Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Rpts./1995/06/14 (3) PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT Item -L- Meeting Date 6/14/95 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing - PCM-95-15: Consideration of the adoption of the EastLake Affordable Housing Program In December 1993, after approving an increase in density for two parcels within EastLake Greens, the City Council directed that an ad hoc task force be formed for the purpose of recommending a comprehensive affordable housing program for the entire EastLake Planned Community. Staff, in support of this effort, is presenting the draft Program for the Provision of Affordable Housing with the EastLake Planned Community ("Program n) for consideration and adoption (please see Attachment 5). The Enviromnental Review Coordinator has determined that the proposed EastLake Affordable Housing Program will not have a significant impact upon the enviromnent, and has issued Negative Declaration 15-95-21 (please see Attachment 4). RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Negative Declaration IS-95-21. 2. Recommend that the City Council adopt the attached "Program for the Provision of Affordable Housing within the EastLake Planned Community" subject to the findings and conditions contained within the attached draft City Council Resolution. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On November 30, 1995, and January 25, 1995, the Housing Advisory Commission reviewed the draft Program and provided comments to staff (please see Attachment 2). The Commission recommended that the proposed affordable housing sites identified as #1, #2, and #3 (shown on page 15 of Program, Attachment 5) be relocated away from future SR-125. In addition, the Commission voted unanimously to oppose EastLake from receiving any credits for the athlete housing at the Olympic Training Center. The Resource Conservation Commission considered Negative Declaration IS-95-21 on May 8, 1995, and voted 5-0 to recommend its acceptance. Page 2, Item ~ Meeting Date 6/14/95 DISCUSSION: 1. Background In December, 1993, the City Council, in approving an amendment to the General Plan for an increase in density for approximately 74 acres of property (Lots R-9 and R-26) within EastLake Greens, reinstated a previously deferred requirement to provide 10% of the approved housing units contained within the EastLake Greens Tentative Subdivision Map as affordable to low and moderate income households. In taking this action the Council also directed that an ad hoc Task Force be fonned for the purpose of recommending a comprehensive affordable housing program for the planned community of EastIake. The Task Force, appointed by the City Council, is comprised of two residents from the EastLake community, one member of the Housing Advisory Commission, one at-large professional representative familiar with affordable housing provisions, a member of the Planning Commission and two representatives from the EastLake Development Company. Staff from the Planning Department and Community Development Departments provided support for the Task Force. The Task Force, through numerous meetings, researched successful affordable housing programs locally and in other areas of the state in developing a program which is intended to meet the requirements of the City's General Plan Housing Element, and yet compatibly provide a diverse housing product within the Greens development and future undeveloped portions of EastLake. Through this effort the following aspects of affordable housing were recognized by the Task Force: a. Affordable homes today are designed and built to look like surrounding neighborhoods. b. People who rent or buy affordable housing are as stable and community-spirited as those who live in higher-priced homes. c. Many, if not most, people who buy or rent affordable housing already live in the community or are people you know at work. d. The presence of affordable homes in a community does not affect the property values of surrounding higher-priced homes. 2. Existing Conditions The Task Force examined the requirements of each phase of the EastLake community and identified the total number of low and moderate income housing units as the development's obligations (per the policies contained in the City's General Plan Housing Element). This obligation was the focus of the Affordable Housing Program. Page 3, Item ~ Meeting Date 6/14/95 EastLake I, consisting of the Hills and Shores residential neighborhoods, as well as the Village Center, has completed its affordable housing obligation. EastLake II, consisting of the Greens and Trails neighborhoods, of which only the Greens has Tentative Subdivision Map entitlements, has yet to provide its affordable housing obligation. EastLake Greens was approved in 1989, however, due to reductions in the overall density of the project by the City Council, the affordable housing requirement was deferred. At this point, approximately 40% of the units within the Greens have received Final Subdivision Map commitments. EastLake III has an approved General Development Plan, however, EastLake Development Company has indicated a desire to replan this area. The following table quantifies the present affordable housing performance status of the entire EastLake planned community: AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS AND IMPLEMENTATION STATUS EASTLAKE PLANNED COMMUNITY EASTLAKE CURRENT AFFORDABLE HOUSING AI'FOJWABLE AFFOJWABLE NEIGHBORHOOD APPROVED OBLIGATION .. HOUSING HOUSING AREA UNITS' PRODUCED TO-DATE TO BEPRODUCED LOW MOD LOW MOD LOW MOD Eastlake 1- Eastlake Hills 454 23 23 0 23 23 0 Eastlake Shores 1380 69 69 101 69 (32) 0 Eastlake Village CIL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subtotal 1834 92 92 101 92 (9) 0 Eastlake 11- Eastlake Greens *** 3192 128 - 160 160 - 192 0 0 t28 - 160 160 - 192 Eastlake Trails 1260 63 63 0 0 63 63 Subtotal 4452 19t - 223 223 - 255 0 0 t91 - 223 223 - 255 Eastlake III - 1767 88 88 0 0 88 88 SubfOtal 1767 88 88 0 0 88 88 Land Swap Area 739 37 37 0 0 37 37 Subtotal 739 37 37 0 0 37 37 ... Totals 8792 408 - 440 440 - 472 101 92 307 - 339 348 - 380 Notes: . .. Reflects the status of regulatory approvals as of September 1, t 994. As conditioned under the City's Affordable Housing Program (AHP) which requires 5% of the approved units within the neighborhoods to be provided as low-income affordable, and 5 % as moderate-income affordable. The mnge of units shown reflects condition #44 of Council Resolution No. 15200 which provides a potential allowance for AHP requirements within the Greens to he 4% low-income, 6% moderate-income if 5% low, 5% moderate is proven to he infeasible. ... Page 4, Item -L Meeting Date 6/14/95 3. Proposed EastLake Affordable Housing Program The proposed EastLake Affordable Housing Program consists of a policy document intended to guide the provision of affordable housing, required through policies of the City's General Plan Housing Element, throughout the remaining undeveloped portion of the master planned development of EastLake. This Program recognizes how weIl earlier phases of the master planned community (EastLake I) have performed to affordable housing policies, and proposes implementation strategies for the provision of low- and moderate-income housing within EastLake II, III and the Land Swap Area (the remaining development areas). The EastLake Affordable Housing Program strategies for implementation have both a short-term and long-term approach. The short-term implementation is intended to provide for 160 low- income housing units (5% of the Greens present entitlement), within the Greens community. A total of 160 moderate-income units will be provided through market-rate housing units throughout the Greens. The long-term approach is to integrate affordable housing implementation policies into the documents at each level of planning approval process (e.g., General Development Plan, Sectional Planning Area Plan, Tentative Subdivision Map and Final Subdivision Map). The Program identifies nine potential affordable housing sites spread throughout the remaining undeveloped areas of EastLake. These sites, identified by the developer, were evaluated using general siting criteria outlined in the program, and represent opportunities which may require density re-considerations and subsequent planning evaluation prior to final site selection. This is expected to occur in the future through comprehensive evaluation and replanning of undeveloped areas of EastLake. 