% AMI) 72.4% 15.4% 12.3% Black Low (0 -49% AMI) -- -- -- Moderate (50 -79% AMA Middle (80 -119% AMI) -- -- -- Upper ( >_120% AMI) 33.3% 66.7% 0.0% Hispanic Low (0 -49% AMI) 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Moderate (50 -79% AMM -- -- -- Middle (80 -119% AMI) 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% Upper ( >_120% AMI) 56.5% 39.1% 4.3% Asian Low (0 -49% AMI) -- -- -- Moderate (50 -79% AMM -- -- -- Middle (80 -119% AMI) 50.0% 50.0% 0.0% Upper ( >_120% AMI) 66.7% 16.7% 16.7% Del Mar White Low (0 -49% AMI) 33.3% 55.6% 11.1% Moderate (50 -79% AMI) 53.3% 26.7% 20.0% Middle (80 -119% AMI) 70.8% 13.8% 15.4% Upper ( >_120% AMI) 71.7% 15.1% 13.2% Black Low (0 -49% AMA -- Moderate (50 -79% AMA -- -- Middle (80 -119% AMI) -- -- -- Upper ( >_120% AMI) 75.0% 25.0% 0.0% Hispanic Low (0 -49% AMA -- -- APPENDIX B: DETAILED HMDA DATA B -10 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 624 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table B -3: Lending Patterns by Race /Ethnicity Jurisdiction Approved Denied Withdrawn/ Incomplete Moderate (50 -79% AMI) 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Middle (80 -119% AMI) 50.0% 0.0% 50.0% Upper ( >_120% AMI) 48.0% 32.0% 20.0% Asian Low (0 -49% AMI) -- -- -- Moderate (50 -79% AMT) -- -- -- Middle (80 -119% AMI) 80.0% 0.0% 20.0% Upper ( >_120% AMI) 74.6% 10.2% 15.3% El Cajon White Low (0 -49% AMI) 61.2% 27.1% 11.6% Moderate (50 -79 % AMI) 67.1% 22.0% 10.8% Middle (80 -119% AMI) 73.2% 14.7% 12.1% Upper ( >_120% AMI) 76.5% 12.3% 11.2% Black Low (0 -49% AMI) 50.0% 50.0% 0.0 %, Moderate (50 -79% AMI) 55.6% 11.1% 33.3% Middle (80 -119% AMI) 73.3% 0.0% 26.7% Upper ( >_120% AMI) 75.9% 13.8% 10.3% Hispanic Low (0 -49% AMI) 61.5% 25.6% 12.8% Moderate (50 -79% AMI) 61.4% 27.7% 10.9% Middle (80 -119% AMI) 66.0% 16.7% 17.3% Upper ( >_120% AMI) 66.7% 17.9% 15.5% Asian Low (0 -49% AMI) 61.1% 27.8% 11.1% Moderate (50 -79% AMI) 59.3% 25.9% 14.8% Middle (80 -119% AMI) 73.3% 10.0% 16.7% Upper ( >_120% AMI) 71.6% 17.9% 10.4% Encinitas White Low (0 -49% AMI) 46.1% 40.9% 13.0% Moderate (50 -79% AMI) 63.3% 25.3% 11.4% Middle (80 -119% AMI) 73.6% 15.5% 10.9% Upper ( >_120% AMI) 76.6% 10.9% 12.5% Black Low (0 -49% AMI) -- -- -- Moderate (50 -79% AMI) 50.0% 50.0% 0.0% Middle (80 -119% AMI) -- -- -- APPENDIX B: DETAILED HMDA DATA B -11 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 625 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table B -3: Lending Patterns by Race /Ethnicity Jurisdiction Approved Denied Withdrawn/ Incomplete Upper ( >_120% AMI) 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% Hispanic Low (0 -49% AMI) 23.1% 61.5% 15.4% Moderate (50 -79% AN/fl) 40.0% 60.0% 0.0% Middle (80 -119% AMI) 55.9% 23.5% 20.6% Upper ( >_120% AMI) 69.6% 16.7% 13.8% Asian Low (0 -49% AMI) 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% Moderate (50 -79% AMI) 60.0% 30.0% 10.0% Middle (80 -119% AMI) 73.3% 20.0% 6.7% Upper ( >_120% AMI) 77.6% 9.1% 13.4% Escondido White Low (0 -49% AMI) 59.5% 32.0% 8.6% Moderate (50 -79% AMI) 66.8% 18.8% 14.4% Middle (80 -119% AMI) 74.1% 13.4% 12.5% Upper ( >_120% AMI) 76.1% 11.3% 12.6% Black Low (0 -49% AMI) 40.0% 60.0% 0.0% Moderate (50 -79% AMI) 72.7% 27.3% 0.0% Middle (80 -119% AMI) 72.0% 20.0% 8.0% Upper ( >_120% AMI) 63.9% 23.0% 13.1% Hispanic Low (0 -49% AMI) 51.9% 41.2% 6.9% Moderate (50 -79% AMI) 65.9% 21.8% 12.3% Middle (80 -119% AMI) 66.5% 20.5% 13.0% Upper ( >_120% AMI) 74.1% 12.2% 13.8% Asian Low (0 -49% AMI) 55.8% 30.2% 14.0% Moderate (50 -79% AMI) 67.9% 19.0% 13.1% Middle (80 -119% AMI) 74.2% 15.7% 10.1% Upper ( >_120% AMI) 72.0% 0.0% 28.0% Imperial Beach White Low (0 -49% AMI) 52.0% 34.0°/, 14.0% Moderate (50 -79% AMI) 68.8% 22.1% 9.1% Middle (80 -119% AMI) 69.2% 17.8% 13.0% Upper ( >_120% AMI) 71.1% 16.6% 12.3% APPENDIX B: DETAILED HMDA DATA B -12 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 626 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table B -3: Lending Patterns by Race /Ethnicity Jurisdiction Approved Denied Withdrawn/ Incomplete Black Low (0 -49% AMI) -- -- -- Moderate (50 -79% AMA -- -- -- Middle (80 -119% AMI) 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% Upper ( >_120% AMI) 50.0% 50.0% 0.0% Hispanic Low (0 -49% AMI) 73.7% 10.5% 15.8% Moderate (50 -79% AMI) 58.6% 27.6% 13.8% Middle (80 -119% AMI) 47.5% 36.1% 16.4% Upper ( >_120% AMI) 63.5% 25.4% 11.1% Asian Low (0 -49% AMI) 80.0% 0.0% 20.0% Moderate (50 -79% AMI) 66.7% 33.3% 0.0 %, Middle (80 -119% AMI) 83.3% 0.0% 16.7% Upper ( >_120% AMI) 70.0% 20.0% 10.0% La Mesa White Low (0 -49% AMI) 56.7% 30.5% 12.8% Moderate (50 -79% AMI) 75.9% 15.2% 8.9% Middle (80 -119% AMI) 77.0% 12.2% 10.8% Upper ( >_120% AMI) 78.2% 9.2% 12.5% Black Low (0 -49% AMI) 100.0% 0.0% 0.0 %, Moderate (50 -79% AMI) 100.0% 0.0% 0.0 %, Middle (80 -119% AMI) 66.7% 16.7% 16.7% Upper ( >_120% AMI) 69.2% 15.4% 15.4% Hispanic Low (0 -49% AMI) 64.7% 29.4% 5.9 %, Moderate (50 -79% AMI) 65.0% 22.5% 12.5% Middle (80 -119% AMI) 76.3% 11.9% 11.9% Upper ( >_120% AMI) 65.3% 14.7% 20.0% Asian Low (0 -49% AMI) 81.8% 18.2% 0.0% Moderate (50-79% AMI) 73.1% 26.9% 0.0 %, Middle (80 -119% AMI) 76.3% 10.5% 13.2% Upper ( >_120% AMI) 72.4% 10.3% 17.2% Lemon Grove White Low (0 -49% AMI) 67.2% 14.80/o 18.0% APPENDIX B: DETAILED HMDA DATA B -13 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 627 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table B -3: Lending Patterns by Race /Ethnicity Jurisdiction Approved Denied Withdrawn/ Incomplete Moderate (50 -79% AMI) 58.8% 23.5% 17.6% Middle (80 -119% AMI) 71.8% 10.7% 17.4% Upper ( >_120% AMI) 76.3% 9.1% 14.6% Black Low (0 -49% AMI) 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% Moderate (50 -79% AMT) 53.8% 38.5% 7.7% Middle (80 -119% AMI) 65.4% 23.1% 11.5% Upper ( >_120% AMI) 59.1% 27.3% 13.6% Hispanic Low (0 -49% AMI) 54.6% 28.7% 16.7% Moderate (50 -79% AMM 63.4% 22.7% 13.9% Middle (80 -119% AMM 64.3% 16.8% 18.9% Upper ( >_120% AMI) 69.0% 17.9% 13.0% Asian Low (0 -49% AMI) 52.6% 36.8% 10.5% Moderate (50 -79% AMM 54.2% 25.4% 20.3% Middle (80 -119% AMI) 64.8% 25.4% 9.9% Upper ( >_120% AMI) 61.0% 23.2% 15.9% National City White Low (0 -49% AMI) 67.2% 14.8% 18.0% Moderate (50 -79% AMM 58.8% 23.5% 17.6% Middle (80 -119% AMI) 71.8% 10.7% 17.4% Upper ( >_120% AMI) 76.3% 9.1% 14.6% Black Low (0 -49% AMI) 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% Moderate (50 -79% AMI) 53.8% 38.5% 7.7% Middle (80 -119% AMI) 65.4% 23.1% 11.5% Upper ( >_120% AMI) 59.1% 27.3% 13.6% Hispanic Low (0 -49% AMI) 54.6% 28.7% 16.7% Moderate (50 -79% AMM 63.4% 22.7% 13.9% Middle (80 -119% AMI) 64.3% 16.8% 18.9% Upper ( >_120% AMI) 69.0% 17.9% 13.0% Asian Low (0 -49% AMI) 52.6% 36.80/, 10.5% Moderate (50 -79% AMM 54.2% 25.4% 20.3% Middle (80 -119% AMI) 64.8% 25.4% 9.9% Upper ( >_120% AMI) 61.0% 23.2% 15.9% APPENDIX B: DETAILED HMDA DATA B -14 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 628 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table B -3: Lending Patterns by Race /Ethnicity Jurisdiction Approved Denied Withdrawn/ Incomplete Oceanside White Low (0 -49% AMI) 58.8% 29.2% 12.0% Moderate (50 -79% AMI) 65.9% 21.0% 13.0% Middle (80 -119% AMI) 74.6% 11.4% 13.9% Upper (>120% AMI) 75.1% 12.5% 12.4% Black Low (0 -49% AMI) 42.9% 42.9% 14.3% Moderate (50 -79% AMI) 57.6% 21.2% 21.2% Middle (80 -119% AMI) 57.1% 28.6% 14.3% Upper ( >_120% AMI) 71.1% 19.8% 9.1% Hispanic Low (0 -49% AMI) 59.9% 21.8% 18.3% Moderate (50 -79% AMI) 65.0% 22.2% 12.8% Middle (80 -119% AMI) 68.2% 19.7% 12.1% Upper ( >_120% AMI) 72.3% 14.6% 13.0% Asian Low (0 -49% AMI) 54.9% 27.5% 17.6% Moderate (50 -79% AMI) 60.4% 20.9% 18.7% Middle (80 -119% AMI) 66.0% 18.3% 15.7% Upper ( >_120% AMI) 71.5% 15.5% 13.1% Poway White Low (0 -49% AMI) 60.7% 27.4% 11.9% Moderate (50-79% AMI) 66.1% 22.6% 11.3% Middle (80 -119% AMI) 73.2% 17.4% 9.4 %, Upper ( >_120% AMI) 78.4% 10.9% 10.7% Black Low (0 -49% AMI) -- -- -- Moderate (50 -79% AMI) 100.0% 0.0% 0.0 %, Middle (80 -119% AMI) 50.0% 16.7% 33.3% Upper ( >_120% AMI) 86.7% 10.0% 3.3% Hispanic Low (0 -49% AMI) 66.7% 16.7% 16.7% Moderate (50 -79% AMI) 34.8% 47.8% 17.4% Middle (80 -119% AMI) 71.4% 2.4% 26.2% Upper ( >_120% AMI) 66.7% 21.8% 11.5% Asian Low (0 -49% AMI) 50.0% 35.0% 15.0% APPENDIX B: DETAILED HMDA DATA B -15 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 629 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table B -3: Lending Patterns by Race /Ethnicity Jurisdiction Approved Denied Withdrawn/ Incomplete Moderate (50 -79% AMI) 61.5% 32.7% 5.8% Middle (80 -119% AMI) 78.4% 10.8% 10.8% Upper ( >_120% AMI) 82.1% 8.9% 8.9% San Diego White Low (0 -49% AMI) 70.6% 16.6% 12.8% Moderate (50 -79% AN/11) 70.7% 14.3% 15.0% Middle (80 -119% AMI) 72.6% 13.7% 13.7% Upper ( >_120% AMI) 74.4% 13.3% 12.3% Black Low (0 -49% AMI) 47.7% 39.6% 12.8% Moderate (50 -79% ANM 60.8% 20.9% 18.2% Middle (80 -119% AMI) 61.3% 23.2% 15.5% Upper ( >_120% AMI) 65.7% 19.6% 14.7% Hispanic Low (0 -49% AMI) 56.4% 27.1% 16.6% Moderate (50-79% ANM 61.1% 24.3% 14.6% Middle (80 -119% AMI) 66.5% 18.6% 14.9% Upper ( >_120% AMI) 68.9% 15.6% 15.5% Asian Low (0 -49% AMI) 58.7% 32.5% 8.9% Moderate (50-79% ANM 64.1% 24.0% 11.9% Middle (80 -119% AMI) 71.0% 14.8% 14.2% Upper (>-120% AMI) 77.0% 11.6% 11.4% San Marcos White Low (0 -49% AMI) 52.4% 36.9% 10.7% Moderate (50 -79% ANM 70.2% 19.7% 10.1% Middle (80 -119% AMI) 72.0% 15.9% 12.1% Upper ( >_120% AMI) 76.3% 11.8% 11.9% Black Low (0 -49% AMI) 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Moderate (50 -79% ANM 60.0% 40.0% 0.0% Middle (80 -119% AMI) 60.0% 33.3% 6.7% Upper ( >_120% AMI) 63.6% 23.6% 12.7% Hispanic Low (0 -49% AMI) 44.8% 39.7% 15.5% Moderate (50 -79% ANM 62.3% 32.1% 5.7% Middle (80 -119% AMI) 65.6% 16.0% 18.4% APPENDIX B: DETAILED HMDA DATA B -16 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 630 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table B -3: Lending Patterns by Race /Ethnicity Jurisdiction Approved Denied Withdrawn/ Incomplete Upper ( >_120% AMI) 73.1% 15.3% 11.6% Asian Low (0 -49% AMI) 50.0% 42.3% 7.7 %, Moderate (50-79% AMI) 62.1% 25.9% 12.1% Middle (80 -119% AMI) 71.7% 18.3% 10.0% Upper ( >_120% AMI) 72.9% 11.1% 16.0% Santee White Low (0 -49% AMI) 65.8% 25.3% 8.9 %, Moderate (50 -79% AMI) 69.8% 17.4% 12.8% Middle (80 -119% AMI) 75.5% 13.2% 11.3% Upper ( >_120% AMI) 77.6% 10.3% 12.2% Black Low (0 -49% AMI) 0.0% 100.0% 0.0 %, Moderate (50 -79% AMI) 100.0% 0.0% 0.0 %, Middle (80 -119% AMI) 76.9% 15.4% 7.7 %, Upper ( >_120% AMI) 50.0% 25.0% 25.0% Hispanic Low (0 -49% AMI) 70.6% 23.5% 5.9 %, Moderate (50 -79% AMI) 73.9% 19.6% 6.5 %, Middle (80 -119% AMI) 65.1% 15.7% 19.3% Upper ( >_120% AMI) 76.3% 13.6% 10.2% Asian Low (0 -49% AMI) 62.5% 12.5% 25.0% Moderate (50 -79% AMI) 60.9% 21.7% 17.4% Middle (80 -119% AMI) 69.7% 18.2% 12.1% Upper ( >_120% AMI) 69.7% 13.6% 16.7% Solana Beach White Low (0 -49% AMI) 47.4% 47.4% 5.3 %, Moderate (50 -79% AMI) 61.9% 23.8% 14.3% Middle (80 -119% AMI) 68.4% 19.4% 12.2% Upper ( >_120% AMI) 75.7% 11.4% 12.9% Black Low (0 -49% AMI) -- -- -- Moderate (50 -79% AMI) 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% Middle (80 -119% AMI) -- -- -- Upper ( >_120% AMI) 14.3% 28.6% 57.1% Hispanic APPENDIX B: DETAILED HMDA DATA B -17 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 631 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table B -3: Lending Patterns by Race /Ethnicity Jurisdiction Approved Denied Withdrawn/ Incomplete Low (0 -49% AMA -- -- Moderate (50 -79% AN/fl) -- -- -- Middle (80 -119% AMI) 66.7% 0.0% 33.3% Upper ( >_120% AMI) 77.8% 5.6% 16.7% Asian Low (0 -49% AMI) 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% Moderate (50 -79% AN/fl) 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% Middle (80 -119% AMI) 75.0% 0.0% 25.0% Upper ( >_120% AMI) 61.4% 11.4% 27.3% Vista White Low (0 -49% AMI) 57.9% 32.1% 10.0% Moderate (50 -79% AN/11) 67.4% 18.4% 14.2% Middle (80 -119% AMI) 72.3% 13.2% 14.4% Upper ( >_120% AMI) 73.7% 12.5% 13.8% Black Low (0 -49% AMI) 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Moderate (50 -79% AN/11) 72.7% 27.3% 0.0% Middle (80 -119% AMI) 64.3% 28.6% 7.1% Upper ( >_120% AMI) 81.4% 9.3% 9.3% Hispanic Low (0 -49% AMI) 53.9% 33.7% 12.4% Moderate (50 -79% AN/11) 61.9% 25.2% 12.8% Middle (80 -119% AMI) 65.9% 20.2% 13.9% Upper ( >_120% AMI) 66.0% 19.9% 14.1% Asian Low (0 -49% AMI) 50.0% 30.8% 19.2% Moderate (50-79% AN/11) 59.1% 13.6% 27.3% Middle (80 -119% AMI) 66.7% 17.3% 16.0% Upper ( >_120% AMI) 71.3% 13.8% 15.0% Unincorporated County White Low (0 -49% AMI) 58.6% 28.5% 12.9% Moderate (50 -79% AN/11) 71.2% 17.3% 11.5% Middle (80 -119% AMI) 71.5% 14.6% 13.9% Upper ( >_120% AMI) 72.8% 13.4% 13.7% Black Low (0 -49% AMI) 70.6% 5.9% 23.5% Moderate (50 -79% AN/fl) 48.8% 25.6% 25.6% APPENDIX B: DETAILED HMDA DATA B -18 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 632 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table B -3: Lending Patterns by Race /Ethnicity Jurisdiction Approved Denied Withdrawn/ Incomplete Middle (80 -119% AMI) 72.5% 13.8% 13.8% Upper ( >_120% AMI) 65.9% 21.2% 12.9% Hispanic Low (0 -49% AMI) 54.7% 33.8% 11.5% Moderate (50 -79% AMT) 58.6% 27.5% 13.9% Middle (80 -119% AMI) 65.1% 16.2% 18.7% Upper (>120% AMI) 70.4% 14.0% 15.6% Asian Low (0 -49% AMI) 45.0% 35.0% 20.0% Moderate (50-79% AMT) 66.1% 179% 161 %, Middle (80 -119% AMI) 61.4% 22.7% 15.9% Upper ( >_120% AMI) 68.5% 19.3% 12.2% San Diego County White Low (0 -49% AMI) 58.7% 29.1% 12.2% Moderate (50 -79% AMT) 67.7% 19.3% 12.9% Middle (80 -119% AMI) 73.3% 13.8% 12.8% Upper ( >_120% AMI) 75.3% 12.0% 12.6% Black Low (0 -49% AMI) 50.5% 36.7% 12.8% Moderate (50 -79% AMT) 59.3% 22.7% 18.0% Middle (80 -119% AMI) 65.1% 20.8% 14.2% Upper (>120% AMI) 67.1% 19.5% 13.4% Hispanic Low (0 -49% AMI) 56.5% 29.5% 14.0% Moderate (50 -79% AMT) 61.0% 24.9% 14.2% Middle (80 -119% AMI) 66.8% 18.2% 15.0% Upper ( >_120% AMI) 69.2% 16.0% 14.7% Asian Low (0 -49% AMI) 57.6% 32.0% 10.4% Moderate (50 -79% AMI) 63.5% 23.6% 12.8% Middle (80 -119% AMI) 71.1% 15.5% 13.4% Upper ( >_120% AMI) 74.6% 12.9% 12.4% Source: www.lendingpattems.com, 2014 APPENDIX B: DETAILED HMDA DATA B -19 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 633 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Lending Patterns by Census Tract Characteristics Income Level Table B -4: Outcomes Based on Census Tract' Income Tract Total Applicants Approved Denied Other Income Levelz # /a # % # % # Carlsbad Low 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Moderate 331 2.5% 224 67.7% 49 14.8% 58 17.5% Middle 1,759 13.5% 1,231 70.0% 287 16.3% 241 13.7% Upper 10,940 84.0% 7,961 72.8% 1,516 13.9% 1,463 13.4% Total 13,030 100.0% 9,416 72.3% 1,852 14.2% 1,762 13.5% Chula Vista Low 484 3.0% 296 61.2% 123 25.4% 65 13.4% Moderate 1,767 10.9% 1,167 66.0% 331 18.7% 269 15.2% Middle 5,382 33.3% 3,680 68.4% 919 17.1% 783 14.5% Upper 8,532 52.8% 5,931 69.5% 1380 16.2% 1221 14.3% Total 16,165 100.0% 11,074 68.5% 2753 17.0% 2338 14.5% Coronado Low 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Moderate 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Middle 101 8.5% 69 68.3% 21 20.8% 11 10.9% Upper 1,087 91.5% 766 70.5% 185 17.0% 136 12.5% Total 1,188 100.0% 835 70.3% 206 17.3% 147 12.4% Del Mar Low 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Moderate 0 -- -- Middle 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Upper 1,029 100.0% 721 70.1% 161 15.6% 147 14.3% Total 1,029 100.0% 721 70.1% 161 15.6% 147 14.3% El Cajon Low 419 7.1% 294 70.2% 68 16.2% 57 13.6% Moderate 1,517 25.9% 1,045 68.9% 247 16.3% 225 14.8% Middle 2,491 42.5% 1,776 71.3% 407 16.3% 308 12.4% Upper 1,439 24.5% 1,021 71.0% 221 15.4% 197 13.7% Total 5,866 100.0% 4,136 70.5% 943 16.1% 787 13.4% Encinitas Low Moderate Middle 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- U -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 840 12.0% 600 71.4% 124 14.8% 116 13.8% APPENDIX B: DETAILED HMDA DATA B -20 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 634 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table B -4: Outcomes Based on Census Tract' Income Tract Total Applicants Approved Denied Othe Income Levelz o �0 # o % Upper 6,154 88.0% 4,484 72.9% 842 13.7% 828 13.5% Total 6,994 100.0% 5,084 72.7% 966 13.8% 944 13.5% Escondido Low 328 3.6% 221 67.4% 65 19.8% 42 12.8% Moderate 1,437 15.9% 943 65.6% 274 19.1% 220 15.3% Middle 4,106 45.5% 2,881 70.2% 667 16.2% 558 13.6% Upper 3,158 35.0% 2,261 71.6% 463 14.7% 434 13.7% Total 9,029 100.0% 6,306 69.8% 1,469 16.3% 1,254 13.9% Imperial Beach Low 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Moderate 485 38.2% 329 67.8% 95 19.6% 61 12.6% Middle 552 43.5% 368 66.7% 96 17.4% 88 15.9% Upper 233 18.3% 154 66.1% 52 22.3% 27 11.6% Total 1,270 100.0% 851 67.0% 243 19.1% 176 q18.40%/o La Mesa Low 68 1.6% 47 69.1% 12 17.6% 9 Moderate 212 5.0% 142 67.0% 31 14.6% 39 Middle 2,767 65.6% 2,066 74.7% 375 13.6% 326 11.8% Upper 1,169 27.7% 838 71.7% 151 12.9% 180 15.4% Total 4,216 100.0% 3,093 1 73.4% 569 13.5% 554 Lemon Grove Low 55 2.0% 36 65.5% 10 18.2% 9 16.4% Moderate 699 25.8% 469 67.1% 117 16.7% 113 16.2% Middle 1,708 63.1% 1,184 69.3% 285 16.7% 239 14.0% Upper 243 9.0% 160 65.8% 33 13.6% 50 20.6% Total 2,705 100.0% 1,849 68.4% 445 16.5% 411 National City A5.9 Low 545 24.3% 335 61.5% 111 20.4% 99 Moderate 717 32.0% 435 60.7% 168 23.4% 114 Middle 978 43.7% 645 66.0% 174 17.8% 159 16.3% Upper 0 -- -- -- -- -- Total 2,240 100.0% 1,415 63.2% 20.2%, 372 M13. Oceanside Low 193 1.6% 132 68.4% 34 17.6% 27 Moderate 2,043 17.0% 1,386 67.8% 392 19.2% 265 Middle 7,752 64.5% 5,485 70.8% 1,172 15.1% 1,095 14.1% Upper 2,030 16.9% 1,422 70.0% 304 15.0% 304 15.0% Total 12,018 100.0% 8,425 70.1% 1,902 15.8°/, 1,691 14.1% APPENDIX B: DETAILED HMDA DATA B -21 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 635 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table B -4: Outcomes Based on Census Tract' Income Tract Income Levelz Total Applicants Approved Denied # % # % # F -/o Other % Poway Low 0 -- Moderate 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- Middle 1,341 23.0% 975 72.7% 200 14.9% 166 12.4% Upper 4,478 77.0% 3,331 74.4% 603 13.5% 544 12.1% Total 5,819 100.0% 4,306 74.0% 803 13.8% 710 12.2% San Diego Low 3,428 4.1% 2,218 64.7% 709 20.7% 501 14.6% Moderate 10,160 12.2% 6,876 67.7% 1,711 16.8% 1,573 15.5% Middle 23,165 27.8% 15,972 68.9% 3,708 16.0% 3,485 15.0% Upper 46,688 56.0% 33,898 72.6% 6,519 14.0% 6,271 13.4% Total 83,441 100.0% 58,964 70.7% 12,647 15.2% 11,830 14.2% San Marcos Low 25 0.3% 17 68.0% 4 16.0% 4 16.0% Moderate 823 9.5% 577 70.1% 134 16.3% 112 13.6% Middle 2,630 30.4% 1,834 69.7% 438 16.7% 358 13.6% Upper 5,184 59.8% 3,736 72.1% 747 14.4% 701 13.5% Total 8,662 100.0% 6,164 71.2% 1,323 15.3% 1,175 13.6% Santee Low 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Moderate 247 5.5% 171 69.2% 39 15.8% 37 15.0% Middle 3,164 70.0% 2,315 73.2% 452 14.3% 397 12.5% Upper 1,110 24.6% 832 75.0% 133 12.0% 145 13.1% Total 4,521 100.0% 3,318 73.4% 624 13.8% 579 12.8% Solana Beach Low 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- Moderate 0 - -- -- Middle 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Upper 1,358 100.0% 967 71.2% 197 14.5% 194 14.3% Total 1,358 100.0% 967 71.2% 197 14.5% 194 14.3% Vista Low 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Moderate 1,990 27.2% 1,352 67.9% 344 17.3% 294 14.8% Middle 3,676 50.2% 2,515 68.4% 637 17.3% 524 14.3% Upper 1,651 22.6% 1,161 70.3% 234 14.2% 256 15.5% Total 7,317 100.0°/, 5,028 68.7% 1,215 16.6% 1,074 14.7% Unincorporated County Low 95 0.6% 63 66.3% 19 20.0% 13 13.7% APPENDIX B: DETAILED HMDA DATA B -22 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 636 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table B -4: Outcomes Based on Census Tract' Income Tract Total Applicants Approved Denied Im Income LeveF # % # ° % # Moderate 2,308 15.1% 1,436 62.2% 579 25.1% 293 12.7% Middle 7,575 49.7% 5,156 68.1% 1285 17.0% 1,134 15.0% Upper 5,269 34.6% 3,724 70.7% 779 14.8% 766 14.5% Total 15,247 100.0% 10,379 68.1% 2662 17.5% 2,206 14.5% San Diego County Low 5,375 3.2% 3,501 65.1% 1,096 20.4% 778 14.5% Moderate 21,777 12.8% 14,682 67.4% 3,825 17.6% 3,270 15.0% Middle 61,573 36.3% 42,947 69.7% 9,834 16.0% 8,792 14.3% Upper 81,085 47.8% 58,483 72.1% 11,558 14.3% 11,044 13.6% Total 169,810 100.0% 119,613 70.4% 26,313 15.5% 23,884 14.1% Note: 1. Based on census tracts within each jurisdiction. 2. "Tract Income Level' defined as: a. Low Income: Tract Median Income less than or equal to 49 percent AMI b. Moderate Income: Tract Median Income between 50 and 79 percent 11MI C. Middle Income: Tract Median Income between 80 and 119 percent 11MI d. Upper Income: Tract Median Income equal to or greater than 120 percent 11MI Source: www.lendingpattems.com, 2014 APPENDIX B: DETAILED HMDA DATA B -23 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 637 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Mtn oil ty Pop UIRtton Table B -5: Outcomes Based on Minority Population of Census Tract' Tract Minority Total Applicants Approved Denied Other LeveF # % # % # % # Carlsbad 0 -19% Minority 3,437 26.4% 2,510 73.0% 468 13.6% 459 13.4% 20-39% Minority 9,262 71.1% 6,682 72.1% 1,335 14.4% 1,245 13.4% 40-59% Minority 271 2.1 %, 180 66.4% 41 15.1% 50 18.5% 60 -79% Minority 60 0.5 %, 44 73.3% 8 13.3% 8 13.3% 80 -100% Minority 0 -- -- Total 13,030 100.0°/, 9,416 72.3% 1,852 14.2% 1,762 13.5% Chula Vista 0 -19% Minority 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 20 -39% Minority 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 40-59% Minority 1,801 11.1% 1,224 68.0% 310 17.2% 267 14.8% 60 -79% Minority 7,350 45.5°/, 5,184 70.5% 1,142 15.5% 1,024 13.9% 80 -100% Minority 7,014 43.4°/, 4,666 66.5% 1,301 18.5% 1,047 14.9% Total 16,165 100.0°/, 11,074 68.5% 2,753 17.0% 2,338 14.5% Coronado 0 -19% Minority 700 58.9% 504 72.0% 114 16.3% 82 11.7% 20-39% Minority 488 41.1% 331 67.8% 92 18.9% 65 13.3% 40 -59% Minority 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 60 -79% Minority 0 -- 80 -100% Minority 0 -- -- -- -- Total 1,188 100.00/, 835 70.3% 206 173% 147 12.4% Del Mar 0 -19% Minority 967 94.0% 680 70.3% 153 15.8 "0 134 13.9% 20 -39% Minority 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 40 -59% Minority 62 6.0% 41 66.1% 8 12.9 "o 13 21.0% 60 -79% Minority 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 80 -100% Minority 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- Total 1,029 100.0°/, 721 70.1% 161 15.6 "o 147 14.3% El Cajon 0 -19% Minority 186 3.2 %, 124 66.7% 30 16.1% 32 17.2% 20-39% Minority 4,229 72.1% 3,027 71.6% 667 15.8% 535 12.7% 40 -59% Minority 1,425 24.3°/, 966 67.8% 241 16.9% 218 15.3% 60 -79% Minority 26 0.4 %, 19 73.1% 5 19.2% 2 7.7% 80 -100% Minority 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Total 5,866 100.0°/, 4,136 70.5% 943 16.1% 787 13.4% APPENDIX B: DETAILED HMDA DATA B -24 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 638 Tract Minority LeveF Encinitas 0 -19% Minority 20 -39% Minority 40 -59% Minority 60 -79% Minority 80 -100% Minority Total Escondido 0 -19% Minority 20 -39% Minority 40 -59% Minority 60 -79% Minority 80 -100% Minority Total Imperial Beach 0 -19% Minority 20 -39% Minority 40 -59% Minority 60 -79% Minority 80 -100% Minority Total La Mesa 0 -19% Minority 20 -39% Minority 40 -59% Minority 60 -79% Minority 80 -100% Minority Total Lemon Grove 0 -19% Minority 20 -39% Minority 40 -59% Minority 60 -79% Minority 80 -100% Minority Total National City 0 -19% Minority 20 -39% Minority 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table B -5: Outcomes Based on Minority Population of Census Tract' Total Applicants # % % 4,045 57.8% 2,758 39.4% 191 2.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 6,994 100.0% 272 176 1.9% 4,341 48.1% 2,780 30.8% 1,155 12.8% 577 6.4% 9,029 100.0% 0 233 408 499 130 1,270 328 2,900 988 0 0 4,216 0 0 699 518 331 1,548 0 0 Approved # % -- 2,969 73.4% 1,969 71.4% 146 76.4% 52 22.3% 27 11.6% 5,084 272 66.7% 136 77.3% 3,092 71.2% 1,918 69.0% 767 66.4% 393 68.1% 6,306 69.80/o Denied # % -- 532 13.2% 409 14.8% 25 13.1% 52 22.3% 27 11.6% 966 272 66.7% 26 14.8% 642 14.8% 472 17.0% 220 19.0% 109 18.9% 1,469 16.3% Other # % -- 544 13.4% 380 13.8% 20 10.5 %, 52 22.3% 27 11.6% 944 272 66.7% 14 8.0% 607 14.0% 390 14.0% 168 14.5% 75 13.0% 1,254 13.9% -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 18.3% 154 66.1% 52 22.3% 27 11.6% 32.1% 272 66.7% 83 20.3% 53 13.0% 39.3% 341 68.3% 80 16.0% 78 15.6% 10.2% 84 64.6% 28 21.5% 18 13.8% 100.0% 851 67.0°/, 243 19.1% 176 13.9% 7.8% 225 68.60/o 44 13.4% 59 18.0% 68.8% 2,162 74.6% 377 13.0% 361 12.4% 23.4% 706 71.5% 148 15.0% 134 13.6% -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 21.4% 211 63.7°/, 72 21.8% 48 14.5% 100.0% 3,093 73.4% 569 13.5 %, 554 14.3% -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 45.2% 496 71.0% 101 14.4% 102 14.6% 33.5% 341 65.8% 106 20.5% 71 13.7% 21.4% 211 63.7°/, 72 21.8% 48 14.5% 100.0% 1,048 67.7% 279 18.0% 221 14.3% APPENDIX B: DETAILED HMDA DATA B -25 Page 639 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table B -5: Outcomes Based on Minority Population of Census Tract' Tract Minority LeveF 40 -59% Minority 60 -79% Minority 80 -100% Minority Total Oceanside 0 -19% Minority 20 -39% Minority 40 -59% Minority 60 -79% Minority 80 -100% Minority Total Poway 0 -19% Minority 20 -39% Minority 40 -59% Minority 60 -79% Minority 80 -100% Minority Total San Diego 0 -19% Minority 20 -39% Minority 40 -59% Minority 60 -79% Minority 80 -100% Minority Total San Marcos 0 -19% Minority 20 -39% Minority 40 -59% Minority 60 -79% Minority 80 -100% Minority Total Santee 0 -19% Minority 20 -39% Minority 40 -59% Minority 60 -79% Minority 7 80 -100% Minority Total Applicants # 2,572 0 -- 589 26.3% 1,651 73.7% 2,240 100.0% 560 4.7% 2,572 21.4% 5,839 48.6% 2,898 24.1% 149 1.2% 12,018 100.0% 13.7% 1,592 27.4% 2,053 35.3% 2,174 37.4% 0 -- 0 -- 5,819 100.0% 110 10,144 12.2% 29,745 35.6% 21,436 25.7% 9,135 10.9% 12,984 15.6% 83,444 100.0% Approved # 393 66.7% 1,022 61.9% 1 415 63.2% Denied 104 17.7% 349 21.1% 453 20.2% Other �-/A 92 15.6% 280 17.0% 372 16.6% i 389 69.5% 93 16.6% 78 13.9% 1,817 70.6% 402 15.6% 353 13.7% 4,151 71.1% 871 14.9% 817 14.0% 1,958 67.6% 516 17.8% 424 14.6% 110 73.8% 20 13.4% 19 12.8% 8,425 70.1% 1,902 15.8% 1,691 4 16.0% 1,115 70.0% 267 16.8% 210 13.2% 1,524 74.2% 275 13.4% 254 12.4% 1,667 76.7% 261 12.0% 246 11.3% 4,454 98.5° /, 3,278 73.6% 608 13.7% 568 12.8% 67 1.5 %, 40 4,306 74.0°/, 803 13.8°/, 710 12.2% -- 7,182 70.8% 1,555 15.3% 1,407 13.9% 21,660 72.8% 4,110 13.8% 3,975 13.4% 15,265 71.2% 3,042 14.2% 3,129 14.6% 6,448 70.6% 1,382 15.1% 1,305 14.3% 8,410 64.8% 2,558 19.7% 2,016 15.5% 58,965 70.7% 12,647 15.2% 11,832 14.2% 0 -- -- -- 5,819 67.2% 4,159 71.5% 861 14.8% 799 13.7% 2,272 26.2% 1,616 71.1% 362 15.9% 294 12.9% 546 6.3 %, 372 68.1% 96 17.6% 78 14.3% 25 0.3 %, 17 68.0% 4 16.0% 4 16.0% 81662 100.0°/, 6,164 71.2% 1,323 15.3% 1,175 13.6% 0 -- -- -- 4,454 98.5° /, 3,278 73.6% 608 13.7% 568 12.8% 67 1.5 %, 40 59.7% 16 23.9% 11 16.4% 0 -- -- -- 0 -- APPENDIX B: DETAILED HMDA DATA B -26 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 640 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table B -5: Outcomes Based on Minority Population of Census Tract' Tract Minority Total Applicants Approved Denied Other LeveF # % # % # % # % Total 4,521 100.0° /, 3,318 73.4% 624 13.8°/, 579 12.8% Solana Beach 0 -19% Minority 922 67.9% 686 74.4% 122 13.2% 114 12.4% 20-39% Minority 436 32.1% 281 64.4% 75 17.2% 80 18.3% 40 -59% Minority 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 60 -79% Minority 0 -- - -- -- -- -- 80 -100% Minority 0 j -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Total 11358 100.0% 967 71.2% 197 14.5% 194 Vista 0 -19% Minority 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 20 -39% Minority 2,945 40.2% 2,090 71.0% 461 15.7% 394 13.4% 40 -59% Minority 2,631 36.0% 1,782 67.7% 436 16.6% 413 15.7% 60 -79% Minority 1,416 19.4% 935 66.0°/, 259 18.3% 222 15.7% 80 -100% Minority 325 4.4% 221 68.0°/, 59 18.2% 45 13.8% Total 7,317 100.0% 5,028 68.7% 1,215 16.6% 1,074 Unincorporated County 0 -19% Minority 3,638 24.1% 2,589 71.2% 539 14.8% 510 14.0% 20 -39% Minority 5,837 38.7% 4,029 69.0°/, 942 16.1% 866 14.8% 40 -59% Minority 3,682 24.4% 2,485 67.5°/, 662 18.0% 535 14.5% 60 -79% Minority 1,815 12.0% 1,213 66.8% 320 17.6% 282 15.5% 80 -100% Minority 95 0.6% 63 66.3°/, 19 20.0% 13 13.7% Total 15,067 100.0% 10,379 68.9% 2,482 16.5% 2,206 14.6% San Diego County 0 -19% Minority 22,040 13.0% 15,723 71.3°/, 3,294 14.9% 3,023 13.7% 20 -39% Minority 63,120 37.2% 45,577 72.2% 9,081 14.4% 8,462 13.4% 40 -59% Minority 42,768 25.2% 30,104 70.4% 6,501 15.2% 6,163 14.4% 60 -79% Minority 22,863 13.5% 15,831 69.2% 3,709 16.2% 3,323 14.5% 80 -100% Minority 19,022 11.2% 12,379 65.1% 3,728 19.6% 2,915 153% Total 169,813 100.0% 119,614 70.4% 26,313 15.5% 23,886 Note: 1. Based on census tracts within each jurisdiction 2. "Tract Minority Level' defined as the proportion of residents that are minorities within each census tract. Source: www.lendingpattems.com, 2014 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet APPENDIX B: DETAILED HMDA DATA B -27 Page 641 N O N U7 O U7 N N G. ro w x co K b as �o N FAIR HOUSING DATA kN ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE The tables on the following pages summarize the fair housing records as reported by the various fair housing service providers and enforcement agencies, including: ■ State Department of Fair Employment and Housing ■ U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ■ CSA San Diego County /North County Lifeline ■ Legal Aid Society of San Diego ■ Housing Opportunities Collaborative In addition, hate crime data reported by the FBI are also presented in this appendix. APPENDIX C: FAIR HOUSING DATA C -1 N O Ul SAN DIEGO REGIONAL U°, ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE r N Fair Housing Complaints Filed with DFEH a ro w Table C -1: Basis for Discrimination of Fair Housing Complaints fled with DFEH (2009 -2014) Source: CA Department of Fair Employment & Housing, 2014 ro APPENDIX C: FAIR HOUSING DATA C -2 w Age Race/ Color Source of Income National Origin Sex Sex Orientation Mental Disability Physical Disability Religion Familial Status Retaliation Total # of Cases Carlsbad 1 2 1 3 2 0 1 11 0 2 2 25 20 Chula Vista 3 4 1 6 3 1 1 8 0 8 0 35 22 Coronado 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 7 3 Del Mar 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 El Cajon 0 2 0 2 1 1 3 11 0 3 3 26 19 Encinitas 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 7 7 Escondido 1 2 0 0 0 2 1 8 0 0 0 14 12 Imperial Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 3 3 La Mesa 0 3 0 1 3 2 1 12 0 0 2 24 18 Lemon Grove 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 3 National City 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 1 7 5 Oceanside 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 13 0 3 20 40 19 Poway 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 2 0 5 5 San Diego 6 31 11 12 20 5 16 44 1 37 5 188 178 San Marcos 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 2 2 16 10 Santee 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 5 4 Solana Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vista 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 5 0 1 1 10 9 Unincorporated County 2 5 1 0 1 3 0 8 0 4 0 24 17 Total 15 58 15 27 31 15 29 143 2 69 36 440 355 Source: CA Department of Fair Employment & Housing, 2014 ro APPENDIX C: FAIR HOUSING DATA C -2 w N O r ui 0 in r N OC a ro K ro w as �o SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table C -2: Acts of Discrimination for Fair Housing Complaints Filed with DFEH (2009 -2014) Source: CA Department of Fair Employment & Housing, 2014 APPENDIX C: FAIR HOUSING DATA C -3 Refusal to rent /show /sell Eviction Rent Increase/ Surcharge Loan Withheld Unequal Terms/ Occupancy Standards Harassment Unequal Access to Facilities/ Denied Reasonable Accommodation Discriminatory Statements/ Advertisements Other Total # of Cases Carlsbad 3 4 0 0 6 5 11 1 0 30 20 Chula Vista 11 4 0 0 5 9 3 3 0 35 22 Coronado 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 3 Del Mar 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 1 El Cajon 3 7 0 0 4 5 9 3 2 33 19 Encinitas 2 0 0 0 2 1 2 1 2 10 7 Escondido 0 3 0 0 3 3 8 1 0 18 12 Imperial Beach 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 3 La Mesa 4 6 1 0 6 3 9 2 0 31 18 Lemon Grove 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 1 7 3 National City 0 2 0 0 2 4 1 2 2 13 5 Oceanside 4 5 0 0 1 5 13 1 0 29 19 Poway 0 2 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 6 5 San Diego 30 33 1 4 43 41 44 23 9 228 178 San Marcos 3 4 0 0 2 2 6 0 0 17 10 Santee 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 6 4 Solana Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vista 1 3 0 0 0 2 5 1 0 12 9 Unincorporated County 2 6 0 0 4 8 8 1 0 29 17 Total 66 82 2 4 81 95 125 41 16 512 355 Source: CA Department of Fair Employment & Housing, 2014 APPENDIX C: FAIR HOUSING DATA C -3 N O r ui 0 in r N OC a ro K SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table C -3: Closing Categories for Fair Housing Complaints Filed with DFEH (2009 -2014) &� Successful Conciliation Successful Mediation Withdrawal with Resolution Withdrawal without Resolution Complainant not Available Complainant Failed to Cooperate Accusation Not Issued No Probable Cause Settlement Admin. Dismissal Open Total # of Cases Carlsbad 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 10 1 1 0 18 20 Chula Vista 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 17 0 0 0 21 22 Coronado 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 Del Mar 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 El Cajon 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 2 0 0 14 19 Encinitas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 1 0 6 7 Escondido 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 12 12 Imperial Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 3 La Mesa 1 4 1 0 0 0 0 8 2 0 0 16 18 Lemon Grove 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 3 National City 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 5 Oceanside 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 13 1 1 0 18 19 Poway 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 5 5 San Diego 15 8 6 1 3 1 0 111 8 4 3 160 178 San Marcos 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 8 10 Santee 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 4 Solana Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vista 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 0 0 9 9 Unincorporated County 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 10 5 0 0 17 17 Total 34 17 11 3 4 2 1 216 22 7 3 320 355 Source: CA Department of Fair Employment & Housing, 2014 ro APPENDIX C: FAIR HOUSING DATA o C -4 N N O r ui 0 in r N a ro w ro w as M SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Fair Housing Complaints Filed with HUD Table C -4: Basis for Discrimination of Fair Housing Cases fled with HUD (2008 -2014) Note: Data represents cases filed from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2014. Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), 2014 APPENDIX C: FAIR HOUSING DATA C -5 Race National Origin Color Sex Disability Familial Status Retaliation Religion Total # of Cases Carlsbad 1 2 0 0 8 3 2 0 16 14 Chula Vista 4 10 0 3 16 7 9 0 49 38 Coronado 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 0 6 4 Del Mar 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 El Cajon 13 4 1 2 20 6 5 0 51 36 Encinitas 0 1 0 1 6 2 0 0 10 8 Escondido 1 1 0 0 16 3 0 21 23 Imperial Beach 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 1 La Mesa 3 2 0 1 12 4 9 0 31 23 Lemon Grove 4 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 8 6 National City 3 1 0 0 4 1 0 0 9 6 Oceanside 3 1 0 1 11 6 2 0 24 21 Poway 0 1 0 1 5 1 2 0 10 6 San Diego 34 18 0 13 109 24 23 3 224 177 San Marcos 1 1 0 0 13 0 0 0 15 15 Santee 3 0 0 0 10 1 2 0 16 11 Solana Beach 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 Vista 3 4 0 1 8 2 2 1 21 16 Unincorporated County 3 4 0 5 18 4 5 0 39 33 Total 76 51 1 29 260 67 66 4 554 439 Note: Data represents cases filed from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2014. Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), 2014 APPENDIX C: FAIR HOUSING DATA C -5 N O N O N N N Oq a SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table C -5: Closing Categories for Fair Housing Cases filed with HUD (2008 -2014) Note: Data represents cases filed from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2014. Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), 2014 ro APPENDIX C: FAIR HOUSING DATA o C -6 Conciliated or Settled No Cause FHAP Judicial Dismissal FHAP Judicial Consent Order Lack of Jurisdiction Withdrawn After Resolution Withdrawn Without Resolution Complainant Failed to Cooperate Unable to Locate Complainant DOJ Settlement DOJ Dismissal Compensation for Conciliation or Resolution Total Carlsbad 4 5 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 $200 13 Chula Vista 9 27 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 $13,788 38 Coronado 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 4 Dcl Mar 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 0 El Cajon 9 24 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 $14,500 36 Encinitas 1 5 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 $5,000 8 Escondido 7 13 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 $16,300 23 Imperial Bcach 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 1 La Mcsa 9 10 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 $6,579 22 Lcmon Grovc 1 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 $3,079 6 National City 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 $500 6 Occansidc 5 13 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 $6,960 21 Poway 1 1 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 $0 6 San Dicgo 29 105 0 2 0 17 8 10 6 0 0 $49,745 177 San Marcos 7 7 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 $4,700 15 Santcc 3 6 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 $1,200 11 Solana Bcach 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 $0 1 Vista 4 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $1,200 15 Unincorporatcd Countv 4 18 0 0 0 3 3 2 0 1 0 $4,000 31 Total 98 253 1 5 3 33 14 17 7 2 1 $127,751 434 Note: Data represents cases filed from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2014. Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), 2014 ro APPENDIX C: FAIR HOUSING DATA o C -6 N O r ui 0 in r N a ro w x co CSA San Diego County SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table C -6: CSA San Diego - Clients Served (2009 -2014) Source: CSA San Diego, 2095 T APPENDIX C: FAIR HOUSING DATA o C -7 co co 2009 -2010 2010 -2011 2011 -2012 2012 -2013 2013 -2014 Total % of Total Carlsbad 19 65 90 101 92 367 10.3% Chula Vista 27 4 8 10 183 232 6.5% El Cajon 143 289 408 560 524 1,924 54.1% La Mesa 44 78 131 153 159 565 15.9% National City 22 2 1 48 64 137 3.8% Santee 25 73 67 83 86 334 9.4% Total 280 511 705 955 1,108 3,559 100% Source: CSA San Diego, 2095 T APPENDIX C: FAIR HOUSING DATA o C -7 co co N O r ui 0 in r N OC G. ro SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table C -7: CSA San Diego - Clients Served by Race /Ethnicity (2009 -2014) Source: CSA San Diego, 2095 ro APPENDIX C: FAIR HOUSING DATA o C -8 Carlsbad Chula Vista El Cajon La Mesa National City Santee Total % of Total Race Hispanic 56 123 437 126 90 61 893 25.1% Non - Hispanic 310 109 1485 439 47 273 2663 74.8% No response 1 0 2 0 0 0 3 0.2% Total Clients 367 232 1,924 565 137 334 3,559 100% Ethnicity White 262 77 992 341 27 275 1,974 55.5% Black /African American 18 23 270 74 11 5 401 11.3% Asian 6 5 26 8 11 3 59 1.7% Hawaiian /Pacific Islander 2 1 21 5 2 1 32 0.9% American Indian / Alaska Native 2 2 7 0 0 0 11 0.3% Other /Multi - Racial 77 124 608 137 86 50 1,082 30.4% Total Clients 367 232 1,924 565 137 334 3,559 100% Source: CSA San Diego, 2095 ro APPENDIX C: FAIR HOUSING DATA o C -8 N O r ui 0 in r N OC G. ro w x co w va N O SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table C -8: CSA San Diego - Clients Served by Income Level (2009 -2014) Source: CSA San Diego, 2015 APPENDIX C: FAIR HOUSING DATA C -9 Very Low Low Extremely ° >80 /o MFI Income Income Low Income ( <50% ( <g0% or income Total (<30% MFI) not reported MFI) MFI) Carlsbad 279 53 26 9 367 Chula Vista 169 43 11 9 232 E1 Cajon 1564 281 58 21 1924 La Mesa 435 91 27 12 565 National City 110 22 4 1 137 Santee 260 54 13 7 334 Total 2817 544 139 59 3559 % of Total 79.2% 15.3% 3.9% 1.7% 100% Source: CSA San Diego, 2015 APPENDIX C: FAIR HOUSING DATA C -9 N O r ui 0 in r N OC a ro SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table C -9: CSA San Diego - Basis for Discrimination of Fair Housing Cases Filed (2009 -2014) Source: CSA San Diego, 2095 ro APPENDIX C: FAIR HOUSING DATA o C -10 N F+ Age Race /Color National Origin Sex /Gender Disability Familial Status Source of Income Retaliation Religion Other Total Carlsbad 0 8 2 3 4 2 0 0 0 0 19 Chula Vista 0 1 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 5 El Cajon 2 30 9 3 18 6 1 0 1 3 73 La Mesa 1 6 2 1 8 2 0 0 0 1 21 National City 0 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 7 Santee 3 1 1 1 4 0 0 0 0 1 11 Total 6 48 16 9 37 12 1 0 1 6 136 % of Total 4.4% 35.3% 11.8% 6.6% 27.2% 8.8% 0.7% 0.0% 0.7% 4.4% 100% Source: CSA San Diego, 2095 ro APPENDIX C: FAIR HOUSING DATA o C -10 N F+ N O r ui 0 in r N a ro w b w va N N SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Legal Aid Society of San Diego Table C -10: LASSD - Clients Served by Jurisdiction (2012 -2014) Source: Legal Aid Society of San Diego, 2015 APPENDIX C: FAIR HOUSING DATA C -11 Total Cases % of Total Carlsbad 137 1.4% Chula Vista 654 6.5% Coronado 15 0.1% Del Mar 12 0.1% El Cajon 806 8.1% Encinitas 50 0.5% Escondido 360 3.6% Imperial Beach 143 1.4% La Mesa 277 2.8% Lemon Grove 137 1.4% National City 302 3.0% Oceanside 607 6.1% Poway 49 0.5% San Diego 5148 51.5% San Marcos 101 1.0% Santee 120 1.2% Solana Beach 16 0.2% Vista 231 2.3% Unincorporated County 840 8.4% Total Cases 10,005 100% Source: Legal Aid Society of San Diego, 2015 APPENDIX C: FAIR HOUSING DATA C -11 N O r ui 0 in r N OC a ro x SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table C -11: LASSD - Clients Served by Household Race /Ethnicity (2012 -2014) Source: Legal Aid Society of San Diego, 2015 Table C -12: LASSD — Fair Housing Cases by Protected Class Discrimination Complaint (2012 -2014) rr Total Cases % of Total White 3832 38.2% Black /African American 2411 24.0% Asian 369 3.7% Hispanic 2782 27.7% Native American 99 1.0% Other 538 5.4% Total Cases 10031 100% Source: Legal Aid Society of San Diego, 2015 Table C -12: LASSD — Fair Housing Cases by Protected Class Discrimination Complaint (2012 -2014) rr Total Cases % of Total Age 6 2.0% Disability 193 63.5% Familial Status 23 7.6% Familial Status /Disability 2 0.7% National Origin 29 9.5% Race 33 10.9% Sex 16 5.3% Source of Income 2 0.7% Total Cases 304 100% Source: Legal Aid Society of San Diego, 2015 ro APPENDIX C: FAIR HOUSING DATA o C -12 N W N O r ui 0 in r N a ro w SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Housing Opportunities Collaborative Table C -13: HOC - Basis for Discrimination of Complaints (2012 -2014) Source: Housing Opportunities Collaborative, 2015 Table C -14: HOC — Complaints filed by Race (2012 -2014) Asian White Hispanic Black American Indian/ Alaskan Native Other/ Multiple Race Total 2012 -2013 1 38 27 21 Source 7 96 Cases 2 25 17 4 2 Familial 71 National 3 63 Sexual 25 Sexual 28 167 # of 1.8% 37.7% Arbitrary Age Color Disability 100% Harassment Race Religion Sex of Total Referred Status Origin Orientation Harassment Cases Income to LASSD 2012 1 1 5 43 6 4 1 27 1 1 1 0 3 94 86 18 2013 2013- 2 4 0 38 2 4 0 16 0 2 0 1 0 69 71 15 2014 Total 3 1 5 5 81 8 8 1 1 43 1 3 1 1 1 3 163 1 157 33 Source: Housing Opportunities Collaborative, 2015 Table C -14: HOC — Complaints filed by Race (2012 -2014) Source: Housing Opportunities Collaborative, 2015 ro APPENDIX C: FAIR HOUSING DATA o C -13 N Asian White Hispanic Black American Indian/ Alaskan Native Other/ Multiple Race Total 2012 -2013 1 38 27 21 2 7 96 2013 -2014 2 25 17 4 2 21 71 Total Cases 3 63 44 25 4 28 167 % of Total 1.8% 37.7% 26.3% 15.0% 2.4% 16.8% 100% Source: Housing Opportunities Collaborative, 2015 ro APPENDIX C: FAIR HOUSING DATA o C -13 N N O Ul SAN DIEGO REGIONAL U°, ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE r N North County Lifeline a ro w x co Table C -15: North County Lifeline - Basis for Discrimination of Fair Housing Cases Filed (2010 -2015) Source: North County Lifeline, 2095 Table C -16: North County Lifeline - Basis of Landlord /Tenant Complaints (2010 -2015) Reasonable Modification Reasonable Accommodation Disability Age Race/ Color National Origin Sexual Orientation Religion Marital Status/ Familial Status Medical Condition Other Total % of Total Encinitas 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 8 6.2% Vista 0 7 3 0 4 5 0 0 1 0 2 22 16.9% San Marcos 1 5 4 0 3 3 1 0 0 0 4 21 16.2% Oceanside 2 16 10 0 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 38 29.2% Escondido 3 17 3 2 5 5 1 2 2 1 0 41 31.5% Total 6 49 21 2 20 15 2 2 3 1 9 130 100% % of Total 4.6% 37.7% 16.2% 1.5% 15.4% 11.5% 1.5% 1.5% 2.3% 0.8% 6.9% 100% - Source: North County Lifeline, 2095 Table C -16: North County Lifeline - Basis of Landlord /Tenant Complaints (2010 -2015) Source: North County Lifeline, 2095 ro APPENDIX C: FAIR HOUSING DATA o C -14 N N Habitability Security Deposit Notice of Eviction Unlawful Detainer Foreclosure Lease Term General Information Other Total % of Total Encinitas 6 2 16 0 0 0 61 0 85 6.5% Vista 74 32 139 46 3 0 0 17 311 23.9% San Marcos 25 11 23 14 7 6 14 32 132 10.1% Oceanside 75 29 101 30 13 0 1 86 335 25.7% Escondido 120 27 115 57 8 0 43 68 438 33.7% Total 300 101 394 147 31 6 119 203 1,301 100.0% % of Total 23.1% 7.8% 30.3% 11.3% 2.4% 0.5% 9.1% 15.6% 100% - Source: North County Lifeline, 2095 ro APPENDIX C: FAIR HOUSING DATA o C -14 N N N O r ui 0 in r N a ro w x co ro w as �o N SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE North County Lifeline Fair Housing Collaborative Table C -17: NCL Fair Housing Collaborative - Clients Served (2009 -2014) Source: Compiled by CSA San Diego, 2095 APPENDIX C: FAIR HOUSING DATA C -15 2009 -2010 2010 -2011 2011 -2012 2012 -2013 2013 -2014 Total % of Total Coronado 0 1 1 3 2 7 0.3% Del Mar 6 0 4 4 2 16 0.7% Imperial Beach 7 11 17 36 45 116 5.0% Lemon Grove 25 52 59 65 51 252 10.8% Poway 7 9 28 26 24 94 4.0% Solana Beach 6 0 1 5 8 20 0.9% Unincorporated County 69 171 252 301 311 1,104 u 47.3% Other cities served Encinitas 1 1 1 1 1 5 0.2% Escondido 108 4 6 4 0 122 5.2% Oceanside 7 1 0 4 4 16 0.7% San Diego 352 71 21 80 38 562 24.1% San Marcos 3 1 2 0 3 9 0.4% Vista 4 1 5 3 0 13 0.6% Total 595 323 397 532 489 2,336 100% Source: Compiled by CSA San Diego, 2095 APPENDIX C: FAIR HOUSING DATA C -15 N O r ui 0 in r N OC a ro SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table C -18: NCL Fair Housing Collaborative - Basis for Discrimination of Fair Housing Cases Filed (2009 -2014) Source: Compiled by CSA San Diego, 2095 ro APPENDIX C: FAIR HOUSING DATA o C -16 N J Age Race /Color National Origin In Ori Sex /Gender Disability Familial Status Source of Income Retaliation Religion Other Total Coronado 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Del Mar 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Imperial Beach 0 3 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 1 9 Lemon Grove 1 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 7 Poway 2 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 7 Solana Beach 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 5 Unincorporated County 3 8 2 1 12 4 0 0 1 2 33 Other Cities Served Encinitas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Escondido 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 6 Oceanside 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 San Diego 1 8 7 0 6 3 0 0 2 0 27 San Marcos 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Vista 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 3 Total 7 24 10 1 39 11 0 0 3 5 100 % of Total 7.0% 24.0% 10.0% 1.0% 39.0% 11.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.0% 5.0% 100% Source: Compiled by CSA San Diego, 2095 ro APPENDIX C: FAIR HOUSING DATA o C -16 N J N O r ui 0 in r N OC a ro x co ro w as M N co SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table C -19 -: NCL Fair Housing Collaborative - Clients Served by Race (2009 -2014) Source: Compiled by CSA San Diego, 2095 APPENDIX C: FAIR HOUSING DATA C -17 Race Hispanic Non - Hispanic No response Total Coronado 0 7 0 7 Del Mar 1 15 0 16 Imperial beach 54 62 0 116 Lemon Grove 90 162 0 252 Poway 29 65 0 94 Solana Beach 4 16 0 20 Unincorporated County 277 827 0 1,104 Other Cities Served Encinitas 0 4 1 5 Escondido 0 78 44 122 Oceanside 6 10 0 16 San Diego 332 230 0 562 San Marcos 0 6 3 9 Vista 3 6 4 13 Total 796 1,488 52 2,336 % Total 34.1% 63.7% 2.2% 100% Source: Compiled by CSA San Diego, 2095 APPENDIX C: FAIR HOUSING DATA C -17 N O r ui 0 in r N OC a ro x SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table C -20: NCL Fair Housing Collaborative - Clients Served by Ethnicity (2009 -2014) Source: Compiled by CSA San Diego, 2015 ro APPENDIX C: FAIR HOUSING DATA o C -18 N Ethnicity White Black /African American Asian Hawaiian /Pacific Islander American Indian/ Alaska Native Other /Multi- Racial Total Coronado 6 0 0 1 0 0 7 Del Mar 16 0 0 0 0 0 16 Imperial beach 82 5 0 2 1 26 116 Lemon Grove 98 55 3 6 1 89 252 Poway 53 4 5 1 0 31 94 Solana Beach 18 0 0 0 0 2 20 Unincorporated County 653 129 10 13 9 290 1,104 Other Cities Served Encinitas 4 0 0 0 0 1 5 Escondido 46 2 1 0 0 73 122 Oceanside 10 1 0 0 0 5 16 San Diego 177 43 12 5 3 322 562 San Marcos 3 1 0 0 0 5 9 Vista 5 2 0 0 0 6 13 Total 1,171 242 31 28 14 850 2,336 % Total 50.1% 10.4% 1.3% 1.2% 0.6% 36.4% 100% Source: Compiled by CSA San Diego, 2015 ro APPENDIX C: FAIR HOUSING DATA o C -18 N r N Fair Housing Audit Testing a ro w x co ro w ac 0 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table C -21: Fair Housing Audit Testing (2012 -2015) APPENDIX C: FAIR HOUSING DATA C -19 Findings Disparate No Basis for Follow City Test Variable Test Market Treatment/ Conditions up Total # of Sites Total % Total % Carlsbad FY 2014 -15 Sexual Orientation Rental 1 10% 9 90% 10 Race (African American/ Chula Vista FY 2012 -13 Rental 2 20% 8 80% 10 Caucasian) Race (African American/ Chula Vista FY 2013 14 Caucasian) Rental 2 40% 3 60% 5 Race (African American/ Chula Vista FY 2014 15 Caucasian) Rental 1 33% 2 67% 3 Race (African El Cajon FY 2013 -14 American/ Caucasian) Rental 3 30% 7 70% 10 El Cajon FY 2013 -14 Disability Rental 2 33% 4 67% 6 El Cajon FY 2014 -15 Sexual Orientation Rental 2 40% 3 60% 5 Encinitas FY 2011 -12 Disability Rental 3 67% 1 33% 4 Race (African American/ Encinitas FY 2012 -13 Rental 2 67% 1 33% 3 Caucasian) Encinitas FY 2013 -14 Familial Status Rental 0 0% 3 100% 3 Race (African American/ La Mesa FY 2014 -15 Rental 1 20% 4 80% 5 Caucasian) National FY 2012 -13 Familial Status (Families Rental 1 20% 4 80% 5 City with Children) Race (African American/ Oceanside FY 2012 -13 Rental 4 40% 6 60% 10 Caucasian) Oceanside FY 2013 14 Familial Status - Rental 2 20% 8 80% 10 (Families with Children) San Marcos FY 2011 -12 Disability Rental 0 0% 5 1000/o 5 APPENDIX C: FAIR HOUSING DATA C -19 r N OC a ro x �o SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table C -21: Fair Housing Audit Testing (2012 -2015) ro APPENDIX C: FAIR HOUSING DATA o C -20 Findings Disparate No Basis for Follow City 7 FY Test Variable Test Market Total # of Sites Treatment/ Conditions up Total % Total % L San Marcos FY 2012 -13 Race Rental 0 0% 5 100% 5 San Marcos FY 2013 -14 Race (African American/ Caucasian) Rental 0 0% 5 100% 5 San Diego FY 2012 -13 Disability (Service Rental 16 53% 14 47% 30 Animals) San Diego FY 2012 -13 Disability (Accessibility) Rental 3 10% 27 90% 30 San Diego FY 2012 -13 Familial Status (Families Rental 13 43% 17 57% 30 with Children) Race (African American/ San Diego FY 2012 -13 Caucasian) Housing Sales 5 45% 6 55% 11 San Diego FY 2012 -13 Race (Hispanic/ Caucasian) Housing Sales 5 56% 4 44% 9 Race (African American/ Mortgage San Diego FY 2012 -13 Caucasian) Lending 6 600 4 o 40 /0 10 San Diego FY 2012 -13 Perceived Neighborhood Property 3 60% 2 40% 5 Composition Insurance San Diego FY 2013 -14 Same Sex Rental 4 36% 7 64% 11 San Diego FY 2013 -14 National Origin Rental 7 26% 20 74% 27 (Asian/ Caucasian) Race (African American/ San Diego FY 2013 -14 Caucasian) Rental 5 38% 8 62% 13 Race (African American/ Santee FY 2014 -15 Caucasian) Rental 1 25% 3 75% 4 Vista FY 2011 -12 Disability Rental 1 100/o 9 90% 10 Race (African American/ Vista FY 2012 -13 Caucasian) Rental 2 2W'o 8 80% 10 Vista FY 2013 -14 Familial Status (Families Rental 4 40% 6 60% 10 with Children) ro APPENDIX C: FAIR HOUSING DATA o C -20 r N OC a ro x co w as M N SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table C -21: Fair Housing Audit Testing (2012 -2015) Source: CMH Consulting 2015, NCLL 2015, LASSD 2015, CSA 2015 APPENDIX C: FAIR HOUSING DATA C -21 Findings Disparate No Basis for Follow City Test Variable lk Test Market Total # of Sites Treatment/ Conditions up Total % Total % A County of FY 2011 -12 Disability Rental 11 28% 29 73% 40 San Diego County of FY 2012 -13 Race (African American/ Rental 10 25% 30 75% 40 San Diego Caucasian) County of FY 2013 -14 Familial Status (Families Rental 8 20% 32 80% 40 San Diego with Children) Source: CMH Consulting 2015, NCLL 2015, LASSD 2015, CSA 2015 APPENDIX C: FAIR HOUSING DATA C -21 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE r N Hate Crimes a ro w x Table C -22: Hate Crimes (1997 -2003) Motivation Race Religion Sexual Orientation Ethnicity Disability Total Carlsbad 1 2 4 0 0 7 Chula Vista 10 3 6 4 0 23 Coronado 0 1 1 1 0 3 Del Mar 0 0 0 1 0 1 El Cajon 14 2 3 2 0 21 Encinitas 5 5 5 0 0 15 Escondido 20 6 8 10 0 44 Imperial Beach 10 1 4 2 0 17 La Mesa 14 5 0 6 0 25 Lemon Grove 11 0 0 2 0 13 National City 7 2 4 2 0 15 Oceanside 68 9 28 11 3 119 Poway 12 3 4 5 0 24 San Diego 324 115 233 120 1 793 San Marcos 6 2 0 6 0 14 Santee 26 3 5 15 0 49 Solana Beach 3 0 2 0 0 5 Vista 14 8 4 5 0 31 Metropolitan San Diego County 77 18 13 38 2 148 Total 622 185 324 230 6 1367 Source: U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1997 -2003 ro APPENDIX C: FAIR HOUSING DATA o C -22 w N O r ui 0 in r N OC a ro ro w as M 4- SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Table C -23: Hate Crimes (2007 -2013) Motivation Race Religion Sexual Orientation Ethnicity Disability Gender' Genders Identity Total Carlsbad 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 5 Chula Vista 14 9 7 7 0 0 0 37 Coronado 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 4 Del Mar 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 El Cajon 3 0 1 2 0 0 0 6 Encinitas 5 3 4 4 0 0 0 16 Escondido 30 2 3 7 0 0 0 42 Imperial Beach 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 5 La Mesa 1 2 3 1 0 0 0 7 Lemon Grove 5 0 3 2 0 0 0 10 National City 6 0 1 2 0 0 0 9 Oceanside 46 12 7 11 0 0 0 76 Poway 4 6 2 0 0 0 0 12 San Diego 95 57 92 48 1 0 0 293 San Marcos 4 1 3 1 0 0 0 9 Santee 18 2 1 3 0 0 0 24 Solana Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vista 11 5 3 5 0 0 0 24 Metropolitan San Diego County 68 16 19 30 0 0 0 133 Total 314 120 153 126 1 0 0 714 Notes: 1. "Gender" and "Gender Identity" hate crime categories available as of 2013 data set. Source: U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2007 -2013 APPENDIX C: FAIR HOUSING DATA C -23 PROGRESS SINCE 2010 his appendix summarizes and compares key findings contained in the 2010 Al document in order to evaluate the progress toward addressing impediments to fair housing choice. The findings reviewed in this appendix include those that were carried forward from various previous Al documents and incorporated in the 2010 Al. D.1 Regional Impediments from Previous AIs Education and Outreach Impediment: Educational and outreach literature regarding fair housing issues, rights, and services on websites or at public counters is limited. Recommendations: 1. Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, Imperial Beach, Lemon Grove, San Diego, and Solana Beach should provide links to fair housing and other housing resources with current information on their websites. 2. National City, La Mesa and Escondido should consider including detailed information about fair housing on their websites, in addition to the links they currently have to the Center for Social Advocacy. 3. All jurisdictions should consider prominently displaying fair housing information on their public counters. Efforts: Nearly all of the cities in San Diego County have fair housing information readily available for their residents. Chula Vista, Coronado, El Cajon, Encinitas, Escondido, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City, Oceanside, Poway, San Marcos, Santee, San Diego (City), San Diego (County), and Vista provide links to fair housing and other housing resources with current information on their websites. The City of Santee displays fair housing information on their public counters. The City of Encinitas also developed an LEP plan, in addition to posting several fair housing posters (English and Spanish) throughout City Hall. The cities of Carlsbad, Imperial Beach, and Solana do not have links to fair housing resources on city websites, and Coronado does not have the most to date information on its website. APPENDIX D: PROGRESS SINCE 2010 D -1 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 665 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Impediment: Many fair housing violations are committed by small "mom and pop" rental operations. As many individual homeowners enter the business of being a landlord by renting out their homes, many may not be aware of current laws. Recommendation: 1. Entitlement jurisdictions should include in the scopes of work for fair housing services to expand outreach to small property owners. Fair housing service providers should coordinate with all entitlement and participating jurisdictions to identify small property owners within their client jurisdictions to specifically target education and outreach materials to this segment of the market population. All entitlement and participating jurisdictions should collaborate with service providers in outreach activities. Efforts: The Carlsbad Housing Agency sponsors fair housing workshops for residents and property owners /managers in order to educate housing providers of fair marketing plans. The City of El Cajon continues to work with the San Diego Regional Alliance for Fair Housing (SDRAFFH) to determine the best ways to target small property owners. In June 2012 and July 2013, the City's fair housing service provider conducted workshops for small property owners. The City of Oceanside held rental property owners workshops on January 12, 2012 with 49 attendees and another on June 11, 2013 to educate 24 owners /managers, including seven "mom and pop" property owners, on fair housing laws and responsibilities. The City of San Diego hosted a total of nine workshops for property owners and landlords during FY 2013 and FY 2014, at no cost to attendees. Beginning in FY 2011 -2012, San Marcos expanded the focus of educational and outreach efforts to "mom and pop" rentals. The City of San Marcos continues to contract North County Lifeline (NCL) to provide landlord education. Lending and Credit Counseling Impediment: Hispanics and Blacks continue to be under - represented in the homebuyer market and experienced large disparities in loan approval rates. Recommendation: 1. All jurisdictions should collaborate with the San Diego Reinvestment Task Force to implement the recommendations contained in the Three Year Plan. 2. All jurisdictions that offer homebuyers programs also consider stepping up outreach efforts in minority communities in order to improve loan origination /approval rates and increase awareness of and education about homeownership opportunities. Impediment: Many of the reasons for application denial, whether in the rental market or in the home purchase market, relate to credit history and financial management factors. Recommendations: 1. Provide findings of this Al and other related studies to the CRI Task Force. 2. All jurisdictions that offer homebuyer programs should continue providing education and outreach on Credit History and Financial Management. 3. Jurisdictions should collaborate with the CRI in the implementation of the Three -Year Plan prepared by the CRI. APPENDIX D: PROGRESS SINCE 2010 D -2 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 666 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Efforts: The County of San Diego offers low- interest deferred payment loans for low- income first- time homebuyers through its Downpayment and Closing Cost Program. This program is available to first -time homebuyers looking to purchase homes in the unincorporated area of San Diego County or in the cities of Carlsbad, Coronado, Del Mar, Encinitas, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, Poway, San Marcos, Santee, Solana Beach or Vista. The City of La Mesa previously administered its own First -Time Homebuyer Program, and between FY 2010 and FY 2013, down payment and closing cost assistance was provided to five minority households in the City. HUD approved Homebuyer Counseling was a required component of this program and completion of the 8 -hour seminar, which includes final management curricula, was required prior to the close of escrow. The City of San Marcos has increased referrals and access to HUD - Approved Housing Counseling Agencies. Additionally, the City ensured that this information was part of New First Time Homebuyer education curricula. Efforts to continue to hold HOME Clinics in collaboration with the Housing Opportunities Collaborative and the San Diego County Libraries are underway. The City of Vista allocates CDBG funds annually to support programs that incorporate financial literacy. The City of Chula Vista offers gap financing for first -time low- income homebuyers to purchase eligible properties through its First -Time Homebuyer Program. The City of El Cajon offers two unique programs designed to assist first -time homebuyers with purchasing a new or existing single - family or condominium home: the American Dream and California Dream First -Time Homebuyer programs. The City is currently reviewing opportunities to improve outreach efforts to minorities for these programs. HUD - approved Homebuyer Counseling is a required component of the City's homebuyer programs. El Cajon continues to work with the San Diego Regional Alliance for Fair Housing (SDRAFFH) to explore the possibility of giving a presentation on the findings of the Al to the CRI. The City of Escondido administers the Homebuyer Entry Loan Program (HELP). Brochures for this first -time homebuyer program are available on the City's website in both English and Spanish. The City continues to review opportunities to improve outreach efforts to minorities for this program. However, participation is low overall (not only among minorities) due to HUD requirements like maximum purchase price, and market influences, like buyers with all cash offers. HUD approved Homebuyer Counseling is a required component of the City's HELP. National City offers a First Time Homebuyer Assistance Program for its residents. In 2011, the City began targeting outreach efforts to underrepresented groups and tracking the demographic information of participants in the program. The City of Oceanside provides homebuyer assistance through its CalHome First -Time Homebuyer Program. Between FY 2010 and FY 2013, the City provided 16 loans through this program, 12 of which were made to Hispanic and Black households. In addition, the City referred denied applicants to Habitat for Humanity or Community Housing Works for free Financial Fitness assistance courses APPENDIX D: PROGRESS SINCE 2010 D -3 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 667 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE to help prepare them for any future loan applications. The City also established a computer lab at its Libby Lake Resource Center and coordinated with the Leichtag Foundation to provide assistance services via private web - conferencing. The City of San Diego has been actively supporting the activities of the San Diego Regional Alliance for Fair Housing regarding collaborations with the San Diego City /County Reinvestment Task Force. During FY 2012 to FY 2014, the City of San Diego chaired the Alliance's Subcommittee for Strategic Planning. Additionally, the City continued to support the activities of SDRAFFH with regard to collaboration with the San Diego City /County Reinvestment Task Force. In addition, the San Diego Housing Commission (SDHC) offers deferred loans, homeownership grants, and mortgage credit certificates to first -time homebuyers through its First -Time Homebuyer Program. Housing Discrimination Impediment: Housing discrimination persists throughout the County, which is supported by general literature, statistical data, cases filed with DFEH, and testing conducted in the region. Recommendations: 1. Conduct comprehensive and countywide random testing on a regular basis to identify issues, trends, and problem properties. Expand testing to cover other protected classes, especially those with emerging trends of suspected discriminatory practices. 2. Support stronger and more persistent enforcement activity by fair housing service providers. 3. Expand education and outreach efforts, with specific efforts outreaching to small rental properties where the owners /managers may not be members of the Apartments Association. Impediment: Fair housing service provider contracts with the jurisdictions do not currently allow for random testing or testing audits. Recommendation: 1. Entitlement jurisdictions should consider setting aside funding for fair housing audits in 2011 and every two years thereafter. Specifically, entitlement jurisdictions should consider pooling funds to conduct regional audits, rather than acting individually, and work collaboratively with fair housing service providers to pursue FHIP funds for audits and testing as HUD funding is available. Efforts: See earlier discussions on fair housing outreach and education efforts targeted at small property owners. The San Diego Regional Alliance for Fair Housing (SDRAFFH) recently appointed a Steering Committee to develop a Strategic Plan that is expected to include a coordinated approach to region - wide testing. The City of Carlsbad tested for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In FY 2014 -15, of the five sites tested, one showed unequal treatment to the potential renter. APPENDIX D: PROGRESS SINCE 2010 D -4 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 668 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE The City of El Cajon entered into a contract with a fair housing testing organization and conducted fair housing testing for race at 10 sites during FY 2013 -14. Three out of seven sites showed testers unequal treatment. A second phase was also conducted that same year for disability (6 sites) and two sites showed disparate treatment. The City of Encinitas randomly tested for discrimination on the basis of disability in FY 2011 -12 and on the basis of disability in FY 2012 -13. During both tests, two out of three sites showed disparate treatment. Additionally, in FY 2013 -14, the City randomly tested for discrimination on the basis of familial status. Out of three sites tested, none showed unequal treatment. The City of La Mesa has randomly tested for race in FY 2014 -15, and one out of five sites showed the tester disparate treatment. The City of National City has randomly tested for familial status in FY 2014 -15. Out of the five sites tested, one showed the tester unequal treatment. The City of Oceanside randomly tested for discrimination on the basis of race and familial status in FY 2012 -13 and FY 2013 -14. Each variable was tested at ten sites. Testers were shown disparate treatment at 4 out of 6 sites when testing for race, and at 2 out of 10 sites when testing for familial status. In FY 2013, the City of San Diego conducted 125 random audit tests (60 rental sites, 20 sales sites, 10 mortgage lending tests, 30 disability accessibility tests, and five insurance tests). In addition, a total of 133 random paired fair housing tests were conducted in the categories of disability, color, familial status and national origin in the arena of rental, sales, insurance, lending and accessibility. In FY 2014, 51 random paired fair housing tests were conducted in the categories of national origin, race and sexual orientation in the arena of rental housing. Nearly 40 percent of sites showed unequal treatment towards the testers when testing for race (38 percent) and sexual orientation (36 percent). When testing for national origin, 26 percent (7 out of 20 sites) also showed disparate treatment. Regional outreach included a Spanish and English ratio PSA campaign focusing on disability discrimination and the City of San Diego produced a FH video PSA with a focus on disability discrimination. Legal Aid Society of San Diego (IASSD), the City of San Diego's fair housing service provider, successfully sued a large housing provider who discriminated against persons with disabilities by not having accessible apartment units, as required by law. The lawsuit resolved all issues, resulting in a $275.00 settlement and major retrofits to the building. In addition, LASSD successfully sued a San Diego landlord for sexual harassment of a female tenant, which resulted in the landlord agreeing to use a professional management company for all rental properties. LASSD has also successfully filed several pending complaints with HUD regarding discrimination on the basis of disability and familial status. The agency also regularly uses the conciliation process to successfully resolve discrimination complaints on the basis of disability, which has resulted in accommodations being granted for the benefit of clients. The City of San Marcos has contracted North County Lifeline (NCL) to conduct investigative activities, including on -site inspections, alleged violator interviews, mediation of fair housing and landlord /tenant issues, and fair housing training for housing providers found in violation of fair APPENDIX D: PROGRESS SINCE 2010 D -5 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 669 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE housing laws. The City of San Marcos conducted random housing testing on the basis of discrimination for race in FY 2012 -13 and FY 2013 -14, and in FY 2011 -12 tested for discrimination on the basis of disability. Of the total 15 sites tested, no sites were reported to show unequal treatment. The City of Vista randomly tested for discrimination on the basis of disability in FY 2011 -12. From FY 2012 -2013 to FY 2013 -2014, the City also randomly tested for discrimination regarding race and family size. Disparate treatment was noted when testing for familial status at 40 percent of sites, for race at 20 percent of sites and for disability at 10 percent of sites. Racial and Economic Segregation Impediment: Previous AIs identified patterns of racial and ethnic concentrations are present within particular areas of San Diego County. Revised Recommendations: Work to diversify and expand the housing stock to accommodate the varied housing needs of different groups. 2. Promote equal access to information for all residents on the availability of decent and affordable housing by providing information in multiple languages (to the extent feasible) and through venues and media that have proven success in outreaching to community, particularly those hard -to -reach groups. 3. Work collaboratively with local housing authorities and affordable housing providers to ensure affirmative fair marketing plans and deconcentration policies are implemented. Impediment: Due to the geographic disparity in terms of rents, concentrations of Section 8 voucher use has occurred. Revised Recommendations: 1. Work to expand the affordable housing inventory and implement policies that would discourage concentration of affordable housing units within individual jurisdictions. 2. Promote the Housing Choice Voucher program to rental property owners. With guaranteed income from HUD, the Housing Choice Vouchers should be an attractive option given the current depressed market conditions. 3. Work collaboratively with local housing authorities and affordable housing providers to ensure affirmative fair marketing plans and deconcentration policies are implemented. 4. Continue to implement the Choice Communities Initiative and Moving Forward Plan by the San Diego Housing Commission to expand locational choices for voucher users. The Housing Commission should also explore other mechanisms to deconcentrate the use of vouchers. Efforts: The City of Carlsbad provides information on fair housing and affordable housing at City facilities and on its website. Bilingual staff is available at facilities and interpretation services are utilized on as- needed basis. Additionally, the City has a wide variety of City regulated affordable housing provided under an inclusionary housing ordinance that target various income levels. As a APPENDIX D: PROGRESS SINCE 2010 D -6 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 670 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE result of its inclusionary housing ordinance, Carlsbad has a wide variety of City regulated affordable housing distributed throughout the entire jurisdiction— allowing Section 8 clients to locate affordable and available rentals in all areas of Carlsbad and further reducing the concentration of low and lower income households in the City. The City continues to maintain their payment standards at 110 percent of the HUD - published FMRs for studios, 1 bedroom, and 2 bedrooms unit expanding the availability of housing options in Carlsbad's jurisdiction. The cities of El Cajon and Escondido use available housing funds to expand their supplies of affordable housing and improve existing housing. Additionally, El Cajon encourages multilingual outreach targeted at hard -to -reach groups. Escondido has utilized available housing funds to expand its supply of affordable of housing and has a wide variety of housing distributed throughout the City. Both El Cajon and Escondido require affirmative fair housing marketing plans for developers and managers of affordable housing. National City also requires an affirmative fair marketing plan for every rental rehabilitation and new construction project in the City. The City of Encinitas has created a Limited English Proficiency Plan and Fair Housing Posters. The City of La Mesa provides information and referrals to the Housing Choice Voucher /Section 8 Program administered by the County to all callers /visitors who seek rental assistance. A link is provided on the City's website to the County's rental assistance programs. Affordable apartment developments within the City are geographically distributed and promote fair housing principles. The City of Oceanside has expanded the Section 8 Voucher Administrative Plan to address racial segregation. In addition, the City utilizes Go Section 8 Software for ease of access to a wider geographic rental market and, in January 2012, the City hosted a new and interested owner workshop in conjunction with the City of Carlsbad and the City of Encinitas. The City of Oceanside has made efforts to reduce racial segregation and linguistic isolation through a variety of community events. City staff host bridging events merging segregated neighborhoods in an effort to minimize or eliminate gang boundaries (that are not only neighborhood based but also racially motivated), address linguistic needs and improve communication and relationships between previously rival neighborhoods, build trust among residents and increase community connectedness. Residents are encouraged to cross neighborhood boundaries and attend events in communities outside their immediate neighborhoods. LASSD continues to work with the City of San Diego and the San Diego Housing Commission (SDHC) to develop a strategy for deconcentration of Housing Choice Vouchers. Additionally, nearly 10,000 multilingual brochures (available in English, Spanish, Vietnamese, Chinese and Tagalog) were distributed from FY 2013 to FY 2014 to promote equal access to information. Regional outreach also included a Spanish and English radio PSA campaign. The City of San Marcos began reviewing concentrations of Section 8 voucher use in FY 2011 -2012. The City of Santee has significantly broadened the variety of housing types and costs available within the community. Additionally, affordable apartment developments financially- assisted by the City are widely marketed, promote fair housing principles, and are evenly geographically distributed. The City of Vista's Inclusionary Housing Program encourages deconcentration. APPENDIX D: PROGRESS SINCE 2010 D -7 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 671 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Housing Options Impediment: Housing choices for persons with disabilities are limited. Recommendation: 1. All jurisdictions should continue their efforts to expand the variety of available housing types and sizes. In addition to persons with disabilities, senior households, families with children, farmworkers, and the homeless, among others, can also benefit from a wider range of housing options. Impediment: None of the jurisdictions have adopted a universal design ordinance. Recommendation: 1. If formal Universal Design ordinances are cost prohibitive, jurisdictions could consider encouraging, but not requiring, universal design principles in new housing developments (i.e. San Diego County's current practice). 2. All jurisdictions with a residential rehabilitation program (regardless of funding sources) should specifically include ADA- compliant upgrades in their programs. Jurisdictions could also consider modifying their housing rehabilitation programs to make financial assistance for accessibility improvements available for renters, as well as homeowners. Efforts: Most of the region's 19 jurisdictions, including Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Coronado, Escondido, La Mesa, National City, Oceanside, Poway, Santee, San Diego (City), San Diego (County), San Marcos, Solana Beach, and Vista have explicit recognition of their obligation to reasonably accommodate the housing needs of residents in the Municipal Code. Since 2011, the City of Carlsbad has allocated over $9 million to affordable housing projects for seniors, disabled seniors, farm workers, homeless families with children and low income households including youth leaving foster care. In addition, the City has allocated $164,000 in Housing Trust funds for a Home Repair Program that may be used for improvements to assist those with disabilities. Carlsbad has previously considered a universal design ordinance but deemed it not cost effective for new developments. The City's rehabilitation program also specifically allow for improvements that enhance accessibility. The City of Chula Vista's Community Housing Improvement Program allows for improvements that enhance accessibility. The City of El Cajon provided $4.5 million in funding for a project that added 49 units of new construction targeting very -low income seniors. All units are adaptable for disabled accessibility. The City's fair housing service provider is tasked each year with creating and maintaining a list of accessible housing in the City. The City has determined that the adoption of a universal design ordinance is not financially feasible. The Community Development Department requires ADA where indicated in the Building Code and whenever federal funds are being used. However, the City encourages universal design features when feasible for a project. ADA upgrades are routinely provided in the City's rehabilitation programs. APPENDIX D: PROGRESS SINCE 2010 D -8 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 672 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE The City of Encinitas' rehabilitation program specifically allows for improvements that enhance accessibility. The City of Escondido recently assisted in the development of a new 60 -unit development for very low- income seniors. The City has a wide variety of affordable housing in the City for seniors and families with children, including many residential care facilities and transitional units. The City ensures that all affordable projects provide reasonable accommodation to persons with disabilities and federally funded projects are required to meet accessibility and adaptability standards. The City's Community Development Department also requires ADA compliance where indicated in the Building Code and whenever federal funds are being used. ADA upgrades are provided for in the City's new rehabilitation program. While the City is not considering a Universal Design Ordinance at this time due to the availability of housing for persons with disabilities, the City does encourage Universal Design Features in a project. La Mesa's Community Development Department requires ADA compliance where indicated in the Building Code and whenever federal funds are being used. ADA upgrades are routinely provided in the City's rehabilitation programs. In 2011, the Lil Jackson Senior Housing community opened in Oceanside, providing 90 very low - and low- income units to seniors. The City also negotiated a Development Agreement for Mission Cove, a housing project to bring 288 multi - family and senior units with universal design. The City's rehabilitation program also specifically allow for improvements that enhance accessibility. The San Diego Housing Commission maintains an Affordable Housing Resource Guide that includes regional resources as well as an affordable rental housing list specifying housing for disabled people within the City. The County of San Diego also provides a similar database of affordable rental housing and services throughout the County that is accessible to persons with disabilities. LASSD successfully sued a large housing provider — which received federal funding — for discrimination against persons with disabilities by not having accessible apartments, as required by law. This resulted in a large settlement as well as a major retrofit, which has increased the supply of accessible housing to persons with disabilities. In addition, in the City of San Diego, Universal Design Guideline compliance is a requirement of all Opportunity Fund applications, DDAs and OPAs and the San Diego Housing Commission meets with all developers to review universal design standards on all proposed projects. The County of San Diego also promotes Universal Design in new developments. The City of San Marcos recently conducted a feasibility study for universal design ordinance implementation. However, no ordinance was adopted. The City of Santee's Municipal Code (Chapter 17.10) provides for a wide range of housing (residential care facilities, congregate care facilities, single -room occupancy dwellings, limited and general group care facilities & transitional and support care facilities). Additionally, the Municipal Code (Chapter 17.06.055) provides for reasonable accommodation /residential accessibility. The City's rehabilitation program also specifically allow for improvements that enhance accessibility. The City has not adopted a universal design ordinance governing construction or modification of homes using design principles that allow individuals to remain in those homes as their physical needs and APPENDIX D: PROGRESS SINCE 2010 D -9 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 673 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE capabilities changes. In light of current and proposed planning policies and zoning regulations, the City believes that it has mitigated any potential constraints to the availability of housing for persons with disabilities. The City of Vista's rehabilitation program specifically allows for improvements that enhance accessibility. The City has also entered into development agreements for affordable housing projects that incorporate universal design. Housing Conditions Impediment: Lead -based paint hazards often disproportionately affect minorities and families with children. Recommendation: 1. All jurisdictions that offer homebuyer and rehabilitation programs should include lead -based paint testing as part of their homebuyer and residential rehabilitation programs (regardless of funding sources). Impediment: Substandard housing conditions tend to impact minority households disproportionately. Recommendation: All jurisdictions that offer rehabilitation programs should pursue the following: 1. Offer housing rehabilitation programs, either directly or through the County, and make lead - based paint testing as part of their housing rehabilitation programs. 2. Consider modifying the housing rehabilitation programs to make financial assistance for accessibility improvements available for renters as well as homeowners. Efforts: The City of Carlsbad requires lead -based paint (LBP) assessment and resolution, when needed, in all loan programs. LBP testing and remediation are also required for El Cajon's rehabilitation programs (properties built before 1978). Additionally, LBP testing is conducted for First Time Homebuyer (FTHB) properties (built before 1978) and clearance must be obtained before the City will participate in the funding. Escondido has similar requirements for its homebuyer program. In addition, LBP testing and remediation for properties built before 1978 are required for the City's new rehabilitation program. National City's Housing Inspection Program has a lead testing and education component. In FY 2011, the City of Oceanside conducted 20 LBP inspections on mostly senior residences —not impacting children. The City has also implemented a code enforcement program in neighborhoods that are disproportionately affected by LBP hazards to increase education and referral to testing programs for families. The City of San Diego continues to support and encourage the ongoing program offered by the San Diego Housing Commission (SDHC) for LBP hazards in low- income housing units. San Marcos implements LBP testing in its residential rehabilitation program. Additionally, the City conducts annual review achievements of additional testing and education efforts. The City of Santee requires LBP assessment and resolution in all of its loan programs and Vista's housing rehabilitation program includes LBP education and testing requirements. APPENDIX D: PROGRESS SINCE 2010 D -10 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 674 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE The City of El Cajon offers both mobile home and single - family rehabilitation programs that routinely include accessibility improvements. The City will explore re- opening its multifamily rehabilitation program which is currently dormant. Following the dissolution of redevelopment authorities statewide, home rehabilitation loan programs were eliminated in the City of Escondido. However, the City began a new rehab program in 2015, which includes lead -based paint testing and funding for other improvements to correct substandard conditions for homeowners. The City also is supporting funding rehabilitation of multi - family rental developments through its RFP process. Through its Housing Program, National City has contracted the Enforcement of Health and Safety Regulations lead testing. Improved Regional Collaboration and Reporting Impediment: Only minimal successes in regional collaboration had been documented. Recommendation: 1. The fair housing service providers should continue to collaborate and work to affirmatively further fair housing in the region. 2. A single reporting system should be used by the fair housing service providers to compile consistent fair housing data that facilitates analysis of trends and patterns. 3. The Fair Housing Resources Board (FHRB) should also continue to function as a collaborative to coordinate fair housing services for the region. 4. Entitlement jurisdictions should annually review its scope of work to address service gaps. Impediment: Fair housing service providers are supposed to be using HUD's standard reporting categories in reporting fair housing statistics. Recommendation: 1. Entitlement jurisdictions contracting for fair housing services should work with the fair housing service providers to develop one uniform reporting method and consistent reporting categories to report fair housing data. Impediment: While education and outreach efforts are a clear priority of all agencies involved, a previous review of sub - recipient contracts, Action Plans, CAPER reports, and annual accomplishment reports indicated a lack of quantifiable goals, objectives, and accomplishments to gauge success or progress. Recommendation: 1. Fair housing service providers should publicize the outcomes of fair housing complaints to encourage reporting. 2. The City of Oceanside should establish outcome -based performance measures. Remaining jurisdictions should continue to identify specific quantifiable objectives and measurable goals related to furthering fair housing. APPENDIX D: PROGRESS SINCE 2010 D -11 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 675 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Impediment: Fair housing services vary across the region based on the agency providing the services and the work scopes of each sub - recipient contract. Recommendation: 1. Entitlement jurisdictions should continue collaborating with fair housing services providers to ensure an adequate level of service is available to all residents. 2. Entitlement jurisdictions should also evaluate service gaps and establish appropriate levels of funding for the provision of these services. 3. The Fair Housing Resources Board should regularly update its service area map to provide the public with clear information on service providers and types of services available. 4. Entitlement jurisdictions and the Fair Housing Resources Board should establish a collaborative relationship with the 2 -1 -1 San Diego Hotline. 5. Fair housing service providers should work with 2 -1 -1 San Diego to educate and train their phone operators in identifying and directing fair housing issues to the appropriate service providers. Fair housing service providers should be listed among the community service organizations that 2 -1 -1 can refer people to. Impediment: While tenant /landlord disputes are not fair housing issues in general, providing dispute resolution services may prevent certain situations from escalating to discrimination issues. Recommendation: 1. Entitlement jurisdictions should ensure tenant /landlord dispute resolution services are provided to complement the fair housing services. The region's other fair housing service providers should consider adding the tenant /landlord mediation services currently offered by NCL to the array of housing services they already provide. Impediment: Fair housing service providers should actively pursue Fair Housing Initiative Program (FHIP) funds. Recommendations: 1. All entitlement jurisdictions are encouraged to select organizations that meet QFHO and FHO criteria for fair housing services. 2. All service providers for fair housing are encouraged to seek FHIP funds to provide fair housing testing services. Efforts: The San Diego Regional Alliance for Fair Housing (SDRAFFH— formerly the Fair Housing Resource Board) encourages coordination among service providers through its membership. All providers are invited and encouraged to become members and all providers are currently members. Collaboration between the jurisdictions and service providers is also encouraged. The cities of Carlsbad, Chula Vista, La Mesa, National City, Oceanside, Poway, San Marcos, Vista and both the City and County of San Diego all report identifying service gaps with their service providers and are currently working to revise their scopes. APPENDIX D: PROGRESS SINCE 2010 D -12 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 676 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE The cities of Carlsbad, Chula Vista, El Cajon, Encinitas, Escondido, La Mesa, National City, Oceanside, San Diego, San Marcos, Santee and Vista, as well as their respective fair housing service providers, are active members of SDRAFFH, which meets regularly to collaborate on fair housing issues and topics. Members of SDRAFFH are currently working together to develop a uniform reporting system. In 2012, the City of San Marcos began incorporating a "provider cooperation" clause in its scope of work, encouraging fair housing providers to share resources and information. In addition, the City of San Diego actively supports the activities of the SDRAFFH with regard to collaboration with the San Diego City /County Reinvestment Task Force and to further address this impediment. From FY 2012 to FY 2014, the City chaired the Alliance's Subcommittee for Strategic Planning, which meets eight times per year (the Alliance meets quarterly). Included in these meetings is the review of a single reporting system to compile regional fair housing activities and testing information, to facilitate the analysis of trends and patterns. In FY 2014, SDRAFFH established a regional website and initiated a radio PSA campaign during the month of April 2014 (Fair Housing Month). Members of SDRAFFH are also working together to develop uniform informational materials and to ensure that the public can reliably reach a fair housing service provider (through 2 -1 -1, Housing Opportunities Collaborative's website and other ways) when needed. Providers are working together and have agreed to assist all persons in need of assistance, regardless of where that person resides. The City of San Diego meets monthly with its two fair housing service providers (LASSD and Housing Opportunities Collaborative) in order to evaluate service gaps and to ensure an adequate level of service is available to all residents. Additionally, the City has established a Fair Housing Hotline to ensure its fair housing services are available to the community. The City has also contracted with LASSD, who operates an independent fair housing hotline staffed by a 12- person call center, to received fair housing complaint intake phone calls from residents. The City of San Marcos funds 211 to provide information on fair housing services as well as other needs. Tenant /landlord disputes are addressed by the region's current fair services providers. In FY 2013, LASSD submitted a FHIP application with the support of the City of San Diego. LASSD was awarded a three -year Private Enforcement Initiative FHIP grant by HUD in 2014. In 2015, LASSD was additionally awarded an Education Outreach Initiative FHIP grant from HUD. D.2 Jurisdiction - Specific Impediments Carried Over from Previous AIs Jurisdictions in San Diego County have established various land use policies, zoning provisions, and development regulations that may impede the range of housing choices available. The following section outlines the recommendations made to each specific jurisdiction in the 2010 Regional Al in order to address their respective impediments. APPENDIX D: PROGRESS SINCE 2010 D -13 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 677 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Carlsbad Recommendations: 1. Remove the definition of family from its Zoning Ordinance. 2. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to permit emergency shelters by right in a specified zone. Carlsbad should also clearly define the transitional housing and supportive housing. When such housing is developed as group quarters, they should be permitted as residential care facilities. When operated as regular multi - family rental housing, transitional and supportive housing should be permitted by right as a multi - family residential use in multi - family zones. 3. Adopt an ordinance to establish a formal policy on reasonable accommodation. 4. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to include provisions for supportive housing pursuant to State law. Efforts: The Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance was amended to remove the definition of "family" in 2010; the amendment was approved by the Coastal Commission in 2011. The City also amended the Zoning Ordinance to permit emergency shelters in October 2012; this amendment was approved by the Coastal Commission in 2014. The reasonable accommodations zoning ordinance amendment was adopted by the City Council in April 2011. The Coastal Commission approved the amendment with suggested modifications in October 2012, which the City Council approved in November 2012. The ordinance became effective in March 2013. Chula Vista Recommendation: 1. Amend its density bonus ordinance to comply with State law. 2. Amend its Zoning Ordinance to expressly address and permit licensed residential care facilities consistent with the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act. 3. Amend its Zoning Ordinance to explicitly address and permit by right or with a Conditional Use Permit licensed residential care facilities serving seven or more persons in any residential zoning district. 4. Establish a formal reasonable accommodation procedure to grant exceptions in zoning and land use for persons with disabilities. Efforts: The City of Chula Vista's Density Bonus Zoning Ordinance was approved by the City Council in December 11, 2012. The ordinance provides clarity and outlines the State requirements for affordable housing development. The City still has no provisions in their zoning ordinance for residential care facilities serving six or fewer clients. The Zoning Ordinance was amended in 2012 to establish formal reasonable accommodation procedure to grant exceptions in zoning and land use for persons with disabilities. APPENDIX D: PROGRESS SINCE 2010 D -14 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 678 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Coronado Recommendation: 1. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to comply with the legislative mandate of State Government Code Section 65852.3 by allowing the development of manufactured housing in the R -1A Zone. 2. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to expressly address and permit licensed residential care facilities consistent with State law. 3. Designate its R -3 and R -4 Zones as zones where transitional housing will be permitted by right under standardized and objective procedures that are no more restrictive than those for similar residential uses. The City should also designate the Commercial and Civic Use zones as zones where homeless or emergency shelters will be permitted with a Major Special Use Permit and a City Coastal Permit. 4. Adopt a formal reasonable accommodation procedure to provide exceptions in zoning and land use for the development, maintenance, and improvement of housing for persons with disabilities. 5. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to include provisions for supportive housing and SRO pursuant to State law. Efforts: The Coronado Zoning Ordinance was amended in 2010 to comply with the legislative mandate of State Government Code Section 65852.3 by allowing the development of manufactured housing in the R -1A Zone. The City also amended the Zoning Ordinance in 2014 to expressly address and permit licensed residential care facilities, transitional housing, supportive housing, and emergency shelters. In 2010, the City established a formal procedure for requesting reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities who seek equal access to housing under the Federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. Del Mar Recommendation: 1. Eliminate the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) requirement for multi - family residential uses proposed at a density greater than 8.8 dwelling units per acre. 2. Amend the General Plan to establish minimum density requirements for all of its residential districts. The Del Mar Zoning Ordinance should also be amended to address "pyramid zoning" issues. 3. Amend Zoning Ordinance to include a definition of "family" that will not impede fair housing choice. 4. Amend Zoning Ordinance to explicitly permit mobile homes or manufactured housing in accordance with State law. 5. Amend Zoning Ordinance to expressly permit transitional housing. The City should also amend the Zoning Ordinance to permit emergency shelters by right in a specified zone. 6. Establish procedures for obtaining reasonable accommodation, pursuant to ADA. APPENDIX D: PROGRESS SINCE 2010 D -15 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 679 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE 7. Work with HCD to achieve a Housing Element that complies with State law. 8. Amend density bonus provisions to comply with State law. 9. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to include provisions for supportive housing and SRO pursuant to State law. Efforts: The City of Del Mar 2013 -2021 Housing Element is in compliance with State Law. The City updated its density bonus ordinance in 2013 to comply with State Law. In June 2014, Del Mar removed the Conditional Use Permit requirement for properties in the RM -East, RM -West, RM- Central and RM -South zones to develop at the maximum allowable density of 17.6 units per acre. The City also amended the Zoning Ordinance in 2014 to: 1) include a definition of "family" that will not impede fair housing choice; 2)_explicidy permit mobile homes or manufactured housing in accordance with State law; 3) permit emergency shelters by right in a the North Commercial (NC) Zone; and 4) include provisions for transitional and supportive housing, consistent with the requirements of SB 2. El Cajon Recommendation: 1. The City should establish procedures for reasonable accommodation. 2. Work with its fair housing service provider to expand outreach and education activities. 3. Assess the need for SRO developments within the community in conjunction with the next Housing Element update scheduled for 2011 — 2012. Efforts: The City amended its Zoning Code in 2015, adopting a reasonable accommodation procedure and accommodating for SRO. Encinitas Recommendation: 1. Make an effort to ensure that its current Housing Element is in compliance with State law. 2. Amend Zoning Ordinance to address "pyramid zoning" issues. 3. Develop a formal reasonable accommodation procedure for persons with disabilities. 4. Amend the Zoning Ordinance density bonus provisions to be in compliance with State law. 5. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to make explicit provisions for manufactured housing units in single - family residential zoning districts. 6. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to permit emergency shelters by right in at least one zone to comply with State law. 7. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to include provisions for supportive housing and SRO pursuant to State law. Efforts: The City of Encinitas is in the process of updating its Housing Element, in conjunction with an extensive community outreach process and proposed rezoning of properties to APPENDIX D: PROGRESS SINCE 2010 D -16 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 680 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE accommodate additional housing. The City anticipates adopting the Housing Element by the end of 2016. The City has not yet amended the Zoning Ordinance to address special needs housing outlined in the Al. Escondido Recommendation: 1. The City should amend its Zoning Ordinance to address "pyramid zoning" issues. 2. Amend the Zoning Ordinance density bonus provisions to be in compliance with State law. 3. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to permit emergency shelters by right in at least one zone to comply with State law. 4. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to include provisions for supportive housing and SRO pursuant to State law. Efforts: The Escondido Zoning Ordinance was amended and now establishes a minimum density of 70 percent of the allowable density in multi - family zones (see Escondido Municipal Code Section 33 -404. Residential density policy). While a single- family unit may be built on a parcel in a multi- family zone; it may only be built if it does not impede the ability to achieve the 70 percent minimum density requirement on that particular lot. Imperial Beach Recommendation: 1. Amend Zoning Ordinance to address "pyramid zoning" issues. 2. Amend Zoning Ordinance to allow State licensed group homes, foster homes, residential care facilities, and similar state - licensed facilities with six or fewer occupants by right in a residential zoning district, pursuant to state and federal law. 3. In order to comply with the provisions of SB2, amend the Zoning Code to permit emergency shelters by right via a ministerial approval process. 4. Develop and formalize a general process that a person with disabilities will need to go through in order to make a reasonable accommodation request in order to accommodate the needs of persons with disabilities and streamline the permit review process. 5. Amend the Zoning Ordinance density bonus provisions to be in compliance with State law. 6. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to provide for large residential care facilities. 7. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to include provisions for supportive housing and SRO pursuant to State law. Efforts: The Imperial Beach Zoning Ordinance was amended in 2012 to allow emergency shelters as a permitted use in the C /MU1 Zone areas of the Palm Avenue study corridor. Emergency shelters will be permitted via an administrative review process with no discretionary review. The City also established formal procedures for obtaining reasonable accommodation in 2013. APPENDIX D: PROGRESS SINCE 2010 D -17 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 681 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE La Mesa Recommendation: 1. Amend its Zoning Ordinance to address "pyramid zoning" issues. 2. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to specifically identify transitional housing and emergency shelters in the definition of "community care facilities." 3. Establish a formal policy or procedure for processing requests for reasonable accommodation. 4. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to include density bonus provisions that comply with State law. 5. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to include provisions for supportive housing and SRO pursuant to State law. Efforts: The City has not yet amended the Zoning Ordinance to address special needs housing outlined above. Lemon Grove Recommendation: 1. Update density bonus ordinance to comply with recent changes to state law (SB 1818). 2. Amend Zoning Ordinance to expressly permit transitional housing. 3. Amend Zoning Ordinance to permit emergency shelters by right in a specified zone. 4. Establish a formal policy or procedure for processing requests for reasonable accommodation. 5. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to make explicit provisions for mobile home parks. 6. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to include provisions for supportive housing and SRO pursuant to State law. Efforts: The City has not yet amended the Zoning Ordinance to address special needs housing outlined above. National City Recommendation: 1. Amend Zoning Ordinance to establish minimum densities for each residential land use designation and to address "pyramid zoning" issues. 2. Remove its definition of family from the Zoning Ordinance, as it applies to residential uses. 3. Adopt second unit provisions that achieve consistency with state law. 4. Amend the Zoning Code to permit emergency shelters by right via a ministerial approval process. 5. Adopt a formal procedure for processing requests for reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. APPENDIX D: PROGRESS SINCE 2010 D -18 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 682 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE 6. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to include density bonus provisions to be in compliance with State law. 7. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to provide for large residential care facilities. 8. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to include provisions for supportive housing and SRO pursuant to State law. Efforts: National City updated its density bonus ordinance in 2009 to be consistent with State Law. The City also amended the discretionary review process in its Land Use Code for residential care facilities serving more than six persons in 2011 by changing the requirement from a conditional use permit (CUP) to a minor CUP. In addition, the City amended the Zoning Ordinance in 2011 to include provisions for emergency shelters, transitional housing, supportive housing, and SROs. The National City Zoning Ordinance was also amended in 2011 to remove the definition of "family" and modify second unit provisions to be consistent with state law. The provisions allow second units by right in all residential and mixed -use zones with no minimum lot area or discretionary review requirements. Oceanside Recommendation: 1. Amend Zoning Ordinance to include a definition of "family" that does not impede fair housing choice. 2. Update density bonus ordinance in order to comply with the new SB 1818. 3. Adopt a written reasonable accommodation ordinance to provide exception in zoning and land - use for housing for persons with disabilities. This procedure should be a ministerial process, with minimal or no processing fee. 4. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to permit emergency shelters by right in at least one zone to comply with State law. 5. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to permit transitional housing, supportive housing, and SRO in compliance with State law. Efforts: Oceanside amended its density bonus ordinance in 2012. The City also established formal procedures for obtaining reasonable accommodation. Poway Recommendation: 1. Amend Zoning Ordinance to establish minimum densities for each residential land use designation and to address "pyramid zoning" issues. 2. Amend Zoning Ordinance to allow State licensed group homes, foster homes, residential care facilities, and similar state - licensed facilities with six or fewer occupants by right in a residential zoning district, pursuant to state and federal law. APPENDIX D: PROGRESS SINCE 2010 D -19 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 683 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE 3. Amend Zoning Ordinance to expressly permit transitional housing. The City should also amend the Zoning Ordinance to permit emergency shelters by right in a specified zone. 4. Establish a formal reasonable accommodation procedure. 5. Amend Zoning Ordinance density bonus provisions to be in compliance with State law. 6. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to remove the limit on the number of clients a large residential care facility may serve. 7. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to include provisions for supportive housing and SRO pursuant to State law. Efforts: The City of Poway amended its Zoning Ordinance in 2012 to include residential care facilities in its definition of "family," thereby permitting this housing type in all residential zones, in accordance with the provisions of State law. Formal procedures for obtaining reasonable accommodation were also established. City of San Diego Recommendations: 1. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to permit emergency shelters by right in at least one zone to comply with State law. 2. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to include a definition of supportive housing. 3. Continue to implement the Choice Communities Initiative, Moving Forward plan, and Housing Choice Voucher Homeownership Program, among other programs and activities to deconcentrate voucher use. Efforts: The City has not yet amended the Zoning Ordinance to address special needs outlined above. County of San Diego Recommendation: 1. Amend Zoning Ordinance to establish minimum densities for each residential land use designation and to address "pyramid zoning" issues. 2. Amend Zoning Ordinance to expressly permit transitional housing. The County should also amend the Zoning Ordinance to permit emergency shelters by right in a specified zone. 3. Establish formal procedures for obtaining reasonable accommodation, pursuant to ADA. 4. Work with HCD to achieve a Housing Element that complies with State law. 5. Adopting density bonus provisions that are current with State law. 6. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to include provisions for supportive housing and SRO pursuant to State law. APPENDIX D: PROGRESS SINCE 2010 D -20 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 684 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Efforts: The County of San Diego's most recent Housing Element was adopted by the Board of Supervisors in 2013 and certified by the State. The Zoning Ordinance was amended in 2010 to permit emergency shelters, transitional housing, and supportive. The County also adopted a formal procedure for obtaining reasonable accommodations. San Marcos Recommendation: 1. Amend Zoning Ordinance to include a definition of "family" that does not impede fair housing choice. 2. Amend Zoning Ordinance to address "pyramid zoning" issues. 3. Amend Zoning Ordinance to permit emergency shelters by right in a specified zone. 4. Establish a formal reasonable accommodation procedure. 5. Amend density bonus provisions to be in compliance with State law. 6. Make explicit provisions for manufactured housing units in single - family residential zoning districts. 7. Amend Zoning Ordinance to comply with the Lanterman Act by providing for residential care facilities serving six or fewer clients as well as define and provide for large residential care facilities. 8. Amend Zoning Ordinance to include provisions for transitional housing, supportive housing and SRO. Efforts: The San Marcos Zoning Ordinance was amended in 2012 to include an updated definition of "family." City staff also amended the Zoning Ordinance to address emergency shelters (in 2012), manufactured housing (2012), residential care facilities (in 2012), transitional and supportive housing (in 2012), SROs (in 2012), and reasonable accommodations (in 2012). Santee Recommendations: 1. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to include provisions for transitional housing, supportive housing, and SRO pursuant to State law. Efforts: The City of Santee amended its Zoning Ordinance in 2013 to include provisions for transitional and supportive housing, consistent with the requirements of SB 2. Solana Beach Recommendation: 1. The City should evaluate its definition of family and revise the definition to ensure that it does not constrain the development of housing for persons with disabilities or residential care facilities. 2. The City should establish a formal reasonable accommodation procedure. APPENDIX D: PROGRESS SINCE 2010 D -21 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 685 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE 3. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to permit emergency shelters by right in at least one zone to comply with State law 4. Amend its Zoning Ordinance to include provisions for transitional housing, transitional housing, and SRO pursuant to State law. Efforts: The City established formal procedures for obtaining reasonable accommodation. The City also amended the Zoning Ordinance in 2014 to address emergency shelters, transitional housing, and supportive housing. Vista Recommendation: 1. Amend Zoning Ordinance to address "pyramid zoning" issues. 2. Amend the conflicting Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 18.31 and 18.06.160) sections concerning the provision of second dwelling units. 3. Amend density bonus provisions to be in compliance with State law. 4. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to make explicit provisions for manufactured housing units in single - family residential zoning districts. 5. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to permit emergency shelters by right in at least one zone to comply with State law. 6. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to include provisions for supportive housing and SRO pursuant to State law. Efforts: Vista's density bonus ordinance was updated in 2009. The City also amended its Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 18.31 and 18.06.160) in 2012 to address inconsistent provisions regarding second dwelling units and to specifically accommodate manufactured housing. In addition, the City amended the Zoning Ordinance in 2012 to address emergency shelters, transitional and supportive housing. However, the City's updated provisions permit only transitional housing facilities for battered women and children (serving six or fewer clients) in all residential zones. All other transitional and supportive housing facilities are permitted only in the City's RM zone. Vista's treatment of transitional and supportive housing does not fully comply with all of the requirements of SB 2 and the zoning ordinance will need to be further amended in order to maintain consistency with State law. APPENDIX D: PROGRESS SINCE 2010 D -22 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 686 CITY OF CHULA VISTA File #: 15 -0173, Item #: 5. City of Chula Vista Staff Report RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING DONATIONS AND GRANT FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $21,223.67 FROM MULTIPLE DONORS AND GRANTORS FOR COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE COMMUNITY FUN RUN, CITYWIDE AQUATIC AND RECREATION PROGRAMS AND FACILITIES, AND AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2014/2015 RECREATION BUDGET TO REFLECT THE APPROPRIATION OF THESE DONATED, SPONSORSHIP AND GRANT FUNDS (4/5 VOTE REQUIRED) RECOMMENDED ACTION Council adopt the resolution. SUMMARY Multiple donors and grantors are donating funds to the Recreation Department for costs associated with the Community Fun Run, citywide aquatic and recreation programs and facilities. Today's action asks the City Council to appropriate these donated funds. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Development Services Director has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the activity is not a "Project" as defined under Section 15378(b)(4) of the State of California CEQA Guidelines because the activity consists of a accepting funds for a recreation activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. Therefore, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State of California CEQA Guidelines, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is required. BOARD /COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Not Applicable. DISCUSSION The 711 annual Community Fun Run ( "Fun Run "), a 5K run or walk community event, is being held on May 16, 2015 at the U.S. Olympic Training Center. This event has been presented annually by the City since 2009, organized and managed by the Recreation Department. Sea World LLC dba Aquatica San Diego ( "Aquatica'), SeaWorld's waterpark, is the Community Fun Run's Title Sponsor for the third consecutive year and is donating $5,000 in sponsorship fees to be used by the City to pay for the initial, up -front costs associated with the Community Fun Run, including printing of fliers, production of participant t- shirts, advertising and other miscellaneous costs. A additional sponsor for this year's Fun Run is North Island Credit Union, who is donating $500. These funds will also be used to pay for the up -front costs associated with the Fun Run. No funds are budgeted in the Recreation Department's budget for this community event. The Friends of Chula Vista Parks & Recreation is donating $7,123.67 from proceeds from the 2014 Community Fun Run to the Recreation Department for programming and the purchase of equipment City of Chula Vista Page 1 of 4 Printed on 5/7/2015 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet powered by Le9age 687 File #: 15 -0173, Item #: 5. and supplies for various aquatic and recreation facilities, sufficient funds for which are not included in the Department's budget. The USA Swimming Foundation is providing $5,000 in scholarship grant funds to the Recreation Department's Aquatics Program, which will serve as a "Make a Splash" Grant Local Partner for the provision of a Read to Swim Program. This program is a quality, multi - level, learn -to -swim program offered during the current fiscal year which will expand opportunities for at -risk students to use the lifelong skill of learning how to swim to expand fitness and recreational opportunities. This Read to Swim Program combines literacy and swimming lessons, with an overall goal of providing free swimming lessons to Chula Vista residents who cannot otherwise afford them while encouraging reading at the same time. The grant funds from USA Swimming Foundation will provide 270 children, ages six to sixteen, with ten swim lessons after writing a book report. With this swim program, which will utilize the Department's existing Learn -To -Swim curriculum, children will begin with water acclimation and progress through levels of instruction and skill acquisition to pre - competitive stroke skills, with a student to teacher ratio of no greater than 6:1. The Funeraria del Angel Humphrey, a Dignity Memorial provider, provides compassionate care and an array of services to families of all faiths in the Chula Vista area, is donating $500 toward the delivery of the annual Norman Park Senior Center Health Fair. The donation will provide marketing materials, food supplies and handouts for the event. The Chula Vista Garden Club is a club that meets at Norman Park Senior Center has donated $50 towards funds for operations at the center. A local resident, Gerardo Avalos, donated $250 to the Recreation Department by the Friends of Chula Vista Parks and Recreation for the Holiday Suit Drive which provides free swimsuits to less fortunate children who cannot afford a swim suit and would like to participate in swim lessons. These free swimsuits are used primarily for the Elementary Learn to Swim program so that no child is left behind and would not otherwise be able to participate in the swim lessons because they could not afford a suit. The drive also continues to the community at -large during the months of December - March. The Friends of the Chula Vista Parks and Recreation received a donation on behalf of Freda Scholl, a donation in the amount of $300. Freda was a long -time user of the Chula Vista Pools for 30 years. Freda primarily enjoyed the water aerobics program, so her family wanted to provide a donation to the water aerobics program in her honor. Freda was almost 80 years old when she stopped swimming at the pools. The Recreation Department is receiving a donation in the amount of $500 from Sharp Healthcare to provide for additional services and programs at the Norman Park Senior Center. Chula Vista Police Activities League has granted the Recreation Department $2,000 to provide registration discounts, supplies and equipment for Girl's only basketball camps and leagues at Parkway Community Center for underprivileged youth. DECISION -MAKER CONFLICT Staff has reviewed the decision contemplated by this action and has determined that it is not site City of Chula Vista Page 2 of 4 Printed on 5/7/2015 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet powered by Le9age 688 File #: 15 -0173, Item #: 5. specific and consequently, the 500 -foot rule found in California Code of Regulations section 18704.2 (a)(1), is not applicable to this decision. Staff is not independently aware, and has not been informed by any City Council member, of any other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of interest in this matter. LINK TO STRATEGIC GOALS The City's Strategic Plan has five major goals: Operational Excellence, Economic Vitality, Healthy Community, Strong and Secure Neighborhoods and a Connected Community. Entering into partnerships with outside donors and sponsoring organizations such as these allow the Department to expand special events, programs and services such as the Community Fun Run, Norman Park Senior Center Health Fair and Read to Swim Program, increasing economic vitality and community engagement as well as providing diversified activities for youth through seniors that promote a healthy lifestyle and community. These partnerships also enhance the Recreation Department's stature and role as the "Heart of the Community" and serve to encourage and develop strong and secure neighborhoods and a connected community by providing diverse recreational opportunities that bring families together and foster civic pride through comprehensive communication strategies and cultural and recreational programming. CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT Approval of this resolution will result in an appropriation of a $21,223.67 to the Recreation Department's supplies and services budget. Multiple donors and grantors are the source of the funding; therefore there is no net fiscal impact to the General Fund. ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT The proceeds from the Community Fun Run will be used to offer non - sustainable programs for the current fiscal year. Since these programs are not funded through the Recreation Department's budget, the continuation of such will be dependent on the availability of funding outside of the budget. The Read to Swim Program is totally supported by the funds donated by USA Swimming and will continue to be offered in subsequent years entirely dependent upon the availability of additional offsetting funding. The Norman Park Senior Center Health Fair is an annual budgeted event. Donated funds are used to enhance the scope of the fair and increase programming opportunities for health and wellness. There is no on -going impact to the budget. The Holiday Suit Drive is dependent on sponsor funds and donations so there is no on -going impact to the budget. If donations are not received, the program will not be sustained. The Water Aerobics program is a budgeted program in the Recreation Department, and the donated funds will be used for additional supplies for the program. ATTACHMENTS Resolution City of Chula Vista Page 3 of 4 Printed on 5/7/2015 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 689 File #: 15 -0173, Item #: 5. City of Chula Vista Page 4 of 4 Printed on 5/7/2015 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 690 COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING DONATIONS AND GRANT FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $21,223.67 FROM MULTIPLE DONORS AND GRANTORS FOR COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE COMMUNITY FUN RUN, CITYWIDE AQUATIC AND RECREATION PROGRAMS AND FACILITIES AND AMENDING THE FY2014 -2015 RECREATION BUDGET TO REFLECT THE APPROPRIATION OF THESE DONATED, SPONSORSHIP AND GRANT FUNDS WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista is presenting the 7t' annual Community Fun Run on May 16, 2015; and WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista Recreation Department is the lead department in running the Community Fun Run, including finding sponsors and vendors; and WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista is receiving a donation from Sea World LLC dba Aquatica San Diego in the amount of $5,000 as Title Sponsor of the Community Fun Run and North Island Credit Union is donating $500 to support of the Community Fun Run; and WHEREAS, the Chula Vista Recreation Department will use these donated sponsorship funds to pay for up -front costs associated with the Community Fun Run; and WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista is receiving a donation from the Friends of Chula Vista Parks & Recreation in the amount of $7,123.67 from proceeds from the 2014 Community Fun Run; and WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista Recreation Department will use these donated funds for programming and the purchase of equipment and supplies for recreation and aquatic facilities; and WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista is receiving grant funds from USA Swimming Foundation in the amount of $5,000; and WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista Recreation Department will use these grant funds to provide scholarships for youth to participate in a free Read -to -Swim Program, which provides opportunities for at -risk youth to learn to swim and use the sport of swimming to expand fitness and recreational opportunities while encouraging reading as well; and WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista is receiving a donation from Funeraria del Angel Humphrey in the amount of $500; and WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista Recreation Department will use these donated funds to support Norman Park Senior Center's Annual Health Fair; and 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 691 Resolution No. Page 2 WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista is receiving a donation from the Chula Vista Garden Club in the amount of $50; and WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista Recreation Department will use these donated funds to support operations at Norman Park Senior Center; and WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista is receiving a donation from Gerardo Avalos in the amount of $250; and WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista Recreation Department will use these donated funds for the purchase of swimsuits to support Parkway Aquatic Center's Holiday Suit; and WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista is receiving a donation on behalf of Freda Scholl in the amount of $300; and WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista Recreation Department will use these donated funds to purchase equipment for Loma Verde Aquatic Center's Water Aerobics program; and WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista is receiving a donation from Sharp Health Care in the amount of $500; and WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista Recreation Department will use these donated funds to support programs and services at the Norman Park Senior Center; and WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista is receiving a grant of $2,000 from the Chula Vista Police Activities League; and WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista Recreation Department will use these funds to provide registration discounts, supplies and equipment for Girl's only basketball camps and leagues for underprivileged youth; and WHEREAS, accordingly, all donated, sponsorship and grant funds will be appropriated to the Recreation Department's FY2014 -2015 budget. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, that it hereby accept $21,223.67 in donations from multiple donors and grantors and appropriates said funds to the Recreation Department's Supplies and Services budget. Presented by Approved as to form by Kristi McClure Huckaby Glen R. Googins Director of Recreation City Attorney 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 692 CITY OF CHUTA VISTA File #: 15 -0177, Item #: 6. City of Chula Vista Staff Report QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 2015 RECOMMENDED ACTION Council accept the report. SUMMARY The Finance Department prepares quarterly financial reports for the General Fund that reflect budget to actual comparisons, projected revenues and expenditures, and highlight major variances that may require additional action or changes. The quarterly financial reports are in compliance with Section 504 (f) of the City Charter, which requires that quarterly financial reports be filed by the Director of Finance through the City Manager. A projection for the Development Services Fund is also included in this report. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Development Services Director has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the activity is not a "Project" in accordance with Section 15378(b)(4) of the State CEQA because it involves only acceptance of the quarterly fiscal report, therefore it is governmental fiscal activity which does not involve any commitment to any specific project and will not result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment; therefore, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is necessary. BOARD /COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Not applicable. DISCUSSION General Fund Overview The Finance Department prepares quarterly financial reports for the General Fund that reflect budget to actual comparisons, projected revenues and expenditures, and highlight major variances that may require additional action or changes. The quarterly financial reports are in compliance with Section 504 (f) of the City Charter, which requires that quarterly financial reports be filed by the Director of Finance through the City Manager. Attachment A - Quarterly Financial Report provides the financial outlook for the General Fund for the current fiscal year and includes summary information for revenues and expenditures. City of Chula Vista 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 1 of 4 Printed on 5/7/2015 powered by Legistar Page 693 File #: 15 -0177, Item #: 6. The following chart summarizes the projections for June 30, 2015 based on revenue and expenditure trends through the third quarter of fiscal year 2014/15 for the City's General Fund. The Amended Budget column includes all Council approved changes to the fiscal year 2014/15 adopted budget that have taken place through the end of the third quarter ending March 31, 2015 with one exception. Earlier this year, City Council approved an appropriation of $1.8 million for a capital improvement project, Telegraph Canyon Road Erosion Repair. Staff is currently looking at alternative funding options for this project and has therefore been removed from the Amended Budget and Projected columns. Staff will return to City Council to take formal action on this issue but for purposes of this report, staff is assuming that an alternative funding source will be identified. Finally, the Amended Budget column reflects City Council approved budget appropriations with a net impact including funding for the purchase of a property on Third Avenue, costs related to propositions on the November 2014 ballot, and funding for the Districting Commission. The Projected column lists the fiscal year 2014/15 projections for revenues and expenditures as of June 30, 2015. Notes 1. The Amended Budget and Projected totals do not include prior year appropriations for capital improvement projects and other encumbrances totaling $3.7 million that were carried forward to the fiscal year 2014/15 budget. These expenditure impacts are already reflected in the fund balance as of July 1, 2014 and are therefore not included in the above table. 2. On March 3, 2015 City Council approved an appropriation of $1.8 million from reserves to establish a capital improvement project, Telegraph Canyon Road Erosion Repair. Staff is evaluating an alternative funding source for this project, therefore, this appropriation and projected costs are not reflected in the above table. The City's financial outlook appears stable through the end of the third quarter. Staff is projecting revenues of $137.8 million and expenditures of $139.4 million, for a projected positive impact of $0.2 million. As discussed above, this projection excludes the projected costs associated with the Telegraph Canyon Erosion Repair CIP. Overall, General Fund revenues are tracking close to budget and are projected to be $0.1 million City of Chula Vista Page 2 of 4 Printed on 5/7/2015 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 694 Reserves - July 1, 2014 (audited) Revenues & Transfers In Expenditures & Transfers Out Less Telegraph Canyon CIP $14.3 $137.9 ($140.1 $1.8 $14.3 $137.8 ($1-- " $1.8 Projected Surplus/Deficit 0.4 0.2 Projected Fund Balance for June 30 2015 $13.9 $14.6 Percents a of Operating Budget 10.10/1 10.6 ° / Notes 1. The Amended Budget and Projected totals do not include prior year appropriations for capital improvement projects and other encumbrances totaling $3.7 million that were carried forward to the fiscal year 2014/15 budget. These expenditure impacts are already reflected in the fund balance as of July 1, 2014 and are therefore not included in the above table. 2. On March 3, 2015 City Council approved an appropriation of $1.8 million from reserves to establish a capital improvement project, Telegraph Canyon Road Erosion Repair. Staff is evaluating an alternative funding source for this project, therefore, this appropriation and projected costs are not reflected in the above table. The City's financial outlook appears stable through the end of the third quarter. Staff is projecting revenues of $137.8 million and expenditures of $139.4 million, for a projected positive impact of $0.2 million. As discussed above, this projection excludes the projected costs associated with the Telegraph Canyon Erosion Repair CIP. Overall, General Fund revenues are tracking close to budget and are projected to be $0.1 million City of Chula Vista Page 2 of 4 Printed on 5/7/2015 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 694 File #: 15 -0177, Item #: 6. lower than the amended budget. This decrease is due to projected decreases in Utility User's Tax, Revenue from Other Agencies, Charges for Services, and Transfers In revenues that are projected to be $1.8 million lower than the current budgeted level. This decrease is largely offset by a combined projected increase of $1.7 million in Franchise Fees, Property Taxes, Transient Occupancy Taxes, Use of Money and Property, and Other revenues. Staff is projecting $0.7 million in savings in General Fund departments based on year to date expenditure trends. Most City departments are on track to end the year with expenditure savings. Expenditure savings largely reflect greater than anticipated salary savings. Combined, the projected revenues and expenditures result in a net positive impact of $0.2 million as stated above. Details of projected General Fund revenues and expenditures can be found in Attachment 1 (Third Quarter Financial Report). Development Services Fund Overview The Development Services Department Enterprise fund consists of Land Development, Development Planning, the DSF Front Counter and the Building Division. Based on trends through the third quarter, staff is conservatively projecting to end the fiscal year with a projected deficit of $0.9 million for the current fiscal year, which would put the Development Services Fund in an overall deficit. Projections for the same time last fiscal year indicated a similar trend. It is important to note that the nature of the work in the enterprise fund is beginning to change from one of processing planning documents (deposit account based) to one of processing building and improvement plans (flat fee based). This change in activity may require modification to the existing composition of staff in Development Services Fund in order to remain responsive to the type and quantity of work being processed. The table below compares the budgeted revenue and expenditures to the projected revenues and expenditures for June 30, 2015. Expenditures are currently on trend to exceed revenues. Staff has been making adjustments to respond to this shortfall. Additional adjustments in Fiscal Year 2016 will be proposed to further mitigate impact to the Development Services Fund. Development Services Fund Summa Reserves - July 1, 2014* 685,631 685,6 Revenues & Transfers In 7,160,836 6,294,268 Expenditures & Transfers Out (7,350,5421 (7 176 529 Projected Surplus/Deficit (189,706, (882,261 Projected Fund Balance for June 30 201 495 925 (196,630 *Does not account for compensated absences of $343,118 DECISION -MAKER CONFLICT City of Chula Vista Page 3 of 4 Printed on 5/7/2015 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 695 File #: 15 -0177, Item #: 6. Staff has reviewed the decision contemplated by this action and has determined that it is not site specific and consequently, the 500 -foot rule found in California Code of Regulations section 18705.2 (a)(11), is not applicable to this decision. Staff is not independently aware, and has not been informed by any City Council member, of any other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of interest in this matter. LINK TO STRATEGIC GOALS The City's Strategic Plan has five major goals: Operational Excellence, Economic Vitality, Healthy Community, Strong and Secure Neighborhoods and a Connected Community. This action supports the Operational Excellence goal by communicating the City's projected financial position for the current fiscal year in an open and transparent manner. This transparency supports City Initiative 1.3.1. - "Foster public trust through an open and ethical government." CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact resulting from accepting the Quarterly Financial Report. ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT Staff will continue to monitor and analyze revenue and expenditure trends and incorporate changes as necessary into future financial reports and /or budgets. ATTACHMENT 1. Third Quarter Financial Report Staff Contact: Angelica Aguilar, Finance Department City of Chula Vista Page 4 of 4 Printed on 5/7/2015 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 696 OVERVIEW This financial report summarizes the City's General Fund financial position for fiscal year 2015 through March 31, 2015 and projecting out to June 30, 2015. The purpose of this report is to provide the City Council, Management and the Citizens of Chula Vista an update on the City's fiscal status based on the most recent financial information. ECONOMIC HIGHLIGHTS The Nation - The following national economic occurrences are notable as of the Third Quarter': Economic growth is forecast to average 3% over the next 2 years. This is despite slow growth and currency devaluations throughout much of the rest of the developed world. The U.S. appears to be an exception in terms of economic stability at this point in time. • The effect that the significant the drop in oil prices has had on inflation will wane as inflation is projected to climb above the 2% level as oil prices recover. • Unemployment rates are projected to go down to 5% by yearend driven by a projected growth rate of 3% for the national economy. The State - The major changes forecast for the State are as followsZ: • California is projected to benefit from the demand created from the rest of the Nation's forecasted growth rate as increased demand in various economic sectors is expected to improve the State's unemployment situation. • Real personal income growth is estimated to be 4.2% in 2015 and forecast to be 4.6% and 3.7% in 2016 and 2017, respectively. • The unemployment rate will hover around 6.5% through the balance of 2015. Unemployment will fall through 2016 and will average approximately 5.5% and is projected to be at 5.1 % in 2017. 'Source: UCLA Anderson Forecast, March 2014 ZSource: UCLA Anderson Forecast, March 2014 San Diego Region - The major changes reported in October for the Index of Leading Economic Indicators for San Diego County are as follows 3: • Leading Economic Indicators for San Diego County rose 1.3 percent in March. It was the third straight strong gain for the USD Index and the third month in a row where all six components were positive. • The seasonally adjusted local unemployment rate fell to 5.1 percent in March, which was down from 5.4 percent in February and 7.1 percent in March. Online help wanted advertising increased from almost 128,000 for the first quarter of 2014 to more than 150,000 this year, a gain of nearly 18 percent. • Consumer confidence advanced slightly by 0.9 percent, which is important since consumer spending is typically two - thirds or more of economic activity. • Residential units authorized by building permits were up significantly for the third consecutive month. Previously, residential units authorized increased by only 1.5 percent in the first quarter compared to the year before. Single- family permits led the way with a gain of 18.6 percent, while multi - family units were down 7.2 percent. San Diego Index of Leading Economic Indicators San Diego County, 2009 - 2015 140 135 130 125 120 115 110 105 100 0 0 0 0 0 3Source: University of San Diego School of Business Administration, USD Index of Leading Economic Indicators, March 2014; retrieved from URL: httr)://home.sandiecio.edu/—aciin/usdlei/index.html 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 697 GENERAL FUND SUMMARY General Fund Reserves - The General Fund Reserve policy was established to ensure that the City's finances are managed in a manner which will: 1. Continue to provide for the delivery of quality services 2. Maintain and enhance service delivery as the community grows in accordance with the General Plan 3. Minimize or eliminate the need to raise taxes and fees because of temporary revenue shortfalls 4. Establish the reserves necessary to meet known and unknown future obligations and ability to respond to unexpected opportunities. The following table reflects the audited General Fund reserves as of July 1, 2014 as well as the projected General Fund reserves for June 30, 2015. Notes: 1. The Amended Budget and Projected totals do not include prior year appropriations for capital improvement projects and other encumbrances totaling $3.7 million that were carried forward into the fiscal year 2014/15 budget. These expenditure impacts are already reflected in the fund balance as of July 1, 2014 and are therefore not included in the above table. 2. On March 3, 2015 City Council will consider two appropriations from reserves - an appropriation of $1.8 million to establish a capital improvement project, Telegraph Canyon Road Erosion Repair and $0.3 million for the purchase of a commercial property along Third Avenue. These appropriations are not reflected in the Amended Budget column as the appropriations occurred after the end of the Second Quarter and are outside of this reporting period. However, due to the projected impact to operating reserves they are included on this table. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2015: THIRD QUARTER Page 2 of 8 The City's financial outlook continues to be stable through the end of the Third Quarter. Staff is projecting revenues of $137.8 million and expenditures of $139.4 million, for a projected positive impact of $0.2 million. This excludes the $1.8 million for the Telegraph Canyon Erosion Repair CIP that was approved by Council and funded from General Fund Operating reserves. Staff is currently looking at alternative funding options for this project and has therefore been removed from the Amended Budget and Projected columns. Staff will return to City Council to take formal action on this issue but for purposes of this report, staff is assuming that an alternative funding source will be identified. The Amended Budget column reflects City Council approved budget appropriations with a net impact of approximately $0.4 million - these appropriations included funding for the purchase of a property on Third Avenue, costs related to propositions on the November 2014 ballot, and funding for the Districting Commission. However, it is anticipated that the General Fund will actually end the fiscal year with a small surplus. Overall, General Fund revenues are tracking close to budget and are projected to be $0.1 million lower than the amended budget. This decrease is due to projected decreases in Utility User's Tax, Revenue from Other Agencies, Charges for Services, and Transfers In revenues that are projected to be $1.8 million lower than the current budgeted level. This decrease is largely offset by a combined projected increase of $1.7 million in Franchise Fees, Property Taxes, Transient Occupancy Taxes, Use of Money and Property, and Other revenues. Staff is projecting $0.7 million in savings in General Fund departments based on year to date expenditure trends. Most City departments are on track to end the year with expenditure savings. Expenditure savings largely reflect greater than anticipated salary savings. Combined, the projected revenues and expenditures result in a net positive impact of $0.2 million as stated above. 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 698 Reserves - July 1, 2014 (audited) Revenues & Transfers In Expenditures & Transfers Out Less Telegraph Canyon CIP $14.3 $137.9 ($140.1) $1.8 $14.3 $137.8 ($139.4) $1.8 Projected Surplus /Deficit $0.4 $0.2 Projected Fund Balance for June 30,2015 $13.9 $14.6 Percentage of Operating Budget 10.1% 10.6% Notes: 1. The Amended Budget and Projected totals do not include prior year appropriations for capital improvement projects and other encumbrances totaling $3.7 million that were carried forward into the fiscal year 2014/15 budget. These expenditure impacts are already reflected in the fund balance as of July 1, 2014 and are therefore not included in the above table. 2. On March 3, 2015 City Council will consider two appropriations from reserves - an appropriation of $1.8 million to establish a capital improvement project, Telegraph Canyon Road Erosion Repair and $0.3 million for the purchase of a commercial property along Third Avenue. These appropriations are not reflected in the Amended Budget column as the appropriations occurred after the end of the Second Quarter and are outside of this reporting period. However, due to the projected impact to operating reserves they are included on this table. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2015: THIRD QUARTER Page 2 of 8 The City's financial outlook continues to be stable through the end of the Third Quarter. Staff is projecting revenues of $137.8 million and expenditures of $139.4 million, for a projected positive impact of $0.2 million. This excludes the $1.8 million for the Telegraph Canyon Erosion Repair CIP that was approved by Council and funded from General Fund Operating reserves. Staff is currently looking at alternative funding options for this project and has therefore been removed from the Amended Budget and Projected columns. Staff will return to City Council to take formal action on this issue but for purposes of this report, staff is assuming that an alternative funding source will be identified. The Amended Budget column reflects City Council approved budget appropriations with a net impact of approximately $0.4 million - these appropriations included funding for the purchase of a property on Third Avenue, costs related to propositions on the November 2014 ballot, and funding for the Districting Commission. However, it is anticipated that the General Fund will actually end the fiscal year with a small surplus. Overall, General Fund revenues are tracking close to budget and are projected to be $0.1 million lower than the amended budget. This decrease is due to projected decreases in Utility User's Tax, Revenue from Other Agencies, Charges for Services, and Transfers In revenues that are projected to be $1.8 million lower than the current budgeted level. This decrease is largely offset by a combined projected increase of $1.7 million in Franchise Fees, Property Taxes, Transient Occupancy Taxes, Use of Money and Property, and Other revenues. Staff is projecting $0.7 million in savings in General Fund departments based on year to date expenditure trends. Most City departments are on track to end the year with expenditure savings. Expenditure savings largely reflect greater than anticipated salary savings. Combined, the projected revenues and expenditures result in a net positive impact of $0.2 million as stated above. 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 698 General Fund Revenues — General Fund revenues are projected to be slightly below budget by $0.1 million. This is due to projected lower Utility User's Tax, Revenue from Other Agencies, Charges for Services, and Transfers In revenues that are projected to be approximately $1.8 million lower than the budget. This decrease is largely offset by a combined projected increase of $1.7 million in Franchise Fees, Property Taxes, Transient Occupancy Taxes, Use of Money and Property, and Other revenues. Major variances include: • A $0.8 million increase in Franchise Fee revenues that reflect the updated franchise agreement for waste hauling services negotiated earlier this year. • A net decrease of $0.7 million in Utility Users Taxes based on the new rate structure and revised projected collections. • A $0.5 million decrease in Revenue from Other Agencies largely reflects projected shortfalls in revenues related to decreased participation in various regional Police Task Forces. • A net decrease of $0.4 million in Charges for Services resulting from projected lower City fee collections for recreation programs, jail services reimbursements, passport and distressed property management fees. • A net increase of $0.3 million in Transient Occupancy Taxes (TOT) due to better than projected paid hotel stays within the City. The following table compares the projected revenues with revenues in the amended budget. General Fund Revenues Property Taxes $ 28,659,698 $ 28,930,278 $ 270,580 Sales Tax $ 22,704,845 $ 22,704,845 $ - Sales Tax In Lieu $ 7,750,848 $ 7,615,383 $ (135,465) Ivbtor Vehicle License $ 17,870,912 $ 17,883,946 $ 13,034 Other Revenue $ 12,198,800 $ 12,442,719 $ 243,919 Transfers In $ 10,832,841 $ 10,584,475 $ (248,366) Franchise $ 9,563,163 $ 10,341,588 $ 778,425 Charges for Services $ 7,784,532 $ 7,362,584 $ (421,948) Revenue from Other Agencies $ 2,998,599 $ 2,481,700 $ (516,899) Utility Users Tax $ 7,175,000 $ 6,500,000 $ (675,000) Transient Occupancy Taxes $ 2,518,329 $ 2,806,654 $ 288,325 Use of IVloney & Property $ 2,439,246 $ 2,582,701 $ 143,455 Other Local Taxes $ 2,161,605 $ 2,113,203 $ (48,402) Licenses and Permits $ 1,309,447 $ 1,231,977 $ (77,470) Fines, Forfeitures, Penalties $ 1,133,800 $ 1,403,312 $ 269,512 Real Property Transfer Tax $ 816,492 $ 816,492 $ - Total General Fund $ 137,918,157 $ 137,801,857 $ (116,300) QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2015: THIRD QUARTER Page 3of8 Sales Tax (Sales Tax and Sales Tax in lieu) - Sales tax is projected to be the City's largest revenue source, representing 22.1% of projected General Fund revenues for fiscal year 2014/15. HdL Companies, the City's Sales Tax consultant, recently provided data for the last quarter in calendar year 2014. They report that the change in sales tax receipts between fourth quarter calendar year 2014 and fourth quarter calendar year 2013 increased by 2.9% in Chula Vista. General Consumer Goods represents the largest major industry group for Sales Tax generation. In this category, the change in Sales Tax increased by 2.5% in Chula Vista when compared to the same quarter for 2013 thus approaching the projected 2.8% growth rate on a Statewide level. Overall, Sales Tax revenues are now tracking on budget based on them most recent trend. However, Sales Tax in Lieu revenue is projected to fall short by $135,000 as was reported in the Second Quarter. The following chart represents actual sales tax collections since fiscal year 2010/11 and the projection for fiscal year 2014/15. Sales Tax and Sales Tax in Lieu $35.0 $30.0 $26.7 $25.0 o $20.0 $15.0 $10.0 $5.0 $0.0 - -- - �:m :t FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 Actual Actual Actual Actual Projected Property Taxes - The City of Chula Vista receives property tax revenue based upon a 1.0% levy on the assessed value of all real property. Property tax is the City's second largest revenue source, representing 20.8% of projected General Fund revenues for fiscal year 2014/15. As reported in the First and Second Quarters, the City received information from the County regarding assessed property values (AV) for the City of Chula 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 699 Vista after the adoption of the budget. The adopted budget reflected 4% growth in AV however, based on the County's most recent report the City should experience 6% growth in AV. In a Council action earlier this fiscal year, the City Council approved an amendment to Property Tax revenues to reflect this change. Property Tax revenues were increased by $0.6 million when compared to budget. Revenue trends through the end of the Third Quarter indicate that Property Tax revenues will increase by an additional $0.3 million over the current budgeted level. The following chart represents actual property tax revenues since fiscal year 2010/11 and the projection for fiscal year 2014/15. $35.0 $30.0 $25.0 o $20.0 $15.0 $10.0 $5.0 $0.0 Property Tax $28.9 FY11 FY12 *FY13 FY14 FY15 Actual Actual Actual Actual Projected "Fiscal year 2012/13 Property Tax includes a one -time payment related to the elimination of the City's Redevelopment Agency Motor Vehicle License Fee (VLF) — Since the State Budget Act of 2004, the allocation of VLF revenues to cities and counties was substantially changed. Beginning in 2005/06, the majority of VLF revenues for each city grew essentially in proportion to the growth in the change in gross assessed valuation. Due to this change in the formula by the State, the majority of the City's VLF revenues fluctuate with changes in assessed values in the City. VLF revenue projections have been revised to reflect the change in city -wide assessed valuation projected for fiscal year 2014 -15. As discussed above, assessed property values (AV) for the City of Chula Vista are projected to grow by 6% as opposed to the 4% reflected in the adopted budget. City Council approved an amendment to VLF Tax revenues to reflect this QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2015: THIRD QUARTER Page 4 of 8 change. VLF revenues were increased by $0.4 million when compared to the adopted budget. VLF revenues are projected to slightly exceed the budget as of the end of the Third Quarter. The following chart represents actual VLF revenues since fiscal year 2010/11 and the projection for fiscal year 2014/15. Motor Vehicle License Fee $20.0 17.9 $16.9 $16.3 $16.3 $16.0 c $12.0 0 $8.0 $4.0 $0.0 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 Actual Actual Actual Actual Projected Franchise Fees - Franchise fee revenues are generated from public utility sources such as San Diego Gas & Electric (2% on gas and 1.25% on electricity), trash collection franchises (20% fee), and cable franchises (5% fee) conducting business within City limits. SDG &E collects the franchise fee from Chula Vista customers and remits these revenues to the City. Trash franchise fees and cable fees are based on fixed rates. Franchise Fee revenues have been updated to reflect increases resulting from new franchise agreement negotiated by the City. As of the end of the Third Quarter Franchise Fee revenues are projected to exceed the budget by $0.8 million. The following chart represents actual franchise fee revenues since fiscal year 2010/11 and the projection for fiscal year 2014/15. Fiscal year actual 2012 -13 revenues reflect previously accrued Franchise Fee revenues that were realized by the City. 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 700 $12.0 $10.0 $8.0 $6.0 $4.0 $2.0 $0.0 Franchise Fees FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 Actual Actual Actual Actual Projected Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) - The City receives 10% of hotel and motel room rates for stays less than 30 days. Projections for TOT revenues have been updated to reflect the positive trend that began in fiscal year 2012 and has continued. Based on better than anticipated revenues in fiscal year 2014, the Third Quarter projection for fiscal year 2014/15 has been increased by $0.3 million when compared to the adopted budget. It is anticipated that TOT will continue to increase with the improving economy. The following chart represents actual TOT revenues since fiscal year 2010/11 and the projection for fiscal year 2014/15. These projections remain unchanged from the First Quarter Financial Report. Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) $3.0 T__ $2.5 $2.0 $1.5 $1.0 $0.5 $0.0 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 Actual Actual Actual Actual Projected QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2015: THIRD QUARTER Page 5 of 8 Utility Users Tax (UUT) - The City adopted its Utility Users Tax (UUT) in 1970. The City of Chula Vista imposes a UUT on the use of telecom at the rate of 5% of gross receipts. The UUT on natural gas services is $0.00919 per therm and $0.00250 per kilowatt on electricity services, which equates to approximately a 1 % tax. The projection for Utility Users Taxes has been revised downward by $0.7 million from the current budget in order to reflect the new decreased rate structure and the level of anticipated collections for this revenue based on the revised rate structure. Staff will continue to monitor this revenue source in the future in order to develop a revised trend based on the new fee structure. The following chart reflects actual UUT revenue since fiscal year 2010/11. Fiscal year 2014/15 is projected and does not reflect actual collections. Utility Users Tax (UUT) $16.0 $15.1 $12.0 c 0 $8.0 $4.9 $4.0 $3.5 $0.0 , FY11 FY12 Actual Actual $6.5 - $4.4 FY13 FY14 FY15 Actual Actual* Projected "Increased fiscal year 2013/14 Utility User's tax revenue reflect a mid- year appropriation (Council resolution 2013 -092) of previously collected wireless telecommunication related tax revenue that was utilized to fund attorney and City administrative costs pertaining to a City class- action lawsuit. 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 701 General Fund Expenditures - The General Fund's amended budget reflects the Council adopted budget of $134.5 million, through the end of the Third Quarter. Council approved mid -year appropriations of $3.8 million (excluding the $1.8 million appropriation for the Telegraph Canyon Erosion Repair CIP), and $3.7 million of prior year encumbrances that were carried over into the current fiscal year. As of the end of the Second Quarter, the amended budget totals $142.0 million. The following table reflects the General Fund amended budget and actual expenditures by department as of March 31, 2015. In total, Departments have expended 66% of the General Fund budget after 75% of the fiscal year has elapsed. General Fund Expenditures as of 3/31/2015 As part of the Third Quarter Financial review, staff prepared projections for 6/30/2015 based on current expenditures and trends. As noted on the following table, most departments are on track to stay within their budgets and are projecting expenditure savings in the current fiscal year. Overall a $0.8 million net savings in General Fund expenditures is projected. The majority of these savings are estimated to be realized within the departments' Personnel Services QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2015: THIRD QUARTER Page 6of8 expenditure category. The two departments that are exceptions to this trend are: • Non - Departmental — The Non - Departmental budget reflects a $1.2 million overage when compared to budget. The overage is mainly comprised of budgeted salary savings of $0.8 million, which actual salary savings are being realized within individual department budgets. Another contributing factor to the projected overage in the Non - Departmental budget is the unanticipated cost related to the Bayfront development of approximately $0.2 million. • Fire Department — The Fire Department is projecting a $27,000 overage in operating expenses due to personnel costs that are expected to exceed the current fiscal year budget. The Department will offset these expenditures with unanticipated revenues resulting in no net fiscal impact to the General Fund. • Human Resources — The Human Resources Department is projecting a $7,000 overage in operating expenses due to an increase in hiring related costs. The Department will continue to monitor expenditures and make adjustments as needed. General Fund Projections by Department for June 30, 2015 .. Department Budgeta of Expended as % City Council $ 1,309,326 $ 915,403 70% Boards & Commissions $ 140,576 $ 16,354 12% City Gerk $ 985,056 $ 763,658 78% City Attorney $ 2,644,553 $ 1,690,990 64% Administration $ 3,090,046 $ 2,011,769 65% Information Tech Srvcs $ 3,201,624 $ 2,221,520 69% Human Resources $ 2,276,755 $ 1,582,623 70% Finance $ 3,636,881 $ 2,359,512 65% Non - Departmental $ 11,875,482 $ 6,071,868 51% Animal Care Facility $ 2,909,971 $ 1,876,687 64% Dev Services (GF) $ 2,637,808 $ 1,830,819 69% Police $ 47,661,897 $ 32,985,701 69% Fire $ 25,248,434 $ 17,974,772 71% Public Works $ 26,485,782 $ 17,604,596 66% Recreation $ 4,210,235 $ 2,535,197 60% Library $ 3,700,056 $ 2,487,465 67% Total Expenditures $ 142,014,482 $ 94,928,934 67% As part of the Third Quarter Financial review, staff prepared projections for 6/30/2015 based on current expenditures and trends. As noted on the following table, most departments are on track to stay within their budgets and are projecting expenditure savings in the current fiscal year. Overall a $0.8 million net savings in General Fund expenditures is projected. The majority of these savings are estimated to be realized within the departments' Personnel Services QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2015: THIRD QUARTER Page 6of8 expenditure category. The two departments that are exceptions to this trend are: • Non - Departmental — The Non - Departmental budget reflects a $1.2 million overage when compared to budget. The overage is mainly comprised of budgeted salary savings of $0.8 million, which actual salary savings are being realized within individual department budgets. Another contributing factor to the projected overage in the Non - Departmental budget is the unanticipated cost related to the Bayfront development of approximately $0.2 million. • Fire Department — The Fire Department is projecting a $27,000 overage in operating expenses due to personnel costs that are expected to exceed the current fiscal year budget. The Department will offset these expenditures with unanticipated revenues resulting in no net fiscal impact to the General Fund. • Human Resources — The Human Resources Department is projecting a $7,000 overage in operating expenses due to an increase in hiring related costs. The Department will continue to monitor expenditures and make adjustments as needed. General Fund Projections by Department for June 30, 2015 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 702 Arnencled get as o Q3 Projected Department 3/31/15 6/30/15 Variance City Council $ 1,309,326 $ 1,309,326 $ Boards & Commissions $ 140,576 $ 140,576 $ City Clerk $ 985,056 $ 983,619 $ (1,437) City Attorney $ 2,644,553 $ 2,643,219 $ (1,334) Administration $ 3,090,046 $ 2,995,397 $ (94,649) Information Tech Srvcs $ 3,201,624 $ 3,102,747 $ (98,877) Human Resources $ 2,276,755 $ 2,283,758 $ 7,003 Finance $ 3,636,881 $ 3,470,789 $ (166,092) Non - Departmental $ 11,875,482 $ 13,121,346 $ 1,245,864 Animal Care Facility $ 2,909,971 $ 2,737,704 $ (172,267) Dev Services (GF) $ 2,637,808 $ 2,502,411 $ (135,397) Police $ 47,661,897 $ 47,000,481 $ (661,416) Fire $ 25,248,434 $ 25,275,415 $ 26,981 Public Works $ 26,485,782 $ 26,215,613 $ (270,169) Recreation $ 4,210,235 $ 3,949,337 $ (260,898) Library $ 3,700,056 $ 3,516,083 $ (183,973) Total Expenditures $ 142,014,482 $ 141,247,821 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 702 QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2015: THIRD QUARTER Page 7of8 Budget Transfers The following table reflects the administrative budget transfers that have been approved through the Second Quarter. These changes result in no net fiscal impact to the General Fund budget and are within the Council policy allowing for transfers up to $15,000. City Council Summary of General Fund Budget Transfers Jul -14 Transfer for copier lease Jul -14 Transfer to Personnel Services Feb -15 Budget Reallocation City Attorney Jul -14 Transfer for copier lease Information Technology Mar -15 Network Access Study Administration Jul -14 Transfer for copier lease Oct -14 Consultant for OTC Analysis Finance Jul -14 Folding machine and copier lease Animal Care Facility Feb -15 Vet Contract & Med. Supplies Development Servcies Dec -14 St. Mobilehome Park Act Fee Public Works Jan -15 Tree Trimming Svs. Mar -15 Computer Equip. Purchase Recreation Jan -15 T -1 Line Expenses $2,000 Supplies & Services to Capital $7,850 Supplies & Services to Personnel $5,304 Supplies & Services to Personnel $1,600 Supplies & Services to Capital Capital to Supplies & Services $1,520 Supplies & Services to Capital $15,000 Personnel to Supplies & Services $4,500 Supplies & Services to Capital $15,000 Personnel to Supplies & Services $35 Supplies & Services to Other Expenses $15,000 Personnel to Supplies & Services $5,000 Personnel to Capital $14,778 Supplies & Services to Utilities 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 703 QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2015: THIRD QUARTER Page 8of8 Mid -Year Budget Amendments Mid -year expenditure appropriations approved through March 31, 2014 totaled $5,598,913. The City Council approved changes to budgeted revenues of $3,841,413. Combined, these changes result in a negative net impact of 2,217,500. The City Council approved the following budget amendments during through the Third Quarter: Summary of General Fund Adjustments 7/8/2014 Police Cal Id Finger Print Tech 7/8/2014 Public Works SDG &E Plant 5,659 $(1,042,612) Rice Canyon Brush Clearance 7/22/2014 Fire ($113,000) Transfer $ 250,000 $ Special Election Charter Amend 8/5/2014 City Clerk 1009,10,11 10,300 $ - Special Election Charter Amend 8/5/2014 City Clerk 1009,10,11 $ - $ Negotiated Salary Increases with 8/12/2014 Various City Bargaining Units 8/12/2014 City Council Council Salary Adjustment $ 1,800,000 Deputy City Manager Adj. Salary 8/12/2014 Finance /Admin transfer 9/9/2014 Public Works Macy's Heart Your Park Prog. 10/14/2014 Non - Department STL 384 & 261 Adjustments 10/28/2014 Non - Department CRA Funding Agreement 10/28/2014 Public Works Dog Park Donations 11/4/2014 Various 1st Qtr. Budget Adjustments 11/4/2014 Police Police Officers MOU Adj. 11/18/2014 Various Misc. Position Adjustments International Assn. Firefighters 12/2/2014 Fire /Non - Department MOU Adjusments City Attorney /Non- Atttorneys Fees Transfer from Non - 12/2/2014 Department Departmental ($300,000) 12/16/2014 Public Works Energy Efficiency Projects 12/16/2014 Administration HarborFest Appropriation Human Amended Compensation Schedule 12/16/2014 Resources /Admin ($59,813) Transfer Boards and 1/27/2015 Commistions Dist. Comm. Appropriation 2/17/2015 Public Works Bicycle Grant 3/3/2015 Various 2nd Quarter Budget Adj. 3/3/2015 Fire FF /Paramedic Academy 3/3/2015 Police MDC Lease 3/3/2015 Non - Department 3rd Ave. Prop. Purchase 3/3/2015 Non - Department Tlgph Cnyn Erosion Repair Total Appropriations to date: Less: Tlgph Cnyn Erosion Repair Net Appropriations to date: $ 75,000 $ 75,000 $ - $ 13,118 $ 13,118 $ - $ - $ 47,000 $ 47,000 $ - $ 47,000 $ 47,000 $ 1,048,271 $ 5,659 $(1,042,612) $ - $ 6,034 $ 6,034 $ 383,543 $ 383,543 $ - 53,500 $ 53,500 $ 550 $ 550 $ - $ 534,900 $ 534,900 $ - $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ - $ 10,300 $ 10,300 $ - $ 163,961 $ 1,044,471 $ 880,510 $ - $ 410,503 $ 410,503 $ - $ 22,011 $ 22,011 $ 383,543 $ 383,543 $ - 53,500 $ 53,500 $ 3,124 $ 3,124 $ - $ 7,500 $ 7,500 $ - $ 451,586 $ $ - $ 53,500 $ 53,500 $ 2,800 $ 2,800 $ - $ 451,586 $ 175,140 $ (276,446) $ 336,278 $ 336,278 $ - $ 100,482 $ 100,482 $ - $ - $ 270,000 $ 270,000 $ - $ 1,800,000 $ 1,800,000 $ 3,381,413 $ 5,598,913 $ 2,217,500 $ - $ 1,800,000 $ - $ 3,381,413 $ 3,798,913 $ 2,217,500 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 704 CITY OF CHUTA VISTA File #: 15 -0179, Item #: 7. City of Chula Vista Staff Report INVESTMENT REPORT FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 2015 RECOMMENDED ACTION Council accept the report. SUMMARY Transmitted herewith is the City's investment report for the quarter ended March 31, 2015. To meet the reporting requirements set forth in the California Government Code Sections 53600 et seq. and the City of Chula Vista Investment Policy and Guidelines, a separate report was distributed to the City Council in April. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Development Services Director has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the activity is not a "Project" in accordance with Section 15378(b)(5) of the State CEQA Guidelines because it involves only acceptance of the Quarterly Investment Report; therefore it is an organizational or administrative activity of government that will not result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environmental; therefore, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is necessary. BOARD /COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Not Applicable DISCUSSION As of March 31, 2015, total cash and investments held by the City was $225,156,940 and total cash and investments held by trustees was $71,790,823. The cash and investments held by the City are composed of the following components: Cash /Time Deposits ($35,235,353), Managed Investment Portfolio ($113,885,000), State of CA Local Agency Investment Fund ($36,577,478) and County of San Diego Pooled Investment Fund ($39,459,109). Cash and investments held by the City and the trustees continue to be invested in accordance with the Government Code and the Council Investment Policy as adopted by Resolution 2015 -041 on March 3, 2015. During the quarter, two investments totaling $4.0 million were redeemed by the issuers prior to their maturity dates. Three purchases were made to replace those investments. Purchased investments include a U.S. Treasury Note ($1 million) and two corporate notes issued by Wells Fargo ($1.5 million) and American Honda Finance Corp ($1.5 million). Public Financial Management (PFM), the City's investment advisor, continues to monitor the portfolio and will make recommendations as financial and economic conditions warrant. There is no further activity to report on other than routine City of Chula Vista 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 1 of 2 Printed on 5/7/2015 powered by Legistar Page 705 File #: 15 -0179, Item #: 7. investments by the City's fiscal agents. The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) continues to maintain the key Fed Funds rate at a target range of 0.00% to 0.25% in hopes of stimulating the economy. Two -year Treasuries yielding 0.67% at the beginning of the quarter ended slightly lower at the end of the quarter at 0.60 %. As of March 31, 2014, the Yield to Maturity at Cost on the Managed Investment Portfolio was 0.93 %, which is a small increase of 0.03% from the previous quarter. At the end of this quarter, the weighted average maturity of the Managed Investment Portfolio was 2.41 years which is a small decrease from 2.58 of the previous quarter and is within the Council Policy. DECISION -MAKER CONFLICT Staff has reviewed the decision contemplated by this action and has determined that it is not site specific and consequently, the 500 -foot rule found in California Code of Regulations section 18704.2 (a)(1), is not applicable to this decision. Staff is not independently aware, and has not been informed by any City Council member, of any other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of interest in this matter. LINK TO STRATEGIC GOALS The City's Strategic Plan has five major goals: Operational Excellence, Economic Vitality, Healthy Community, Strong and Secure Neighborhoods and a Connected Community. The investment portfolio supports the Operational Excellence goal as it seeks to maintain the safety and liquidity of the City's cash while contributing investment earnings to the bottom line. CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT Considering the projected timing of cash receipts and disbursements and the structure of the Pooled Investment Portfolio, the City will be able to comfortably meet overall cash flow needs over the next six months. There is no direct fiscal impact by this action. ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT There is no ongoing fiscal impact by this action. ATTACHMENTS Summary of Cash and Investments as of March 31, 2015 PFM Investment Report for the Quarter Ended March 31, 2015 Staff Contact: Phillip Davis, Assistant Director, Finance Department City of Chula Vista 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 2 of 2 Printed on 5/7/2015 powered by Legistar Page 706 Summary of Cash and Investments as of March 31, 2015 City of Chula Vista Held by Bank Trustee /Fiduciary Funds (1) % Of Investment Type Par Value Market Value Book Value Portfolio Investment Portfolio 58,745,525 50,622,200 58,745,525 19.78% U.S. Treasuries 7,885,000 7,977,778 7,997,399 2.69% Federal Securities 100,000,000 99,864,197 100,000,000 33.66% Corporate Bonds 6,000,000 6,033,419 6,004,845 2.02% State of CA Local Agency Investment Fund 36,577,478 36,591,514 36,577,478 12.31% County of San Diego Pooled Investment Fund 39,459,109 39,459,109 39,459,109 13.28% Subtotal 189, 921, 587 189, 926, 017 190, 038, 831 38.38% Cash /Time Deposits $35,235,353 $35,235,353 $35,235,353 11.86% Total Cash & Investments Held by the City $225,156,940 $225,161,370 $225,274,184 75.83% Held by Bank Trustee /Fiduciary Funds (1) Investment Agreements 12,260,588 12,260,588 12,260,588 4.13% Mutual Funds 58,745,525 50,622,200 58,745,525 19.78% Cash with Fiscal Agents 21,881 21,881 21,881 0.01% Restricted Cash 762,829 762,829 762,829 0.26% Total Held by Bank Trustee /Fiduciary Funds $71,790,823 $63,667,498 $71,790,823 24.17% Total Portfolio $296,947,763 $288,828,868 $297,065,007 100.00% Notes: 1. Reflects bond proceeds and tax levy revenues held by trustee in accordance with bond covenants. 2. Par value is the principal amount of the investment on maturity. 3. Market values contained herein are received from sources we believe are reliable, however we do not guarantee their accuracy. 4. Book value is par value of the security plus or minus any premium or discount and accrued interest included in purchase price. 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 707 City of Chula Vista Quarter Ended March 31, 2015 Summary of Portfolio Characteristics and Key Statistics Notes: 1. End of quarter trade -date market values of portfolio holdings. Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding. 2. Balances held in LAIF and the San Diego County Investment Pool are not managed by PFM Asset Management LLC. 3. Yields, weighted average maturity, and effective duration exclude balances not managed by PFM Asset Management LLC. 4. Performance is measured on a total return basis, which takes into account interest income, realized gains and losses, and unrealized gains and losses due to changes in market value. Returns excludes balances not managed by PFM Asset Management LLC. Returns for periods less than 1 year are unannualized. Returns on trade date basis, gross (i.e., before fees), in accordance with the CFA Institute's Global investment Performance Standards (GIPS). Bank ofAmerica Merrill Lynch (BAML) Indices provided by Bloomberg Financial Markets. Annualized return for quarter assumes the portfolio generates the same unannualized return for four quarters. 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 708 Portfolio Limits Distribution U.S. Treasuries $7,977,778 4% 100% U.S. Federal Agencies $99,864,197 53% 100% LAIF Treasuries ` 4% 19% Municipal Obligations $0 0% 100% Commercial Paper $0 0% 25% Negotiable CDs $0 0% 30% Corporate Notes $6,033,419 3% 30% San Diego County Federal Money Market Fund $0 0% 20% Pool Agencies 21% 53% San Diego County Pool $39,459,109 21% 100% LAIF $36,577,478 19% $50 Million Corporate Notes Totals $189,911,980 100% 3% Credit Quality (S&P Ratings) Maturity Distribution 50% Not Rated (LAIF) ° 40% 19 %—� ° 40% 37% AA 0 58% 30% � I I AAAf /S1 20% 15% (San Diego County) 21% v 10% L 7% AAW 0% 1% 0% Under6 6 -12 1 -2 2 -3 3 -4 4 -5 2% Months Months Years Years Years Years 4 Key Par Value StatiStiCS3 $189,921,587 Total Return Unannualized Amortized Cost $189,999,964 Chula Vista Past Quarter 0.77% Weighted Average Maturity (years) 2.41 BAML 1 -5 Yr TSY Index 0.92% Effective Duration (years) 1.69 Annualized Yield to Maturity at Cost 0.93% Chula Vista Past Quarter 3.17% Yield to Maturity at Market 0.95% IBAML 1 -5 Yr TSY Index 3.79% Notes: 1. End of quarter trade -date market values of portfolio holdings. Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding. 2. Balances held in LAIF and the San Diego County Investment Pool are not managed by PFM Asset Management LLC. 3. Yields, weighted average maturity, and effective duration exclude balances not managed by PFM Asset Management LLC. 4. Performance is measured on a total return basis, which takes into account interest income, realized gains and losses, and unrealized gains and losses due to changes in market value. Returns excludes balances not managed by PFM Asset Management LLC. Returns for periods less than 1 year are unannualized. Returns on trade date basis, gross (i.e., before fees), in accordance with the CFA Institute's Global investment Performance Standards (GIPS). Bank ofAmerica Merrill Lynch (BAML) Indices provided by Bloomberg Financial Markets. Annualized return for quarter assumes the portfolio generates the same unannualized return for four quarters. 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 708 Summary Interest Rates For the first quarter of 2015, accommodative global central bank policies were a major driver of financial markets. The European Central Bank (ECB) initiated an asset purchase program similar to the Federal Reserve's ( Fed's) quantitative easing (QE) policies that concluded last year, and the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) seemed comfortable leaving the Fed Funds rate at current levels for the near future. • The yield on 10 -year U.S. Treasuries fell for the fifth consecutive quarter, which resulted in the longest period of quarterly gains since 1988. • After trending up briefly, oil prices headed toward the lower end of recent ranges. • Driven by a drop in Treasury yields, fixed - income market performance was generally positive for the quarter. Returns were dependent on both maturity and sector. Economic Snapshot • U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) grew at a pace of 2.2% during the fourth quarter. The GDP report showed that household spending rose to a nine -year high and exports were strong. These positive trends were offset by growth in inventories, which were weaker than previously expected. • The U.S. labor market continued to improve, as the unemployment rate fell from 5.6% in December to 5.5% in March. This was the lowest rate since mid -2008. • Consumer confidence for the first quarter reached its highest level since 2007, as lower gasoline prices and an increase in personal income helped to generate more disposable income. However, consumers slowed their pace of spending during the quarter, causing a lackluster retail sales report. • New -home sales rose nearly 8% in February, marking their highest level since early 2008 and serving as a bright spot in a mixed bag of recent housing- market data. © 201?MKA3AWWW4hMent LLC At its March meeting, the FOMC removed the word "patient" from its previous statement, indicating that the current target range for the Federal funds rate will be appropriate until the FOMC is "reasonably confident" that inflation is increasing toward its 2% objective. The statement also implied that economic growth has been weaker than it was earlier in the year. A Reuters poll released at the end of March showed that 17 of 21 primary securities dealers expect the Fed's first interest rate hike to occur in September 2015, at the earliest, with only four dealers expecting the first hike to occur in June 2015. Sector Performance • The yield curve flattened modestly over the quarter as yields on longer maturities declined more than yields on shorter maturities. This market movement and its positive impact on longer durations combined to provide performance in excess of initial yields. • Yields between Treasury and Federal Agency securities in short and intermediate maturities widened modestly during the quarter. This caused the performance of the Agencies to suffer relative to Treasuries. • Corporate securities slightly outperformed government obligations with similar maturities because of higher initial yields and relatively unchanged yield spreads. • While still generating positive performance, mortgage- backed and asset - backed securities trailed other high - quality investment options for the quarter. • Yields on money market securities (primarily commercial paper and certificates of deposit) remained at elevated levels, making them attractive options for short- maturity investment needs. Page 709 Economic Snaoshot Note: YoY = year over year, QoQ = quarter over quarter, SAAR = seasonally adjusted annual rate, WTI = West Texas Intermediate crude oil Source: Bloomberg © 201VP A1Usf hMent LLC Page 710 Unemployment Rate Mar'15 5.5% 5.6% 6.6% Unemployment Rate (left) vs. Change in Nonfarm Payrolls (right) 10% 400K Change In Non-Farm Payrolls Mar'15 126,000 329,000 225,000 -Une ploym ntRate Rayrdls 350K 8% 300K 250K Average Hourly Earnings (YoY) Mar'15 2.1% 1.8% 2.2% 6% 200K 150K Personal Income ( Feb'15 4.5% 4.8% 4% 100K 50K 2% 0 Initial Jobless Claims (week) 3/27/15 268,000 293,000 329,000 3/31/12 9/30/12 3/31/13 9/30/13 3/31/14 9/30/14 3/31/15 • Real GDP (QoQ SAAR) 2014Q4 2.2% 5.0 %1 3.5%2 Real GDP (QoQ) 6% GDP Personal Consumption (QoQ SAAR) 2014Q4 4.4% i 3.2% M 4% 2% Retail Sales (YoY) Feb'15 1.7% 3.3% 4.1% 0% ISM Manufacturing Survey (month) Mar'15 51.5 55.1 2% 4% Existing Home Sales SAAR (month) Feb'15 4.88 mil. 5.07 mil. 4.70 mil. 12/31/11 6/30/12 12/31/12 6/30/13 12/31/13 6/30/14 12/31/14 Inflation Personal Consumption Expenditures (YoY) Feb'15 0.3% 0.8% 1.2% Consumer Price Index 4% CPI (YoY) -Core CPI (YoY) Consumer Price Index (YoY) Feb'15 0.0% 0.8% 1. 0 3/° 2% Consumer Price Index Core (YoY) Feb'15 1.7% 1.6% 1.7% 1% Crude Oil Futures (WTI, per barrel) Mar 31 $47.60 $53.27 $101. 