4. Public Input The EastLake Affordable Housing Task Force included a representative of the EastLake I and EastLake Greens Homeowners Associations. Through these community representatives, public information was prepared and twice distributed to the community through the local EastLake community news circulars, explaining what affordable housing consists of, and what the community can expect. In addition, a public forum was conducted on September 29, 1994, at EastLake High School, at which City staff, members of the Task Force, and a representative nonprofit low-income housing provider made presentations and answered audience questions regarding affordable housing and what the Task Force was attempting to do through the preparation of an affordable housing program. Issues expressed by residents within the EastLake Greens community included, whether inhabitants of the proposed low-income multiple family units would be provided full access to the Greens private facilities (e.g., swim club, private parks, etc.) and who would be responsible to pay for access to this amenity package. In addition, concerns were expressed regarding Page 5, Item ~ Meeting Date 6/14/95 whether tenants would be charged Home Owners Association (HOA) fees, the same as others within the community. The developer has not given a response to staff on how these concerns will be dealt with, however, typically these issues are not within the purview of the City's control, but rather a financial issue between the developer and the home owners. Correspondence received from a resident of EastLake Greens which addresses this issue is attached (please see Attachment 6). It should be recognized that EastLake Development Company provided much assistance through providing informative news releases, contacting key media individuals and working with the Task Force to make the public forum as effective as possible. However, progress made on negotiations has not been proceeding as well as hoped for and staff is concerned with the developer's ability to meet anticipated benchmarks outlined in the Program. 5. Analvsis Implementation The EastLake Affordable Housing Program, presented by the EastLake Affordable Housing Task Force, provides a comprehensive look at how EastLake has implemented its affordable housing requirements, and provides a reasonable set of benchmarks which will allow for the developer to implement the development's present and future affordable housing requirements. The Program is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's Housing Element. Included in the implementation strategies contained in the Program is the identification of a 24- acre site located south of EastLake High School (Lot R-26) as the first low-income housing site within the Greens. This site is expected to provide the bulk of the Greens low-income housing commitment (160 units), however, additional sites have been identified for consideration as part of the immediate implementation phase if this site cannot accommodate the full Greens' low- income commitment. The Program requires the following steps to occur: a) A site-specific Affordable Housing Agreement between the developer and the City for development on Lot R-26 prior to obtaining building permits for the 70th percentile unit within EastLake Greens (2,230th unit out of a total of 3,192 potential units), b) building permits for the low-income units on Lot R-26 shall be obtained prior to the 80th percentile (2,550th unit), c) if additional sites are necessary to provide the required low-income units, building permits for these units are required before the 95th percentile of building permits (3,030th unit). EastLake presently has obtained final map approvals for 1,256 units within the Greens, or Page 6, Item -L Meeting Date 6/14/95 approximately 40% of the potential unit total. It should be noted that the Task Force, in reaching a consensus on the implementation policies contained in the Affordable Housing Program, was aware that the EastLake Development Company was entering into preliminary negotiations with the City and an experienced low-income housing provider for development of Lot R-26. Affordable Housing Agreement In order to provide an appropriate legal mechanism to assure performance with policies contained within the Program, the City Attorney recommended that an umbrella Affordable Housing Agreement be prepared, and signed by the developer and the City in conjunction with the adoption of the Program. The City Attorney has prepared a draft of this Agreement, which has been initially reviewed and accepted by the EastLake Development Co. The Agreement has been made a part of the draft City Council resolution (see Attachment 1), and will be executed by the City and EastLake Development Co. in the near future. Siting Issues The Housing Advisory Commission expressed strong concerns with the proposed location of Sites #1, #2 and #3. The Commission was concerned that low-income housing not be placed adjacent to the future SR-125 tollway/freeway. However, based on the opportunities for higher density development areas within EastLake Greens, and prior action by the City Council in adopting increased General Plan densities thereby providing greater affordable housing opportunities, staff supports the location of sites #1 and #2 as potential affordable housing sites. Site #3 will require additional evaluation before consideration as an affordable housing site. Olympic Training Center (OTC) During deliberations of the Task Force, EastLake Development Company representatives expressed an interest in receiving affordable housing credits for the installation of athlete's dormitory units within the aTe. The Task Force examined the potential and appropriateness of this approach, and while there was no consensus reached on the issue, the Task Force requested that further consideration be given to affordable housing credits for the OTC dormitories. The Housing Advisory Commission, at its January 25, 1995 meeting voted unanimously to oppose EastLake receiving any credits for the athlete housing at the OTC. Staff has taken the position that the athlete housing does not meet criteria for affordable housing established within the City's Housing Element of the General Plan, and therefore recommends that no credit be considered. 6. Conclusion Page 7, Item ~ Meeting Date 6/14/95 Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission consider the contents of the EastLake Affordable Housing Program, and recommends further that the City Council adopt the Program, an Affordable Housing Implementation Agreement, as well as require that all future discretionary approvals for the undeveloped portions of EastLake (e.g., General Development Plans, Sectional Planning Area Plans, Tentative Subdivision and Final Subdivision Maps) integrate and adhere to the policies contained in the EastLake Affordable Housing Program. Attachments 1. Planning Commission and City Council Draft Resolutions 2. Locator 3. Housing Advisory Commission Minutes 4. Negative Declaration IS-95-21 5. Affordable Housing Program 6. Correspondence Received (m:\hoffie\planning\duane\eastlake\eastlake.pc) ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. PCM-95-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE EASTLAKE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM WHEREAS, on December 12, 1993, the City Council directed that an ad hoc Affordable Housing Task Force be established to create an affordable housing implementation program for the entire Planned Community of EastLake, and WHEREAS, the EastLake Affordable Housing Task Force was appointed by the mayor of the City of Chula Vista and began deliberations, and WHEREAS, the EastLake Affordable Housing Task Force recommended that the City Council adopt the EastLake Affordable Housing Program ("Project"), and WHEREAS, the Enviromnental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study, IS-95-21, of potential enviromnental impacts associated with the implementation of the Project and has concluded that there would be no significant environmental impacts; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said 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 ten (10) days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely June 14, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION hereby recommends City Council approval of the attached draft City Council Resolution for the Project, subject to the findings and conditions contained therein. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolution shall be transmitted to the City Council. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 14th day of June, 1995 by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: William C. Tuchscher II, Chairman Nancy Ripley, Secretary (m:\homc planning\duanc\castlakc\9515PC. RES) RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING A PROGRAM FOR THE PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING WITHIN THE EASTLAKE PLANNED COMMUNITY; AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 15200 AND APPROVING AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT I. RECITALS A. Project site. WHEREAS, the area of land which is the subject matter of this resolution is diagrammatically represented in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, which is composed of what is commonly referred to as the planned community of EastLake Phases I, II, III and the Land Swap Parcels ("project Site"); and, B. Project. WHEREAS, the EastLake Affordable Housing Task Force has recommended that the City Council consider the adoption of the Affordable Housing Program for the Project Site, attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by this reference ("project") ; and, C. Developer. WHEREAS, a person having control over all or a portion of the development of the Eastlake Greens is identified as EastLake Development Company ("Developer"); and, D. Prior city council Action. WHEREAS, On July 18, 1989, the city approved a Master Tentative Map, for approximately 830 acres located within the Eastlake Planned Community, by Resolution Number 15200 ("Eastlake Greens Original Tentative Map"). Condition Number 44 of Resolution 15200 required that a low and moderate income housing program be established with a goal of providing 5% low and 5% moderate housing units within the Eastlake Greens Tentative Map area ("Affordable Housing Requirement"). The City deferred the Affordable Housing Requirement pending further 1 evaluation of the General Plan density policies as related to parcels R-24, R-25, R-26, R-27 and R-28; and, WHEREAS, the City Council, as a Condition of Resolution No. 17309 adopted December 12, 1993, for General Plan Amendment GPA-93-04 (IGPA-93-04"), reinstated the Affordable Housing Requirement previously established by Condition No. 44 of Resolution No. 15200; and, WHEREAS, on August 16, 1994, the City Council amended by Resolution No. 17618, the Eastlake Greens Original Tentative Map to include an additional 22.7 acres and authorize development of a total of 3192 dwelling units ("Eastlake Greens Tentative Map") WHEREAS, the City council, resolved per Resolution No. 17309, to create an ad hoc EastLake Affordable Housing Task Force ("Task Force") for the express purpose of creating an affordable housing implementation program for the Project site (which includes the property within the Eastlake Greens Tentative Map); and, WHEREAS, the proposed Project would serve as the low and moderate income housing program for the Eastlake Greens Tentative Map area and provide implementation policies for establishment of affordable housing within the remaining Project Area; and, E. Application for Discretionary Approval. WHEREAS, on December 21, 1994, the Task Force recommended that the City Council consider the Project for adoption; and, F. Planning commission Record on Application. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on said project on June 14, 1995, and voted ____ to recommend that the city Council approve the Project in accordance with Resolution and based upon the findings and subject to the conditions listed below; and, G. city Council Record of Applications WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing was held before the City Council of the City of Chula vista on , on the Project and to receive the recommendations of the Planning commission, and to hear public testimony with regard to same; and, 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby find, determine and resolve as follows: II. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their public hearing on this Project held on June 14, 1995, and the minutes and resolutions resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. III. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED Mitigated Negative Declaration. The city council of the City of Chula vista has reviewed, analyzed and considered the previously approved Mitigated Negative Declaration on IS-95-21 (known as Document No. ____ on file in the Office of the City Clerk) and comments thereon, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project prior to approving the Project. Based on the Initial Study and comments thereon, the Council finds that there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment and thereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-95-21. IV. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA The City Council does hereby find that the Mitigated Negative Declaration on IS-95-21 has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State EIR Guidelines, and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula vista. V. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF CITY COUNCIL The city Council finds that Mitigated Negative Declaration IS- 95-21 reflects the independent judgment of the City of Chula vista City council. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby approve and adopt the Project subject to the general and special conditions set forth below. VI. AMENDMENT TO EASTLAKE GREENS TENTATIVE MAP The City Council does hereby amend Condition No. 44 of Resolution No. 15200, adopted July 18, 1989, for the EastLake Greens Tentative Subdivision Map, to read as follows: As soon as possible after the adoption of Resolution No. , but in no event later than the recordation of the 3 Final Map containing the 1500th unit of this Tentative Map, the City and the Developer shall have entered into a binding and recordable agreement ("Affordable Housing Agreement") providing that among other things (1) after the building permit for the development of the 2,550th unit within the territory of this Tentative Map has been issued, the City shall have the absolute and unfettered right to withhold the issuance of any building permits for any construction within the territory of this Tentative Map until the Developer has under significant construction 160 qualified low income housing units that meet with the approval of the city; and (2) the Developer shall, without regard to the further and additional development of the territory of this Tentative Map, have under significant construction, no later than June 1, 1998, 112 qualified low income housing units that meet with the approval of the city. Said affordable Housing Agreement shall be executed by Boswell Company, and an abstract of the same satisfactory to the city shall be recorded. The Affordable Housing Agreement shall further provide that after significant construction commences, it shall be diligently prosecuted to completion pursuant to plans and agreements approved by the City. Failure to reach agreement or violation of the Affordable Housing Agreement, once reached shall be deemed a violation of this condition. Developer shall construct 160 moderate income housing units and provide documentation satisfactory to the City's Housing Coordinator that such units qualify as moderate income housing. The documentation shall be submitted for approval by the City's Housing Coordinator, no later than three months from the date of sale of each moderate income housing unit. Developer shall complete construction of the 160 moderate income housing units prior to the city's approval of the Final Map containing the 3030th unit of this Tentative Map. For purposes of this condition, the term "moderate income housing units" shall mean housing units which are offered to qualified families whose income levels range from 80-120% of the regional median income. Market-rate units may b e qualified by the City's Housing Coordinator as moderate income housing if such market-units meet the definition of moderate income housing. Except as modified herein, all other Conditions of Resolution No. 15200 shall remain in full force and effect. VII. APPROVAL OF AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT The City Council hereby approves the Affordable Housing Agreement, dated day of 95, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit "C" and incorporated herein by this reference, as a means to implement the low income housing requirement of Condition No. 44 of Resolution No. 15200. The 4 Mayor of the city of Chula vista is hereby authorized and directed to execute said agreement for and on behalf of the City of Chula vista. VIII. IMPLEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES Developer shall diligently implement, or cause the implementation of, all mitigation measures pertaining to the Project identified in Mitigated Negative Declaration 18-95-21, prior to subsequent and appropriate discretionary approvals. IX. CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE OF CONDITIONS If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, or if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted, deny or further condition issuance of all future building permits, deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted, institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the city's approval of this Resolution. X. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION The city Council directs the Environmental Review Coordinator to post a Notice of Determination and file the same with the county Clerk. XI. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition herein stated; and that in the event that anyone or more terms, provisions or condi tions are determined by a Court of competent j ur isdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this resolution shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio. Presented by Approved as to form by Robert A. Leiter Director of Planning (m : \ home \ attorney' 915res. cc r) Bruce M. Boogaard City Attorney 5 EXHIBIT A EASTLAKE NEIGHBORHOODS AND SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES Salt Creek Ranch EASTlAKE VlUAGE CENTER Pnx:tor \/alley EASTlAKE BUSINESS CENTER i EASTlAKE t GREENS Otay Ranch Village 5 Lower Olay Reservoir CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR ~'iI:I5k, Eastlake Affordable Housing Easflake AHordable Housing Task Force e) Task Force R~u.-': To adopt an affordable housing program ~?,Jle~, Eastlake for astlake. SCALE, FILE NUMBER, I NORTH As Indicated PCM - 95 - 15 EX/I/g/TC Recording Requested by: CITY CLERK When Recorded, Mail to: CITY OF CHULA VISTA 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 ------------------------------------------------------------------ AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT This Eastlake Affordable Housing Agreement ("Agreement") is made as of , 1995, by and between the Eastlake Development Company, a California general partnership ("Developer") and the City of Chula Vista, a California municipal corporation ("city"), with reference to the following facts: A. Developer owns approximately 830 acres of that certain real property, described on Exhibit "A", and located in the Eastern portion of the city of Chula vista (referred to herein as "Eastlake Greens") . Eastlake Greens is more particularly described in Exhibit "A" which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. B. On July 18, 1989, the City approved a Master Tentative Map for Eastlake Greens by Resolution Number 15200 ("Eastlake Tentative Map"). Condition number 44 of the Eastlake Tentative Map required that a low and moderate income housing program with a goal of providing 5% low and 5% moderate housing units ("Affordable Housing Program") within the Eastlake Tentative Map area be established. The City deferred the Affordable Housing Program pending further evaluation of the city's General plan density policies. C. On December 12, 1993, the City adopted a General Plan Amendment (GPA-93-04) by Resolution Number 17309, which reinstituted the Affordable Housing Program previously established by Condition Number 44 of the Eastlake Tentative Map. D. The parties now desire to provide a means to implement the Affordable Housing Program requirement set forth in Condition No. 44 of the Eastlake Tentative Map. NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 1. Definition. Unless otherwise indicated, for purposes of this Agreement, the term "low income housing" shall mean housing units which are offered to qualified families whose income levels range from 50-80 % of the regional median income. E~I//~/7C 2. Duty to Build. Developer shall have under significant construction, no later than June 1, 1998, 112 qualified low income housing units at the location and in a configuration and design approved by the city. Developer shall thereafter diligently pursue completion of the construction of such units. Developer shall construct such units regardless of any further or additional development taking place from the date of this Agreement within Eastlake Greens. 3. Conditional Duty to Build. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 2 of this Agreement, should a building permit for the 2,550th unit be applied for within Eastlake Greens, Developer shall be responsible for constructing 160 qualified low income housing units at the location and in a configuration and design approved by the city. Developer shall immediately commence construction of the 160 low income housing units and shall thereafter diligently pursue completion of the construction of such units. The duty contained in this paragraph is non-cumulative to the duty in paragraph 2 (to build 112 low income units) such that Developer's total duty if 2,550 (and up to 3,192) residential units are developed within Eastlake Greens, will be to build 160 qualified low income housing units. Any of the 112 low income units constructed in accordance with Paragraph 2 above, will be credited against the duty to build the 160 units contained herein. 4. Right to withhold Permits. After the building permit for the development of the 2,550th residential unit within Eastlake Greens has been issued, the City shall have the absolute and unfettered right to withhold the issuance of any building permit for any further construction within Eastlake Greens until Developer has under significant construction 160 qualified low income housing units that meet with the approval of the city. 5. Development permits, Maps and Documents. Developer shall at its sole expense, prepare and diligently process all permits, agreements, plans, maps and other documents, including but not limited to, amendments to the General Development Plan and sectional Planning Area Plan for Eastlake Greens that are necessary to construct the low income housing units in the time frames set forth herein. Developer shall submit an affordability plan to the City for its approval prior to the first building permit application being submitted to the City for construction of the first low income housing unit. The affordability plan shall describe, among other items, the eligibility qualification process to be used for the sale or rental of the low income housing units, the administrative plan for management of such units and the funding program used to finance the construction of the same. ~ General Provisions. a. Authoritv of Siqnatories. Each individual signing this Agreement on behalf of the City warrants that (i) he or she is duly authorized to sign and deliver this Agreement on behalf of the city in accordance with a duly adopted resolution of the city Council of the city and (ii) this Agreement is binding upon the City in accordance with its terms. Each individual signing this Agreement on behalf of a corporation warrants that (i) he or she is duly authorized to sign and deliver this Agreement on behalf of the corporation, in accordance with a duly adopted resolution of the board of directors of the corporation or in accordance with the bylaws of the corporation, and (ii) this Agreement is binding upon the corporation in accordance with its terms. b. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which will be deemed to be an original, but all of which together will constitute one instrument. c. Applicable Law. This Agreement will be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the state of California. d. Successors. All terms of this Agreement will be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective administrators or executors, successors and assigns. e. Modifications. No modification, waiver or discharge of this Agreement will be valid unless the same is in writing and signed by the parties of this Agreement. f. Entire Aqreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the parties relating to the transaction contemplated hereby and all prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and statements, oral or written are merged herein. g. Attorney's fees and costs. If either party commences litigation for the judicial interpretation, reformation enforcement or rescission hereof, the prevailing party will be entitled to a judgment against the other for an amount equal to reasonable attorney's fees and court and other costs incurred. The "prevailing party" shall be deemed to be the party who is awarded substantially the relief sought. h. Exhibits. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement are attached, and are a part of, this Agreement. i. captions. captions in this Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference only and do not define, describe or limit the scope or the intent of this Agreement. j. Agreement to San Diego. Recordinq. The parties hereto shall cause this be recorded in the Official Records of the County of SIGNATURE PAGE TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Developer have executed this Agreement this day of 1995. CITY OF CHULA VISTA BOSWELL COMPANY shirley Horton Mayor Attest: Beverly Authelet city Clerk Approved as to form by Bruce M. Boogaard city Attorney M:\Home\Attorney\Affordab ATTACHMENT 2 EASTLAKE NEIGHBORHOODS AND SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES Salt Creek Ranch EASTlAKE VILLAGE CENTER Proctor Valley EASTLAKE BUSINESS CENTER Otay Ranch Village 5 Lower Otay Reservoir CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR ~\itl~, Eastlake Affordable Housing Eastlake Affordable Housing Task Force C) Task Force ~?,~, Eastlake Re~uest: To adopt an affordable housing program for astlake. SCALE, FILE NUMBER, NORTH As Indicated PCM - 95 - 15 ATTACHMENT 3 MINUTES HOUSING ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday November 30, 1994 3:30 p.m. Conference 3 Public Services Building CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL PRESENT: Thomas Alonso-Massey, Vicki Madrid, Rosa Lopez-Gonzalez, Robert Flaugher, Kathryn Lembo (Ex-Officio), Jerry Mayfield (Ex-Officio) ABSENT: Maggie Helton, Evelyn Michela STAFF: Housing Coordinator Arroyo, Community Development Specialist I Shanahan, Administrative Office Assistant II Gonzalez, Principal Planner Bazzel, Senior. Planner Batchelder 1. INTRODUCTIONS - Mr. Arroyo introduced himself, Sheila Shanahan and Alicia Gonzalez to the Housing Advisory Commission Members. Mr. Arroyo stated to the members that they should give some background of themselves. Mr. Jerry Mayfield (ex-officio) member, introduced himself and stated that he is a architect and planner, and has been involved in the development of affordable housing. He is now the Executive Director of Habitat for Humanity. He stated that their organization is very interested in affordable housing, especially at the lower income levels. Mr. Thomas Alonso-Massey is a Trial Attorney, married and owns a home in EastLake where he resides and has two rental units in San Diego. He stated that he volunteered because he wants to contribute to affordable housing and housing issues that this Commission embraces. Ms. Vicki Madrid currently works with the San Diego City Housing Commission. She has been employed there for fourteen years, during that time she has worked in just about every department. She is currently working in the Development Department. Vicki does a variety of tasks ranging from construction inspections and cost estimates to setting schedules and timelines and running data base reports on projects. Ms. Rosa Lopez-Gonzalez works for Union Bank. Her interest in this Commission is to assist people getting into low income housing. She has helped a lot of bank customers obtain their first home. In addition, she has done counseling in how to save money for first time home buyers. Ms. Kathy Lembo (Ex-Officio) is the Executive Director of South Bay Community Services which is a multi services agency. About 80 to 90% of the people that come to SBCS for services are very low income. Also SBCS has a community development branch that is getting involved in affordable housing. SBCS runs the only homeless shelter for families in the South Bay. Mr. Robert Flaugher has been a resident of Chula Vista for 36 years and is retired from Civil Service. Mr. Flaugher runs a organization called (MPAC) Mobilehome Political Action Committee. Over the past years he has been helping mobilehome residents challenge excessive rents and to address other mobilehome issues. He stated that he is very interested in the production of low cost housing. Mr. Arroyo congratulated all Commission Members for their appointments. Mr. Arroyo reported that the Commission grew out of the Housing Advisory Committee which has been instrumental in the development of many housing programs and policies and in the production of a number of important documents, such as the Housing Element and the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy for the City. Mr. Arroyo stated that the City Council decided to form a Commission that will also serve as an advisory body to the Housing Authority. As Commission Members, their role is to provide, advise, and make recommendations to the Council, but also to the Housing Authority and Redevelopment Agency on issues that deal with housing. This Commission will be involved with reviewing housing policies, strategies, and also making recommendations by which to implement housing programs. The Commission will also be reviewing and making recommendations on important issues before they go to the Housing Authority and City Council for final approval. Also, the Commission will review and be involved with affordable housing projects that are requiring and/or requesting public funds. Today the Commission will be reviewing the EastLake Affordable Housing program that is in process. Part of the reason why staff called for a special meeting of this body was to begin to get Commission input on this program. Mr. Arroyo stated that the Commission Members will be drawing lots to determine their initial terms. He stated that the Commission is scheduled to meet every fourth Wednesday of every month at 3:30 p.m. Member Robert Flaugher picked 6-30-96 for his term. Member Rosa Lopez-Gonzalez picked 6-30- 98 for her term. Member Vicki Madrid picked 6-30-99 for her term. Member Thomas Alonso- Massey picked 6-30-97 for his term. The two Ex-Officios terms are for two years. 2. EASTLAKE AFFORDABLE HOUSING TASK FORCE REPORT - Mr. Arroyo gave a brief background regarding the report that was enclosed in their packet. As indicated in the report the Council almost a year ago now, established the EastLake Affordable Housing Task Force with the overall objective to come up with an implementation plan to produce affordable housing in EastLake. The Housing Element stipulates as a housing policy that any development that is 50 units or more anywhere in the City, is required to set aside 10% of those units to be at affordable housing level. Half of the units are required to be affordable to low income and the other half to moderate income households. Low income is determined to be 80% of the median income for the area. Right now this means about $36,000 for a family of four. Very low income is 50% of the median income which is $22,700 for a family of four. Moderate income is 120% of the median income or currently $54,500 for a family of four. It is the City's intention to provide housing opportunities to as many low income and very low income households as possible. The Commission discussed the issue of counting Olympic Training Center (OTC) Athletic Housing, towards Affordable Housing Program (AHP) for the EastLake development. Commissioners expressed concern allowing these units to count as AHP credit since they won't count towards the City's Housing Element goals. Mr. Batchelder from the Planning Department went over the report with Commission Members, outlining the major components. Referring to a map of the Eastlake project area, he provided a brief history of affordable housing activity, and then reviewed the Task Force process and how the proposed program structure was developed. That proposed program uses a two-phased approach to providing new affordable housing within the remaining development areas of EastLake. Phase I addresses the Greens project area, and is tailored to the fact that by prior action of the City Council, the project has been progressing through construction without having a specific affordable housing plan. He then briefly reviewed the regulatory history. Therefore, the Phase I program provisions are aimed at addressing the fact that we are dealing with a moving target, rather than starting from scratch before the project completes its regulatory approvals and begins construction. What the Task Force is trying to do with the Phase I program is accelerate completion of the affordable housing component within the Greens, since the balance of the development is already moving forward. As a result, Phase I focuses on actions that need to occur to secure a site, or sites, on which the 160 low-income unit requirement for the Greens can be provided, a'nd when in relationship to the rest of the project. EastLake and the City are currently working with two non- profit housing organizations on an affordable housing project proposal for the site west of EastLake Parkway and south of the high school. That multi-family project could provide somewhere between 120 and 160 low income affordable units. Phase II addresses the balance of the EastLake community including the Trails, Woods, Vistas and Land Swap areas. It focuses on establishing progress benchmarks toward planning for'and providing required affordable housing units, and which must be met at various stages of future development approvals. It is more typical of how the City would like to see affordable housing approached with the large master planned developments. Member Alonso-Massey raised the concern that all the sites seems to be right next to SR125. His concern is that the low income households will be right next to a environmentally unsafe part of the entire development. In referring to the three potential sites near SR125, Mr. Batchelder briefly reviewed the planning history, indicating that two of the sites were fully evaluated at both the general and community planning levels and designated for multi-family residential development. The third site at the south- west quadrant of SR125 and Telegraph Canyon Road is presently designated for commercial office type development, and staff has been discussing if that is a good site or not for multi-family residential development. Designation as a potential site in the Affordable Housing Report is coming mainly from EastLake, and