6% -1% Gold Futures (oz.) Mar 31 $1,183 $1,184 $1,283 2/29/12 8/31/12 2/28/13 8/31/13 2/28/14 8/31/14 2/28/15 1. Data as of Third Quarter 2014 2. Data as of Fourth Quarter 2013 Note: YoY = year over year, QoQ = quarter over quarter, SAAR = seasonally adjusted annual rate, WTI = West Texas Intermediate crude oil Source: Bloomberg © 201VP A1Usf hMent LLC Page 710 3.0% 2.5% 2.0% V 6 1.5% 0.5% 0.0% 12/31/14 Interest Rate Overview U.S. Treasury Note Yields 1/31/15 2/28/15 3/31/15 - 2 -Year • • • • • • • • 5 -Year 10 -Year U.S. Treasury Yields Maturity 3 -month 3/31/15 0.02% 12/31/14 0.04% Change over e _ (0.02 %) 3/31/14 0.03% Change over Year (0.01%) 1 -year 0.23% 0.22% 0.01% 0.11% 0.12% 2 -year 0.56% 0.67% (0.11%) 0.42% 0.14% 5 -year 1.37% 1.65% (0.28 %) 1.72% (0.35 %) 10 -year 1.92% 2.17% (0.25 %) 2.72% (0.80 %) 30 -year 2.54% 2.75% (0.21 %) 3.56% (1.02 %) Source: Bloomberg © 201VP A1UsfW6%hlAent LLC 4% 3% ----------------- I 22 2% ----------- - w m ape* 1% - ------ - - - - -- 0% 3 5 1 1 1 1 4% 3% N 2% r 1% U.S. Treasury Yield Curve Maturity March 31, 2015 December 31, 2014 Yield Curves as of 3/31/2015 W O 1 March 31, 2014 0% "l� - N W U7 V N W W 3 `G O C31 O o Maturity U.S. Treasury — — — Federal Agency — - Industrial Corporates, A Rated Page 711 B of A Merrill Lynch Index Returns As of 3/31/15 Returns for Periods ended 3/31/15 Returns for periods greater than one year are annualized. Source: BofA Merrill Lynch Indices © 201VP A1Usf hMent LLC Page 712 Duration Yield 3 Month 1 Year 3 Years Year • U.S. Treasury 1.87 0.55% 0.52% 1.00% 0.67% Federal Agency 1.72 0.68% 0.54% 1.07% 0.74% U.S. Corporates, A -AAA rated 2.05 1.24% 0.77% 1.43% 1.86% Agency MBS (0 to 3 years) L 1.36% 0.41% 1.25% 1.18% 0.73% Municipals 1.75 0.65% 0.26% 0.88% Year • U.S. Treasury 2.69 0.81% 0.92% 1.91% 1.02% Fede Agency 0.84% 0.79% m 1.06% U.S. Corporates, A -AAA rated 2.87 1.56% 1.20% 2.57% 2.64% Agency MBS (0 to 5 years) 3.29 1.88% 0.83% 3.79% 2.20% Municipals 2.54 0.95% 0.35% 1.24% 1.30% Indices Master or U.S. Treasury 6.23 1.33% 1.75% 6.15% % 1.21 % 27° 4.07% *2, % 2.18% 6.93% U.S. Corporates, A -AAA rated 6.96 2.52% % Agency 0 year 2.11% 1.00% 5.48% 2.51% Municipals 6.80 2.18% 1.09% 6.90% 4.23% Returns for periods greater than one year are annualized. Source: BofA Merrill Lynch Indices © 201VP A1Usf hMent LLC Page 712 CITY OF CHULA VISTA Security Type/ Description 313380Z26 Dated Date /Coupon /Maturity U.S. Treasury Bond / Note CUSIP US TREASURY NOTES 912828QP8 DTD 05/31/2011 1.750% 05/31/2016 Rating US TREASURY NOTES 912828RJ1 DTD 09/30/2011 1.000% 09/30/2016 DTD 10/25/2012 0.625% US TREASURY NOTES 912828SD3 DTD 01/31/2012 1.250% 01/31/2019 BONDS Security Type Sub -Total FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS (CALLABLE) 313380Z26 BONDS Settle Original DTD 10/24/2012 0.625% 10/24/2016 Rating FANNIE MAE (CALLABLE) BONDS 3136GOR78 DTD 10/25/2012 0.625% 10/25/2016 Aaa FANNIE MAE (CALLABLE) BONDS 3136GOW80 DTD 10/25/2012 0.605% 10/25/2016 Aaa FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANKS(CALLABLE) 3133ED7D8 BOND 0.60 1,000,000.00 AA+ DTD 11/14/2013 0.700% 11/14/2016 02/23/15 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS (CALLABLE) 313381C78 BONDS AA+ Aaa DTD 11/28/2012 0.590% 11/28/2016 3,000,000.00 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK (CALLABLE) 313381RY3 BONDS 3,000,177.00 3,000,000.00 DTD 01/25/2013 0.700% 01/25/2017 01/25/13 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANKS(CALLABLE) 3133ECF58 BOND 3,850.00 3,000,000.00 DTD 02/13/2013 0.790% 02/13/2017 AA+ Managed Account Detail of Securities Held S &P Moody's Trade Settle Original YTM Par Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost 3,900,000.00 AA+ Aaa 08/19/14 08/20/14 3,993,539.06 0.40 2,985,000.00 AA+ Aaa 08/26/14 08/27/14 3,009,836.13 0.60 1,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 02/19/15 02/23/15 994,023.44 1.41 For the Month Ending March 31, 2015 Accrued Amortized Market Interest Cost Value 22,875.00 3,961,331.21 3,963,375.00 81.56 3,002,801.88 3,010,653.09 2,071.82 994,175.35 1,003,750.00 7,885,000.00 7,997,398.63 0.60 25,028.38 7,958,308.44 7,977,778.09 2,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 10/24/12 10/24/12 2,000,000.00 0.63 5,451.39 2,000,000.00 1,998,146.00 �PF1I PFM Asset Management LLC 5 Agenda Packet 3,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 10/25/12 10/25/12 3,000,000.00 0.63 8,125.00 3,000,000.00 2,995,842.00 3,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 10/25/12 10/25/12 3,000,000.00 0.61 7,865.00 3,000,000.00 3,000,987.00 3,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 11/14/13 11/14/13 3,000,000.00 0.70 7,991.67 3,000,000.00 3,000,159.00 3,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 11/28/12 11/28/12 3,000,000.00 0.59 6,047.50 3,000,000.00 3,000,177.00 3,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 01/25/13 01/25/13 3,000,000.00 0.70 3,850.00 3,000,000.00 3,001,227.00 4,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 02/13/13 02/13/13 4,000,000.00 0.79 4,213.33 4,000,000.00 3,991,772.00 Page 713 CITY OF CHULA VISTA Security Type/ Description Dated Date /Coupon /Maturity Federal Agency Bond / Note CUSIP FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANKS 3133EDDK5 DTD 01/17/2014 1.000% 04/17/2017 YTM FANNIE MAE (CALLABLE) BONDS 3136GOX89 DTD 10/26/2012 0.750% 04/26/2017 Par FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANKS(CALLABLE) 3133ECQT4 BOND Date DTD 05/30/2013 0.750% 05/30/2017 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANKS(CALLABLE) 3133ECR30 BOND DTD 06/05/2013 0.960% 06/05/2017 3,000,000.00 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANKS(CALLABLE) 3133ECAL8 BOND 01/17/14 DTD 12/19/2012 0.730% 06/19/2017 3,000,000.00 FANNIE MAE (CALLABLE) BONDS 3136G1NQ8 DTD 06/19/2013 1.000% 06/19/2017 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANKS 3133EDEB4 DTD 01/28/2014 1.100% 06/28/2017 3,000,000.00 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANKS(CALLABLE) 3133EAWY0 BOND 10/26/12 DTD 07/10/2012 1.040% 07/10/2017 3,000,000.00 FFCB NOTES 3133EAY28 DTD 09/21/2012 0.830% 09/21/2017 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANKS(CALLABLE) 3133EA3J5 BOND 4,000,000.00 DTD 10/10/2012 0.900% 10/10/2017 AA+ FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANKS(CALLABLE) 3133EA5A2 BOND 4,000,000.00 DTD 10/18/2012 0.870% 10/18/2017 0.75 =PF1I PFM Asset Management LLC 5 Agenda Packet Managed Account Detail of Securities Held For the Month Ending March 31, 2015 Page 714 S &P Moody's Trade Settle Original YTM Accrued Amortized Market Par Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value 3,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 01/17/14 01/17/14 3,000,000.00 1.00 13,666.67 3,000,000.00 3,014,418.00 3,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 10/26/12 10/26/12 3,000,000.00 0.75 9,687.50 3,000,000.00 2,997,333.00 4,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 05/30/13 05/30/13 4,000,000.00 0.75 10,083.33 4,000,000.00 3,989,536.00 3,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 06/05/13 06/05/13 3,000,000.00 0.96 9,280.00 3,000,000.00 3,000,282.00 3,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 12/19/12 12/19/12 3,000,000.00 0.73 6,205.00 3,000,000.00 2,994,972.00 4,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 06/19/13 06/19/13 4,000,000.00 1.00 11,333.33 4,000,000.00 4,005,624.00 4,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 01/28/14 01/28/14 4,000,000.00 1.10 11,366.67 4,000,000.00 4,033,952.00 3,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 07/10/12 07/10/12 3,000,000.00 1.04 7,020.00 3,000,000.00 2,998,674.00 3,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 09/21/12 09/21/12 3,000,000.00 0.83 691.67 3,000,000.00 2,990,610.00 4,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 10/10/12 10/10/12 4,000,000.00 0.90 17,100.00 4,000,000.00 3,983,704.00 3,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 10/16/12 10/18/12 3,000,000.00 0.87 11,817.50 3,000,000.00 2,989,017.00 Page 714 CITY OF CHULA VISTA Security Type/ Description Dated Date /Coupon /Maturity CUSIP FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS (CALLABLE) 313380Z34 BONDS Moody's DTD 10/23/2012 0.900% 10/23/2017 Settle FHLB NOTES (CALLABLE) BONDS 3133813R4 DTD 11/09/2012 1.000% 11/09/2017 Amortized FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS (CALLABLE) 3133813C7 BONDS Rating DTD 11/13/2012 0.875% 11/13/2017 Date FREDDIE MAC (EX- CALLABLE) BONDS 3134G32L3 DTD 12/26/2012 0.850% 12/26/2017 Interest FANNIE MAE (CALLABLE) BONDS 3136G14X4 DTD 12/27/2012 0.900% 12/27/2017 3,000,000.00 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS (CALLABLE) 313381LC7 BONDS 10/23/12 DTD 12/28/2012 0.950% 12/28/2017 3,000,000.00 FREDDIE MAC (CALLABLE) BONDS 3134G32V1 DTD 01/03/2013 0.875% 01/03/2018 FREDDIE MAC (CALLABLE) GLOBAL NOTES 3134G33B4 DTD 01/11/2013 1.000% 01/11/2018 3,000,000.00 FANNIE MAE (CALLABLE) NOTES 3135GOTV5 DTD 01/30/2013 1.030% 01/30/2018 11/09/12 FNMA (CALLABLE) NOTES 3135GOUN1 DTD 02/28/2013 1.150% 02/28/2018 1.00 FREDDIE MAC (CALLABLE) BONDS 3134G45W4 DTD 05/29/2013 1.000% 05/29/2018 FANNIE MAE (CALLABLE) BONDS 3135GOXS7 DTD 06/06/2013 1.125% 06/06/2018 AA+ FREDDIE MAC (CALLABLE) BONDS 3134G4A99 DTD 06/26/2013 1.300% 06/26/2018 3,000,000.00 =PF1I PFM Asset Management LLC 5 Agenda Packet Managed Account Detail of Securities Held For the Month Ending March 31, 2015 Page 715 S &P Moody's Trade Settle Original YTM Accrued Amortized Market Par Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value 3,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 10/23/12 10/23/12 3,000,000.00 0.90 11,850.00 3,000,000.00 2,994,762.00 3,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 11/09/12 11/09/12 3,000,000.00 1.00 11,833.33 3,000,000.00 2,992,128.00 3,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 11/13/12 11/13/12 3,000,000.00 0.88 10,062.50 3,000,000.00 2,987,961.00 3,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 12/26/12 12/26/12 3,000,000.00 0.85 6,729.17 3,000,000.00 2,986,239.00 3,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 12/27/12 12/27/12 3,000,000.00 0.90 7,050.00 3,000,000.00 2,976,258.00 3,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 12/28/12 12/28/12 3,000,000.00 0.95 7,362.50 3,000,000.00 2,986,602.00 3,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 01/03/13 01/03/13 3,000,000.00 0.88 6,416.67 3,000,000.00 2,987,733.00 3,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 01/11/13 01/11/13 3,000,000.00 1.00 6,666.67 3,000,000.00 2,993,319.00 3,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 01/30/13 01/30/13 3,000,000.00 1.03 5,235.83 3,000,000.00 3,002,289.00 3,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 02/28/13 02/28/13 3,000,000.00 1.15 2,970.83 3,000,000.00 2,991,882.00 3,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 05/29/13 05/29/13 3,000,000.00 1.00 10,166.67 3,000,000.00 2,984,286.00 3,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 06/06/13 06/06/13 3,000,000.00 1.13 10,781.25 3,000,000.00 2,989,560.00 3,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 06/26/13 06/26/13 3,000,000.00 1.30 10,291.67 3,000,000.00 3,004,959.00 Page 715 CITY OF CHULA VISTA Security Type/ Description Dated Date /Coupon /Maturity CUSIP Federal Agency Bond / Note FHLMC NOTES (CALLABLE) BONDS 3134G47G7 DTD 06/26/2013 1.400% 06/26/2018 Managed Account Detail of Securities Held For the Month Ending March 31, 2015 S &P Moody's Trade Settle Original YTM Accrued Amortized Market Par Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value 3,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 06/26/13 06/26/13 3,000,000.00 1.40 11,083.33 3,000,000.00 2,999,787.00 Security Type Sub -Total Corporate 100,000,000.00 100,000,000.00 0.91 270,295.98 100,000,000.00 99,864,197.00 GENERAL ELECTRIC CORP NOTES 36962G7J7 1,500,000.00 AA+ Al 09/25/14 09/26/14 1,501,680.00 1.21 7,083.33 1,501,350.30 1,507,806.00 (CALLABLE) DTD 05/15/2014 1.250% 05/15/2017 TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORP NOTE 89236TBH7 1,500,000.00 AA- Aa3 09/25/14 09/26/14 1,497,075.00 1.20 6,328.13 1,497,641.79 1,504,245.00 DTD 05/16/2014 1.125% 05/16/2017 WELLS FARGO & CO 94974BGF1 1,500,000.00 A+ A2 03/26/15 03/27/15 1,500,045.00 2.15 5,285.42 1,500,045.00 1,507,738.50 DTD 02/02/2015 2.150% 01/30/2020 AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORP NOTES 02665WAU5 1,500,000.00 A+ Al 03/26/15 03/27/15 1,506,045.00 2.06 1,612.50 1,506,032.21 1,513,629.00 DTD 03/13/2015 2.150% 03/13/2020 Security Type Sub -Total 6,000,000.00 6,004,845.00 1.66 20,309.38 6,005,069.30 6,033,418.50 Managed Account Sub -Total 113,885,000.00 114,002,243.63 0.93 315,633.74 113,963,377.74 113,875,393.59 Securities Sub -Total $113,885,000.00 $114,002,243.63 0.93% $315,633.74 $113,963,377.74 $113,875,393.59 Accrued Interest $315,633.74 Total Investments $114,191,027.33 =PF1I PFM Asset Management LLC 5 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 716 � PFM' CITY OF CHULA VISTA Transaction Type Trade Settle Security Description 01/03/15 01/03/15 FREDDIE MAC (CALLABLE) BONDS DTD 01/03/2013 0.875% 01/03/2018 01/10/15 01/10/15 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANKS(CALLABLE) BOND DTD 07/10/2012 1.040% 07/10/2017 01/11/15 01/11/15 FREDDIE MAC (CALLABLE) GLOBAL NOTES DTD 01/11/2013 1.000% 01/11/2018 01/25/15 01/25/15 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK (CALLABLE) BONDS DTD 01/25/2013 0.700% 01/25/2017 01/30/15 01/30/15 FANNIE MAE (CALLABLE) NOTES DTD 01/30/2013 1.030% 01/30/2018 Transaction Type Sub -Total Managed Account Sub -Total Total Security Transactions Managed Account Security Transactions & Interest =PF1I PFM Asset Management LLC 5 Agenda Packet $0.00 $69,675.00 $69,675.00 For the Month Ending January 31, 2015 Realized G/L Realized G/L Sale Cost Amort Cost Method Page 717 Principal Accrued CUSIP Par Proceeds Interest Total 3134G32V 1 3,000,000.00 0.00 13,125.00 13,125.00 3133EAWY0 3,000,000.00 0.00 15,600.00 15,600.00 3134G33B4 3,000,000.00 0.00 15,000.00 15,000.00 313381RY3 3,000,000.00 0.00 10,500.00 10,500.00 3135GOTV5 3,000,000.00 0.00 15,450.00 15,450.00 15,000,000.00 0.00 69,675.00 69,675.00 0.00 69,675.00 69,675.00 =PF1I PFM Asset Management LLC 5 Agenda Packet $0.00 $69,675.00 $69,675.00 For the Month Ending January 31, 2015 Realized G/L Realized G/L Sale Cost Amort Cost Method Page 717 CITY OF CHULA VISTA Transaction Type Trade Settle Security Descri Managed Account Security Transactions & Interest Principal Accrued CUSIP Par Proceeds Interest For the Month Ending February 28, 2015 Realized G/L Realized G/L Sale Total Cost Amort Cost Method 02/19/15 02/23/15 US TREASURY NOTES 912828SD3 1,000,000.00 (994,023.44) (794.20) (994,817.64) DTD 01/31/2012 1.250% 01/31/2019 Transaction Type Sub -Total 1,000,000.00 (994,023.44) (794.20) (994,817.64) 02/02/15 02/02/15 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 313380Z26 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,666.67 1,001,666.67 0.00 0.00 FIFO (CALLABLE) BONDS DTD 10/24/2012 0.625% 10/24/2016 Transaction Type Sub -Total 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,666.67 1,001,666.67 0.00 0.00 02/13/15 02/13/15 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT 3133ECF58 4,000,000.00 0.00 15,800.00 15,800.00 BANKS(CALLABLE) BOND DTD 02/13/2013 0.790% 02/13/2017 02/28/15 02/28/15 FNMA (CALLABLE) NOTES 3135GOUN1 3,000,000.00 0.00 17,250.00 17,250.00 DTD 02/28/2013 1.150% 02/28/2018 Transaction Type Sub -Total 7,000,000.00 0.00 33,050.00 33,050.00 Managed Account Sub -Total 5,976.56 33,922.47 39,899.03 0.00 0.00 Total Security Transactions $5,976.56 $33,922.47 $39,899.03 $0.00 $0.00 �PF1I PFM Asset Management LLC 5 Agenda Packet Page 718 Managed Account Security Transactions & Interest CITY OF CHULA VISTA Transaction Type Principal Accrued Trade Settle Security Description CUSIP Par Proceeds Interest Total 03/26/15 03/27/15 AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORP 02665WAU5 1,500,000.00 (1,506,045.00) (1,254.17) (1,507,299.17) NOTES DTD 03/13/2015 2.150% 03/13/2020 03/26/15 03/27/15 WELLS FARGO & CO 94974BGF1 1,500,000.00 (1,500,045.00) (4,927.08) (1,504,972.08) DTD 02/02/2015 2.150% 01/30/2020 Transaction Type Sub -Total 3,000,000.00 (3,006,090.00) (6,181.25) (3,012,271.25) 03/21/15 03/21/15 FFCB NOTES 3133EAY28 3,000,000.00 0.00 12,450.00 12,450.00 DTD 09/21/2012 0.830% 09/21/2017 03/27/15 03/27/15 FHLMC (CALLED, OMD 3/27/18) BONDS 3134G4XK9 3,000,000.00 0.00 19,500.00 19,500.00 DTD 03/27/2014 1.300% 03/27/2015 03/31/15 03/31/15 US TREASURY NOTES 912828RJ1 2,985,000.00 0.00 14,925.00 14,925.00 DTD 09/30/2011 1.000% 09/30/2016 Transaction Type Sub -Total 8,985,000.00 0.00 46,875.00 46,875.00 For the Month Ending March 31, 2015 Realized G/L Realized G/L Sale Cost Amort Cost Method 03/27/15 03/27/15 FHLMC (CALLED, OMD 3/27/18) BONDS 3134G4XK9 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 0.00 3,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 DTD 03/27/2014 1.300% 03/27/2015 Transaction Type Sub -Total 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 0.00 3,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 Managed Account Sub -Total (6,090.00) 40,693.75 34,603.75 0.00 0.00 Total Security Transactions ($6,090.00) $40,693.75 $34,603.75 $0.00 $0.00 �PF1I PFM Asset Management LLC 5 Agenda Packet Page 719 CITY OF CHULA VISTA File #: 15 -0150, Item #: 8. City of Chula Vista Staff Report CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN AND THE OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, INCLUDING A NEW DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT INVOLVING PORTIONS OF THE OTAY RANCH FREEWAY COMMERCIAL PLANNING AREA 12 A. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CONSIDERING THE ADDENDUM (IS- 12 -03) TO FEIR 02 -04; APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN AND THE OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO REFLECT LAND USE AND POLICY CHANGES FOR APPROXIMATELY 35 ACRES WITHIN THE OTAY RANCH PLANNED COMMUNITY, INCLUDING ASSOCIATED TEXT, MAPS, AND TABLES B. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, VILLAGE II TOWN CENTER, LLC, AND SUNRANCH CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, FOR THE FREEWAY COMMERCIAL NORTH PORTION OF OTAY RANCH PLANNING AREA 12 (FIRST READING) RECOMMENDED ACTION Council conduct the public hearing, adopt the resolution and place the ordinance on first reading. SUMMARY Baldwin & Sons, LLC ( "Applicant" or "Developer ") is proposing amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GP) Land Use and Transportation (LUT) Element and the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) to change approximately 28.7 acres of Retail Commercial to Mixed -Use Residential and Park on an approximately 35 -acre vacant site. The proposed GP and GDP amendments would allow for a transit - supportive mixed use development that would add up to 600 multi - family residential units (with a minimum of 15,000 square feet of commercial retail) and a new 2 -acre urban park within the Freeway Commercial North portion of Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 (see Locator Map, Attachment 1). The project also includes a Development Agreement which ensures the timely development of hotels totaling 300 rooms on the northerly most 6.3 -acre portion of the 35 -acre site (remaining commercial and is not part of the proposed amendments), the minimum 15,000 square feet of commercial retail, and the urban park by the developer ( "Freeway Commercial North" or "FC -2" ( "Project ")). On July 9, 2012 the Applicant filed applications to process all of the subject items. Freeway Commercial Prior Approvals City of Chula Vista 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 1 of 16 Printed on 5/7/2015 powered by Legistar Page 720 File #: 15 -0150, Item #: 8. In 2001, a GDP amendment separated the Eastern Urban Center (EUC) and Freeway Commercial (FC) components into separate planning areas, comprising Planning Area (PA) 12. In September 2004 the Freeway Commercial SPA Plan and Tentative Map were adopted on the approximately 120 -acre Freeway Commercial site, and entitled approximately 1,214,000 sf of commercial uses: 867,000 sf on the approximate 85 -acre FC -1 ( "Freeway Commercial South ") site, and 347,000 sf on the approximate 35 -acre FC -2 ( "Freeway Commercial North ") site. The Freeway Commercial SPA Plan identifies FC -1 and FC -2 sites separately because of different ownerships. In 2006, the Otay Ranch Town Center Mall was constructed on FC -1, and in 2007 a SPA amendment was approved which raised the total commercial area allowed on FC -1 (by 93,000 sq. ft. from 867,000 sq. ft. to 960,000) to accommodate another department store. Today, the FC -2 site remains vacant and undeveloped. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Development Services Director has reviewed the proposed Project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the project was covered in the previously adopted Final Environmental Impact Report for the Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan - Planning Area 12 ( "FEIR 02 -04 ") (SCH #1989010154). The Development Services Director has determined that only minor technical changes or additions to this document are necessary and that none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines calling for the preparation of a subsequent document have occurred; therefore, the Development Service Director has prepared an addendum to FEIR 02 -04. The findings of the Addendum (see Attachment 4) are further summarized in the Environmental Section on Page 6 of this report. BOARD /COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION On April 22, 2015 the proposed Project was presented to the Planning Commission. After considering the Project, a motion was made to recommend that the City Council consider the Addendum to FEIR 02 -04, approve amendments to the General Plan and Otay Ranch General Development Plan, and an associated Development Agreement. The Planning Commission initially voted 2- 2 -2 -1. The motion failed because there was not a majority vote for approval. A second motion was then made that City Council deny the Project with acknowledgment that Planning Commissioner Fuentes and Planning Commissioner Gutierrez previously recommended approval of the Project. This motion, recommending that City Council deny the Project, carried 4- 0 -2 -1. DISCUSSION Location, Existing Site Characteristics, and Ownership City of Chula Vista 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 2 of 16 Printed on 5/7/2015 powered by LegistarT"^ Page 721 File #: 15 -0150, Item #: 8. The Freeway Commercial SPA Plan area is generally located south of Olympic Parkway, north of Birch Road, east of State Route 125 and west of Eastlake Parkway (see Locator Map, Attachment 1). This amendment is limited to the FC -2 portion of the SPA Plan located between Olympic Parkway and the existing Otay Ranch Town Center. This portion of the SPA Plan is currently vacant and generally comprised of flat graded pads with an existing road, Town Center Drive, bisecting the site in a north /south direction. FC -2 includes approximately 35 acres under two ownerships, Village II Town Center, LLC and SunRanch Capital Partners, LLC. 2. Project Description The Project amends existing GP (LUT element) and GDP commercial designated land use on approximately 28.7 acres of the 35.0 -acre FC -2 site to implement up to 600 multi - family dwelling units, 15,000 square feet of ancillary commercial, and a 2 -acre highly amenitized public park. Commercial entitlements and land use designation for the residual 6.3 acres located at the northwest portion of FC -2 will remain unchanged and will accommodate two hotels with at least 300 total rooms. The proposed GP and GDP amendments would support subsequent detailed planning to create a unified, walkable, mixed -use plan for the FC -2 district of Otay Ranch Planning Area 12. The Project is intended to enhance living, working, shopping and transit options in the area. A proposed Development Agreement includes certain mutual benefits for the City and Applicant from the proposed Project, as further described in item 3 below, and the Analysis section of this report. 3. Proposed Amendments and New Development Agreement Following is a brief summary of the proposed amendments to the General Plan and Otay Ranch GDP. Chula Vista General Plan: Amend LUT Element's applicable text, tables, and exhibits to reflect changes in land use designations as necessary to implement the additional 600 residential units as well as additions in parkland areas. New policies are also proposed to reflect the transit - supportive mixed use project. The proposed land use changes are as follows: Change 26.7 acres of Commercial Retail to Mixed Use Residential, and 2.0 acres of Commercial Retail to Parks & Recreation. Otay Ranch GDP: Amend applicable text, tables, and exhibits to reflect changes in land use designations as necessary to implement up to 600 residential units as well as additions in Community Purpose Facilities (CPF), and parkland areas. New policies are also proposed to reflect the mixed use project. City of Chula Vista 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 3 of 16 Printed on 5/7/2015 powered by LegistarT"^ Page 722 File #: 15 -0150, Item #: 8. The GDP follows the same proposed land use changes as the GP, including the change of 26.7 acres of Freeway Commercial to Mixed Use, and 2.0 acres of Freeway Commercial to Park. The new policies are further refinements of the new GP policies. Development Agreement: The proposed Development Agreement provides the assurance for two hotels totaling 300 rooms to be constructed; allows for a 4.6 acre park requirement to be met through the construction, programming and maintenance of a high ly- amenitized 2 -acre urban park that is valued at or greater than 4.6 acres of park; and dedicates right of way and construction easements for completion of the South Bay Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) line (see Attachment6). ANALYSIS 1. Chula Vista General Plan Existing Conditions /Past Designations The existing GP includes a description of the area, existing conditions, the vision and various policies (starting on page LUT -284) for the entire 120 acres as a regional serving Retail Commercial center. The vision includes the provision of both local and regional - serving retail commercial and entertainment uses. The existing policies remain applicable to the Otay Ranch Town Center mall (FC -1) area. The existing General Plan identifies the Freeway Commercial North 35 -acre site (FC -2) as being part of the 120 -acre Freeway Commercial site, currently designated as Commercial Retail. As noted earlier, the 960,000 sq. ft. in the 85 -acre Otay Ranch Town Center Mall (FC -1) site is mostly developed, with approximately 317,000 sq. ft. (or 33 percent) remaining to be developed. The northerly 35 -acre site (FC -2), with approximately 347,000 sq. ft. of retail capacity is undeveloped and has been designated for retail commercial since the Otay Ranch was originally approved to the City in 1993. The total remaining retail capacity for both sites is 664,000 sq. ft. General Plan Amendment Considerations This 664,000 sq. ft. of retail capacity is situated within the larger EastLake activity corridor that contains substantial additional commercial use concentration spanning from EastLake Village Walk in the north to the developing Millenia project on the south. Previous Commercial lands studies (in early 2013) have indicated that the corridor contains an over - supply of community and regional - serving commercial use. These planning and market conditions have influenced the absorption of the FC -1 remaining capacity and the FC -2 site has not been fully developed as a regional commercial site. The applicant has proposed a mixed use project on the FC -2 site that would retain approximately 215,000 sq. ft. (about 64 %) of the 347,000 sq. ft. of commercial capacity. The proposed net reduction of 132,000 sq. ft. City of Chula Vista Page 4 of 16 Printed on 5/7/2015 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 723 File #: 15 -0150, Item #: 8. commercial would result in 449,000 sq. ft. of capacity remaining on FC -1 & FC -2 sites. In order to determine if the proposed reduction and remaining 449,000 sq. ft. provide sufficient capacity, staff required the applicant to do a current Commercial Lands Analysis (CLA). The results of the CLA demonstrates that there remains an overage of approximately 93,000 sf of retail commercial capacity beyond demand at build -out within the larger "trade area" evaluated in the CLA. The findings of the CLA along with the mixed use dynamics and compatibility between the FC -1 and FC -2 site(s) support the proposed amendments. Commercial Market Considerations & Commercial Lands Analysis (CLA) The applicant was required to prepare a Commercial Lands Analysis (CLA) to study the potential impacts of the Project on the City's supply of existing and planned commercial development area (see Appendix D of Attachment 3). The CLA studied a 4 -mile "trade area" surrounding the site. The study looked at both the incremental (i.e the delta between the existing and planned commercial at build -out) demand and supply of commercial lands within the trade area. The key findings of the CLA particular to the Freeway Commercial North project are as follows: • The trade area currently experiences an extremely high amount of General Merchandise sales, suggesting that it is already over - saturated with "big -box" stores. • The FC -1 Otay Ranch Town Center mall still contains 317,000 square feet of developable area that can accommodate department stores and other "big -box" retailers. • There are other locations in the trade area, such as Millenia, zoned to accommodate the type of retail that is currently in the market ( "medium box "), generally 20,000 - 50,000 square feet. • At build -out the incremental demand for retail space within the trade area is estimated at 1,930,000 sq. ft. A total of 2,355,000 sq. ft. is currently planned or in the pipeline in the trade area (including the 347,000 sq. ft. of retail for the project as currently proposed). This would result in an over - supply of retail space in the amount of 425,000 square feet. With approval of the proposed project, including the 15,000 square feet of retail proposed, the supply of retail space would be reduced to 2,023,000 square feet. • With the existing over supply of 425,000 square feet and subtracting the reduction of 332,000 square feet from the proposed project, the trade area would still be projected to experience an over - supply of retail space totaling 93,000 sq. ft. at build out. Staff has reviewed the CLA and concurs with its conclusions. The proposed project would reduce approximately 132,000 square feet of commercial (the hotels will utilize approximately 200,000 square feet of the commercial entitlement) from the FC -2 site to accommodate up to 600 multi - family residential units and a 2 -acre urban park. The City still has adequate remaining commercial square City of Chula Vista Page 5 of 16 Printed on 5/7/2015 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet powered by Le9age 724 File #: 15 -0150, Item #: 8. footage within the FC -1 site, and other future sites within the trade area - Addendum and Infrastructure /Service Considerations The previously graded project site is currently served by existing infrastructure. No upgrades or changes to existing infrastructure would be necessitated by the proposed GP /GDP changes to allow mixed use development. As noted below, the graded site is bordered by Olympic Parkway, Eastlake Parkway, and SR -125. The change in use would result in fewer vehicle trips generated by the project, compared to the existing commercial designation for the site. Outlined below is an overview of how existing infrastructure would adequately serve project. Water Resources: The sizing of the existing 16 -inch water line in Olympic Parkway, 20 -inch line in Eastlake Parkway, and 12 -inch line in Town Center Drive, and 12 -inch lines within FC -1 are adequate to support the proposed modifications and, therefore, no changes to the approved project water system as analyzed in the FEIR are necessary as a result of the proposed modifications (Dexter Wilson 2014). Additionally, the proposed modifications would comply with the City of Chula Vista Guidelines for water conservation, including the use of recycled water for landscaping and implementation of additional water conservation measures such as hot water pipe insulation, pressure reducing valves, and water efficient dishwashers. A water supply assessment was approved for the project on April 1, 2015, documenting that there is an assured long term supply of water for the project. The approved water supply assessment indicates the project as proposed would result in an incremental increase of water demand of 173 acere feet beyond what was estimated in the 2010 Otay Water District Water Resources Master Plan. Wastewater: The project is consistent with FEIR Mitigation Measures 5.12 -11 through 5.12 -13, which require the applicant to demonstrate adequate capacity in the Poggi Canyon sewer line. The sewer technical study (Dexter 2014) demonstrates that there is adequate sewer capacity in the existing 8 inch line that serves the site. The existing 8 -inch gravity sewer line is adequate to convey this projected total flow. Moreover, the proposed project does not require additional reaches of the Poggi Interceptor to be upgraded in the future. Traffic: The proposed modifications would result in fewer trips than analyzed in the traffic analysis. A traffic analysis has been conducted to evaluate the potential traffic impacts associated with the proposed modifications (Chen Ryan 2015). The FC -2 site would generate approximately 7,506 daily trips, which is lower than the entitled land use trip generation of approximately 12,145 daily trips for the FC -2 site. Since the proposed modified land uses would generate less traffic than the entitled land uses, there would be no additional traffic impacts associated with the proposed modifications. Therefore, no new significant impacts would occur beyond what is analyzed in the FEIR. As stated above, no new significant impacts would occur from the proposed project, therefore, an Addendum has been prepared. City of Chula Vista 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 6 of 16 Printed on 5/7/2015 powered by LegistarT"^ Page 725 File #: 15 -0150, Item #: 8. Schools: Residents expressed concerns of overcrowding within existing schools. Chula Vista Elementary - The proposed project is anticipated to generate approximately 180 students within the Wolf Canyon attendance area. Most of the project was annexed into CVESD's CFD 1 in 1993. This property will be assessed an annual tax pursuant to the mitigation agreement and Rate and Method of Apportionment for CFD 1.This CFD was formed to cover the costs of the District's capital facilities required to serve the development areas. That portion of the project not already annexed in CFD 1 will have the option to annex into the CFD or pay the mandated State school fee. This is a per square -foot fee that would be assessed on the properties prior to building permit Issuance. Sweetwater Union High School District - The proposed project is anticipated to generate approximately 52 middle school students and 121 high school students. The project is currently within the EastLake Middle School and Olympian High School attendance areas. Both schools are at capacity and the Freeway Commercial Project will generate additional need for new schools. All eastside schools are at capacity and closed to new intradistrict transfers. The district has plans for a new middle school and a new high school potentially within Village 8 West and Village 11, respectively. The SUHSD also formed their own CFD 1 which most of the Freeway Commercial Project was annexed into in 1993. The property annexed into CFD 1 will be assessed an annual tax pursuant to the mitigation agreement and Rate and Method of Apportionment for CFD 1. The property outside of CFD 1 will have the option of annexing into the CFD or paying the State mandated school fee. Parking: Residents also expressed concerns regarding the provision of adequate parking for the proposed project that would not impact surrounding neighborhoods. Parking requirements are addressed at a SPA Plan level and will be required as part of the subsequent SPA Plan amendment to implement the proposed Project. The Project is anticipated to utilize the standard parking requirements that are typical of Otay Ranch villages. The SPA Plan Amendment, which will require City Council approval, will establish the parking requirements for each of the different land uses that can potentially locate in the project. Furthermore, the Master Precise Plan, which also will require City Council approval, will demonstrate how those parking requirements will be met. Parks The proposed project park requirement is 4.6 acres. In accordance with provision of the Park Land Dedication Ordinance (PLDO) and the proposed Development Agreement, allows for a 4.6 acre park requirement to be met through the construction, programming and maintenance of a highly - amenitized 2 -acre urban park that is valued at or greater than 4.6 acres of park. The 2 -acre urban City of Chula Vista Page 7 of 16 Printed on 5/7/2015 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet powered by Le9age 726 File #: 15 -0150, Item #: 8. park is a public park, and will be constructed and maintained similar to the urban park that is proposed in the Eastern Urban Center. Proposed General Plan Amendments The proposed mixed use Project would add up to 600 multi - family for sale and rental units and implements a vision of a 24 -hour lifestyle center. Other similar plans in the region such as the Westfield Mall at University Town Center have done this. As proposed, the Chula Vista General Plan (GP) would provide the revised vision and policy direction for the planning of Freeway Commercial North (FC -2). The FC -2 site is proposed to have new mixed use residential with ancillary commercial and an urban park. These new proposed land uses necessitates the crafting of a new objective and supportive policies that address: Uses, Intensity, and Design aspects of the proposed project as well as its relationship to FC -1. The new policies also provide clear guidance for the subsequent preparation of the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment, which will implement the proposed Project. The proposed amended vision of the GP for this area is that the focus area provides both local and regional- serving retail commercial and entertainment uses as well as high density mixed -use residential. The High Density /Mixed Use Residential in the northerly portion of this area promotes walkability, reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMTs), and decrease traffic impacts through the pedestrian activation of Town Center Drive and close proximity between the hotels, park, retail commercial, residential uses, and the adjacent transit. The new objective and key policies that relate directly to design and land use are listed below. Objective: • Create a high - quality mixed -use, transit supportive development within Freeway Commercial North (FC -2) with hotels, commercial retail, park, and high- density residential uses through a cohesive, coordinated design that integrates well with the Freeway Commercial South (FC -1) shopping center. Policies: • Multi- family density is intended at the lower range of the Mixed Use Residential category and is envisioned to provide both for -sale and rental products. The distribution of uses within the Mixed Use Residential is to be predominantly residential with ancillary retail commercial that is intended to primarily serve the nearby residences, and hotel and park patrons. • The FC -2 site is envisioned as low to mid -rise generally ranging between 3 -5 stories in height. • Provide attractive and appealing design treatment on all sides of the project site with landscaping, hardscape, architectural features and enhanced elevations, and amenities that are aesthetically City of Chula Vista Page 8 of 16 Printed on 5/7/2015 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet powered by Le9age 727 File #: 15 -0150, Item #: 8. coordinated with the surrounding land uses. • The public park should be a high ly- amenitized urban park that is accessible both visually and physically to the surrounding land uses and thoroughfares, and serves local residents, as well as hotel and shopping center patrons, and the public at large. • The design of Town Center Drive should promote a pedestrian orientation while accommodating the necessary vehicular demands of the FC -2 area, and its function as the northerly entrance to the FC -1 Otay Ranch Town Center. • Provide safe, comfortable and easily identifiable pedestrian crossing locations, routes and signage to the southerly Otay Ranch Town Center BRT station to promote use by hotel patrons and residents. The Project is consistent with proposed GP policies listed above and existing GP goals and policies that reinforce the coordination and provision of balanced land uses (e.g. residential, commercial, park), building and pedestrian design features that promote quality urban design, and the provision of public facilities (like the park) to serve residents and visitors. This is consistent with many of the Planning Factors, Objectives and Policies Outlined in Section 7.0 of the LUT Element such as: • Balanced Land Uses - "A balance of land uses - residential; employment; commercial; recreational ... provided at the appropriate intensity, location, and mix. Benefits include: reduced commute times; improved air quality; higher sales tax revenues; increased mobility options." • Urban Design & Form - "Establishing and reinforcing Chula Vista's urban design and form is necessary to ensure the desired character and image of the City is protected and enhanced as the City grows and develops over time." • Compatible Edge Transitions - "Mixed use areas will inherently have higher levels of activity and intensity than solely residential neighborhoods. Both the pattern of mixed use areas and individual project designs must be sensitive to edge transitions." • Enhancing Community Image - "It is created by both natural and man -made features, such as views; open space, city entryways; primary or secondary gateways, streetscapes; buildings; parks; and plazas." The mix of hotels, high- density residential and commercial in a mixed -use format, a 2 -acre urban park, located in close proximity to one another, and a planned BRT route promotes walkability and "smart growth" development. The hotels, urban park, and residential units will also activate the commercial uses along Town Center Drive; encourage walking and transit use; and reduce automotive dependency. The proposed mix use residential with higher density multi - family and ancillary commercial uses located along Town Center Drive adjacent to the Otay Ranch provides a City of Chula Vista Page 9 of 16 Printed on 5/7/2015 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 728 File #: 15 -0150, Item #: 8. compatible transition between the FC -2 site and the Town Center mall (FC -1) to the south. The activities of the mall are compatible with the pedestrian- oriented activities envisioned for the mixed use project as higher- density residential are proposed adjacent to and within walking distance of the mall. The planned BRT route is conveniently located between and serves patrons and residents of the FC -1 and FC -2 sites. Residents, park and hotel users on the FC -2 site have easy and convenient access to the FC -1 mall and vice - versa. The ancillary commercial uses in the proposed Project, while serving the hotels, residents and park users, are complimentary to the uses in the mall and provide additional shopping opportunities for patrons of the mall. The placement of an urban park fronting Town Center Drive creates a pedestrian- oriented focal point within Freeway Commercial North. The current southerly terminus of Town Center Drive is adjacent to a main pedestrian walkway within the Town Center Mall and provides for a primary pedestrian link between Freeway Commercial North and South. At the SPA Plan level, in accordance with the GP and GDP, the Applicant will provide pedestrian features such as enhanced pavement, trellises, seating areas, and low monument signage surrounding the urban park that will accentuate a pedestrian- oriented focal area within Freeway Commercial North. The comprehensive list of all the proposed GP policies is located in Appendix A of Attachment 3. A subsequent SPA Plan amendment is necessary and will be required to show consistency with the new objective and associated policies. 2. Otay Ranch GDP The Otay Ranch GDP provides a vision and direction for the planning of the Freeway Commercial area, including the FC -2 subarea. The vision of the GDP for this area, as amended, is that Freeway Commercial North (FC -2) will provide hotels and high density residential in a mixed -use urban character setting that includes ancillary commercial uses and an urban park. Hotels are a permitted use in the existing SPA Plan for both the South (FC -1) and North (FC -2) subareas. Because the proposed Development Agreement ensures that hotels will be constructed in FC -2, the proposed GDP amendments identify hotels as a required part of FC -2 in conjunction with the other uses as described above. A similar revision is not being made in FC -1 because there is no requirement or assurance that hotels would be constructed on the FC -1 site. Key new policies are added to the Otay Ranch GDP to ensure the quality of development anticipated with the FC -2 project. They include the following: • Orient hotels and high density residential mixed -use buildings in a manner that defines the primary pedestrian areas, creates a strong pedestrian connection between buildings, and City of Chula Vista Page 10 of 16 Printed on 5/7/2015 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet powered by Le9age 729 File #: 15 -0150, Item #: 8. provides for a continuous pedestrian experience. • Mixed -Use buildings facing Town Center Drive and primary pedestrian urban spaces shall contain commercial uses that support pedestrian activities such as dining, retail and entertainment, and cultural experiences. • Hotels and mixed -use buildings shall exhibit an urban character through the use of quality building materials, textures, and scale. • Establish an urban identity through the use of streetscape features and amenities, such as bollards, street furnishings, and enhanced pavement between vehicular driveways. • Provide safe and accessible pedestrian connections to the existing and anticipated routes to the planned Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) stations. Provide features to buffer pedestrians from the BRT travel lanes where pedestrian walkways are located along the travel lanes. • Internal and external circulation systems shall be provided including a strong pedestrian - orientation, and enhanced pedestrian connectivity to the regional shopping center and internal connections between the high density residential and mixed -use areas, the hotels and the urban park. • A centrally located urban park including amenities shall be provided at a highly visible location and will serve as a public attraction in addition to serving the surrounding high density residential. • In Freeway Commercial North (FC -2), the freeway commercial land use category permits hotels and high density residential in an urban character mixed -use setting, allowing for primarily 3 to 6 story mid -rise buildings (heights will be established at the SPA level). The comprehensive list of all the proposed GDP policies is located in Appendix B of Attachment 3. The Freeway Commercial SPA Plan will require subsequent amendment so that it implements these GDP goals and objectives. Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA) City of Chula Vista Page 11 of 16 Printed on 5/7/2015 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 730 File #: 15 -0150, Item #: 8. A FIA has been prepared using the City's Fiscal Impact Framework (see Appendix C of Attachment 3). Typical GPA and GDPA's are evaluated only in a build -out condition. However, given the DA and proposed GP and GDP policies that stipulate specified project features, and even though a SPA Plan is not being processed, staff required the FIA to include development phasing increments typically not required until a SPA Plan is prepared. When the SPA Plan amendment is be processed this FIA will fulfill that requirement. Based on the FIA and the assumptions contained therein, the fiscal impact generated by the proposed Project as compared to the currently approved plan (i.e. base), are zero in Years 0 & 1 and positive in all future study years including at build -out. This is because no construction is taking place on the site in Years 0 & 1. Both the base and proposed Project are estimated to generate more revenues than expenditures throughout the build -out period. The base is estimated to generate annual revenues of $4.1 million and expenses of $2.1 million resulting in a net positive fiscal impact to the City of $2.0 million annually at build -out. The proposed Project is estimated to generate revenues of $4.8 million and expenses of $2.3 million resulting in a net positive fiscal impact to the City of $2.5 million annually at build -out. Overall, the proposed Project is estimated to generate approximately $0.5 million more than the base primarily due to the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenues estimated from the development of the hotels. The fiscal surplus (difference between the base and the Project) starts in Year 2 at $391,720 and grows to an annual net fiscal surplus of approximately $536,318 by build out, Year 10. As required by the development agreement, construction for the first hotel will begin prior to the issuance of a residential permit. Due to the TOT collected early on, the project will produce greater revenues than costs, creating the early surplus. With more residential development underway between years 2 and 4, the surplus temporarily declines to a Year 4 low of $173,609 before increasing again to the ultimate surplus of $536,318. While hotel uses are allowed under the current FC entitlement, the original FIA for the Freeway Commercial SPA Plan did not include revenues for hotels, therefore, the base (i.e. existing approved project) does not include revenues for hotels because there are no assurances that hotels would be developed on either FC -1 or FC -2 sites. The Development Agreement for the proposed project ensures that the City will get two hotels, one of which will be under construction prior to issuance of a building permit for residential uses. The findings in the FIA show that hotel uses generate revenues for the City at a higher rate than general commercial, and the proposed project will generate over a half million dollars more than the base, as described above. 3. Development Agreement State and City Requirements for Development Agreements California Government Code sections 65864 et seq. authorizes cities to enter into a development agreement with any person having a legal or equitable interest in real property for the development of City of Chula Vista Page 12 of 16 Printed on 5/7/2015 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 731 File #: 15 -0150, Item #: 8. the property. A development agreement is a contract negotiated between the project proponent and the public agency that specifies certain mutual benefits negotiated for a particular project and vests, subject to certain conditions in the agreement, the rights of the project applicant to develop the property under current land use regulations for a specified term. Through City Resolution No. 11933 (adopted in 1985), the City Council has determined that development of large projects within the City create unique and complex development considerations and that, in addition to the minimum requirements for development agreements contained in the Government Code, additional procedures and requirements for the consideration of development agreements shall be contained within each individual agreement. The Development Agreement presented here includes the requirements for development agreements contained in the Government Code, as well as additional procedures and requirements designed to address the unique and complex development considerations presented by the Project. The following discussion summarizes the benefits of the Development Agreement to both the City and the Applicant, and describes the fundamental terms of the agreement. Public Benefits Beyond the basic benefits of developing a project of the character of Freeway Commercial North (FC -2), the City will receive the following benefits from entering into the Development Agreement, which is presented in draft in Attachment6: • Dedication of right of way and construction easements necessary for the completion of the South Bay Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) line. • Provision of two hotels totaling at least 300 rooms. • Increase in net fiscal revenue of over $500,000 annually at build out as compared to the currently approved project. • A highly amenitized (see Exhibit "E" of DA) two acre public park provided in a turnkey manner after the construction of 300 residential units. • Funding to cover regular maintenance of the two acre public park. Benefits to the Master Developer • Predictability in the development approval process by vesting the permitted uses, density, intensity of use, and timing and phasing of development consistent with the Freeway Commercial SPA Plan and existing land use laws, regulations and policies for up to twenty (20) years. • Use of the City's Development Impact Fee Deferral Policy for the life of the Development Agreement (up to 20 years). Pursuant to the Development Impact Fee Deferral Policy, the Master Developer may defer the payment of Development Impact Fees until the request for final City of Chula Vista Page 13 of 16 Printed on 5/7/2015 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet powered by Le9age 732 File #: 15 -0150, Item #: 8. inspection of each individual residential unit upon satisfaction of specified conditions. • Ability to convert commercial area into mixed use development with a total of 600 high density multi - family units and 15,000 square feet of retail space. • Ability to meet a reduced total park acreage obligation through an onsite equivalency program. Other Terms of the Agreement The Development Agreement will contain the following additional major points: • The term of the Development Agreement, all tentative maps and other development approvals will be twenty (20) years. • For the Term of the Development Agreement, the Master Developer and its merchant builders shall have the vested right to develop the property pursuant to the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, Tentative Map, Development Agreement, and existing land use laws, regulations and policies. The Development Agreement will vest permitted uses, density, intensity, timing and phasing of development, and reservations and dedications of land. • The Development Agreement may be amended from time to time by the mutual written consent of the City and Master Developer and the Owner of any affected portion of the property. • The City shall accept and process with reasonable promptness all completed applications for subsequent approvals. • The Development Agreement shall run with the land and benefit and bind future owners should the Master Developer sell or transfer ownership. The Development Agreement (DA) ensures that the 2 hotels and urban park are constructed, and phased appropriately with residential development to ensure balanced land uses are planned and built. The DA requires that the Developer meet all of its park obligations, but allows for flexibility in how those requirements are achieved. This park will be constructed to standards that exceed the requirements of a 4.6 acre park that would otherwise apply to the project. The DA contains a list of features for the Urban Park in Exhibit "E" such as water features, public art, amphitheater, sculptural landforms, rockscape /informal play areas, urban "botanical" garden, video projection screen /shade structure, adult fitness spaces /stations that would be considered as "highly - amenitized" because they are generally not included in urban parks. To the extent the cost of the urban park is less than the estimated cost to construct a standard 4.6 acre park, based on an audit, the developer must pay the excess to the City for use on other parks in the area. The highly - amenitized urban park enhances the community image of Freeway Commercial North as well as for Chula Vista. The hotels will provide jobs and higher revenues to the City through Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) and the City of Chula Vista 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 14 of 16 Printed on 5/7/2015 powered by LegistarT"^ Page 733 File #: 15 -0150, Item #: 8. ancillary commercial will also provide additional jobs and sales tax to the City. DECISION -MAKER CONFLICT Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City Council and has found no property holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property that is subject to this action. In addition, staff has conducted a decision maker conflict of interest review concerning Councilmember Miesen and has determined that a potential conflict of interest may exist because it may be reasonably foreseeable that a financial effect on a business entity in which Councilmember Miesen has a financial interest may be material. Staff is not independently aware, and has not been informed by any City Council member, of any other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of interest in this matter. LINK TO STRATEGIC GOALS The City's Strategic Plan has five major goals: Operational Excellence, Economic Vitality, Healthy Community, Strong and Secure Neighborhoods and a Connected Community. The Freeway Commercial North Project supports the Economic Vitality goal, particularly City Initiative 2.1.3 (Promote and support development of quality master - planned communities). The proposed GP and GDP policies support the development of a quality master - planned community (as described above) with parks, jobs, transit, shopping, and other amenities, all within walking distance for residents. The Project also results in positive net economic benefit for the City as described in the FIA section. CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT The processing for the GP and GDP Plan amendments, Addendum, and all supporting documents were funded by a developer deposit account. This account funded city staff and consultants representing the City on the Freeway Commercial North project. ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT The Supplemental FIA for the Freeway Commercial North Amendment estimates that during years 0 and 1 there would be no difference between the base and proposed Project's fiscal impact of $1.9 million net annual positive surplus because the hotels have not yet been constructed. From years 2 through 10 (build -out), when comparing the base to the proposed Project, there would be a net positive fiscal benefit to the City starting at approximately $390,000 per year and increasing to over $536,000 per year. If approved, the proposed Project will yield an overall estimated $2.5 million annual net positive fiscal impact to the City at build -out, compared to an estimated $2.0 million under the adopted plan. City of Chula Vista Page 15 of 16 Printed on 5/7/2015 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 734 File #: 15 -0150, Item #: 8. ATTACHMENTS 1. Locator Map 2. Planning Commission Resolution 3. Proposed GP /GDP Amendments (Provided on 4/30/15) 4. Addenum to FEIR 02 -04 (Provided on 4/30/15) 5. Discloure Statement 6. Development Agreement Staff Contact: Stan Donn, Senior Planner, Development Services Department City of Chula Vista Page 16 of 16 Printed on 5/7/2015 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 735 RESOLUTION NO. GPA 12 -03, GDPA /PCM 12 -15 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION HEREBY NOT RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL: 1) CONSIDER THE ADDENDUM (IS- 12 -03) TO FEIR 02 -04; 2) APPROVE AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN, OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (GDP), AND 3) APPROVE AN ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, ALL FOR THE FREEWAY COMMERCIAL NORTH PORTION OF OTAY RANCH PLANNING AREA 12 LOCATED SOUTH OF OLYMPIC PARKWAY, EAST OF SR -125 AND WEST OF EASTLAKE PARKWAY WHEREAS, on July 9, 2012, a duly verified application was filed with the City of Chula Vista Development Services Department by Baldwin and Sons, LLC (Applicant) requesting approval of amendments to the General Plan (GPA 12 -03), Otay Ranch GDP (GDPA 12 -15), and a new Development Agreement affecting nearly 35 acres of the Freeway Commercial North (FC -2) area located south of Olympic Parkway, east of SR- 125 and west of EastLake Parkway (Project) and more specifically described below; and WHEREAS, the Project proposes to develop two hotels, add 600 new high - density residential units and approximately 15,000 square feet of ancillary commercial in a mixed -use format, and a 2 -acre highly amenitized urban park in FC -2; and WHEREAS, City staff has negotiated a development agreement with the Applicant for certain mutual benefits of the Project and determined it to be consistent with the Otay Ranch General Development Plan and the City's General Plan; and WHEREAS, a Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA) and Commercial Land Analysis (CLA) were prepared to evaluate the fiscal implications of the proposed Project and any potential impacts of the proposed Project on the City's supply of commercial zoned lands; and WHEREAS, the proposed GPA and GDPA, Development Agreement, FIA and CLA are contained in a document entitled "PA12 - Freeway Commercial North (FC2) Amendment "; and WHEREAS, a subsequent Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan amendment and Tentative Subdivision Map are required to fully implement the Project; and WHEREAS, the area of land that is the subject of this Resolution are existing parcels located in the northerly approximate 35 -acre portion of Freeway Commercial (Project Site); and WHEREAS, the Development Services Director has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the project was covered in the previously adopted Final Environmental 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 737 Planning Commission Resolution GPA 12 -03, GDPA 12 -15 Page 2 Impact Report for the Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan - Planning Area 12 (FEIR 02 -04) (SCH #1989010154), and has determined that only minor technical changes or additions to this document are necessary and that none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines calling for the preparation of a subsequent document have occurred; therefore, the Development Services Director has prepared an addendum to FEIR 02 -04; and WHEREAS, the Development Services Director set the time and place for a hearing on the Project, and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City and its mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property, at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m., April 22, 2015, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and the hearing was thereafter closed; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission having received certain evidence on April 22, 2015, as set forth in the record of its proceedings and incorporated herein by this reference, voted 2 -2 -2 -1 recommending that the City Council approve the Project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commissions 2 -2 -2 -1 vote resulted in a failed motion because there was not a majority vote; and WHEREAS, to forward the project to the City Council, after concurrence from the Applicant, the Planning Commission took another vote recommending that City Council deny the Project, acknowledging that two of the Planning Commissioners recommended approval of the Project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission vote to recommend that the City Council deny the project carried 4- 0 -2 -1. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA hereby recommends that the City Council not adopt the attached Draft City Council Resolution and Ordinance approving the Project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA THAT a copy of this Resolution and the draft City Council Resolution and Ordinance be transmitted to the City Council. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 22nd day of April, 2015, by the following vote, to -wit: 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 738 Planning Commission Resolution GPA 12 -03, GDPA 12 -15 Page 3 AYES: Fragomeno, Anaya, Fuentes and Gutierrez NOES: ABSENT: Calvo and Nava ABSTAIN: Livag ATTEST: Pat Laughlin, Secretary Presented by: Kelly Broughton, FSALA Development Services Director Yolanda Calvo, Chairperson Approved as to form by: Glen R. Googins City Attorney 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 739 Project: PA 12 - FREEWAY COMMERCIAL NORTH (FC2) AMENDMENT Date: MARCH 2015 Documents: GP: (GPA 12 -13) GDP. (PCM 12 -15) By: BALDWIN & SONS 610 WEST ASH STREET, #1500 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101 T. 6191234 -4050 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 740 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 741 CITY OF CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS Project: PA 12 - FREEWAY COMMERCIAL NORTH (FC2) AMENDMENT Date: MARCH 2015 Documents: GP: (GPA 12 -13) GDP. (PCM 12 -15) By: BALDWIN & SONS 610 WEST ASH STREET, #1500 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101 T. 6191234 -4050 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 742 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 743 CITY OF CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS Contents: Project Overview Introduction.................................. ............................... 1 OtayRanch Background .................. ............................... 1 Freeway Commercial Background ...... ............................... 2 Project Description GeneralProject Description ................. ............................... 3 ProposedSite Plan ............................ ............................... 4 SitePlanning Concept .................... ............................... 4 Justification For Proposed Amendments General Plan Justification ................ ............................... 6 General Plan (GP) Amendments ...... .......................Appendix A General Development Plan (GDP) Amendments Appendix B Fiscal Impact Analysis ............ ............................... Appendix C Commercial Lands Analysis .. ............................... Appendix D BALDWIN & SONS PA12 :FC2 :GP +GDP AMENDMENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS e 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 744 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 745 INTRODUCTION For over 50 years, Baldwin & Sons has developed master - planned communities in Southern California's San Diego and Orange Counties. In that time, the company has built over 18,000 homes and has proudly earned a reputation for creating high quality communities. Many of those communities have been honored for outstanding achievement including the Pacific Coast Builders Gold Nugget Award, the Los Angeles County Beautification Award, and the Good Housekeeping Award. Baldwin & Sons is also a 3 -time winner of the National Association of Homebuilders' "Home of the Yeas" Award. Locally, Baldwin & Sons is a founding developer of the Otay Ranch community in Chula Vista. Baldwin & Sons is responsible for planning many of the community's villages as well as building numerous homes, commercial spaces, schools, and parks while preserving open spaces for recreation and enjoyment of residents. Baldwin & Sons is pleased to present the following project application. The proposed project establishes a unified, walkable, mixed -use plan for the FC2 district of Otay Ranch Planning Area 12. It is intended to enhance living, working, shopping, and transit options in the area. The project amends existing commercial entitlements on approximately 28.7 acres of the 35.0 acre FC2 site to implement 600 multi - family dwelling units and a 2 -acre public park. Commercial entitlements for the residual 6.3 acres of FC2 will remain unchanged and will accomodate two hotels with 300 total rooms. The project requires amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GP), the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP), and the Freeway Commercial Specific Planning Area (SPA) Plan. The project also involves addenda to the approved Freeway Commercial Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP), as well as a new Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA). OTAY RANCH BACKGROUND The Otay Ranch General Development Plan/ Sub Regional Area Plan (GDP/ SRP) was originally adopted by the Chula Vista City Council and the San Diego County Board of Supervisors October 28, 1993. The plan governs the 23,000+ acre Otay Ranch Properties. The Otay Ranch GDP is based upon, and directly implements, the City of Chula Vista General Plan. The Otay Ranch GDP includes plans for urban villages, a resort community, the Eastern Urban Center, industrial areas, rural estate planning areas, and a university. Since its adoption in 1993, the GDP was amended in 1998, 2001, 2005, 2006, and most recently in 2014 to address Village- specific planning issues. BALDWIN & SONS PA12 :FC2 :GP +GDP AMENDMENTS PROJECT OVERVIEW 1 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 746 EXISTING PA 12 1FC2 SITE , EASTLAKE` ' 4 am (commercial) OTAY • RANCH A , PA12 V6 M1 • • / / " °/ f (project site) `♦ o o a�^` W �� OTAY RANCH V11 OTAY RANCH ` PA12 /TOWN CENTER (existing commercial) FREEWAY COMMERCIAL BACKGROUND , The Freeway Commercial SPA was originally envisioned to be the freeway commercial component of the regional commercial, cultural, social, and public services center of the East Urban Center (EUC). It was also the freeway commercial area in the heart of Otay Ranch as established in the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP). The Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial Center represents a southward and eastward extension of the initial development approved in Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One, containing Villages 1 and 5. It also represents an eastward extension of Village 6 and a westward extension of Village 11. Additionally, the Freeway Commercial Center is an extension of the urban development approved and constructed in the Eastlake Planned Community, located immediately to the north. In 2001, a GDP amendment separated the EUC and Freeway Commercial components into separate planning areas. In September 2004 the Freeway Commercial SPA Plan was adopted and entitled approximately 1,214,000 sf of commercial uses: 867,000 sf on FC1 and 347,000 sf on FC2. In 2006, the Otay Ranch Town Center Mall was constructed on FC1 and in 2007 a SPA amendment was approved which raised the total commercial area allowed on FC1 from 867,000 sf to 960,000 sf. Today, the FC2 site remains vacant and undeveloped. BALDWIN & SONS PA12 :FC2 :GP +GDP AMENDMENTS PROJECT OVERVIEW 2 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 747 BALDWIN & SONS PA12 :FC2 :GP +GDP AMENDMENTS PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 748 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION The proposed project establishes a unified, walkable, mixed -use plan for the FC2 district of Otay Ranch Planning Area 12. It is intended to enhance Planning living, working, shopping, and transit options in the area. Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GP), and the Otay Ranch The project amends existing commercial entitlements on approximately 28.7 General Development Plan acres of the 35.0 acre FC2 site to implement 600 multi - family dwelling units, (GDP). An amendment to 15,000 square feet of mixed use retail, and a 2 -acre park. the existing SPA plan and preparation of a Master Precise Plans will be Commercial entitlements for the residual 6.3 acres of FC2 will remain required. unchanged and are planned for construction of two hotels totaling 300 rooms. Because commercial entitlements have already been established, Mapping A new tentative map for and the hotels are consistant with the commercial zoning, processing (such the entire FC2 site will be as Design Review and building permits) for the hotels will remain separate necessary to separate from this proposed project. out the residential and commercial zoning areas as well as the The proposed project will generate approximately 2.2 acres of Community public park. Additional Purpose Facility (CPF) obligations. CPF obligations will be provided either lots within those zoning on site or off -site and may include meeting rooms /gathering areas in the areas will be proposed to facilitate a variety of hotels, child care and gathering facilities in the retail spaces, and shared development scenarios bicycle facilities or other recreational opportunities in any of the uses. The and opportunities. future SPA Plan Amendment and Master Precise Plan will provide detail on exactly how and where the obligation is met. The proposed project will also Environmental Addendum to the generate approximately 4.7 acres of park facility obligations. This obligation approved EIR. New will be satisfied by providing two acres of park land onsite and utilizing technical studies have the value of the remaining 2.7 acres on that site through an enhancement been prepared for traffic, program (as detailed in the Project's development agreement). Any noise, AQ/GHG, health risk, water, and sewer equivalency value not spent on the park enhancement will be paid to the City as an in -lieu payment. Facilities Addendum to the existing PFFP that identifies, Implementing the proposed project requires amendments to planning summarizes and documents, maps, environmental documents, financing plans, as well as implements facility costs preparation of new technical and fiscal studies. This current application associated with the project consists of a General Plan Amendment, a General Development Plan Fiscal Amendment, and a development Agreement. The proposed project is less A Fiscal Impact Analysis intensive than the currently approved commercial zoning on the site and (FIA) has been prepared caused no new mitigation to be required. An addendum to FEIR 02 -04 has to analyze revenue and service costs for the City. been prepared pursuant to CEQA. Future applications will be required for a SPA Plan Amendment, a Master Precise Plan, a tentative map, and final maps. BALDWIN & SONS PA12 :FC2 :GP +GDP AMENDMENTS PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 748 ILL US FRATIVE PA121FC2 SITE PLAN I ryl 71 C4 — r Ir , Hotel: 148 rooms Hotel: 152 rooms Q1 2 Acre Public Park' { Iwrm27­r f v Residential: 300 units (apartments) Retail: 15,000 sf (mixed -use buildings, -� along Town Center Drive) Residential: 300 units (condos) SITE PLANNING CONCEPT: The proposed project establishes a unified, walkable, mixed -use plan for the FC2 district of Otay Ranch Planning Area 12. It is intended to enhance living, working, shopping, and transit options in the area. Site uses are located to engender project goals, and enhance the viability of proposed uses. Although new residential uses are proposed, the importance of commercial uses, including hotels, is recognized. As a result, the amount, and location of the uses has been prioritized in the site planning process. Site planning responds to hotel needs by locating the hotel uses on the northwest corner of the site where they will have optimal visibility from both Olympic Parkway and SR -125. The planned retail uses (provided in a mixed use format) are located along Town Center Drive. This location provides the cretail optimal visibility from the street, and the planned diagonal parking will provide convenient accessibility for customers. This is crucial to the viability of retail /commercial uses on PA12. The park, fronting on Town Center Drive, is located at the center of the project and intended to link all of the uses toqether. BALDWIN & SONS PA12 :FC2 :GP +GDP AMENDMENTS PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 749 PA 12 1FC2 SITE PLAN CONCEPT rj ri► �y.L �� Commercia ' ��(hotels) .� 1 / Internal park /� / Mixed Use connections f Residential, - between (w/ 15,000 SF e SR 125 Residential setback uses J ► of retail) Mixed Use I ��. \VA ps \� \ \ \ \ \VR Residential 1) �.Oj L. s r' row �.O �♦ \\ \\ ���� Transit stop: Pedestrian connection to �� Walkable from OR Village 6 via BRT �� residential ♦�� \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \' \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \Pedestrian/ Vehicular overpass Connection to Otay Ranch Town Center Residential uses span both sides of Town Center Drive and were located to provide direct adjacency to the Otay Ranch Town Center mall. The location is also proximate to Otay Ranch Village 6 (via the pedestrian linkage that will be provided by the BRT bridge) which includes park and school uses as well as residential. The close proximity to these neighboring uses, as well as to the park and integrated retail uses on the FC2 site, encourages residents to walk to uses, rather than drive. The proposed residential uses are also within a short walk, less than half of a mile, of the proposed BRT transit stop along Eastlake Parkway at the Otay Ranch Town Center Mall. This further encourages residents to reduce automobile use in favor of walking and transit. Although residential uses are adjacent to SR125, buildings have been setback/buffered from the western property line to minimize the effects of the freeway. Additionally, the freeway is located well below the level of the residential pad. To connect uses in a walkable, cohesive manner on site, pedestrian walkways will connect residential, hotel and commercial uses. Additionally, in some cases, enhancements will be added to create a pedestrian friendly environment and encourage residents to walk. Architecture will be complementary across all uses to further establish a cohesive site design. BALDWIN & SONS PA12 :FC2 :GP +GDP AMENDMENTS PROJECT DESCRIPTION 5 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 750 GENERAL PLAN JUSTIFICATION EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS The FC2 project site is bounded by the SR125 (west), Olympic Parkway (north), Eastlake Parkway (east), and the Otay Ranch Town Center mall (south). Adjacent land uses include Otay Ranch Village 6 (west), a commercial center in the Eastlake planned community (north), Otay Ranch Village 11 (east), and the Otay Ranch Town Center Mall (south). A future Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) guideway is planned to bridge across SR125 from Village 6, cross the southwest portion of FC2, and progress east on the south side of FC2s southern boundary. Town Center Drive, an existing roadway, bisects FC2 into eastern and western sections. FC2 is approximately 35.0 gross acres. Approximately 347,000 sf of regional commercial uses were entitled on FC2 in 2003. In the mid 2000s, FC2 was rough graded. The site is currently vacant aside from temporary signage. Pedestrian and vehicular access to FC2 is taken from Olympic Parkway to the north and the Otay Ranch Town Center to the South. Town Center Drive provides pedestrian /vehicular access across the site and connects Olympic Parkway to the Otay Ranch Town Center. Additionally, the proposed BRT alignment will provide pedestrian access to the site from an off -site transit stop fronting the Otay Ranch Town Center along Eastlake Parkway. A pedestrian walkway will be provided on the proposed BRT bridge that spans SR125. This will provide pedestrian connection between FC2 and Otay Ranch Village 6. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS The proposed project creates a unified, walkable, mixed use FC2 site that enhances living, working, shopping, and transit options in the area. The project proposes to amend the General Plan to change 28.7 acres from Commercial Retail to 26.7 acres of Mixed Use Residential to implement 600 multi - family dwelling units, and two acres of Parks and Recreation. Implementation of the proposed project involves proposed amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, and a future amendment to the Freeway Commercial SPA Plan. In the General Plan, land use maps are updated to reflect a portion of the site changing from commercial to mixed use residential and parkland and tables are updated to reflect 600 new dwelling units and a resultant population of approximately 1,566 new residents. Additionally, City staff has crafted new policies to guide the development of a mixed use place. BALDWIN & SONS PA12 :FC2 :GP +GDP AMENDMENTS PROJECT JUSTIFICATION 6 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 751 In the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, land use maps are updated to reflect a portion of the site changing from commercial to mixed use. Additionally, tables are updated to reflect new dwelling units and population, and account for the additional park and recreation acreage. Additional new policies have also been crafted to provide further direction for SPA Plan implementation of the mixed use places. A Commercial Lands Analysis was prepared and supports the conversion of land from retail uses to residential showing that the region has an oversupply of planned retail area. A Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA) was also prepared as part of the project, and shows that the project is a net positive to the City. Related to but independent from the proposed project, Baldwin & Sons will process a Design Review application for the construction of 2 hotels on the FC2 site. Hotels provide an undersupplied use to Chula Vista residents and significant fiscal benefit to the City of Chula Vista. The hotel uses are allowed under existing commercial entitlements. A CUP is required due to the height of the proposed hotels. I W_ \1011011116-1091611016-1101 MI: T_ T4 1[*] 101 6- FC2 is currently entitled with approximately 347,000 sf of commercial uses. No residential uses are entitled at this time. As a result, land use amendments are necessary for implementation of proposed residential uses on FC2. In replacing 332,000 sf of retail (though almost 200,000 square feet of commercial is provided in the form of the hotels) with 600 residential units on 26.7 acres, the proposed project changes density from 0 du /ac to approximately 23 du /ac. The proposed project complements and enhances the aforementioned surrounding land uses in OR Village 6 (to the west), Eastlake Commercial Center (to the north), OR V11 (to the east), and OR Town Center Mall (to the south) by adding a high- density housing option, and associated residents, within walking distance of these existing uses. These surrounding properties do not require a zone change due to the proposed project. The inclusion of residential dwelling units provides benefit to the neighborhood, community, and City of Chula Vista as a whole. In particular, the proposed project will engender development of a complete, mixed -use, multi -hour neighborhood that is unified, walkable, and dynamic. This is demonstrated in the following ways: More Walking, Less Driving Locating residential uses close to commercial uses will increase walkability and decrease vehicular trips. Residents will be able to walk to adjacent uses such as the Otay Ranch Town Center mall, Eastlake commercial center, and schools and parks in OR V6 (via pedestrian pathway on BRT bridge). BALDWIN & SONS PA12 :FC2 :GP +GDP AMENDMENTS PROJECT JUSTIFICATION 7 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 752 Dynamic, Active, Safe By implementing residential uses, FC2 will become more active throughout the day, and will attract a broader set of visitors. This activity increases vibrancy and attracts residents /shoppers. Activity also creates a safer environment for residents /shoppers by increasing `eyes on the street'. Synergy Between Uses Increasing residential uses (and the resultant increase in population) will encourage and enhance existing uses in the project area. The increased population will support existing commercial uses and attract others. In so doing, adding residential uses will create a stronger, more dynamic retail environment. This not only benefits the commercial uses in the immediate area, it also benefits the community and city due to tax revenue generation. Increased Transit Ridership for BRT By locating residential uses near the proposed BRT transit stop on Eastlake Parkway, the proposed project will increase BRT ridership. This conforms to Chula Vista General Plan objectives by placing higher density residential near transit stations. It also increases the viability of BRT, and encourages alternatives to automobile use. Balanced Land Uses Currently, there is an oversupply of retail uses in the immediate area. This is evident in the low rents and high vacancy rates seen in commercial projects in the area. By converting commercial land to residential, the proposed project will reduce this oversupply. Commercial uses will also benefit from the new residential population /shoppers generated by proposed residential uses. Sense of Place and Character Adding residential to FC2 will create a sense of place and character to the district. The combination of residential, commercial, hotel, parkland, and regional transit (BRT) located in close proximity to the existing Otay Ranch Town Center will result in a vibrant, semi -urban node of activity. This unique environment in Otay Ranch will attract residents and visitors. Increased Housing Choices The proposed project will provide Chula Vista residents an increased number of housing choices /opportunities within the immediate Freeway commercial area, and in the city as a whole. The proposed residential apartments include a high - quality architectural design with equally high - quality on -site amenities. This combination of design and amenities in apartments is currently undersupplied in Chula Vista and one that will further attract residents to the community. Additionally, the for sale units will allow BALDWIN & SONS PA12 :FC2 :GP +GDP AMENDMENTS PROJECT JUSTIFICATION 8 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 753 residents additional housing options within a highly walkable project that will offer access to already existing commercial uses. Contextual Design The proposed project will be similar to surrounding projects in terms of bulk, scale, and architectural design. Project site planning includes pedestrian and vehicular connections to the adjacent Otay Ranch Town Center Mall to facilitate/ encourage pedestrian and vehicular access. Internally, the uses on site will be designed in a cohesive manner. ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS The proposed project encourages economic growth and diversity within the City of Chula Vista. Increasing residential units and local population will increase viability of the existing commercial sites to the north and south as well as those uses proposed on the site. This will help existing retailers to flourish, and will attract others to the area. Also, although processed seperately, approval of residential uses will allow the development of hotels on a portion of FC2 which is currently entitled for commercial entitlements. Hotels will provide the City of Chula Vista with significant fiscal benefit. To further define these benefits, a fiscal impact analysis has been conducted. Although the proposed project reduces commercial acreage in the immediate area, a significant amount of the originally entitled 347,000 square feet of commercial will remain. Almost 200,000 square feet of the commercial entitlement will be used for the two hotels and another 15,000 square feet of retail will be provided in a mixed use format with the residential. Additionally, it is important to consider the economic benefit/ impact of project timing. Entitling residential uses will allow hotel and retail uses to be developed earlier. Without residential uses, the site would likely remain undeveloped for a longer period of time. As a result, residential uses will provide the City of Chula Vista revenues from hotel and retail uses in a more immediate timeframe. Finally, many of the retail users that were intended for this site have been able to relocate to projects in the Eastern Urban Center allowing the City to still capture sales tax revenues from those users while also helping to energize other area of Otay Ranch. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS Historically, the Otay Valley Parcel of the Otay Ranch property was used for ranching, grazing, dry farming and truck farming activities. Because the site has been graded and is located in an urbanized area, there are few environmentally sensitive considerations on the project site. In particular, vegetation, sensitive wildlife, soils, topography, watercourses, visual corridors, noise sources and hazardous materials are not specific concerns. BALDWIN & SONS PA12 :FC2 :GP +GDP AMENDMENTS PROJECT JUSTIFICATION 9 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 754 Due to the project's proximity to the the SR125 freeway, a health risk assessment was performed as part of the project analysis. Residential site planning will attempt to minimize any impacts from the SR125 freeway. The proposed project will provide preserve land acreage consistent with Otay Ranch General Development Plan and the existing Freeway Commercial SPA Plan prior to issuance of final map. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS The proposed project will accommodate affordable housing in a manner consistent with the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code and the Otay Ranch General Development Plan. INFRASTRUCTURE CONSIDERATIONS Water Currently water is provided to the area via a 16" water line in Olympic Parkway, a 20" line in Eastlake Parkway, and a proposed 12" line in Town Center Drive. A technical consultant (Dexter Wilson) has analyzed these facilities for the proposed project and has been deemed them adequate to support the proposed development. Additional connections to Olympic Parkway will be made to serve the hotel, park and residential uses with both potable and reclaimed water. The future PA12 SPA Amendment development will be required to comply with the City of Chula Vista Guidelines for water conservation. In addition to using recycled water where feasible for landscape irrigation, the proposed apartment units will implement additional water conservation measures such as hot water pipe insulation, pressure reducing valves, and water efficient dishwashers. Sewer The proposed onsite sewer system for the PA12 SPA area consists of gravity sewer lines that will convey flow to the Poggi Canyon Interceptor in Olympic Parkway. Based on the average flow, an 8" gravity sewer line is adequate to convey total project flow. The available capacity in the Poggi Canyon Interceptor was also evaluated under the proposed condition. Only the two reaches already identified for future replacement are shown to be over capacity. The proposed amendment does not require additional reaches of the Poggi Canyon Interceptor to be upgraded in the future. Upon approval of the proposed PA12 amendment, the Poggi Basin Gravity Sewer Development Impact Fee should be updated to reflect additional units. Schools School generation impacts will be mitigated through tax obligations and BALDWIN & SONS PA12 :FC2 :GP +GDP AMENDMENTS PROJECT JUSTIFICATION 10 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 755 development fees at time of building permit issuance. Public Facilities Financing Plan To identify, summarize and implement the various facility costs associated with the Freeway Commercial project, a Public Facility Financing Plan (PFFP) was created in conjunction with the existing Freeway Commercial SPA Plan. The PFFP implements the City's Growth Management Program and meets General Plan/ Growth Management Element goals and objectives. The Chula Vista Growth Management Program implements the City's necessary public facilities and services exist or are provided concurrent with the demands of new development. Prior to approval of the SPA Plan Amendment, the Public Facilities Financing plan will be amended to ensure timely provision of necessary project services and utilities. PUBLIC BENEFIT CONSIDERATIONS The proposed project provides a number of public benefits to the immediate area, the Otay Ranch, and to the City of Chula Vista. These project benefits have been discussed in the `land use considerations' section of the general plan justification. ANNEXATION No annexation considerations are applicable to this application BALDWIN & SONS PA12 :FC2 :GP +GDP AMENDMENTS PROJECT JUSTIFICATION 11 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 756 PA -12 FREEWAY COMMERCIAL NORTH (FC2) AMENDMENT Appendix A: General Plan Amendment 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 757 Draft General Plan Amendment Otay Ranch, Planning Area 12 March 2015 Project Sponsor /Applicant: Baldwin & Sons 610West Ash Street, #1500 San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 234 -4050 Contact: Nick Lee Prepared By: William Hezmalhalch Architects, Inc. 2850 Redhill Ave., Suite 200 Santa Ana, CA 92705 -5543 (949) 250 -0607 Contact: Nicholle Wright, AICP 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 758 Otay Ranch, Planning Area 12 Draft General Plan Amendment I. Introduction A. Purpose of the General Plan Amendment (GPA) Baldwin & Sons proposes to amend portions of the General Plan in order to establish consistency between the 2005 General Plan as amended in December 2014, and proposed in the 2015 General Development Plan Amendment for Planning Area 12 (PA -12). Adopted General Plan page numbers, exhibit numbers, and figure numbers pertain to the General Plan document adopted December 13, 2005 as amended December 2014. B. Purpose of the Project /Proposal This GPA application is one part of Baldwin & Sons intent to implement long -range development goals and strategies as they pertain to portions of PA -12. Baldwin & Sons has submitted an application for Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendment (GDPA), and will submit applications for a Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment, Tentative Subdivision Maps (TM) and the associated environmental documentation. The purpose of this set of submittals is to establish compliance with the current General Plan. As part of this application, a revised definition of two Freeway Commercial land use designation is proposed to allow for a better mix of permitted commercial and residential land uses that promote walkability, reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMTs), and support transit. These plans are intended to fulfill the goals of smart - growth development, SB 375 and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and are generally consistent with current 2005 General Plan policies. This application updates selected text and tables to reflect updated U.S. Census Bureau population statistics and dwelling unit counts based on proposed PA12 amendment. Existing text and tables being amended by this application reflect the current City- adopted version and do not reflect other amendments proposed under separate applications. Population and dwelling unit revisions proposed by this application are a result of actual growth in the area and planned development under proposed amendments and do not reflect increases that can be attributed solely to PA12. March 2015 DRAFT Intro -1 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 759 Otay Ranch, Planning Area 12 Draft General Plan Amendment II. List of Proposed Amendments This section provides a list of proposed amendments by page number in the General Plan. ■ Page LUT -47, General Plan Land Uses: a. Updated map to reflect PA -12 amendment ■ Page LUT -57, Projected Population: a. Update text to reflect projected population of "399,978" to "401,544" b. Update percent growth of "49%" to "80%" c. Update growth rate from "1.8 percent" to "2.7 percent" ■ Page LUT -57, Table 5 -5, Chula Vista Projected Population in 2030: Update table to reflect projected population of "207,690" to "209,256" for East (incorporated area) and projected population of "339.978" to "401,544" for Total ■ Page LUT -59, Table 5 -6, General Plan Land Use Distribution in 2030 by Planning Area: a. Update acreage for the category "East Chula Vista Subareas" for PA -12 Land Use changes: o Reduce Retail from "506" to "477" acres o Increase Mixed Use Residential from "590" to "617" acres o Increase Parks and Recreation from "604" to "606" acres ■ Page LUT -60, Table 5 -7, General Plan Land Use in 2030: a. Update 2030 to reflect proposed PA -12 Land Use changes: o Reduce Retail from "855" to "826" acres o Increase Mixed Use Residential from "912" to "939" acres o Increase Parks and Recreation from "976" to "978" acres b. Update 2030 dwellings to reflect these changes: • Increase Mixed Use Residential from "17,356" to "17,956" dwellings • Increase Total Dwelling Units "124,358" to "124,958" dwellings • Page LUT -269, Figure 5 -46: Otay Ranch Subarea - Eastern University District: Revise "Retail Commercial" call -out to "Retail Commercial and High Density Residential" • LUT -288, Section 10.5.8, Existing Conditions: revise text to reflect current conditions of the site. • LUT -289, Vision for Focus Area: Revise text to include High density /Mixed Use Residential uses. • LUT -285, Policy LUT 99.1: Revise text to include hotels uses. ■ LUT 289.1 Add new Objective LUT99a and supporting policies: Add new text to create a high - quality mixed -use transit supportive development. Add policies LUT 99a.1 through LUT99a.16. March 2015 DRAFT Intro -2 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 760 Otay Ranch, Planning Area 12 Draft General Plan Amendment III. Adopted Versus Proposed This section provides a visual comparison of the proposed General Plan amendments as they would appear in the General Plan: • Text to be added to the body of the document and within tables is shown as underlined text. An example follows: The quick brown fox • Text to be deleted from the body of the document and within tables is shown as strikethrough text. An example follows: The quie- bFA ;A ;p f^" • Exhibits and Tables are shown as a side -by -side comparison between both the "Adopted" and "Proposed ". o The currently Adopted is outlined by a blue solid: o The Proposed revised exhibit is outlined by a red dashed: March 2015 DRAFT Intro -3 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 761 Adopted LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 University Study Area The University Study Area is applied to four focus areas that are located on the site of the future university and surrounding properties in the East Area Plan, and includes the University Campus; University Village; the Regional Technology Park; and the Eastern Urban Center. The purpose of the University Study Area is to develop a coordinated strategy to address the important relationships between the Focus Areas and the need for coordinated development to enhance the economic and community success and vitality of the District This Study Area is further described in LUT Section 10.5.4 MEN 4.10 Projected Population and Projected Land Use 4.10.1 Projected Population At build -out in 2030, the overall Chula Vista Planning Area will accommodate a population of approximately 331,100, an increase of about 49% percent over the 2004 estimated population of 222,300. The Planning Area also includes lands outside the City's 2004 corporate boundary. This reflects an overall annual growth rate of about 1.8 percent over the next 26 years. The City's annual growth rate over the past 30 years was about 4.6 percent, not including the annexation of the inhabited Montgomery community in 1985, which included approximately 26,000 residents. Table 5.5, Chula Vista Projected Population in 2030, below, shows the current estimated and projected populations for Chula Vista by Planning Area. Additional historic population growth information can be found in Chapter 3, Section 3.1, Chula Vista in Perspective. TABLE 5 -5 CHULA VISTA PROJECTED POPULATION IN 2030 Planning Area Year 2004* Year 2030* * Ba front 0 4,860 Southwest 53,560 72,401 Northwest 56,930 89,090 East (incorporated area 98,710 207,690 East (unincorporated area)*** 13,100 25,937 TOTAL 222,300 399,978 Source: Year 2004 population estimate derived from State DOF Jan. 1, 2004 estimate for the City of Chula Vista and 2000 Census for unincorporated area. Year 2030 population estimate derived using year 2010 Census and State DOF factors Jan. 1, 2013 estimate for the City of Chula Vista. "East (unincorporated area)" includes the Sweetwater and East Otay Ranch Planning Subareas, with most of the growth occurring in the East Otay Ranch Planning Subarea. Page LUT -57 CNOF CHULA Vlfge 1 1 1 1 Planning Area ■Proposed Year 2030 ** Ba front ■! ��� 4,860 1 53,560 1 Northwest LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT 1 1 CHAPTER 5 1 1 13,100 1 1 University Study Area 1 1 1 The University Study Area is applied to four focus areas that are located on the site of the future 1 university and surrounding properties in the East Area Plan, and includes the University Campus; 1 1 University Village; the Regional Technology Park; and the Eastern Urban Center. The purpose of the University Study Area is to develop a coordinated strategy to address the important 1 1 relationships between the Focus Areas and the need for coordinated development to enhance the economic and community success and vitality of the District This Study Area is further described 1 1 in LUT Section 10.5.4 1 1 1 1 4.10 Projected Population and Projected Land Use 1 - - - 1 1 4.10.1 Projected Population 1 1 At build -out in 2030, the overall Chula Vista Planning Area will accommodate a population of 1 approximately 331,10,0401-544 an increase of about 4.980% percent over the 2004 estimated 1 population of 222,300. The Planning Area also includes lands outside the City's 2004 corporate 1 1 boundary. This reflects an overall annual growth rate of about +.92.7 percent over the next 26 1 years. The City's annual growth rate over the past 30 years was about 4.6 percent, not including 1 the annexation of the inhabited Montgomery community in 1985, which included approximately 1 26,000 residents. Table 5.5, Chula Vista Projected Population in 2030, below, shows the current 1 estimated and projected populations for Chula Vista by Planning Area. Additional historic 1 1 population growth information can be found in Chapter 3, Section 3.1, Chula Vista in Perspective. 