should EastLake eventually desire to use that site they would need to process a General Plan Amendment. Mr. Batchelder also indicated that the area in the vicinity of SR125 was intended as an "activity corridor" in the EastLake Master Plan, and within which multi- family densities and civic and commercial uses are planned due to the proximity to major roads, mass transit routes and other support services. Site 2 would be served by EastLake Parkway, and millions of dollars worth of infrastructure improvements would need to occur to extend EastLake Parkway to the south, and to bring water, sewer, and all other utilities to make that site developable in the near term. If and when staff gets to the point where a project on site 1 does not become feasible or may not meet all the requirements for the Greens project, then one or both alternate sites would have to be considered. Member Mayfield asked what would stop staff from stopping the production right now and including the affordable housing in the Greens rather than on other sites. Mr. Batchelder responded that there are two main issues, one has to do with existing community fabric and the other is a factor of approved density and the ability to subside the units down to a level of low income affordability. Mr. Bazzel stated that the City Council did not support some of the originally proposed higher density areas within the core of EastLake Greens. The people living in the Greens in various areas were saying that they didn't want to see apartments across their view of the golf course. Mr. Alonso-Massey stated that his understanding of high density is the same thing as affordable housing. So his question is why did City Council side against low housing by ruling against high density and now staff is backtracking and putting the high density that is low income housing back in. Mr. Bazzel responded that what the Council did was not taken as an attack against affordable housing, but rather they had some difficulties with density policies throughout EastLake Greens. Therefore, they brought down the oV,erall density by focusing on certain sites that had higher density. In turn, they recognized that there wasn't as many opportunities to provide iower income housing. Member Madrid asked if there are any plans that are developed along the lines of what they perceive as far as the high density project. Mr. Arroyo responded no, not yet, but there are some projects already within the development that fall within the low income category. Member Mayfield's concern is the number of units and all the 150% median income households all grouped in one group. In other words the number of units in relationship to the rest of the complex. Mr. Arroyo stated that staff will bring this issue back for additional comments and review before staff takes it to Council. Mr. Arroyo suggested that they move ahead to the nomination of officers, but since not all members were present the Commission decided to carryover the matter until the next scheduled meeting. 3. ORAL COMMENTS - None 4. STAFF REPORTS - Mr. Arroyo stated to the Commission Members that there is a tentative grand opening for the Park Village Apartments that are located on Third and Palomar. Staff will be sending out invitations to that event. It is a 28 unit complex, it combines with affordable housing for families, child care, and also it provides off-sit'3 job training opportunities. It was a combination of state, city, and tax credit type of financing that made it happen. 5. MEMBERS COMMENTS - None 6. ADJOURNMENT - At 5:30 p.m. to the next regular meeting scheduled December 28, 1994 in the Public Services Building. G;'. ,} /1 f /_ /' J/(/,/(', (<, "71 ? A: J 0- V/ Recorder, Alicia Gonzalez J u IAG\C:\WPWIN\1'-3o-94.MINI CITY OF CHULA VISTA MINUTES HOUSING ADVISORY COMMISSION Wednesday January 25, 1995 3:30 p.m. Conference Room 2 Public Services Building CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL - 3:35 p.m. PRESENT: Helton, Alonso-Massey, Madrid, Flaugher, Lopez-Gonzalez ABSENT: None STAFF: Housing Coordinator Arroyo, Community Development Specialist I Shanahan, Administrative Office Assistant II Gonzalez EX-OFFICIO: Lembo (present), Mayfield (present) GUEST: J. R. de Jesus Chantengco All the Commission Members and staff briefly introduced themselves again since everyone was present. MUSC (Flaugher/Madrid) to excuse Maggie Helton from the November 30, 1994 Commission meeting, approved unanimously. Commission Members decided to wait until the end of the meeting to elect officers. Member Helton drew her lot, her term ends 6-30-98. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MUSC (Aaugher/Lopez-Gonzalez) to approve November 30, 1994 minutes with minor emendments, approved unanimously. 2. EASTLAKE AFFORDABLE HOUSING TASK FORCE REPORT - Mr. Arroyo gave a brief overview on the discussion that took place at the prior meeting. He stated that the EastLake Affordable Housing Task Force Report was put together by a committee that was established by the Council. Representatives from the EastLake community, EastLake Development Co, representative from the Planning Commission, representative from a non-profit Housing Corporation, representative from the Housing Advisory Committee, and staff from Community Development and Planning Departments were also involved. The program is in response to the City's policy which requires per the Housing Element that any development over 50 units or more must set aside 10% of those units for low and moderate income households. The plan outlines an affordable housing program for EastLake and identifies a number of issues. One of the most significant issue that was identify in the process has to do with the Olympic Training Center Athletic Housing. The EastLake Development Company proposes that some credit be given to those units as counting towards their low income housing requirement. The task force position on the issue was basically mixed. It was referred to the City Attorney for legal research, and the initial response to the EastLake Company is that the City cannot provide any credit to those units because the City cannot get any credit from the state. That type of housing is very specialized and does not meet the intent of the City's Housing Element and does not address low income housing needs. As far as time frame, after the review from the Housing Advisory Commission, the report will go to the Planning Commission in approximately 3 weeks after which time it will go to City Council for final approval. Mr. de Jesus Chantengco who participated in the process is here to share his insights. Mr. de Jesus Chantengco gave a history of the project. He briefly went over the project outlining the major components. One of the issues was transportation. Another issue was open space and parks. The architectural design was another concern, something that would apply to the general plan. The Task Force identified 3 sites where development can occur within a short time frame. One of the sites is a 24 acre parcel south of the EastLake High School which is being considered to begin the first project. Mr. de Jesus Chantengco mention that South Bay Community Services is currently negotiating with other non-profit housing developers to try to implement an affordable housing development. Mr. Arroyo mentioned that staff has researched the athletes' housing issue and has provided some background materials to the EastLake Development Company and to the City Attorney's Office. Staff doesn't recommend any credits be given towards the Olympic Training Center Athletes' housing. Ms. Shanahan gave an overview of the Olympic Training Center. The athletic housing would be a dormitory style housing and the athletes are expected to be there for maybe 3 to 5 months at a time. The type of housing that can count towards the Housing Element and the affordable housing goals is permanent affordable housing. The housing at the training center is not permanent because its dormitory style. It doesn't have its own kitchen facility and bathroom area, hence it doesn't count in that criteria. It is affordable in that the athletes are sponsored by their committees. The athletes don't necessarily need to be low income to be there. In other affordable housing projects the tenants would have to submit their income and qualify as a low income person in order to be able to occupy that unit. The whole idea of the inclusionary housing policy is to have a 5% low, 5% moderate income units to provide a balance community in the eastern territories of the City. It is important to have mixed income housing so everyone can afford to live in all neighborhoods. Member Helton expressed that rental housing is essential and questioned whether the Athletes' housing could be considered a rental facility. Ms. Shanahan commented that staff counts rental housing and could count for sale housing depending on affordability restrictions. However, rental