1 1 TABLE 5 -5 1 1 CHULA VISTA PROJECTED POPULATION IN 2030 1 1 1 1 1 Planning Area Year 2004* Year 2030 ** Ba front 0 4,860 Southwest 53,560 72,401 Northwest 56,930 89,090 East (incorporated area) 98,710 209,256 East (unincorporated area)*** 13,100 25,937 TOTAL 222,300 401,544 1 1 � 1 1 Source: Year 2004 population estimate derived from State DOF Jan. 1, 2004 estimate for the City of Chula Vista and 2000 Census for unincorporated area. 1 ** Year 2030 population estimate derived using year 2010 Census and State DOF factors 1 Jan. 1, 2013 estimate for the City of Chula Vista. 1 * ** "East (unincorporated area)" includes the Sweetwater and East Otay Ranch Planning 1 Subareas, with most of the growth occurring in the East Otay Ranch Planning Subarea. 1 2015 -05 -12 A enda Packet Page LUT -57 �HULAV11 e13 =i■ = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =1■ Adopted LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 TABLE 5 -6 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DISTRIBUTION IN 2030 (ACREAGES) Total General Plan Land Use General Bay- North- South- Designation Plan front west west Area East East Chula Vista Subareas Unincorp. Sweet- water Subarea Unincorp. Otay Ranch Subarea RESIDENTIAL Low 6,977 64 1,560 2,4531 2,900 Low Medium 8,021 1,354 1,401 4,748 307 211 Medium 1,610 187 288 1,031 32 72 Medium High 640 143 113 287 97 High 525 124 253 148 Urban Core 84 84 Bayfront High 14 14 COMMERCIAL Retail 855 115 202 506 32 Visitor 143 130 11 2 Professional & Admin. 157 18 61 7 59 12 MIXED USE Mixed Use Residential 912 174 98 590 50 Mixed Use Commercial 146 25 37 58 26 Mixed Use Transit Focus Area 122 83 39 INDUSTRIAL Limited Industrial 1,875 62 116 384 1,097 216 Regional Technology Park 85 85 General Industrial 175 175 PUBLIC, QUASI PUBLIC AND OPEN SPACE Public /Quasi- Public 2,901 55 225 321 1,880 381 39 Parks and Recreation 976 74 73 106 604 88 31 Open Space 7,314 100 215 617 3,587 1,101 1,694 Open Space Preserve 16,926 362 1 18 97 4,582 1,997 9,870 Open Space -Active Recreation 375 8 44 323 Water 2,672 1,498 9 1,165 SPECIAL PLANNING AREA Eastern Urban Center 266 266 Resort 230 230 Town Center 85 85 OTHER2 4,606 99 866 829 2,343 408 61 TOTAL ACRES 58,692 2,620 3,994 4,815 23,807 6,820 16,636 1 -The unincorporated portion of the Northwest Planning Area (87 acres of Residential Low) is included in the Unincorporated Sweetwater Subarea column only. 2- Streets, freeways, utility right -of -ways 12 Agenda Packet Page LUT -59 Cny OF CHUTA V �������� ■Proposed ■r 1 1 1 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT 1 1 CHAPTER 5 1 1 TABLE 5 -6 1 1 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DISTRIBUTION IN 2030 (ACREAGES) 1 1 Total East 1 General Plan Land Use General Bay- North- South- East Chula Unincorp. Unincorp. 1 Designation Plan front west west Vista Sweet- Otay 1 1 Area Subareas water Subarea Ranch Subarea 1 1 RESIDENTIAL 1 Low 6,977 64 1,560 2,4531 2,900 1 Low Medium 8,021 1,354 1,401 4,748 307 211 1 1 Medium 1,610 187 288 1,031 32 72 Medium High 640 143 113 287 97 1 1 High 525 124 253 148 1 Urban Core 84 84 1 Bayfront High 14 14 1 1 COMMERCIAL 1 Retail 826 115 202 477 32 1 Visitor 143 130 11 2 1 1 Professional & Admin. 157 18 61 7 59 12 MIXED USE 1 1 Mixed Use Residential 939 174 98 617 50 1 Mixed Use Commercial 146 25 37 58 26 1 Mixed Use Transit Focus Area 122 83 39 1 1 INDUSTRIAL 1 Limited Industrial 1,875 62 116 384 1,097 216 1 Regional Technology Park 85 85 1 1 General Industrial 175 175 PUBLIC, QUASI PUBLIC 1 AND OPEN SPACE 1 Public /Quasi - Public 2,901 55 225 321 1,880 381 39 1 1 Parks and Recreation 978 74 73 106 606 88 31 1 Open Space 7,314 100 215 617 31587 1,101 1,694 1 Open Space Preserve 16,926 362 18 97 4,582 1,997 9,870 1 Open Space - Active Recreation 375 8 44 323 1 Water 2,672 1,498 9 1,165 1 1 SPECIAL PLANNING AREA 1 Eastern Urban Center 266 266 1 Resort 230 230 1 1 Town Center 85 85 1 OTHER? 4,606 99 866 829 2,343 408 61 1 TOTAL ACRES 58,692 2,620 3,994 1 4,815 1 23,807 6,820 16,636 , 1 1 -The unincorporated portion of the Northwest Planning Area (87 acres of Residential Low) is included in the Unincorporated Sweetwater Subarea column only. 2- Streets, freeways, utility right -of -ways 1 zo e a Pa e LUT -59 < c "Y ' 765 'iV- W*jWiYiii =ini'1i�i Chula Vista Vision 2020 Adopted LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT TABLE 5 -7 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE IN 2030 CHAPTER 5 General Plan Land Use Designation 2030 Acres 2030 Dwelling Units RESIDENTIAL Low 6,977 8,232 Low Medium 8,021 41,337 Medium 1,610 16,230 Medium High 640 9,875 High 525 15,382 Urban Core 84 3,830 Bayfront High 14 1,500 COMMERCIAL Retail 855 Visitor 143 Professional & Admin. 157 MIXED USE Mixed Use Residential 912 17,356 Mixed Use Commercial 146 Mixed Use Transit Focus Area 122 3,782 INDUSTRIAL Limited Industrial 1,875 Regional Technology Park 85 General Industrial 175 PUBLIC, QUASI PUBLIC AND OPEN SPACE Public /Quasi - Public 2,901 Parks and Recreation 976 Open Space 7,314 Open Space Preserve 16,926 Open Space — Active Recreation 375 Water 2,672 SPECIAL PLANNING AREA Eastern Urban Center 266 4,905 Resort 230 Town Center 85 1,929 OTHER 4,606 TOTAL ACRES 58,692 124,358 * Streets, freeways, utilit 5 P - 0 City of Chula Vista General Plan Page 766 M ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■ Proposed ■� ■ ■! 1 Chula 1 1 Vista LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT � 1 Vision CHAPTER 5 F 1 2020 1 TABLE 5 -7 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE IN 2030 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 General Plan Land Use Designation 2030 Acres 2030 Dwelling Units RESIDENTIAL Low 6,977 8,232 Low Medium 8,021 41,337 Medium 1,610 16,230 Medium High 640 9,875 High 525 15,382 Urban Core 84 3,830 Bayfront High 14 1,500 COMMERCIAL Retail 826 Visitor 143 Professional & Admin. 157 MIXED USE Mixed Use Residential 939 17,956 Mixed Use Commercial 146 Mixed Use Transit Focus Area 122 3,782 INDUSTRIAL Limited Industrial 1,875 Regional Technology Park 85 General Industrial 175 PUBLIC, QUASI PUBLIC AND OPEN SPACE Public /Quasi- Public 2,901 Parks and Recreation 978 Open Space 7,314 Open Space Preserve 16,926 Open Space —Active Recreation 375 Water 2,672 SPECIAL PLANNING AREA Eastern Urban Center 266 4,905 Resort 230 Town Center 85 1,929 OTHER 4,606 TOTAL ACRES 58,692 124,958 1 * Streets, freeways, utility right of ways 1 115- 0s- 12PALOW�WWT&to City of Chula Vista General Plan Page 767 81RCH Adopted East Planning Area Otay Ranch Subarea - Eastern University District % RETAIL COMMERCIAL N/ /r Figure 5 -46 Page LUT -273 CNOF 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet CHULA V%ge 768 East Planning Area Otay Ranch Subarea - Eastern University District 1 ■ ■ `z W 5IwgWff&t ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Figure 5 -46 1 ..�.; Page LUT -273 �,, -LA j Proposed ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■iiii�gi rV , A, w"' Chula Vista Vision 2020 LUT 98.4 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 The transit center location shall enhance the function and convenience of the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system for residents, workers, and visitors in the EUC. LUT 98.5 The requirements for park area, function, and design shall be provided for in an EUC Parks Master Plan prepared as part of any SPA Plan within the EUC. The EUC Parks Master Plan shall be guided by the needs and standards identified in the Strategic Framework Policies prepared for the University Study Area. LUT 98.6 The precise boundary between the EUC and the University Village will be determined by the design of the Town Center Arterial during the preparation of the Strategic Framework Policies-and subsequent SPA plans for the EUC and University Village. LUT 98.7 Off- street parking facilities within the Eastern Urban Center shall be located and designed to promote the urban character and pedestrian orientation intended for the EUC. Parking shall conform to the urban architecture and form; provide convenient pedestrian access to the areas it serves; and promote the efficient use of shared parking facilities. To help insure successful buildout of the EUC, regulatory measures and design standards shall allow for flexibility in the siting of off - street parking facilities to accommodate temporary, interim, or phased parking facilities. LUT 98.8 Promote the development of public or private parking structures that can be shared by multiple uses within the Eastern Urban Center. 10.5.8 Freeway Commercial Focus Area Description of Focus Area The Freeway Commercial Focus Area is composed of approximately 120 acres in the most northerly portion of the Eastern University District (see Figure 5 -47). It is bounded by State Route 125 on the west, Olympic Parkway on the north, and Eastlake Parkway on the east Existing Conditions The southerly 85 -acre portion of the area (Freeway Commercial South WC-1) is currently developed as a regional sh000ina mall. The northerlv 35 -acre portion (Freewav Commercial North WC-2)) is vacant and undeveloped. Planning and engineering for the development of t-H� the northerly area is currently underway, following the adoption of a SPA amendment application and approval of a tentative map and associated zoning permits authorizing construction of -a hotels, high density residential units, park, and retail commercial in a mixed -use format 2015- 05- 12%gfl' ATk488 City of Chula Vista General Plan Page 770 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 Vision for Focus Area This Focus Area provides both local and regional - serving retail commercial and entertainment uses. These uses are an important component of the Eastern University District's role as the urban and cultural center for the East Planning Area, as well as serving the surrounding south San Diego County region. The area's immediate proximity to State Route 125 and other major streets provides for an automobile orientation, although it is also served by the regional bus rapid transit BR system. High Density /Mixed Use Residential uses in the northerly portion of this area promote walkability, reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMTs), and decrease traffic impacts through the pedestrian activation of Town Center Drive and close proximity between the hotels, park, retail commercial, residential uses, and the adjacent transit Objective - LUT 9 M Create a retail commercial center that supports the East Planning Area /Otay Ranch population by providing regional goods and services that are not accommodated in the residential Village Cores or Town Centers; functions integrally with the intense, pedestrian- oriented urban activity of the Eastern Urban Center (EUC) Focus Area; and accommodates the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system connecting it to other villages, the Eastern Urban Center (EUC), and the region. Policies LUT 99.1 Accommodate uses that provide regional retail commercial and entertainment services, including: department stores; multiplex theatres; specialty retail shops; hotels, and eating and drinking establishments, but not office use. LUT 99.2 Locate the BRT route and station stop within the Freeway Commercial Focus Area to facilitate an appropriate BRT alignment and transit center for the EUC. 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page LUT -289 CHULAV,` hge771 L-�NChula Vista Qa> Vision 2020 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Objective - LUT 99.a CHAPTER 5 Create a high- quality mixed -use, transit supportive development within Freeway Commercial North (FC -2) with hotels, commercial retail, park, and high - density residential uses through a cohesive, coordinated desian that intearates well with the Freewav Commercial South (FC -1) shopping center. Policies Uses LUT 99a.1 Multi - family density is intended at the lower ranae of the Mixed Use Residential category and is envisioned to provide both for -sale and rental products. The distribution of uses within the Mixed Use Residential is to be predominantly residential with ancillary retail commercial that is intended to primarily serve the nearby residences, and hotel and park patrons, as generally shown on the chart below: ❑ Residential ■ Retail Design LUT 99a.2 Locate ancillary retail commercial uses primarily along Town Center Drive, to ensure visibilitv and easv access. LUT 99a.3 Commercial uses may be provided in a vertical or horizontal mix format. LUT 99a.4 Ensure phasing of commercial uses is coordinated with residential phasing. 2015- 05 -12P4 I-289.1 City of Chula Vista General Plan Page 772 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 Intensity /Height LUT 99a.5 The FC -2 site is envisioned as low to mid -rise generally ranging between 3 -5 stories in height c c ^c Desi gn LUT 99x.6 Provide attractive and appealing design treatment on all sides of the project site with landscaping, hardscape, architectural features and enhanced elevations, and amenities that are aesthetically coordinated with the surrounding land uses. LUT 99x.7 Any residential units adjacent to SR -125 must be setback from the highway centerline, consistent with policy E6.10. LUT 99x.8 The public park should be a highly- amenitized urban park that is accessible both visually and physically to the surrounding land uses and thoroughfares, and serves local residents, as well as hotel and shopping center patrons, and the public at large. LUT 99x.9 Provide prominent identification features via architecture, signage, and landscaping at the corner of Easlake Parkway and Olympic Parkway, Town Center entrance that reflects high -guali . development LUT 99a.10 Utilize streetscape and /or landscape design elements, including directional signage to provide a clear design tie to the Otay Ranch Town Center (FC -1) to promote a sense of cohesion. LUT 99x.11 The design of Town Center Drive should promote a pedestrian orientation while accommodating the necessary vehicular demands of the FC -2 area, and its function as the northerly entrance to the FC -1 Otay Ranch Town Center. LUT 99x.12 To promote a pedestrian- oriented and activated street environment buildings should generally front internal streets, roadways, and the BRT corridor, with parking lots located behind buildings. LUT 99x.13 Entrances to buildings should be inviting and easily identified. LUT 99x.14 Inviting pedestrian access should be provided between all buildings and uses along Town Center Drive and between the FC -1 and FC -2 site. 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page LUT -289.2 CHULAVifte773 Chula Vista Vision 2020 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 LUT 99a.15 Provide for multi -modal ingress and egress between Freeway Commercial North K -2) and South K -1) areas. LUT 99x.16 Provide safe, comfortable and easily identifiable pedestrian crossing locations, routes and signage to the southerly Otay Ranch Town Center BRT station to promote use by hotel patrons and residents. 2015- 05 -121 P JWL-489.3 City of Chula Vista General Plan Page 774 PA -12 FREEWAY COMMERCIAL NORTH (FC2) AMENDMENT Appendix B: General Development Plan Amendment 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 775 Draft General Development Plan Amendment (GDPA) Otay Ranch, Planning Area 12 March 2015 Project Sponsor /Applicant: Baldwin & Sons 610 West Ash Street, #1500 San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 234 -4050 Contact: Nick Lee Prepared By: William Hezmalhalch Architects, Inc. 2850 Redhill Ave., Suite 200 Santa Ana, CA 92705 -5543 (949) 250 -0607 Contact: Nicholle Wright, AICP 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 776 I. Introduction The following document includes proposed amendments to the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) to ensure consistency between the proposed changes to the 2005 General Plan as amended in December 2014, and the PA -12 SPA. Baldwin & Sons has submitted an application for a General Plan Amendment (GPA), and will submit applications for a Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment, Tentative Subdivision Maps (TM) and the associated environmental documentation. The majority of proposed amendments to the GDP are updates to various land use definitions and descriptions as well as corresponding land use summary tables. It is important to note that at the time of this application, other proposed general development plan amendments may be under review. Since the City has not formally adopted these plans, the following revisions do not necessarily reflect these changes. The revisions proposed by this General Development Plan Amendment application are limited to those that are directly related to the PA -12. II. List of GDP Amendments The following table, Table 1.1 - General Development Plan Amendments for PA -12, includes a list of the proposed General Development Plan Amendments associated with the PA -12. Each amendment is identified by page number and section and is described under the "issues" column. Each amendment also includes a corresponding discussion of the resolution between staff and the applicant as well as justification for the proposed change. General Development Plan Amendment, Planning Area 12, March 2015 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 777 N va c. w ro co Table 1.1- 2015 General Development Plan Amendments for Planning Area 12 PAGE NO. SECTION ISSUE RESOLUTION JUSTIFICATION Notes Part II Chapter 1 FC, Freeway Revise the Freeway Commercial land use definition to Section C Commercial describe two planning areas and to include hotels and high Page II -12 density residential uses with ancillary commercial Part II- Chapter Exhibit 18a: Update statistics; Table provided Section C Overall Project by City Page II -15 Summary Table Part II- Chapter Exhibit 18b Otay Update Exhibit Exhibit provided Section C Ranch GDP /SRP by City Page II -17 Land Use Plan Part II- Chapter 1 First Paragraph Update total number of dwelling units and residents in Section C Page19 Otay Valley Parcel Part II- Chapter 1 Exhibit 19 Update statistics Table provided Section C by City Pages II -21 Allows for the development of Part II- Chapter 1 Exhibit 20 Otay Update Exhibit Exhibit provided Section C Valley Parcel Land high density residential units and by City Pages II -23 Use Map a hotel that promotes walkability, reduces VMTs, and Part II- Chapter 1 Exhibit 25 Otay Update Exhibit Need exhibit Section C Page II- Ranch Village supports transit from City 35 Types & Rural Estate Areas Part II- Chapter 1 c. Eastern Urban Update population Section C Page II- Center Revised description of Freeway Commercial to include the 38 two planning areas and to include hotels and high density residential uses with some commercial uses. Part II- Chapter 1 Exhibit 26 Update Exhibit Need exhibit Section C Page II- Commercial, from City 39 Industrial & Business Sites Part II- Chapter 1 b. Freeway Revise description of the Freeway Commercial to describe Section D Page II Commercial two planning areas and to include a regional shopping -65 opportunities and hotels and high density residential in a mixed -use urban character setting that includes ancillary commercial use and an urban park. ro w oc co General Development Plan Amendment, Planning Area 12, March 2015 III co N a va a. w ro x Table 1.1- 2015 General Development Plan Amendments for Planning Area 12 PAGE NO. SECTION ISSUE RESOLUTION JUSTIFICATION Notes Part II- Chapter 1 b. Freeway Add new or revised policies: Section D page II- Commercial o In Freeway Commercial South (FC -1), the ... 65 & 66 Policies o In Freeway Commercial North (FC -2), the freeway commercial land use category permits hotels and high density residential in an urban character mixed -use setting, allowing for primarily 3- to 6 -story mid -rise buildings (heights will be established at the SPA level). o The mass of the buildings shall be balanced with usable active and passive open space areas including an urban park adjacent to commercial mixed -uses. o Provide pedestrian- oriented features, such as tree -lined landscape parkways or hardscape with tree - wells, to buffer pedestrian sidewalks located next to roadways, transit routes and parking areas. o Setbacks, which promote a pedestrian- oriented Allows for the development of environment and prevent a strip development high density residential units and appearance, should be established at the SPA level. a hotel that promotes o Landscaping shall create a well -kept and attractive reduces VMTs, and commercial and residential environment... o Prepare a signage program for freeway upporility, supports transit s commercial uses concurrent with the first SPA containing freeway commercial uses. Developed separately, the north and south freeway commercial areas (FC -1 and FC -2 on Exhibit 62) will provide separate signage programs that ensures clear design ties between FC -1 and FC -2 to promote a sense of cohesion.. Part II- Chapter 1 Exhibit 60 Update Table Provided by City Section F, Part 12 Planning Area 12 Page II -135 Part II- Chapter 1 d Freeway Add description of Freeway Commercial Section F, Part 12 Commercial Planning Area 12 Description Page II -139 w va General Development Plan Amendment, Planning Area 12, March 2015 iv N va a w ro x co Table 1.1- 2015 General Development Plan Amendments for Planning Area 12 PAGE NO. SECTION ISSUE RESOLUTION JUSTIFICATION Notes Part II- Chapter 1 Freeway Describe the planning areas and add entirely new policies Section F, Part 12 Commercial for: Planning Area 12 Policies o Freeway Commercial South (FC -1) Page II- 140 -142 o Freeway Commercial North (FC -2) o Freeway Commercial North (FC -2) Character o Freeway Commercial North (FC -2) Urban Design o Freeway Commercial North (FC -2) Parks and Open Allows for the development of Space high density residential units and o Other Freeway Commercial Policies a hotel that promotes walkability, and reduces VMTs, Part II- Chapter 1 Exhibit 62 Update Exhibit Provided by City Section F, Part 12 supports transit Planning Area 12 Page II -143 Part II- Chapter 4 Exhibit 94 Update Exhibit Provided by City Section F Riding and Hiking Trails Page -224 w va co General Development Plan Amendment, Planning Area 12, March 2015 0 III. Proposed GDP Amendments The following section provides the actual existing and proposed text and graphics for the proposed General Plan Amendment. Text amendments are indicated using a strikethrough and underline format as indicated below: Proposed Text Deletion T"^ ^ u 0 r-- Ic "r^ ^ fex Proposed Text Addition The quick brown fox Graphic Amendments have been shown as "Adopted" versus "Proposed" with each exhibit labeled accordingly. General Development Plan Amendment, Planning Area 12, March 2015 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 781 General Development Plan Amendment, Planning Area 12, March 2015 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 782 Ranch GDP /SRP 0 Part II EUC Eastern Urban This designation indicates a regional center comprised of local and Center regional shopping opportunities and office and employment uses configured up to 15 stories. Visitor Commercial such as transit lodging, hotel, motels, commercial recreation and other retail are allowed. High density residential, including high rise residential is also an essential part of the EUC. FC Freeway This eateg w designation includes two planning areas: Commercial (1) the southern portion (Freeway Commercial South, or FC -1) includes regional land uses which require an automobile orientation near regional transportation systems. Expected uses include thoroughfare commercial, visitor commercial, and regionally oriented retail commercial and (2) the northern portion (Freeway Commercial North, or FC -2) land uses are envisioned to include hotels and high density residential with ancillary commercial in a mixed -use urban character setting that includes an urban park. RTP Regional This designation applies the Regional Technology Park (RTP) land Technology Park use designation that is intended to be a large, master - planned business park that integrates research and development activities with high tech manufacturing along with the administrative and office space associate with such a facility as well as other light Industrial uses. It accommodates new research institutions, industries and businesses able to capitalize upon the research activities of the adjacent University Campus and University Village. The RTP accommodates a limited amount of supporting retail, service, professional office and finance businesses and is able to provide services and amenities that provide a high quality work environment. I Industrial This category includes light manufacturing, warehousing, flexible use buildings and public utilities. Very limited amounts of restaurant and office oriented commercial are also permitted. Village Three and Planning Area 18 are identified in the Otay Ranch to contain Industrial land uses P /QP Public/ This includes public uses such as sewerage treatment plants, utility Quasi Public yards, corporate yards, etc. CP /P Community This overlay designation indicates the approximate location of Park/ Park Community Parks (CP) and Neighborhood Parks (P). These facilities to be fixed in location at the SPA level. Adopted October 28, 1993 Last Amended February 26, 2013 Amended March 2015 Page II -12 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 783 Ranch GDP /SRP 0 Part II Overall Project Summary Parcel Dwelling Units Acreage Approx. Pop. SF Units MIT Units Total Units Res. Ac. Park Ac. CPF Ac. Sch Ac. Cut]. Ac. Ind. Ac. Uni. Ac. Open Sp. Art Ac. Total Ac. Otay Valley Parcel 11,255 23,356 34,611 3,249.3 259.5 105.2 230.5 212.9 423.2 279.3 3,973.1 716.3 9,449 99,234 Proctor Valley Parcel 2,631 1,558 4,189 1,885.4 12.5 17.1 10.0 252.0 - - 5,656.7 61.3 7,895 12,391 San Ysidro Mountains Parcel 779 - 779 1,499.8 3.4 2.3 10.0 3.3 - - 4,036.2 - 5,555 2,494 Total: 14,665 24,914 39,579 6,634.4 275.4 124.6 250.5 468.2 423.2 2793 13,666.0 777.6 22,899 114,119 Exhibit 18a Overall Project Summary Table(Proposed)) Adopted October 28, 1993 2015 -05 -12 AgW&DAnwnded February 26, 2013 Amended March 2015 Page II -15 Page 784 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Adopted October 28, 1993 2815 -85 -12 ngW&DAnwnded February 26, 2013 Amended March 2015 Ranch GDP /SRP 0 Part II Page II -16 Page 785 Ranch GDP /SRP 0 Part II I n OF IHUTA wsfA 'WG May Ranch — W GDP /SRP� �r \\ Land Use Plan Legend / / Resmential �, aamn a:vaama n�) Spam I Plano, n4 Areal Cammen -I �'vi. aeservar ��— ua rm�fW � nruocn - Mwtl ms MN liqusltrial RuaNi W IInNhV aviabiel F0W Open Spar Other �_.:e. • :.. 1 � :. � ear WpwwclR) Lower L Iii■ l.�aSN6idm(HSI m � ,4 � Reazervalr pµn Are � aa,vsate.x.EWe� �•,,� 7i ce . ���� Wakyy4i b11x 1 * Portion of University Alternative DRAFT wF .. . Ap"DotVtrQUriu ty site also has """N For Review Only lark — Ge99naeon of rewd ndd as Jev:AbM in cart n, eaelrtx ), Sxnone w aM F1 o. Exhibit 18b Otay Ranch GDP /SRP Land Use Plan (Proposed) Adopted October 28, 1993 Page II -17 2815- 05 -12 ngFW&PAnwnded February 26, 2013 Amended March 2015 Page 786 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Adopted October 28, 1993 2815 -85 -12 ngW&DAnwnded February 26, 2013 Amended March 2015 Ranch GDP /SRP 0 Part II Page II -18 Page 787 Ranch GDP /SRP 0 Part II a. Otay Valley Parcel The Otay Valley Parcel is the most urban of the three Otay Ranch parcels. The land use plan provides continuity to adjacent developed areas, while creating a unique character. At build -out, this parcel will provide a maximum3 of "6�T34, 111 dwelling units, accommodating approximately_' ^ ^99.234 residents. The major components of the land use plan for the Otay Valley Parcel include: o Nine urban villages, with village cores which include mixed use areas, neighborhood parks, and elementary schools. o A circulation system which includes a planned highway (SR -125), Transit routes, and a system of regional arterials. o A pedestrian trail system that features a network of trails for walking, bicycles, equestrian travel and potential use of low - speed /neighborhood vehicles utilizing facilities such as neighborhood paseos, the `village pathway ", pedestrian bridges and regional trails providing linkages to the Otay Ranch Village Greenway and the Chula Vista Greenbelt. • Highest intensity uses along SR -125, including the EUC, more intense urban villages, and freeway commercial areas. • Industrial uses on the western edge adjacent to existing business park uses and the Otay Landfill, and at the southern edge adjacent to planned industrial uses on the Otay Mesa. • A university site located in Planning Area 10 on the eastern portion of the parcel, adjacent to Village Nine. • The Eastern Urban Center with regional services and activities, and the highest residential intensities. • The Otay Valley Regional Park (a portion of the overall regional park currently being planned for the entire length of the Otay River Valley). • The Otay Valley Parcel land use table below shows the distribution of land use categories. The maximum DU number reflects all residential development on the Otay Valley Parcel, However, Village Three has a primary land use designation of Industrial, a portion of Village Nine is University, and Plannig Area Ten has a primary land use designations of University. Adopted october 28, 1993 Page II -19 'O"_ _s'f $ i n�ecekebruary 26, 2013 Amended March 2015 Page 788 Ranch GDP /SRP 0 Part II This Page Intentionally Left Blank Adopted october 28, 1993 Page II -20 'O" -i -s'f $ i n�ecekebruary 26, 2013 Amended March 2015 Page 789 Ranch GDP /SRP 0 Part II Otay Valley Parcel Village Dwelling Units Acreage Approx. Pop. SF Units MF Units Total Units Res. Ac. Park Ac. CPF Ac. Sch Ac. C'ml. Ac. Ind. Ac. Uni. Ac. Open Sp. Art. Ac. Total Ac. Village 1 2,454 1,522 3,976 7012 211 13.4 10.0 63 - - 264.8 465 1,0673 11,734 Village 2 604 3,941 4,545 346.0 24.0 12.6 19.8 82.5 - 2263 63.5 774.7 14,726 Village 1,002 595 1,597 147.5 79 4.2 8.3 11.3 ++ 39.9 129.5 19.8 368.4 4,873 Village 4 453 - 453 118.0 62.8 2.1 - - - 309.9 35.0 527.8 1,495 Village 5 1,263 1,550 2,813 370.7 16.6 11.3 10.0 2.0 - - 70.4 1 15.4 496.4 7,995 Village 6 941 1,497 2,438 282.0 76 13.7 10.0 * ** - - 22.0 58.3 393.6 6,830 Village 7 1,008 448 1,456 234.3 93 6.3 60.0 7.2 38.8 17.1 373.0 4,369 Village 1,564 4,046 5,610 356.0 35.2 10.0 42.4 * ++ 52.7 40.0 536.3 15,646 Village 9 Res 266 3,734 4,000 177.4 27.5 5.0 19.8 * - 41.3 6.8 26.1 303.9 10,519 Portion of University/Village9 (Alternative) * * 68 ** 93 ** 161 ** 23.2 ** 0.9 ** 0.6 ** 0.9 ** 0.8 ** - - 12.4 ** 2.5 ** 41.3 ** 454 ** University/RTP - - - - - - - - 85.0 238.0 - - 323.0 - Village 10 695 1,045 1,740 113.1 76 4.3 9.2 - - 16.5 - 150.7 5,010 Portion of University (Alternative)**** 291 * * ** 213 * * ** 504 * * ** 71.7 * * ** 10.4 * * ** 2.1 * * ** 8.3 * * ** 2.2 * * ** - - 26.1 * * ** 7.8 * * ** 128.6 * * ** 1,475 * * ** Village 11 1,005 1,385 2,390 306.7 10.0 9.4 35.0 10.0 - - 51.4 66.5 489.0 6,749 Ping. Area 12 - 3,593 3,593 94.4 27.9 12.9 6.0 161.1 - 2.8 71.0 376.1 9,288 Ping. Area 18 - - - - - - - - 215.8 - - - 215.8 - Ping. Area 20 15.0 188.0 6.0 2090 . OpenSpace+ - - - - - - - - - - 2,573.6 - 2,573.6 - SR -125 - - - - - - - - - - - 182.0 182.0 - Public 19.6 - 19.6 Arterial Total: 11,255 23,356 1 34,611 312493 2595 1052 2325 - 212.9 1 4232 2793 - 3,973_] 69.1 1 716.3 69.1 9,449 99,234 ++ Commercial developmentmay occur vertically or horizontally within Village 2 (up to 130,000 square feet), Village 3 (20,000 square feet), Village 8 East (20,000 square feet), Freeway Commercial FC2 (from 15,000 to 30,000 square feet); therefore, actual acreage within each land use will be determined at final map. * 1,800,000 square feet of commercial may occur vertically or horizontally within Village 8 West and Village 9, therefore, actual acreage within each land use will be determined at final map. ** Portion of University /Village 9 has a primary land use designation of University and a secondary land use of residential. The secondary land use is not included in the total. * ** Commercial included as component of residential acreage. * * ** Portion of University has a primary land use designation of University and a secondary land use of residential. The secondary land use is not included in the total. + Open Space includes open space preserve, mdevelopable land, streets, and right -of -way. Exhibit 19 Otay Valley Parcel Land Use Table (Proposed) Adopted October 28, 1993 Page II -21 Last Amended February 26,2013 Amended March 2015 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 790 Ranch GDP /SRP 0 Part II This Page Intentionally Left Blank Adopted October 28, 1993 Page II -22 Last Amended February 26,2013 Amended March 2015 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 791 Ranch GDP /SRP 0 Part II Exhibit 20 Otay Valley Parcel Land Use Map Adopted October 28, 1993 Page II -23 Last Amended February 26,2013 Amended March 2015 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 792 Ranch GDP /SRP 0 Part II This Page Intentionally Left Blank Adopted October 28, 1993 Page II -24 Last Amended February 26,2013 Amended March 2015 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 793 Otay Ranch Village Types, Rural Estate and Planning Areas Industrial Planning Urban Villages - Areas - Villages 2W a 3 Otay Valley r Parcel I ","a j jw 6 Mixed Use Planning Area 20 r Only Exhibit 25 Otay Ranch Village Types & Rural Estate Areas FL� Rural Estate Planning Areas - 16 & 17 Specialized Villages - Villages 13, 14 & 15 r ��. Primary use for a portion of Villages Nine & Planning Area Ten is University/RTP. Industrial Secondary use is urban Planning village Area 18 `t�rr a Otay Ranch GOP / SRP Land Rs'Plan Legend -,-- vaemia� w, ww u��ISb.:r Ml rurrygllFaetiN ���Fneb►.w -wN9 A n.mc..ePi sperm rwx:gl�tiear oammercw R,pW oyansc.w ww � rou.•w.n,..nm S note_ Pa tim of Planning Area 10fUniversity Ate""' •+ p •[4'ra.unl.+l:eM>Vlrstr + ka *x.a wwMiy rrle weayr.m:ln :.yQemr a76[rlbee In vat q p.ye3 S. SRepa F4 atl Frp. �� Ad�ol�gpted October 28, 1993 Page 11 -35 2015- n$- Al KYIePebruary 26, 2013 Amended March 2015 Page 794 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Adopted October 28, 1993 Page 11 -36 z0" -Y,S A? NFMA IePebruary 26, 2013 Amended March 2015 Page 795 Ranch GDP /SRP 0 Part II A potential university site is designated on the GDP /SRP land use map west of the lake along Wueste Road. C. Eastern Urban Center A projected Otay Ranch population of approximately 88�T114,119 creates a need for a centralized urban area to provide the regional goods and services which cannot be provided in village cores. Certain goods and services are not available in village cores because of the problems caused by permitting regional traffic into the villages. The 400 -acre Eastern Urban Center and Freeway Commercial area are located east of SR -125, on a rise overlooking the Otay Valley Parcel. This area will provide an intense, vital activity center to include an employment base with office, retail, business park, and visitor- serving commercial uses; cultural, entertainment, civic, recreation activity and residential uses. The bus rapid- transit (BIM system connects the EUC to the region and some of the villages of the Otay Ranch. d. Industrial /Business Park /Freeway Commercial The Otay Ranch Land Use Plan designates industrial /business park and freeway commercial uses primarily along the SR -125 corridor. Policies relating to these uses are discussed in Section D, Land Use Design, Character, and Policies. Industrial /commercial uses are located in the following areas: • There are two areas for industrial uses: 1) located south of the Otay Valley, adjacent to industrial areas of Otay Mesa and one west of Heritage Road at the extreme western edge of the parcel near existing industrial development 2) Included within Village 3 and within the western portion of Village Two. These light industrial uses total approximately 559.8acres. • Commercial /Office: located in the EUC. These uses include the regional retail commercial, hotel, and office uses. • A business park is located within the EUC. • Freeway commercial uses are located north of the EUC and east of SR -125. The freeway commercial area includes two planning areas with et mix4twe of uses two types of uses: (1) Freeway Commercial South (FC -1) includes a regional shopping center and other commercial uses dependent on direct highway exposure and access, and (2) Freeway Commercial North (FC -2) is envisioned to include hotels and high density residential in a mixed -use setting with some commercial uses. TheseThis areas totals approximately 191120 acres. Adopted October 28, 1993 Page II -38 2015- 05- 1J,ast P �%e[ed February 26, 2015, Amended March 2015 Page 796 Otay Ranch Regional Commercial, Office and Industrial Areas VILLAGE I YIL E5 MA Planning Area 12 - Freeway Commercial PL"NING AXER IS DRAFT For Review Only Exhibit 26 Commercial, Industrial & Business Sites i Ranch GDP /SRP 0 Part II ��S►r �1r a HULA VISTA _ Qtay Ranch GP / SRP sRS Land Use Plan Planning Area 12 Legend Eastern Urban Center - Rewdenllw Wrf Ltr LY�eM�tlX M.1 Regional Office and aD+a�.w�a+ ) ivn We•wO�f 4wew full Commercial li_ ++Ampe+ar A.aYxw IX1 Zer Y $papal plercilnQ Brea( l,'pmine+pal Reservoir � � Xoec L..Iwrl - uvem them firor[�1 i" ` 11Wn�q M avr•.+�.a+mo.s[arrl � In7u5Vi9�� a u.,+w w.er Ponlw Open spacer borer - gWlf� brw�xmrt. an,�[nA Ope�ryz• I`Ye�111ulnul � s?.ew eevw.w wr. rsocl Villages 9 Si LO Altemative* a.r rnw. cam se.w r„w,,. % � Wow khnd Mane ae . •9 ,���] ••••• DYS1 Ct�tld Porbion of Planning Area 10 /University Alternabve M • pardon d the U+We fly uce a5o 10 a W.WdM WId usedesgradae of resAentlal a dcwlbed In Part 11, Chapter 1, Ser.M F9 aM F10. Adopted October 28, 1993 Page II -39 20,MRA iJ�gfiWcY 4fruary 26, 2013 Amended March 2015 Page 797 PA +7 ' rREEH04v �{MEACM�L • Y14LAGE � �F 'JILLAGE 6 Y�ST tlt{" r� n YILUGE Pf.AHN11M All YILLAGEI LRA'VER°..il'/ Y.E5T L r'- UNNE wLLAGE ! WE vnucEe ; a +f: Ed 5T NLLAGEa =_ r Yelky R0 - v Isc a Industrial Areas - Village 2W, 3 &;; PA 18 PANNING ARM 1B V PL"NING AXER IS DRAFT For Review Only Exhibit 26 Commercial, Industrial & Business Sites i Ranch GDP /SRP 0 Part II ��S►r �1r a HULA VISTA _ Qtay Ranch GP / SRP sRS Land Use Plan Planning Area 12 Legend Eastern Urban Center - Rewdenllw Wrf Ltr LY�eM�tlX M.1 Regional Office and aD+a�.w�a+ ) ivn We•wO�f 4wew full Commercial li_ ++Ampe+ar A.aYxw IX1 Zer Y $papal plercilnQ Brea( l,'pmine+pal Reservoir � � Xoec L..Iwrl - uvem them firor[�1 i" ` 11Wn�q M avr•.+�.a+mo.s[arrl � In7u5Vi9�� a u.,+w w.er Ponlw Open spacer borer - gWlf� brw�xmrt. an,�[nA Ope�ryz• I`Ye�111ulnul � s?.ew eevw.w wr. rsocl Villages 9 Si LO Altemative* a.r rnw. cam se.w r„w,,. % � Wow khnd Mane ae . •9 ,���] ••••• DYS1 Ct�tld Porbion of Planning Area 10 /University Alternabve M • pardon d the U+We fly uce a5o 10 a W.WdM WId usedesgradae of resAentlal a dcwlbed In Part 11, Chapter 1, Ser.M F9 aM F10. Adopted October 28, 1993 Page II -39 20,MRA iJ�gfiWcY 4fruary 26, 2013 Amended March 2015 Page 797 Ranch GDP /SRP 0 Part II This Page Intentionally Left Blank Adopted October 28, 1993 Page II -40 20,MRA i gF)Wcf 4fruary 26, 2013 Amended March 2015 Page 798 Ranch GDP /SRP 0 Part 11 • Design criteria shall consider transit availability in industrial areas. • Light and noise impacts to adjacent open space areas should be minimized. 3. Commercial /Office /Business Park a. Regional Commercial /Office The Eastern Urban Center (EUC) contains the most intense development in Otay Ranch and is the urban heart of the region (Planning Area 12) . Uses and intensities are intended to create a lively, 24 -hour environment, with a creative medley of uses, building types and amenities. These uses include the regional retail commercial, hotel and office uses. Retail and office development within the Eastern Urban Center is of an intensity compatible with a "downtown" urban center. The most intense development is concentrated near the trolley station(s), with building heights and sizes gradually decreasing toward the edge of the planning area. (See Part II, Chapter 1, Section F. 12.; Eastern Urban Center [Planning Area 121 for applicable policies.) b. Freeway Commercial Adjacent to the EUC is approximately 196.5120 acres of freeway commercial (Planning Area 12). The Freeway Commercial contains two planning areas. Freeway Commercial South WC-1 on Exhibit 621 afea provides for a mixture of uses suitable for, and dependent on, direct highway exposure, including large -scale uses which require sites primarily served by vehicular access. such as: automobile centers; discount stores; warehouse outlets; membership clubs; and other large scale uses that require freeway exposure. Public uses such as park- and -ride and transit related services are also permitted. Typical uses permitted in the Freeway Commercial South category WC-1) include regional shopping opportunities, such as a mall with restaurants and entertainment uses. Freeway Commercial North WC-2 on Exhibit 62) is envisioned to provide hotels and high density residential in a mixed -use urban character setting that includes ancillary commercial uses and an urban park. Freeway Commercial Policies o The actual amount and location of freeway commercial uses shall be established at the SPA level. o In Freeway Commercial South (FC -1). The the freeway commercial land use category permits freeway- oriented, low scale buildings of three stories or less (heights will be established at the SPA level). The mass of the buildings shall Adopted October 28, 1993 Page 11 -65 zois -os -iz &0 �rded February 26, 2013 Amended March 2015 Page 799 Ranch GDP /SRP 0 Part 11 be balanced with landscaped setbacks and landscaping within parking areas. o In Freeway Commercial North WC-2). the freeway commercial land use category permits hotels and high density residential in an urban character mixed -use setting, allowing for primarily 3- to 6 -story mid -rise buildings (heights will be established at the SPA level). o The mass of the buildings shall be balanced with usable active and passive open space areas including an urban park adjacent to commercial mixed -uses. o Provide pedestrian - oriented features, such as tree -lined landscape parkways or hardscape with tree- wells, to buffer pedestrian sidewalks located next to roadways, transit routes and parking areas. o Setbacks, which promote a pedestrian- oriented environment and prevent a "strip development" appearance, should be established at the SPA level. o Landscaping shall create a well -kept and attractive commercial and residential environment. Large parking areas shall be landscaped to minimize heat gain and break up expanses of asphalt. o Prepare a signage program for freeway commercial uses concurrent with the first SPA containing freeway commercial uses. Developed separately, the north and south freeway commercial areas (FC -1 and FC -2 on Exhibit 62) will provide separate signage programs that ensures clear design ties between FC -1 and FC -2 to promote a sense of cohesion. C. Business Park Business park uses are generally of a "research and development" character. The uses are arranged with various amenities presenting a feeling of a quality corporate setting. Business park uses are permitted within the EUC land use category, located in the EUC (Planning Area 12). Business Park Policies ❑ Exact floor area ratios for business park uses shall be established at the SPA level. o Business park uses shall be low to mid -rise (two to three stories maximum). o These facilities shall be linked by pedestrian and transit systems to other parts of the EUC, as well as to the potential university. o Landscape and amenities such as open space, water features, plazas, and walkways shall be an important part of the business park. Adopted October 28, 1993 Page 11 -66 zois -os -iz &0 �rded February 26, 2013 Amended March 2015 Page 800 Planning Area 12 (EUC & FQ Use Dwelling Units Acreage***** Approx. Pop. SF MF Total Dens Res. Park* CPF ** Sch. * ** C'ml. * * ** Open Sp. Art. Total EUC 2,993 2,993 41.2 72.6 23.2 10.7 6.0 33.5 146.0 7,722 Regional Commercial 26.6 26.6 Visitor Commercial 9.9 9.9 Cultural 4.5 4.5 OIT-Low Rise/Bus. 17.2 17.2 e tg ise 10.4 10.4 Other + 1.5 1.5 UCSubtotal 2,993 2,993 41.2 72.6 23.2 10.7 6.0 68.6 1.5 33.5 1 216.1 1 7,722 FC1 86.2 37.5 123.7 FC2 600 600 27.5 21.8 4.7 2.2 6.3" 1.3 36.3 1,566 CSubtotal 600 600 27.5 21.8 4.7 2.2 92.5 1.3 37.5 160.0 TOTAL 3,593.0 3,593.0 38.1 94.4 27.9 12.9 6.0 161.1 2.8 71.0 376.1 9,288 *Part of park acreage requirement have been allocated to community parks. Actual park size to be determined at the SPA level; Park acreage based on ratio of 3.0 acres per 1000 ersons. * *CPF acreage based on ratio of 1.39 -acres per 1000 persons. Square- footage equivalent may be considered at SPA Plan level. ** *School acres will divert to residential if not needed for school. * ** *May include mixed -use and multi -use. * * ** *The maximum permitted non - residential areas may alternatively be measured in square -feet up to the maximum projected yield of 3,487,000 square feet for EUC; 960,000 square feet for FCl; 12,000 square feet for JPB portion within EUC; excludes FC2 area. Fire Station 1+ 6.3 acres hotel and an additional 15,000 to 30,000 square feet of commercial component of Mixed Use Residential. Exhibit 60 Planning Area 12 (EUC & FC) Land Use Tables (Proposed) The mix of uses shown in Exhibit 63 are representative of the expectations and intended character for the Eastern Urban Center. The final land use mix and distribution of uses shall be determined at the SPA planning level. Variation from the uses identified in Exhibit 63 may be approved subject to the following findings: 1. The intended character and purpose of the Eastern Urban Center is maintained; 2. The distribution of uses is compatible with the adopted uses in adjacent villages; and 3. The viability of the Eastern Urban Center is maintained or enhanced. Adopted October 28, 1993 2o15-o5-12 41Avu tided February 26, 2013 Amended March 2015 Page 11- 135 Page 801 Other Eastern Urban Center Policies o Transit line rights -of -way and bus rapid transit stops /stations shall be approximately located at the SPA level and will be conditioned for dedication at the Tentative Map level within the EUC. d. Freeway Commercial Description The Freeway Commercial consists of two planning areas that provide regional serving commercial uses, hotels, and high density residential with ancillary commercial uses in a mixed -use setting. Freeway Commercial South (FC -1 on Exhibit 62) contains a regional serving commercial shopping center including restaurants and entertainment uses. The shopping center is composed of buildings of varying scale and orientation. Quality architecture is provided throughout the planning area in order to create a pronounced identity for the regional shopping center. o Freeway Commercial South (FC -1) contains: o A regional shopping center, including regional serving commercial uses, restaurants and entertainment uses. Freeway Commercial North (FC -2 on Exhibit 62) is envisioned to contain two hotels and high density residential in an urban character mixed -use setting with some ancillary commercial uses. Quality architecture will be provided for the hotels and high density mixed -use residential buildings, with a central urban park provided at the core of the planning area. Internal and external circulation systems shall be provided including a strong pedestrian- orientation, and enhanced pedestrian connectivity to the regional shopping center and internal connections between the high density residential and mixed -use areas, the hotels and the urban park. Pedestrian sidewalks with landscaped parkways will also be provided along the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) right -of -way adjacent to the two nearby BRT stations. Freeway Commercial North (FC -2) is envisioned to contain high density residential within a mixed -use environment, hotels, ancillary retail commercial and an urban nark. e. Freeway Commercial Policies: Freeway Commercial South (FC -11 Policies: o This eategewy� planning area includes regional uses which require an automobile orientation near regional transportation systems. Expected uses include thoroughfare commercial, visitor commercial and regionally oriented retail commercial o The ffeeway afiented eammefeia4 This planning area shall include uses such as: department stores, regional mall /lifestyle center, eating and drinking establishments, movie theaters, fitness clubs, and other uses which benefit Adopted October 28, 1993 2oi5-o5-i2 4jAvu udedFebruary26, 2013 Amended March 2015 Page II - 139 Page 802 from direct freeway exposure, -serve a regional market, and strengthen its relationship and linkages to the EUC and University Campus and University Village to the south. o Develop a signage and graphic program at the SPA level. o Reserve a park- and -ride at the transit stop along the west side of Eastlake Parkway. Freeway Commercial North (FC -21 Policies: o Provide two hotels containing a total of 300 or more rooms. o This planning area is envisioned to include up to 600 -units of high density residential in the mixed -use land use designation category with a density range of 20 to 30 units per acre. o Provide an urban park including amenities that will be a public attraction in addition to serving the surrounding high density residential o A minimum of 15,000 square feet of commercial uses shall be provided in a mixed -use land use designation. Freeway Commercial North (FC -2) Character Policies: o Provide appropriate landscape parkways with trees to separate and buffer pedestrian sidewalks from residential uses adjacent to vehicular roadways and transit right -of -ways. o Provide safe and accessible pedestrian connections to the existing and anticipated routes to the planned Bus Rapid Transit (BRTI stations. Provide features to buffer pedestrians from the BRT travel lanes where pedestrian walkways are located along the travel lanes. o Provide appropriate setbacks from the transit right -of- -way to the residential units located on the north side of BRT lanes. o In order to provide for a well- integrated mixed -use urban environment on both sides of Town Center Drive, and along other key pedestrian routes across vehicular circulation, pedestrian- oriented features such as speed tables, bulb -outs, and reduced travel lanes may be provided. o Complete the connection of the tree -lined pedestrian sidewalk and landscaped parkway coming from the regional shopping center to the high density residential mixed -use areas. o Hotels and high density residential buildings may include commercial uses supporting a 24 -hour environment. Freewav Commercial North (FC -2) Urban Design Policies: o Orient hotels and high density residential mixed -use buildings in a manner that defines the primary pedestrian areas, creates a strong pedestrian connection between buildings, and provides for a continuous pedestrian experience. Adopted October 28, 1993 2oj5-o5-j2A#&4jAvuauded February26, 2013 Amended March 2015 Page II - 140 Page 803 o Emphasize an urban street scene by locating buildings adjacent to sidewalks and pedestrian- oriented spaces such as patios, plazas, malls and squares. o Mixed -Use buildings facing Town Center Drive and primary pedestrian urban spaces should contain commercial uses that support pedestrian activities such as dining, retail and entertainment, and cultural experiences. o To create vitality and excitement, retail business and community activities should flow out from mixed -use buildings into well designed public space such as patios, plazas, malls and squares. o Enhanced pavement with landscaping should be provided in all usable urban spaces that allow for sidewalk cafes, street vendors, sidewalk entertainment and other inviting pedestrian features. o Hotels and mixed -use buildings shall incorporate design features which complement a pedestrian scale, such as horizontal components, overhangs, facade detail, display areas, and pedestrian seating. o Hotels and mixed -use buildings shall exhibit an urban character through the use of quality building materials, textures, and scale. o Hotels and mixed -use buildings shall display urban design features characteristic of quality architectural design. o Establish an urban identity through the use of streetscape features and amenities, such as bollards, street furnishings, and enhanced pavement between vehicular driveways. o Prominently locate urban parks and plazas between the hotels and mixed -use buildings. o Provide complementary commercial uses within the mixed -use environment that can easily be integrated with the adjacent hotels and the regional shopping center. o Town Center Drive should provide on- street parking as part of incorporating complete street techniques to reduce vehicular conflicts. o Off - street parking should be primarily provided behind buildings or within parking podiums or parking structures in order to maintain pedestrian- orientation and preserve the character of the mixed -use environment. Garages fronting on internal streets shall be allowed on residential units. Freeway Commercial North (FC -2) Parks and Open Space Policies: Application of the 3 acres per 1,000 residents standard would result in a requirement for approximately 4.70 -acres of parks considering the development of 600 residential units. Freeway Adopted October 28, 1993 2oj5-o5-j2A#&4jAvuauded February26, 2013 Amended March 2015 Page II - 141 Page 804 Commercial North shall Provide sufficient Parkland. Park enhancements, and /or in -lieu fees to meet this obligation. o A centrally located urban Park with amenities shall be Provided at a highly visible location to encourage and attract Public use. The Park shall be accessible to all residents. Other Freeway Commercial Policies: o Provide appropriate sound attenuation for all required residential open space areas that are exposed to a noise level of 65 CNEL or greater. o Provide appropriate sound attenuation for all public open space areas such as parks that are exposed to a noise level of 65 CNEL or greater. Adopted October 28, 1993 2oi5 -o5 -i2 4jAvm udedFebruary26, 2013 Amended March 2015 Page II - 142 Page 805 Exhibit 61 Planning Area 12 EUC Land Use Map Adopted October 28, 1993 2ojs- os- i2A#&tdjm&jcIed February 26, 2013 Amended March 2015 Page II - 143 Page 806 -PA 12 FREEWAY COMMFpr'' Transit Route 75 -foot Average Buffer Along Birch Rd Arterials r PA 12 ;� . ■'■ �Np EASTERN 6uffer/Allow for URBAN Visual Access to EUC and Free way CENTER ■ Codal Commercial � P ; FS ' MS/HS Reserve Right -of- +` Way for Transit ' _ - �� ■ ' pedesdian Bridge I 75 -foot Average Width within Village �c�II, A NOWH r LJLA CH LA V i57A Planning Area 12 Eastern Urban Center Adopted OCinbeI 28, 1993; Amended June 4, 1996; Amended November 10, 1998; Amended October 23, 2001; Amcndcd Dcccmbcr 13, 2005; Amended May 23, 2006. Exhibit 61 Planning Area 12 EUC Land Use Map Adopted October 28, 1993 2ojs- os- i2A#&tdjm&jcIed February 26, 2013 Amended March 2015 Page II - 143 Page 806 Exhibit 62 Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial Land Use Map (Proposed) Adopted October 28, 1993 Page 11- 144 zois -os -iz 4 jAvuaudedFebruary26 ,2013AmendedMarch2015 Page 807 Buffer Edge 0, y�plc PA- ~ * 0 Reserve Right -af- r r r way for Transit ■ ,. ■ 0 * Provide for Multi- Model Parkand Ride Facility Transit Route PA 12 N FREEWAY COMMERCIAL Buffer /Allow for �~ Visual Access to Birch Rd ' Freeway commercial from SR -125 75 -foot Average ' r Buffer Along . • Arterials • =' uRBP,, A NORTH CHUL4 OF Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial Exhibit 62 Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial Land Use Map (Proposed) Adopted October 28, 1993 Page 11- 144 zois -os -iz 4 jAvuaudedFebruary26 ,2013AmendedMarch2015 Page 807 Ranch GDP /SRP o Part 11 CITY oF CHUL A VISTA pa __ Otay Ranch GDP / SRP VILLAGES Land Use Plan Legend VILLAGE 1 Residential -- iau UensM R�aarma (L) ES ned um oensry aeslderma (LM) P '• -• VILLAGE it Ma (sh ES PA 12 ...•E•Pa1 a FREEWAY '. P M no COMMERCIAL ES l' ed yIold nta (MM) VILLAGE 1 o�me VILLAGE s - M -sneer (M) WEST FS HIS e bRa EA Special Planning ommerca STER Fw1.— (1c) UAN ! . Reservoir ........ ENTER l Cn - al(MUE) yOFS ` d Use (MU) _ VILLAGE] RS !w1 ES L i Town cenrer(tt) VI—ET ••,� UNIVERSITY EasRrn Urban-ol(EM) WEST - Um—w. ES rff r 5 RTP J ! 90 � �a0• � : ' {f 11e nal TeTrwJO9Y Park (mP) High sah.1 ES I • FreSG,ean Ind Uatral VILLAGE4 F • � = F— Researha-ildlmunna _ — V c VILLAGE B V VILLAGE a T VILLAGES ESti PLANNING AREA 18 Public/ Open Space/ Other A E EAST % VILLAGE 10 I I v vubk apuaa Wd "c (ap) TC w�e _I 1 VILLAGE v - * �/ Portion of Alternative DRAFT For Review Only _I_ -I Sen4GVe Resource shay A—(srz7 E5 _ •• �ES� J s J Open slece p` 1 • Olay Valley Rd R Ra�#aaecreanon - - • O nr r VILLAGE3 f - �• f - -R n .•:••: • . + JX-J' ePreserve .. -'• � Hw. R J / I' /// Tetl 4veromvR Aiw nan A PuNN NG} J /s S SR 1259 Piad) �..•i` n AREA 20r � � � • eementery SCbw �.�-•-.-- � ( \ \ �� • • M'MeSCFao Exhibit 94 Otay Valley Parcel Park and Trail Map (Proposed) Adopted October 28, 1993 Page 11 -232 2h945Aw. &c1Pf )uraiy 26, 2013 Amended March 2015 Page 808 2U AREA... • FreSG,ean • � = � �. Rtlulrun Brldae �� k PLANNING AREA 18 Ta s PLANNING '•, w�e _I AREA 18'. * �/ Portion of Alternative DRAFT For Review Only _I_ — - • - .... n ® A portion of the University t also h secondary land use designation of— dental as described s J Part ]I, Chapter 1, Sections F9 and F10. Exhibit 94 Otay Valley Parcel Park and Trail Map (Proposed) Adopted October 28, 1993 Page 11 -232 2h945Aw. &c1Pf )uraiy 26, 2013 Amended March 2015 Page 808 PA -12 FREEWAY COMMERCIAL NORTH (FC2) AMENDMENT Appendix C: Fiscal Impact Analysis 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 809 Fiscal Impact Analysis of the Freeway Commercial SPA FC2 Amendment Prepared for: The City of Chula Vista March 17, 2015 Prepared by: HR&A Advisors, Inc. 700 South Flower Street, Suite 2730 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Analyze. Advise. Act. 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 810 Executive Summary The City of Chula Vista ( "City ") retained HR&A Advisors ( "HR&A ") to evaluate the fiscal impacts of a proposed amendment to the Freeway Commercial Sectional Planning Area ( "SPA ") to the City of Chula Vista's General Fund. The Freeway Commercial SPA includes approximately 1,215,000 square feet of commercial uses, 867,000 square feet on the FC1 site and 347,000 square feet on the FC2 site. The Otay Ranch Town Center Mall was constructed and is operating on the bulk of the FC1 site, but the FC2 site remains vacant. The proposed amendment will allow for the addition of 600 residential units and a 2 -acre park on the designated FC2 site. The proposed amendment also includes two hotels with a total of 300 rooms on the FC2 site. Purpose of the Study A fiscal impact analysis of the proposed Freeway Commercial SPA FC2 Amendment is required as part of the supplemental Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP). The Supplemental PFFP ensures that the future development of the Freeway Commercial SPA is consistent with the overall goals and policies of the City's General Plan, Growth Management Program and that the development of the project will not adversely impact the City's Quality of Life Standards. The following analysis evaluates the net fiscal impact of the Freeway Commercial SPA FC2 Amendment ( "FC2 Amendment ") across a 10 -year period, including build out, and reviews the annual net fiscal impact of the approved Freeway Commercial SPA ( "Approved FC SPA ") across a similar 10 -year period as a point of comparison. For the purposes of this analysis, net fiscal impacts refer to the fiscal revenues of the SPA less the fiscal costs generated by the SPA. A positive net fiscal impact means that the SPA's fiscal revenues cover the costs generated by the SPA. The FC2 Amendment's net fiscal impact above or below the Approved FC SPA net fiscal impact is the opportunity cost or benefit generated as a result of the amendment. As part of this study, we also include a sensitivity analysis to understand the performance of the Approved FC SPA relative to the FC2 Amendment if specific land uses, particularly the hotels, are not fully built out. The sensitivity analysis reviews the net fiscal performance of the FC2 Amendment in the scenario that only one hotel is built out or a lower number of rooms are developed and also provides an understanding of net fiscal performance at different price levels. Results Including sales tax receipts based on onsite sales' generated from the Otay Ranch Town Center, the Freeway Commercial SPA has a current (Year 0) positive annual impact of $1.00 million that is expected to grow based on the proposed development. ' This sales tax receipt approach is an adjustment from the standard SPA Framework. The SPA Framework evaluates sales tax receipts based on spending of residents within a SPA. The approach was adjusted in this study because the standard approach would not provide an understanding of the impact of the proposed commercial changes in the FC2 Amendment. HR&A Advisors, Inc. Chula Vista SPA FC2 Amendment FIA 1 2 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 811 Using the City of Chula Vista's SPA Fiscal Impact Analysis Framework, the FC2 Amendment is expected to generate an annual positive net fiscal impact of approximately $2.54 million in Year 10. The FC2 Amendment is expected to generate total fiscal revenues of approximately $4.80 million in Year 10. Sales tax receipts and transient occupancy tax (hotel tax) receipts are the greatest sources of fiscal revenue. Sales and use tax receipts represent 55 percent of fiscal revenues while transient occupancy tax represent 25 percent of fiscal revenues. The FC2 Amendment is expected to generate annual fiscal expenditures of $2.26 million in Year 10. Public safety costs make up the majority of anticipated fiscal expenditures. The Approved FC SPA is projected to generate annual net fiscal revenues of $2.00 million in Year 10. The Approved FC SPA, which is projected to consist solely of retail commercial uses, will generate annual fiscal revenues of $4.11 million in Year 10. Sales and use tax receipts represent approximately 85 percent of total fiscal revenues for the Approved FC SPA. Annual fiscal expenditures generated by the Approved FC SPA are estimated at $2.11 million annually. Conclusions Both the FC2 Amendment and Approved FC SPA are projected to generate positive net fiscal revenues to the City of Chula Vista throughout the study period. However, starting in Year 2, the FC2 Amendment will generate more fiscal revenues than the Approved FC SPA. In Year 10, the FC2 Amendment is expected to generate approximately $540,000 more than the Approved FC SPA. Transient occupancy taxes are a key factor in the greater fiscal performance of the FC2 Amendment and further analysis was completed to understand the sensitivity of the overall land use program to variation in the number of hotel rooms developed and the hotel room rate. The sensitivity analysis revealed that, at an average room rate of $140 per night, 175 hotel rooms is the point of neutrality between the FC2 Amendment and Approved FC SPA, i.e. the number of developed rooms in which the net fiscal revenues both scenarios generate are approximately equal. If less than 175 rooms are built the Approved FC SPA will outperform the FC2 Amendment. HR&A Advisors, Inc. Chula Vista SPA FC2 Amendment FIA 1 3 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 812 Figure 1: FC2 Amendment (2015$) Source: HR &A HR &A Advisors, Inc. Chula Vista SPA FC2 Amendment FIA 1 4 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 813 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 2075 Dollar Inflation Factor 7.095 7.095 7.095 7.095 7.095 7.095 7.095 7.095 7.095 7.095 7.095 Total Expenditures $1,181,099 $1,181,099 $1,366,202 $1,631,904 $1,968,914 $2,259,247 $2,259,247 $2,259,247 $2,259,247 $2,259,247 $2,259,247 Total Revenues $2,196,150 $2,371,333 $3,070,167 $3,609,828 $3,902,236 $4,547,213 $4,830,694 $4,780,735 $4,785,342 $4,790,806 $4,797,091 Net Fiscal Impacts (2015 Dollars) $1,015,051 $1,190,234 $1,703,965 $1,977,925 $1,933,322 $2,287,966 $2,571,447 $2,521,488 $2,526,095 $2,531,559 $2,537,844 Source: HR &A Figure 2: Approved FC SPA (2015 $) 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year7 Year Year Year 10 2074 Dollar Inflation Factor 7.095 7.095 7.095 7.095 7.095 7.095 7.095 7.095 7.095 7.095 7.095 Total Expenditures $1,181,099 $1,181,099 $1,320,051 $1,540,639 $1,848,072 $2,108,609 $2,108,609 $2,108,609 $2,108,609 $2,108,609 $2,108,609 Total Revenues $2,196,150 $2,371,333 $2,632,296 $3,056,538 $3,607,785 $4,085,358 $4,120,423 $4,100,065 $4,102,961 $4,106,321 $4,110,135 Net Fiscal Impacts (2015 Dollars) $1,015,051 $1,190,234 $1,312,245 $1,515,899 $1,759,713 $1,976,749 $2,011,815 $1,991,456 $1,994,352 $1,997,713 $2,001,526 Source: HR &A HR &A Advisors, Inc. Chula Vista SPA FC2 Amendment FIA 1 4 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 813 Table of Contents ExecutiveSummary ............................................................................................................................... ..............................2 Introduction............................................................................................................................................ ............................... b Project..................................................................................................................................................... ..............................7 LandUse Program ........................................................................................................................... ..............................7 Populationand Employment .......................................................................................................... ..............................7 Employment....................................................................................................................................... ..............................7 ProjectedAbsorption Schedule ..................................................................................................... ..............................9 DevelopmentProgram Absorption ............................................................................................... ..............................9 ExistingDevelopment (FC1 Site) ............................................................................................... ..............................9 RetailAbsorption ......................................................................................................................... ..............................9 ResidentialAbsorption ............................................................................................................ ............................... 10 HotelAbsorption ...................................................................................................................... ............................... 10 Absorptionof Other Uses ...................................................................................................... ............................... 10 Methodology..................................................................................................................................... ............................... 13 Budgetand Revenue Factors ..................................................................................................... ............................... 13 Service Standard Adjustment (Real Inflation Adjustment) ............................................... ............................... 13 RetailExpenditure Density Factor ........................................................................................ ............................... 13 2015 Dollar Adjustment ......................................................................................................... ............................... 14 RevenueMethodology ................................................................................................................ ............................... 14 ExpenditureMethodology .......................................................................................................... ............................... 18 FiscalImpacts ..................................................................................................................................... ............................... 20 ApprovedFC SPA .......................................................................................................................... .............................22 NetFiscal Impact Conclusions ...................................................................................................... .............................24 SensitivityAnalysis ......................................................................................................................... .............................26 Appendices........................................................................................................................................ ............................... 28 HR&A Advisors, Inc. Chula Vista SPA FC2 Amendment FIA 1 5 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 814 Introduction Baldwin and Sons (the "Developer ") is currently preparing an amendment to the previously approved Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial SPA to add 600 residential units, 300 hotel rooms, and a 2 -acre park to the FC2 site. The Freeway Commercial SPA was approved in 2004 and includes approximately 1,215,000 square feet of commercial uses, 867,000 square feet on the FC1 site and 347,000 square feet on the FC2 site. Otay Ranch Town Center Mall was constructed and is operating on the FC1 site, but the FC2 site remains vacant. Figure 3: Freeway Commercial SPA FC1 and FC2 Site Map Source: Google Maps and HR &A Advisors HR&A Advisors, Inc. Chula Vista SPA FC2 Amendment FIA 1 6 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 815 Project The Developer has proposed a mixed -use plan for the FC2 site that includes residential, hotel, and commercial uses. The proposed project amends existing commercial entitlements on the approximately 35 acre FC2 site to implement 600 multi - family dwelling units and a 2 -acre park. The residential development is planned as high quality multi - family rental apartments and for -sale multi - family townhomes, with the possibility of multi - family detached units2. Commercial development is planned to include 15,000 square feet of mixed -use retail uses and two hotels, with a total of 300 rooms. The proposed project is projected to fill its Community Purpose Facility (CPF) obligations using excess CPF from developments in the Village 2 SPA. Park requirements will be met onsite through an equivalency program and maintenance will be satisfied through a Community Facilities District. Land Use Program Figure 4 presents the land use program for the Approved FC SPA at build out and the FC2 Amendment at build out. Population and Employment Estimated population for the project site under the FC2 Amendment are based on an estimated 2.61 persons per household for multi - family residences. The Approved FC SPA does not have any residential units and thus no projected population. Employment Retail employment is estimated at an industry average of approximately one employee per 450 square feet of occupied building space. Hotel employees for comparable limited- service upper to midscale hotels are approximately 0.8 to 1 employee per room. 2 For the purposes of this analysis, all for -sale multi - family products are assumed to be townhouses. HR&A Advisors, Inc. Chula Vista SPA FC2 Amendment FIA 1 7 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 816 Figure 4: Land Use Program Hotels (Rooms) Approved SPA Freeway Commercial Amendment Land Use 0.0 2.0 (2 Ac. onsite) Single Family Residential Units 0 0 Multi - Family Residential Units 0 600 (26.70 Ac.) MF Attached - For Sale Townhomes 0 290 MF Attached - Rental Apartments 0 310 Retail Commercial Square Feet (SF)' 1,214,000 (120.7 Ac) 882,000 (86.20 Ac.) Hotels (Rooms) 0 300 (6.30 Ac.) Parks 0.0 2.0 (2 Ac. onsite) CPF 0.00 School 0.0 0.0 Subtotal Developed Acres 120.7 121.2 Open Space 0 0 Preserve 0 0 Other Acres /ROW 0 0 Total Acres 120.7 121.2 Population _ Multi Family Persons/DU di 2.61 0 1,566 Total Est. Population 0 1,566 Employment Retail SF/Emp 450 2,698 1,960 Hotel Employees per Room 0.90 0 270 Total Est. Employment 2,698 2,230 Mixed Use retail acreage is included with residential Source: Baldwin and Sons, City of Chula Vista and HR &A Advisors HR&A Advisors, Inc. Chula Vista SPA FC2 Amendment FIA 1 8 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 817 Projected Absorption Schedule The absorption schedules shown in Figure 6 and Figure 7 were developed based on input from the Otay Ranch Town Shopping Center, the FC2 site Developer, and a review of the historical absorption of single - family and multi - family units in the City of Chula Vista across the last 10 years. Development Program Absorption Existing Development (FC1 Site) The Otay Ranch Town Shopping Center reports that they currently have 655,000 square feet of building area on the FC1 site. An estimated 26,000 square feet of open air common area exists in addition to the building area. For purposes of this analysis, existing retail square feet on the FC1 site is estimated at 680,000 square feet and 187,000 square feet of retail is estimated for future development on the FC1 site. Retail Absorption The retail absorption was estimated based on a brief benchmark of future retail demand. The table below calculates total City of Chula Vista retail gross leasable area on a per dwelling unit basis and applies this estimate to the projected dwelling unit development from the latest City of Chula Vista Growth Management Plan, to estimate a benchmark of demand3 for new retail. On average, there is benchmark demand for 155,000 square feet of gross leasable area. This includes all types of retail. Assuming the Freeway Commercial SPA is able to capture approximately 50 percent of the benchmarked demand, we estimate that the remaining balance of the FC1 parcel retail, 187,000 square feet, will be built out at approximately 80,000 square feet a year. The proposed 15,000 square feet of retail on the FC2 site is expected to be absorbed in line with the development of the rental multi - family in Year 4. Figure 5: Benchmark Retail Demand Shopping Center Retail per Household Calculation Chula Vista Shopping Center Retoil(4Q201 4)' 7,264,655 City of Chula Vista Households (20 14)2 82,026 Shopping Center SF Per HH 88.57 Benchmark Retail Demand Estimate 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Eastern Chula Vista Forecast Dwelling Units3 1,450 1,692 1,902 1,868 1,845 Benchmark Retail Demand @ 88.57 128,420 149,852 168,451 165,440 163,403 Costar 2 C Dept. of Finance 3City of Chula Vista 2013 Growth Management Plan Source: HR &A Advisors 3 Based on a market review, not a detailed market analysis. HR&A Advisors, Inc. Chula Vista SPA FC2 Amendment FIA 1 9 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 818 Residential Absorption The FC2 site Developer anticipates development of the rental apartments and for -sale units starting at the end of 2016 with absorption starting in 2017. The historical absorption of residential units in Chula Vista is shown in the Appendix Table A -2. Between 2008 and 2014, an average of approximately 400 multi - family units were added in Chula Vista. For the FIA, we assume absorption starting in mid -2017 and use 250 units as the max annual multi - family residential absorption in 2018 and 2019. Hotel Absorption There are a limited number of quality hotels in the Otay Ranch and Chula Vista areas. Actual hotel absorption will be linked with the ability to attract an interested hotel chain /developer. The Developer anticipates the first hotel will open in 2016. The Developer anticipates the second hotel will be opened three years after the first. The FIA includes the first hotel in 2016 and the second hotel in 2019. It should be noted that we assume a buildup period in occupancy when estimating transient occupancy tax. Absorption of Other Uses Park uses are projected to develop in line with residential uses. HR&A Advisors, Inc. Chula Vista SPA FC2 Amendment FIA 1 10 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 819 Figure 6: FC2 Amendment Projected Absorption 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Cumulative Land Use Program Land Use Multi - Family Residential Units (Includes Multi -Use Residential) 0 0 0 120 370 600 600 600 600 600 600 MF Attached Townhomes 0 0 0 90 190 290 290 290 290 290 290 MF Attached Apartments (Mixed Use) 0 0 0 30 180 310 310 310 310 310 310 Retail Commercial SF 680,000 680,000 760,000 840,000 882,000 882,000 882,000 882,000 882,000 882,000 882,000 Freeway Commercial - Parcel 1 680,000 680,000 760,000 840,000 867,000 867,000 867,000 867,000 867,000 867,000 867,000 Mixed Use Commercial - Parcel 2 0 0 0 0 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 Retail Commercial Acres 67.6 67.6 75.6 83.5 86.2 86.2 86.2 86.2 86.2 86.2 86.2 Hotel Rooms 0 0 148 148 148 300 300 300 300 300 300 Hotel Acres 0 0 3 3 3 6 6 6 6 6 6 Parks 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.2 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 CPF 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 School 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Acres 67.6 67.6 78.7 92.4 107.0 121.2 121.2 121.2 121.2 121.2 121.2 Cumulative Population Multi Family Persons /DU@ 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 313 966 1,566 1,566 1,566 1,566 1,566 1,566 Total Est. Population 0.0 0.0 0.0 313 966 1,566 1,566 1,566 1,566 1,566 1,566 Employment Retail SF /Emp@ 450 1,511 1,511 1,689 1,867 1960 1,960 1,960 1,960 1,960 1,960 1,960 Hotel Employees per Room 0.9 0 0 133 133 133 270 270 270 270 270 270 Total Est. Employment 1,511 1,511 1,822 2,000 2093 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 Source: Baldwin and Sons, HR &A HR &A Advisors, Inc. Chula Vista SPA FC2 Amendment FIA I 11 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 820 Figure 7: Approved FC SPA Projection Absorption Source: Baldwin and Sons, HR &A HR &A Advisors, Inc. 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Chula Vista SPA FC2 Amendment FIA 1 12 Page 821 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Cumulative Land Use Program Land Use Multi - Family Residential Units (Includes Multi -Use Residential) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MF Attached Townhomes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MF Attached Apartments 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Retail Commercial SF 680,000 680,000 760,000 887,000 1,064,000 1,214,000 1,214,000 1,214,000 1,214,000 1,214,000 1,214,000 Freeway Commercial - Parcel 1 680,000 680,000 760,000 840,000 867,000 867,000 867,000 867,000 867,000 867,000 867,000 Freeway Commercial - Parcel 2 0 0 0 47,000 197,000 347,000 347,000 347,000 347,000 347,000 347,000 Retail Commercial Acres 67.6 67.6 75.6 88.2 105.8 120.7 120.7 120.7 120.7 120.7 120.7 Hotel Rooms 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hotel Acres 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Parks 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 CPF 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 School 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Acres 67.6 67.6 75.6 88.2 105.8 120.7 120.7 120.7 120.7 120.7 120.7 Cumulative Population Multi Family Persons /DU p@ 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Est. Population 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Employment Retail SF /Emp p@ 450 1,511 1,511 1,689 1,971 2364 2,698 2,698 2,698 2,698 2,698 2,698 Hotel Employees per Room 0.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Est. Employment 1,511 1,511 1,689 1,971 2,364 2,698 2,698 2,698 2,698 2,698 2,698 Source: Baldwin and Sons, HR &A HR &A Advisors, Inc. 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Chula Vista SPA FC2 Amendment FIA 1 12 Page 821 Methodology The FC2 Amendment fiscal impact analysis was prepared in accordance with the City's previously developed SPA Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA) Framework. As prescribed in the SPA Fiscal Impact Framework, HR&A used revenue and expenditure factors from the SPA Fiscal Impact Framework to estimate fiscal revenues and expenditures expected to grow proportionally with new development. Special analysis models were used to estimate revenues, such as property tax revenues, transient occupancy tax, vehicle license fee (VLF) revenues, and sales taxes that may not grow proportionately with new development. The detailed methodology of the SPA Fiscal Impact Framework is described in the memorandum "SPA Fiscal Analysis — Fiscal Model Methodology Including the Development of Fiscal Factors in the Analysis of SPA Proposals ", dated February 2008. The following methodology section highlights key inputs and updates made to the methodology for the FC2 Amendment FIA. Budget and Revenue Factors The budget revenue and expenditure factors provided by the City are based on the FY 2009 City of Chula Vista budget. Adjustments have been made to these budget factors to provide a more accurate accounting of future impacts, including: (1) an expenditure and revenue adjustment to account for appropriate service standards, (2) a retail expenditure density adjustment, and (3) a 2015 dollar adjustment. In addition, as described in the methodology section, the calculation of onsite retail sales differs from the calculation in the SPA Fiscal Impact Framework. Service Standard Adjustment (Real Inflation Adjustment) Due to the 2007 recession, the City of Chula Vista implemented several rounds of budget reduction between FY 2007 and FY 2009, cutting the City's service standard below the desired level. The expenditure and revenue adjustment factors use a 5 -year average of inflation adjusted per capita revenue and expenditures to determine an appropriate level of future expenditures and revenues. Retail Expenditure Density Factor Retail expenditure factors were developed based on historical citywide acres and account for a historical citywide floor -to -area (FAR) ratios. Based on the citywide FAR, a factor is determined that translates the retail expenditure budget acre factor into a square foot factor. Figure 8: Retail Expenditure Factor Density Adjustment Land Use Citywide Density Village Per SF Density Factor Retail 0.28 FAR 0.00008 Source: City of Chula Vista, SPA Fiscal Framework HR&A Advisors, Inc. Chula Vista SPA FC2 Amendment FIA 1 13 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 822 2015 Dollar Adjustment Finally, given that the FIA is based on FY 2009 budget, the inflation adjustment adjusts final total revenues and expenditures from 2009 dollars to 2015 dollars. It should be noted that the 2015 dollar amount is approximated using the mid -year 2014 San Diego Consumer Price Index. Revenue Methodology Special Models Special models were used to estimate fiscal impacts for property taxes, property transfer taxes, MVLF in- lieu fees, transient occupancy tax and sales tax. Special models were built based on the SPA Fiscal Framework with updated tax rates, as appropriate, and assessed value and household income inputs. Assessed Values and Property Taxes The incremental assessed value attributable to the Project is used to estimate property taxes, property transfer taxes, and MVLF in -lieu fees. The actual assessed building and improvement value for the FC1 site are used as the existing Year 0 value for the FC1 site. The current assessed value of the FC2 land reported by the County Assessor's Office and an estimate of the land value on the unimproved FC1 site are used as the base land value for undeveloped land. HR&A reviewed current market residential and commercial data and the assessed value of comparable projects to determine appropriate assessed values for new FC2 development. The capitalized value approach was used to estimate the market value of the retail properties and hotel properties as shown in Appendix Table A -5 and B -4. Retail Assessed Value The average 2014 41" quarter rental rate for shopping center retail in the greater Eastlake retail submarket was approximately $2.10 per gross leasable square foot according to Costar. This average includes a variety of retail types. HR&A reviewed historic and current retail property rents to estimate the rents for the mixed use retail product that is planned for the FC2 Amendment. Mixed use retail tends to achieve more conservative rents relative to community center and neighborhood center retail. The mixed use commercial proposed in the FC2 Amendment is most likely to be similar to mixed use retail such as Heritage Town Center at 1 392 E. Palomar Street. For the mixed -use retail in the FC2 Amendment, HR&A uses an average retail lease rent of $1.85, and a conservative capitalization rate (cap rate) based on cap rates reported by the RERC Real Estate Report. The capitalized value approach, as shown in Appendix Table A -5, provided an assessed value of approximately $240.00 per square foot of building square foot for retail uses. HR&A Advisors, Inc. Chula Vista SPA FC2 Amendment FIA 1 14 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 823 Figure 9: 302013 East Chula Vista Retail Properties For Lease Windingwalk 2315 Otay Lakes Rd Neighborhood Center Rentable 2004 82.9 Average Heritage Town Center 1392 E Palomar St Mixed Use Retail Building 2003 Percent Monthly Building Name Building Address Property Type Area Year Built Leased Weighted Rent 2110 Birch Rd Community Center 8,686 2008 26.87 $2.25 1741 Eastlake Pky Community Center 10,387 2008 62.74 $2.25 The Marketplace at 1745 Eastlake Pky Community Center 106,000 2008 96.12 $2.25 Windingwalk 2315 Otay Lakes Rd Neighborhood Center 8,400 2004 82.9 $3.50 Heritage Town Center 1392 E Palomar St Mixed Use Retail 38,000 2003 93.61 $1.95 2318 Proctor Valley Rd Neighborhood Center 12,109 2007 69.5 $2.00 2322 Proctor Valley Rd Neighborhood Center 11,896 2007 57.91 $2.00 851 -881 Showroom PI Community Center 162,967 2006 85.47 $1.81 891 Showroom PI Community Center 14,542 2006 87.19 $2.45 Average 73.59 $2.27 Source: Costar and HR &A Hotel Assessed Value Current Chula Vista accommodations have low asking room rates of $60 to $120 per room. However, existing accommodations options include primarily economy -level limited service hotels. The Developer anticipates that the hotels located on the site may be similar to a Residence Inn or Courtyard by Marriott which are mid -scale to upscale in nature. The following table includes the asking room rates for comparable hotels in the San Diego area. HR&A estimates that a Residence Inn or Courtyard Marriott level hotel will have average asking rates of $150 to $200 and will achieve average revenue of between $120 to $160 per room night. Figure 1 1 shows average room metrics for San Diego County hotels. Based on a review of comparable hotels and countywide averages, we use an estimated average room rate of $140 to estimate the assessed value. Using standard industry margins and a current cap rate of approximate 9 percent, each hotel room is projected to have a value of approximately $146,000 per room. Figure 10: Comparable Hotel Room Rates Hotel Asking Room Rate Property Type Market Segment Courtyard by Marriott Oceanside $150-$180/ Limited - Service Hotel Upscale - Limited $250 -$280 Peak Residence Inn San Diego $180-$230/ Extended Stay Hotel Upscale - Limited Oceanside $270 - $370 Peak Residence Inn San Marcos $160-$170/ Extended Stay Hotel Upscale - Limited $210 -$220 Peak Source: HR &A Advisors HR&A Advisors, Inc. Chula Vista SPA FC2 Amendment FIA 1 15 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 824 Figure 11: San Diego County Hotel Performance Hotel Market Occupancy Average Daily Rate REVPAR 2012 73.7% $155.76 $1 14.80 2013(Estimated) 73.8% $158.10 $116.65 2014 (Forecasted) 73.8% $163.46 $120.67 Source: PKF 2014 Southern California Hotel Forecast Report and HR &A Rental Residential Assessed Value Average rental apartment rents were based on an analysis of comparable Otay Ranch apartment complexes. HR&A evaluated average monthly rental rents for various rental floor plans. Six rental complexes were reviewed. Figure 12 below presents select comparable project rents and their current assessed value per unit. Based on comparable rents, the projects average monthly rent is estimated at approximately $1,850. Figure 12: Select Otay Ranch Rental Residential Comparables Apartment Rental Rates Residential Complex Bedrooms Baths Unit Size Average Monthly Rent Toscana at Rancho Del Rey 1 2 767 $1,535 $1,585 Toscana at Rancho Del Rey 2 2 1,000 $1,835 $1,985 Toscana at Rancho Del Rey 3 2 1,300 $2,030 $2,090 Sunbow Villas 1 2 715 $1,460 $1,820 Sunbow Villas 2 2 1,020 $1,800 $2,165 Camden Sierra at Otay Ranch 1 1 720 $1,559 $1,849 Camden Sierra at Otay Ranch 1 1 825 $1,659 $1,949 Terra Vista 1 1 709 $1,516 $1,636 Terra Vista 2 2 1,098 $1,904 - $2,197 Terra Vista 3 2 1,356 $1,979 $2,201 Missions at Sunbow 2 2 1,1 1 1 $1,726 $1,886 Missions at Sunbow 3 2 1,327 $2,189 $2,336 Pinnacle at Otay Ranch 1 1 809 $1,635 $1,635 Pinnacle at Otay Ranch 2 2 1,186 $1,849 $1,849 Average 996 $1,763 - $1,942 Source: HR&A It should be noted that, currently, rental residential is the highest performing real estate land use in Southern California and is the most sought after land use by investors. The new rental apartment product included within the project will likely be considered Class A product. Assuming a gross expense estimate of 30 percent and 95 percent occupancy, expected apartment rents were capitalized using a capitalization rate of 6.00 percent. Based on these calculations, rental apartments were valued at approximately $246,000. HR&A Advisors, Inc. Chula Vista SPA FC2 Amendment FIA 1 16 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 825 For -Sale Residential Assessed Value The assessed value for for -sale residential product was estimated based on recent sales of multi - family product in Otay Ranch, as shown in Figure 13. An average sales price of $325,000 was used as the assessed value for the for -sale multifamily units. Figure 13: Sales of Multi - Family Product Built Since 2010 Address City State SF Bedrooms Sales Date Sales Price Price per SF 1831 Crimson Ct #2 Chula Vista CA 1,292 3 2/4/2015 $320,000 $ 247.68 1711 Rolling Water Dr #4 Chula Vista CA 1,891 4 1/6/2015 $390,000 $ 206.24 1430 Trouville Ln #6 Chula Vista CA 1,008 2 1/2/2015 $275,000 $ 272.82 2236 Antonio Dr #19 Chula Vista CA 1,984 4 12/31/2014 $409,000 $ 206.15 1875 Violet Ct #1 Chula Vista CA 1,565 3 12/29/2014 $350,000 $ 223.64 1432 Levant Ln #5 Chula Vista CA 1,372 3 12/12/2014 $315,000 $ 229.59 1724 Rolling Water Dr #1 Chula Vista CA 1,579 2 12/12/2014 $310,000 $ 196.33 1831 Crimson Ct #3 Chula Vista CA 1,175 2 12/2/2014 $280,000 $ 238.30 1830 Crimson Ct #9 Chula Vista CA 1,175 2 11/26/2014 $275,000 $ 234.04 1824 Peach Ct #3 Chula Vista CA 1,175 2 11/24/2014 $301,000 $ 256.17 1823 Casa Morro St #21 Chula Vista CA 1,860 3 11/14/2014 $378,000 $ 203.23 2161 Barrel Ct #93 Chula Vista CA 1,581 3 11/7/2014 $352,000 $ 222.64 1713 Cripple Creek Dr #1 Chula Vista CA 1,579 2 10/30/2014 $330,000 $ 208.99 1721 Cripple Creek #1 Chula Vista CA 1,579 2 10/21/2014 $347,500 $ 220.08 1874 Violet Ct #1 Chula Vista CA 1,292 2 10/2/2014 $305,000 $ 236.07 1875 Violet Ct #3 Chula Vista CA 1,175 2 9/29/2014 $299,000 $ 254.47 1876 Caminito Treviana Chula Vista CA 1,400 2 9/4/2014 $317,000 $ 226.43 Average 1,452 $326,676 $ 228.40 Source: Trulia and HR &A Advisors Property Tax Rates The Freeway Commercial SPA is included in tax rate area 01265. The City's proportion of the 1 percent tax distribution is 10.64% within this tax rate area. Transfer taxes were assessed at $0.55 per $1000 of assessed value. VLF Fees Until July of 2011, 0.65 percent VLF revenues were estimated based on population increases while the property taxes in -lieu of VLF fees ( "MVLF In -Lieu Fees ") are based on incremental growth in assessed value. The State of California's Legislature passed SB89 in 2011 that eliminates 0.65% VLF payments as of July 2011. The California League of Cities filed suit to challenge the law, but the State Superior Court recently ruled against the League in March of 2012. HR&A Advisors, Inc. Chula Vista SPA FC2 Amendment FIA 1 17 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 826 The 0.65% VLF fees generated based on population have been excluded from this analysis. The MVLF In- Lieu Fees are still allocated proportionally, based on incremental growth in assessed value as described in the SPA Fiscal Impact Framework. Sales Tax It should be noted that the calculation of sales tax in this fiscal impact differs from the SPA FIA Framework. In the SPA FIA Framework, sales tax receipts to the City are analyzed on the basis of the project's incremental residents' retail spending. The SPA Framework used this sales tax analysis approach to ensure that retail sales tax receipts were not double counted by both the developer of a new retail shopping center and by a separate developer of nearby residential whose spending will support the new center. To better understand the variation in fiscal revenues generated from the different levels of commercial development in the FC2 Amendment and the Approved SPA, this analysis evaluates sales tax receipts based on the gross leasable square feet within each of the sites4. Estimated taxable sales for the existing FC1 site is based on current Chula Vista taxable sales averages and the taxable sales for new retail was estimated based on average California taxable sales per square estimates produced by HdL. Taxables sales per square foot of $270 and a 95 percent occupancy rate were used to estimate the taxables sales from both existing and future retail development. Other Discretionary Revenues As described above, revenue factors from the SPA Fiscal Framework were used to estimate revenues that are expected to grow proportionally with development. These are derived in Appendix Tables A -10 & A- 1 1 and B -8 & B -9. These factors are summarized in the table below. Figure 14: Other Discretionary Revenue Factors Summary of Other Discretionary Revenue Factors Hotel Commercial (Per Acre) $839.44 Retail Commercial ( Per SF) $0.07 Residential (Acre) $1,600.36 Residential (Per DU) $3.60 Employees (Per Employee) $19.45 Population (Per Resident) $3.86 Source: City of Chula Vista and HR &A Advisors Expenditure Methodology As described above, expenditure factors from the SPA Fiscal Framework were used to estimate expenditures that are expected to grow proportionally with development. The factors provided by the City of Chula Vista are shown in Appendix Table A -7 & B -6 and are summarized below. Special models are used to estimate the allocation of public safety fiscal expenditures generated by dwelling units. The public safety expenditures allocated to dwelling units are estimated proportionally 4 As such, the FC Amendment FIA should not be considered additive to other fiscal impact analysis results in Otay Ranch. HR&A Advisors, Inc. Chula Vista SPA FC2 Amendment FIA 1 18 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 827 (there are no adjustments at this time), but are presented in a special model because these costs are typically a major fiscal expenditure. Figure 15: Expenditure Factors and Public Safety Dwelling Unit Factors Expenditure Factors Retail (Per SF) $1.36 Hotel (Acres) $11,584 Population (Per Resident) $76.53 Private Parks (Acres) $160.46 Public Use (Per Acre) $2,710.85 Dwelling Unit Factor $119.40 (Not including Public Safety) Special Model Factors Approved FC SPA FC2 Amendment Police (Per DU) $293.70 $293.70 Fire (Per DU) $210.64 $210.64 Source: City of Chula Vista and HR &A Advisors HR&A Advisors, Inc. Chula Vista SPA FC2 Amendment FIA 1 19 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 828 Fiscal Impacts The following section describes the fiscal impacts generated by the FC2 Amendment and the Approved FC SPA scenarios. Figure 16 and Figure 17 present the annual fiscal revenues and annual fiscal expenditures of each of the scenarios. As described in the Methodology section, the tables present anticipated revenues estimated based on special models such as property taxes, MVLF in -lieu fee revenues, transient occupancy tax, and sales and use tax, and other revenues, calculated on a pro rata basis, are summarized. Estimated expenditures are calculated and presented by land use category.5 The figures in these tables have been adjusted to reflect 2015 dollars. FC2 Amendment Figure 16 presents the annual fiscal revenues and fiscal expenditures of the FC2 Amendment. The detailed analysis of the FC2 Amendment is included within Appendix A. Using the methodology described above, the FC2 Amendment will generate annual fiscal revenues of approximately $4.80 million in Year 10 (2015 dollars). Sales and use tax receipts represent 55 percent of revenues and are the greatest sources of fiscal revenue. Annual sales tax receipts are currently estimated at $1.84 million and are expected to grow by $778,000 at buildout of retail properties in Year 5. Transient occupancy tax (TOT) are the second greatest source of revenue for the FC2 Amendment scenario. At approximately $1.17 million annually at build out, TOT receipts are projected to generate approximately 25 percent of the total revenues. TOT will begin to be generated with the first hotel in Year 2, which will reach full occupancy (70 %) in Year 3. The second hotel and its related TOT taxes are projected to come online in Year 5 with TOT growing at full occupancy in Year 6. The FC2 Amendment is projected to generate annual expenditures of $2.26 million in Year 10 (2015 dollars). Public safety (police and fire) are the City's greatest fiscal costs and are expected to be the greatest costs generated as a result of new development. Including both the dwelling unit allocation and allocations of public safety costs from other land uses, the FC2 Amendment will generate approximately $1.26 million in public safety costs. In Year 10, the FC2 Amendment is expected to generate a positive net fiscal impact of approximately $2.54 million. The Freeway Commercial SPA, including all onsite retail tax receipts, currently generates an estimated $1.00 million positive net fiscal revenue to the City annually. This net fiscal revenue grows with the build out of the retail developments and hotel developments. One -time property transfer and the incremental property taxes create the largest spikes after the inclusion of the hotels in Year 2 and Year 5. Net fiscal revenues grow on a constant basis after Year 7. 5 Also includes expenditures calculated based on population. HR&A Advisors, Inc. Chula Vista SPA FC2 Amendment FIA 1 20 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 829 Figure 16: FC2 Amendment Fiscal Impact (2015 $) 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 2075 Dollar Inflation Factor 7.095 7.095 7.095 7.095 7.095 7.095 7.095 7.095 7.095 7.095 7.095 Revenues Property Taxes $151,249 $151,249 $151,400 $193,236 $252,906 $343,356 $445,798 $447,556 $449,842 $452,634 $455,908 Property Transfer Taxes $0 $3,911 $3,989 $29,665 $41,154 $60,156 $69,862 $16,514 $16,844 $17,181 $17,525 VLF Revenues $107,880 $107,987 $137,828 $180,388 $244,902 $317,970 $319,224 $320,855 $322,846 $325,181 $327,848 Sales and Use Tax $1,841,152 $2,012,317 $2,249,251 $2,489,140 $2,613,250 $2,619,223 $2,619,223 $2,619,223 $2,619,223 $2,619,223 $2,619,223 Transient Occupancy Tax $0 $414,009 $579,613 $579,613 $1,004,812 $1,174,891 $1,174,891 $1,174,891 $1,174,891 $1,174,891 Other Revenues $95,869 $95,869 $113,690 $137,786 $170,410 $201,696 $201,696 $201,696 $201,696 $201,696 $201,696 Total Annual Revenues $2,196,150 $2,371,333 $3,070,167 $3,609,828 $3,902,236 $4,547,213 $4,830,694 $4,780,735 $4,785,342 $4,790,806 $4,797,091 Expenditures Retail (SF) $1,181,099 $1,181,099 $1,320,051 $1,459,004 $1,531,954 $1,531,954 $1,531,954 $1,531,954 $1,531,954 $1,531,954 $1,531,954 Hotel (Acres) $0 $0 $46,150 $46,150 $46,150 $93,548 $93,548 $93,548 $93,548 $93,548 $93,548 Park (Acres) $0 $0 $0 $82 $254 $411 $411 $411 $411 $411 $411 Population (Persons) $0 $0 $0 $30,723 $94,730 $153,616 $153,616 $153,616 $153,616 $153,616 $153,616 Expenditures Allocated to DUs (excluding Public Safety) $0 $0 $0 $18,367 $56,630 $91,833 $91,833 $91,833 $91,833 $91,833 $91,833 Public Safety Costs Allocated to DUs $0 $0 $0 $77,577 $239,195 $387,884 $387,884 $387,884 $387,884 $387,884 $387,884 Total Annual Expenditures $1,181,099 $1,181,099 $1,366,202 $1,631,904 $1,968,914 $2,259,247 $2,259,247 $2,259,247 $2,259,247 $2,259,247 $2,259,247 Net Fiscal Impact $1,015,051 $1,190,234 $1,703,965 $1,977,925 $1,933,322 $2,287,966 $2,571,447 $2,521,488 $2,526,095 $2,531,559 $2,537,844 Source: HR &A Advisors HR &A Advisors, Inc. Chula Vista SPA FC2 Amendment FIA 1 21 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 830 Approved FC SPA Figure 17 presents the annual fiscal revenues and fiscal expenditures of the Approved FC SPA. Using the methodology described above, the Approved FC SPA will generate fiscal revenues of approximately $4.11 million in Year 10 (2015 dollars). Sales and use tax receipts are the greatest sources of fiscal revenue in the Approved FC SPA scenario. Sales tax receipts make up almost 85 percent of total revenues. Current sales tax receipts are estimated at $1.84 million annually. With a greater amount of future retail in this scenario, sales tax receipts are expected to grow by $1.60 million at buildout of retail properties in Year 5. After sales tax receipts, property tax, at $280,000 annually, and VLF "in -lieu" fee revenues, $200,000 annually, are the next greatest sources of revenue. The Approved FC SPA is projected to generate annual expenditures of $2.11 million in Year 10 (2015 dollars). Public safety costs are also expected to be the greatest costs generated as a result of new development. Within the retail land use factor, public safety costs account for more than 50 percent of the costs, or $1.14 million. In Year 10, the Approved FC SPA is expected to generate a positive net fiscal impact of approximately $2.00 million. Similar to the FC2 Amendment, the Approved FC SPA currently generates a net fiscal revenue of $1.00 million to the City. As additional retail development is absorbed, the annual net fiscal revenue increases. In this scenario, the retail is projected to be fully built out in Year 5. Net fiscal revenues stabilize in Year 6 and grow on a constant basis, thereafter. HR&A Advisors, Inc. Chula Vista SPA FC2 Amendment FIA 1 22 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 831 Figure 17: Approved FC SPA Fiscal Impact (2015$) 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 2074 Dollar Inflation Factor 7.095 7.095 7.095 7.095 7.095 7.095 7.095 7.095 7.095 7.095 7.095 Revenues Property Taxes $151,249 $151,249 $151,400 $169,222 $198,245 $239,763 $276,205 $277,401 $278,876 $280,623 $282,635 Property Transfer Taxes $0 $3,911 $3,989 $16,119 $24,277 $33,593 $31,363 $8,757 $8,932 $9,111 $9,293 VLF Revenues $107,880 $107,987 $120,699 $141,400 $171,014 $197,006 $197,859 $198,911 $200,157 $201,592 $203,212 Sales and Use Tax $1,841,152 $2,012,317 $2,249,060 $2,604,744 $3,064,243 $3,443,841 $3,443,841 $3,443,841 $3,443,841 $3,443,841 $3,443,841 Transient Occupancy Tax $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Other Revenues $95,869 $95,869 $107,148 $125,053 $150,007 $171,154 $171,154 $171,154 $171,154 $171,154 $171,154 Total Annual Revenues $2,196,150 $2,371,333 $2,632,296 $3,056,538 $3,607,785 $4,085,358 $4,120,423 $4,100,065 $4,102,961 $4,106,321 $4,110,135 Expenditures Retail (SF) $1,181,099 $1,181,099 $1,320,051 $1,540,639 $1,848,072 $2,108,609 $2,108,609 $2,108,609 $2,108,609 $2,108,609 $2,108,609 Hotel (Acres) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Park (Acres) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Population (Persons) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Open Space (Acres) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Public Use (Acres) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Expenditures Allocated to DUs (excluding Public Safety) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Public Safety Costs Allocated to DUs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Annual Expenditures $1,181,099 $1,181,099 $1,320,051 $1,540,639 $1,848,072 $2,108,609 $2,108,609 $2,108,609 $2,108,609 $2,108,609 $2,108,609 Net Fiscal Impact $1,015,051 $1,190,234 $1,312,245 $1,515,899 $1,759,713 $1,976,749 $2,011,815 $1,991,456 $1,994,352 $1,997,713 $2,001,526 Source: HR &A Advisors HR &A Advisors, Inc. Chula Vista SPA FC2 Amendment FIA 1 23 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 832 Net Fiscal Impact Conclusions Both the FC2 Amendment and Approved FC SPA are projected to generate a positive net fiscal revenue to the City of Chula Vista in Year 10. In Year 10, the FC2 Amendment is expected to generate $540,000 more than the Approved FC SPA. Figure 18 presents the annual opportunity (cost) /benefit between the two scenarios. Key variations in fiscal impacts include sales tax differences, TOT differences, and property tax receipt differences. The FC2 Amendment generates $820,000 less in sales tax revenues than the Approved FC SPA, but generates $1.17 million in TOT that is not generated in the Approved FC SPA, assuming it is built fully as retail. Overall, development of the FC2 Amendment is not expected to adversely impact the City of Chula Vista's quality of life. However, given that TOT receipts are key fiscal revenues, the timing and number of hotel rooms that are successful developed will impact the City net fiscal impacts The next section presents a sensitivity analysis evaluating the variation in net fiscal impact at various room rates and at different levels of hotel room absorption. HR&A Advisors, Inc. Chula Vista SPA FC2 Amendment FIA 1 24 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 833 Figure 18: Annual Comparison of FC2 Amendment Relative to Approved FC SPA (2015 $) Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Total Revenue 0 $0 $0 $437,871 $553,290 $294,450 $461,855 $710,271 $680,670 $682,381 $684,485 $686,956 Total Expenditure 4 $0 $0 $46,150 $91,264 $120,842 $150,639 $150,639 $150,639 $150,639 $150,639 $150,639 Difference in Net Fiscal Impacts (2015 Dollars) $0 $0 $391,720 $462,026 $173,608 $311,217 $559,632 $530,031 $531,743 $533,847 $536,318 Source: HR &A HR &A Advisors, Inc. 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Chula Vista SPA FC2 Amendment FIA 1 25 Page 834 Sensitivity Analysis The sensitivity matrix presents the opportunity (cost) /benefit of the FC2 Amendment relative to the Approved FC SPA for three different levels of hotel rooms and at three different estimated average hotel room rates. The opportunity (cost) /benefit represents the FC2 Amendment net fiscal impacts less the base Approved FC SPA scenario's net fiscal impacts. Based on absorption information from the Developer and HR&A's brief survey of the San Diego and Chula Vista hotel market, the FIA includes the projected average room rate ($140) and number of hotel rooms (300). The current assumption is highlighted in the sensitivity matrix. Three different hotel amounts have been modeled to provide the City with information regarding varying scenarios. Hotel Room Scenarios: • 148 Rooms. Only one hotel gets built in Year 2. • 175 Rooms. Point of Neutrality. One hotel gets built in Year 2 and 27 additional rooms are built in Year 56. • 300 Rooms. The Developer anticipates the development of two hotels, one with 148 and another with 152 rooms each. The FIA models a 148 -room hotel in Year 2 and a second hotel with 152 rooms in Year 5. Figure 19: Hotel Sensitivity Analysis FC2 Amendment Average Room Rate Sensitivity Matrix $120 $140 $160 148 Hotel Rooms Net Fiscal Impact $1,799,200 $1,888,700 $1,978,200 Opportunity (Cost) Gain - $202,315 - $112,800 - $23,300 175 Hotel Rooms (Point of Neutrality) Net Fiscal Impact $2,004,037 Opportunity (Cost) Gain $2,500 300 tel Rooms Net Fiscal Impact $2,356,088 $2,537,800 $2,719,500 Opportunity (Cost) /Gain $354,600 $536,300 $718,000 Source: HR &A Advisors Please note, the sensitivity analysis does not assume that changes in hotel rooms impact other uses, Le the land planned for hotel is not assumed to be used for retail or any other interim or permanent purpose, but is instead assumed to remain vacant. As shown above, the FC2 Amendment generates positive net fiscal impacts within the $120 to $160 average room rate range and 175 to 300 hotel rooms range. However, if only one hotel is built, of approximately 148 rooms, there will be an opportunity cost of the FC2 Amendment relative to the Approved FC SPA. At an average room rate of $140 per room night, 175 hotel rooms is the point of neutrality between the FC2 Amendment and Approved FC SPA. Assuming an average of $140 per room night and assuming that 6 Note that it is not likely that a new hotel will be built with 27 rooms (though an expansion of an existing hotel may be possible). Instead, this number of rooms is included to understand the theoretical point of neutrality of the project in terms of hotel rooms. HR&A Advisors, Inc. Chula Vista SPA FC2 Amendment FIA 1 26 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 835 the amount of land used for hotel uses does not change, every additional hotel room adds approximately $4,000 in additional benefit above the approved scenario, 90 percent from additional TOT receipts and the balance from additional property taxes.? 7 Please note, this metric is not true on all scales, but near the 200 hotel room mark, the $4,000 per room net fiscal impact variation is a reasonable benchmark. HR&A Advisors, Inc. Chula Vista SPA FC2 Amendment FIA 1 27 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 836 Appendices A - FC2 Amendment Fiscal Impact Analysis B - Approved FC SPA Fiscal Impact Analysis HR &A Advisors, Inc. Chula Vista SPA FC2 Amendment FIA 1 28 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 837 Appendix A Freeway Commercial Amendment 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 838 Anply;r. Arlvixs..i{i. Table A -1 Proposed Land Uses Approved SPA Freeway Commercial Amendment Land Use Single Family Residential Units 0 0 Multi - Family Residential Units 0 600 (26.70 Ac.) MF Attached - For Sale Townhomes 0 290 MF Attached - Rental Apartments 0 310 Retail Commercial Square Feet (SF)' 1,214,000 (120.7 Ac) 882,000 (86.20 Ac.) Hotels (Rooms) Parks CPF School Subtotal Developed Acres Open Space Preserve Other Acres /ROW Total Acres Population Multi Family Persons /DU@ 2.61 Total Est. Population Employment Retail SF /Emp 450 Hotel Employees per Room 0.90 Total Est. Employment Mixed Use retail acreage is included with residential Source: Baldwin and Sons, City of Chula Vista and HR &A Advisors 0 300 (6.30 Ac.) 0.0 2.0 (2 Ac. onsite) 0.00 0.0 0.0 120.7 121.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 120.7 121.2 0 1,566 0 1,566 2,698 1,960 0 270 2,698 2,230 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 839 rl I yp� Table A -2 Historical Housing Absorption Housing Units Family Multi Family Total 2,000 35,671 19,975 55,646 2,001 37,215 20,441 57,656 2,002 39,286 21,305 60,591 2,003 40,969 22,545 63,514 2,004 42,986 23,235 66,221 2,005 45,163 24,066 69,229 2,006 46,446 25,308 71,754 2,007 47,133 26,067 73,200 2,008 47,614 26,417 74,031 2,009 47,817 26,722 74,539 2,010 51,938 27,478 79,416 2,011 52,155 27,625 79,780 2,012 52,522 27,886 80,408 2,013 52,912 28,339 81,251 2,014 53,251 28,775 82,026 Change in Housing Units Family Multi Family Total 2000 2001 1,544 466 2,010 2002 2,071 864 21935 2003 1,683 1,240 2,923 2004 2,017 690 21707 2005 2,177 831 31008 2006 1,283 1,242 2,525 2007 687 759 1,446 2008 481 350 831 2009 203 305 508 2010 190 200 390 2011 217 147 364 2012 367 261 628 2013 390 453 843 2014 339 436 775 Source: California Department of Finance E -5 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 840 HPsLA Table A -3 Proposed Land Uses Freeway Commercial Amendment 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Cumulative Land Use Program Land Use Multi - Family Residential Units (Includes Multi -Use Residential) 0 0 0 120 370 600 600 600 600 600 600 MF Attached Townhomes 0 0 0 90 190 290 290 290 290 290 290 MF Attached Apartments (Mixed Use) 0 0 0 30 180 310 310 310 310 310 310 Retail Commercial SF 680,000 680,000 760,000 840,000 882,000 882,000 882,000 882,000 882,000 882,000 882,000 Freeway Commercial - Parcel 1 680,000 680,000 760,000 840,000 867,000 867,000 867,000 867,000 867,000 867,000 867,000 Mixed Use Commercial - Parcel 2 0 0 0 0 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 Retail Commercial Acres 67.6 67.6 75.6 83.5 86.2 86.2 86.2 86.2 86.2 86.2 86.2 Hotel Rooms 0 0 148 148 148 300 300 300 300 300 300 Hotel Acres 0 0 3 3 3 6 6 6 6 6 6 Parks 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.2 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 CPF 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 School 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Acres 67.6 67.6 78.7 92.4 107.0 121.2 121.2 121.2 1 21 .2 121.2 121.2 Cumulative Population Multi Family Persons /DU@ 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 313 966 1,566 1,566 1,566 1,566 1,566 1,566 Total Est. Population 0.0 0.0 0.0 313 966 1,566 1,566 1,566 1,566 1,566 1,566 Employment Retail SF /Emp@ 450 1,511 1,511 1,689 1,867 1960 1,960 1,960 1,960 1,960 1,960 1,960 Hotel Employees per Room 0.9 0 0 133 133 133 270 270 270 270 270 270 Total Est. Employment 1,511 1,511 1,822 2,000 2093 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 Source: Baldwin and Sons and HR &A Advisors 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 841 HP&A Table A -4 Chula Vista - Expenditure Real Inflation Adjustment' 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Population Households City Staff Revenues (Actuals) Expenditures (Actuals) CPI (San Diego Area) Expenditure/Capita Revenues /Capita 2009 CPI Adjustment Factor Exp/Cap in 2009 Dollars Rev /Cap in 2009 Dollars Expenditure Adjustment Factor Revenue Adjustment Factor (Relative to 2009 Levels) Provided by the City of Chula Vista Source: City of Chula Vista and HR &A Advisors 216,961 223,604 227,850 231,157 234,011 70,916 73,365 74,527 75,259 75,752 1,169 1,227 1,264 1,249 1,110 $137,763,583 $157,809,965 $161,564,721 $153,938,093 $140,502,938 $142,195,531 $160,826,968 $166,056,406 $155,021,736 $140,365,277 220.6 228.1 233.3 242.3 242.3 $655.40 $719.25 $728.80 $670.63 $599.82 $634.97 $705.76 $709.08 $665.95 $600.41 1.10 1.06 1.04 1.00 1.00 $719.87 $764.02 $756.91 $670.63 $599.82 $697.43 $749.69 $736.44 $665.95 $600.41 120% 127% 126% 112% 100% 116% 125% 123% 111% 100% 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 842 Ev Table A -5 Chula Vista Estimated Commercial Assessed Value Commercial Land Uses Building Admin /Vacancy Assessed Mo. Rent NNN /SF Efficiency Occupancy Rate Cost Net Income /SF Cap Rate Value Per SF Retail $1.85 90% 95% 5% 18.03 7.5% o 240.43 Avg. Room Price Avg. Annual Rev. Per Assessed per Night Occupancy Rate Room Other Revenues Other Revenues Hotel Net Income Net Income /Unit Cap Rate Value per Unit 5% of Room Hotel $140 70% $35,770 Revenues $1,790 35% $13,146 9.0% $146,067 Avg. Monthly Avg. Annual Gross Expense Assessed Value Rental Residential Land Use Rent /Unit Rent /Unit Estimate Occupancy Rate Net Income /Unit Cap Rate per Unit Rental Apartments $ 1,850 $22,200 30% 95% $ 14,763 6.00% $246,050 Source: Loopnet, RERC Real Estate Cap Rate Report, and HR &A Advisors 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 843 HL]L I m, R�higr, .lp. Table A -6 Projected Program Assessed Value 'The assessed value of existing retail square feet in Year 0 is based on reported assessed values for these properties. Source: HR &A Advisors 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 844 Freeway Commercial Amendment 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Year 01 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Est. Assessed Value Cumulative Program Assessed Value Per Unit (Millions $) Land Use MF Attached T- nhomes $325,000 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $29.3 $67.8 $94.3 $94.3 $94.3 $94.3 $94.3 $94.3 Total For Sale Product 0 0 0 29 62 94 94 94 94 94 94 Rental Residential - MF Attached Apartments $246,000 0 0 7 44 76 76 76 76 76 76 Retail Commercial SF' $240 130 130 149 168 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 Hotel (Rooms) $146,100 0 0 22 22 22 44 44 44 44 44 44 Total Income Generating Product $129.9 $129.9 $170.7 $197.4 $244.3 $298.5 $298.5 $298.5 $298.5 $298.5 $298.5 Total Assessed Value $129.9 $129.9 $170.7 $226.6 $306.1 $392.8 $392.8 $392.8 $392.8 $392.8 $392.8 'The assessed value of existing retail square feet in Year 0 is based on reported assessed values for these properties. Source: HR &A Advisors 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 844 i Table A -7 Citywide Cost Factors by Function /Department' Land Uses Population Retail Office Hotel Industrial Parks ( per acre) Public Use Open Space Other Residential (Per Person) (Per Acre) (Per Acre) (Per Acre) (Per Acre) Private Public (Per Acre) (Per Acre) (Per Acre) (Per DU) Legislative and Administration City Council $2.00 Boards and Commissions City Clerk $1.37 City Attorney $80.11 $86.52 $51.21 $21.13 $12.1 1 Administration $0.29 $0.35 Management and Information Services $4.60 Human Resources Development and Maintenance Services Economic Development Function $0.00 $301.43 $325.55 $192.68 $79.51 $0.00 Planning and Building Services $0.00 $203.44 $219.57 $130.70 $55.00 $31.70 $30.69 Engineering $274.44 $145.29 $64.57 $27.44 $15.53 $16.85 $3.07 Public Works $5,914.17 $3,131.03 $1,391.57 $591.42 $69.58 $347.89 $347.89 $68.43 General Services Public Safety Police (Excluding Residential) $11.01 $6,836.27 $6,836.27 $6,836.27 $1,006.09 $2,202.49 $2,202.49 $2,202.49 Fire (Excluding Residential) $1.05 $2,917.22 $2,917.22 $2,917.22 $396.88 $160.46 $160.46 $160.46 $160.46 $160.46 Culture and Leisure Parks and Recreation $18.90 Library $37.32 $4.77 Nature Center Sub -Total Unit Cost $76.53 $16,527.08 $13,661.45 $11,584.21 $2,177.48 $160.46 $2,448.06 $2,710.85 $160.46 $2,759.40 $119.40 Acre to SF Density Adjustment Factors 0.00008 Total - Density Adjusted Unit Costs $76.53 $1.36 $13,661.45 $11,584.21 $2,177.48 $160.46 $2,448.06 $2,710.85 $160.46 $2,759.40 $119.40 IAll Cost Factors and Subtotal Cost factors provided by the City Source: City of Chula Vista and HR &A Advisors 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 845 Table A -8 Dwelling Unit Public Safety Costs Freeway Commercial Amendment Project Residential Units Current Service Costs Police Service Costs/ DU $293.70 Fire Service Costs/ DU $210.64 i 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 120 370 600 600 600 600 600 600 Annual Public Safety (Allocated to Project Dwelling Units) Police $0 $0 $0 $35,244 $108,669 $176,220 $176,220 $176,220 $176,220 $176,220 $176,220 Fire $0 $0 $0 $25,277 $77,937 $126,384 $126,384 $126,384 $126,384 $126,384 $126,384 Total Annual Public Safety Costs $0 $0 $0 $60,521 $186,606 $302,604 $302,604 $302,604 $302,604 $302,604 $302,604 Source: City of Chula Vista and HR &A Advisors 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 846 Mi Table A -9 $1.36 $1,078,770 $1,078,770 $1,205,684 $1,332,598 $1,399,228 $1,399,228 $1,399,228 $1,399,228 $1,399,228 $1,399,228 Expenditure Summary (2009 $) Freeway Commercial Amendment $0 $0 $42,152 $42,152 $42,152 $85,443 $85,443 $85,443 $85,443 $85,443 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Expense Drivers Unit Cost Year 0 Year] Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Dwelling Units 0 0 0 120 370 600 600 600 600 600 600 Population 0 0 0 313 966 1,566 1,566 1,566 1,566 1,566 1,566 Retail (SF) 680,000 680,000 760,000 840,000 882,000 882,000 882,000 882,000 882,000 882,000 882,000 Hotel Acres 0.0 0.0 3.1 3.1 3.1 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 Park Acres 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.2 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Expenditure Adjustment Factor 777% 117% 117% 117% 117% 117% 117% 117% 117% 117% 117% Retail (SF) $1.36 $1,078,770 $1,078,770 $1,205,684 $1,332,598 $1,399,228 $1,399,228 $1,399,228 $1,399,228 $1,399,228 $1,399,228 $1,399,228 Hotel (Acres) $11,584.21 $0 $0 $42,152 $42,152 $42,152 $85,443 $85,443 $85,443 $85,443 $85,443 $85,443 Park (Acres) $160.46 $0 $0 $0 $75 $232 $376 $376 $376 $376 $376 $376 Population (Persons) $76.53 $0 $0 $0 $28,061 $86,523 $140,307 $140,307 $140,307 $140,307 $140,307 $140,307 Expenditures Allocated to DUs (excluding Public Safety) $119.40 $0 $0 $0 $16,775 $51,724 $83,877 $83,877 $83,877 $83,877 $83,877 $83,877 Public Safety Costs Allocated to DUs $0 $0 $0 $70,856 $218,472 $354,278 $354,278 $354,278 $354,278 $354,278 $354,278 Total Est. Annual Expenditures (2009 Dollars) $1,078,770 $1,078,770 $1,247,836 $1,490,518 $1,798,330 $2,063,509 $2,063,509 $2,063,509 $2,063,509 $2,063,509 $2,063,509 Source: HR &AA&isors 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 847 4 Table A -10 City of Chula Vista - Discretionary Revenues (Based on the FY 2009 Amended Budget) Non - Departmental Revenue Categories Discretionary Revenues Program Revenues Net Revenues Revenue Distribution 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 848 Amended Budget 2009 (Estimate) Fixed Revenues Variable Revenues Property Taxes Current Taxes - Secured $28,363,165 $28,363,165 $28,363,165 State Secured - Unitary $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 Current Taxes - Unsecured $979,200 $979,200 $979,200 Delinquent Taxes $590,000 $590,000 $590,000 Subtotal $30,232,365 $0 $30,232,365 $0 $30,232,365 Other Local Taxes Sales and Use Taxes $29,677,977 $29,677,977 $29,677,977 Franchise Fees $8,732,093 $8,732,093 $8,732,093 Utility Taxes $7,122,095 $7,122,095 $7,122,095 Business License Tax $1,322,847 $1,322,847 $1,322,847 Transient Occupancy Taxes $2,752,514 $2,752,514 $2,752,514 Real Property Transfer Tax $841,402 $841,402 $841,402 Subtotal $50,448,928 $0 $50,448,928 $0 $50,448,928 Use of Money and Property Subtotal $4,163,212 $0 $4,163,212 $4,163,212 $0 Revenues from other Agencies Sales Tax: Public Safety Augment $875,347 $875,347 $875,347 State Homeowners Property Tax Relief $282,800 $282,800 $282,800 State Motor Vehicle Licenses $20,215,866 $20,215,866 $20,215,866 Other Revenues from other Agencies $4,324,532 $4,324,532 $4,324,532 Subtotal $25,698,545 $25,698,545 $25,698,545 Charges for Services' Subtotal $8,854,774 $0 $8,854,774 $8,854,774 $0 Other Revenues (less CIP)z Subtotal $10,580,609 $0 $10,580,609 $10,580,609 $0 Transfers In Subtotal $12,272,473 $0 $12,272,473 $12,272,473 $0 Total Discretionary Revenues (Less CIP Transfers) $142,250,906 $0 $142,250,906 $35,871,068 $106,379,838 Includes Licenses and Permits 2Other Revenue excludes funds from the CIP fund. Fines, Forfeitures, and Penalties are included in this category. Source: City of Chula Vista 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 848 Table A -11 Chula Vista - Other Discretionary Revenue Allocation Factors (Based on 2009 Information) 2009 Citywide Conditions Population 226,694 Dwelling Units 78,615 Employees 71,153 Land Uses Developed Acres Employees (estimated) AV Share (Estimates) Commercial (Retail and Office) 2,048 46,842 25% Industrial 917 21,162 8% Residential 9,565 $68.59 Acres 67% Subtotal Taxable 12,530 68,004 $72.01 Acres Other (Parks, Public/Quasi- public, Open Space) 7,171 3,149 25% Total 19,702 71,153 Industrial AV Incremental Revenue Factors by Development Unit $979,200 Commercial AV 25% $119.51 Acres Revenue Category 2009 Revenues Allocation Method Share Allocation Units Property Taxes $3.60 Residential AV 67% $68.59 Acres Current Taxes - Secured $28,363,165 Calculated Separately 25% $72.01 Acres State Secured - Unitary $300,000 Commercial AV 25% $36.61 Acres Industrial AV 8% $26.17 Acres Other Local Taxes Residential AV 67% $21.01 Acres Current Taxes - Unsecured $979,200 Commercial AV 25% $119.51 Acres $282,800 Dwelling Units $3.60 DU State Motor Vehicle Licenses Industrial AV 8% $85.42 Acres Residential (DU) $3.60 Residential AV 67% $68.59 Acres Delinquent Taxes $590,000 Commercial AV 25% $72.01 Acres Industrial AV 8% $51.47 Acres Residential AV 67% $41.33 Acres Other Local Taxes Sales and Use Taxes $29,677,977 Calculated Separately Franchise Fees' $8,732,093 Commercial Land 7% $298.40 Acres Industrial Land 3% $285.66 Acres Residential Land 90% $821.63 Acres Utility Taxes' with Adjustment $7,122,095 Commercial Land 9% $312.92 Acres Industrial Land 4% $310.65 Acres Residential Land 87% $647.80 Acres Business License Tax $1,322,847 Employees (Non - Public) $19.45 Employees Transient Occupancy Taxes $2,752,514 Not Included Real Property Transfer Tax $841,402 Calculated Separately Revenues from Other Agencies Sales Tax: Public Safety Augment $875,347 People $3.86 Person State Homeowners Property Tax Relief $282,800 Dwelling Units $3.60 DU State Motor Vehicle Licenses $20,215,866 Calculated Separately Total Discretionary Revenues $102,055,306 Summary of Other Discretionary Revenue Factors Commercial (Acres) $839.44 Retail Commercial (SF) $0.07 Industrial (Acres) $759.37 Residential (Acres) $1,600.36 Residential (DU) $3.60 Employees $19.45 Population $3.86 1 As presented in SPA Fiscal Impact Framework, allocation share by land use based on FIND model estimates Source: City of Chula Vista and HR &A Advisors 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 849 Table A -12 Property Tax Estimate For Sale Residential Product Year Property First Sold: Yr 0 Freeway Commercial Amendment $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Yr 1 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Yr 2 Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Annual For Sale Product AV (Millions) Yr 3 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $29.3 $32.5 $32.5 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Annual Income Generating Product AV (Millions) Yr 4 $129.9 $0.0 $40.9 $26.6 $47.0 $54.2 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Appreciation Factor: Ann -I Refs Year 0 Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 Yr 5 Yr 6 Yr 7 Yr 8 Yr 9 Yr 10 Real Appreciation Rate 2.00% 100% 102% 104% 106% 108% 110% 113% 115% 117% 120% 122% Proposition 13 AV Limitation less Inflation of 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Residential Annual Turnover Rate 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% Commercial Turnover Rate 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% For Sale Residential Product Year Property First Sold: 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 850 Yr 0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Yr 1 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Yr 2 $0.00 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Yr 3 $31.0 $31.1 $31.2 $31.4 $31.6 $31.9 $32.2 $32.5 Yr 4 $35.2 $35.2 $35.4 $35.6 $35.8 $36.1 $36.5 Yr 5 $35.9 $36.0 $36.1 $36.3 $36.5 $36.9 Yr 6 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Yr 7 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Yr 8 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Yr 9 $0.0 $0.0 Yr 10 $0.0 For Sale Residential Assessed Value (Millions) $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $31.0 $66.3 $102.4 $102.7 $103.3 $104.0 $104.9 $105.9 Commercial and Rental Residential Product Year Property First Sold: Yr0 $129.9 $130.0 $130.3 $130.6 $131.1 $131.8 $132.5 $133.3 $134.3 $135.3 $136.5 Yr 1 $0.00 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Yr 2 $42.51 $42.6 $42.6 $42.8 $42.9 $43.1 $43.4 $43.6 $43.9 Yr 3 $28.24 $28.3 $28.3 $28.4 $28.5 $28.7 $28.8 $29.0 Yr 4 $50.87 $50.9 $51.0 $51.2 $51.4 $51.6 $51.9 Yr 5 $59.83 $59.9 $60.0 $60.2 $60.4 $60.7 Yr 6 $0.00 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Yr 7 $0.00 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Yr 8 $0.00 $0.0 $0.0 Yr 9 $0.00 $0.0 Yr 10 $0.00 Commercial and Rental Residential Assessed Value (Millions) $129.9 $130.0 $172.8 $201.4 $252.9 $313.6 $314.7 $316.1 $317.8 $319.8 $322.0 Total Assessed Value (Residential and Commercial) (Millions) $129.9 $130.0 $172.8 $232.5 $319.2 $415.9 $417.5 $419.4 $421.8 $424.6 $427.8 Less Bose Assessed Vole 0.0 0.0 (6.8) (75.3) (24.4) (33.7) (33.7) (33.7) (33.7) (33.7) (33.7) Incremental AV (Residential and Commercial) (Millions) $129.9 $130.0 $165.9 $217.2 $294.8 $382.8 $384.3 $386.3 $388.7 $391.5 $394.7 Total Incremental Property Taxes Collected' 1.00% $1,298,801 $1,298,801 $1,300,100 $1,659,357 $2,171,754 $2,948,466 $3,828,156 $3,843,249 $3,862,883 $3,886,853 $3,914,974 Property Tax Share to the City 10.64% $138,145 $138,145 $138,283 $176,495 $230,995 $313,608 $407,175 $408,780 $410,869 $413,418 $416,409 'With a year lag to account for property tax receipt to the City. Given the Otay Ranch Town Center is built, property tax for this parcel is Included in Year 0. Source: HR &A Advisors 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 850 Table A -13 Annual Property Transfer Tax Estimate Freeway Commercial Amendment Annual For Sale Product AV (Millions) Annual Income Generating Product AV (Millions) Appreciation Factor: Annual Rate Real Appreciation Rate 2.00% Residential Annual Turnover Rate 10% Commercial Turnover Rate 5% For Sale Residential Property Transfer Taxes Commercial and Rental Residential Product Year Property First Sold: a W-N, 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $29.3 $32.5 $32.5 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $129.9 $0.0 $40.9 $26.6 $47.0 $54.2 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Year 0 Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 Yr 5 Yr 6 Yr 7 Yr 8 Yr 9 Yr 10 100% 102% 104% 106% 108% 110% 113% 115% 117% 120% 122% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% $0 $0 $0 $17,072 $21,090 $23,485 $5,838 $5,954 $6,074 $6,195 $6,319 Yr 0' $3,572 $3,643 $3,716 $3,790 $3,866 $3,943 $4,022 $4,103 $4,185 $4,269 $4,354 Yr1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Yr 2 $23,379 $1,192 $1,216 $1,241 $1,265 $1,291 $1,316 $1,343 $1,370 Yr3 $15,534 $792 $808 $824 $841 $858 $875 $892 Yr 4 $27,980 $1,427 $1,455 $1,485 $1,514 $1,545 $1,575 Yr 5 $32,905 $1,678 $1,712 $1,746 $1,781 $1,816 Yr6 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Yr 7 $0 $0 $0 $0 Yr 8 $0 $0 $0 Yr 9 $0 $0 Yr 10 $0 Commercial and Rental Residential Property Transfer Tax $3,572 $3,643 $27,095 $20,516 $33,854 $40,324 $9,246 $9,430 $9,619 $9,811 $10,008 Total Annual Property Taxes to the City $3,572 $3,643 $27,095 $37,589 $54,944 $63,809 $15,083 $15,385 $15,693 $16,006 'The model accounts for only the property transfer tax annual allocation for the developed FC1 parcel. Source: HR &A Advisors 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 851 Table A -14 Motor Vehicle License Fee Estimates VLF Revenues' 2009 Population of the City 226,691 2009 Allocation of the 0.65% $1,328,857 Freeway Commercial Amendment 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Motor Vehicle In Lieu Fee (MVLF) Adjustment Base Year (2004) Assessed Valuation of the City (Millions) $15,596 Base Year (2004) Motor Vehicle In Lieu Fee Adjustment (MVLF) (Millions) $11.8 Cumulative AV of New Development (Millions) $129.9 $130.0 $172.8 $232.5 $319.2 $415.9 $417.5 $419.4 $421.8 $424.6 $427.8 AV Adjustment of Base Value (Millions) $0.0 $0.0 ($6.8) ($15.3) ($24.4) ($33.1) ($33.1) ($33.1) ($33.1) ($33.1) ($33.1) Adjusted Cumulative AV Development (Millions) $130 $130 $166 $217 $295 $383 $384 $386 $389 $391 $395 Cumulative Citywide AV Growth (Millions) $15,726 $15,726 $15,762 $15,813 $15,891 $15,979 $15,981 $15,982 $15,985 $15,988 $15,991 Percent Increase In AV 0.83% 0.83% 1.06% 1.39% 1.89% 2.45% 2.46% 2.48% 2.49% 2.51% 2.53% Cumulative MVLF generated by the Project $98,533 $98,632 $125,887 $164,759 $223,684 $290,422 $291,567 $293,056 $294,875 $297,008 $299,444 Total Annual MVLF Fees $98,533 $98,632 $125,887 $164,759 $223,684 $290,422 $291,567 $293,056 $294,875 $297,008 $299,444 ' As presented in the SPA Fiscal Impact Framework Source: City of Chula Vista and HRBA Advisors 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 852 Mi Table A -15 Estimated Onsite Retail Sales Tax Occupied GLA Freeway Commercial Amendment 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 793,175 Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Cumulative Retail Absorption (Square Feet) 12,825 12,825 Taxable Sales Estimate PC 1 Site - Oray Ranch Town Center - Regional /Superregional 680,000 680,000 760,000 840,000 867,000 867,000 867,000 867,000 867,000 867,000 867,000 PC 2 Site Retail 0 0 0 0 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 Gross Leasable Area Building Efficiency $234,090,000 $234,090,000 $234,090,000 $234,090,000 $234,090,000 PC 2 Site Taxable Sales Taxables Sales PSF PC 1 Site - Oray Ranch Town Center 96% 654,840 654,840 731,880 808,920 834,921 834,921 834,921 834,921 834,921 834,921 834,921 PC 2 Site Retail - Neighborhood /Community Center 90% 0 0 0 0 13,500 13,500 13,500 13,500 13,500 13,500 13,500 Occupied GLA Occupancy Rate PC 1 Site - Oray Ranch Town Center 95% 622,098 622,098 695,286 768,474 793,175 793,175 793,175 793,175 793,175 793,175 793,175 PC 2 Site Retail - Neighborhood /Community Center 95% 0 0 0 0 12,825 12,825 12,825 12,825 12,825 12,825 12,825 Taxable Sales Estimate FC1 Site Taxable Sales Est.Taxables Sales PSF PC 1 -Site - Oray Ranch Town Center $270.00 $167,966,460 $183,600,000 $205,200,000 $226,800,000 $234,090,000 $234,090,000 $234,090,000 $234,090,000 $234,090,000 $234,090,000 $234,090,000 PC 2 Site Taxable Sales Taxables Sales PSF PC 2 Site Proposed Project $270.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,462,750 $3,462,750 $3,462,750 $3,462,750 $3,462,750 $3,462,750 $3,462,750 Total Taxable Retail Sales $167,966,460 $183,600,000 $205,200,000 $226,800,000 $237,552,750 $237,552,750 $237,552,750 $237,552,750 $237,552,750 $237,552,750 $237,552,750 Annual Sales Taxes to the City @ 1 % $1,679,665 $1,836,000 $2,052,000 $2,268,000 $2,375,528 $2,375,528 $2,375,528 $2,375,528 $2,375,528 $2,375,528 $2,375,528 ' Derived based on estimate of rental rate as 25% of income American Community Survey 2009 3Board of Equalization 2009 Annual Data per county capita Source: HR&A Advisors 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 853 Table A -16 Estimated Whit, RMail Sales Tax Average Ea. HH Income' Multi Family Units For Sole Townhouses $78,000 Rent.I Ap.nments $68,000 Freeway Commercial Amendment 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Households Multi Family Units For Sole Townhouses 80% 80% 70% 60% 30% 0 0 0 90 190 290 290 290 290 290 290 MF Aa.ahed 0 0 0 30 180 310 310 310 310 310 310 Total Unirs $1,175 0 0 0 120 370 600 600 600 600 600 600 Employees 1,511 1,511 1,822 2,000 2,093 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 Aggregate HH Income 10% $0 $0 $0 $9,060,000 $27,060,000 $43,700,000 $43,700,000 $43,700,000 $43,700,000 $43,700,000 $43,700,000 Average An null - /HH 5% $0 $0 $0 $75,500 $73,135 $72,833 $72,833 $72,833 $72,833 $72,833 $72,833 Comtyw dle Income /HH2 $83,935 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Comtyw dle Recoil E.p /HH3 $36,583 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Retail Ezpenditure /HH Adj. F.C., FC SPA 10% 0% 0% 0% 90% 87% 87% 87% 87% 87% 87% 87% Project Avg. Recoil Ezpenditure /HH $0 $0 $0 $32,907 $31,876 $31,745 $31,745 $31,745 $31,745 $31,745 $31,745 Gross Retail Soles from Project 80% $142,044 $142,044 $171,276 $187,987 $196,761 $209,620 $209,620 $209,620 $209,620 $209,620 $209,620 Neghb -h.od Center 33% $0 $0 $0 $1,303,112 $3,892,078 $6,285,432 $6,285,432 $6,285,432 $6,285,432 $6,285,432 $6,285,432 Community Center 20% 0 0 0 789,765 2,358,835 3,809,353 3,809,353 3,809,353 3,809,353 3,809,353 3,809,353 Regional Center 4% 0 0 0 157,953 471,767 761,871 761,871 761,871 761,871 761,871 761,871 Super Region. l Center 7° /u 0 0 0 276,418 825,592 1,333,273 1,333,273 1,333,273 1,333,273 1,333,273 1,333,273 Other Centers 36% 0 0 0 1,421,5T 4,245,903 6,856,835 6,856,835 6,856,835 6,856,835 6,856,835 6,856,835 Off Site Shore 64% $90,908 $90,908 $109,617 $187,031 $325,201 $455,971 $455,971 $455,971 $455,971 $455,971 $455,971 Neghb -h.od Center 10% $0 $0 $0 $130,311 $389,208 $628,543 $628,543 $628,543 $628,543 $628,543 $628,543 Community Center 20% $0 $0 $0 $157,953 $471,767 $761,871 $761,871 $761,871 $761,871 $761,871 $761,871 Regio..I Center 30% $0 $0 $0 $47,386 $141,530 $228,561 $228,561 $228,561 $228,561 $228,561 $228,561 Super Region. I Center 30% $0 $0 $0 $82,925 $247,678 $399,982 $399,982 $399,982 $399,982 $399,982 $399,982 Other Centers 10% $0 $0 $0 $142,158 $424,590 $685,683 $685,683 $685,683 $685,683 $685,683 $685,683 Chul. Via. C.pture Neghb -h.od Center Community Center Regio..I Center Super Region. I Center Other Centers 80% 80% 70% 60% 30% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $104,249 $126,362 $33,170 $49,755 $42,647 $311,366 $377,4 14 $99,071 $148,607 $127,3T $502,835 $609,496 $159,993 $239,989 $205,705 $502,835 $609,496 $159,993 $239,989 $205,705 $502,835 $609,496 $159,993 $239,989 $205,705 $502,835 $609,496 $159,993 $239,989 $205,705 $502,835 $609,496 $159,993 $239,989 $205,705 $502,835 $609A96 $159,993 $239,989 $205,705 Gross Retail Soles from SPA Employees Annul Ezpenditure /Employee $1,175 Offiste Spending Neghb -h.od Center 10% $1T,556 $W,556 $214,095 $234,984 $245,951 $262,025 $262,025 $262,025 $262,025 $262,025 $262,025 Community Center 5% 88,m 88,T 8 107,048 117,492 122,976 131,013 131,013 131,013 131,013 131,013 131,013 Regional Center 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Super Regional Center 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Centers 10% 1 T ,556 W,556 214,095 234,984 245,951 262,025 262,025 262,025 262,025 262,025 262,025 Chul. Via. C.pture Neghb -h.od Center 80% $142,044 $142,044 $171,276 $187,987 $196,761 $209,620 $209,620 $209,620 $209,620 $209,620 $209,620 Community Center 80% $71,022 $71,022 $85,638 $93,994 $98,380 $104,810 $104,810 $104,810 $104,810 $104,810 $104,810 Regional Center 70% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Super Region. I Center 60% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Other Centers 30% $53,267 $53,267 $64,229 $70,495 $73,785 $78,608 $78,608 $78,608 $78,608 $78,608 $78,608 T... ble Recoil Soles %T...ble Neghb -h.od Center 64% $90,908 $90,908 $109,617 $187,031 $325,201 $455,971 $455,971 $455,971 $455,971 $455,971 $455,971 Community Center 77° /u $54,687 $54,687 $65,941 $169,674 $366,361 $550,016 $550,016 $550,016 $550,016 $550,016 $550,016 Regio..I Center 97% $0 $0 $0 $32,175 $96,099 $155,193 $155,193 $155,193 $155,193 $155,193 $155,193 Super Region. I Center 100% $0 $0 $0 $49,755 $148,607 $239,989 $239,989 $239,989 $239,989 $239,989 $239,989 Other Centers 97% $51,669 $51,669 $62,302 $109,748 $195,128 $275,783 $275,783 $275,783 $275,783 $275,783 $275,783 Tot.1 T... ble Recoil Soles $197,264 $197,264 $237,860 $548,384 $1,131,396 $1,676,952 $1,676,952 $1,676,952 $1,676,952 $1,676,952 $1,676,952 Annu.I Sales T.-to the City@ 1% $1,973 $1,972.64 $2,379 $5,484 $11,314 $16,770 $16,M $16,M $16,T70 $16,M $16,770 'DeH -d! b.sed on estimme of rent.l cote .s 32% of income �A -ic.n Community Survey 2009 3Bo. rd of Equ.Iizmion 2009 Annul Dm. per county mpit. Source: City of Chul. Via. ..d HRBA Advisors 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 854 Table A- 17 Estimated Transient Occupancy Tax Annual Transient Occupancy Tax to the City@ 10% $0 $0 $378,140 $529,396 $529,396 $917,756 $1,073,100 $1,073,100 $1,073,100 $1,073,100 $1,073,100 Source: HRBA Advisors 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 855 Freeway Commercial Amendment 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Hotel Rooms 0 0 148 148 148 300 300 300 300 300 300 Occupancy Estimated Occupancy 50% 70% 70% 60% 70% 70% 70% 70% 70% Estimated Hotel Room Nights 70% 0 0 27,010 37,814 37,814 65,554 76,650 76,650 76,650 76,650 76,650 Avg. Room Rate Room Revenues $140.00 $0 $0 $3,781,400 $5,293,960 $5,293,960 $9,177,560 $10,731,000 $10,731,000 $10,731,000 $10,731,000 $10,731,000 Annual Transient Occupancy Tax to the City@ 10% $0 $0 $378,140 $529,396 $529,396 $917,756 $1,073,100 $1,073,100 $1,073,100 $1,073,100 $1,073,100 Source: HRBA Advisors 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 855 . �lrFa'n1•. M':. Table A -18 Revenue Revenue Summary (2009 $) Annual Revenues Freeway Commercial Amendment 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 115% Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Revenue Drivers $6,949 $6,949 $6,949 $6,949 Private Employment (Employees) $19.45 $33,780 $33,780 $40,732 $44,706 $46,792 Population(Persons) 0 0 0 313 966 1,566 1,566 1,566 1,566 1,566 1,566 Private Employment (Employees) 1,511 1,511 1,822 2,000 2,093 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 Dwelling Units 0 0 0 120 370 600 600 600 600 600 600 Retail Commercial (SF) 680,000 680,000 760,000 840,000 882,000 882,000 882,000 882,000 882,000 882,000 882,000 Hotel (Acres) 0.0 0.0 3.1 3.1 3.1 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 Residential Land (Acres) 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.3 16.5 26.7 26.7 26.7 26.7 26.7 26.7 Source: HR &A Advisors 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 856 Revenue Annual Revenues Factors Revenue Adjustment Factor 115% 115% 115% 115% 115% 115% 115% 115% 115% 115% 115% Population(Persons) $3.86 $0 $0 $0 $1,390 $4,285 $6,949 $6,949 $6,949 $6,949 $6,949 $6,949 Private Employment (Employees) $19.45 $33,780 $33,780 $40,732 $44,706 $46,792 $49,851 $49,851 $49,851 $49,851 $49,851 $49,851 Dwelling Units $3.60 $0 $0 $0 $496 $1,530 $2,480 $2,480 $2,480 $2,480 $2,480 $2,480 Retail Commercial (SF) $0.07 $53,783 $53,783 $60,110 $66,438 $69,760 $69,760 $69,760 $69,760 $69,760 $69,760 $69,760 Commercial (Acres) $839.44 $0 $0 $2,998 $2,998 $2,998 $6,077 $6,077 $6,077 $6,077 $6,077 $6,077 Residential Land (Acres) $1,600.36 $0 $0 $0 $9,821 $30,281 $49,104 $49,104 $49,104 $49,104 $49,104 $49,104 Property Taxes $138,145 $138,145 $138,283 $176,495 $230,995 $313,608 $407,175 $408,780 $410,869 $413,418 $416,409 Property Transfer Taxes $0 $3,572 $3,643 $27,095 $37,589 $54,944 $63,809 $15,083 $15,385 $15,693 $16,006 MVLF Revenues $98,533 $98,632 $125,887 $164,759 $223,684 $290,422 $291,567 $293,056 $294,875 $297,008 $299,444 Sales and Use Tax $1,681,637 $1,837,973 $2,054,379 $2,273,484 $2,386,841 $2,392,297 $2,392,297 $2,392,297 $2,392,297 $2,392,297 $2,392,297 Transient Occupancy Tax $0 $0 $378,140 $529,396 $529,396 $917,756 $1,073,100 $1,073,100 $1,073,100 $1,073,100 $1,073,100 Total Annual Revenues $2,005,878 $2,165,884 $2,804,172 $3,297,078 $3,564,151 $4,153,248 $4,412,169 $4,366,538 $4,370,747 $4,375,737 $4,381,478 Source: HR &A Advisors 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 856 Mt, 11 Table A -19 Net Fiscal Impacts FC2 Amendment CPI ( San Diego Area)' 265.25 242.27 Freeway Commercial Amendment 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 2015 Dollar Inflation Factor 1.095 1.095 1.095 1.095 1.095 1.095 1.095 1.095 1.095 1.095 1.095 Total Expenditures $1,181,099 $1,181,099 $1,366,202 $1,631,904 $1,968,914 $2,259,247 $2,259,247 $2,259,247 $2,259,247 $2,259,247 $2,259,247 Total Revenues $2,196,150 $2,371,333 $3,070,167 $3,609,828 $3,902,236 $4,547,213 $4,830,694 $4,780,735 $4,785,342 $4,790,806 $4,797,091 Net Fiscal Impacts (2015 Dollars) $1,015,051 $1,190,234 $1,703,965 $1,977,925 $1,933,322 $2,287,966 $2,571,447 $2,521,488 $2,526,095 $2,531,559 $2,537,844 'Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2015 Approximated using mid -2014 San Diego CPI Source: HR &A Advisors 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 857 Appendix B Original Plan 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 858 :, .,�yzc, Adv 5r. A0. Table B -1 Proposed Land Uses Hotels (Rooms) Approved SPA Land Use 0.0 Single Family Residential Units 0 Multi - Family Residential Units 0 MF Attached - For Sale Townhomes 0 MF Attached - Rental Apartments 0 Retail Commercial Square Feet (SF)' 1,214,000 (120.70 Ac.) Hotels (Rooms) 0 Parks 0.0 CPF 0.00 School 0.0 Subtotal Developed Acres 120.7 Open Space 0 Preserve 0 Other Acres/ROW 0 Total Acres 120.7 Population Multi Family Persons/DUt7G 2.61 0 Total Est. Population 0 Employment Retail SF/Emp 450 2,698 Hotel Employees per Room 0.90 0 Total Est. Employment 2,698 Mixed Use retail acreage is included with residential Source: Baldwin and Sons, City of Chula Vista and HR &A Advisors 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 859 Table B -2 Proposed Land Uses Original Plan 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Cumulative Land Use Program Land Use Multi - Family Residential Units (Includes Multi -Use Residential) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MF Attached Townhomes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MF Attached Apartments 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mixed Use (Attached) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SF Acres 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MF Acres 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Retail Commercial SF 680,000 680,000 760,000 887,000 1,064,000 1,214,000 1,214,000 1,214,000 1,214,000 1,214,000 1,214,000 Freeway Commercial - Parcel 1 680,000 680,000 760,000 840,000 867,000 867,000 867,000 867,000 867,000 867,000 867,000 Freeway Commercial - Parcel 2 0 0 0 47,000 197,000 347,000 347,000 347,000 347,000 347,000 347,000 Retail Commercial Acres 67.6 67.6 75.6 88.2 105.8 120.7 120.7 120.7 120.7 120.7 120.7 Hotel Rooms 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hotel Acres 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Parks 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 CPF 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 School 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Acres 67.6 67.6 75.6 88.2 105.8 120.7 120.7 120.7 120.7 120.7 120.7 Cumulative Population Multi Family Persons /DU@ 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Est. Population 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Employment Retail SF /Emp@ 450 1,511 1,511 1,689 1,971 2364 2,698 2,698 2,698 2,698 2,698 2,698 Hotel Employees per Room 0.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Est. Employment 1,511 1,51 1 1,689 1,971 2,364 2,698 2,698 2,698 2,698 2,698 2,698 Source: Baldwin and Sons and HR &A Advisors 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 860 HP&A Table B -3 Chula Vista - Expenditure Real Inflation Adjustment' 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Population Households City Staff Revenues (Actuals) Expenditures (Actuals) CPI (San Diego Area) Expenditure/Capita Revenues /Capita 2009 CPI Adjustment Factor Exp/Cap in 2009 Dollars Rev /Cap in 2009 Dollars Expenditure Adjustment Factor Revenue Adjustment Factor (Relative to 2009 Levels) Provided by the City of Chula Vista Source: City of Chula Vista and HR &A Advisors 216,961 223,604 227,850 231,157 234,011 70,916 73,365 74,527 75,259 75,752 1,169 1,227 1,264 1,249 1,110 $137,763,583 $157,809,965 $161,564,721 $153,938,093 $140,502,938 $142,195,531 $160,826,968 $166,056,406 $155,021,736 $140,365,277 220.6 228.1 233.3 242.3 242.3 $655.40 $719.25 $728.80 $670.63 $599.82 $634.97 $705.76 $709.08 $665.95 $600.41 1.10 1.06 1.04 1.00 1.00 $719.87 $764.02 $756.91 $670.63 $599.82 $697.43 $749.69 $736.44 $665.95 $600.41 120% 127% 126% 112% 100% 116% 125% 123% 111% 100% 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 861 Table B4 Chula Vista Estimated Commercial Assessed Value Commercial Land Uses Retail Source: Loopnet, RERC Real Estate Cap Rate Report, and HR &A Advisors Building Mo. Rent NNN /5F Efficiency Occupancy Rate $1.85 90% 95% r.iw ASl. Admin /Vacancy Assessed Cost Net Income /5F Cap Rate Value Per 5F 5% $18.03 7.5% $240.43 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 862 I M 4 9MIL Table B-5 Projected Program Assessed Value I The assessed value of existing retail square feet in Year 0 is based on reported assessed values for these properties. Source: HR &A Advisors 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 863 Original Plan 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Year 01 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Est. Assessed Value Cumulative Program Assessed Value Per Unit (Millions $) Land Use MF Attached T- nhomes $325,000 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Total For Sale Product 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rental Residential - MF Attached Apartments $246,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Retail Commercial SF' $240 130 130 149 180 222 258 258 258 258 258 258 Hotel (Rooms) $146,100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Income Generating Product $129.9 $129.9 $149.1 $179.6 $222.2 $258.3 $258.3 $258.3 $258.3 $258.3 $258.3 Total Assessed Value $129.9 $129.9 $149.1 $179.6 $222.2 $258.3 $258.3 $258.3 $258.3 $258.3 $258.3 I The assessed value of existing retail square feet in Year 0 is based on reported assessed values for these properties. Source: HR &A Advisors 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 863 i Table B -6 Citywide Cost Factors by Function /Department' IAll Cost Factors and Subtotal Cost factors provided by the City Source: City of Chula Vista and HR &A Advisors 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 864 Land Uses Population Retail Office Hotel Industrial Parks ( per acre) Public Use Open Space Other Residential (Per Person) (Per Acre) (Per Acre) (Per Acre) (Per Acre) Private Public (Per Acre) (Per Acre) (Per Acre) (Per DU) Legislative and Administration City Council $2.00 Boards and Commissions City Clerk $1.37 City Attorney $80.11 $86.52 $51.21 $21.13 $12.1 1 Administration $0.29 $0.35 Management and Information Services $4.60 Human Resources Development and Maintenance Services Economic Development Function $0.00 $301.43 $325.55 $192.68 $79.51 $0.00 Planning and Building Services $0.00 $203.44 $219.57 $130.70 $55.00 $31.70 $30.69 Engineering $274.44 $145.29 $64.57 $27.44 $15.53 $16.85 $3.07 Public Works $5,914.17 $3,131.03 $1,391.57 $591.42 $69.58 $347.89 $347.89 $68.43 General Services Public Safety Police (Excluding Residential) $11.01 $6,836.27 $6,836.27 $6,836.27 $1,006.09 $2,202.49 $2,202.49 $2,202.49 Fire (Excluding Residential) $1.05 $2,917.22 $2,917.22 $2,917.22 $396.88 $160.46 $160.46 $160.46 $160.46 $160.46 Culture and Leisure Parks and Recreation $18.90 Library $37.32 $4.77 Nature Center Sub -Total Unit Cost $76.53 $16,527.08 $13,661.45 $11,584.21 $2,177.48 $160.46 $2,448.06 $2,710.85 $160.46 $2,759.40 $119.40 Acre to SF Density Adjustment Factors 0.00008 Total - Density Adjusted Unit Costs $76.53 $1.36 $13,661.45 $11,584.21 $2,177.48 $160.46 $2,448.06 $2,710.85 $160.46 $2,759.40 $119.40 IAll Cost Factors and Subtotal Cost factors provided by the City Source: City of Chula Vista and HR &A Advisors 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 864 HIS, m.a,,,_,, Table B -7 Expenditure Summary (2009 $) Original Plan 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Expense Drivers Unit Cost Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Dwelling Units 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Population 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Retail (SF) 680,000 680,000 760,000 887,000 1,064,000 1,214,000 1,214,000 1,214,000 1,214,000 1,214,000 1,214,000 Hotel Acres 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Park Acres 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Expenditure Adjustment Factor 117% 117% 117% 117% 117% 117% 117% 117% 117% 117% 117% Retail (SF) $1.36 $1,078,770 $1,078,770 $1,205,684 $1,407,160 $1,687,958 $1,925,921 $1,925,921 $1,925,921 $1,925,921 $1,925,921 $1,925,921 Hotel (Acres) $11,584.21 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Park (Acres) $160.46 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Population (Persons) $76.53 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Expenditures Allocated to DUs (excluding Public Safety) $119.40 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Public Safety Costs Allocated to DUs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Est. Annual Expenditures (2009 Dollars) $1,078,770 $1,078,770 $1,205,684 $1,407,160 $1,687,958 $1,925,921 $1,925,921 $1,925,921 $1,925,921 $1,925,921 $1,925,921 Source: HR &AA&isors 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 865 4 Table B -8 City of Chula Vista - Discretionary Revenues (Based on the FY 2009 Amended Budget) Non - Departmental Revenue Categories Discretionary Revenues Program Revenues Net Revenues Revenue Distribution 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 866 Amended Budget 2009 (Estimate) Fixed Revenues Variable Revenues Property Taxes Current Taxes - Secured $28,363,165 $28,363,165 $28,363,165 State Secured - Unitary $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 Current Taxes - Unsecured $979,200 $979,200 $979,200 Delinquent Taxes $590,000 $590,000 $590,000 Subtotal $30,232,365 $0 $30,232,365 $0 $30,232,365 Other Local Taxes Sales and Use Taxes $29,677,977 $29,677,977 $29,677,977 Franchise Fees $8,732,093 $8,732,093 $8,732,093 Utility Taxes $7,122,095 $7,122,095 $7,122,095 Business License Tax $1,322,847 $1,322,847 $1,322,847 Transient Occupancy Taxes $2,752,514 $2,752,514 $2,752,514 Real Property Transfer Tax $841,402 $841,402 $841,402 Subtotal $50,448,928 $0 $50,448,928 $0 $50,448,928 Use of Money and Property Subtotal $4,163,212 $0 $4,163,212 $4,163,212 $0 Revenues from other Agencies Sales Tax: Public Safety Augment $875,347 $875,347 $875,347 State Homeowners Property Tax Relief $282,800 $282,800 $282,800 State Motor Vehicle Licenses $20,215,866 $20,215,866 $20,215,866 Other Revenues from other Agencies $4,324,532 $4,324,532 $4,324,532 Subtotal $25,698,545 $25,698,545 $25,698,545 Charges for Services' Subtotal $8,854,774 $0 $8,854,774 $8,854,774 $0 Other Revenues (less CIP)z Subtotal $10,580,609 $0 $10,580,609 $10,580,609 $0 Transfers In Subtotal $12,272,473 $0 $12,272,473 $12,272,473 $0 Total Discretionary Revenues (Less CIP Transfers) $142,250,906 $0 $142,250,906 $35,871,068 $106,379,838 Includes Licenses and Permits 2Other Revenue excludes funds from the CIP fund. Fines, Forfeitures, and Penalties are included in this category. Source: City of Chula Vista 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 866 Table B -9 Chula Vista - Other Discretionary Revenue Allocation Factors (Based on 2009 Information) 2009 Citywide Conditions Population 226,694 Dwelling Units 78,615 Employees 71,153 Land Uses Developed Acres Employees (estimated) AV Share (Estimates) Commercial (Retail and Office) 2,048 46,842 25% Industrial 917 21,162 8% Residential 9,565 $68.59 Acres 67% Subtotal Taxable 12,530 68,004 $72.01 Acres Other (Parks, Public/Quasi- public, Open Space) 7,171 3,149 25% Total 19,702 71,153 Industrial AV Incremental Revenue Factors by Development Unit $979,200 Commercial AV 25% $119.51 Acres Revenue Category 2009 Revenues Allocation Method Share Allocation Units Property Taxes $3.60 Residential AV 67% $68.59 Acres Current Taxes - Secured $28,363,165 Calculated Separately 25% $72.01 Acres State Secured - Unitary $300,000 Commercial AV 25% $36.61 Acres Industrial AV 8% $26.17 Acres Other Local Taxes Residential AV 67% $21.01 Acres Current Taxes - Unsecured $979,200 Commercial AV 25% $119.51 Acres $282,800 Dwelling Units $3.60 DU State Motor Vehicle Licenses Industrial AV 8% $85.42 Acres Residential (DU) $3.60 Residential AV 67% $68.59 Acres Delinquent Taxes $590,000 Commercial AV 25% $72.01 Acres Industrial AV 8% $51.47 Acres Residential AV 67% $41.33 Acres Other Local Taxes Sales and Use Taxes $29,677,977 Calculated Separately Franchise Fees' $8,732,093 Commercial Land 7% $298.40 Acres Industrial Land 3% $285.66 Acres Residential Land 90% $821.63 Acres Utility Taxes' with Adjustment $7,122,095 Commercial Land 9% $312.92 Acres Industrial Land 4% $310.65 Acres Residential Land 87% $647.80 Acres Business License Tax $1,322,847 Employees (Non - Public) $19.45 Employees Transient Occupancy Taxes $2,752,514 Not Included Real Property Transfer Tax $841,402 Calculated Separately Revenues from Other Agencies Sales Tax: Public Safety Augment $875,347 People $3.86 Person State Homeowners Property Tax Relief $282,800 Dwelling Units $3.60 DU State Motor Vehicle Licenses $20,215,866 Calculated Separately Total Discretionary Revenues $102,055,306 Summary of Other Discretionary Revenue Factors Commercial (Acres) $839.44 Retail Commercial (SF) $0.07 Industrial (Acres) $759.37 Residential (Acres) $1,600.36 Residential (DU) $3.60 Employees $19.45 Population $3.86 1 As presented in SPA Fiscal Impact Framework, allocation share by land use based on FIND model estimates Source: City of Chula Vista and HR &A Advisors 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 867 i i Table B -10 Property Tax Estimate Commercial and Rental Residential Product $129.9 $130.0 Original Plan $183.1 $229.7 $270.3 $271.3 $272.6 $274.1 Year Property First Sold: $277.8 Less Base Assessed Value 0.0 0.0 2014 2015 2016 2017 (33.7) 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 $132.5 $133.3 $134.3 Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 $0.00 $0.0 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 $0.0 Annual For Sale Product AV (Millions) Yr 2 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Annual Income Generating Product AV (Millions) $32.4 $129.9 $0.0 $19.2 $30.5 $42.6 $36.1 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Appreciation Factor: Annual Rate Year 0 Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 Yr 5 Yr 6 Yr 7 Yr 8 Yr 9 Yr 10 Real Appreciation Rate 2.00% 100% 102% 104% 106% 108% 110% 113% 115% 1 17% 120% 122% Proposition 13 AV Limitation less Inflation of 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Residential Annual Turnover Rate 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% Commercial Turnover Rate 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% Commercial and Rental Residential Product $129.9 $130.0 $150.3 $183.1 $229.7 $270.3 $271.3 $272.6 $274.1 Year Property First Sold: $277.8 Less Base Assessed Value 0.0 0.0 (5.0) (72.8) (23.8) (33.7) (33.7) Yr0 $129.9 $130.0 $130.3 $130.6 $131.1 $131.8 $132.5 $133.3 $134.3 $135.3 $136.5 Yr 1 $0.00 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Yr 2 $20.01 $20.0 $20.1 $20.1 $20.2 $20.3 $20.4 $20.5 $20.7 Yr 3 $138,283 $32.40 $32.4 $32.5 $32.6 $32.7 $32.9 $33.1 $33.3 Yr 4 $46.06 $46.1 $46.2 $46.3 $46.5 $46.7 $47.0 Yr 5 $39.82 $39.9 $39.9 $40.1 $40.2 $40.4 Yr 6 $0.00 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Yr 7 $0.00 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Yr 8 $0.00 $0.0 $0.0 Yr 9 $0.00 $0.0 Yr 10 $0.00 Commercial and Rental Residential Assessed Value (Millions) $129.9 $130.0 $150.3 $183.1 $229.7 $270.3 $271.3 $272.6 $274.1 $275.8 $277.8 Total Assessed Value (Residential and Commercial) (Millions) $129.9 $130.0 $150.3 $183.1 $229.7 $270.3 $271.3 $272.6 $274.1 $275.8 $277.8 Less Base Assessed Value 0.0 0.0 (5.0) (72.8) (23.8) (33.7) (33.7) (33.7) (33.7) (33.7) (33.7) Incremental AV (Residential and Commercial) (Millions) $129.9 $130.0 $145.3 $170.2 $205.9 $237.2 $238.2 $239.5 $241.0 $242.7 $244.7 Total Incremental Property Taxes Collected' 1.00% $1,298,801 $1,298,801 $1,300,100 $1,453,142 $1,702,370 $2,058,892 $2,371,825 $2,382,096 $2,394,762 $2,409,762 $2,427,037 Property Tax Share to the City 10.64% $138,145 $138,145 $138,283 $154,561 $181,070 $218,990 $252,275 $253,367 $254,715 $256,310 $258,147 'With a year lag to account for property tax receipt to the City. Given the Otay Ranch Town Center is built, property tax for this parcel is included in Year 0. Source: HRBA Advisors 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 868 Table B -11 Annual Property Transfer Tax Estimate Oriainal Plan Annual For Sale Product AV (Millions) Annual Income Generating Product AV (Millions) Appreciation Factor: Annual Rate Real Appreciation Rate 2.00% Residential Annual Turnover Rate 10% Commercial Turnover Rate 5% For Sale Residential Property Transfer Taxes Commercial and Rental Residential Product Year Property First Sold: a W-N, 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $129.9 $0.0 $19.2 $30.5 $42.6 $36.1 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Year 0 Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 Yr 5 Yr 6 Yr 7 Yr 8 Yr 9 Yr 10 100% 102% 104% 106% 108% 110% 113% 115% 117% 120% 122% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Yr 0' $3,572 $3,643 $3,716 $3,790 $3,866 $3,943 $4,022 $4,103 $4,185 $4,269 $4,354 Yr1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Yr2 $11,006 $561 $573 $584 $596 $608 $620 $632 $645 Yr 3 $17,822 $909 $927 $946 $965 $984 $1,004 $1,024 Yr 4 $25,335 $1,292 $1,318 $1,344 $1,371 $1,399 $1,427 Yr 5 $21,900 $1,117 $1,139 $1,162 $1,185 $1,209 Yr6 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Yr 7 $0 $0 $0 $0 Yr 8 $0 $0 $0 Yr 9 $0 $0 Yr 10 $0 Commercial and Rental Residential Property Transfer Tax $3,572 $3,643 $14,722 $22,173 $30,682 $28,646 $7,998 $8,158 $8,322 $8,488 $8,658 Total Annual Property Taxes to the City $3,572 $3,643 $14,722 $22,173 $30,682 $28,646 $7,998 $8,158 $8,322 $8,488 'The model accounts for only the property transfer tax annual allocation for the developed FC1 parcel. Source: HR &A Advisors 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 869 Table &12 Motor Vehicle License Fee Estimates VLF Revenues' 2009 Population of the City 226,691 2009 Allocation of the 0.65% $1,328,857 Original Plan 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Motor Vehicle In Lieu Fee (MVLF) Adjustment Base Year (2004) Assessed Valuation of the City (Millions) $15,596 Base Year (2004) Motor Vehicle In Lieu Fee Adjustment (MVLF) (Millions) $11.8 Cumulative AV of New Development (Millions) $129.9 $130.0 $150.3 $183.1 $229.7 $270.3 $271.3 $272.6 $274.1 $275.8 $277.8 AV Adjustment of Base Value (Millions) $0.0 $0.0 ($5.0) ($12.8) ($23.8) ($33.1) ($33.1) ($33.1) ($33.1) ($33.1) ($33.1) Adjusted Cumulative AV Development (Millions) $130 $130 $145 $170 $206 $237 $238 $239 $241 $243 $245 Cumulative Citywide AV Growth (Millions) $15,726 $15,726 $15,742 $15,766 $15,802 $15,833 $15,834 $15,836 $15,837 $15,839 $15,841 Percent Increase in AV 0.83% 0.83% 0.93% 1.09% 1.32% 1.52% 1.53% 1.54% 1.55% 1.56% 1.57% Cumulative MVLF generated by the Project $98,533 $98,632 $110,242 $129,150 $156,197 $179,938 $180,717 $181,678 $182,816 $184,126 $185,606 Total Annual MVLF Fees $98,533 $98,632 $110,242 $129,150 $156,197 $179,938 $180,717 $181,678 $182,816 $184,126 $185,606 ' As presented in the SPA Fiscal Impact Framework Source: City of Chula Vista and HR&A Advisors 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 870 i "8111 Table &13 Estimated Onsite Retail Sales Tax Occupied GLA Original Plan 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 793,175 Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Cumulative Retail Absorption (Square Feet) 296,685 296,685 Taxable Sales Estimate PC 1 Site - Oray Ranch Town Center - Regional /Superregional 680,000 680,000 760,000 840,000 867,000 867,000 867,000 867,000 867,000 867,000 867,000 PC 2 Site Retail 0 0 0 47,000 197,000 347,000 347,000 347,000 347,000 347,000 347,000 Gross Leasable Area Building Efficiency $234,090,000 $234,090,000 $234,090,000 $234,090,000 $234,090,000 PC 2 Site Taxable Sales Taxables Sales PSF PC 1 Site - Oray Ranch Town Center 96% 654,840 654,840 731,880 808,920 834,921 834,921 834,921 834,921 834,921 834,921 834,921 PC 2 Site Retail - Neighborhood /Community Center 90% 0 0 0 42,300 177,300 312,300 312,300 312,300 312,300 312,300 312,300 Occupied GLA Occupancy Rate PC 1 Site - Oray Ranch Town Center 95% 622,098 622,098 695,286 768,474 793,175 793,175 793,175 793,175 793,175 793,175 793,175 PC 2 Site Retail - Neighborhood /Community Center 95% 0 0 0 40,185 168,435 296,685 296,685 296,685 296,685 296,685 296,685 Taxable Sales Estimate FC1 Site Taxable Sales Est.Taxables Sales PSF PC 1 -Site - Oray Ranch Town Center $270.00 $167,966,460 $183,600,000 $205,200,000 $226,800,000 $234,090,000 $234,090,000 $234,090,000 $234,090,000 $234,090,000 $234,090,000 $234,090,000 PC 2 Site Taxable Sales Taxables Sales PSF PC 2 Site Proposed Project $270.00 $0 $0 $0 $10,849,950 $45,477,450 $80,104,950 $80,104,950 $80,104,950 $80,104,950 $80,104,950 $80,104,950 Total Taxable Retail Sales $167,966,460 $183,600,000 $205,200,000 $237,649,950 $279,567,450 $314,194,950 $314,194,950 $314,194,950 $314,194,950 $314,194,950 $314,194,950 Annual Sales Taxes to the City @ 1% $1,679,665 $1,836,000 $2,052,000 $2,376,500 $2,795,675 $3,141,950 $3,141,950 $3,141,950 $3,141,950 $3,141,950 $3,141,950 Source: HR&A Advisors 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 871 Table B -14 Estimated Whit, RMail Sales Tax Average Ea. HH I.-' Multi Family Units For Sole Townhouses $78,000 Rent.I Ap.nments $68,000 Origi.al Pla. 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Households Multi Family Units For Sole Townhouses 80% 80% 70% 60% 30% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MF Aff-hed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Unirs $1,175 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Employees 1,511 1,511 1,689 1,971 2,364 2,698 2,698 2,698 2,698 2,698 2,698 Aggregate HH Income 10% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Average An nu.I l ncome/HH 5% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Countywide Income /HH2 $83,935 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Countywide Retail E.p /HH3 $36,583 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Retail Ezpenditure /HH Adj. F.C., FC SPA 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Project Avg. Retail Ezpenditure /HH $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Gross Retail Soles from Project 80% $142,044 $142,044 $158,756 $185,284 $222,258 $253,591 $253,591 $253,591 $253,591 $253,591 $253,591 Neghb -h.od Center 33% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Community Center 20% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Regional Center 4% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Super Region. l Center 7° /u 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Centers 36% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Off Site Shore 64% $90,908 $90,908 $101,604 $118,582 $142,245 $162,298 $162,298 $162,298 $162,298 $162,298 $162,298 Neghb -h.od Center 10% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Community Center 20% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Regional Center 30% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Super Region. l Center 30% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Other Centers 10% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Chul. Via. C.pture Neghb -h.od Center Community Center Regio..I Center Super Region. I Center Other Centers 80% 80% 70% 60% 30% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Gross Retail Soles from SPA Employees Annul Ezpenditure /Employee $1,175 Offiste Spending Neghb -h.od Center 10% $1T,556 $W,556 $198,444 $231,606 $277,822 $316,989 $316,989 $316,989 $316,989 $316,989 $316,989 Community Center 5% 88,m 88,T 8 99,222 115,803 138,911 158,494 158,494 158,494 158,494 158,494 158,494 Regional Center 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Super Regional Center 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Centers 10% 1 T ,556 W,556 198,444 231,606 277,822 316,989 316,989 316,989 316,989 316,989 316,989 Chul. Via. C.pture Neghb -h.od Center 80% $142,044 $142,044 $158,756 $185,284 $222,258 $253,591 $253,591 $253,591 $253,591 $253,591 $253,591 Community Center 80% $71,022 $71,022 $79,378 $92,642 $111,129 $126,796 $126,796 $126,796 $126,796 $126,796 $126,796 Regional Center 70% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Super Region. I Center 60% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Other Centers 30% $53,267 $53,267 $59,533 $69,482 $83,347 $95,097 $95,097 $95,097 $95,097 $95,097 $95,097 T... ble Retail Soles %T...ble Neghb -h.od Center 64% $90,908 $90,908 $101,604 $118,582 $142,245 $162,298 $162,298 $162,298 $162,298 $162,298 $162,298 Community Center 77° /u $54,687 $54,687 $61,121 $71,335 $85,569 $97,633 $97,633 $97,633 $97,633 $97,633 $97,633 Regio..I Center 97% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Super Region. I Center 100% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Other Centers 97% $51,669 $51,669 $57,747 $67,397 $80,846 $92,244 $92,244 $92,244 $92,244 $92,244 $92,244 Tot.1 T... ble Retail Soles $197,264 $197,264 $220,472 $257,314 $308,660 $352,175 $352,175 $352,175 $352,175 $352,175 $352,175 Annu.I Sales T.-to the City@ 1% $1,973 $1,972.64 $2,205 $2,573 $3,087 $3,522 $3,522 $3,522 $3,522 $3,522 $3,522 'DeH -d! b.sed on estimme of rent.l mte .s 32% of income �A-i- Community Survey 2009 3Bo. rd of Equ.Iizmion 2009 Annul Dm. per county mpit. Source: City of Chul. Via. ..d HRBA Advisors 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 872 I -Ili Table B -15 Revenue Summary (2009 $) Original Plan 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Revenue Drivers Population(Persons) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Private Employment (Employees) 1,511 1,511 1,689 1,971 2,364 2,698 2,698 2,698 2,698 2,698 2,698 Dwelling Units 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Retail Commercial (SF) 680,000 680,000 760,000 887,000 1,064,000 1,214,000 1,214,000 1,214,000 1,214,000 1,214,000 1,214,000 Hotel (Acres) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Residential Land (Acres) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Revenue Annual Revenues Factors Revenue Adjustment Factor 115% 115% 115% 115% 115% 115% 115% 115% 115% 115% 115% Population(Persons) $3.86 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Private Employment (Employees) $19.45 $33,780 $33,780 $37,754 $44,063 $52,856 $60,307 $60,307 $60,307 $60,307 $60,307 $60,307 Dwelling Units $3.60 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Retail Commercial (SF) $0.07 $53,783 $53,783 $60,110 $70,155 $84,155 $96,018 $96,018 $96,018 $96,018 $96,018 $96,018 Commercial (Acres) $839.44 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Residential Land (Acres) $1,600.36 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Property Taxes $138,145 $138,145 $138,283 $154,561 $181,070 $218,990 $252,275 $253,367 $254,715 $256,310 $258,147 Property Transfer Taxes $0 $3,572 $3,643 $14,722 $22,173 $30,682 $28,646 $7,998 $8,158 $8,322 $8,488 MVLF Revenues $98,533 $98,632 $110,242 $129,150 $156,197 $179,938 $180,717 $181,678 $182,816 $184,126 $185,606 Sales and Use Tax $1,681,637 $1,837,973 $2,054,205 $2,379,073 $2,798,761 $3,145,471 $3,145,471 $3,145,471 $3,145,471 $3,145,471 $3,145,471 Transient Occupancy Tax $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Annual Revenues $2,005,878 $2,165,884 $2,404,237 $2,791,724 $3,295,212 $3,731,408 $3,763,435 $3,744,841 $3,747,486 $3,750,555 $3,754,038 Source: HR &A Advisors 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 873 W M� Table B -16 Net Fiscal Impacts FC2 Amendment CPI ( San Diego Area)' 265.25 242.27 Original Plan 'Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2015 Approximated using mid -2014 San Diego CPI Source: HR &A Advisors 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 874 2014 Year 0 2015 Year 1 2016 Year 2 2017 Year 3 2018 Year 4 2019 Year 5 2020 Year 6 2021 Year 7 2022 Year 8 2023 Year 9 2024 Year 10 2014 Dollar Inflation Factor 1.095 1.095 1.095 1.095 1.095 1.095 1.095 1.095 1.095 1.095 1.095 Total Expenditures $1,181,099 $1,181,099 $1,320,051 $1,540,639 $1,848,072 $2,108,609 $2,108,609 $2,108,609 $2,108,609 $2,108,609 $2,108,609 Total Revenues $2,196,150 $2,371,333 $2,632,296 $3,056,538 $3,607,785 $4,085,358 $4,120,423 $4,100,065 $4,102,961 $4,106,321 $4,110,135 Net Fiscal Impacts (2015 Dollars) $1,015,051 $1,190,234 $1,312,245 $1,515,899 $1,759,713 $1,976,749 $2,011,815 $1,991,456 $1,994,352 $1,997,713 $2,001,526 'Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2015 Approximated using mid -2014 San Diego CPI Source: HR &A Advisors 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 874 PA -12 FREEWAY COMMERCIAL NORTH (FC2) AMENDMENT Appendix D: Commercial Lands Analysis 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 875 GPI. KEYSER MARSTON ASSOMTESTM ADVISORS IN PUBLIC/PRIVATE REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM ADVISORS IN: REAL ESTATE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT A. Background Per our agreement dated January 19, 2015, Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA) has completed an update of our commercial market overview for Baldwin & Sons and SunRanch Capital Partners, LLC's (Owners') Olympic Parkway property in the City of Chula Vista (City). As background, the subject property is the approximately 35 -acre Parcel FC -2 (Property) located directly north of the existing Otay Ranch Town Center. The Property is bounded by Olympic Parkway on the north, Eastlake Parkway on the east, and State Route (SR) 125 on the west. The Property is currently vacant and designated "Freeway Commercial" per the Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial Sectional Planning Area Plan (SPA Plan) adopted in 2003. This designation allows approximately 350,000 square feet (SF) of commercial space. The Owners propose to amend the SPA Plan to allow development of approximately 600 residential units and a two -acre park. The Owners propose to develop the balance of the Property with two hotels comprising 300 rooms and 15,000 SF of mixed -use retail space; both of these components are compatible with the existing entitlements. City staff has expressed concerns about the 555 WEST BEECH ST., SUITE 460 ➢ SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101 ➢ PHONE: 619 718 9500 ➢ FAX: 619 718 9508 WWW.KEYSERMARSTOIV.COM 15023ndh 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet 10300.001.ocRage 876 To: Nick Lee, PE SAN FRANcIsco Baldwin & Sons /SunRanch Capital Partners, LLC A. TERRY KEYSER TIMOTHYC. KELLY KATE EARLE FUNK DEBBIE M. KERN From: KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES, INC. REED T. KAWAHARA DAVID DOEZEMA Date: March 12, 2015 LOS ANGELES KATHLEEN H. HEAD IAti,Es A. RABE Subject: Commercial Market Overview Update GREGORY D. Soo- Hoo KEVIN E. ENGSTROM Otay Ranch PA -12 JULIE L. ROMEY SAN DIEGO PAUL C. MARRA I. INTRODUCTION A. Background Per our agreement dated January 19, 2015, Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA) has completed an update of our commercial market overview for Baldwin & Sons and SunRanch Capital Partners, LLC's (Owners') Olympic Parkway property in the City of Chula Vista (City). As background, the subject property is the approximately 35 -acre Parcel FC -2 (Property) located directly north of the existing Otay Ranch Town Center. The Property is bounded by Olympic Parkway on the north, Eastlake Parkway on the east, and State Route (SR) 125 on the west. The Property is currently vacant and designated "Freeway Commercial" per the Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial Sectional Planning Area Plan (SPA Plan) adopted in 2003. This designation allows approximately 350,000 square feet (SF) of commercial space. The Owners propose to amend the SPA Plan to allow development of approximately 600 residential units and a two -acre park. The Owners propose to develop the balance of the Property with two hotels comprising 300 rooms and 15,000 SF of mixed -use retail space; both of these components are compatible with the existing entitlements. City staff has expressed concerns about the 555 WEST BEECH ST., SUITE 460 ➢ SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101 ➢ PHONE: 619 718 9500 ➢ FAX: 619 718 9508 WWW.KEYSERMARSTOIV.COM 15023ndh 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet 10300.001.ocRage 876 To: Nick Lee, PE Subject: Commercial Market Overview Update Otay Ranch PA -12 March 12, 2015 Page 2 potential loss of commercial land inventory as a result of the proposed amendment. In response to these concerns, the KMA commercial market overview evaluates the current (and anticipated) supply of retail space /commercial land in the trade area relative to current (and anticipated) demand. The findings contained in this commercial market overview with respect to the demand for commercial land uses are specific to the evaluation of development on the Property. This commercial market overview was commissioned to assist the City in evaluating the feasibility of a proposed project containing two hotels and a mixed -use project on the Property. The findings contained in the commercial market overview are specific to the Property. As such, they are not subject to be used to draw conclusions or make inferences with respect to formulating future recommendations regarding changes to existing commercial land uses within the City. B. KMA Approach In completing the commercial market overview, KMA undertook the following tasks: 1. Reviewed the existing SPA Plan land use designations and proposed amendments. 2. Toured the Property and competitive commercial properties in the trade area. 3. Compiled information on current and projected demographic factors from multiple sources. 4. Collected and reviewed available commercial and residential market data for the trade area. 5. Reviewed the City's extensive database on built and planned commercial and residential developments in the trade area. 6. Prepared a retail sales surplus /(leakage) model and a projection of retail space demand resulting from buildout of planned developments in the trade area. 7. Assessed the need for commercial development on the Property to serve the anticipated demand in the trade area. C. Report Organization This memorandum report has been organized as follows: • Following this introduction, Section II summarizes our key findings. • In Section III, KMA reviews the existing situation in the trade area in terms of demographic factors and retail sales surplus /(leakage). • Section IV presents the KMA retail space demand projection. • In Section V, KMA evaluates the potential supply of retail space relative to anticipated demand. 15023ndh 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet 10300.001.003 Page 877 To: Nick Lee, PE March 12, 2015 Subject: Commercial Market Overview Update Page 3 Otay Ranch PA -12 • Section VI presents limiting conditions pertaining to the commercial market overview. • Our detailed technical analysis is presented as a series of attachments. II. KEY FINDINGS 1. The trade area currently has a healthy balance between the supply of, and demand for, retail space. The Otay Ranch trade area, defined as a four -mile ring, currently experiences - leakage of approximately 19% of total potential retail sales. This level of leakage can be considered relatively minor, given that the trade area is dominated by suburban residential uses. Additionally, most trade area residents commute to work outside the trade area, and have access to extensive shopping, services, dining, and entertainment options in other communities. 2. The trade area currently experiences an extremely high "import" of General Merchandise sales, suggesting that it is already over - saturated with "big box" General Merchandise stores. Taken together, the Owners' plans to develop hotels and apartments on the Property reduce the retail building area from a maximum of 350,000 SF to 15,000 SF. The reduction of 335,000 SF would likely have accommodated two "big box' retailers, which are the typical retail formats found around the periphery of regional malls. 3. The total potential supply of retail space in the trade area through buildout exceeds total anticipated retail space demand, as summarized in the chart below. The KMA retail space demand projection considers demand from four sources: (a) new residents, (b) new workers, (c) new students /staff /faculty at the University Park and Innovation District (UPID), and (d) potential recapture of 20% of current retail sales leakage from the trade area. Supply Estimate of Retail Overl(Under) Trade Incremental Retail Space Demand 1,930,000 SF Incremental Retail Space Supply * 2,023,000 SF Over /(Under) Supply 93,000 SF * Assumes the proposed amendment for the Property with retail at 15,000 SF. 4. Although the Property is currently designated for community and /or regional serving commercial, there are numerous other locations in the trade area designated for similar uses The commercial land use designation encompasses a range of uses, including retail /restaurant /services, office space, and visitor commercial. For example, approximately 1.3 million SF of retail use and 3.2 million SF of office use are planned for the Millenia project 15023ndh 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet 10300.001.003 Page 878 To: Nick Lee, PE Subject: Commercial Market Overview Update Otay Ranch PA -12 March 12, 2015 Page 4 (EUC) and Village Nine (adjacent to UPID). These districts are located one to two miles south of the Property. The Millenia and Village Nine locations also have SR 125 frontage and (future) Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service. Both of these areas are planned as synergistic mixed -use districts combining residential, shopping, and employment uses in a walkable configuration. Shifting future retail demand from the Property to these newly developing communities will help support the City's vision for these districts. 5. It is the KMA view that the reduced amount of retail space that the Owners propose for the Property will be viable. This retail space will benefit from its configuration in a "main street" format along a key access route to the existing regional mall, as well as its proximity to the (future) BRT station. Moreover, the new apartment residents and hotel guests will drive additional retail demand for the Property. Taken together, the Property and Otay Ranch Town Center will form a mixed -use district — not unlike the concepts planned for Millenia and Village Nine. III. EXISTING SITUATION A. Demographic Trends The Property is located adjacent to a regional shopping mall. KMA evaluated existing land use patterns and competitive retail locations and determined that a trade area comprising a four -mile ring is appropriate. As shown in Exhibit A -1, the trade area encompasses most of eastern Chula Vista, a portion of Otay Mesa, and portions of the unincorporated County. The nearest competitive regional mall, Westfield Plaza Bonita, is located just to the northwest outside the trade area boundary. KMA compiled and reviewed current and projected demographic factors for the trade area, City of Chula Vista, County of San Diego, and State of California from ESRI, a supplier of Geographic Information System (GIS) software and geo- database applications. Demographic trends for these areas are detailed in Tables A -1 through A -3 and summarized below. • Table A -1 summarizes current demographic factors for the trade area, City, County, and State. The 2014 population of the trade area was estimated as 140,255, with a per capita income of $32,281. Aggregate personal income for the trade area was estimated to be approximately $4.5 billion. 15023ndh 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet 10300.001.003 Page 879 To: Nick Lee, PE March 12, 2015 Subject: Commercial Market Overview Update Page 5 Otay Ranch PA -12 • Table A -2 presents recent historic growth trends, as well as a five -year projection. The trade area population grew rapidly during 2000 -2014, at an annualized rate of 5.2 %. During this period, the trade area growth rate significantly outpaced the City, County, and State. Slower growth is projected for all of these areas over the next five years, estimated at just 1.4% per year for the trade area. • Table A -3 presents median household and per capita income trends for 2014 -2019. With an estimated 2014 median household income of $92,883 and per capita income of $32,281, trade area residents are considerably more affluent than their counterparts at the City, County, and State level. B. Existing Retail Sales Surplus /(Leakage) Using ESRI data on existing household retail expenditures and retail outlet sales volumes, KMA prepared retail sales surplus /(leakage) models for the trade area and City. These models are presented in Tables A -4 and A -5 and summarized below. • Table A -4 presents a comparison of retail demand and supply, and resulting surplus /(leakage), for the trade area. ESRI estimates total retail expenditure potential (demand) in the trade area in 2014 of $1.1 billion, compared to total retail sales (supply) of $920 million. This results in a retail sales leakage of approximately ($220 million), as summarized below: Total Retail Expenditure Potential (Demand) $1,140,585,000 Total Retail Sales (Supply) $920,634,000 Total Retail Sales Surplus /(Leakage) ($219,951,000) Percent of Total Expenditure Potential -19.3% These figures reflect sales to consumers by retail establishments. Sales to businesses are excluded. Gasoline stations, non -store retailers, and motor vehicle and parts dealers have been excluded, as these types of stores are not likely uses for the Property. The trade area is largely a suburban "bedroom" community dominated by residential land use and supporting retail stores, restaurants, and services. Many residents commute to employment elsewhere in the County. Moreover, while there is an existing regional mall at the center of the trade area, it contains only one department store. Thus, many trade area residents seek shopping and services outside the trade area, e.g., Mission Valley for other 15023ndh 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet 10300.001.003 Page 880 To: Subject: Nick Lee, PE Commercial Market Overview Update Otay Ranch PA -12 March 12, 2015 Page 6 department stores and specialty shops, Downtown San Diego for dining and entertainment, and Las Americas Premium Outlets for discount retail. Given these existing trends, the 19% retail sales leakage currently experienced in the trade area is not surprising. As new mixed -use districts are developed within the trade area, this leakage can be expected to decline. • If the Owners did not pursue the proposed SPA Plan amendment — and did not plan to build hotels and apartments on the Property -- then the maximum amount of retail space that could be developed on the Property would be approximately 350,000 SF. Taken together, the Owners' plans to develop hotels and apartments reduce the retail building area to approximately 15,000 SF. The reduction of 335,000 SF would likely have accommodated two "big box" General Merchandise stores, which are the typical retail formats found around the periphery of regional malls. This retail category includes "big boxes" like Costco, WalMart, Sam's Club, and Target, as well as traditional department stores. As shown in Table A -4, and summarized below, the trade area currently experiences an extremely high "import" of General Merchandise sales. This suggests that the trade area is already over - saturated with General Merchandise stores. General Merchandise Retail Expenditure Potential (Demand) $231,091,000 General Merchandise Retail Sales (Supply) $352,713,000 General Merchandise Retail Sales Surplus /(Leakage) $121,622,000 Percent of General Merchandise Expenditure Potential +52.6% The high level of retail sales leakage from other specialty goods stores provides further evidence that the trade area is over - saturated with General Merchandise stores. For example, the retail store categories of Sporting Goods, Clothing, Furniture, and Health & Personal Care all exhibit trade area retail sales significantly below the level supported by existing residents' demand. This indicates that residents are either transferring expenditures in these retail categories to the trade area General Merchandise stores, or exporting their expenditures outside the trade area. As shown in the chart below, trade area retail sales in these major retail store categories are $147 million lower than expenditure potential (refer to Table A -4 for detail by category). 