housing that are dormitories or congregate care are facilities that would not count with the state. Member Madrid questioned if anyone has been looking into the possibility of changing the style of housing to single room occupancy units (SRO) so maybe they can count towards the low income housing credit. Ms. Shanahan responded that the housing is going to be built by the Olympic Training Center to meet the needs of the athletes. Therefore, the center have already dictated what kind of housing best suits the needs of the athletes. Ex-Officio Mayfield inquired if the SRO would qualify. Ms. Shanahan stated that she would need to look into that. She mention that if it had its own bath and kitchen area based on HCD standards, it might count, however if it was a m<;>re communal facility then it might not count. Member Madrid mention that she has seen some that have a community bathroom and have a microwave and bed, other than that they look a lot like a dormitory. Perhaps some units could be considered with some minor adjustments. Ex-Officio Lembo stated that she disagrees with the athletes' housing being considered because of the fact that they will not be built for nor will they be utilized for the true sense of affordable housing for people in lower and moderate income levels, that was the problem she had with it not whether its an SRO. Another issue is counting it as a affordable housing because it doesn't meet the intention of affordable housing. In addition, its restricted housing, you would have to be an athlete to live there. So if someone is low income who is not an athlete, could not live there even if they wanted to. MUSC (Helton/Flaugher) to oppose EastLake from receiving any credits for the athlete housing at the Olympic Training Center. approved unanimously. Member Helton expounded on her motion that the OTC is a very specific program. It is not available to other members of the community and she feels that it does not fit into the EastLake Affordable Housing program at all. Member Flaugher opened for discussion the issue of manufactured homes. He would like for the Commission Members to go out to his park so they can see what kind of community he is talking about. He would like to see the developers to set aside areas out in EastLake for manufactured homes, because it is less expensive and can be concentrated for low income ownership. Member Alonso-Massey questioned what Member Flaugher was proposing, if it was in phase I or phase II of the EastLake project or something beyond that. Member Flaugher responded that as far as he understands it, it only has to be east of B05. Ms. Shanahan stated that it is open to any housing proposal and can be brought forward to the City, there isn't really a limitation. If its in connection with an EastLake developer or one of the developers on eastern territories participating, the goal is to have it on site wherever the developer is building it. If that is not achievable for any reason, than the second option is to have it west of 805. Member Alonso-Massey stated he wanted to confirm what this Commission needs to do in regards to the 223 of low income housing units that has to be provided for phase 1 and 473 that have to be provided in phase 2 in EastLake. Mr. Arroyo stated that the recommendation or action being requested from this Commission is to find out the Commission's opinions and comments regarding the proposed EastLake Affordable Housing program. Staff recommends that the Commission approve the recommended program that has been established in the report. Member Alonso-Massey stated that he would like to make a specific motion which is a motion related to a recommendation considering the November 23. 1994 report. MUSC (Alonso-Massey/Helton) to recommend that the low income housing not be placed directly adjacent to SR125. Also, for EastLake to find alternative sites that are not next to the freeway. In addition, the proposed sites 1.3.and 7 not be the preferential placements primarily because it is not fair to the low income people to be placed directly adjacent to a highway. approved unanimously. Member Alonso-Massey stated that he didn't have an objection to the amendment just as long as the sites are not directly adjacent to the freeway. Site 7 could be placed several hundred yards to the east further along Telegraph Canyon road and would be more appropriate. (No vote was taken on the second amended motion.) MUSC (Helton/lopez-Gonzalez) for the Eastlake Affordable Housing Task Force report be accepted with the Housing Advisory Commissiorj's recommendations and concerns, approved unanimously. Ex-Officio Mayfield question the time impact on the sites, if the Commission recommends that EastLake don't use the sites what kind of timing are they talking about. Mr. Arroyo responded that the timing can be very significant. Most sites that were identified are sites that are available, especially sites 1,3, 7, and 2. If those sites are not acceptable the implementation of the affordable housing program would be impacted. Member Madrid commented that if site 7 was kept and did something along the lines of SRO's like senior housing, that might be something that can take place immediately. Ex-Officio Member Lembo stated that she feels that staff shouldn't exclude families with children in site 7. Greenery and open space are not always needed for those families with younger children. Parents tend to always take their children to parks where they can be supervised. Member Helton nominated Vicki Madrid for Chairman. MUSC (Helton/Alonso-Massey) Vicki Madrid nominated for Chairman for the Housing Advisory Commission. MUSC (Raugher/Madrid) Maggie Helton nominated for Vice-Chair for the Housing Advisory Commission. 3. ORAL COMMENTS - None 4. STAFF COMMENTS - None 5. MEMBERS COMMENTS - Member Flaugher asked the Chair to notify the members of the Commission when items discussed come before the Council. Member Helton brought up an issue regarding a notice of a public hearing on the Coastal amendment, She stated that this Commission hasn't received any literature regarding what this amendment is. The Commission should be inquiring in regards to the amendment. 6. ADJOURNMENT - 5: 15 p.m. to the next regular meeting scheduled February 22, 1995 in the Public Services Building. //- I ". II I ".:~/ ,'" Recorder, Alicia Gonzalez / / / " ; -::- [AG/C:\WPWIN\ 1-25-95.MIN] ATTACHMENT 4 negative declaration PROJECT NAME: Eastlake Affordable Housing Program PROJECT LOCATION: Eastlake ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: N/A PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 CASE NO: IS-95-21 DATE: April 20, 1995 A. Proiect. SettinglDescriDtion Eastlake I - Hills, Shores, Village Center, Business Center Phase I. The Eastlake I development, which includes the Hills and Shores residential neighborhoods, was approved in 1985, and includes a total of 1,834 units, of which 101 low-income housing units were provided. These residential neighborhoods have been completed with a resultant total of 9 low-income units constructed in excess of the minimum requirement. This Program will address the following partially or undeveloped portions of Eastlake. EastJake II - Greens, Trails. The Eastlake II development was approved in November, 1989, and authorized a total of 4,034 housing units involving both the Greens and Trails neighborhoods. The Greens included 2,774 housing units and the Trails 1,260 units. In December, 1993, the City Council considered and approved an amendment to the General Plan for 44 acres within the Greens which resulted in the potential increase of 418 units to the Greens. Subsequent approvals by the City will be required to establish the exact number of units, however. this could bring the total number of units within the Greens and Trails to 4,452. At present, only about 32 % of the approved units (1.032 units) within the Greens have been completed or have started construction and no units have final authorization for construction within the Trails. The total number of low-income housing units required to be constructed within the Greens is 160]. with a commensurate total of 160 moderate-income housing units (5% I 5%). I The City Council authorized the total low-income housing units for the Greens to be reduced to 4% of the project requirement (128 units), with 6% for moderate-income units (192 units). if it is found that a total of 5% low-income units are not found to be feasible. See footnote #2 for additional provisions applied to the Trails. eltr of WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\1020.93:Ref. 1021.93,1022.93) Affordable housing requirements for the Trails amounts to a total of 63 low-income and 63 moderate-income units (5% /5%). Eastlake III - Woods, Vistas, Business Center Phase II, Olympic Training Center. The Woods and Vistas have General Development Plan-level approvals for a total of 1,767 housing units, which would amount to 88 low