15023ndh 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet 10300.001.003 Page 881 To: Nick Lee, PE March 12, 2015 Subject: Commercial Market Overview Update Page 7 Otay Ranch PA -12 Goods Trade Area Specialty 2014 Estimates, per ESRI Specialty Goods Retail Expenditure Potential (Demand) $359,233,000 Specialty Goods Retail Sales (Supply) $212,338,000 Specialty Goods Retail Sales Surplus /(Leakage) ($149,895,000) Percent of Specialty Goods Expenditure Potential -40.6% (1) Includes categories of Sporting Goods, Hobby, Musical Instrument Stores; Clothing & Clothing Accessories Stores; Furniture & Home Furnishing Stores; Health & Personal Care Stores; and Miscellaneous Store Retailers. • Similarly, Table A -5 presents a comparison of retail demand and supply, and resulting surplus /(leakage), for the City of Chula Vista. ESRI estimates total retail expenditure potential (demand) in the City in 2014 of $1.702 billion, compared to total retail sales (supply) of $1.940 billion. This results in a retail sales surplus of approximately $238 million, as summarized in the table below. Retail Expenditure Potential (Demand) $1,702,255,000 Retail Sales (Supply) $1,939,927,000 Retail Sales Surplus /(Leakage) $237,672,000 Percent of Total Expenditure Potential 14.0% It is worth noting that the City as a whole exhibits a similar "import" of General Merchandise sales. Total General Merchandise sales are almost double the level supported by existing households' expenditure potential. In general, the data show that the City is a strong importer of retail expenditures. This is likely due in significant part to its proximity to Mexico and ability to attract spending by Mexican nationals. IV. PROJECTED RETAIL SPACE DEMAND A. Growth Projection KMA prepared a projection of retail space demand in the trade area resulting from the buildout of planned developments. For this purpose, KMA relied on the SANDAG 2050 Regional Growth Forecast for Subregional Area 20 — Sweetwater. As shown in Exhibit B -1, this area includes all of eastern Chula Vista, as well as portions of Bonita and National City. It is bounded on the west by Interstate 805, on the south by the Otay River, on the east by the Otay Reservoir, and on the north by the Sweetwater Reservoir, Bonita Road, and Highway 54. 15023ndh 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet 10300.001.003 Page 882 To: Nick Lee, PE Subject: Commercial Market Overview Update Otay Ranch PA -12 March 12, 2015 Page 8 Table B -1 presents the SANDAG 2013 -2050 growth projection for Subregional Area 20 — Sweetwater (Sweetwater). SANDAG projects that total population will increase by 63,544 residents over this period. SANDAG also projects an increase of 21,589 new housing units by 2050. Over 80% of the housing growth is expected to take the form of multi - family units. As a measure of comparison, KMA compared the SANDAG growth forecast for Sweetwater with the remaining development capacity in eastern Chula Vista. These two geographic areas largely overlap. Table B -2 summarizes the existing /built and pipeline /planned residential units for all master - planned communities in eastern Chula Vista. This information was compiled from detailed project data provided by City staff. As summarized in the table below, approximately 15,269 new housing units remain for development in eastern Chula Vista. This figure is lower than the SANDAG projection of 21,589 new housing units in the Sweetwater subregion. Although the two areas are not exactly coterminous, most new growth will be occurring within Otay Ranch, which falls within both areas. Eastem Chula Vista Single - Family Units ExistinglBuilt 19,789 Pipeling/planned 4,156 Total Buildout 23,945 % Completed 83% Multi - Family Units 11,448 11,113 22,561 51% Total Residential Units 31,237 15,269 46,506 67% B. Retail Space Demand from New Households Tables B -3 through B -6 present the KMA projection of retail space demand resulting from new trade area households (using the Sweetwater growth projection). • Table B -3 presents the KMA estimate of aggregate personal income for new households residing in the new housing units. Household income is calculated based on the minimum income required to purchase or rent a housing unit. KMA assumed average market prices of $520,000 for a single - family unit and $350,000 for a multi - family unit. Average market rent was estimated at $1,500 per unit per month. These assumptions were compiled based on review of current market prices /rents for comparable new construction, presented in Tables B -4 and B -5. Based on these assumptions, KMA estimates total aggregate income for all new households through buildout of $1.705 billion. (All figures are expressed in 2015 dollars.) 15023ndh 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet 10300.001.003 Page 883 To: Nick Lee, PE Subject: Commercial Market Overview Update Otay Ranch PA -12 March 12, 2015 Page 9 • Table B -6 presents the KMA estimate of retail space demand resulting from the expenditure potential of new households in the trade area. KMA estimates total incremental retail space demand generated by new households totaling 1,050,000 SF. The KMA demand estimate reflects the following key assumptions: Assumption • Estimate of office space (see Table C -1) Basis Retail expenditures as % of income 33.0% Analysis of San Diego County annual retail • $6,500 per year, or say $26 per work day (assuming 250 work days /year) • Percent of expenditures captured in trade area sales volumes relative to population and • Estimated retail sales productivity per SF per year • $350 income Retail expenditures captured in trade 67.0% KMA assumption based on review of area competitive retail locations inside /outside trade area Estimated retail sales productivity per SF $350 International Council of Shopping Centers per year (ICSC), Quick Stats, 2013 Retail Vacancy 2.5% KMA assumption based on a review of retail market data provided by local real estate brokers C. Retail Space Demand from Other Sources In addition to retail space demand from new households, there will be other sources of demand for new retail space. These include demand from employees in new office space; students, staff, and faculty in the University Park and Innovation District (UPID); and visitors from beyond the trade area. These additional sources of demand are addressed in Tables B -7 through B -9. It should be noted that there are many unknowns regarding specific land use proposals, retail industry trends, and other economic conditions over the long -term buildout of the trade area. The following are key assumptions used in preparing these projections. Source of Demand New Office Workers (Table 8 -7) • Estimate of office space (see Table C -1) • Based on data provided by the City of Chula Vista • Office employment density • 200 SF per worker • Retail expenditure per worker • $6,500 per year, or say $26 per work day (assuming 250 work days /year) • Percent of expenditures captured in trade area • 75% of total expenditures • Estimated retail sales productivity per SF per year • $350 • Office Vacancy • 7.5% of retail space supported by new office workers 15023ndh 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet 10300.001.003 Page 884 To: Nick Lee, PE Subject: Commercial Market Overview Update Otay Ranch PA -12 March 12, 2015 Page 10 Source of Demand UPID Students, Staff, and Faculty (Table 8 -8) 1,050,000 SF Key Assumptions • Projected number of students • 18,000 • Retail expenditures per student • 50.0% of retail expenditures per resident • Percent of expenditures captured in trade area • 75.0% of total expenditures • Projected number of staff /faculty • 1,800 • Retail expenditure per staff /faculty • $6,500 per year (same as office workers) • Percent of expenditures captured in trade area • 75% of total expenditures • Estimated retail sales productivity per SF per year • $350 • Retail Vacancy • 2.5% of retail space supported by students and faculty/staff Visitors from beyond Trade Area (Table 8 -9) • Additional retail space supported by visitors from beyond trade area • 25% of total retail space supported by residents, workers, and UPID students /staff /faculty The KMA estimates of demand from all of the above sources are presented in Table B -9 and summarized below. New Households (Residents) 1,050,000 SF New Office Space (Employees) 200,000 SF UPID (Students /Staff /Faculty) 191,000 SF Visitors from beyond Trade Area 360,000 SF Total Demand 1,801,000 SF KMA notes that the above projections potentially overstate future retail space demand in the trade area. No adjustment has been made for the potential double- counting of new residents who also work in the trade area, either in the new office space or UPID facilities. Additionally, KMA considered the potential for the trade area to recapture a portion of existing retail sales leakage as new mixed -use districts are developed. KMA estimated that the trade area could recapture 20% of current retail sales leakage, or $44.0 million in annual sales volume. Assuming a $350 /SF /year sales productivity and 2.5% vacancy, the trade area could support an additional 129,000 SF of retail space. Total adjusted retail space demand is summarized in the chart below. 15023ndh 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet 10300.001.003 Page 885 To: Nick Lee, PE Subject: Commercial Market Overview Update Otay Ranch PA -12 Total Demand from New Residents, Workers, and UPID Total Demand from 20% Recapture of Existing Leakage Adjusted Total Demand V. ANTICIPATED SUPPLY OF RETAIL SPACE March 12, 2015 Page 11 1,801,000 SF 129,000 SF 1,930,000 SF The final step in the KMA analysis involved a comparison of the total projected retail space demand with the anticipated supply of retail space. KMA formulated an estimate of the remaining capacity for commercial development in the trade area based on data provided by the City. Development of new commercial space in the trade area is planned for Eastlake III — Vistas and Otay Ranch. As shown in Table C -1, a total of 5,417,000 SF of commercial development capacity remains in these two areas. Almost 85% of this commercial space is planned for two sub - areas: • The Millenia project (EUC), located less than one mile south of the Property fronting SR 125, is planned for 2,976,000 SF. Of this total, 980,000 SF is planned as retail space. • Village Nine, located less than two miles south of the Property fronting SR 125, is planned for 1,500,000 SF. Of this total, 300,000 SF is planned as retail space. For the FWC (Freeway Commercial) area, KMA has assumed the remaining development capacity of Otay Ranch Town Center (317,000 SF), plus the remaining retail land use allowance on the Property assuming that the proposed amendment is approved (15,000 SF). As shown in Table C -1, City planners anticipate incremental retail space development totaling 2,075,000 SF. KMA has adjusted this figure to 2,023,000 SF occupied space after a 2.5% vacancy factor. The following table compares the projected supply of retail space in the trade area relative to anticipated demand. As shown in the table, KMA estimates that buildout of the trade area, assuming the proposed amendment for the Property, could result in an oversupply of retail estimated at 93,000 SF. Incremental Retail Space Demand Incremental Retail Space Supply Over /(Under) Supply * Assumes the proposed amendment for the Property with retail at 15,000 SF. 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet 1,930,000 SF 2,023,000 SF 93,000 SF 15023ndh 10300.001.003 Page 886 To: Nick Lee, PE Subject: Commercial Market Overview Update Otay Ranch PA -12 VI. LIMITING CONDITIONS March 12, 2015 Page 12 1. The analysis contained in this document is based, in part, on data from secondary sources such as state and local government, planning agencies, real estate brokers, and other third parties. While KMA believes that these sources are reliable, we cannot guarantee their accuracy. 2. The analysis assumes that neither the local nor national economy will experience a major recession. If an unforeseen change occurs in the economy, the conclusions contained herein may no longer be valid. 3. The findings are based on economic rather than political considerations. Therefore, they should be construed neither as a representation nor opinion that government approvals for development can be secured. 4. Market feasibility is not equivalent to financial feasibility; other factors apart from the level of demand for a land use are of crucial importance in determining feasibility. These factors include the cost of acquiring sites, relocation burdens, traffic impacts, remediation of toxics (if any), and mitigation measures required through the approval process. 5. Development opportunities are assumed to be achievable during the specified time frame. A change in development schedule requires that the conclusions contained herein be reviewed for validity. 6. The analysis, opinions, recommendations and conclusions of this document are KMA's informed judgment based on market and economic conditions as of the date of this report. Due to the volatility of market conditions and complex dynamics influencing the economic conditions of the building and development industry, conclusions and recommended actions contained herein should not be relied upon as sole input for final business decisions regarding current and future development and planning. attachments 15023ndh 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet 10300.001.003 Page 887 ATTACHMENT A Existing Conditions 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 888 EXHIBIT A-1 TRADE AREA 4-MILE RING CITAY RANCH RA12 SUN RANCH CAPITAL PARTNERS kzih�lp Belt Jr H� S"'C'&tW-4tor ccuffndl loin 1111t ED Ilk STA"W 125 AT OLYMPIC PKWY is El ler-dary School Lftergy Fie" 0�11ool 4y rpoill rport Source: The Nielsen Company. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. cuo_fi iota_OtayRanoh1Z_v6;3/1Z/Z015;|ag Page 889 TABLE A -1 OVERVIEW OF DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS, 2014 OTAY RANCH PA 12 SUN RANCH CAPITAL PARTNERS I. Population II. Per Capita Income III. Aggregate Personal Income IV. Households V. Average Household Size VI. Median Household Income VII. Median Age VIII. Housing Units $4.5 Billion Owner Occupied $97.1 Billion Renter Occupied 38,845 Vacant 1,113,315 Total IX. Median Home Value Trade Area City of County of State of 4 -Mile Ring Chula Vista San Diego California 140,255 254,740 3,179,381 38,120,066 $32,281 $25,415 $30,554 $28,657 $4.5 Billion $6.5 Billion $97.1 Billion $1,092.4 Billion 38,845 78,162 1,113,315 12,837,135 3.43 3.24 2.76 2.91 $92,883 $61,471 $60,904 $58,469 34.6 34.2 35.0 35.6 28,170 70% 44,300 54% 584,690 49% 6,945,700 50% 10,660 27% 33,840 41% 528,720 44% 5,883,580 42% 1,240 3% 3,600 4% 79,780 7% 1,131,990 8% 40,068 100% 81,732 100% 1,190,812 100% 13,975,243 100% $457,145 $390,737 $405,052 $337,905 Source: esri Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 2015- 6i,�enlEAJ� "LI j,y, Ja_Otay Ranch 12_v6;3 /12/2015;lag Page 890 TABLE A -2 COMPARATIVE POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD TRENDS, 2000 -2019 OTAY RANCH PA 12 SUN RANCH CAPITAL PARTNERS I. Trade Area - 4 -Mile Ring Population Households II. City of Chula Vista Population Households III. County of San Diego Population Households IV. State of California Population Households Source: esri Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 2015- b-[r-rmnm6(WTW tay Ranch 12_ v6;3/12/2015;lag Page 891 Average Annual Growth Average Annual Growth 2000-2014 2014-2019 2000 2014 Absolute Percent 2019 Absolute Percent 69,223 140,255 5,074 5.2% 150,216 1,992 1.4% 18,794 38,845 1,432 5.3% 41,625 556 1.4% 175,855 254,740 5,635 2.7% 269,486 2,949 1.1% 58,336 78,162 1,416 2.1% 82,400 848 1.1% 2,813,833 3,179,381 26,111 0.9% 3,332,601 30,644 0.9% 994,677 1,113,315 8,474 0.8% 1,167,637 10,864 1.0% 33,871,648 38,120,066 303,458 0.8% 39,606,515 297,290 0.8% 11,502,870 12,837,135 95,305 0.8% 13,339,518 100,477 0.8% Source: esri Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 2015- b-[r-rmnm6(WTW tay Ranch 12_ v6;3/12/2015;lag Page 891 TABLE A -3 COMPARATIVE INCOME TRENDS, 2014 -2019 OTAY RANCH PA 12 SUN RANCH CAPITAL PARTNERS Source: esri Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 2015 -9Y-%' %AAAAY Vista_Otay Ranch 12_v6;3/12/2015;lag Page 892 Average Annual Growth 2014-2019 2014 2019 Absolute Percent I. Trade Area - 4 -Mile Ring Median Household Income $92,883 $104,272 $2,278 2.3% Per Capita Income $32,281 $37,352 $1,014 3.0% II. City of Chula Vista Median Household Income $61,471 $71,656 $2,037 3.1% Per Capita Income $25,415 $29,324 $782 2.9% III. County of San Diego Median Household Income $60,904 $72,109 $2,241 3.4% Per Capita Income $30,554 $35,613 $1,012 3.1% IV. State of California Median Household Income $58,469 $68,212 $1,949 3.1% Per Capita Income $28,657 $33,354 $939 3.1% Source: esri Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 2015 -9Y-%' %AAAAY Vista_Otay Ranch 12_v6;3/12/2015;lag Page 892 TABLE A -4 RETAIL SURPLUS /(LEAKAGE) - TRADE AREA - 4 -MILE RING OTAY RANCH PA 12 SUN RANCH CAPITAL PARTNERS Industry I. Retail Surplus General Merchandise Stores Electronics & Appliance Stores Subtotal Retail Surplus II. Retail Leakage Building Materials, Garden Equipment & Supply Stores Sporting Goods, Hobby, Musical Instrument Stores Clothing & Clothing Accessories Stores Furniture & Home Furnishing Stores Miscellaneous Store Retailers Food Services & Drinking Places Health & Personal Care Stores Food & Beverage Stores Subtotal Retail Leakage Trade Area - 4 -Mile Ring Demand Supply Retail (Retail Expenditure) (1) (Retail Sales) (2) Surplus / (Leakage) $231,091,000 $352,713,000 $121,622,000 $39,833,000 $93,842,000 $54,009,000 $270,924,000 $446,555,000 $175,631,000 $53,159,000 $48,769,000 ($4,390,000) $37,873,000 $21,680,000 ($16,193,000) $111,761,000 $88,385,000 ($23,376,000) $39,881,000 $7,399,000 ($32,482,000) $48,048,000 $24,594,000 ($23,454,000) $182,409,000 $113,598,000 ($68,811,000) $121,670,000 $70,280,000 ($51,390,000) $274,860,000 $99,374,000 ($175,486,000) $869,661,000 $474,079,000 ($395,582,000) Total (3) $1,140,585,000 $920,634,000 ($219,951,000) -19.3% Leakage Per Capita $8,132 $6,564 ($1,568) (1) Reflects the expected amount spent by consumers at retail establishments. (2) Reflects sales to consumers by retail establishments. Sales to businesses are excluded. (3) Excludes gasoline stations, non -store retailers, and motor vehicle & parts dealers. Source: esri, 2014 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 2015- b_[V-rmnx6(WTW tay Ranch 12_ v6;3/12/2015;lag Page 893 TABLE A -5 RETAIL SURPLUS /(LEAKAGE) - CITY OF CHULA VISTA OTAY RANCH PA 12 SUN RANCH CAPITAL PARTNERS III. Total (3) $1,702,255,000 $1,939,927,000 $237,672,000 14.0% Surplus Per Capita $6,682 $7,615 $933 (1) Reflects the expected amount spent by consumers at retail establishments. (2) Reflects sales to consumers by retail establishments. Sales to businesses are excluded. (3) Excludes gasoline stations, non -store retailers, and motor vehicle & parts dealers. Source: esri, 2014 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 2015- b_[r-rmnx6(WTW tay Ranch 12_ v6;3/12/2015;lag Page 894 City of Chula Vista Demand Supply Retail Industry (Retail Expenditure) (1) (Retail Sales) (2) Surplus /(Leakage) I. Retail Surplus General Merchandise Stores $346,218,000 $645,448,000 $299,230,000 Electronics & Appliance Stores $58,626,000 $144,396,000 $85,770,000 Sporting Goods, Hobby, Musical Instrument Stores $55,526,000 $76,817,000 $21,291,000 Food Services & Drinking Places $270,475,000 $272,788,000 $2,313,000 Subtotal Retail Surplus $730,845,000 $1,139,449,000 $408,604,000 II. Retail Leakage Building Materials, Garden Equipment & Supply Stores $76,908,000 $70,573,000 ($6,335,000) Clothing & Clothing Accessories Stores $166,269,000 $159,555,000 ($6,714,000) Miscellaneous Store Retailers $71,113,000 $60,226,000 ($10,887,000) Health & Personal Care Stores $181,660,000 $161,314,000 ($20,346,000) Furniture & Home Furnishing Stores $57,944,000 $36,786,000 ($21,158,000) Food & Beverage Stores $417,516,000 $312,024,000 ($105,492,000) Subtotal Retail Leakage $971,410,000 $800,478,000 ($170,932,000) III. Total (3) $1,702,255,000 $1,939,927,000 $237,672,000 14.0% Surplus Per Capita $6,682 $7,615 $933 (1) Reflects the expected amount spent by consumers at retail establishments. (2) Reflects sales to consumers by retail establishments. Sales to businesses are excluded. (3) Excludes gasoline stations, non -store retailers, and motor vehicle & parts dealers. Source: esri, 2014 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 2015- b_[r-rmnx6(WTW tay Ranch 12_ v6;3/12/2015;lag Page 894 ATTACHMENT 6 Projected Demand 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 895 EXHIBIT B -1 SANDAG SUBREGIONAL AREA 20 - SWEETWATER OTAY RANCH PA 12 SUN RANCH CAPITAL PARTNERS Imo... 35 Al 9 d TOUT 1 F�T _ . 1314 .r1 L1 E�i'i� 33.07 w.e+ Y:V,1 l . 7 31 07 '` - ...uagcQpx 33.85 31. 31 14 3 °i0'- 31 -11 91 -73 3A.01 ° 33.03 _ 32.14 35.02 � 31.09 1i4V 119.02 �'' 32 69 32 13 56 03 ti 32.01 Gyil 11x.02' 0 22 �'] 778.71 12U,02 32.09 13�:`i'0 "T 117.00 r 1 M.03 02 3-2 11 NATIONA! 121.02 32-12 32.07 T ` 116.01 121.01 11a,Qx 134.11 SZO 9+Uar '134.17 124.01 123.03f 134.12 �Q 4 u.�F 134,16 a 1.94,21 134.10 XD 125.02 124.02 123. @4 -F-91 1x5.02 " 1a4.so 194.16 125.01 127 120 1344t 134.00 �; E TV1� 1 134.74 � 120 i 12U 1 V Y 13301 [�7m""\� S #q 133.10 ` 131.02 933 -e 732.03 103.05 132. 133 133 15 130 O4 133.07 101.D4 332.05 ..l 133.09 r mom, 02 s► 7DRA7 MIA 191.07 eftm � 100.11 7� VE R 133.14 144.01 R 100.14 F 100.03 04.02 101,10 101.08 'k 100.04 Hu 191.12 /22 • srFr la�,r. pd Vna Hr ecn ,n1 n4 C -%I J I �ry JJ 0 A Source: SANDAG Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 2015- fi4eiY,%gA6WP #eiista_Otay Ranch 12_v6;3/12/2015;lag Page 896 TABLE B -1 COMPARATIVE POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD TRENDS, 2013 -2050 - TRADE AREA OTAY RANCH PA 12 SUN RANCH CAPITAL PARTNERS (1) Source: SANDAG Demographic & Socio Economic Estimates - Sweetwater, January 1, 2013. (2) Source: SANDAG 2050 Regional Growth Forecast (adopted October 2011) Subregional Area 20 - Sweetwater. (3) Includes Single Family- Detached and Single Family- Multiple -Unit. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 2015- bi!ej� "� W� _Otay Ranch 12_v6;3/12/2015;lag Page 897 Average Annual Growth Pipeline /Planned 2013 -2050 2013 (1) 205012 2013 -2050 Absolute Percent I. Total Population Population 141,735 205,279 63,544 1,717 1.0% II. Total Housing Units Single Family (3) 32,295 36,001 3,706 100 0.3% Multi - Family 11,121 29,011 17,890 484 2.6% Mobile Homes 197 190 (7) (0) -0.1% Total Housing Units 43,613 65,202 21,589 583 1.1% (1) Source: SANDAG Demographic & Socio Economic Estimates - Sweetwater, January 1, 2013. (2) Source: SANDAG 2050 Regional Growth Forecast (adopted October 2011) Subregional Area 20 - Sweetwater. (3) Includes Single Family- Detached and Single Family- Multiple -Unit. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 2015- bi!ej� "� W� _Otay Ranch 12_v6;3/12/2015;lag Page 897 TABLE B -2 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STATUS - RESIDENTIAL OTAY RANCH PA 12 SUN RANCH CAPITAL PARTNERS Existing /Built Pipeline /Planned Total Buildout %Completed 1. Bella Lago Single Family 87 53 140 Multi - Family 0 0 0 Total Bella Lago 87 53 140 62% 2. Eastern Urban Center - Millenia Single Family 0 0 0 Multi - Family 0 2,983 2,983 Total Eastern Urban Center - Millenia 0 2,983 2,983 0% 3. Eastlake Greens Single Family 2,106 0 2,106 Multi - Family 1,253 0 1,253 Total Eastlake Greens 3,359 0 3,359 100% 4. Eastlake Trails Single Family 956 0 956 Multi - Family 189 0 189 Total Eastlake Trails 1,145 0 1,145 100% 5. Eastlake Woods /Trails North Single Family 634 27 661 Multi - Family 0 0 0 Total Eastlake Woods 634 27 661 96% 6. Eastlake Vistas Single Family 777 0 777 Multi - Family 967 230 1,197 Total Eastlake Vistas 1,744 230 1,974 88% 7. Otay Ranch PA 12 (1) Single Family 0 0 0 Multi - Family 0 600 600 Total Otay Ranch PA 12 0 600 600 0% 8. Otay Ranch V1 - Heritage Single Family 1,565 0 1,565 Multi - Family 1,225 0 1,225 Total Otay Ranch V1 2,790 0 2,790 100% 9. Otay Ranch V1 West - Heritage Hills Single Family 909 0 909 Multi - Family 0 0 0 Total Otay Ranch V1 West 909 0 909 100% 10. Otay Ranch V2 - Montecito Single Family 316 1,054 1,370 Multi - Family 590 1,023 1,613 Total Otay Ranch V2 906 2,077 2,983 30% (1) Reflects proposed amendment. Source: City of Chula Vista, as of January 5, 2015. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename AChula Vista_Otay Ranch 12_v6;3/12/2015;lag 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 898 TABLE B -2 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STATUS - RESIDENTIAL OTAY RANCH PA 12 SUN RANCH CAPITAL PARTNERS 11. Otay Ranch V3 North and Portion of V4 Total Buildout Single Family 0 Multi - Family 1,002 Total Otay Ranch V3 and Portion of V4 12. Otay Ranch V5 - Countryside 595 Single Family 0 Multi - Family 1,597 Total Otay Ranch V5 13. Otay Ranch V5- McMillin 944 Single Family 382 Multi - Family 382 Total Otay Ranch V5- McMillin 14. Otay Ranch V6 - Hillsborough 1,326 Single Family 699 Multi - Family 699 Total Otay Ranch V6 15. Otay Ranch V6 - McMillin -Lomas Verdes 827 Single Family 1,526 Multi - Family 1,526 Total Otay Ranch V6- McMillin 16. Otay Ranch V7 - Montecito Ridge /Lomas Verdes 443 Single Family 986 Multi - Family 1,094 Total Otay Ranch V7 17. Otay Ranch V8 West 1,537 Single Family 482 Multi - Family 482 Total Otay Ranch V8 West 18. Otay Ranch V8 East 212 Single Family 694 Multi - Family 694 Total Otay Ranch V8 East 19. Otay Ranch V10 804 Single Family 304 Multi - Family 316 Total Otay Ranch V10 20. Otay Ranch V11- WindingWalk 1,120 Single Family 0 Multi - Family 331 Total Otay Ranch V11 21. Rancho Del Rey I 1,719 Single Family 0 Multi - Family 2,050 Total Rancho Del Rey I 0 Filename AChula Vista_Otay Ranch 12_v6;3/12/2015;lag 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Existing /Built Pipeline /Planned Total Buildout %Completed 0 1,002 1,002 0 595 595 0 1,597 1,597 0% 944 0 944 382 0 382 1,326 0 1,326 100% 699 0 699 827 0 827 1,526 0 1,526 100% 443 0 443 986 108 1,094 1,429 108 1,537 93% 482 0 482 212 0 212 694 0 694 100% 771 33 804 304 12 316 1,075 45 1,120 96% 0 331 331 0 1,719 1,719 0 2,050 2,050 0% 0 943 943 0 2,617 2,617 0 3,560 3,560 0% 0 695 695 0 1,045 1,045 0 1,740 1,740 0% 1,101 0 1,101 1,144 43 1,187 2,245 43 2,288 98% 1,328 0 1,328 785 0 785 2,113 0 2,113 100% Page 899 TABLE B -2 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STATUS - RESIDENTIAL OTAY RANCH PA 12 SUN RANCH CAPITAL PARTNERS 22. Rancho Del Rey II Single Family Multi - Family Total Rancho Del Rey II 23. Rancho Del Rey III Single Family Multi - Family Total Rancho Del Rey III 24. Rolling Hills Ranch Single Family Multi - Family Total Rolling Hills Ranch 25. Salt Creek 1 Single Family Multi - Family Total Salt Creek 1 26. San Miguel Ranch Single Family Multi - Family Total San Miguel Ranch 27. Sunbow II Single Family Multi - Family Total Sunbow II 28. Telegraph Canyon Estates Single Family Multi - Family Total Telegraph Canyon Estates 29. Terra Nova Single Family Multi - Family Total Terra Nova 30. University Park and Innovation District (UPID) Single Family Multi - Family Total University Park and Innoviation District Total Development Single Family Multi - Family Total FS cCfiyr . &5 c2015. Filename AChula Vista_Ctay Ranch 12_v6;3/12/2015;lag 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Existing /Built Pipeline /Planned Total Buildout %Completed 559 10 569 0 0 0 559 10 569 98% 952 0 952 280 0 280 1,232 0 1,232 100% 2,104 8 2,112 343 0 343 2,447 8 2,455 100% 166 0 166 357 0 357 523 0 523 100% 889 0 889 425 138 563 1,314 138 1,452 90% 1,128 0 1,128 849 0 849 1,977 0 1,977 100% 344 0 344 0 0 0 344 0 344 100% 529 0 529 330 0 330 859 0 859 100% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 19,789 4,156 23,945 83% 11,448 11,113 22,561 51% 31,237 15,269 46,506 67% Page 900 TABLE B -3 AGGREGATE ANNUAL INCOME FROM PIPELINE /PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN TRADE AREA OTAY RANCH PA 12 SUN RANCH CAPITAL PARTNERS Total Monthly Costs 35% Pipeline /Planned Residential Development, 2013 -2050 $2,353 Single - Family Multi - Family For -Sale Multi - Family Rental $80,678 Households Households Households I. Number of Households (1) $60,000 III. Aggregate Annual Income $488,592,000 Number of Units 3,699 8,945 8,945 Average Occupancy Rate 97.5% 97.5% 95.0% Number of Occupied Households 3,607 8,721 8,498 II. Required Annual Income Fair Market Value Per Unit $520,000 $350,000 Down Payment 10% $468,000 $315,000 Interest Rate 5.5% Term (Years) 30 Monthly Mortgage Payment $2,657 $1,789 Property Tax 1.25% of Value $542 $365 HOA Fees (Per Month) $200 $200 Total Monthly Costs 35% $3,399 $2,353 $1,500 Income Allocation Per Year @ $116,534 $80,678 $60,000 Minimum Income Required (Rounded) $117,000 $81,000 $60,000 III. Aggregate Annual Income $488,592,000 $706,401,000 $509,880,000 (1) Source: SANDAG Demographic & Socio Economic Estimates - Sweetwater, January 1, 2013. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 2015- bi.kecj 6VcUjgaykL4_Otay Ranch 12_v6;3/12/2015;lag Page 901 TABLE B -4 ACTIVE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS IN TRADE AREA - DETACHED OTAY RANCH PA 12 SUN RANCH CAPITAL PARTNERS Source: Otay Ranch New Homes, South County Sales Traffic Recap, February 1, 2015. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 2015- &i.key2nAjA & &0j &W_Otay Ranch 12_ v6;3/12/2015;lag Page 902 Total Total Total Units Development Community Developer Units Released Sold Remaining Unit Size (SF) Sales Price Price SF Anacapa Otay Ranch Otay Ranch New Homes 54 46 35 19 2,221 2,249 $480,500 $803,898 $287 Bocara Otay Ranch Heritage Building & Developmen 126 54 45 81 1,609 1,940 $415,900 $436,900 $240 Corta Bella Otay Ranch Sunrise Company 68 60 58 10 1,936 2,652 $455,900 $493,900 $207 Presidio: V2 Otay Ranch Otay Ranch New Homes 47 22 19 28 2,571 2,649 $545,000 $560,000 $212 Presidio: V7 Otay Ranch Otay Ranch New Homes 24 20 20 4 2,631 2,639 $577,900 $582,900 $220 Total 319 202 177 142 Minimum 24 20 19 4 1,609 $415,900 $207 Maximum 126 60 58 81 2,652 $803,898 $287 Median 54 46 35 19 2,410 $519,450 $220 Average 64 40 35 28 2,310 $535,280 $233 Source: Otay Ranch New Homes, South County Sales Traffic Recap, February 1, 2015. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 2015- &i.key2nAjA & &0j &W_Otay Ranch 12_ v6;3/12/2015;lag Page 902 TABLE B -5 ACTIVE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS IN TRADE AREA - ATTACHED, 2ND QUARTER 2013 OTAY RANCH PA 12 SUN RANCH CAPITAL PARTNERS Source: Otay Ranch New Homes, South County Sales Traffic Recap, May 12, 2013. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 2015- &i.kenl2rAjA & &0j &W_Otay Ranch 12_ v6;3/12/2015;lag Page 903 Total Total Total Units Average Average Average Development Community Developer Units Released Sold Remaining Unit Size (SF) Sales Price Price SF Avalon Otay Ranch Sunrise Company 165 162 152 13 1,163 1,621 $294,900 $364,900 $237 Avaire Otay Ranch Sunrise Company 144 30 22 122 1,098 1,928 $289,900 $375,900 $220 Tosara Otay Ranch Pacific Coast Communities 89 16 13 76 1,635 2,366 $357,900 $409,900 $192 Total 398 208 187 211 Minimum 89 16 13 13 1,098 $289,900 $192 Maximum 165 162 152 122 2,366 $409,900 $237 Median 144 30 22 76 1,628 $361,400 $220 Average 133 69 62 70 1,635 $348,900 $216 Source: Otay Ranch New Homes, South County Sales Traffic Recap, May 12, 2013. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 2015- &i.kenl2rAjA & &0j &W_Otay Ranch 12_ v6;3/12/2015;lag Page 903 TABLE B -6 RETAIL SPACE SUPPORTED BY PIPELINE /PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN TRADE AREA (1) OTAY RANCH PA 12 SUN RANCH CAPITAL PARTNERS I. Total Annual Aggregate Income Single - Family Households Multi - Family For -Sale Households Multi - Family Rental Households Total Annual Aggregate Income II. Aggregate Annual Income Spent on Retail Expenditures @ Per Capita @ III. Retail Spending Captured in Trade Area @ IV. Estimated Sales Productivity per SF per Year@ 33.0% 63,544 population (2) 67.0% $488,592,000 $706,401,000 $509,880,000 $1,704,873,000 $562,608,000 $8,854 $376,947,000 $350 V. Estimated Retail Space Supported by New Households Retail Space Supported by New Households 1,077,000 SF (Less) Vacancy @ 2.5% (27,000) SF Net Retail Space Supported by New Households 1,050,000 SF (1) Assumes Trade Area is SANDAG Subregional Area 20 - Sweetwater. �MpSRH- by'FKBe�er Marston Associates, Inc. Filename is \Chula Vista_Otay Ranch 12_v6;3/12/2015;lag 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 904 TABLE B -7 RETAIL SPACE SUPPORTED BY NEW OFFICE WORKERS - TRADE AREA (1) OTAY RANCH PA 12 SUN RANCH CAPITAL PARTNERS I. Estimate of Office Space (2) II. Estimate of New Office Employment SF per Office Worker Total New Office Workers III. Estimated Office Worker Retail Expenditures per Year (3) IV. Total Annual Retail Expenditures by Office Workers V. Share of New Office Worker Retail Expenditures Captured in Trade Area @ VI. Total New Office Worker Retail Expenditures Captured in Trade Area Estimated Sales per SF per Year VII. Total Retail Space Demand from New Office Workers Retail Space Supported by New Office Workers (Less) Vacancy @ 7.5% 3,105,000 SF 200 SF 15,525 Workers $6,500 $100,912,500 75 $75,684,375 $350 /SF 216,000 SF (16,000) SF Net Retail Space Demand from New Office Workers 200,000 SF (1) Assumes Trade Area is SANDAG Subregional Area 20 - Sweetwater. (2) See Table C -1 regarding assumed allocation of pipeline /planned commercial space uses in trade area. (3) Source: International Council of Shopping Centers. Office Worker Retail Spending, 2012. Reflects Office Worker spending, including those who spent nothing, and excluding transportation and on -line purchases. Assumes average expenditures for 50 weeks. Excludes demand from non - office workers visitors, and residents beyond trade area. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 2015 - fi4lep2% %A4PAAeyista_Otay Ranch 12_v6;3/12/2015;1ag Page 905 TABLE B -8 RETAIL SPACE SUPPORTED BY UPID STUDENTS AND FACULTY /STAFF OTAY RANCH PA 12 SUN RANCH CAPITAL PARTNERS I. Students A. Projected Number of Students B. Per Capita Retail Expenditures Per Capita Retail Expenditures by Students @ 50% C. Estimated Total Annual Retail Expenditures by Students D. Share of Student Retail Expenditures Captured in Trade Area @ E. Total Annual Student Retail Expenditures Captured in Trade Area Estimated Sales Per SF F. Total Retail Space Demand from Students II. Faculty /Staff A. Projected Number of Faculty /Staff Projected Number of Students Student to Faculty Ratio @ Total Projected Faculty /Staff B. Estimated Faculty /Staff Retail Expenditures per Year C. Estimated Total Annual Retail Expenditures by Faculty /Staff D. Share of Faculty /Staff Retail Expenditures Captured in Trade Area @ E. Total Faculty /Staff Retail Expenditures Captured in Trade Area Estimated Sales Per SF F. Total Retail Space Demand from Faculty /Staff 18,000 Students (1) $8,854 (2) $4,427 $79,685,000 75% $59,764,000 $350 /SF 171,000 SF 18,000 Students 10.0 Students Per 1.0 Faculty /Staff (3) 1,800 Faculty /Staff $6,500 (4) $11,700,000 75% $8,775,000 $350 /SF 25,000 SF III. Total Retail Space Supported by Students and Faculty /Staff Retail Space Supported by Students and Faculty /Staff 196,000 SF (Less) Vacancy @ 2.5% (5,000) SF Total Retail Space Supported by Students and Faculty /Staff 191,000 SF (1) Source: City of Chula Vista Vision 2020. (2) Estimated per capita retail expenditures by new residents (see Table B -6). (3) Based on a review of student to faculty /staff ratios at UC San Diego, San Diego State University, and University of San Diego. (4) Source: International Council of Shopping Centers. Office Worker Retail Spending, 2012. Reflects Office Worker spending, including those who spent nothing, and excluding transportation and on -line purchases. Assumes average expenditures for 50 weeks. Excludes demand from non - office workers, visitors, and residents beyond trade area. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename is \Chula Vista_Otay Ranch 12_v6;3/12/2015;lag 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 906 TABLE B -9 TOTAL RETAIL SPACE SUPPORTED BY PIPELINE /PLANNED DEVELOPMENT IN TRADE AREA OTAY RANCH PA 12 SUN RANCH CAPITAL PARTNERS I. Retail Space Supported by New Households II. Retail Space Supported by New Office Workers III. Retail Space Supported by UPID Students and Faculty /Staff IV. Total Retail Space Supported V. Add: Retail Space Supported by Visitors from Beyond Trade Area VI. Total New Retail Space Supported through Buildout of Trade Area VII. Add: Retail Space Suppported by Recapture of Retail Leakage 1,050,000 SF 200,000 SF 191,000 SF 1,441,000 SF 25% 360,000 SF 1,801,000 SF 129,000 SF VIII. Total New Retail Space Supported through Buildout of Trade Area 1,930,000 SF Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 2015 - fi4eiy,%gAiWP9 #eYista_Otay Ranch 12_v6;3/12/2015;1ag Page 907 TABLE B -10 RECAPTURE OF RETAIL LEAKAGE OTAY RANCH PA 12 SUN RANCH CAPITAL PARTNERS I. Retail Leakage - Trade Area - 4 -Mile Ring (Table A -4) II. Assumed Recapture @ III. Total Retail Recaptured IV. Estimated Sales Productivity per SF per Year@ V. Retail Space Supported by Recapture of Retail Leakage Recapture of Retail Leakage Add: Vacancy Allowance @ ($219,951,000) 20.0% of Leakage $43,990,000 350 /SF 126,000 SF 2.5% 3,000 SF Retail Space Supported by Recapture of Retail Leakage 129,000 SF Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 2015 -6i eln2r)jj ji�"pkk&ta_Otay Ranch 12_v6;3/12/2015;lag Page 908 ATTACHMENT C Projected Supply 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 909 TABLE C -1 PIPELINE /PLANNED COMMERCIAL SQUARE FEET - EASTLAKE III AND OTAY RANCH OTAY RANCH PA 12 SUN RANCH CAPITAL PARTNERS III. Total Pipeline /Planned Commercial SF Pipeline /Planned Commercial SF 2,075,000 SF 3,357,000 SF 5,432,000 SF (Less) Vacancy @ 2.5% (52,000) SF 7.5% (252,000) SF (304,000) SF Net Pipeline /Planned Commercial SF 2,023,000 SF 3,105,000 SF 5,128,000 SF Source: City of Chula Vista; Baldwin & Sons Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 2015_bi'�eln2r)jj j �"plgk�*a_Otay Ranch 12_v7;4/30/2015;lag Page 910 Retail Office Total I. Eastlake III Vistas 15,000 SF - 15,000 SF II. Otay Ranch Village Two 130,000 SF - 130,000 SF Village Three 48,000 SF 111,000 SF 159,000 SF Village Eight East 20,000 SF - 20,000 SF Village Eight West 250,000 SF 50,000 SF 300,000 SF Village Nine 300,000 SF 1,200,000 SF 1,500,000 SF FWC (Includes ORTC) 317,000 SF - 317,000 SF PA 12 15,000 SF - 15,000 SF EUC (Millenia) 980,000 SF 1,996,000 SF 2,976,000 SF UPID - - 0 SF Subtotal Otay Ranch 2,060,000 SF 3,357,000 SF 5,417,000 SF III. Total Pipeline /Planned Commercial SF Pipeline /Planned Commercial SF 2,075,000 SF 3,357,000 SF 5,432,000 SF (Less) Vacancy @ 2.5% (52,000) SF 7.5% (252,000) SF (304,000) SF Net Pipeline /Planned Commercial SF 2,023,000 SF 3,105,000 SF 5,128,000 SF Source: City of Chula Vista; Baldwin & Sons Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 2015_bi'�eln2r)jj j �"plgk�*a_Otay Ranch 12_v7;4/30/2015;lag Page 910 Addendum to EIR Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Planning Area 12 PROJECT NAME: PROJECT LOCATION: PROJECT APPLICANT: DATE: 1 INTRODUCTION Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 City of Chula Vista City of Chula Vista April 15, 2015 The Final Environmental Impact Report for the Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial Sectional Planning Area Plan Planning Area 12 (FEIR) contains a comprehensive disclosure and analysis of potential environmental effects associated with the implementation of the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan and Freeway Commercial (FC) site (referred to as "approved project" or "SPA Plan ") in the City of Chula Vista (City) (City of Chula Vista 2003). The SPA Plan was developed to refine and implement the land use plans, goals and objectives of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) for the development of Planning Area (PA) 12. This Addendum addresses proposed modifications to the designations in the General Plan and Otay Ranch GDP for the northern portion of Planning Area 12, which would allow for the construction of 600 multi - family residential units, 15,000 square -feet of commercial space in a mixed use format, and 2.0 acres of public parkland. To achieve this, the definition of the current freeway commercial zone would be modified to allow for residential uses. These proposed residential uses would account for approximately 26.7 acres of the Freeway Commercial 2 (FC -2) site. 2 CEQA REQUIREMENTS Sections 15162 through 15164 of the CEQA guidelines discuss a lead agency's responsibilities in handling new information that was not included in a project's final environmental impact report (EIR). Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines provides: a. When an EIR has been certified... for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: 7266 April 2015 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 911 Addendum to EIR Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Planning Area 12 1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the EIR ... due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or 3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the EIR was certified as complete, shows any of the following: A. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the [Final] EIR; B. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the [Final] EIR; C. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or D. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the [Final] EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. In the event that one of these conditions would require preparation of a subsequent EIR, but "only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the [Final] EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation," the City could choose instead to issue a supplement to the FEIR (CEQA Guidelines, § 15163, subd. (a)). In the alternative, where the changes or new information will result in no new impacts, or no more severe impacts than any that were disclosed in the FEIR for the approved project, the City "shall prepare an addendum" pursuant to CEQA Guideline, § 15164. That section states that an addendum should include a "brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to § 15162," and that the explanation needs to be supported by substantial evidence (CEQA Guidelines, § 15164, subd. (e).) The addendum need not be circulated for public review, but may simply be attached to the FEIR (Ibid.; CEQA Guideline, § 15164, subd. (c)). 7266 2 April 2015 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 912 Addendum to EIR Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Planning Area 12 Thus, in the following inquiry the City considers under the standards articulated above whether each of these changed circumstances reveal or create previously undisclosed significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously disclosed impacts (CEQA Guidelines, §15162, 15163, 15164, subd. (a); 15088.5, subds. [a], [b]). As the following discussion demonstrates, it is appropriate for the City to prepare this Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial Sectional Planning Area Plan Planning Area 12 project, pursuant to CEQA Guideline, § 15164. 3 PROJECT LOCATION AND REGIONAL SETTING Otay Ranch lies within the East Planning Area of the City of Chula Vista. The East Planning Area is bordered by Interstate 805 (I -805) to the west, San Miguel Mountain and State Route 54 to the north, the Otay Reservoir and the Jamul foothills to the east, and the Otay River Valley to the south. The SPA Plan is located in the northeastern portion of the Otay Valley Parcel of the 22,899 -acre Otay Ranch GDP project area (Figures 1 and 2). The project site, which comprises the FC portion of PA 12 in the adopted Otay Ranch GDP, is located east of State Route 125, west of Eastlake Parkway, south of Olympic Parkway, and north of Birch Road. The project area is characterized by flat mesa tops and rolling hills including a sloping canyon located in the central portion of the project site, which heads west towards Poggi Canyon. Site elevation ranges from approximately 560 feet above mean sea level (amsl) to approximately 640 feet amsl. The site was previously used for agricultural uses and livestock grazing. The site contains a small system of dirt roads and cattle trails, as well as inactive agricultural fields and non - native grasslands. The project site is surrounded by other Otay Ranch development areas including Village 6 to the west, Village I I to the east, a portion of the existing Eastlake community to the north and northeast, Village 7 to the southwest, and the EUC to the south of Birch Road. Eastlake High School and a commercial area are located north of the project site and the Arco Olympic Training Center is located east of the project site, immediately adjacent to Otay Lake. The proposed modifications are located in the northern portion of PA 12, which is identified as FC -2 in the FEIR. FC -1 is fully developed as the Otay Ranch Town Center. 4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site (SPA Plan area) is comprised of approximately 120.5 acres of commercial land development, and approximately 12.4 acres for circulation improvements. A total of 1,215,000 square feet of commercial uses were proposed including administrative and professional office 7266 3 April 2015 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 913 Addendum to EIR Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Planning Area 12 services, general commercial uses, and public and semipublic uses. The approved project also included a light rail alignment or transit way and a station site for the San Diego Trolley accompanied by a park -and -ride facility. The project site is divided into two major sections, including FC -1 to the south and FC -2 to the north. Under the proposed modifications, no changes to the FC -I area would occur as FC -I is currently developed as the Otay Ranch Town Center. All proposed modifications would occur within the FC -2 portion of the site (Figure 3). Town Center Drive, a north -south oriented road, runs through the center of FC -2 to connect Olympic Parkway to FC -1. All graded material would be balanced on site and would consist of approximately 1,620,000 total cubic yards of grading over the entire site (City of Chula Vista 2003). This Addendum addresses proposed modifications to the General Plan and Otay Ranch GDP designations to the northern portion of Planning Area 12, which would allow for the construction of 600 multi - family residential units, 15,000 square -feet of commercial space in a mixed use format, and 2.0 acres of public parkland. To achieve this, the definition of the current freeway commercial zone would be modified to allow for residential uses. These proposed residential uses would account for approximately 26.7 acres of the FC -2 site. Commercial space under the proposed modifications would decrease from the approved project (FC -1 and FC -2) as analyzed in the FEIR from 1,215,000 square -feet to approximately 1,092,000 square -feet (including approximately 210,000 square -feet for the hotel uses with the FC -2 site). It should be noted that no changes to the hotel portion of the FC -2 site would occur as a result of the proposed modifications, as it is consistent with the current entitlements; the hotel portion may be included on site plans and throughout parts of the analysis to give a holistic look at the FC -2 site. This action would allow for the only anticipated residential units within the Planning Area 12 SPA boundary and would change the character of the FC -2 site from a general commercial center to a mixed use community offering multifamily residential units, retail commercial, hotels, and a centralized public park. The proposed modification in land use would require amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GP), the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP). A SPA amendment would also need to be approved at a future date. The proposed modifications would not require an expansion of the project site from that studied in the Final EIR and the proposed modifications would result in a decrease in trip generation and traffic impacts, and would not substantially change trip distribution patterns. No additional significant impacts beyond those previously analyzed in the FEIR, or substantial increases in any identified significant impacts are anticipated; however, the proposed modification represents new information that was not available at the time that the FEIR was certified. Therefore, the City has prepared this addendum pursuant to CEQA § 15162 to disclose minor changes in the approved project, and minor changes in some of the environmental effects as a result of proposed modifications. 7266 4 April 2015 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 914 Addendum to EIR Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Planning Area 12 5 IDENTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The following environmental analysis provided in Section 6.0 supports a determination that approval and implementation of the proposed zoning modifications to the FC -2 site on PA 12 would not result in any additional significant environmental effects beyond those previously analyzed under the FEIR for the approved project. 6 ANALYSIS Aesthetics /Landform Alterations Impacts to aesthetics are addressed in Section 5.2 of the FEIR. As analyzed in the FEIR, the SPA Plan would not obstruct a scenic vista and no scenic resources are visible from nearby roadways, including Olympic Parkway, which is not a designated scenic highway, but is considered a "scenic corridor" as designated by the City of Chula Vista General Plan. As part of project design, the approved project would include an enhanced landscaped buffer along the border of the project site to minimize impacts along the scenic corridor. Additionally, although the project site is currently undeveloped, the site is located adjacent to large areas of developed land and future planned development areas. Moreover, the adopted SPA Plan includes design development standards to minimize impacts to visual quality. The proposed modification to the FC -2 site would change a portion of the current commercial land use designation of the site to residential and mixed use and would include a neighborhood park; however, the aesthetic nature of the residential development within these areas would not be substantially different. Additionally, because no changes to the hotel portion of the FC -2 site would occur, no aesthetic changes would occur. The addition of a 2.0 acre park space within the FC -2 site would enhance the visual character through increased greenspace and natural elements. Therefore, the proposed modifications would not result in any significant impacts to scenic vistas or resources. The FEIR identified significant impacts resulting from additional light and glare to the area as the approved project would introduce new land uses to a currently undeveloped site. The proposed modifications would introduce similar light and glare elements to the area; however, the project site boundaries would remain as analyzed previously and no new light and glare impacts beyond those identified in the FEIR would occur. Therefore, no new mitigation would be required beyond mitigation measures 5.2 -1 through 5.2 -9 as identified in the FEIR. Although the proposed modifications would result in different land uses primarily consisting of residential development, thereby altering previously discussed development patterns, the 7266 5 April 2015 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 915 Addendum to EIR Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Planning Area 12 modification would maintain all previously analyzed design standards and architectural considerations. Therefore, the proposed modifications from primarily commercial to mixed -use residential would not result in new substantial or significant impacts beyond those previously analyzed in the FEIR. Agriculture Impacts to agriculture are addressed in Section 5.9 of the FEIR. The proposed modifications would not result in development outside of previously established boundaries for the approved project development as proposed in the approved SPA Plan. Therefore, no new or increased levels of impacts to agricultural resources would result from implementation of the proposed modifications beyond those previously analyzed in the FEIR. Additionally, an Agricultural Plan has been prepared as part of the previously adopted SPA Plan in accordance with the mitigation identified in the Otay Ranch GDP Program EIR. This plan is intended to allow for interim agricultural activity and to prevent the potential for land use impacts between developed land and ongoing agricultural activities by providing separation between urban and adjacent agricultural uses. The Agricultural Plan includes a requirement for notification of adjacent property owners of pesticide use and other potentially harmful activities, as well as physical barriers, if warranted. Consequently, no new impacts to agriculture beyond those previously analyzed would occur. Air Quality Impacts to air quality are addressed in Section 5.4 of the FEIR. The proposed modifications addressed in this Addendum would not result in an increase in overall land use intensity or substantially change traffic distribution patterns, and would result in a decrease in traffic generation. An air quality technical report was prepared for the proposed modifications by Scientific Resources Associated (SRA 2014a). The air quality technical report analyzed air quality impacts from the proposed modifications. Information provided in the air quality technical report was compared against the analysis in the FEIR for a determination of overall net impacts resulting from the proposed modifications. Construction emissions as estimated in the air quality technical report would be below all significance thresholds for criteria air pollutants, and would not exceed those levels identified in the FEIR. The site would be watered at least three times daily to control fugitive dust emissions, and vehicle speeds would not exceed 15 miles per hour, per FEIR mitigation measure 5.4 -2. In addition, low -VOC paints would be utilized during architectural coatings. With incorporation of these design features, construction emissions were estimated to be below construction emissions 7266 6 April 2015 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 916 Addendum to EIR Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Planning Area 12 estimated in the FEIR. The FEIR also identified mitigation measures 5.4 -1 and 5.4 -2, which reflect dust control measures and measures to reduce VOC and NO,, emissions. With the proposed modifications to land uses, operational emissions would be well below the levels identified in the FEIR. As discussed, the proposed modifications would result in fewer trips than the approved project; therefore, mobile emissions resulting from the proposed modifications would be lower than that previously analyzed in the FEIR. Additionally, mitigation measures 5.4 -3 and 5.4 -4 are identified in the FEIR, which would further reduce operational emissions. A health risk assessment was prepared for the proposed modifications in addition to estimates for construction and operational criteria pollutant emissions. Maximum excess cancer risk due to inhalation of diesel particulate matter (DPM) was predicted to be 17.77 in a million at the point of maximum exposure, based on a 70 -year scenario. Maximum excess cancer risk for the 9 -year scenario was estimated to be 4.44 in a million. The maximum excess cancer risks due to inhalation of DPM at an actual residential dwelling were predicted to be 9.801 in a million based on a 70 -year residential exposure scenario. Maximum excess cancer risks for the 9 -year exposure scenario at this location were 2.29 in a million. These values are below the significance thresholds of 10 in a million (SRA 2013). Therefore, no new significant sources of construction or operational air emissions or health risk impacts beyond those identified in the FEIR would occur with implementation of the proposed modifications to the approved project. Biological Resources Impacts to biological resources are addressed in Section 5.8 of the FEIR. As indicated in the FEIR, no sensitive habitat or wetlands occur on the project site, and there is a low potential for sensitive plant species to occur on site and no sensitive plant species were observed at the time of surveying. Sensitive animal species observed on site include golden eagles and tricolored blackbirds; however, no nesting activity or suitable habitat for these species were observed. The proposed modifications would not exceed previously established boundaries for project development as approved in the SPA Plan and the proposed modifications would be subject to mitigation as provided in Section 5.8. Therefore, no new or increased levels of impacts to biological resources would result from implementation of the proposed modifications beyond those previously analyzed in the FEIR. 7266 7 April 2015 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 917 Addendum to EIR Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Planning Area 12 Geology and Soils Impacts to geology and soils are addressed in Section 5.11 of the FEIR. The geotechnical analysis presented in Section 5.11 of the FEIR was derived from GEOCON, Inc.'s Geotechnical Investigation Otay Ranch, Village 12 prepared in August of 2001. As previously discussed, the proposed modifications would not exceed previously established boundaries for project development as approved in the SPA Plan, and all proposed modifications would be subject to mitigation provided in Section 5.11. Due to the fact that proposed modifications would not increase acreage undergoing grading and excavation, no new significant impacts beyond those previously identified in the EIR would occur. Therefore, implementation of the proposed modifications would not require additional analysis beyond that which is presented in Section 5.11 of the FEIR, and no new impacts would occur. Greenhouse Gases Impacts resulting from greenhouse gas emissions were not addressed in the FEIR. The proposed modifications would not increase the severity of previously identified air quality impacts, nor would it result in any new significant effects related to air emissions that were not previously identified in the FEIR. Additionally, the proposed modifications would result in fewer vehicle trips compared to the approved project as analyzed in the FEIR; therefore, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from mobile sources would be less. Moreover, in light of the wide range of global warming activity prior to certification of the FEIR in 2003, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the proposed modifications would be undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIR was completed has since been identified. A Global Climate Change Evaluation was prepared for the proposed project by SRA. GHG emissions were calculated in the report for "business as usual" conditions and for conditions with implementation of GHG emission reduction project design features proposed by the proposed project applicants. "Business as usual" is defined as the emissions that would have occurred in the absence of reductions mandated under AB 32, including GHG reductions from implementation of the Pavley 1 and Pavley 2 motor vehicle standard, GHG reductions from implementation of the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, and GHG reductions from implementation of the Renewable Portfolio Standard. "Business as usual" conditions also are based on energy efficiency standards codified in Title 24 as of 2005, and do not take into consideration energy efficiency measures codified in Title 24 as of 2013, nor do they take into account other programs such as the Federal CAFE standards (SRA 2014). 7266 8 April 2015 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 918 Addendum to EIR Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Planning Area 12 To evaluate impacts from discretionary projects, many lead agencies have set a goal to reduce GHG emissions by a certain amount to demonstrate consistency with AB 32. Different agencies and studies estimate different goals for reduction of emissions to achieve 1990 levels by the year 2020, as set forth in AB 32. Other agencies have estimated a reduction of 28% to 29% based on the ARB's analysis that statewide 2020 business as usual GHG emissions would be 596 MMTCO2e, with 1990 emissions of 427 MMTCO2e, for a reduction of 28.35% (ARB 2010). Based on this goal, a significance threshold of 28.35% below "business as usual" conditions was used in this analysis to evaluate potential significance of impacts from GHG emissions. The City has established a significance threshold of 20% below "business as usual ". GHG emissions associated with the proposed modifications were estimated separately for four categories of emissions: (1) construction; (2) energy use, including electricity and natural gas usage; (3) water consumption; (4) waste management; and (5) transportation. The analysis includes a baseline estimate assuming 2005 Title 24- compliant buildings, which is considered business as usual for the proposed modifications. For "business as usual" conditions, emissions were calculated without implementation of the Pavley standards or Low Carbon Fuel Standard. The proposed modifications would include a number of project design features that would reduce the project's GHG emissions including land use and community design measures, transit facilities, and building siting and construction, as identified in the Global Climate Change Evaluation. These measures were taken into account when estimating the proposed modifications' total CO2 equivalent emissions as shown in Table 1 below. As noted in Section 3.0 above, no changes to the hotel portion of the FC -2 site are proposed; however, the GHG emissions calculations include the hotel use in order to achieve a holistic view of the FC -2 site. As such, the GHG emissions from the proposed modifications would be expected to be lower than that outlined in Table 1 below. Amortized over 30 years, construction would contribute 174 metric tons per year of CO2 emissions. These emissions were added to the operational GHG emissions to evaluate their significance. The results of the inventory for operational emissions for business as usual are presented in Table 1. These include GHG emissions associated with buildings (natural gas, purchased electricity) and water consumption (energy embodied in potable water). 7266 9 April 2015 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 919 Addendum to EIR Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Planning Area 12 Table 1 Summary of Estimated Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions Source: SRA 2014 As shown in Table 1, the proposed modifications would meet the significance threshold by reducing operational GHG emissions by 38.27 %. Project emissions, with inclusion of GHG reduction measures, would achieve a reduction greater than the City's 20% reduction from "business as usual" threshold. Again, as noted previously, these calculated emissions also include the hotel portion of the FC -2 site, which would not change under the proposed modifications. As such, the GHG emissions resulting from the proposed modifications would be lower than that identified in Table 1 above. The proposed modifications would, therefore, meet the goals of AB 32. Impacts resulting from emissions of greenhouse gases would therefore be less than significant. Water Resources and Water Quality Impacts to water quality are addressed in Section 5.10 of the FEIR. SPA -level water quality technical reports were completed for the approved project as analyzed in the FEIR. The proposed modifications would continue to comply with all applicable rules and regulations including compliance with NPDES permit requirements for urban runoff and storm water discharge. Best Management Practices (BMPs) for design, treatment and monitoring for storm water quality would be implemented as delineated in the FEIR with respect to municipal and construction permits. Compliance with all applicable rules and regulations governing water quality as well as implementation of all mitigation measures outlined in Section 5.10 of the FEIR would ensure no additional impacts to water quality beyond those previously analyzed would occur as a result of the proposed modifications. 7266 10 April 2015 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 920 Emission Source Annual Emissions (metric tons /year) I CO2 T CHa N20 Operational Emissions Electricity Use Emissions 464 0.0193 0.0052 Natural Gas Use Emissions 813 0.0904 0.0015 Water Consumption Emissions 208 0.0087 0.0023 Waste Management Emissions 25 1.14850 — Vehicle Emissions 4,571 0.0317 0.2093 Amortized Construction Emissions 174 — — Total 6,255 1.6351 0.2183 Total CO2 Equivalent Emissions 6,360 Business as Usual CO2 Equivalent Emissions 10,606 Reduction 38.27% Source: SRA 2014 As shown in Table 1, the proposed modifications would meet the significance threshold by reducing operational GHG emissions by 38.27 %. Project emissions, with inclusion of GHG reduction measures, would achieve a reduction greater than the City's 20% reduction from "business as usual" threshold. Again, as noted previously, these calculated emissions also include the hotel portion of the FC -2 site, which would not change under the proposed modifications. As such, the GHG emissions resulting from the proposed modifications would be lower than that identified in Table 1 above. The proposed modifications would, therefore, meet the goals of AB 32. Impacts resulting from emissions of greenhouse gases would therefore be less than significant. Water Resources and Water Quality Impacts to water quality are addressed in Section 5.10 of the FEIR. SPA -level water quality technical reports were completed for the approved project as analyzed in the FEIR. The proposed modifications would continue to comply with all applicable rules and regulations including compliance with NPDES permit requirements for urban runoff and storm water discharge. Best Management Practices (BMPs) for design, treatment and monitoring for storm water quality would be implemented as delineated in the FEIR with respect to municipal and construction permits. Compliance with all applicable rules and regulations governing water quality as well as implementation of all mitigation measures outlined in Section 5.10 of the FEIR would ensure no additional impacts to water quality beyond those previously analyzed would occur as a result of the proposed modifications. 7266 10 April 2015 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 920 Addendum to EIR Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Planning Area 12 Noise The Acoustical Assessment (Dudek 2015) concludes that the future noise levels from traffic would exceed the City's maximum exterior noise level criterion of 65 dBA CNEL above the first floor at the both the residential units fronting SR -125 and the Bus Rapid Transit corridor. Additionally, the noise levels at the exterior use areas for the mixed use buildings on the northeastern portion of the site would exceed the City's limit. However, the Otay Ranch GDP has policies in place to require appropriate sound attenuation project features for all required residential open space and public open space areas that are exposed to a noise level of 65 dBA CNEL or greater. Consistent with these policies, balconies planned on these residential units that are counted toward any open space requirements would incorporate appropriate sound attenuating project features around the perimeter of the balconies. As a result, these outdoor areas would not exceed the 65 dB CNEL threshold. This analysis also demonstrates that HVAC, truck traffic, loading and unloading, and trash collection would not exceed the City's applicable limits established in the noise ordinance in accordance with Mitigation Measure 5.5 -1 of the approved FEIR. Additionally, consistent with Mitigation Measure 5.5 -2 of the approved FEIR, the proposed project would not result in noise levels that exceed 70 dBA CNEL at patron - occupied exterior areas of the proposed commercial land uses. Therefore, no new significant impacts would occur beyond what is analyzed in the FEIR. Traffic, Circulation, and Access Impacts to traffic are addressed in Section 5.3 of the FEIR. A traffic analysis has been conducted to evaluate the potential traffic impacts associated with the proposed modifications (Chen Ryan 2015). The trip generation rate utilized for the entire PA 12 (Freeway Commercial land use) as analyzed in the FEIR was 40 trips per 1,000 square -feet of commercial space. The FC -2 site, when accounting for the proposed modifications, consists of hotel uses, residential, mixed- use commercial, and park, and is located within 1,500 feet (less than 10 minutes of walking) of the Otay Ranch Town Center, grocery, banking, drugstore, postal services, both fast food and sit - down restaurants, as well as a future BRT station (this area encompasses the FC -1 portion of PA 12). A 15% trip reduction was utilized in the project's traffic analysis to account for the mixed - use nature of the project as well as its proximity to transit, consistent with SANDAG guidance (Chen Ryan 2015). With a 15% transit and mixed -use reduction, the FC -2 site would generate approximately 7,506 daily trips, which is lower than the entitled land use trip generation of approximately 12,145 daily trips for the FC -2 site. Additionally, the traffic analysis accounted for the hotel portion of the FC -2 site; under the proposed modifications, the hotel portions for the FC -2 site would not 7266 11 April 2015 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 921 Addendum to EIR Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Planning Area 12 change. Therefore, the proposed modifications would result in fewer trips than analyzed in the traffic analysis. Since the proposed modified land uses would generate less traffic than the entitled land uses, there would be no additional traffic impacts associated with the proposed modifications. Therefore, no new significant impacts would occur beyond what is analyzed in the FEIR. Public Services and Utilities Impacts to public services and utilities are addressed in Section 5.12 of the FEIR. A Water System Evaluation memorandum was prepared by Dexter Wilson for the project (Dexter Wilson 2014a). Additionally, a Sewer System Evaluation was prepared for the proposed project (Dexter Wilson 2014b). Water Demand and Water System The approved project water demands were included in the 2010 Water Resources Master Plan. Table 2 summarizes the approved project water demands as presented in the Water Resources Master Plan and projected demand based on the proposed modifications. As shown, projected water demand from the proposed modifications would increase by 136,378 gallons per day, or 13 acre -feet per year from that assumed in the Water Resources Master Plan (Dexter Wilson 2014). Table 2 Proposed Project Water Demand Summary Land Use Acres I Building Units I Unit Demand Factor Total Demand (gpd) Approved Water Demand (2010 WRMP) Commercial 29.9 1 1 1,785 gpd /ac 53,372 Proposed Modification Potable Water Demand Multi - Family Residential 600 255 gpd /unit' 153,000 Hotels 300 115 gpd /unit' 34,500 Commercial 1.4 1,607 gpd /ac' 2,250 Subtotal 189,750 Increased Water Demand 136,378 Source: Dexter Wilson 2014a Notes: gpd = gallons per day Assumes recycled water to be used for irrigation The recommended water system was outlined in the 2002 Sub Area Master Plan for the approved project and included in the 2010 Water Resources Management Plan. As shown in Table 2, the 7266 12 April 2015 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 922 Addendum to EIR Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Planning Area 12 water demand for the project exceeds what was estimated in the 2010 Water Resources Management Plan. On April 1, 2015 the Otay Water District approved a Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report for the proposed project. The Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report projected an approximately 173 acre -feet per year increase in demand beyond what was estimated in the 2010 Water Resources Master Plan, and an approximately 46 acre -feet per year increase in demand beyond what was estimated in the 2013 Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report for a prior iteration of the proposed project. The demand is accounted for through the Accelerated Forecasted Growth demand increment of the Water Authority's 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. The sizing of the existing 16 -inch water line in Olympic Parkway, 20 -inch line in Eastlake Parkway, and 12 -inch line in Town Center Drive, and 12 -inch lines within FC -1 are adequate to support the proposed modifications and, therefore, no changes to the approved project water system as analyzed in the FEIR are necessary as a result of the proposed modifications (Dexter Wilson 2014). Additionally, the proposed modifications would comply with the City of Chula Vista Guidelines for water conservation, including the use of recycled water for landscaping and implementation of additional water conservation measures such as hot water pipe insulation, pressure reducing valves, and water efficient dishwashers. Regarding recycled water use, the proposed modification would use recycled water for irrigation of the park site and common areas associated with the commercial and residential sites. Table 3 shows the average recycled water demand associated with the proposed project. Table 3 Proposed Project Projected Recycled Water Demand Source: Dexter Wilson 2014a Notes: gpd = gallons per day As shown in Table 3, the estimated average recycled water demand for the proposed modifications is 31,610 gallons per day, or 35.4 acre -feet per year (Dexter Wilson 2014). 7266 13 April 2015 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 923 Quantity Recycled Water Factor Net Recycled Acreage Unit Rate Average Demand Multi - Family Residential 600 units 15% 45 gpd /unit 27,000 Commercial 1.4 acres 10% 0.4 2,155 gpd /ac 300 Park 2.0 acres 100% 2.0 2,155 gpd /ac 4,310 Total 31,610 gpd Source: Dexter Wilson 2014a Notes: gpd = gallons per day As shown in Table 3, the estimated average recycled water demand for the proposed modifications is 31,610 gallons per day, or 35.4 acre -feet per year (Dexter Wilson 2014). 7266 13 April 2015 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 923 Addendum to EIR Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Planning Area 12 Wastewater Demand and Wastewater System The August 2004 approved SPA plan provided projected wastewater flows. Table 4 shows a comparison between projected wastewater flows for the approved project and wastewater flows based on the land uses of the proposed modifications. Table 4 Proposed Modifications Wastewater Flow Summary Land Use Acres Building Units Generation Factor Average Flow (gpd) Previously Approved Wastewater Flow Commercial 34.5 2,500 gdp /ac 1 2,500 gpd /ac 86,250 Proposed Project Wastewater Flow Multi - Family Residential -- 600 182 gpd /unit 109,200 Hotels -- 300 76 gpd /unit' 22,800 Park 2.0 -- 410 gpd /ac 820 Commercial 1.4 1,401 gpd /ac 1,960 Subtotal 134,780 Increased Wastewater Flow 48,530 Increased Wastewater EDUs 211 Source: Dexter Wilson 2014b Notes: gpd = gallons per day, EDU = equivalent dwelling unit Assumes recycled water to be used for irrigation As shown, an increase of 211 equivalent dwelling units is estimated from that estimated as part of the approved project (Dexter Wilson 2014). The Poggi Canyon Basin Gravity Sewer Development Impact Fee Update (DIF report) was completed in April 2009, which projected wastewater flows associated with the Poggi Canyon Interceptor. Table 5 shows a comparison of wastewater flows associated with the proposed modifications and projected flows as presented in the DIF report. Table 5 Proposed Project and Poggi Basin Wastewater Flow Summary Description Quantity Unit Flow Factor I Average Flow, gpd EDUs 2009 DIF Study C -1 30.4 ac 2,500 gdp /ac 76,000 330.4 C -2 8.2 ac 2,500 gdp /ac 20,500 89.1 Subtotal 2009 DIF Study 420 14 7266 April 2015 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 924 Addendum to EIR Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Planning Area 12 Table 5 Proposed Project and Poggi Basin Wastewater Flow Summary Description Quantity Unit Flow Factor I Average Flow, gpd EDUs Proposed Modifications Multi - Family Residential 600 units 182 gpd /unit 109,200 474.8 Hotels 300 units 76 gpd /unit 22,800 99.1 Park 2.0 acre 410 gpd /ac 820 3.6 Commercial 1.4 acre 1,401 gpd /ac 1,960 8.5 Subtotal Proposed Modifications 586 Increase 1 166 Source: Dexter Wilson 2014b Notes: gpd = gallons per day As shown, the proposed modifications exceed the Poggi Basin projections in the 2009 DIF report by approximately 166 equivalent dwelling units. The proposed on -site wastewater system would consist of gravity sewer lines that would convey flow to the Poggi Canyon Interceptor in Olympic Parkway. Based on the average flow presented in Table 4 and a peak factor of 2.28 from the City Subdivision Manual, the projected peak flow for the proposed modifications is 0.39 million gallons per day. An 8 -inch gravity sewer line with a minimum slope of 0.53% is adequate to convey this projected total flow. Additionally, the proposed modifications do not require additional reaches of the Poggi Interceptor to be upgraded in the future. Therefore, although the proposed modifications would exceed the units anticipated in the 2009 Poggi DIF report, the limits of the required DIF improvements remain the same. Additionally, the proposed modifications would be required to update the Poggi DIF study as a condition of approval (Dexter Wilson 2014b). The project is consistent with FEIR Mitigation Measures 5.12 -11 through 5.12 -13, which require the applicant to demonstrate adequate capacity in the Poggi Canyon sewer line. As demonstrated above, there is adequate sewer capacity. Also, when the proposed project comes forward for approval, it will be conditioned to pay sewer fees and connect to the sewer system. Summary When compared to what was previously analyzed in the FEIR, the proposed project would represent an increase in water and wastewater demand. However, the proposed modifications would not exceed the capacities of the existing water and wastewater systems as well as those proposed under the FEIR. Additionally, on April 1, 2015 the Otay Water District approved a Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report for the proposed project. As such, the 7266 15 April 2015 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 925 Addendum to EIR Otay Ranch r Commercial Sectional Planning Area Plan Plannina Area proposed modifications would not result in any new significant environmental effects beyond those previously analyzed under the FEIR for the approved project. I This document has identified all changed circumstances and new information and memorializes in detail the City's reasoned conclusion that none of these changes create the conditions requiring the preparation of a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163. Pursuant to Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines and based upon the above discussion, I hereby find that approval and implementation of the proposed project will result in only minor technical changes or additions, which are necessary to make the FEIR adequate under CEQA. ;� Chen Ryan. 2015. Otay Ranch PA 12 - Trip Generation Review. February 12. City of Chula Vista. 2003. Final Environmental Impact Report for the Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Planning Area 12. SCH ff 1989010154. Dexter Wilson Engineering, Inc. 2014a. Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial SPA Amendment Water System Evaluation. December 17. Dexter Wilson Engineering, Inc. 2014b. Sewer System Evaluation for the Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial SPA Amendment. December 17. Dudek. 2015. PA -12 Acoustical Assessment Report. February 12. GEOCON, Inc. 2001. Geotechnical Jnvestigation Otay Ra7l.ch, Village 12. August. 116 7266 April 2015 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 926 Addendum to EIR Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Planning Area 12 SRA (Scientific Resources Associated). 2014a. Air Quality Analysis for the Otay Ranch Planning Area 12. July 24. SRA. 2014b. Global Climate Change Evaluation for the Otay Ranch Planning Area 12. September 25. 17 7266 April 2015 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 927 X i m 0 U O iris n �Groy,e ® Tus y \ _ Jacinto Foothil es tmister Sa n Fast 1, ivitl- Ana PinerCo>re Fountain Tusti Su Hemet Hemet ... ;t n V�ISy � _��_ �� - -_ City `,Vin star 'I EITo� � Costa Mire �\ Lola h Statrn EI r Toro Rancho 7 Esino\ Sn[a hlargaria m ' �,.New F�caa Laguna 9e�ch Hills titssion / to De NiVJomar j 'NAIw Vey' Gaza /j VsyD Lag ua Trahun Hhland 6 a c Laguna g ( i �uel nJ n pst no m ra Tee cu la Gana Ca aan9g � A kt 1 -� FSin[ San CA � -� C me rite +� San 9�w 'I Riverside County C911t' I' Rai how — �_— -------- San Diego Ca fin Fallhraok m Camp Pe nd leto n Nodh &arsall rn Pendleton Hidden Oceanside Oceanside laadows Valley Vista Center San lards Escond do Ca rls had Sa nda Ysa he I Service Layer Credits. Copyright 2009 ES ncinitas Ra a San Diego Country Fbway Estates P a c i f i c San Gigo Santee cp. aside Ai� Ha ton 1p Ca rryo n C e a /% Ell La ) Casa J Mesa OFD-Wunt Hela Rancho San n spring' ff;o Grore Vslsy Coy ado Project Site Na ❑ I Rrit's ym m `LAY. Chula Vista nil � Reach ii'ri — --- ---- I ! MEXICO e 0 5 10 s ' 'l Miles � DUDEK Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial SPA Plan - Planning Area 12 Addendum FIGURE 1 Regional Map 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 928 rT . r fanz "W MW 4-MWdM"rq" i _ I 12 `- s ' 6 V Project Site .1 i � s� ! I• ` II S wow C. I C. O 125 � ���� •�� �, .. 0W mono MRIVOW t r •r. Lka e 0 250 500 0 ' 'Feet a IV D U D E K I AERIAL SOURCE BING MAPPING SERVICE U 0 Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial SPA Plan - Planning Area 12 Addendum FIGURE 2 Vicinity Map 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 929 n �Ga I� I � I�I D U D E K SOURCE: BALDWIN AND SONS, LLC Hotel: 148 rooms CYqJ 2 Acre Public Park (with 2 acres of equivalency enhancement) Hotel: 152 rooms O /yiryp c� ark way mss_, i T I i - Residential: 300 units (apartments) Retail: 15,000 sf (mixed -use buildings, along Town Center Drive) Residential: 300 units (condos) Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial SPA Plan - Planning Area 12 Addendum FIGURE 3 Site Plan 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 930 N O N U7 0 1.0 Executive S U1 N Table 1 -1. Summary of Impacts and Mitigation OtnvRnnA Plnnnina Area 11 lid'' .QPA Plate Landform Alteration/Aesthetics: There would.be an overall Significant. change from existing Otay Ranch area topography and landscape from predominantly rural to more urban /developed character. There are no scenic vistas in the area or are there at present scenic highways. The existing visual character of open space would be de ded. Light and Glare: Significant. Light and glare impacts would increase with development of the FC Site and nighttime illumination impacts would increase with implementation of the FC Site No feasible mitigation measures have been identified to reduce this impact. 5.2 -1 All street lighting shall conform to City standards. The design of poles and fixtures shall be consistent with those adopted for the Otay Ranch community. Parking areas, access, drives, and internal vehicular circulation areas shall have sufficient illumination for safety and security. lighting fixtures shall be a zero cutoff at the project edges. The parking lot illumination level shall achieve a uniformity ratio of 3:1 (average to minimum with a minimum of 1.0 foot candles. unmitigated visual impacts would occur Impacts would not be significant Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 EIR — Freeway Commercial Page 1 -11 1X192 CHAPTER 01 Table 1 -l.d" 113I M3 ' ro m as �o w �._ - ........ Significance Potential Environmental Impacts determination Before Mitigation Measures Level of Significance Mitigation After Mitigation 11MA11I: FU 1 0"W .. � . A ) . ldi Land Use Compatibility: Landscaping, grading, and buffering No significant impacts. No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would not be significant standards have been incorporated into the SPA Plan to avoid land use interface impacts between uses, both internally and extemall . Established Community Character: Development of the Significant No feasible mitigation measures have been identified to Significant and not mitigable cumulative impacts. property would result in a significant change in the character of reduce this impact. the site from rural open s ace to an urban use. Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances: land use policies No significant impacts. No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would not be significant that are provided in the SPA PIan include landscape design concepts, building siting and construction, grading policies, buffering guidelines, and provision of public facilities. These policies are part of the project design and are not included as Landform Alteration/Aesthetics: There would.be an overall Significant. change from existing Otay Ranch area topography and landscape from predominantly rural to more urban /developed character. There are no scenic vistas in the area or are there at present scenic highways. The existing visual character of open space would be de ded. Light and Glare: Significant. Light and glare impacts would increase with development of the FC Site and nighttime illumination impacts would increase with implementation of the FC Site No feasible mitigation measures have been identified to reduce this impact. 5.2 -1 All street lighting shall conform to City standards. The design of poles and fixtures shall be consistent with those adopted for the Otay Ranch community. Parking areas, access, drives, and internal vehicular circulation areas shall have sufficient illumination for safety and security. lighting fixtures shall be a zero cutoff at the project edges. The parking lot illumination level shall achieve a uniformity ratio of 3:1 (average to minimum with a minimum of 1.0 foot candles. unmitigated visual impacts would occur Impacts would not be significant Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 EIR — Freeway Commercial Page 1 -11 1X192 CHAPTER 01 Table 1 -l.d" 113I M3 ' ro m as �o w �._ - ........ Executive gage 1 -12 Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 EIR 2 Free or rCommercial W N Significance Level of Significance Potential Environmental Impacts Determination Before Mitigation Measures After Mitigation Mitigation 5.2 -3 Light standards shall not exceed 35 feet in height. 5.2-4 Unless otherwise specifically approved in the Design Review process, exterior pole lighting shall be either high Pressure Sodium (HPS) or Metal halide (MH). 5.2 -5 Lighting shall be indirect, except for parking areas. Overhead pole mounted downward lighting shall be implemented. Light fixtures shall not be placed more than 35 feet above grade- 5.2-6 Lighting levels shall emphasize wailing areas so as to clearly identify the pedestrian walkway and direction of travel. 5.2-7 Outdoor pedestrian use areas, such as courtyards, entryways, and walkways, shall have sufficient illumination for safety and security. Primary pedestrian use area lighting shall achieve a uniformity ratio of 3:1, with an average illumination of 0.60 -foot candles and a minimum of 1.0 foot candles. 5.2 -8 Service area lighting shall be contained within the service yard boundaries and enclosure walls. No light spillover shall be permitted. 5.2 -9 Earthen berms, walls, or dense landscaping shall be provided as appropriate throughout the site to minimize off -site spill lighting from vehicular headlights in parking lots. gage 1 -12 Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 EIR 2 Free or rCommercial W N N O N U7 .3 G. w ro x co Significance 'Level of Significance Potential Environmental Impacts Determination Before Mitigation Measures Aber Mitigation Mitigation As,. Direct Impacts impacts would not be significant Direct Impacts Existing + Project Scenario (1,215,000 square feet) Significant. The following driveways would be directly impacted with Existing + EWect Scenario implementation of the project. 5.3 -1 Olympic Parkway/Eastlake Olympic Parkway/Eastlake Commercial/Project Driveway Commercial/Project Driveway intersection'. Phasing of the following improvements shall be consistent with the project PFFP and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Prior to issuance of building permits triggering the construction of the intersection improvement, the applicant shall enter into an agreement to design, construct, and secure a fully actuated traffic signal, including interconnect wiring, mast arms, signal heads, and associated equipment , underground improvements, standards and luminaries at the Olympic Parkway /Eastlake Commercia"mject Driveway intersection. Provide intersection lane geometry as shown in Figure 29 on opening day. The design of the signal shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Provide tarn lane storage lengths as indicated in Table 20 of the Freeway Commercial Traffic Report (hereinafter referred to as Traffic Report). Eastlake ParkwayNillage I I Access/Project Driveway Significant. 5.3 -2 Village I l/Eastlake Parkway Access/Project Impacts would not be significant. Driveway intersection. Phasing of the following improvements shall be consistent with the project PFFP and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Prior to the issuance of building permits triggering the construction of intersection improvements, the applicant shall enter into an agreement to design, construct, and secure a fully actuated traffic signal, Including interconnect wiring, ..... _ ----- ,, ......................__ _�..— -..._. 0 ui r N OC G. It L0 Executive Page 1 -14 Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 EIR – Freeway Commercial 1K192 CHAPTER Of Table 1 -Ldar 1131A3 w - 4 Significance Level of Significance Potential Environmental Impacts Determination Before Mitigation Measures After Mitigation Mitigation mast arms, signal heads, and associated equipment, underground improvements, standards and luminaries at the Eastlake ParkwayNiliage 11 Access/Project Driveway intersection. Provide intersection lane geometry as shown in Figure 29 on opening day. The design of the signal shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Provide turn lane storage lengths as indicated in Table 20 of the Traffic Report Year 2005 without SR 125 at 871,000 square feet .Impacts would not be significant. Olympic Parkway/Eastlake Commercial/Project Driveway Significant 5.3 -3 Olympic ParkwaylEastlake Commercial/Project Driveway: Phasing of the following improvements shall be consistent with the project PFFP and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Prior to the issuance of building permits triggering the construction of intersection improvements, the applicant shall enter into an agreement to design, construct, and secure a fully actuated traffic signal, including interconnect wiring, mast arms, signal heads and associated equipment, underground improvements, standards and luminaries at the Olympic Parkway/Eastlake Commercid/Project Driveway (Street A) intersection. Provide intersection lane geometry as shown in Figure 29 of the Traffic Report The design of the signal shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Turn lane storage lengths shall be provided as indicated in Table 20 of the Traffic Report Eastlake ParkwayNillage 11 Access/Project Driveway Significant 5.3-4 Village I I/Eastlake Parkway Access/Project Impacts would not be significant Driveway: Phasing of the following improvements shall be consistent with the project PFFP and to the Page 1 -14 Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 EIR – Freeway Commercial 1K192 CHAPTER Of Table 1 -Ldar 1131A3 w - 4 v n Potential Environmental Impacts - _._ F....._.. M N Level of Significance After Mitigation O F+ U7 O U7 v n Potential Environmental Impacts Significance Determination Before Miti anon Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation satisfaction of the City Engineer. Prior to the issuance of building permits triggering the construction of intersection improvements, the applicant shall enter into an agreement to design, construct, and secure a fully actuated traffic signal, including interconnect wiring, mast arms, signal heads and associated equipment, underground improvements, standards and luminaries at the Eastlake Parkway/Village 11 Access//Project Driveway (Street "B ") intersection. Provide intersection lane geometry as shown in Figure 29 of the Traffic Report. The design of the signal shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Turn lane storage lengths shall be provided as indicated in Table 20 of the Traffic Report. Birch Road/EUC Access/Project Driveway Significant. 5.3 -5 Birch Road/EUC Access/Project Driveway: Impacts would not be significant. Phasing of the following improvements shall be consistent with the project PFFP and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Prior to the issuance of building permits triggering the construction of intersection improvements, the applicant shall enter into an agreement to design, construct, and secure a fully actuated traffic signal, including interconnect wiring, mast arms, signal heads and associated equipment, underground improvements, standards and luminaries at the Birch Road/EUC Accesst/Project Driveway intersection. Provide intersection lane geometry as shown in Figure 29 of the Traffic Report The design of the signal shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Turn lane storage lengths shall be provided as indicated in Table 20 of the Traffic Report. Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 EIR — Freeway Commercial Page 1 -15 1 %!92 CHAPTER 01 Table l -I.doc U31M ro w va w N 0 ui r N OC a 1.0 Executive Sumtza ro w x co " Significance Level of Significance Potential Environmental Impacts Determination Before Mitigation Measures After Mitigation Mi tion Cumulative Impacts Significant. Cumulative Impacts impacts would not be significant. Existing + Project (1,215,000 square feet) Fast "H" Street from 1-805 to Hidden Vista Drive 5.3.6 East "H" Street -- I -805 to Hidden Vista Drive (Existing + Project) Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall contribute to the Traffic Development Impact Fee (TDIF) program toward adding a 0 westbound lane on East "ll" Street between I -805 and Hidden Vista Drive. Year 2005 without SR 125 at 871,000 square feet Significant. 5.3.7 Telegraph Canyon Road/Paseo Ranchero Impacts would not be significant. Telegraph Canyon Road/Pasco Ranchero Intersection Intersection (Year 2005 Without SR 125) Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall contribute to the TDIF toward providing northbound and eastbound right -turn overlap phasing. Telegraph Canyon Road/Otay Lakes Road Intersection Significant. 5.3 -8 Telegraph Canyon Road/Otay Calves Road Impacts would not be significant. intersection (Year 2005 Without SR 125) Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall contribute to the TDIF toward providing a third northbound through lane at the intersection and continue the third northbound lane north of the intersection. Year 2005 without SR 125 with entire project (1,215,000 Significant. 5.3 -9 East "H" Street/Paseo Ranchero Intersection — Impacts would not be significant square feet) Year 2005 without SR 125 with entire project East "H" Street/Paseo Ranchero Intersection Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall contribute to the TDIF toward providing a new eastbound right tum lane m Fast "H" Street at Pasco Ranchero if the entire project is constructed before SR 125, Page 1 -16 Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 EIR -- Freeway Commercial b 110192 CHAPTER 01 Table 1 -1 dae NIA73 OQ w 0 Page 1 -16 Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 EIR -- Freeway Commercial b 110192 CHAPTER 01 Table 1 -1 dae NIA73 OQ w 0 I:I N O N U7 G. w ro x co K ro w va w Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 EIR — Freeway Commercial 1K192 CHAPTER 01 Table I -1-doc 1131103 Page 1 -17 Significance Level of Significance Potential Environmental Impacts Determination Before Mitigation Measures After Mitigation Miggoom Eastlake Parkway /Otay Lakes Road Intersection Significant 5.3 -10 Eastlake Parkway /Otay lakes Road Impacts would not be significant Intersection — Year 2005 without SR 125 with entire project Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall contribute to the TDIF toward adding a fourth through lane on Otay Lakes Road west of Eastlake Parkway, and a southbound right -turn lane on Eastlake Parkway if the entire project is constructed before SR 125, Telegraph Canyon Road/Paseo Ranchero Intersection Significant. 5.3.11 Telegraph Canyon Road/Paseo Ranchero Impacts would not be significant Intersection Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall contribute to the TDIF toward providing northbound and eastbound right -turn overlap phasing. Telegraph Canyon Road/Otay lakes Road Intersection Significant 5.3 -12 Telegraph Canyon Road/Otay Lakes Road Impacts would not be significant intersection Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall contribute to the TDIF toward providing a third northbound through lane at the intersection and continue the third northbound lane north of the intersection. East "H" Street from 1 -805 to Hidden Vista Drive. Significant 5.3 -13 East "H" Street -- I -805 to Hidden Vista Drive Impacts would not be significant. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall contribute to the TDIF toward adding a Vu westbound lane on East "H" Street between I -805 and Hidden Vista Drive. Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 EIR — Freeway Commercial 1K192 CHAPTER 01 Table I -1-doc 1131103 Page 1 -17 .0 Executive Page 1 -18 Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 ErIR�— aUnER Commercial ro w va w CO Significance Level of Significance Potential Environmental Impacts Determination Before Mitigation Measures After Mitigation Mitigation Year 2010 (1,215,000 square feet) Significant. 5.3 -14 Otay Lakes Road -- North of "H" Street Impacts would not be significant. Otay Lakes Road north of "H" Street Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall contribute to the TDIF toward widening to 6 lanes or towards an intersection improvement, which provides additional capacity along Otay Lakes Road to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Year 2020 (1,215,000 square feet) Significant. 5.3 -15 Telegraph Canyon Road — I -805 to Pasco Del Impacts would not be significant. Telegraph Canyon Road between 1 -805 and Pasco del Rey Rey Prior to issuance of building permits, The applicant shall contribute to the TDIF toward the planned City project to add a 4's westbound lane on Telegraph Canyon Road between I- 805 and the Vons Driveway. Freeways (1,215,000 square feet) Significant, 5.3 -16 1 -805 East "H" Street to Telegraph Canyon Impacts would remain significant. Existing + Project Road I -805 East "H" Street to Telegraph Canyon Road Additional lanes would be required to maintain acceptable LAS. Continued freeway planning efforts and deficiency planning by Caltrans and SANDAG will determine mitigation strategies for the regional freeway system. Year 2005 without Sit 125 (1,215,000 square feet) Significant. 5.3 -17 I -805 — Bonita Road to East' H" Street Impacts would remain significant. I -805 Bonita Road to Past "H" Street Additional lanes would be required to maintain acceptable LOS. Continued freeway planning efforts and deficiency planning by Caltrans and SANDAL will determine mitigation strategies for the regional freeway system. Page 1 -18 Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 ErIR�— aUnER Commercial ro w va w CO N O N U7 O U7 N y _ 1.0 Executive Su va a w ? Significance Potential Environmental Impacts Determination Before Mitigation Measures Level of Significance Mitigation After Mitigation 1 -805 Fast "H" Street to Telegraph Canyon Road Significant. 5.3 -18 I -805 — East "H" Street to Telegraph Canyon Impacts would remain significant. Road Additional lanes would be required to maintain acceptable LAS. Continued freeway planning efforts and deficiency planning by Caltrans and SANDAG will determine mitigation strategies for the regional freeway system. Year 2005 with SR 125 (1,215,000 square feet) Significant 5.3 -19 I -805 — Bonita Road to East "H" Street Impacts would remain significant 1 -805 Bonita Road to Bast "H" Street Additional lanes would be required to maintain acceptable LAS. Continued freeway planning efforts and deficiency planning by Caltrans and SANDAG will determine mitigation strategies for the regional freeway system. I -805 East "H" Street to Telegraph Canyon Road Significant 5.3 -20 I- 805 -- East "H" Street to Telegraph Canyon Impacts would remain significant. Road Additional lanes would be required to maintain acceptable CAS. Continued freeway planning efforts and deficiency planning by Caltrans and SANDAG will determine mitigation strategies for the regional freeway system. Internal Circulation (1,215,000 square feet) 5.3.21 Street "A" (Spine Road)/Driveway 5 Impacts would not be significant. Street "A" (Spine Road) Driveway 5 Intersection Intersection Phasing of the following improvements shall be consistent with the project PFFP and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Prior to issuance of building permits triggering the construction of the intersection improvements, the applicant shall enter into an agreement to design, construct, and secure a fully actuated traffic signal including interconnect wiring, mast arms, signal heads, and associated equipment, underground improvements, standards and luminaries at the Street "A" Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 EIR — Freeway Commercial IK192 CHAPTER 01 T-We I -l.dac 1131103 ro w va w Page 1 -19 N O N U7 O Ul ro w oc 0 n "PYP1`ITtlVP- Significance Potential Environmental Impacts Determination Before Mitigation Measures (Spine Road)/Driveway 5 intersection. The design of the signal shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide turn lane storage lengths as illustrated in Appendix K of the Traffic Report Street "A" (Spine RoadyDriveway 6 Intersection Significant 1 5.3.22 Street "A" (Spine Intersection Phasing of the following improvements shall be consistent with the project PFFP and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Prior to issuance of building permits triggering the construction of the intersection improvements, the applicant shall enter into an agreement to design, construct, and secure a fully actuated traffic signal including interconnect wiring, mast arms, signal heads, and associated equipment, underground improvements, standards and luminaries at the Street "A" (Spine RoadyDriveway 6 intersection. The design of the signal shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide turn lane storage lengths as illustrated in Appendix K of the Traffic Report Street "A" (Spine Road�Street "B" Intersection Significant 5.3.23 Street "A" (Spine Road)/Street Intersection Phasing of the following improvements shall be consistent with the project PFFP and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Prior to issuance of building permits triggering the construction of the intersection improvements, the applicant shall enter into an agreement to design, construct, and secure a fully actuated traffic signal including interconnect wiring, mast arms, signal heads and associated equipment, underground improvements, standards and luminaries at the Street "A" -- Level of Significance After Mitigation Impacts would not be significant. Impacts would not Page 1 -20 Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 EIR -- Freeway Commercial IK192 CHAPTER 01 Table 1 -1.dac 1131103 ■ N O N U7 O U7 l .Q Executive S o� a ro w va N Potential Environmental Impacts significance Determination Before Mitigation Measures Level of Significance Mitigation After Mitigation (Spine RoadyStreet "B" intersection. The design of the signal shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide turn lane storage lengths as illustrated in Appendix K of the Traffic Report. PFFP (1,215,000 square feet) Significant 5.3 -24 Street "A" (Spine Road)- Olympic Parkway to Impacts would not be significant Street "A" (Spine Road), Olympic Parkway to Birch Road Birch Road Phasing of the following improvements shall be consistent with the project PFFP and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Prior to issuance of building permits triggering the construction of these street improvements, the applicant shall enter into an agreement to design, construct, and secure full street improvements. Eastlake Parkway, Olympic Parkway to Birch Road Significant, 5.3 -25 Eastlake Parkway — Olympic Parkway to Birch Impacts would not be significant Road Phasing of the following improvements shall be consistent with the project PFFP and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Prior to issuance of building permits triggering the construction of these street improvements, the applicant shall enter into an agreement to design, construct, and secure full street improvements. Birch Road, La Media Road to Eastlake Parkway Significant. 5.3 -25 Birch Road — La Media Road to Eastlake Impacts would not be significant Parkway-, Phasing of the following improvements shall be consistent with the project PFFP and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Prior to issuance of building permits triggering the construction of these street improvements, the applicant shall enter into an agreement to Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 EIR — Freeway Commercial Page 1 -21 W92 CHAPTER 01 Table 1 -1.dac 1131N3 0 u� r N oD Z a w ro ro w va N 1 A Executive Summary Significance Level of Significance Potential Environmental ]Impacts Determination Before Mitigation Measures After Mitigation Mitt tion design, construct, and secure full street improvements la Media Road, Olympic Parkway to Birch Road Significant 5.3 -27 La Media Road — Olympic Parkway to Birch Impacts would not be significant Road: Phasing of the following improvements shall be consistent with the project PFFP and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Prior to issuance of building permits triggering the construction of these street improvements, the applicant shall enter into an agreement to design, construct, and secure full street improvements. Transit Significant. 5.3 -28 All transit crossings within the project site and Impacts would not be significant at the project driveways shall conform to MTDB standards. MTDB will likely conduct a traffic report at the time of introducing rapid transit on -site. Construction: Estimated construction emissions of NO. would exceed the Significant. 5.4-1 The following measures shall be specified as Air quality impacts would remain significant with threshold. With the use of commercial power, the estimated NO. notes on the project grading plans, and shall be implementation of the mitigation measures. emissions would be less than the threshold. implemented to minimize VOC and N% construction emissions: • Bring commercial power to the site prior to construction and require contractors to use commercial power wherever feasible • Develop a ride -share plan for workers • Develop a site construction traffic management plan to minimize vehicle traffic and vehicle idling time • Consolidate construction deliveries • Develop a plan for maximizing loads during hauling operations Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 EIR — Freeway Commercial Page 1 -22 1K192 cmAffER of Table 1 -Ldoc RUM 0 ui r N OC G. ro K ro w va w 1.0 Executive Summar Potential Environmental Impacts Significance Determination Before Ml ' tlon Mitigation Measures level of Significance After Mitigation • Prohibit truck idling in excess of two minutes • Use solar, battery or electrically powered lighted signs • To the extent possible, use vehicles powered by natural gas (CNG, LNG) rather than diesel or gasoline engines • Use architectural coatings with the lowest VOC content feasible 5.4-2 Although PMio construction emissions would not be a significant impact on regional air quality, the following measures shall be specified as notes on the project grading plans, and shall be implemented to minimize construction fugitive dust PM,o emissions: • Apply non -toxic soil stabilizers or area covers to all inactive construction areas • Replace ground cover in disturbed areas as quickly as possible • Enclose, cover, water or apply soil stabilizers to exposed piles • Water active sites at least twice daily and unpaved roads at least three times daily, particularly at the end of the days construction operations • Suspend all excavating and grading operations when wind gust speeds exceed 25 mph • All haul trucks to be covered or maintain at least two feed of freeboard • Maintain vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph or less • Pave or use gravel at all construction access roads at least 100 feet on to the site from the main road(s) Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 EIR — Freeway Commercial Page 1 -23 1K)92 CNAnM 01 Table 1 -Ldoc 1131173 0 ui r N 1.0 Executive Summary After Mitigation a v Use track -out and grizzlies to remove soil ro w Significance Level of Significance ro Potential Environmental Impacts K Determination Before Mitigation Measures After Mitigation 1M ation v Use track -out and grizzlies to remove soil and dust from vehicles leaving the site • Wash construction vehicles regularly Operation 5.4 -3 The following measures shall be implemented Estimated operations emissions of CO, VOC and NO. would to reduce mobile source operation emissions: exceed the guideline thresholds in both 2005 and 2010. s Provide preferential parking spaces for carpools and vanpools a Encourage ride-sharing a Encourage low emission fleet vehicles such as natural gas powered vehicles • Encourage use of public transportation • Work with local officials to provide efficient public transportation o Provide on -site or nearby access locations for bus or trolley stops • Encourage the use of shuttles to major transit stations and multi -modal centers s To the extent feasible, provide bicycle trails, paths and lanes o include bicycle parking facilities s Encourage tenants to provide showers for bicycling employees use Schedule truck deliveries and pickups for off -peak hours • Require on -site truck loading zones 5.4-4 To the extent feasible, the following measures shall be implemented to reduce stationary area source operation emissions: • Use solar or low- emission and energy efficient water heaters • Use central water heating systems • Use double -paned glass in windows • Use MM efficient pEkW lot ii is N O N U7 O U7 N 1.0 Executive S va a. ° wPotential Environmental Impacts Siguifcance Determination Before Mitigation Measures Level of Significance Mi ' tion Aber Mitigation + Use lighting controls and energy efficient interior and exterior tights • Use energy efficient systems to control interior HVAC systems • Keep interior building temperatures at levels consistent with energy efficiency and human health and comfort • Use light- colored roof materials to reflect heat • Increase wall and attic insulation • Include passive solar building designs Construction: No significant impacts have been identified. No significant impacts. No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would not be significant. Operation: Noise -Land Use Compatibility: There would be a significant Significant. 5.5 -1 Prior to the approval of site development plans, With the mitigation measures described, there would be noise impact if commercial land uses on the project site are the Applicant shall submit a supplemental noise no significant noise -land use compatibility impacts, and developed such that persons using the properties would be analysis acceptable to the Director of Planning no significant impacts from noise generated on site. exposed to noise in excess of 70 dBA CNEL. There would be a and Building demonstrating the following. significant noise impact if a school or school -type use is included in the project, and is located such that students and staff are • Noise levels at exterior use areas of proposed exposed to noise levels in excess of 65 dBA CNEL. Hotels would not exceed 65 dBA CNEL; • Interior noise levels in habitable rooms of Noise Generated on the Project Site: There would be a proposed hotels would not exceed 45 dBA significant noise impact if stationary HVAC equipment generated CNEL; noise in excess of the limits of the Chula Vista noise ordinance. o Noise levels at student and staff- occupied There would be a significant noise impact if trucking, loading, areas of proposed school or day care facilities, and trash disposal activities on the site generated noise in excess including playgrounds, would not exceed 65 of the limits of the Chula Vista noise ordinance. dBA CNEL; • Noise levels generated on the project site, being the combined noise levels of HVAC Project - Generated Traffic Noise: There would be a significant equipment, truck traffic, loading and noise impact to the homes and school adjacent to Eastlake unloading, and trash collection, where these Parkway south of Clubhouse Drive. may occur simultaneously, would not exceed the applicable limits of the noise ordinance. + The sound wall to be constructed adjacent to the loading dock at the northeastern portion of Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 EIR — Freeway Commercial Page 1 -25 IKI92 CHAPTER OI Table I -Idoc WIM ro w va N 0 ui r N o� a. ro w K .e w uc 1.0 Executive Summary Potential Environmental impacts No significant impacts to cultural resources would occur. No archaeological or historical resources were identified during the cultural resource survey and through research conducted on the property Significance Determination Before No significant impacts. Grading impacts from development of the site could result in Significant. potentially significant impacts to buried paleontological resources in the Otay Formation, This could result in significant long -term direct impacts if fossils are found during the grading process. Page 1 -26 Mitigation Measures the McMillin property shall be designed to ensure that sound levels generated from the loading dock do not exceed 65 dBA CNEL for exterior use areas and 45dBA CNEL for habitable rooms, for a planned hotel to be located at the southeastern portion of the Otay Ranch Company portion of the site. 5.5 -2 If the applicant proposes outdoor uses (i.e., dining or recreation), prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a supplemental noise analysis for outdoor uses proposed in the locations identified as impacted (70 dBA CNEL) in Figure 5.5 -1 of the EIR. The noise analysis shall demonstrate the following. • Noise levels at patron- occupied exterior areas of proposed commercial Iand uses would not exceed 70 dBA CNEU Since no prehistoric or historic resources were identified on the FC property, no mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Impacts would not be significant. In accordance with the Program E1R mitigation measures, Impacts would not be significam the following mitigation measures are required for the development of the Planning Area 12- FC SPA and Tentative Map (TM) area: 5.7 -1 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall confirm to the City of Chula Vista that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to carry out an appropriate mitigation program. The paleontologist shall attend pregrading meetings to consult with grading Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 EZR — Freeway Commercial IK192 CHAMR 01 Wle 1 -1aloe 1/31103 N O N U7 O N OC a. w ro x co K LO Executive Sutr►mary ),Potential Environmental Impacts Significance Determination Before Miti anon Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation paleontologist is defined as an individual with an M.S. or Ph.D. in paleontology or geology who is familiar with paleontological procedures and techniques. 5.7 -2 A paleontological monitor shall be present on- site at all times during the original cutting of previously undisturbed sediments of highly sensitive geologic formations (the Otay Formation) to inspect cuts for fossils. The paleontological monitor shall work under the direction of a qualified paleontologist. The monitor shall also periodically inspect original cuts in deposits with unknown resource sensitivity. A paleontological monitor is defined as an individual who has experience in the collection and salvage of fossil materials. In the event fossils are discovered in unknown sensitive formations, it may be necessary to increase the per -day field monitoring time. Conversely, if fossils are not discovered, the monitoring effort may be reduced. 5.7 -3 When fossils are discovered, the paleontologist or paleontological monitor shall recover them. In situations where recovery requires an extended salvage time, the paleontologist or paleontological monitor shall be allowed to direct, divert, or halt grading to allow recovery of fossil remains. Where deemed appropriate by the paleontologist or paleontological monitor, a screen- washing operation for small fossil remains shall be employed. 5.74 Prepared fossils, along with copies of all pertinent field notes, photographs, and maps shall be deposited at a scientific institution with paleontological collections, such as the San Diego Natural History Museum. A final summary report shall be completed that outlines the results of the mitigation program. Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 EIR — Freeway Commercial I %192 CHAPTER 01 Table I -I.dac 113103 ^0 OC A v _. _ . Page 1 -27 N O N U7 O U7 N N 1.0 Executive Sutnm a ro w Significance Level of Significance K Potential Environmental Impacts Determination Before Mitigation Measures After Mitigation TR:ti....4:.... This report shall include discussion of the methods used, stratigraphy exposed, fossils collected, and the significance of the recovered fossils. There would be direct impacts to biological resources because Direct impacts would be 5.8 -1 Focused surveys for burrowing owl shall be Impacts would not be sil burrowing owl and northern harrier have been identified on the significant. conducted prior to grading. If occupied the mitigation measures. site. burrows are detected, passive relocation of the species shall be conducted to avoid impacts from grading. 5.8 -2 Focused surveys for active nests of the northern harrier shaIl be conducted prior to grading. If active nests are detected, and if construction activities occur between March 1 and July 31, construction activities shall be restricted within 900 feet of active nest sites. 5.8 -3 Prior to recordation of each final map, the applicant shall convey land within the Otay Ranch RMP Preserve at a ratio of 1.188 acres for each acre of development area as defined in the RMP, for a total of 135 acres. Implementation of the Freeway Commercial site would eliminate No mitigation is available None are available. Significant and unmitigable cumulative impacts. approximately 133 acres of agricultural fields, which could be to lessen this impact used as foraging areas for raptor species. 'The Program EIR 90-01 identified loss of raptor habitat as a significant impact, and development of the Freeway Commercial site would cumulatively contribute to this significant impact. The loss of agricultural grazing land and land suitable for the Direct impacts would not None available for the cumulative loss of agricultural Significant and not production of crops would result in a significant impact due to the be significant. Cumulative land. incremental loss of agricultural resources. These impacts were impacts would be assessed in the Program EIR (Elk 90 -01) for the larger Otay significant. Ranch GPA/GDP /SRP project, and were determined to be significant and not fully mitigated. The loss of 132+ acres of land Page 1 -28 ro w oc CO CO Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 EIR — Freeway Commercial IK192 CHAPTER 01 Table 1 -Ld" 11311V3 N O N Ul O Ul N N OC R ro K ro w va 1.0 Executive Summ Potential Environmental Impacts Significance Determination Before Mitigation Measures 'Level of Significance Miti lion After Mitigation would incrementally contribute to the loss of agricultural land in this region. The impacts of continued agricultural use of the land with Significant and mitigable. 5.9 -1 The agricultural plan in the Planning Area 12 Impacts would not be significant. adjacent land uses could also be significant upon those uses. FC SPA Plan shall be implemented. The plan Noise, odors, insects, rodents, and chemicals associated with includes, the following measures, which shall agricultural operations would result in indirect, short -term, be implemented to the satisfaction of the potentially significant impacts between the agricultural uses and Director of Planning and Building.- the adjacent developing urban uses. 0 A 200 -foot buffer shall be placed between property boundaries and agricultural operations; • If permitted interim agricultural uses require the use of pesticides, limits shall be established as to the time of day and the type of pesticide applications that may be used; • The use of vegetation along field edges to shield adjacent urban development (within 400 feet) from agriculture activities shall be encouraged; • Notification of adjacent property owners of potential pesticide applications through newspaper advertisement shall be accomplished prior to spraying; and • Fencing, where necessary, shall be installed to ensure the safety of Planning Area 12 PC patrons. 5.10 -1 Prior to issuance of each grading permit, a Impacts would not be significant Hydrology /Surface Water: Development of the proposed Significant. Planning Area 12 -FC site would result in an increase in the detailed drainage system design study shall be amount of runoff during storms due to the overall increase in prepared in accordance with the City of Chula impervious surfaces in the area. Based on the amount of Vista's standards and shall be approved by the additional development area, the surface runoff in a 50 -year and City Engineer - 100 -year storm event would increase with the implementation of the Planning Area 12 -FC site. Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 EIR — Freeway Commercial Page 1 -29 IK192 CHAPTER 01 Table 1 -1 -doe 1131)73 N O N U7 O U7 N N 1.0 Executive Summ a ro w ro K x Significance Level of Significance Potential Environmental Impacts Determination ]Before Mitigation Measures Mitigation .after Mitigation Water Quality: Potential contamination of surface water could Significant. 5.10-2 Prior to issuance of each grading permit, the result from mishandling of fuel or other hazardous materials used project proponent shall submit an NOI and in the construction of the project. Construction activities and obtain an NPDES Permit for Construction equipment would utilize fuels and other hazardous substances that Activity from SWRCB. Adherence to all could be subject to runoff. conditions of the General Permit for Construction Activity is required. The permit requires development of a SWPPP and a Monitoring Plan for all phases of project construction. The SWPPP shall be incorporated into the grading and drainage design plans and shall provide for implementation of construction and postconstruction BMPs on -site to reduce the amount of pollutants and sediments in construction and postconstruction surface runoff before it is discharged into the natural drainages. The grading plans will note the condition requiring a SWPPP and Monitoring Program Plan. No grading will be performed during the rainy season (October 1 through April 30) without special erosion control measures approved by RWQCB. Groundwater Hydrology: The proposed development of the No significant impacts. 5.10-3 Prior to construction, all parties involved shall Impacts would not be significant. Planning Area 12- FCsite could increase the amount of meet to discuss the BMPs required by the impermeable surfaces, which could result in increased runoff and erosion control plan and identified in the reduced on -site water percolation. SWPPP prepared by the contractor pursuant to NPDES. The applicant shall be responsible for implementing, monitoring, and maintaining the required BMPs to ensure that the measures are working property, until the construction area has been permanently stabilized. Groundwater Quality: Although the increased exposure to No significant impacts. 5.10.4 Prior to approval of the TM and/or Site Plan Impacts would not be significant. urban pollutants could affect the quality of water recharging by the Design Review Committee, whichever groundwater, filtering would occur during percolation and the occurs first, the applicant shall demonstrate Planning Area 12 PC site has not been identified as a source of compliance with the City of Chula Vista significant groundwater recharge Storm Water and Discharge Control Ordinance and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 5 tem (NPDES) Page 1 -30 Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 EIR -- Freeway Commercial IK192CHAPTFR0ITebiel -/aloe 1131193 ro w oc N O O Ul N N o� a ro ro w va N F+ 1.0 Executive Summar Potential Environmental Impacts Significance Determination Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Municipal Permit (including the Final Model Si1SMP for the San Diego Region). The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer of a report that includes the following elements: i. Description of project characteristics, site conditions, flow patterns, pollutants emanating from the project site, and conditions of concern. ii. Description of site design and source control BMPs considered and to be implemented. iii. Description of applicable treatment control BMPs considered and to be implemented to reduce or treat the identified pollutants. iv. Justification for selection of the proposed treatment control BMP(s) including 1) targeted pollutants, justification, and alternative analysis, 2) design criteria (including calculations), 3) pollutants removal information (other than vendors specifications), and 4) literature references. v. Site plan depicting locations of the proposed treatment control BMPs; and vi. Operation and maintenance plan for the proposed treatment control BMPs. 5.10 -5 Prior to issuance of each grading permit, a SwPPP shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer to ensure implementation of the BMPs required by the erosion control plan. Potential BMPs that could be used include the following. However, this does not preclude the use of other BMPs that would meet the requirements of the NPDES: i. Short-term placement of sediment trapping facilities such as sand bags, mattin , Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 EIR — Freeway Commercial Page 1 -31 1%192 CHAPTER 01 ThUe I -Ldoc 1131163 P 1.0 Executive Summar n V P 7 v Potential Environmental Impacts Significance Determination Before Mitigation Measures Level of Significance a Miti anon After Mitigation K e mulch, brash barriers, filters, berms, hay bales, silt fences, and/or sediment pools or other similar devices, along with all pertinent graded areas to minimize off -site sediment transport, Such facilities would likely be required for the base of manufactured slopes, as well as all areas adjacent to, or upstream of, major drainage courses and wetlands. ii. Hydroseeding of manufactured slopes following construction, together with provision of adequate water (through irrigation or truck watering) for an appropriate establishment period to be determined by the City Engineer. iii. Reclamation of all disturbed areas as soon as practicable after completion of grading. iv. Placement of temporary and/or permanent (if applicable) desilting basins, dikes, check dams, sediment basins, riprap, or other appropriate structures at applicable points upstream of all drainage courses and wetlands, or where substantial drainage alteration is proposed. v. Placement of energy dissipating structures (e.g., sediment basins, riprap aprons, water bars, or drop structures) at all storm drain, subdrain, and pipe outlets, as well as all drainage crossings, downstream outlets at all culverts and brow ditches, and applicable areas within drainage ditches or swales. vi. Use of subdrains in applicable areas to redirect subsurface flows. vii. Stabilization of construction vehicle and equipment access points by temporary Paving, graveling, and/or use of sediment trapping devices to reduce the movement of sediment onto public roads and rights - of-wa . Page 1 -32 Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 EIR — Freeway Commercial IX192 CHAPTER 01 Table l -l.doc I/3IA73 1.0 Executive S N OC Significance Level of Significance ro Potential Environmental Impacts Determination Before Mitigation Measures After Mitigation ?; Mitigation viii. Restriction of grading during the rainy season, October 1 through April 30, unless related erosion and sedimentation control measures are implemented to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Erosion and sedimentation control measures shall be in place a minimum of five days prior to any forecasted rain and shall include, but not be limited to: • Silt fencing shall be placed in all locations along the corridor where grading is higher than adjacent natural areas_ • Silt fencing shall be maintained in a functioning condition until site preparation for the next phase of construction begins. • Sand hags will be used as necessary to ensure that the silt fence adequately maintains its integrity. A solid line of sand bags will be placed on the silt fence adjacent to any body of water or creek. • Construction fencing shall be placed along the corridor to keep vehicles and equipment from inadvertently entering natural areas. • Adequate liners will be used to eliminate the potential for soil migration which might be caused by precipitation from construction areas where there is bare soil. Surface Rupture. The project site is not located within an No significant impacts. n _, No mitigation measures are required. acts would not be significant g Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Study Zone and no evidence of active faults or potentially active faults was found during the field investigations. Page 1 -33 Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 EIR — Freeway Commercial 1 K192 CHAPTER 01 Table 1 -1.dac 113103 ro m as �o N W 0 U1 r y 1.0 Executive Summary o� a ro K Significance !Level of Significance Potential Environmental Impacts Determination Before Mitigation Measures % After Mitigation Mitigation ro w oc N Page 1 -34 Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 E1R — Freeway Commercial 1 %192 CHAPTER 01 Table 1 -Ldoc 1131103 Seismicity: The closest active fault is the Rose Canyon fault zone, Direct, long -term, The use of site - specific foundation, building, and seismic Impacts would not be significant. approximately 11 miles to the west of the site. A major significant impacts could designs, as well as special construction equipment, earthquake occurring on this fault or other regional active faults in occur. techniques and materials can mitigate or avoid significant Southern California could subject the proposed development to geologic impacts as indicated below. Designs for the moderate -to- severe ground shaking. Impacts from ground project components must demonstrate conformance shaking would be significant. Exposure of people to earthquakes standards adhering to the UBC, the City of Chula Vista along off -site faults would be a direct, long -term and significant Grading Ordinance, current seismic design specifications impact. of the Structural Engineering Association of California, and other various regulatory requirements. The following measures shall be implemented. 5.11 -1 Prior to the issuance of each grading permit, the applicant shall verify that the applicable recommendations of the geotechnicai investigation prepared by Geotechnics, Incorporated, Section 8, dated September 2002, for the McMillin Otay Ranch property bave been incorporated into the project design and construction documents to the satisfaction of the City Engineer of the City of Chula Vista. 5.11 -2 Prior to the issuance of each grading permit, Impacts would not be significant the applicant shall verify that the applicable recommendations of the geotechnical investigation prepared by Geocon, Inc., Section 8, dated August 30, 2001, for the Otay Ranch Company property have been incorporated into the project design and construction documents to the satisfaction of the City Engineer of the City of Chula Vista. Landslides and Lateral Spreading: The colluvium, alluvium, Significant. See Mitigation Measures 5.11 -1 and 5.11 -2. Impacts would not be significant. and residuum, as well as the predominantly clayey sand and sandy clay material within the Otay Formation, have a moderate to high expansion potential. Expansive soils in contact with pavement, foundation, or slab subgrade could heave when wetted, resulting in cracking or failure of the development improvements. Page 1 -34 Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 E1R — Freeway Commercial 1 %192 CHAPTER 01 Table 1 -Ldoc 1131103 0 u� r N OC a. w ro w K b w as N N 1.0 Executive Summ Significance Level of Significance Potential Environmental Impacts Determination Before Mitigation Measures After Mitigation Miti anon Colluvium, alluvium, and residuum were compressible soils found on site. Development on compressible soils could potentially settle under increased loads, or due to an increase in moisture content from site irrigation or changes in drainage conditions. This settlement could result in damage to structures, roads, and property. Several locally continuous claystone beds were observed which may intersect the proposed cut slopes around the perimeter of the site. Daylighting or exposure of these claystone layers could potentially result in surficiat slope failures. Due to the bentonite interbed found on site and the extrapolated layer from Village 6, it is anticipated future site grading may reveal beds of bentonite. Where the bentonite daylights in cut slopes, there is the potential for surFicial slope failures. If bentonite beds are found, special consideration with respect to placement of fill, undercutting pad and street subgrade and buttressing slope stability may be required. Tsunamis, Seiches, and Earthquake - Induced i Flooding: Given Not sig ifcaut. As impacts are not significant, no mitigation measures are lmpacts would not he significant. the distance of the project from the coast, the property will not be required• affected by tsunamis or seiches. In regard to earthquake - induced flooding, the site is elevated above the floodplain and will not be affected by flooding that could occur that would be associated with an earthquake. E 4? 9,% Potable Water- Development MA) of the proposed project would S r Significant 5.12 -1 The final Subarea Water Master Plan shall be hefin impacts would not be significant result in an incremental increase in water consumption and Place approved prior to the approval of each TM. of The Master Plan shall include the design additional demands on water storage and pumping, facilities. water system infrastructure including timing and cost of development and must be in compliance with the OWD Master Plan. 5.12 -2 Prior to approval of each TM, the applicant shall provide the City with a letter from the OWD stating that adequate pumping and Page i -35 Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 EIR — Freeway Commercial IKI92 CHAPTER OI Table 1 -I.doc I13L03 T.- .,v- _,.......,...._,..,_ - 0 u� N OC G. w ro co K b w oc 1.0 Executive Summary Potential Environmental Impacts Significance Determination Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance .After Mitigation storage capacities are available or would be available concurrent with need. 5.12 -3 Prior to approval of each Final Map, the applicant shall provide the City with a letter from the OWD stating that adequate storage capacity exists or would be available to serve the FC need. 5.124 Water facilities improvements shall be financed or installed on- and off -site in accordance with the fees and phasing in the approved Public Facilities Finance Plan (PFFP) for the Planning Area 12 FC site. 5.12 -5 Prior to approval of the fast TM, the applicant shall submit a Sub -Area Master Plan (SAMP) for the FC site. The SAMP shall ensure an adequate supply of water on a long -term basis for the McMillin and Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 SPA- Freeway Commercial properties. Recycled Water: Development of the proposed project would Significant. 5.12 -6 Prior to the approval of the first Final Map, the impacts would not be significant. result in an incremental increase in the need for recycled water applicant shall provide for adequate recycled and place additional demands on water storage and pumping water storage and distribution facilities, which facilities. shall be constructed in accordance with the Subarea Water Master Plan and to the satisfaction of the OWD. These water infrastructure improvements are described in the Planning Area 12 FC PFFP and SPA Plan. The proposed PFFP identifies development impact fees that the applicant shall pay to mitigate impacts, the estimated cost of the facility, the applicant's responsibility to construct or pay for necessary mitigation, and the phasing improvements. 5.12 -7 Prior to approval of the first Final Map, the applicant shall provide written proof from the OWD that adequate water storage and Page 1 -36 Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 EIR — Freeway Commercial IK192 CHAPTER 01 Table I -lilac 1131M O Ul N OC G. w ro io K ro w va N J 1.0 Executive Summ Potential Environmental Impacts Significance Determination Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures i -Level of Significance / After Mitigation distribution facilities are available to serve the proposed project site. 5.12 -8 A complete Subarea Water Master Plan shall be required prior to approval of the TM. The recycled water system shall be designed at that time and the timing and cost shall be identified by phase of development_ 5.12 -9 The final Subarea Water Master Plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approved by OWD prior to approval of each TM. The Master PIan shall include the design of water system infrastructure including timing and cost of phase of development and must be in compliance with the OWD Master Plan. 5.12 -10 The proposed project shall be responsible for constructing all potable and recycled water improvements necessary to serve the projects, which include but are not limited to the proposed water lines along Eastlake Parkway and Birch Road. The proposed project shall adequately provide potable and recycled water service without relying on any proposed water construction phasing by other developments. Sewer: The existing sewage disposal system does not currently Significant. 5.12 -11 Prior to the recordation of the first Final Map, Impacts would not be significant have sufficient capacity to accommodate flows from the FC site, the applicant shall demonstrate to the City which would result in a near -term significant impact until Engineer that the Poggi Canyon Interceptor has adequate capacity in the interim to handle upgrades to the system, currently underway, are completed. projected sewage flows for the entire SPA. 5.12 -12 Sewer facility improvements shall be financed or installed on- and off -site in accordance with the fees and phasing in the approved PFFP. 5.12 -13 The project shall be responsible for constructing all sewer improvements necessary to serve the project, which include but are not limited to the proposed sewer lines Page 1 -37 Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 EIR -- Freeway Commercial IK192 CHAPTER 01 Table I -I.doc 1131173 0 ui r N OC 1.0 Executive Summary "? Miti lion After Mitigation. I along Birch Road east and west of Sit 125 and La Media Road to connect to the existing Poggi Canyon Sewer. The proposed project shall adequately provide sewer service without relying upon any proposed sewer construction phasing by other developments. The developer shall also underwrite the cost of all studies and reports needed to support the addition of sewer flows to existing lines. Solid Waste Management: Sufficient capacity is available in the Not significant. No mitigation measures are required, Impacts would not be significant. local waste management system Law Enforcement: The Chula Vista Police Department does not Significant. 5.12 -14 Police service facilities shall be financed or Impacts would not be significant. currently meet the threshold standard for the response time for the provided in accordance with the fees and City. However, a new facility is planned at Fourth and F Street in phasing in the approved PFFP for the FC site. the City of Chula Vista to meet law enforcement requirements as population growth in the service area warrants. 5.12 -15 The City will monitor Police Department responses to emergency calls and report the results to the GMOC on an annual basis to the satisfaction of the City. Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services: The Chula Significant. 5.12 -16 Fire service facilities shall be financed or Impacts would not be significant. Vista Fire Department does not currently meet the threshold provided in accordance with the fees and standard for the response time for the City, including the Otay phasing in the approved PFFP for the FC site. Ranch community. However, as population growth in the service area warrants, fire stations would be constructed with Villages 5.12 -17 The City will monitor Fire Department Two and Nine of the Otay Valley parcel and within Village responses to emergency fire and medical calls Thirteen of the Proctor Valley Parcel. and report the results to the GMOC on an annual basis to the satisfaction of the City. Schools: Schools are not required for implementation of the FC Significant, 5,12 -18 Prior to issuance of building permits, the Impacts would not be significant. Site since the development would be for commercial purposes. applicant shall pay all required school However, payment of school fees is still required per the PFFP. mitigation fees. Library Service: Library services are not required for No significant impacts. No mitigation measures are requited. Impacts would not be significant implementation of the FC Site since the development would be for commercial purposes. Page 1-38 Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 EIR — Freeway Commercial IK192 CHAPTER 01 Table 1 -Ldoc 1131103 Significance Potential Environmental Impacts D Determination Before M Mitigation Measures L Level of Significance Page 1-38 Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 EIR — Freeway Commercial IK192 CHAPTER 01 Table 1 -Ldoc 1131103 0 N OC G. w ro K b w as �o N 1 -0 Executive Summ Potential Environmental Impacts Significance Determination Before MW anon Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Parks and Recreation: The project would not impact parks or No significant impacts. No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would not be significant. recreation services since the development would be for commercial purposes. Significant. 5.13-1 The use, transport, and disposal of hazardous Impacts would not be significant Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Potentially significant impacts related to hazardous materials could result from implementation of the FC site because hazardous materials could materials on the site shall be conducted in accordance with the relevant regulations of be used or transported to the site as a result of the proposed federal, state, and local agencies, including the commercial facility. EPA, the California DHS, and Caltrans. Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 ETR — Freeway Commercial Page 1 -39 IK192 CHAPTER 01 Table 1 -l.doe 1131A73 D e v e l o p m e n t S e r v i c e s D e p a r t m e n t Planning Division I Development Processing CITY OF C:HUTAVISTA APPLICATION APPENDIX B Disclosure Statement Pursuant to City Council Policy 101 -01, prior to any action on a matter that requires discretionary action by the City Council, Planning Commission or other official legislative body of the City, a statement of disclosure of certain ownerships, financial interest, payments, and campaign contributions must be filed The following information must be disclosed: 1., List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the project.that is the subject of the application, project or contract (e.g , owner, applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier) Alfred E. Baldwin Deeann Baldwin 2. if any person identified in section 1. above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals with an investment of $2000 or more in the business (corporation /partnership) entity. 3. If any person' identified in section 1_;. -above is a non - profit organization or trust, list the names of any person who is the director of the non- profit organization or the names of the trustee, beneficiary and trustor of the trust N/A 4. Please identify every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent contractor's, whom you have authorized to represent you before the City in this matter. Stephen M. Haase (Baldwin & Sons, LLC) Nick Lee ( Baldwin & Sons, LLC) S.. Has any person *identified in 1., 2 , 3., or 4., above, or otherwise associated with this contract, project or application, had any financial dealings with an official' of the City of Chula Vista as it relates to this contract, project or application within the past 12 months? Yes No x If yes, briefly describe the nature of the financial interest the official' may have in this contract. Farm APP. 6 Rev 03.70 > 276 Fourth Avenue J Chula Vista I California I 91910 1 (619) 591 .5101 112 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet page 960 A ,.a.. 1- ..,.......+ n D e v e l o p m e n t S e r v i c e s D e p a r t m e n t Planning Division I Development Processing crry of CHULA VISTA APPLICATION APPENDIX B Disclosure Statement - Page 2 6., Has any person *identified in 1 , 2 , 3 , or 4., above, or otherwise associated with this contract, project or application, made a campaign contribution of more than $250 within the past (12) months to a current member of the City of Chula Vista Council? Yes X No if yes which council member? Marysa €as 7,. Has any person *identified in 1 ., 2 , 3., or 4 , above, or otherwise associated with this contract, project or application, provided more than $420 (or an item of equivalent value) to an official ** of the City of Chula Vista in the past (12) months? (This includes any payment that confers a personal benefit on the recipient, a rebate or discount in the price of anything of value, money to retire a legal debt, gift, loan, etc ) Yes No X If yes, which official ** and what was the nature of the item provided? 8.. Has any person *identified in 1 , 2., 3, or 4., above, or otherwise associated with this contract, project or application, been a source of income of $500 or more to an official ** of the City of Chula Vista in the past (12) months? Yes No x If yes, which official ** and the nature of the item provided? Date 4/1114 24"-oo�— Signature of Contractor /Applicant G�lC Print or type name of Contractor /Applicant * Person is identified as: any individual, firm, co- partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, any other county, city, municipality, district, or other political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit. ** official includes, but is not limited to: Mayor, Council member, Planning Commissioner, Member of a board, commission or committee of the City, and City employee or staff members * ** This disclosure Statement must be completed at the time the project application, or contract, is submitted to City staff for processing, and updated within one week prior to consideration by legislative body. Last Updated: March 16, 2010 276 Fourth Avenue I Chula Vista I California I 91910 I (619) 691 5101 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Farm APP. B Rev 63.i0 P9 2/2 Page 961 THE ATTACHED AGREEMENT HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED AS TO FORM BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND WILL BE FORMALLY SIGNED UPON APPROVAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL Glen R. Googin City Attorney Dated: t/ DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, VIILLAGE II TOWN CENTER, LLC, AND SiJNRANCH CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 962 RECORDED AT REQUEST OF AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, California 91910 Attn: City Clerk Fee Exempt — Gov't Code 0103 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT among (Space above for Recorder's Use) THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a California charter city and municipal corporation and VILLAGE II TOWN CENTER, LLC & SUNRANCH CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC 60093.00025 \8523646.9 -I- 2015-05-12 Agenda Packet Page 963 THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ( "Agreement ") is entered into as of the Effective Date (as defined below) by and among THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a California charter city and municipal corporation ( "City "), VILLAGE II TOWN CENTER, LLC, a California limited liability company ( "Village II") and SUNRANCH CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ( "Sunranch "). Village 11 and Sunranch are collectively referred to in this Agreement as the "Owner ". The City or the Owner are sometimes individually referred to in this Agreement as a "Party" and are collectively referred to as the "Parties ". The Parties enter into this Agreement with reference to the following recited facts (each a "Recital "): RECITALS A. To strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning and to reduce the economic risk of development, the State of California has enacted the Development Agreement Statute, found at Sections 65864 et seq., of the California Government Code. B. The City is authorized by the Development Agreement Statute and by its City Charter to enter into development agreements with persons and entities having legal or equitable interests in real property for the purpose of establishing predictability for both the City and the property owner in the development process and in the provision of public infrastructure and public benefits. C. Owner has a legal or equitable interest in that certain real property consisting of approximately 36.3 acres of land located in the City of Chula Vista, County of San Diego, State of California, more particularly described and depicted in Exhibit "A" to this Agreement (the "Property "). D. The Property is located in the Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial Sectional Planning Area Plan ( "SPA Plan "). It is currently partially developed having previously been entitled by the City for development as contemplated by the SPA Plan. E. Owner desires to amend the land use designations for the FC -2 area of the SPA Plan to allow for up to 600 residential units, 2 acres of enhanced parkland, 15,000 square feet of retail provided in a mixed use format (with an additional 15,000 square feet constructed to commercial standards, as defined in this Agreement), and two hotels of approximately 150 guestrooms each, to enhance the Property as a unified, walkable and mixed -use development which offers potential residents additional housing options (the "Project "). A general description and depiction of key elements of the Project is contained in Exhibit "B" to this Agreement. F. Owner has requested that the City enter into a development agreement for the development of the Project, and the City desires to enter into this Agreement pursuant to the provisions of the California Government Code, the City Charter, the General Plan, the City Municipal Code, and applicable City policies. 60093.00025 \8523646.9 -2- 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 964 G. This Agreement assures that development of the Project will occur in accordance with the General Plan, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan ( "Otay Ranch GDP "), the SPA Plan, as amended by the Project Approvals, and all of the implementing regulations for those various Plans. H. This Agreement constitutes a current exercise of the City's police powers to provide predictability to the Owner in the development approval process by vesting the permitted uses, density, intensity of use, and timing and phasing of the Project in exchange for the Owner's commitment to provide significant public benefits to the City. I. This Agreement is also intended to ensure that the Owner has provided funding sufficient to provide the adequate and appropriate infrastructure and public facilities required by the development of the Project, and that this infrastructure and public facilities will be available no later than when required to serve the Project's demand. J. The commitments of the Owner made in this Agreement allow the City to realize significant economic, recreational, park, open space, social, public facilities or other public benefits. These public benefits will advance the interests and meet the needs of Chula Vista's residents and visitors to a significantly greater extent than would development of the Project under the current entitlements and absent this Agreement. K. In return for the Owner's commitment to provide these public benefits, the City is willing to exercise its authority to enter into this Agreement and to make a commitment of predictability for the development process for the Project. AGREEMENT For good and valuable consideration, the City and Owner agree as follows: 1. DEFINITIONS. In this Agreement, unless the context otherwise requires, the following terms and phrases shall have the following meanings: 1.1 "Agreement" means this Development Agreement between the City and the Owner. The term "Agreement" shall include any amendment to the Agreement properly approved and executed pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. 1.2 "Approval Date" means the date on which the City Council conducted the first reading of the Enabling Ordinance as part of the Project Approvals. 1.3 "City" means the City of Chula Vista, a California charter city and municipal corporation. 1.4 "City Charter" means the City of Chula Vista's City Charter. 1.5 "City Council" means the governing body of the City. 1.6 "City Manager" means the City Manager of the City or the City Manager's designee. 60093.00025 \8523646.9 -3- 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 965 1.7 "City Municipal Code" means the Chula Vista Municipal Code. 1.8 "Day" means a calendar day unless specifically stated as a "business day." 1.9 "Effective Date" means the date on which the Enabling Ordinance becomes effective and the Parties have each signed this Agreement. 1.10 "Enabling Ordinance" means City Ordinance No. by which this Agreement was approved. 1.11 "Existing Land Use Regulations" means all Land Use Regulations in effect on the Approval Date, including the General Plan, Otay Ranch GDP and other Project Approvals but excluding any amendment or modification of the Land Use Regulations adopted, approved or imposed after the Approval Date that impairs or restricts Owner's Vested Right, as defined in this Agreement, unless such amendment or modification is expressly authorized by this Agreement or agreed to by Owner in writing. Owner has consented to the General Plan, Otay Ranch GDP and other Project Approvals, in effect on the Approval Date, which shall all be considered part of the Existing Land Use Regulations. 1.12 "General Plan" means the General Plan of the City of Chula Vista. 1.13 "General Plan Amendment" means the amendments to the General Plan that are enacted as part of the Project Approvals. 1.14 "Land Use Regulations" means all ordinances, resolutions, codes, rules, regulations and official policies of the City governing the development and use of land, including, without limitation, the permitted use of land, the density or intensity of use, subdivision requirements, timing and phasing of development, the maximum height and size of buildings, the provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes, the City's public improvement engineering ordinances, policies, rules, regulations and standards, and the design, improvement, construction, and initial occupancy standards and specifications applicable to the Project. "Land Use Regulations" do not include any City ordinance, resolution, code, rule, regulation or official policy governing: 1.14.1 The conduct or taxation of businesses, professions, and occupations applicable to all businesses, professions, and occupations in the City; 1.14.2 Taxes and assessments of general application upon all residents of the City. 1.14.3 The control and abatement of nuisances. 1.15 "Mortgagee" means a mortgagee of a mortgage, a beneficiary under a deed of trust or any other security- device, a lender, and their successors and assigns. 60093.00025 \8523646.9 H 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 966 1.16 "Owner" means, jointly and severally, Village II and Sunranch, and Owner's successors and assigns as set forth in the Agreement. Village II and Sunranch are each jointly and severally responsible for all obligations of the Owner set forth in this Agreement. 1.17 "Owner's Vested Right" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 4.1. 1.18 "Otay Ranch GDP" means the Otay Ranch General Development Plan. 1.19 "Otay Ranch GDP Amendments" means the amendments to the Otay Ranch GDP that are enacted as part of the Project Approvals. 1.20 "Parties" means the City on the one hand, and Village II and Sunranch on the other hand (with Village II and Sunranch being jointly and severally defined as "Owner"). A "Party" means either the City or the Owner. 1.21 "Project" means the development of the Property, including all related on -site and off -site improvements, as set forth in the Project Approvals and Subsequent Project Approvals. 1.22 "Project Approvals" means all permits and other entitlements approved or issued by the City for the use of, construction upon, and /or development of the Project on the Property. A listing of the Project Approvals is contained in Exhibit "C" to this Agreement. 1.23 "Property" means the real property described and depicted in Exhibit "A ". 1.24 "Reservation of Authority" or "Reserved Authority" means the rights and authority specifically reserved to the City which limits the assurances and rights provided to the Owner and the Owner's Vested Right under this Agreement. 1.25 "Section" means a numbered section of this Agreement, unless specifically stated to refer to another document or matter. 1.26 "SPA Plan" means the Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial Sectional Planning Area Plan. 1.27 "SPA Plan Amendments" means the amendments to the SPA Plan that are enacted as part of the Subsequent Project Approvals. 1.28 "Subsequent Project Approvals" means all Project Approvals approved, granted, or issued after the Approval Date which are required or permitted by the Project Approvals, Existing Land Use Regulations, any applicable Subsequent Land Use Regulations and this Agreement. Subsequent Project Approvals includes, but is not limited to, the SPA Plan Amendments. A listing of the anticipated Subsequent Project Approvals is contained in Exhibit "D" to this Agreement. 60093.00025 \8523646.9 -5- 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 967 1.29 "Subsequent Land Use Regulations" means those Land Use Regulations which are both adopted and effective after the Approval Date and which are not included within the definition of Existing Land Use Regulations. "Subsequent Land Use Regulations" include any Land Use Regulations adopted by moratorium, initiative, City action, or otherwise. 1.30 "Term" means the term of this Agreement as set forth in Section 6.1 of this Agreement. 2. INTEREST OF OWNER. Owner represents that it has a legal or equitable interest in the Property and is authorized to enter into this Agreement. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS. On April 22, 2015 and May 12, 2015, after providing notice as required by law, the Planning Commission and City Council, respectively, held public hearings on this Agreement and made the legally required findings as set forth in the Enabling Ordinance. 4. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT. 4.1 Owner's Vested Right. Owner shall have the vested right to complete the Project during the Term in accordance with the Project Approvals, the Subsequent Project Approvals, the Existing Land Use Regulations, any applicable Subsequent Land Use Regulations, the City's Reservation of Authority and this Agreement ( "Owner's Vested Right "). 4.2 Governing Land Use Regulations. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, the Land Use Regulations applicable to the development of the Project shall be those contained in the Project Approvals, the Subsequent Project Approvals and the Existing Land Use Regulations. Subsequent Land Use Regulations shall not apply to the development of the Project, unless expressly authorized by this Agreement or agreed to by Owner in writing. 4.3 Permitted Uses. Except as otherwise provided within this Agreement, the permitted uses shall be as provided in the Project Approvals, the Subsequent Project Approvals and the Existing Land Use Regulations. 4.4 Density and Intensity, Requirement for Reservation and Dedication of Land. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, the density and intensity of use for the development of the Project, and the requirements for reservation and dedication of land, shall be as provided in the Project Approvals, the Subsequent Project Approvals and the Existing Land Use Regulations. 4.5 Reservation of Authority. The following Land Use Regulations, Subsequent Land Use Regulations or other requirements shall apply to the Property and the Project: 4.5.1 Processing fees and charges imposed by the City to cover the City's estimated or actual costs of reviewing and processing applications for 60093.00025 \8523646.9 in 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 968 the Project, providing inspections, conducting annual reviews, providing environmental analysis, or for monitoring compliance with this Agreement or any Project or Subsequent Project Approvals granted or issued, provided such fees and charges are in force and effect on a general basis on the date of filing such applications with the City. This Section shall not be construed to limit the authority of City to charge its then- current, normal and customary application, processing, and permit fees for Project or Subsequent Project Approvals, building permits and other similar permits, which fees are designed to reimburse City's expenses attributable to such application, processing, and permitting and are in force and effect on a City -wide basis on the date of filing such applications with City, notwithstanding the fact that such fees may have been increased by City subsequent to the Approval Date. 4.5.2 Development impact fees, monetary exactions or other mitigation requirements imposed by the City as a condition precedent to the issuance of any permit or approval to cover the impacts associated with the development of the Project ( "Development Impact Fees "), as required by the Project Approvals or Subsequent Project Approvals, provided such fees or other mitigation requirements are in force and effect on a general basis on the date of filing for such permit or approval with the City. However, this Agreement vests Owner the right, at its sole option, to defer the payment of the following Development Impact Fees, as applicable to the Project, and the Property, at the then - current amount, until the request for final inspection of a building permit: Sewer Capacity Fee; Public Facility Development Impact Fee; Eastern Transportation Development Impact Fee; Western Transportation Development Impact Fee; Telegraph Canyon Drainage Fee; Poggi Canyon Sewer Development Impact Fee; Salt Creek Sewer Development Impact Fee; Otay Ranch Village 1 and 5 Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee; Otay Ranch Village 11 Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee; and any successor or replacement fees for the fees named above. This Section shall not be construed to limit the authority of the City to charge its then - current, normal and customary impact fees or other mitigation requirements in place at the time of the application for the permit or approval, notwithstanding the fact that such fees may have been increased by the City subsequent to the Approval Date. 4.5.3 Procedural regulations relating to hearing bodies, petitions, applications, notices, findings, records, hearings, reports, recommendations, appeals, and any other matter of procedure. 4.5.4 The following, provided that they are uniformly applied to all development projects within the City: 60093.00025 \8523646.9 -7- 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 969 4.5.4.1 Uniform codes governing engineering and construction standards and specifications adopted by the City pursuant to state law. Such codes include, without limitation, the City's adopted version of the Uniform Administrative Code, California Building Code, California Plumbing Code, California Mechanical Code, California Electrical Code, and California Fire Code. 4.5.4.2 Local amendments to those uniform codes which are adopted by the City pursuant to state law, provided they pertain exclusively to the preservation of life and safety. 4.5.4.3 The City's standards and procedures regarding the granting of encroachment permits and the conveyance of rights and interests which provides for the use of or the entry upon public property. 4.5.4.4 The City's public improvement engineering ordinances, policies, rules, regulations and standards in effect when construction drawings for those improvements are submitted to City. City will reasonably consider requests for exceptions to and deviations from these public improvement engineering ordinances, policies, rules, regulations and standards necessary or desirable for implementation of the Project or the Project Approvals. 4.5.5 Regulations which may be in conflict with this Agreement, but which are objectively required to protect the public health and safety. 4.5.6 State or federal laws or regulations which preempt local regulations or mandate local regulations or conditions that conflict with the development of the Project. This expressly includes mandates imposed through the Clean Water Act or the Porter- Cologne Water Quality Control Act. 4.5.7 Prior to exercising the Reservation of Authority provided in Sections 4.5.5 and 4.5.6, the City shall provide Owner with written notice of the state or federal law or regulation, or the regulation required to protect the public health and safety that conflicts with this Agreement, and a written explanation of the conflict created. Within ten (10) days of the City's written notice, City and Owner shall meet and confer in good faith in a reasonable attempt to apply the state or federal law, or the regulation required to protect the public health and safety, in a manner that is most consistent with this Agreement, best preserves the terms of this Agreement and that protects rights of Owner as derived from this Agreement, to the extent reasonably possible, while still following the applicable law or regulation. Failure of the City to provide this notice 60093.00025 \8523646.9 in 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 970 shall not relieve Owner of its obligation to comply with such law or regulation. 4.5.8 Owner shall be issued building permits for the Project after permit applications are reviewed and approved by City in the City's customary fashion for such review and approval. 4.5.9 The exercise of the power of eminent domain. 4.6 Vested Rights Upon Termination. Owner acknowledges that following termination of this Agreement, except as to any Project Approval or Subsequent Project Approval that has vested under state law without reliance on this Agreement, City may amend the General Plan, Otay Ranch GDP, SPA Plan or Land Use Regulations as they relate to the Project. 4.7 Compliance with CEQA. The City Council has found that the environmental impacts of the Project have been addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan- Planning Area 12 ( "FEIR 02 -04 ") (SCH # 1989010154), including addenda to FEIR 02 -04. Where the California Environmental Quality Act requires that an additional environmental analysis be performed in connection with a Subsequent Project Approval or other future discretionary approval granted by the City for the Project, the Owner shall pay all of the City's reasonable costs to perform that additional analysis. 4.8 Timing of Development. Because the California Supreme Court held in Pardee Construction Co. v. City of Camarillo, 37 Cal. 3d 465 (1984), that the failure of the parties in that case to provide for the timing of development resulted in a later - adopted initiative restricting the timing of development to prevail over the parties' agreement, it is the specific intent of the Parties to provide for the timing of the Project in this Agreement. To do so, the Parties acknowledge and provide that, subject to express terms of this Agreement including, without limitation, Sections 4.5.5 and 4.5.6, Owner shall have the right, but not the obligation, to complete the Project in such order, at such rate, at such times, and in as many development phases and sub - phases as Owner deems appropriate in its sole subjective business judgment. 4.9 Waiver of TDIF and PFDIF Obligations. Notwithstanding Section 4.5.2 above or any other provision in this Agreement, the two hotels described in Section 5.1 below shall not be subject to any Transportation Development Impact Fees ( "TDIF ") or Public Facility Development Impact Fees ( "PFDIF "). Instead, additional TDIF and PFDIF fees shall be assessed on the residential portions of the Project as described in Section 5.4 of this Agreement. 60093.00025 \8523646.9 in 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 971 5. OWNER'S OBLIGATIONS AND PROVISION OF PUBLIC BENEFITS. 5.1 Construction of Hotels. As set forth in more detail in the Project Approvals, the Owner shall construct or cause to be constructed two hotels of quality not less than AAA Three Diamond rating, or reasonable equivalent as approved by the Director of Development Services, on the Property at the general locations depicted in Exhibit "B," containing a minimum of 300 hotel rooms (approximately 150 rooms each). The City acknowledges that the hotel proposed in Owner's current design review and building permit applications meets this standard. 5.1.1 Owner shall obtain building permits for and shall commence construction of the foundation of one hotel containing a minimum of 148 hotel rooms prior to the City's issuance of any building permits for any residential components of the Project. Owner agrees and acknowledges that City would not have enacted the amendments to the General Plan, Otay Ranch GDP and the SPA Plan included in the Project Approvals but for Owner's agreement to obtain permits for and commence substantial construction of one hotel containing a minimum of 148 hotel rooms prior to obtaining any building permits for any residential components of the Project. Owner further agrees and acknowledges that its failure to satisfy the provisions of this Section shall constitute a default of its obligations under the Agreement and that upon any such default the City may pursue any of the remedies provided in this Agreement. 5.1.2 Owner shall use commercially reasonable efforts to obtain building permits and commence substantial construction of the second hotel containing 150 hotel rooms (or the number of rooms needed to bring the total hotel room count of the two hotels to a total of 300 rooms) prior to the full build -out of and issuance of final occupancy permits for the final components of the residential portion of the Project. If Owner has not obtained building permits and commenced substantial construction of the second hotel prior to the full build -out of and issuance of final occupancy permits for the final components of the residential portion of the Project, Owner's obligation to build the second hotel shall convert automatically into a use restriction on the Property that restricts the use of the portion of the Property designated for the second hotel to hotel uses only. Without approval by the Director of Development Services allowing a different use, the portion of the Property designated for the second hotel shall only be used for a hotel and for no other use. Prior to the full build -out of and issuance of final occupancy permits for the final components of the residential portion of the Project, Owner shall record an express covenant, to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services, reflecting this use restriction. Owner's failure to record such an express covenant shall be 60093.00025 \8523646.9 -10- 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 972 a breach of this Agreement, but shall not negate in any way the use restriction as reflect in this paragraph. 5.2 Construction of Commercial/Mixed Use. Owner agrees and acknowledges that the SPA Plan originally contemplated only commercial development on the Property. Although the City has agreed to amend the SPA Plan to allow residential development on the Property, commercial development is still an important use for the site. Therefore, Owner agrees to obtain building permits for and commence substantial construction of 15,000 square feet of commercial development on the Property in accordance with the Project Approvals prior to or concurrently with obtaining building permits and commencing construction of the residential development located east of Town Center Drive. In addition to and concurrently with the construction of the 15,000 square feet of commercial development, Owner shall construct an additional 15,000 square feet of the development to construction standards that qualify for commercial occupancy ( "B" or "M" occupancy), but may allow the use of this portion of the development for non - commercial purposes, including residential uses. 5.3 Public Facilities and Services. 5.3.1 Park and Park Site. Based on City standards in effect as of January, 2015, Owner's park obligations (land and improvements) related to the Project would require the dedication and the improvement to City standards of up to a 4.69 acre park on the Property. Owner's actual baseline park obligations shall be calculated at the time park obligations become due for the Project in accordance with City standards, including, but not limited to, Chapter 17.10 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Owner shall satisfy its actual park obligations as follows: 5.3.1.1 Granting of Park Site and Development of the Park. Owner shall grant two (2) acres of the Property (the "Park Site ") to the City in a permanent easement for public usage, shall develop a highly amenitized, "turnkey" park (the "Park ") on the Park Site, as described in this Agreement, to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services. The Park shall generally be located as depicted in Exhibit "B ", with the final location subject to City approval. In order to create an extraordinary public space, the Park shall generally consist of the elements described in Exhibit "E" to this Agreement. Owner shall invest substantially more to the development and granting of the Park than would be typical for a City standard park, up to and including the value equivalent to the dedication and improvement required to achieve the Owner's full park obligations, as calculated at the time park obligations for the Project become due. Owner shall commence construction of the Park prior to the issuance of the three hundredth (300th) 60093.00025 \8523646.9 _11- 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 973 residential building permit and substantially complete the Park within fifteen (15) months of commencement of construction. 5.3.1.2 Audit and Payment of Excess Park Obligations. Owner shall, within sixty (60) days of the date on which the Director of Development Services reasonably determines, in writing, that the Park has been completed, exclusive of the warranty period, provide the City, for its review and approval, all documentation the City reasonably requires, to determine the cost (land and improvement) of the Owner's construction of the Park on the Park Site. The City shall use this information to prepare an audit of the actual costs of the development of the Park on the Park Site. The audit shall also compare the actual costs of the development of the Park on the Park Site (including the actual costs incurred during the warranty period) with the value of the Owner's actual baseline park obligations, calculated at the time the park obligations become due for the Project in accordance with City standards, including, but not limited to, Chapter 17.10 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Based on this audit, Owner shall satisfy its remaining park obligations, if any, by paying the excess park obligations to the City's PAD fee account for the development of other parks in Otay Ranch. Such excess park obligations shall be calculated through the audit and shall be paid as either a pro rata permit fees collected in connection with any remaining residential permits or, if no residential permits remain, in a lump sum payment to the City made within sixty (60) days of the audit, or such later date as is approved by the Director of Development Services. 5.3.1.3 Park Maintenance. Owner shall be solely responsible for the cost of maintaining the Park. Prior to the approval of the first final map for the Project, Owner shall have caused the creation of a maintenance Community Facilities District ( "CFD "), or other funding mechanism, to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services, for the perpetual maintenance of the Park. The perpetual funding mechanism, which may include related agreements with the City, shall have provisions for the inflation of maintenance costs and a restriction on the Owner's ability to unilaterally amend the funding mechanism or its provisions. The City shall be solely responsible for all life cycle and replacement costs for the Park but replacement decisions are at the sole discretion of the City. 5.3.1.4 Park Programming. The City shall control programming of the Park, and leasing and concessions within the Park, subject to the City's customary permitting process. In order to encourage a sense of community for the PA 12 residents and businesses, 60093.00025 \8523646.9 -12- 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 974 Owner, or its Homeowner's Association ( "HOA "), may program up to twelve (12) events per year, or more if approved by the Director of Development Services, subject to reasonable insurance, public health and safety requirements and in accordance with both Chula Vista Policy No. 102 -06 and applicable zoning requirements. Any proposed event shall not exclude attendance by any member of the public; provided, however, that with the approval of the Director of Development Services, Owner, or its HOA, may program up to six (6) events in addition to the above referenced twelve (12) events for events where portions of the Park (but not the entire Park) may be closed to the general public for HOA specific events funded solely by HOA fees. 5.3.2 Community PMose Facilities. Owner shall provide a total of two and one -third (2.3) acres of net usable land for Community Purpose Facilities ( "CPF "). Owner may satisfy this CPF requirement in any manner consistent with Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.48.025, which may include the provision of the CPF land offsite or adjustments to the percentage limitations on the types of facilities, including recreational facilities, that may count toward satisfying the CPF requirement, all in the discretion of the Director of Development Services. 5.3.3 Dedication for the Bus Rapid Transit Line. Owner shall dedicate the right -of -way for the bus rapid transit line consistent with the Project Approvals. 5.4 Additional DIF Obligations for Residential Development. In exchange for the waiver of TDIF and PFDIF obligations for the hotels pursuant to Section 4.9 above, and in addition to all other impact fee obligations applicable to the residential portions of the Project, the following additional TDIF and PFDIF obligations shall apply to the residential portions of the Project. 5.4.1 At the time of the request for final inspection of the 50th residential building permit in the Project, Owner shall make a TDIF payment based on 3.3 acres of the "General Commercial" category and PFDIF payment based on 3.3acres of the "Commercial" category. The fee amounts will be calculated according to the fee programs at the time of payment. 5.4.2 At the later of (a) Owner's request for final inspection of the 575th residential building permit, or (b) Owner's request for final inspection of the second hotel, Owner shall make a TDIF payment based on 3.0 acres of the "General Commercial" category and a PFDIF payment based on 3.0 acres of the "Commercial category. The fee amount will be calculated according to the fee programs at the time of payment. If 60093.00025 \8523646.9 -13- 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 975 fewer than 575 total residential units are anticipated (based on Design Review approvals) and the final inspection of the second hotel has already occurred, payment will be made at the time of the request for the final inspection of the last residential building permit in the Project. 6. TERMS AND TERMINATION. 6.1 Term of Agreement. The Term shall commence on the Effective Date. The Term shall continue for a period of twenty (20) years from the Effective Date, subject to the following: 6.1.1 The Term shall be extended for periods equal to the time during which: 6.1.1.1 Litigation is pending which challenges any matter, including compliance with CEQA or any other local, state, or federal law, related in any way to the approval or implementation of all or any part of the Project Approvals. Any such extension shall be equal to the time between the filing of litigation, on the one hand, and the entry of final judgment or dismissal, on the other. 6.1.1.2 Any other delay occurs which is beyond the control of the Parties, as described in Section 11.6. 6.1.2 During the Term, certain portions of the Property may be released from this Agreement as provided elsewhere in this Agreement. 6.1.3 As provided in Section 6.2 and elsewhere within this Agreement, the Term may end earlier than the end of the Term as specified in this Agreement. 6.2 Termination. This Agreement shall be deemed terminated and of no further effect upon the earlier occurrence of any of the following events: 6.2.1 Expiration of the Term as set forth in Section 6.1; 6.2.2 Entry of a final judgment setting aside, voiding, or annulling the adoption of the Enabling Ordinance; 6.2.3 The adoption of a referendum measure overriding or repealing the Enabling Ordinance; 6.2.4 Completion of the Project in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, including issuance of all required occupancy permits and acceptance, as required by state law, by City, or the applicable public agency, of all required dedications and the satisfaction of all of Owner's obligations under this Agreement; and 6.2.5 As may be provided by other specific provisions of this Agreement. 60093.00025 \8523646.9 -14- 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 976 6.3 Effect of Termination. Subject to Section 6.4, upon any termination of this Agreement, the only rights or obligations under this Agreement which either Party shall have are: 6.3.1 The completion of obligations which were to have been performed prior to termination, other than those which are separately addressed by this Agreement; 6.3.2 The performance and cure rights set forth in Section 9.3; and 6.3.3 Those obligations that are specifically set forth as surviving this Agreement, such as those described in Sections 8.1 through 8.5 and 11.20. 6.4 Release of Obligations With Respect to Individual Lots Upon Certification of Occupancy. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement: 6.4.1 When any individual lot has been finally subdivided and sold, leased, or made available for lease to a member of the public or any other ultimate user, and a certificate of occupancy has been obtained for the building(s) on the lot, that lot and its owner shall have no further obligations under and shall be released from this Agreement. 6.4.2 Upon the conveyance of any lot, parcel, or other property, whether residential, commercial, or open space, to a homeowners' association, property owners' association, or public or quasi - public entity, that lot, parcel, or property and its owner shall have no further obligations under and shall be released from this Agreement. No formal action by the City is required to effect this release, but, upon Owner's request, City shall sign an estoppel certificate or other document to evidence the release. 6.5 Term of Mgp(s) and Other Project Approvals. 6.5.1 Subdivision Maps. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66452.6, the term of all subdivision or parcel maps that are approved for all or any portion of the Project on the Property shall be automatically extended to a date coincident with the Term and, where not prohibited by State law, with any extension of the Term. 6.5.2 Other Project Approvals. Pursuant to Government Code section 65863.9, the Project Approvals shall automatically be extended for a term ending concurrently with the applicable subdivision maps for the Proj ect. 60093.00025 \8523646.9 -15- 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 977 7. ANNUAL REVIEW. 7.1 Timing of Annual Review. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65865.1, at least once during every twelve (12) month period of the Term, City shall review the good faith compliance of Owner with the terms of this Agreement ( "Annual Review "). 7.2 Standards for Annual Review. During the Annual Review, Owner shall be required to demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of this Agreement. "Good faith compliance" shall be established if Owner is in compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. If the City Council or its designee finds and determines that Owner is not in good faith compliance, then City may proceed in accordance with Section 9.3 pertaining to the potential default of Owner and the opportunities for cure. Owner shall pay the City's reasonable fees and costs incurred in connection with the Annual Review. 7.3 Procedures for Annual Review. The Annual Review shall be conducted by the City Council or its designee. Owner shall be given a minimum of sixty (60) days' notice of any date scheduled for an Annual Review. 7.4 Certificate of Compliance. At any time during any year that the City Council or its designee finds that Owner is not in default under this Agreement, City shall, upon written request by Owner, provide Owner with a written certificate of good faith compliance within fifteen (15) days of City's receipt of that request. 8. THIRD PARTY LITIGATION. 8.1 General Plan Litigation. City has determined that this Agreement is consistent with its General Plan, the Otay Ranch GDP and the SPA Plan. Owner has reviewed the General Plan, the Otay Ranch GDP and the SPA Plan and concurs with City's determination. City shall not have any liability, whether through equitable or legal arguments, under this Agreement or the associated approvals or documents (e.g., General Plan Amendment, SPA Plan, tentative maps), for any failure of City to perform under this Agreement, or for the inability of Owner to develop the Property as contemplated by the Project Approvals or this Agreement, if such failure or inability is the result of a judicial determination that part or all of the General Plan, Otay Ranch GDP or SPA Plan is invalid, inadequate, or not in compliance with law. 8.2 Third Party Litigation Concerning Project or Agreement. Owner shall, at Owner's expense, defend, indemnify, and hold City, its officers, employees and independent contractors engaged in Project planning, approval or implementation, harmless from any third -party claim, action or proceeding against City, its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the Project Approvals, Subsequent Project Approvals or this Agreement. City shall promptly notify Owner of any such claim, action or proceeding, and City shall reasonably cooperate in the defense. City may in its discretion participate in the defense of 60093.00025 \8523646.9 -16- 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 978 any such claim, action or proceeding. If the City uses its discretion to participate in the defense of any such claim, action or proceeding, the City shall pay the City's attorneys' fees and litigation costs incurred in that defense. 8.3 Indemnity. In addition to the provisions of Section 8.2, Owner shall indemnify, defend and hold City, its officers, agents, employees and independent contractors, engaged in Project planning or implementation, free and harmless from any third - party liability or claims based or alleged upon any act or omission of Owner, its officers, agents, employees, subcontractors and independent contractors, for property damage, bodily injury or death (Owner's employees included) or any other element of damage of any kind or nature, relating to or arising from development of the Project, except for claims for damages arising through active negligence or willful misconduct of City, its officers, agents, employees and independent contractors. Owner shall defend, at Owner's expense, including attorneys' fees, City, its officers, agents, employees and independent contractors in any legal action based upon such alleged acts or omissions of Owner. City may in its discretion participate in the defense of any such legal claim, action, or proceeding. If the City uses its discretion to participate in the defense of any such claim, action or proceeding, the City shall pay the City's attorneys' fees and litigation costs incurred in that defense. 8.4 Environmental Contamination. Owner shall indemnify and hold City, its officers, agents, and employees free and harmless from any liability, based or alleged, upon any act or omission of Owner, its officers, agents, employees, subcontractors, predecessors in interest, successors, assigns, and independent contractors, resulting in any violation of any federal, state or local law, ordinance or regulation relating to industrial hygiene or to environmental conditions on, under, or about the Property, including, but not limited to, soil and groundwater conditions, and Owner shall defend, at its expense, including attorneys' fees, City, its officers, agents and employees in any action based or asserted upon any such alleged act or omission. City may in its discretion participate in the defense of any such claim, action, or proceeding. If the City uses its discretion to participate in the defense of any such claim, action or proceeding, the City shall pay the City's attorneys' fees and litigation costs incurred in that defense. 8.5 City to Approve Counsel; Conduct of Liti ag tion. With respect to Sections 8.1 through 8.4, City reserves the right either (a) to approve the attorney(s) that Owner selects, hires, or otherwise engages to defend City, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed, or (b) in the City's sole discretion, conduct its own defense, with the understanding that Owner's attorneys shall generally serve as lead counsel. If City elects to conduct its own defense, the City shall pay the City's attorneys' fees and litigation costs incurred for such defense. 8.6 Survival. The provisions of Sections 8.1 through 8.4, inclusive, shall survive the termination, cancellation, or expiration of this Agreement. 60093.00025 \8523646.9 -17- 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 979 9. DEFAULTS AND REMEDIES. 9.1 Default by Owner. Owner shall be in default of this Agreement if it does any or any combination of the following: 9.1.1 Willfully violates any order, ruling or decision of any administrative or judicial body having jurisdiction over the Property or the Project. Owner may contest any such order, ruling or decision by appropriate proceedings conducted in good faith, in which event no default of this Agreement shall be deemed to have occurred until there is a final, non - appealable judicial decision that Owner willfully violated such obligation. 9.1.2 Fails to cure a material breach of this Agreement within the time set forth in a written notice of default from the City. 9.2 Default by City. The City shall be in default of this Agreement only if it fails to cure a material breach of this Agreement within the time set forth in a written notice of default from the Owner to the City. 9.3 Notice and Termination. A Party alleging a default by any other Party shall serve written notice thereof. Each such notice shall state with specificity all of the following: 9.3.1 The nature of the alleged default, with reference to the specific Sections of the Agreement that are alleged to have been breached and the specific facts supporting those allegations; 9.3.2 The manner in which the alleged default may be satisfactorily cured. 9.3.3 A period of time in which the default may be cured. The notice of default shall allow at least sixty (60) days to cure the default. If the default is of such a nature as not to be susceptible of cure within sixty (60) days using diligent efforts, then the defaulting Party shall only be deemed to have failed to cure the default if it fails diligently to commence such cure within sixty (60) days or if it fails diligently to prosecute such cure to its conclusion. 9.4 Default Remedies. A Party who complies with the notice of default and opportunity to cure requirements of Section 9.3 may, at its option, institute legal action to cure, correct, or remedy the alleged default as provided in this Agreement. 9.5 Owner's Remedy. The Owner acknowledges that the City would not have entered into this Agreement if it were to be liable in damages under or with respect to all or any part of the development of the Project on the Property. Accordingly, Owner shall not sue the City for damages or monetary relief for any 60093.00025 \8523646.9 in 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 980 matter related to the development of the Project on the Property. Owner's litigation remedies shall be limited to declaratory and injunctive relief, mandate, and specific performance. 9.6 City's Remedy. In the event of an uncured default by Owner, the City may pursue any and all available legal or equity remedies for the default. 9.7 Waiver, Remedies Cumulative. All waivers of performance must be in a writing signed by the Party granting the waiver. There are no implied waivers. Failure by City or Owner to insist upon the strict performance of any provision of this Agreement, irrespective of the length of time for which such failure continues, shall not constitute a waiver of the right to demand strict compliance with this Agreement in the future. A written waiver affects only the specific matter waived and defines the performance waived and the duration of the waiver. Unless expressly stated in a written waiver, future performance of the same or any other condition is not waived. A Party who complies with the notice of default and opportunity to cure requirements of Section 9.3, where applicable, and elects to pursue a legal or equitable remedy available under this Agreement does not waive its right to pursue any other remedy available under this Agreement, unless prohibited by statute, court rules, or judicial precedent. Delays, tolling, and other actions arising under Section 11.16 shall not be considered waivers subject to this Section 9.7. 9.8 Alternative Dispute Resolution. Any dispute between the Parties may, upon the mutual agreement of the Parties, be submitted to mediation, binding arbitration, or any other mutually agreeable form of alternative dispute resolution. While an alternative dispute process is pending, the statute of limitation shall be tolled for any claim or cause of action which either of the Parties may have against the other. 10. ENCUMBRANCES, ASSIGNMENTS, AND RELEASES. 10.1 Discretion to Encumber. This Agreement shall not prevent or limit Owner, in any manner, at Owner's sole discretion, from encumbering some or all of the Property or any improvement on the Property by any mortgage, deed of trust, or other security device to secure financing related to the Property or the Project. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any project or property shall be free and clear of all liens and encumbrances other than those previously approved in writing by the City prior to transfer to the City. 10.2 Mortgagee Protection. City acknowledges that the lender(s) providing financing secured by the Property and /or its improvements may require certain Agreement 60093.00025 \8523646.9 -19- 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 981 interpretations and modifications. City shall, at any time requested by Owner or the lender, meet with Owner and representatives of such lender(s) to negotiate in good faith any such interpretation or modification. City will not unreasonably withhold or delay its consent to any requested interpretation or modification provided such interpretation or modification is consistent with the intent and purposes of this Agreement. Any Mortgagee of the Property shall be entitled to the following rights and privileges: 10.2.1 Neither entering into this Agreement nor a breach of this Agreement shall defeat, render invalid, diminish, or impair the lien of any mortgage or deed of trust on the Property made in good faith and for value. 10.2.2 If City timely receives a request from a Mortgagee requesting a copy of any notice of default given to Owner under the terms of this Agreement, City shall provide a copy of that notice to the Mortgagee within ten (10) days of sending the notice of default to Owner. The Mortgagee shall have the right, but not the obligation, to cure the default during the remaining cure period allowed Owner under Section 9.3 of this Agreement. 10.2.3 Except as otherwise provided within this Agreement, any Mortgagee who comes into possession of some or all of the Property pursuant to foreclosure of a mortgage or deed of trust, or deed in lieu of such foreclosure or otherwise, shall: 60093.00025 \8523646.9 10.2.3.1 Take that property subject to the terms of this Agreement and as Owner's successor; 10.2.3.2 Have the rights and obligations of an Assignee as set forth in Sections 10.5.1 and 10.5.3; 10.2.3.3 Have the right to rely on the provisions of Section 4 of this Agreement, provided that any development proposed by the Mortgagee is in substantial conformance with the terms of this Agreement; and 10.2.3.4 Not be liable for any defaults, whether material or immaterial, or monetary obligations of Owner arising prior to acquisition of title to the Property by the Mortgagee, except that the Mortgagee may not pursue development pursuant to this Agreement until all delinquent and current fees and other monetary obligations due under this Agreement for the portions of the Property acquired by the Mortgagee have been paid to City. -20- 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 982 10.3 Estoppel Certificate. Within ten (10) business days following a written request by either of the Parties, the other Party shall execute and deliver to the requesting Party a statement certifying that (i) either this Agreement is unmodified and in full force and effect or there have been specified (date and nature) modifications to the Agreement, but it remains in full force and effect as modified; and (ii) either there are no known current uncured defaults under this Agreement or that the responding Party alleges that specified (date and nature) defaults exist. The statement shall also provide any other reasonable information requested. The failure to timely deliver this statement shall constitute a conclusive presumption that this Agreement is in full force and effect without modification, except as may be represented by the requesting Party and that there are no uncured defaults in the performance of the requesting Party, except as may be represented by the requesting Party. Owner shall pay to City all reasonable administrative costs incurred by City in connection with the issuance of estoppel certificates under this Section prior to City's issuance of such certificates. 10.4 Transfer or Assignment. Subject to Section 10.5 and 10.6, each individual entity comprising Owner shall have the right to sell, transfer, or assign its rights and obligations under this Agreement (collectively, an "Assignment ") in connection with a transfer of Owner's interest in all, any portion of, or any interest in the Property (the "Transferred Property "). No Assignment shall be made unless made together with the sale, transfer, or assignment of all or any portion of Owner's interest in the Property. At least fifteen (15) business days prior to the effective date of any Assignment, Owner shall notify City in writing of the proposed Assignment and provide City with an Assignment and Assumption Agreement, in a form substantially similar to Exhibit 7", executed by the purchaser, transferee, or assignee (collectively, the "Assignee ") to expressly and unconditionally assume all duties and obligations of Owner under this Agreement remaining to be performed at the time of the Assignment. 10.5 Effect of Assignment. Subject to Section 10.6 and unless otherwise stated within the Assignment, upon an Assignment: 10.5.1 The Assignee shall be liable for the performance of all obligations of Owner with respect to Transferred Property, but shall have no obligations with respect to the portions of the Property, if any, not transferred (the "Retained Property "). 10.5.2 The owner of the Retained Property shall be liable for the performance of all obligations of Owner with respect to Retained Property, but shall have no further obligations with respect to the Transferred Property. 10.5.3 The Assignee's exercise, use, and enjoyment of the Transferred Property shall be subject to the terms of this Agreement and the 60093.00025 \8523646.9 -21- 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 983 Assignee shall have all of the rights under this Agreement to the same extent as if the Assignee were the Owner. 10.6 City's Consent. An Owner shall not be released from its obligations with respect to the Transferred Property until it has obtained the City's reasonable consent to the transfer or assignment of all or a portion of this Agreement, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. 11. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. 11.1 Rules of Construction. The singular includes the plural; the masculine gender includes the feminine; "shall" is mandatory; "may" is permissive. 11.2 Binding Effect of Agreement. This Agreement shall be recorded against the Property and shall run with the land. Until released or terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement or until Owner has fully performed its obligations arising out of this Agreement, no portion of the Property shall be released from this Agreement. 11.3 Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding and agreement of City and Owner with respect to the matters set forth in this Agreement. This Agreement supersedes all negotiations or previous agreements between City and Owner respecting the subject matter of this Agreement. 11.4 Recorded Statement Upon Termination. Upon the completion of performance of this Agreement or its cancellation or termination, a statement evidencing completion, cancellation, or termination signed by the appropriate agents of City, shall be recorded in the Official Records of San Diego County, California. 11.5 Amendment or Cancellation of Agreement. This Agreement may be amended from time to time or canceled only by the written consent of both City and Owner in the same manner as its adoption, as set forth in California Government Code Section 65868. Any amendment or cancellation shall be in a form suitable for recording in the Official Records of San Diego County, California. An amendment or other modification of this Agreement will continue to relate back to the Effective Date of this Agreement (as opposed to the effective date of the amendment or modification), unless the amendment or modification expressly states otherwise. 11.6 Minor Chan ges /Operating Memorandum. The provisions of this Agreement require a close degree of cooperation between the Parties. It is anticipated that minor changes to the Project may be required from time to time to accommodate design changes, engineering changes, and other refinements related to the details of the Parties' performance. Minor changes are those changes to the Project that are otherwise consistent with the Project Approvals, and which do not result in a change in the type of use, an increase in density or intensity of use, significant new or increased environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated, or violations of 60093.00025 \8523646.9 -22- 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 984 any applicable health and safety regulations in effect on the Approval Date. Accordingly, the Parties may mutually consent to adopting minor changes through their signing of an operating memorandum reflecting the minor changes. Neither the minor changes nor any operating memorandum shall require public notice or hearing. The City Attorney and City Manager shall be authorized to determine whether proposed modifications and refinements are minor changes subject to this Section or more significant changes requiring amendment of this Agreement. The City Manager may execute any operating memorandum for minor changes without City Council action. Minor changes would include, without limitation, minor boundary or lot line adjustments necessary to properly reflect the applicability of this Agreement in the chain of title. 11.7 Project as a Private Undertaking. It is specifically understood by City and Owner that (i) the Project is a private development; (ii) City has no interest in or responsibilities for or duty to third parties concerning any improvements to the Property unless City accepts the improvements pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement or in connection with subdivision map approvals; and (iii) Owner shall have the full power and exclusive control of the Property, subject to the obligations of Owner set forth in this Agreement. 11.8 Incorporation of Recitals. Each of the Recitals set forth at the beginning of this Agreement are part of this Agreement. 11.9 Captions. The captions of this Agreement are for convenience and reference only and shall not define, explain, modify, construe, limit, amplify, or aid in the interpretation, construction, or meaning of any of the provisions of this Agreement. 11.10 Consent. Where the consent or approval of City or Owner is needed to implement Development under this Agreement, the consent or approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, delayed, or conditioned. 11.11 Covenant of Cooperation. City and Owner shall cooperate and deal with each other in good faith and assist each other in the performance of the provisions of this Agreement. 11.12 Execution and Recording. The City Clerk shall cause a copy of this Agreement to be signed by the appropriate representatives of the City and recorded with the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, California, within ten (10) days following the Effective Date. The failure of the City to sign and /or record this Agreement or notice thereof shall not affect the validity of and binding obligations set forth within this Agreement. 11.13 Relationship of City and Owner. The contractual relationship between City and Owner arising out of this Agreement is one of independent contractor and not agency. This Agreement does not create any third -party beneficiary rights. 60093.00025 \8523646.9 -23- 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 985 11.14 Notices. All notices, demands, and correspondence required or permitted by this Agreement shall be in writing and delivered in person, sent by electronic mail, or mailed by first class or certified mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: If to City, to: City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, California 91910 Attn: City Manager With a copy to: City Attorney City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, California 91910 If to Owner, to: Village II Town Center, LLC 610 West Ash Street, #1500 San Diego, California 92101 Attn: Mr. Nick Lee AND Sunranch Capital Partners, LLC 610 West Ash Street, #1500 San Diego, California 92101 Attn: Mr. Nick Lee With a copy to: Law Offices of R. Martin Bohl 501 West Broadway, Suite 520 San Diego, California 92101 Attn: R. Martin Bohl City or Owner may change its address by giving notice in writing to each of the other names and addresses listed above. Thereafter, notices, demands, and correspondence shall be addressed and transmitted to the new address. Notice shall be deemed given upon personal delivery, the date of actual receipt or, if mailed, not later than two (2) business days following deposit in the United States mail. 11.15 Waiver of Right to Protest. Execution of this Agreement is made by Owner without protest. Owner knowingly and willingly waives any rights it may have under Government Code section 66020 or any other provision of law to protest the imposition of any fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed 60093.00025 \8523646.9 -24- 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 986 on the Project as authorized by this Agreement, the Project Approvals or the Subsequent Project Approvals. 11.16 Delay for Events Beyond the Parties' Control. Delay of performance by either Party of its obligations under this Agreement shall not be deemed a breach of the Agreement and the Term shall be extended, for periods equal to the time during which (1) litigation is pending which challenges any matter, including compliance with CEQA or any other local, state, or federal law, related in any way to the approval or implementation of all or any part of the Project Approvals or Subsequent Project Approvals. Any such extension shall be equal to the time between the filing of litigation, on the one hand, and the entry of final judgment or dismissal, on the other. All such extensions shall be cumulative; (2) a delay is caused by reason of any event that cannot reasonably be anticipated or controlled by the City or Owner which prevents or delays performance by City or Owner of obligations under this Agreement. Such events shall include, by way of example and not limitation, acts of nature, riots, strikes, or damage to work in process by reason of fire, mud, rain, floods, earthquake, or other such casualties. Such an event does not include a market or business downturn, recession or other change in the business cycle. If City or Owner seeks excuse from performance for the period of a delay, it shall provide written notice of such delay to the other within thirty (30) days of the commencement of such delay. If the delay or default, whether material or immaterial, is due to an event that cannot be reasonably anticipated or controlled by City or Owner it shall be excused, and an extension of time for such cause shall be granted in writing for the period of the enforced delay, or longer as may be mutually agreed upon. In the event of a disagreement between the Parties with respect to whether this Section applies to a particular delay, a Party may file an action for judicial review of the matter, including requests for declaratory and /or injunctive relief. The right to seek judicial review shall not limit any other remedies, whether legal or equitable, to which the Party may be entitled. 11.17 Interpretation and Governing Law. In any dispute regarding this Agreement, the Agreement shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Venue for any litigation concerning this Agreement shall be in San Diego County, California. 11.18 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of the provisions of this Agreement as to which time is an element. 11.19 Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties and their respective successors and assigns. 11.20 Future Litigation Expenses. 11.20.1 Payment to Prevailing Party. If either Party brings a legal or equitable proceeding against the other Party which arises in any way out of this 60093.00025 \8523646.9 -25- 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 987 Agreement, the prevailing Party shall be entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys' fees and all other reasonable costs and expenses incurred in that proceeding. 11.20.2 Scope of Fees. Attorneys' fees under this Section shall include attorneys' fees on any appeal and in any post judgment proceedings to collect or enforce the judgment. This provision is separate and several and shall survive the termination of this Agreement. 12. EXHIBITS. All exhibits attached to this Agreement are incorporated as a part of this Agreement. Those exhibits are: Exhibit Description "A" Legal Description and Depiction of the Property "B" General Description and Depiction of the Project "C" Listing of Project Approvals "D" Listing of Anticipated Subsequent Project Approvals "E" Description of Park Improvements "F" Assignment and Assumption Agreement 60093.00025 \8523646.9 [Signtures on following page] -26- 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 988 Owner and City have executed this Agreement on the dates set forth below. CITY OWNER CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a California charter VILLAGE II TOWN CENTER, LLC, a city and municipal corporation California limited liability company* Mary Casillas Salas, Mayor Date: ATTEST: By: Donna Norris, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ME Glen R. Googins, City Attorney L'In Name: Title: By: Name: Title: Date: SUNRANCH CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company* By: Name: Title: L-02 Date: Name: Title: * Company signature authorization must be provided upon document execution. J: \Attorney\Michae1Sh\Freeway Commercial \Agreements\DA - 429.15- REVFINAL.docx 60093.00025 \8523646.9 -2%- 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 989 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND DEPICITION OF THE PROPERTY PARCEL "A ": THAT PORTION OF PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 18789 FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY RECORDER ON SEPTEMBER 19, 2001 TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF FRACTIONAL SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 18 SOUTH, RANGE 1 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF, ALL IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: CONIMENCING AT THE MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 2; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 2 SOUTH 71 057'23" WEST, 706.08 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF TOWN CENTER DRIVE AS OFFERED AND ACCEPTED FOR DEDICATION TO THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PER DOCUMENTS RECORDED IN SAID OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER ON SEPTEMBER 16, 2005 AS DOCUMENT NO. 2005- 0801099 AND JANUARY 23, 2009 AS DOCUMENT NO. 2009 - 0031758, RESPECTIVELY, AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; SAID POINT BEING THE BEGINNING OF A 1155.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY; A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS SOUTH 83 °42' 16" WEST; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHERLY LINE NORTHERLY ALONG THE WESTERLY SIDELINE OF SAID TOWN CENTER DRIVE AND THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 30 °15'46" A DISTANCE OF 610.11 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID WESTERLY SIDELINE NORTH 66001'52" WEST, 824.80 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF THAT LAND OFFERED FOR DEDICATION TO THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ON MAY 22, 2003 AS DOCUMENT NO. 2003 - 0604609 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE NORTH 19 °23144" EAST, 87.32 FEET; THENCE NORTH 24 °09'46" EAST, 100.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 28 °55'48" EAST, 100.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 37 °26'51" EAST, 100.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 41 029'56" EAST, 100.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 43 017'18" EAST, 100.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 48 006'10" EAST, 100.00 FEET TO THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF PARCEL 33170 -1 OF FREEWAY CONVEYANCE AS GRANTED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA PER DOCUMENT RECORDED IN SAID OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER ON NOVEMBER 16, 2007 AS DOCUMENT NO. 2007 - 0723396; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY AND SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 33170 -1 SOUTH 46 033'57" EAST, 85.74 FEET; THENCE NORTH 55 042'37" EAST, 38.09 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY SIDELINE OF OLYMPIC PARKWAY AS DEDICATED TO THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PER DOCUMENT RECORDED IN SAID OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER ON DECEMBER 17, 2002 AS DOCUMENT NO. 2002 - 1153497; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY SIDELINE OF OLYMPIC PARKWAY SOUTH 34017'05" EAST, 221.05 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A 1680.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE 60093.00025 \8523646.9 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 990 NORTHEASTERLY; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 39018'02" A DISTANCE OF 1152.35 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 73 035'08" EAST, 289.84 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 36 059'17" EAST, 21.46 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89 036'33" EAST, 12.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 71 010'26" EAST, 127.08 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89 036'33" EAST, 12.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 53 000'43" EAST, 28.90 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 73 035'08" EAST, 82.39 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHERLY SIDELINE SOUTH 71 057'23" WEST, 1468.49 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF EASTLAKE PARKWAY AS DEDICATED TO THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PER DOCUMENT RECORDED IN SAID OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER ON MARCH 13, 2003 AS DOCUMENT NO. 2003- 0283321. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM TOWN CENTER DRIVE AS OFFERED AND ACCEPTED FOR DEDICATION TO THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PER DOCUMENTS RECORDED IN SAID OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER ON SEPTEMBER 16, 2005 AS DOCUMENT NO. 2005- 0801099 AND JANUARY 23, 2009 AS DOCUMENT NO. 2009- 0031758, RESPECTIVELY. THE HEREINABOVE PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINS 20.473 ACRES MORE OR LESS. SAID PARCEL BEING DESCRIBED AS PARCEL "A" OF CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE RECORDED MARCH 16, 2009 AS DOC 9 2009 - 0128393 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. PARCEL `B ": THAT PORTION OF PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 18789 FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY RECORDER ON SEPTEMBER 19, 2001 TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF FRACTIONAL SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 18 SOUTH, RANGE 1 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF, ALL IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: CONIlOENCING AT THE MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 18789 FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY RECORDER ON SEPTEMBER 19,2001; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 2 SOUTH 71 057'23" WEST, 706.08 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF TOWN CENTER DRIVE AS OFFERED AND ACCEPTED FOR DEDICATION TO THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PER DOCUMENTS RECORDED IN SAID OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER ON SEPTEMBER 16, 2005 AS DOCUMENT NO. 2005- 0801099 AND 60093.00025 \8523646.9 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 991 JANUARY 23, 2009 AS DOCUMENT NO. 2009 - 0031758, RESPECTIVELY, AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; SAID POINT BEING THE BEGINNING OF A 1155.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY; A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS SOUTH 83042'16" WEST; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHERLY LINE NORTHERLY ALONG THE WESTERLY SIDELINE OF SAID TOWN CENTER DRIVE AND THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 30 015'46" A DISTANCE OF 610.11 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID WESTERLY SIDELINE NORTH 66001'52" WEST, 824.80 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF THAT LAND OFFERED FOR DEDICATION TO THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ON MAY 22, 2003 AS DOCUMENT NO. 2003 - 0604609 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE SOUTH 19 023'44" WEST, 12.68 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 14 037'42" WEST, 100.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 09 051'40" WEST, 100.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 12012'10" WEST, 49.32 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 10 055'23" WEST, 67.82 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 05 012'45" WEST, 227.55 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00 020'00" WEST, 301.34 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00 055'20" WEST, 328.14 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 2; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE NORTH 71 057'23" EAST, 797.84 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. THE HEREINABOVE PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINS 15.845 ACRES MORE OR LESS. SAID PARCEL BEING DESCRIBED AS PARCEL `B" OF CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE RECORDED MARCH 16, 2009 AS DOC 9 2009 - 0128395 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. 60093.00025 \8523646.9 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 992 EXHIBIT "A " N7335'08'W 82.39' N53 °00'43 'E 28.90' N89 °36'33 "E 12.00' N N71 °10'26 "W 127. ,�i h q1 Eo 111 0 300 800 900 SCALE 1" =300' h v, :V = PARCEL MAP 1\10. 19244 643 - 020 -85 y PARCEL 20.473 ACRES -pti SHEET 4 OF 4 P.O.C. PARCELS A' AND "B" FLY CORNER OF PARCEL 2 ,I Z I I 7A;77 I Q I � OI I �I L�1.9�Sf3��L�1 19 >SS30`•15,1461t. a(� 3 00 I L= 610.1 1' z i ek�y1 R LOT LINE) i \� � 1 1p OFD PARCEL "; "B" 1105 $c01 SQ�GF C�< 15.845 ACRES i P O R PARCEL o00 o 61$ ,A R C F I MA ' 0, -V 5� "E 10 X13 �6� N00 °20'00 "E N855kg'� a2 0900 16-100 .00 I - -- J01.34' 328.14 _ SR — 125 N00 55'20 "E L0 T "AH El LINE OF SR -125 - -�— MAP NO, J 11,446 1 HUNSAKER CHUI \ VISTA TRACT Na 02-05 &ASSOCIATES DTAY RANCH VILLAGE 6 UNIT 1 ___...__. SAN DIEGO, INC ryA" MAP N OI PiANNING 4107 Wa* SveM / EN(7NEMING San EXegq G 9M SURVEYING PFI( 05584500• FX($M)5%1414 R.\ 1240\ &Mop \EX Dev Agreement SHr 01.dwgQFeb- 11-2015:08:48 W.O. 2512 -16 T.P.O.8. PARCELS A" AND 'B" i , I o� r �z 60093.00025 \8523646.9 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 993 EXHIBIT B GENERAL DESCRIPTION AND DEPICTION OF THE PROJECT Pedestrian connection to OR Village 6 via BRT overpass A6, , Project Features: . i I CAC y Mixed Use Residential � _ /��alQllnl 11 c .a W! Mixed Use ' *I Residential ,, r� (w/ 15,000 SF of non - &residential) day rRes,d, 0 - Total M nt ial units Existing Otay Ranch Town Center (not a part) • 600 total multi - family residential units • 15,000 square feet of non - residential in a mixed use format • 2 hotels with a total of 300 rooms • 2 acre public park enhanced with equivalency value of 2.7 acres 60093.00025 \8523646.9 sto 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 994 EXHIBIT C LISTING OF PROJECT APPROVALS • Final Environmental Impact Report for the Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan- Planning Area 12 ( "FEIR 0204 ") (SCH #1989010154) • FEIR 02 -04 Addendum • Development Agreement • City of Chula Vista General Plan, as amended • Otay Ranch General Development Plan, as amended. 60093.00025 \8523646.9 2016 -OS -12 Agenda Packet Page 995 EXHIBIT D LISTING OF ANTICIPATED SUBSEQUENT PROJECT APPROVALS • Freeway Commercial SPA Plan Amendment • Planning Area 12, FC -2 Master Precise Plan • Planning Area 12, FC -2 Tentative Map • Various final maps Other subsequent approvals are anticipated including Design Review approvals and grading, improvement and building permits issued pursuant to the Project Approvals 60093.00025 \8523646.9 2016 -OS -12 Agenda Packet Page 996 EXHIBIT E DESCRIPTION OF PARK IMPROVEMENTS Anticipated park features include: • Open lawn/flexible event space • Shaded picnic grove /gathering • Amphitheater seating • Tables and benches • Flexible use plaza with enhanced paving • Restroom and storage building • Concrete and /or stabilized decomposed granite trails • Seating and gathering areas including picnic areas with shade structures • Play features incorporated into landscape • Low water use plant palette on non -turf areas • Park lighting Additional park features may include: • Water feature(s) • Space for mobile /temporary food vendors or other concessions • Vendor kiosk with shade structure • Sculptural land forms • Rockscape / informal boulder fields /play area(s) • Urban "botanical" garden • Enhanced lighting • Public art • Hillside seating /informal staircase • Informal / hillside slide • Video projection screen/shade structure • Knoll top vantage point • Privacy berms • Adult fitness spaces / stations • Small play equipment Areas for on -site storm water treatment 60093.00025 \8523646.9 2016 -OS -12 Agenda Packet Page 997 EXHIBIT F ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMONG CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND THIS ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ( "Assignment ") is made as of the day of , 20 ( "Effective Date "), by and among the ( "Owner") and ( "Assignee ") with reference to the following facts: RECITALS A. Owner has entered into that certain Development Agreement, dated , by and between the City of Chula Vista ( "City "), on the one hand, and the Village 11 & Sons and Sunranch Capital Partners on the other hand ( "Agreement ") for certain real property consisting of approximately acres of land located in the City, more particularly described in Exhibit "A" ( "Property "). B. Owner desires to assign and delegate, and Assignee desires to accept and assume, all of Owner's rights and obligations under the Agreement in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth herein. C. By signing this Assignment, the City approves the Assignment in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth herein and in the Agreement. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Owner and Assignee do hereby agree as follows: 1. Assignment and Assumption. Effective as of the Effective Date, Owner hereby assigns, transfers, and conveys to Assignee all of Owner's rights, interest, duties, liabilities, and obligations in, to, and under the Agreement, and Assignee hereby accepts and assumes all such rights, interests, duties, liabilities, and obligations under the Agreement from Owner for [the Property or a portion of the Property] ( "Assigned Property ") [, except to the extent Owner has retained a portion of the Property (the "Retained Property ")]. 2. City Consent to Assignment. Effective as of the Effective Date, City hereby consents to the Assignment and hereby fully releases and forever discharges Owner from any and all obligations to City under the Agreement for the Assigned Property, [except Owner's obligations with respect to the Retained Property]. 3. Entire Agreement. This Agreement represents the final and entire agreement between the parties in connection with the subject matter hereof, and may not be modified except by a written agreement signed by both Owner and Assignee. 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 998 3. Governing Law. This Agreement has been prepared, negotiated, and executed in, and shall be construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of California, without regard to conflict of law rules. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date first above written. Owner: By: Assignee: By: Name: Its: City: City of Chula Vista, a California Municipal Corporation Un Name: Its: 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 999 RESOLUTION NO. 2015- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERING THE ADDENDUM (IS- 12 -03) TO FEIR 02 -04; APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN AND THE OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO REFLECT LAND USE AND POLICY CHANGES FOR APPROXIMATELY 35 ACRES WITHIN THE OTAY RANCH PLANNED COMMUNITY, INCLUDING ASSOCIATED TEXT, MAPS AND TABLES I RECITALS A. Project Site WHEREAS, the areas of land which are the subject of this Resolution contain all lands within the boundaries of Exhibit 1 attached hereto and incorporated into this Resolution by this reference, and includes approximately 35 acres of land generally located south of Olympic Parkway, west of EastLake Parkway and east of SR -125 within the Otay Ranch Planned Community Freeway Commercial North (FC -2) area; and B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approvals WHEREAS, in July, 2012, the City of Chula Vista deemed the Baldwin and Sons, LLC (Applicant) application complete and initiated a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendment (GDPA) (the "Project "); and WHEREAS, the proposed GPA involves amending portions of the Land Use and Transportation element of the City's General Plan, including associated text, maps and tables; and WHEREAS, the proposed GDPA involves amending portions of Part II of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP), including associated text, maps and tables; and WHEREAS, the proposed GPA and GDPA are contained in a document entitled "PA12 — Freeway Commercial North (FC -2) Amendment (GPA 12 -13, PCM 12 -15), March 2015" as represented in Exhibit 2 attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and C. Prior Discretionary Approvals WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista's current General Plan was last comprehensively updated in December 2005; and WHEREAS, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan was approved on October 23, 1993, and most recently updated on December 2, 2014; and 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 1000 Resolution 2014 - Page 2 of 4 WHEREAS, the GPA and GDPA as presented are necessary to accommodate the land uses anticipated in the associated Development Agreement (DA) between the City of Chula Vista and Village II Town Center, LLC and Sunranch Capital Partners, LLC for Freeway Commercial North (FC -2) ( "Development Agreement"); and WHEREAS, the GPA and GDPA were designed to address and accommodate development of a transit- supportive mixed use residential development with ancillary commercial and a highly amenitized urban park; and WHEREAS, the next step in the process would require the approval of an amendment to the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, and a Tentative Map (TM) for Freeway Commercial North (FC -2); and D. Planning Commission Record of Application WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code section 65090, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the GPA and GDPA on April 22, 2015; and WHEREAS, the proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at the public hearing on this Project held on April 22, 2015, and the minutes and resolution resulting there from, are hereby incorporated into the record subsequent to these proceedings; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission voted 0 -4 -2 -1 recommending that City Council deny the Project; and E. City Council Record of Application WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for the hearing on the GPA and GDPA and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, at least ten days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code section 65090, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on May 12, 2015, on the subject GPA and GDPA. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council hereby finds and determines as follows: II. COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA That the Development Services Director has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and has determined that the project was covered in the previously adopted Final Environmental Impact Report for the Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan — Planning Area 12 ( "FEIR- 02 -04 ") (SCH 91989010154). The Development Services Director has determined that only minor technical changes or additions to this document are necessary and that none of the conditions described in 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 1001 Resolution 2014 - Page 3 of 4 Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines calling for the preparation of a subsequent document have occurred; therefore, the Development Services Director has prepared an Addendum to FEIR- 02-04. The City Council of the City of Chula Vista finds that, in the exercise of their independent review and judgment, the Addendum to FEIR -02 -04 in the form presented, has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista and has considered the Addendum to FEIR- 02 -04. III. GENERAL PLAN INTERNAL CONSISTENCY The City Council hereby finds and determines that the General Plan, as amended, is internally consistent and shall remain internally consistent following amendment thereof by this Resolution. IV. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN INTERNAL CONSISTENCY The City Council hereby finds and determines that the General Development Plan, as amended, is internally consistent and shall remain internally consistent following amendment thereof by this Resolution. V. ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AND GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS In light of the findings above, the General Plan and General Development Plan Amendment provisions are hereby approved and adopted in the form as presented in Exhibits 2 and 3 attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference and on file in the City Clerk's Office. Presented by: Approved as to form by: Kelly Broughton, FASLA Glen R. Googins Development Services Director City Attorney 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 1002 Resolution 2014 - Page 4 of 4 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, this 12th day of May, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NAYS: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: Mary Casillas Salas, Mayor ATTEST: Donna Norris, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) CITY OF CHULA VISTA ) I, Donna Norris, City Clerk of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 12th day of May, 2015. Executed this 12th day of May, 2015. Donna Norris, City Clerk 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 1003 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, VILLAGE II TOWN CENTER, LLC AND SUNRANCH CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC FOR THE FREEWAY COMMERCIAL NORTH PORTION OF OTAY RANCH PLANNING AREA 12 WHEREAS, the property which is the subject matter of this Ordinance is identified in the Development Agreement as "Exhibit A," on file in the office of the City Clerk and commonly known as the Freeway Commercial North (or FC -2) portion of Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 (Property); and WHEREAS, The Development Services Director has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the project was covered in the previously adopted Final Environmental Impact Report for the Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan - Planning Area 12 (FEIR 02 -04) (SCH91989010154). The Development Services Director has determined that only minor technical changes or additions to this document are necessary and that none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines calling for the preparation of a subsequent document have occurred; therefore, the Development Service Director has prepared an addendum to FEIR 02- 04; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said Development Agreement and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City and its mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the Property at least ten days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m. April 22, 2015, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, and the Planning Commission voted 0 -4 -2 -1 recommending that City Council deny the Development Agreement between the City of Chula Vista, Village H Town Center, LLC and Sunranch Capital Partners, LLC for the Freeway Commercial North portion of Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 (the Development Agreement); and WHEREAS, on May 12, 2015, a duly noticed public hearing was scheduled before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista to consider adopting the ordinance to approve the Development Agreement between the City of Chula Vista, Baldwin & Sons, LLC and Sunranch Capital Partners, LLC for Freeway Commercial North (FC -2); and WHEREAS, City staff has reviewed the Development Agreement and determined it to be consistent with the Otay Ranch General Development Plan and the City's General Plan, both as amended. 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 1005 Ordinance No. Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Chula Vista does hereby order and ordain as follows: L PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their public hearing held on April 22, 2015 and the minutes and resolutions resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. These documents, along with any documents submitted to the decision makers, shall comprise the entire record of the proceedings for any California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) claims. IL COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA The City Council hereby finds, based upon their independent review and judgement, that the adoption of the ordinance approving the Development Agreement for the project, as described and analyzed in the Final EIR 02 -04, would have no new effects that were not examined in said Final EIR (CEQA Guideline 15168 (c)(2)). III. CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN AND OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN The City Council finds that the proposed Development Agreement is consistent with the City's General Plan and Otay Ranch General Development Plan, both as amended. The Development Agreement implements the General Plan and the Otay Ranch General Development Plan by providing a comprehensive program to implement the future Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan amendment and Tentative Map. The plans provide design incorporating a mixture of land uses connected by a walkable system of public streets and pedestrian paths, neighborhood parks and plazas, retail opportunities, and commercial activities designed to promote a safe pedestrian environment. The Freeway Commercial North plan, including the number of residential units, number of hotel rooms, park acreage, and commercial mixed use area, is consistent with the General Plan and the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, as amended. IV. ACTION The City Council hereby adopts an Ordinance approving the Development Agreement between the City of Chula Vista, Village II Town Center, LLC and SunRanch Capital Partners, LLC for the Freeway Commercial North portion of Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 (a copy of which is on file in the City Clerk's office), finding it consistent with the California Government Code, adopted City policies, the General Plan, and the Otay Ranch General Development Plan. V. SEVERABILITY If any portion of this Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, is for any reason held to be invalid, unenforceable or unconstitutional, by a court of competent jurisdiction, that portion shall be deemed severable, and such invalidity, unenforceability or 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 1006 Ordinance No. Page 3 unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining portions of the Ordinance, or its application to any other person or circumstance. The City Council of the City of Chula Vista hereby declares that it would have adopted each section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance, irrespective of the fact that any one or more other sections, sentences, clauses or phrases of the Ordinance be declared invalid, unenforceable or unconstitutional. VI. CONSTRUCTION The City Council of the City of Chula Vista intends this Ordinance to supplement, not to duplicate or contradict, applicable state and federal law and this Ordinance shall be construed in light of that intent. VII. EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on the thirtieth day from and after its adoption. VIII. PUBLICATION The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published or posted according to law. Presented by Gary Halbert, AICP, PE City Manager Approved as to form by Glen R. Googins City Attorney 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 1007 Item 8 - Link to Audio File An audio file with a recording of the community meeting held on May 4, 2015, related to this item, is available on our website at: http : //cvapps.chulavistaca.gov f audio /Council f 2015-05 - 04CommunityMeetingAudio.mp3 Note: The volume on the audio recording is low. You may need to raise the volume on your device. If the file does not open, please copy and paste the link directly into your internet browser. A copy of the audio recording is also on file in the Office of the City Clerk. 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 1008 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Chula Vista, CA, has received an application for a General Plan (GP) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) Amendments, and Development Agreement summarized as follows: CONSIDERATION DATE: May 12, 2015 LOCATIONITIME: 276 Fourth Ave, Chula Vista Council Chambers/ 5:00 p.m. CASE NUMBER: GPA- 12 -03, GDPAIPCM -12 -15 APPLICANT: Baldwin and Sons, LLC SITE ADDRESS: The vacant site is located south of Olympic Parkway between SR -125 and Eastlake Parkway within the Freeway Commercial North Portion of Otay Ranch Planning Area 12. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing amendments to the GP; Otay Ranch GDP to change 26.7 acres of Commercial Retail to Mixed Use, and 2 acres of Commercial Retail to Parks & Recreation /Park on an approximate 35- acre site to accommodate a mixed use development consisting 600 multifamily units, a 2 -acre urban park, 15,000 square feet of commercial; and assurance of 2 hotels. A Development Agreement is also part of the project approvals. An Addendum to FEIR 02 -04 must be considered. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The Development Services Director has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the project was covered in the previously adopted Final Environmental Impact Report for the Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan - Planning Area 12 ( "FEIR 02 -04n) (SCH #1989010154). The Development Services Director has determined that only minor technical changes or additions to this document are necessary and that none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines calling for the preparation of a subsequent document have occurred; therefore, the Development Service Director has prepared an addendum to FEIR 02 -04. PLANNING COMMISSION The Planning Commission voted 0 -4 -2 -1 recommending that the City RECOMMENDATION: Council deny the project_ Any written comments or petitions to be submitted to the City Council must be received in the Development Services Department, no later than 5 p.m. the day before consideration. Please direct any questions or comments to Project Manager Stan Donn (619) 409 -5953, sdonn(a-chulavistaca.gov in the Development Services Department, Public Services Building, Chula Vista Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910, or-by calling. Please include the case numbers noted above in all correspondence. If you wish to challenge the City's action on this application in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in response to this notice prior to the City Council's action on the application or at the hearing. A copy of the application and the accompanying documentation and plans are on file and available for inspection and review at the City Planning Department. COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the American with Disabilities Act, requests individuals who require special accommodation to access, attend and/or participate in a City meeting, activity or service request such accommodation at lease 48 hours in advance, for meetings, and 5 days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Diana Vargas for specific information at (619) 691 -5101. Service for the gearing impaired is available at (619) 585 -5647 (TDD), 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 1009 CITY OF CHULA VISTA File #: 15 -0178, Item #: 9. City of Chula Vista Staff Report CONSIDERATION OF WAIVING IRREGULARITIES IN THE BID RECEIVED FOR THE "PAVEMENT MINOR REHABILITATION FY14/15 (SLURRY SEAL) (STL401)" PROJECT PER CITY CHARTER SECTION 1009 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE "PAVEMENT MINOR REHABILITATION FY14/15 (SLURRY SEAL) (STL401)" PROJECT TO PAVEMENT COATINGS CO. IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,532,589.00; WAIVING IRREGULARITIES IN THE LOW BID RECEIVED; WAIVING CITY COUNCIL POLICY NO. 574 -01; AND AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF ALL AVAILABLE CONTINGENCY FUNDS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $114,944 RECOMMENDED ACTION Council conduct the public hearing and adopt the resolution. SUMMARY On April 15, 2015, the Director of Public Works received sealed bids for the "Pavement Minor Rehabilitation FY14/15 (Slurry Seal) (STL401)" project. The project consists of the removal and replacement of failed asphalt concrete pavement (dig -outs) and the application of Type II Rubber Polymer Modified Slurry (RPMS) seal on various streets in the City. Scope of work on this project also includes traffic control, striping and markings, additional signage and other miscellaneous items of work necessary to complete the project. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Development Services Director has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the project qualifies for a Class 1(c) categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15301, Existing Facilities, of the State CEQA Guidelines. Thus, no further environmental review is necessary. BOARD /COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Not Applicable DISCUSSION The Public Works Department utilizes a Pavement Management System (PMS) and pavement preservation program to develop the priority list of streets to rehabilitate and preserve throughout the city. This preservation program is designed to extend the roadway life and serviceability through the removal and replacement of deteriorated sections of pavement (dig -outs) and the application of various types of surface treatments. The application of the RPMS slurry seal surface treatment on the street segments shown in Attachment 1 will complete the overall maintenance strategy on these street segments. City of Chula Vista 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 1 of 4 Printed on 5/7/2015 powered by Legistar Page 1010 File #: 15 -0178, Item #: 9. A majority of the streets included in this contract were included in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). However, during inspection it was found that several other streets in the vicinity of the streets on the original project list were in similar condition and could also benefit from a seal in accordance with the City's Pavement Management System. These 61 street segments are included in Attachment 1, but are listed separately on Attachment 2. It is recommended that these streets be included, because it is more cost - effective to resurface streets within close proximity to each other and because they were originally constructed about the same time period. In addition to applying the RPMS slurry seal, the scope of work also includes the dig -out and repair of asphalt pavement, weed removal and treatment with herbicide, crack filling, pavement striping, markings and installation of new signs, traffic control, protection and restoration of existing improvements and other miscellaneous work necessary to successfully complete the project. On April 15, 2015, the Director of Public Works received three (3) bids for the "Pavement Minor Rehabilitation FY14/15 (Slurry Seal) (STL401)" project. The following bids were received: Staff reviewed the low bid submitted by Pavement Coatings Co. and determined their bid package met all the submittal requirements but with a minor mathematical error of $600 favoring the City. The error occurred in the extended price of bid line item 6. Staff contacted Pavement Coatings Co. and informed them of the discrepancy. The revised bid total did not change the standing of the two lowest bidders. Pavement Coatings Co. submitted a letter to the City (Attachment 3), acknowledging the discrepancy and honoring the revised lower bid total of $1,532,589.00. The bid submitted by Pavement Coatings Co. is below the Engineer's estimate of $1,643,593.37 by $111,004.37 (or approximately 6.75 %). The Contractor has satisfactorily performed construction projects of similar scope for the City in the past and staff has determined their work to be satisfactory. The Contractor's License No. 303609, as well as all listed sub - contractors' licenses, are current and active. Staff therefore recommends awarding a contract in the amount of $1,532,589.00 to Pavement Coatings Co. Additionally, City Council Policy No. 574 -01 allows the Director of Public Works to authorize a maximum cumulative change order(s) amount of $73,000 plus 5% of the original contract over $1,000,000 without City Council prior approval. Based on the contract amount, the maximum aggregate contract increase that may be approved by the Director of Public Works under Policy No. City of Chula Vista Page 2 of 4 Printed on 5/7/2015 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 1011 CONTRACTOR SUBMITTAL RESULT BID TOTAL SUBMITTED 1 Pavement Coatings Co.- All requirements met but with $1,533,189.00 Jurupa Valley, CA $600.00 Mathematical error. New total is $1,532,589.00 2 American Asphalt South, Inc. - All requirements met $1,553,648.00 Fontana, CA 3 Intermountain Slurry Seal - Elk All requirements met $1,827,728.00 Grove, CA Staff reviewed the low bid submitted by Pavement Coatings Co. and determined their bid package met all the submittal requirements but with a minor mathematical error of $600 favoring the City. The error occurred in the extended price of bid line item 6. Staff contacted Pavement Coatings Co. and informed them of the discrepancy. The revised bid total did not change the standing of the two lowest bidders. Pavement Coatings Co. submitted a letter to the City (Attachment 3), acknowledging the discrepancy and honoring the revised lower bid total of $1,532,589.00. The bid submitted by Pavement Coatings Co. is below the Engineer's estimate of $1,643,593.37 by $111,004.37 (or approximately 6.75 %). The Contractor has satisfactorily performed construction projects of similar scope for the City in the past and staff has determined their work to be satisfactory. The Contractor's License No. 303609, as well as all listed sub - contractors' licenses, are current and active. Staff therefore recommends awarding a contract in the amount of $1,532,589.00 to Pavement Coatings Co. Additionally, City Council Policy No. 574 -01 allows the Director of Public Works to authorize a maximum cumulative change order(s) amount of $73,000 plus 5% of the original contract over $1,000,000 without City Council prior approval. Based on the contract amount, the maximum aggregate contract increase that may be approved by the Director of Public Works under Policy No. City of Chula Vista Page 2 of 4 Printed on 5/7/2015 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 1011 File #: 15 -0178, Item #: 9. 574 -01 is $99,629.45. The proposed resolution would increase the Director of Public Works' cumulative change order authority to approve change orders, as necessary, up to the 7.5% contingency amount of $114,944, which is an increase of $15,314.55 over Policy No. 574 -01. Increasing the contingency funds will allow staff to continue the project without delay should unforeseen circumstances resulting in increased project costs arise during the course of construction, as well as make adjustments to bid item quantities. Unforeseen conditions include such items as utility conflicts, hazardous materials, unexpected underground conflicts, etc. Any remaining unused contingency funds will be returned to the project fund balance. Disclosure Statement Attachment 4 is a copy of the Contractor's Disclosure Statement. Wage Statement The source of funding for this project is Gas Tax funds. This is a prevailing wage project and Contractors bidding this project are required to pay prevailing wages to persons employed by them for the work under this project. Disadvantaged businesses were encouraged to bid in the Notice Contractors for various trade publications. DECISION -MAKER CONFLICT Staff has reviewed the decision contemplated by this action and has determined that it solely concerns the repair, replacement or maintenance of existing streets, sewer, storm drainage or similar facilities and, as such, the financial effect of the decision on real property is presumed to be not material, pursuant to California Code of Regulations Title 2, sections 18704.2(b)(2). Consequently, this item does not present a conflict under the Political Reform Act (Cal. Gov't Code § 87100, et seq.). Staff is not independently aware, and has not been informed by any City Council member, of any other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of interest in this matter. LINK TO STRATEGIC GOALS The City's Strategic Plan has five major goals: Operational Excellence, Economic Vitality, Healthy Community, Strong and Secure Neighborhoods and a Connected Community. The goal of the "Pavement Minor Rehabilitation FY14/15 (Slurry Seal) (STL401)" project is to support the Strong & Secure Neighborhood strategy identified in the City's Strategic Plan. The maintenance and rehabilitation of public infrastructure is a key City function providing a safe and efficient roadway system for residents, businesses and visitors alike. CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT The following is a summary of anticipated project costs: FUNDS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION A. Contract Amount B. Contingencies (Approx. 7.5 %) C. Staff $1,532,589.00 $ Time, Material Testing & Other Costs (Approx.10 %) 114,944.00 $ 153,259.00 CONSTRUCTION TOTAL $1,800,792.00 City of Chula Vista Page 3 of 4 Printed on 5/7/2015 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 1012 File #: 15 -0178, Item #: 9. There is no direct impact to the Gas Tax Fund as sufficient funding is available in the project to cover construction and staff costs.. ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT Upon completion of the project, the improvements will require only routine City street maintenance. The improvements are anticipated to increase the life of the streets included, mitigating the cost of possible future major repairs. ATTACHMENTS 1. Street Segments and Plats 2. New Street Segments in STL401 3. Pavement Coatings Co. Letter dated April 16, 2015 4. Disclosure Statement Staff Contact: Elizabeth Chopp, Senior Civil Engineer City of Chula Vista Page 4 of 4 Printed on 5/7/2015 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 1013 y MINOR REHABILITATION E STL401 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet 1 OF 4 Al iACHM4NT 1 LOCATION STREET BEGIN END I #1 NORTH OF G STREET AND WEST OF SECOND AVENUE 1 ASH AV EST DAVIDSON ST 2 ASH AV F ST s MADRONA ST —Y - -. �. -_ - --- — 3 BEECH AV �— �--- �� --�— - --- DAVIDSON ST��. F ST 4 BEECH AV F. ST MADRONA ST 5 BEECH AV I— MADRONA ST END OF STREET 6 CEDAR AV DST FLOWER ST 7 CENTER ST — ASH AVE - -� BEECH AVE 8 CENTER ST BEECH AVE CDS 9 DAVIDSON ST FIFTH AVE FOURTH AVE N DEL MAR AV BAYVIEW WY NIXON PL — N DEL MAR AV NIXON PL CST F12 FLOWER ST CEDAR AVE ; FIFTH AVE FLOWER ST FIFTH AVE j BRIGHTWOOD AVE 14 FLOWER ST BRIGHTWOOD AVE FOURTH AVE 15 GARRETT AV —� E ST DAVIDSON ST 16 GARRETT AV DAVIDSON ST t F ST 92 WEST OF FIFTH AVENUE BETWEEN I STREET AND NAPLES STREET ] 17 ASH AV N CDS ; HALSEY ST -- —_- - -� -- �HALSEY 18 BEECH AV —�—�— N CDS ---- 5T 19 BEECH AV HALSEY ST J ST 20 CRESTED BUTTE ST OAKLAWN AV JEFFERSON AV — 21 CRESTED BUTTE ST JEFFERSON AV MADISON AV 22 CRESTED BUTTE ST MADISON AV BROADWAY 23 HALSEY ST BROADWAY BEECH AV 24 HALSEY ST BEECH AV FIFTH AV JEFFERSON AV J ST I K ST 26 JEFFERSON AV K ST SIERRA WY L MADISON AV N END OF STREET [ST MADISON AV J ST I K ST #3 WEST OF HILLTOP DRIVE BETWEEN I STREET AND BONITA ROAD 29 ALPINE -MINOT G ST — ALPINE - MINOTAVE 30 ALVARADO ST OTIS ST FIRST AVE 31 ELM AVE HST SHASTA ST 32 HILLTOP DR END OF STREET BONITA RD 33 LINDA LN SHASTA ST� S CDS 34 MINOTAV ALPINE -MINOT AVE j CYPRESS ST 35 MINOTAV CYPRESS ST ALPINE-Ml NOT AVE 36 PATRICIA AV HST — SHASTA ST '37 OTIS ST ALVARADO ST FIRST AVE 38 SHASTA ST PATRICIA AV ELM AVE 39 SHASTA ST ELM AVE FIRST AVE 40 TWIN OAKS AV SHASTA ST _ - -- I ST 41 VISTA WY ] ST _ MURRAY ST #4 WEST OF I -805 BETWEEN J STREET AND SOUTH CITY LIMITS 42 CHERYL PL MELROSE AV t MONTEREY AV 43 COUNTRY CLUB DR FIRST AV SIERRA WY 44 COUNTRY CLUB DR SIERRA WY L ST 45 K ST FIRST AV VISTA WY 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet 1 OF 4 Al iACHM4NT 1 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 1015 2 OF 4 ATTACHMENT 1 LOCATION STREET BEGIN END ' € 3 46 MONTEREY AV MONTCLAIR ST E NAPLES ST 41 48_ MONTEREY AV -- - -__ OTAY VALLEY RD�------- --- - -- E NAPLES ST CHERYL PL DATE ST -RIGS AV ___- _-- -__ - -- 49 OTAY VALLEY RD RIOS AV REGENCY WY 50 OTAY VALLEY RD REGENCY WY MAIN ST 51 PALOMAR DR COUNTRY CLUB DR HILLTOP DR 52 — -- -- — SAN MIGUEL DR — COUNTRY CLUB DR HILLTOP DR 53 SIERRA WY COUNTRY CLUB DR j HILLTOP DR 54 VISTA WY K ST. 3 SAN MIGUEL DR #5 NORTH AND SOUTH RANCHO DEL R_ EY PARKWAY _ _ 55 ACERO PL ACERO ST i S CDS 56 ACERO PL N CDS j ACERO ST — 57 ACERO ST N RANCHO DEL REY PY ABETO DR 58 ARGA PL MAZAGON LN I S CDS 59 AYAMONTE WY VERIN LN RANCHO DEL REY PW 60 CAZORLA AV VERIN LN I S CDS 61 MARCILLA WY VERIN LN S RANCHO DEL REY PW 62 — MAZAGON LN AYAMONTE WY j CAZORLA AV 63 — VERIN LN —. — W CDS _..- ___�_,_�_�._ _. __ -. •-- _- �- --.-E CD5_ .___ _ ._...- .-- _ -_.__. _ #6 SIO TELEGRAPH CANYON RD EIO PASEO LADERA 64 [DAWSON DR STEINER DR S CDS 65 66 DOWNEY CT GIVENS ST Y -- — ROUSH DR 3 E CDS PASEO LADERA -- — —i— STEINER DR — 67 HIGGINS ST PASEO LADERA STEINER DR 68 ISOM CT DAWSON DR E CDS 69 LUCERO CT RIGLEY ST S CDS 70 NEWPORT CT STEINER DR E CDS 71 RIGLEY ST STEINER DR i DAWSON DR 72 ROUSH DR NEWPORT CT RIGLEY ST 73 ROUSH CT ROUSH DR E CDS 74 STEFAS CT STEINER DR I E CDS 75 STEINER DR HIGGINS ST I RIGLEY ST 76 STEINER DR N CDS HIGGINS ST 77 STEWART CT W CDS ROUSH DR 78 SULLIVAN CT —� DAWSON DR E CDS.__ I #7 EIO AND W/O OTAY LAKES RDILA MEDIA RD BIW E, H ST AND E. PALOMAR ST 79 ALONDRAAV PLEASANTON RD I HAYFORD RD 80 ALONDRA CT ALONDRA AV E GDS 81 APACHE DR TELEGRAPH CANYON RD j WOOOCREST ST 82 APACHE DR WOODCREST ST OTAY LAKES RD 83 BULL CANYON RD ALONDRA AV E CDS 84 BULL CANYON RD PLEASANTON —RD ALONDRAAV_ _ SANTA FLORA RD — HAYFORD RD— 86 HAYFORD RD GOLD RUN DR ALONDRAAV 87 HAYFORD RD ALONDRAAV SE CDS 88 PLEASANTON RD SANTA FLORA RD I E CDS 89 ROSSIN CT ALONDRAAV E COS 90 SANTA FLORA RD E PALOMAR ST GOLD RUN DR 91 SANTA FLORA RD 'GOLD RUN DR ALONDRAAV 92 SANTA FLORA RD ALONDRA AV E CDS #8 SOUTH OF PROCTOR VALLEY RD AND WEST OF LANE AV - 93 EAGLE VALLEY OR ROCKING HORSE DR FALCON VALLEY DR 94 FALCON VALLEY DR ROCKING HORSE DR SADDLEHORN DR 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 1015 2 OF 4 ATTACHMENT 1 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet 3 OF 4 A l 7"I'ANT 1 LOCATION STREET BEGIN END s � 95 PRAIRIE DR SADDLEHORN DR T - FALCON VALLEY DR 96 ROCKING HORSE DR PROCTOR VALLEY DR --- - -__.. EAGLE VALLEY DR - 97 ROCKING HORSE DR — EAGLE VALLEY DR MACKENZIE CREEK RD 98 - — SADDLEHORN DR EAGLE VALLEY DR PRAIRIE DR 99 SAN BRUNO PL N CDS SADDLEHORN DR 100 SAN JACINTO PL N CDS — ! - FALCON VALLEY DR 101 _— SAN JOSE CT W CDS 1 FALCON VALLEY DR 102 SAN LUCAS PL N CDS i ROCKING HORSE DR 103 SAN MARINO PL N CDS — EAGLE VALLEY DR 104 SAN PABLO PL � N CDS 1 EAGLE VALLEY DR _ #9 SIO OTAY LAKES RD BIW EASTLAKE PKWY AND HUNTE PKWY NORTH OF CLUBHOUSE DR 105 AMELIA ISLAND DR WATERVILLE LAKE RD CRYSTAL DOWNS DR 106 _COBB MEADOW PL WATERVILLE LAKE RD -- — S CDS 107 CRYSTAL DOWNS DR N CDs ! 5 CDs 108 EASTRIDGE LP N GREENSVIEW DR SUMMERHILLAV 109 EASTRIDGE LP SUMMERHILL AV 400 FT NIO AUGUSTA PL 110 FAIRWAY OAKS DR FOREST OAKS DR - - MASTERS RIDGE RD _ 111 FOREST OAKS DR — — FAIRWAY OAKS DR E CDS 112 GOLF CREST LP N GREENSVIEW DR PARK MEADOWS RD 113 HILLTON HEAD RD S GREENSVIEW DR i WATERVILLE LAKE RD 114 MASTERS RIDGE RD GREEN13RIAR DR — - i - N GREENSVIEW DR 115 N GREENSVIEW DR HUNTE PARKWAY PINE ISLAND DR 116 N GREENSVIEW DR PINE ISLAND DR GREENSGATE DR 117 N GREENSVIEW DR GREENSGATE DR WATERVILLE LAKE DR 11$ N GREENSVIEW DR WATERVILLE LAKE RD CLUBHOUSE DR 119 OAK HILL DR _ W CDS GOLF CREST LP 120 PARK MEADOWS RD N CDS ' N GRENNSVIEW DR 121 PINE ISLAND DR N GREENSVIEW DR FOREST OAKS DR 122 SEA ISLAND PL WATERVILLE LAKE RD I S CDS _ 123 SUMMERHILLAV� — -N GREENSVIEW DR �- EASTRIDGE LP 124 WATERVILLE LAKE RD N GREENSVIEW DR AMELIA ISLAN OR 125 WATERVILLE LAKE RD AMELIA ISLAN DR I CRYSTAL DOWNS DR #10 S10 OTAY LAKES RD B1W EASTLAKE PKWY AND HUNTE PKWY SOUTH OF CLUBHOUSE DR _ _ I 126 ARROWHEAD CT INDIAN CREEK DR 1 E CDS 127 BOULDER CREEK ST S GREENSVIEW DR I CRYSTAL SPRINGS DR 128 CLUBHOUSE DR EASTLAKE PW j S GREENSVIEW DR 129 CLUBHOUSE DR - -S GREENSVIEW DR j SILVERADO DR 130 CLUBHOUSE DR SILVERADO DR HUNTE PW 131 CRYSTAL SPRINGS DR S GREENSVIEW DR BOULDER CREEK ST 132 CYPRESS POINT CT DR E CDS 133 S GREENSVIEW DR _RIVIERA CRYSTAL SPRINGS DR CLUBHOUSE DR 134 S GREENSVIEW DR BOCA RATON ST CRYSTAL SPRINGS DR 1351 S GREENSVIEW DR GREEN RIVER DR . BOCA RATON ST 136 S GREENSVIEW DR SILVERADO DR — GREEN RIVER DR 137 S GREENSVIEW DR — HUNTE PW SILVERADO DR 138 INDIAN CREEK DR CLUBHOUSE DR PONTE VEDRA WY 139 INDIAN CREEK PL PONTE VEDRA WY S CDS 140 ORO CT SILVERADO DR E CDS -- 141 PINEHURST RD — SILVERADO DR N SILVERADO DR S 142 RIVIERA DR RIVIERA WY SILVERADO DR 143 RIVIERA WY SILVERADO DR RIVIERA DR 144 PONTE VEDRA WY INDIAN CREEK PL t HUNTE PW 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet 3 OF 4 A l 7"I'ANT 1 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet 4 OF 4 ATl`AGHMINT 1 LOCATION STREET BEGIN ENO 145 SILVERADO DR CLUBHOUSE DR BAY HILL RD 146 SILVERADO DR BAY HILL RD _ T RIVIERA DR 147 -_ 51LVERADO DR -- RIVIERA DR S GREENSVIEW DR 148 THUNDERBIRD PL N CDS RIVIERA DR 3 #11 SOUTH OF BIRCH ROAD EAST OF MAGDALENA AVENUE I 149 ANDERSON CT BREZAR ST - - -^ —�- mmE CDs - -150 BREZAR ST HIMMER ST SEMPLE ST _ 151 13RE7AR ST SEMPLE ST PERRIN PL 152 BREZAR ST WEBBER ST PERRIN PL 153 154 —BREZAR ST �- BREZAR ST--- �----- — -- - - -- --- WEBBER WY - JACKSON ST .---- .- -- --.- �- .---- -- • --- - -+ JACKSON ST ALLEY -._ - -- 155 BREZAR ST ALLEY j WOLF CANYON LP 156 ENCLAVE LN SEMPLE ST PERRIN PL . 157 HIMMER CT SHIRCLIFFE ST . i N CDs 158 JACKSON ST —� WOLFSDORF WY� ! KOESTER ST 1591 JACKSON ST KOESTER ST BREZAR ST 160 KOESTER ST PERRIN PL I WEBBER WY 161 ST WEBBER ST JACKSON ST 162 _KOESTER KOESTER ST JACKSON ST ALLEY 163 KOESTER ST ALLEY NORTH WOLF CANYON LP 164 KOESTER ST WOLF CANYON LP j ALLEY SOUTH 165 KOESTER ST ALLEY -- -. i - - -. REICHERT WY � - - -- - -�- 166 LEW LN y�-- ��- - - - -- SEMPLE 5T - .------ � PERRIN PL 167 MAGDALENA AV BIRCH RD WEBBER WY 168 MAGDALENA AV WEBBER WY WOLF CANYON LP 169 MAGDALENA AV - WOLF CANYON LP FLEISHBEIN ST 170 MAGDALENA AV ST I PEABODY WY 171 MAGDALENA AV PEABODY WY j SANTA LUNA ST 172 MAGDALENA AV SANTA LUNA ST ROCK MOUNTAIN RD 173 PERRIN PL WOLFSDORF WY -� - SHIRCLIFFE ST 174 _�- PERRIN PL SHIRCLIFFE ST ENCLAVE LN 375 PERRIN PL ENCLAVE LN KOESTER ST 176 PERRIN PL KOESTER ST j LEW LN 177 PERRIN PL LEWN LN BREZAR ST �- 178 REICHERT WY WOLFSDORF WY KOESTER ST 179 SEMPLE ST SHIRCLIFFE ST ENCLAVE LN 180 SEMPLE ST ENCLAVE LN LEW LN 181 SEMPLE ST ' LEW LN BREZAR ST _ 182 SHIRCLIFFE ST - WEBBER WY- - ; PERRIN PL 183, . SHIRCLIFFE ST PERRIN PL SEMPLE ST 184 SHIRCLIFFE ST SEMPLE ST HIMMER CT 185 TALBOT CT BREZAR ST ; . CDS_ 186 WEBBER WY - - MAGDALENA AV €. WOLFSDORF WY 187 WEBBER WY WOLFSDORF WY j SHIRCLIFFE ST 988 WEBBER WY SHIRCLIFFE ST 1 KOESTER ST 189 WEBBER WY KOE_STER ST 1 BREZAR ST 190 WOLF CANYON LP — MAGDALENA AV- WOLFSDORF WY 191 WOLF CANYON LP WOLFSDORF WY I KOESTER ST 192 WOLF CANYON LP KOESTER ST + BREZAR ST 193 WOLFSDORF WY PERRIN PL i WEBBER WY 194 - WOLFSDORF WY JACKSON ST WEBBER WY 195 WOLFSDORF WY ALLEY JACKSON ST 196 WOLFSDORF WY ALLEY SOUTH 3 WOLF CANYON LP 197 WOLFSDORF WY WOLF CANYON LP - ALLEY NORTH 198 WOLFSDORF WY REICHERT WY ALLEY I 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet 4 OF 4 ATl`AGHMINT 1 10 pL r Nix fL v s� G sl y A sl ?. D yL 'd 9� 9L 14 13 fLa`�ER st 12 o v Y 15, A � St 9L 9L q ®N s� 16 f s� o 3 � � s 4 ® 74 pR NA sl _ I JLUMIT r JCfiL ff . re..°rvr DRAWN B 777LE• CITY OF CHULA \ISTA PREPARED 8 R D JUAN PAVEMENT MINOR REHABILITATION FYI 4/15 R D JUAN DA 7F. SHEET 1 (SLURRY SEAL) APPROVED BY- J125115 I OF 11 SHTS NORTH OF G STREET AND WEST OF SECOND AVENUE BETH CHOPP 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Pa a 1018 ATTACHMENT 1 �D 9 a 12 1\ 9L 1 O SLURRY SEAL PROJECT FILE #S7L401 DRAWN BY- 717L.E- CITY OF CHULA VISTA PREPARED B R D JUAN R D JUAN PAVEMENT MINOR REHABILITATION FY14/15 DA 7E- SHEET 2 (SLURRY SEAL) APPROVED BK 3125115 OF 11 SHTS IAEST OF FIFTH AVMUE 13ETWEEN I STREET AND NAPLES STREET BETH CHOPP 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 1019 ATTACHMENT i Rd r a vL N m . &00 S D SLURRY SEAL PROJECT FILE #S7L401 DRAWN 8 TITLE• CITY OF CHULA VISTA PREPARED B R D JUAN PAVEMENT MINOR REHABILITATION FY14/15 R D JUAN DA 7E. SHEET 3 (SLURRY SEAL) APPROVED BY- 3/25/15 OF 11 SHTS. WEST OF HILLTOP DRIVE TWEEN I STREET AND DMITA ROAD BETH CHOPP E 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 1020 ATTACHMENT 1 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 1021 ATTACHMENT 1 r 45 9�� !/ a K 5� 5 54 M1G1fR� V 52 53 pR PR � 43Y C SRRA� pp�pM 5� `g4 ® L ST � 4µ�NC�•p1RR 5� S 47 42 o� pL RAG R NPp��s 5l a 0 o Co MAIN ST rm vii 4T9 y 6 4� I44LEY RD O 50 ca > 49 a a r v' z a N SLURRY SEAL PROJECT FILE #S7L401 DRAWN BY R D JUAN nom• CITY OF CHULA VISTA PAVEMENT MINOR REHABILITATION FY14/15 PREPARED BY R D JUAN DA 7F. 3125115 SHEET 4 OF 11 SHTS. (SLURRY SEAL) WEST OF I -805 BETWEEN J STREET AND SOUTH CITY LINTS APPROVED BY- BETH CHOPP 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 1021 ATTACHMENT 1 w J Q N N s� A "6 4� DER 5S P�� N RANCH VERIN LN 63 3 �MAZN ON � a m r A q < $g � 58 50 s RANCHO DEL REV 7`� 61 C:-�jn SLURRY SEAL DRAWN BY. TITLE"• CITY OF CHULA VISTA R D JUAN PAVEMENT MINOR REHABILITATION FY14/95 DA 7E. SHEET 5 (SLURRY SEAL) 3125115 1 OF 11 SHTS NORTH AND SOUTH RANCHO DEL REY PARKWAY 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet PROJECT FILE #STL401 PREPARED B Y R D JUAN APPROVED BY- BETH CHOPP Page 1022 ATTACHMENT 1 w J N�� U EY cn -� TELEGRAPH CANYON RD PN o �$ SV VVS� SLURRY SEAL PROJECT FILE #S7L401 DRAWN BY 11TLE.• CITY OF CHULA VISTA PREPARED BY R D JUAN PAVEMENT MINOR REHABILITATION FY14 /15 R D JUAN DA 7F.- SHEET 6 (SLURRY SEAL) APPROVED BY 3125115 OF 11 SHTS. SOUTH OF M.EM H CANYON ROAD EAST OF PASEO LADERA BETH CHOPP 2015 -0 -12 Agen a Packet Page 1023 ATTACHMENT 1 / ON in � �---- P 83 b �q Rn BULL CANYQN r9 84 79 H D g2 ;D SANTA FL17RA RD 90 gl 80 85 4C q A z ALUNDRA CT N � a RUSSIN CT R 86 89 Q w HAYFORD RD PALONAR ST O SLURRY SEAL PROJECT FILE fSTL401 i DRAWN BY. nnF' CITY OF CI-IULA VISTA PREPARED B Y R D JUAN PAVEMENT MINOR REHABILITAT90N FY14/15 (SLURRY SEAL) R. D JUAN DATE SHEET 7 EAST AND WEST OF OTAY LAKES ROAD/LA MEDIA ROAD APPROVED BY i 3125115 OF 11 SHTS. BETWEEN EAST N STREET AND EAST PALOMAR STREET BETH CHOPP 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 1024 ATTACHMENT 1 w a U O Z SLURRY SEAL PROJECT FILE #S7L401 DRAWN BY 77TLE.• CITY OF CHULA VISTA PREPARED B R D JUAN - PAVEMENT MINOR REHABILITATION FY14/15 DA 7E• SHEET 8 (SLURRY SEAL) APPROVED BY- J125115 OF 11 SHTS. SD1TH OF PROCTOR VALLEY' ROAD AND SST OF LAME AVMUE BETH CHOPP 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Pa a 1025 ATTACHMENT 1 D SLURRY SEAL PROJECT FILE #S77-401 DRAWN BY.- 777.E• CITY OF CHULA VISTA PREPARED BY.• R D JUAN PAVEMENT MINOR REHABILITATION FY14/15 (SLURRY. SEAL) RD JUAN DATE SHEET 9 SO= OF OTAY LAKES RD BEMIN EASTLAKE PKWY AND HUNiE PKWY APPROVED BY J125115 OF '11 SHTS. NORTH OF CLUBHOUSE DRIVE BETH CHOPP 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 1026 ATTACHMENT 1 128 �' 133 129 130 pRR y �UBFtOUSE DR y�rgN 126 BAY HILL RD 145 s A jOr,, 141 a rig tiG�_ ,d S�• a A 144 134 r 131 s 15 138 Q0� r rC 140 �� 9 143 GREEN RIV �R 127 �OGP 135 y CYPRESS POINT CT 148 �a 132 142 0 136 O SLUE DRAWN BY R D JUAN DA 1F• SHEET 10 3125115 OF 11 SHTS. 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet 'RY SEAL PROJECT FILE #S7L401 777LE.' C6TY OF CHULA VISTA PREPARED BY.• PAVEMENT MINOR REHABILITATION FY14/15 (SLURRY SEAL) R b JUAN SOLMi OF OTAY LAKES RD BEFWEEN EA5'TIM PW Aim HUNX PKYY1f APPROVED BY SOUTH OF CWBHOUSE DRIVE BETH CHOPP Page 1027 ATTACHMENT 1 H 68�3 (180) A\ 169) 3 A G9 C a r z z a 9 PEAB©DY VY 170 164 --- -<Z- , 192 1$9) �� 152 9� PEABEMY VY 171 V A Sp,0 P Y 14 172 O R� D SLURRY SEAL PROJECT FILE #STL401 DRAWN BY 17TLE- CITY OF CHULA VISTA PREPARED BY R D JUAN PAVEMENT MINOR REHABILITATION FY14/15 R D JUAN DATE.- SHEET 11 (SLURRY SEAL) APPROVED BY- 3125115 OF 11 SHTS. SOUTH OF BIRCH ROAD EAST OF MAGDALENA AVENUE BETH CHOPP 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 1028 ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 2: PAVEMENT MINOR REHABILITATION FY14/15 NEW STREET SEGMENTS IN STL401 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 1029 LOCATION STREET BEGIN END #1 NORTH OF G STREET AND WEST OF SECOND AVENUE 1 BEECH AV MADRONA ST END OF STREET #2 WEST OF FIFTH AVENUE BETWEEN I STREET AND NAPLES STREET 2 HALSEY ST BROADWAY BEECH AV #3 WEST OF HILLTOP DRIVE BETWEEN I STREET AND BONITA ROAD 3 ALPINE -MINOT G ST ALPINE -MINOT AVE 4 PATRICIA AV H ST SHASTA ST 5 VISTA WY I ST MURRAY ST #4 WEST OF 1 -805 BETWEEN J STREET AND SOUTH CITY LIMITS 6 OTAY VALLEY RD RIOS AV REGENCY WY 7 VISTA WY K ST SAN MIGUEL DR #5 NORTH AND SOUTH RANCHO DEL REY PKWY 8 AYAMONTE WY VERIN LN S RANCHO DEL REY PW #6 S/O TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD 9 DAWSON DR STEINER DR S CDS 10 DOWNEY CT ROUSH DR E CDS 11 GIVENS ST PASEO LADERA STEINER DR 12 NEWPORT CT STEINER DR E CDS 13 ROUSH DR NEWPORT CT RIGLEY ST 14 ROUSH CT ROUSH DR E CDS 15 STEFAS CT STEINER DR E CDS 16 STEINER DR HIGGINS ST RIGLEY ST #7 E/O AND W/O OTAY LAKES ROAD 17 ALONDRA AV PLEASANTON RD HAYFORD RD 18 ALONDRA CT ALONDRA AV E CDS 19 GOLD RUN DR SANTA FLORA RD HAYFORD RD 20 HAYFORD RD GOLD RUN DR ALONDRA AV 21 HAYFORD RD ALONDRA AV SE CDS 22 ROSSIN CT ALONDRA AV E CDS 23 SANTA FLORA RD E PALOMAR ST GOLD RUN DR 24 SANTA FLORA RD GOLD RUN DR ALONDRA AV 25 SANTA FLORA RD ALONDRA AV E CDS #8 S. OF PROCTOR VALLEY ROAD AND W. OF LANE AV 26 EAGLE VALLEY DR ROCKING HORSE DR FALCON VALLEY DR 27 FALCON VALLEY DR ROCKING HORSE DR SADDLEHORN DR 28 PRAIRIE DR SADDLEHORN DR FALCON VALLEY DR 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 1029 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 1030 LOCATION STREET BEGIN END 29 ROCKING HORSE DR PROCTOR VALLEY DR EAGLE VALLEY DR 30 ROCKING HORSE DR EAGLE VALLEY DR MACKENZIE CREEK RD 31 SADDLEHORN DR EAGLE VALLEY DR PRAIRIE DR 32 SAN BRUNO PL N CDS SADDLEHORN DR #9 S/O OTAY LAKES RD BM EASTLAKE PKWY AND HUNTE PKWY NORTH OF CLUBHOUSE DR 33 AMELIA ISLAND DR WATERVILLE LAKE RD CRYSTAL DOWNS DR 34 CRYSTAL DOWNS DR N CDS S CDS 35 FAIRWAY OAKS DR FOREST OAKS DR MASTERS RIDGE RD 36 N GREENSVIEW DR GREENSGATE DR WATERVILLE LAKE DR 37 N GREENSVIEW DR WATERVILLE LAKE RD CLUBHOUSE DR 38 OAK HILL DR W CDS GOLF CREST LP 39 WATERVILLE LAKE RD N GREENSVIEW DR AMELIA ISLAN DR 40 WATERVILLE LAKE RD AMELIA ISLAN DR CRYSTAL DOWNS DR #10 SOUTH OF CLUBHOUSE DR 41 BOULDER CREEK ST S GREENSVIEW DR CRYSTAL SPRINGS DR 42 S GREENSVIEW DR BOCA RATON ST CRYSTAL SPRINGS DR 43 S GREENSVIEW DR SILVERADO DR GREEN RIVER DR 44 S GREENSVIEW DR HUNTE PW SILVERADO DR 45 INDIAN CREEK DR CLUBHOUSE DR PONTE VEDRA WY 46 INDIAN CREEK PL PONTE VEDRA WY S CDS 47 PINEHURST RD SILVERADO DR N SILVERADO DR S 48 RIVIERA DR RIVIERA WY SILVERADO DR 49 PONTE VEDRA WY INDIAN CREEK PL HUNTE PW 50 SILVERADO DR BAY HILL RD RIVIERA DR 51 SILVERADO DR RIVIERA DR S GREENSVIEW DR 52 THUNDERBIRD PL N CDS RIVIERA DR #11 SOUTH OF BIRCH ROAD EAST OF MAGDALENA AV 53 ANDERSON CT BREZAR ST E CDS 54 ENCLAVE LN SEMPLE ST PERRIN PL 55 WEBBER WY MAGDALENA AV WOLFSDORF WY 56 WEBBER WY WOLFSDORF WY SHIRCLIFFE ST 57 WEBBER WY SHIRCLIFFE ST KOESTER ST 58 WEBBER WY KOESTER ST BREZAR ST 59 WOLF CANYON LP MAGDALENA AV WOLFSDORF WY 60 WOLF CANYON LP WOLFSDORF WY KOESTER ST 61 WOLF CANYON LP KOESTER ST BREZAR ST 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 1030 0411612015 13:34 7148263129 PAVEMENT COATINGS CO PAVEMENT COATINGS CO. 10240 San Sevalne Way, Mira Loma, Ca 91752, Phone 71,1-826 -3011 Fax 714- 826 -3129 Contractor's License Number 303609 April 16, 2015 sett Juan City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Ave Chula Vista, CA, 99911 RE: Pavement Minor Rehabilitation FY 14115 (Slurry Deal) (STL401), Sid date 4115115 PAGE 01/01 Dear Mr. Juan, On Aprils 2015 Pavement Coatings Co. submitt d a bid for the Pavement Minor Rehabilitation FY14115 (Slurry Seal) in the City of Chile Vista, California for a total sum of $1,533,189,00. Due to a mathematical error on Item #4 Thermoplastic Pavement Marking and Legend the extension was incorrect. T t00 stated unit price of $60,00 each was correct. The total for Item #4 is decreased by $fi as shown below. Item #4 Thermoplastic Pavement Marking and The corrected total bid from Pavement Coatings Co, if you have any questions please feel free to contact Sincerely, Pavement Coatings Co, Doug Ford President 349 Ea @ 60.00 = $20,940,00 $1,532,589 Slurry Seal Resurfacing ... It Makes a Difference Marnber of: AGO, Associated General Contractors, ISSA, Intematlonal Slurry Surfacing Association, Street $uperintendents arld Maintenance Association of Califomia 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 1031 City of Chula Vista 3/27/2015 CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Pursuant to Council Policy 101 -01, prior to any action upon matters that will require discretionary action by the Council, Planning Commission and all other official bodies of the City, a statement of disclosure of certain ownership or financial interests, payments, or campaign contributions for a City of Chula Vista election must be filed. The following information must be disclosed: 1. list the names of all persons having a financial interest in the property that is the subject of the application or the contract, e.g., owner, applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier, Doug Ford, President Thomas Mucen,ski, Secretary Nathan Be lei Treasurer 2. If any person* identified pursuant to (l) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals with a $2000 investment in the business (corporation/partnership) entity, 3. if any person* identified pursuant to (1) above is a non - profit organization or trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non - profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. 4. Please iderxtify every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent contractors you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter, Marc Mumford, Superintendent Bryan Boudreaux erintendent 5. Has any person* associated with this contract had any financial dealings with an official`* of the City of Chula Vista as it relates to this contract within the past 12 months? Yes No X 23 Pavement Minor mabihtatiam FY14 /15 (Slurry Seal) STL401 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 1032 City of Chula Vista 3!27/2015 If Yes, briefly describe the nature of the financial interest the official ** may have in this contract. 6. Have you made a contribution of more than $250 within the past twelve (12) months to a current bember of the Chula Vista City Council? No X Yes _ if yes, which Council member? 7. Have you provided more than $340 (or an item of equivalent value) to an official ** of the City of Chula Vista in the past twelve (12) months? (This includes being a source of income, money to retire a legal debt, gift, loan, etc.) Yes ^ No X if Yes, which official ** and what was the nature of item provided? Date: 04 -14 -2015 Signature of Contractor /Applicant Doug _Ford Print or type name of Contractor/Applicant * Person is defined as: my individual, firm, co- partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation; estate, trust, receiver, -syndicate, any other county, city, municipality, district, or other political subdivision, -or any other group or combination acting as a unit. ** Official includes, but is not limited to: Mayor, Council member, Planning Commissioner, Member of a board, commission, or committee of the City, employee, or staff members. 24 Pavement Minor ItehabilibWon FY14 /15 (Slurry Seal) STIA01 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 1033 RESOLUTION NO. 2015- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE "PAVEMENT MINOR REHABILITATION FY14/15 (SLURRY SEAL) (STL401)" PROJECT TO PAVEMENT COATINGS CO. IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,532,589.00; WAIVING IRREGULARITIES IN THE LOW BID RECEIVED; WAIVING CITY COUNCIL POLICY NO. 574 -01 AND AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF ALL AVAILABLE CONTINGENCY FUNDS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $114,944 WHEREAS, City staff prepared specifications for the "Pavement Minor Rehabilitation FY14/15 (Slurry Seal) (STL401)" project and advertised the project on March 27, 2015; and WHEREAS, on April 15, 2015, the Director of Public Works Engineering received three (3) sealed bids for the "Pavement Minor Rehabilitation FY14/15 (Slurry Seal) (STL401)" project as follows: CONTRACTOR SUBMITTAL RESULT BID TOTAL SUBMITTED All requirements met but with 1 Pavement Coatings Co.- Jurupa Valley, CA $600.00 Mathematical error. $1,533,189.00* New total is $1,532,589.00 American Asphalt South, Inc. 2 All requirements met $1,553,648.00 — Fontana, CA Intermountain Slurry Seal — 3 Elk Grove, CA All requirements met $1,827,728.00 *The submitted bid proposal contained mathematical errors that did not affect the unit price, but affected the total bid amount. Corrections of bid totals did not change the outcome and ranking of the bids. WHEREAS, Staff's review of the apparent low bid submitted by Pavement Coatings Co. found a $600.00 mathematical error in favor of the City that did not change the ranking order of the bids; and 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 1034 Resolution No. 2015 - Page 2 WHEREAS, the apparent low bid submitted by Pavement Coatings is below the Engineer's estimate of $1,643,593.37 (or approximately 6.75% below the Engineer's estimate); and WHEREAS, Pavement Coatings Co. submitted a letter dated April 16, 2015 acknowledging their mathematical error and confirming the corrected apparent low bid amount of $1,532,589.00; and WHEREAS, the total "Pavement Minor Rehabilitation FY14/15 (Slurry Seal) (STL401)" project is anticipated to cost $1,800,792, including $268,203 for contingencies, staff time, material testing and other costs; and WHEREAS, Pavement Coatings Co. is a currently active licensed Class A General Engineering Contractor (License No. 303609) and staff has verified the references and the work performed by the contractor on previous City projects and has found their work to be satisfactory; and WHEREAS, under Council Policy No. 574 -01, the Director of Public Works may approve a contract increase up to $99,629.45, based upon the base contract amount. It is recommended that the Director of Public Works be authorized to approve change orders, as necessary, up to the maximum 7.5% contingency amount of $114,944, which is an increase of $15,314.56 over Policy No. 574 -01, in order to continue the project without delay. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, that it does hereby accept bids and award a contract for the "Pavement Minor Rehabilitation FY14/15 (Slurry Seal) (STL401)" project to Pavement Coatings Co. in the amount of $1,532,589.00; waive irregularities in the low bid received; waive City Council Policy 574 -01 and authorize the expenditure of all available contingency funds in the amount not to exceed $114,944. Presented by Approved as to form by Richard A. Hopkins Glen R. Googins Director of Public Works City Attorney 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 1035 CITY OF CHULA VISTA File #: 15 -0196, Item #: 10. City of Chula Vista Staff Report DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE LAWN SPACE IN FRONT OF CITY HALL, KNOWN AS PLAZA DE NACION (CITY HALL URBAN PARK) City of Chula Vista Page 1 of 1 Printed on 5/7/2015 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Page 1036 CITY OF CHUTA VISTA File #: 15 -0193, Item #: 11. City of Chula Vista Staff Report CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING EXISTING LITIGATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9 (a) Name of case City of Chula Vista 2015 -05 -12 Agenda Packet Samuel Escalante, et al. v. City of Chula Vista, WCAB, Case Number ADJ9571086 Page 1 of 1 Printed on 5/7/2015 powered by Legistar Page 1037