and 88 moderate-income units (5% /5%).' Subsequent levels of City Council approval will still be required prior to authorization to construct units within the Woods and Vistas. Eastlake Land Swap In 1990, Eastlake Development Company and the Baldwin Company executed an exchange of adjacent land holdings to create more logical geographic planning boundaries between the Eastlake and Otay Ranch development projects; hence the reference "Land Swap". The Land Swap area contains 161 acres and is authorized at the General Plan-level only. which would authorize approximately 739 units at mid-range densities. Subsequent planning approvals are expected within the next several years, however, development timing for the area would likely be coordinated with that of the adjacent Otay Ranch. The total number of low-income housing units estimated for the Land Swap properties is 37, with a commensurate total of 37 moderate-income housing units (5% /5%). Olvmpic Trainin!! Center (OTC) The Olympic Training Center facility, located on 160-acres adjacent to Lower Otay Reservoir will contain a variety of open sports fields, ancillary conference and training buildings, and 300-400 dormitory units for athletes. Construction of the OTC, which commenced in 1992, is expected to be phased over the next few years. Subsequent to approval of the OTC, the City Council authorized an amendment to the General Plan for the adjacent Vistas neighborhood in Eastlake III, to provide support commercial and residential land uses next to the OTC. The Eastlake Development Company has expressed interest in receiving affordable housing credits for the installation of athlete's dormitory units within the OTC. The Task Force has examined the potential and appropriateness of this approach, and while there was no consensus reached on this issue, the Task Force requested that further consideration be given to affordable housing credits for the OTC dormitories. B. Comoatibility with Zoning and Plans The primary site #1 is designated as residential medium-high which would permit 348 dwelling units at mid point of the density range. however. the current entitlement permits 4.5 2 A Development Agreement between the City of Chula Vista and the Eastlake Development Company covering the Eastlake III development area (also including the Eastlake Trails neighborhood). was approved in 1990. This agreement states that the City acknowledges that low and moderate income housing may be economically impractical to build at current density levels, and that the City agrees that it will consider granting Developer density bonuses and/or other incentives. WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STQRED\1020.9IRef. 1021.93.1022.93) Page 2 dwellling units per acre which would permit 108 dwelling units. By bringing the entitlement density into conformity with the General Development Plan density opportunities for the provision of affordable housing would be achieved. There are no adopted environmental plans or policies that could result in a conflict because of this project. There are no agricultural resources that would be impacted by this project. This project is on the edge of the EastLake project surrounded by a High School, a major utility element, the future SR- 125, a planned major street and an enclosed water storage facility . This project is at both a project level and a program level. Therefore, this environmental analysis must also be at both levels. The above analysis is at a project level of analysis for Phase I-Immediate effort. The following is a programmatic analysis of the Phase II Future- efforts of the EastLake Affordable Housing Program. Project site #9 may be in conflict with the GDP/GP, however, as with each of the project sites, more precise analysis will be necessary; this site may not appropriate for the proposed use. The project may be in conflict with the existing General Plan or zoning. However, as future proposals under the policies are developed they will be the subject of further and more detailed environmental analysis to determine the precise level of impact. Almost all of the project site has been used for agricultural purposes for over 100 years and much of the site has been graded. The exception is site #9 within the Phase II area. This potential site involves on site biological resources and is adjacent to the Salt Creek Maritime Coastal Sage habitat area. The evaluation of this site is at a Phase II programmatic level and must be further studied at the time of more specific analysis; this site may not be appropriate for further analysis. C. Identification of Environmental Effects An initial study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including the attached Environmental Checklist Form) determined that the proposed project could have one or more significant environmental effects. Specific mitigation measures will be implemented to reduce these effects to a level below significant. With mitigation, no significant environmental effects will occur, and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. This Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines. D. Mitigation necessarv to avoid significant effects Specific project mitigation measures are required to reduce potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the initial study for this project to a level below significant. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project. A. More precise development plans will be reviewed to determine if there is any potential impact with the existing General Plan or zoning designations. B. Site #9 in Phase II will be evaluated with future discretionary actions to determine what. if any, impact there will be on Maritime Coastal Sage. WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\1020.9!Ref. 1021.93.1022.93) Page 3 E. Mandatorv Findings of Significance 1. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? The project site has been used for agricultural purpose for over a hundred years; there are no significant resources present. There are no habitats of fish or wildlife present. Therefore, there will be no reduction of population levels below a self- sustaining level effected. There are no cultural resources present. 2. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? There are no long term environmental goals that specifically effect this project site or project. Therefore. there are no short-term impacts which will impact long-term goals. 3. Does the project have possible effects which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? As used in the subsection, "cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. The adoption of this Eastlake housing program will not have any cumulative adverse impacts on the environment. Rather, the program will promote a broader housing base with a wider range of housing prices and types. 4. Will the environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The proposed project is in compliance with threshold standards for fire, police, and other public services as discussed in the threshold section of the Initial Study. The project site will not cause significant environmental impacts to humans, either directly or indirectly. F. Consultation I. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Roger Daoust, Engineering Cliff Swanson, Engineering Hal Rosenberg, Engineering WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\1020.93:Ref. 1021.93.1022.93) Page 4 Bob Sennett, Planning Ken Larsen, Director of Building & Housing Carol Gove, Fire Marshal Crime Prevention, MaryJane Diosdada Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation Dept. Ann Moore, Assistant City Attorney Chula Vista City School District: Kate Shurson Sweetwater Union High School District: Tom Silva Applicant's Agent: Eastlake Affordable Housing Taskforce City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista. CA 91910 2. Documents Chula Vista General Plan (1989) and EIR (1989) Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code Draft of "A Program for the Provision of Affordable Housing within the Eastlake Community", Dec. 1994 3. Initial Studv This environmental determination is based on the attached Initial Study as well as any comments on the Initial Study and this Mitigated Negative Declaration, and reflects the independent judgement of the City of Chula Vista. Further information regarding the environmental review of the project is available from the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910. WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\1020.93:Ref. 1021.93,1022.93) Page 5 Case No. IS-95-21 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Name of Proponent: 15-95-21 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth A venue Chula Vista, CA 91910 3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: City of Chula Vista, 276 Fourth Ave. Chula Vista, CA, (619) 691-5101 4. Name of Proposal: EastLake Affordable Housing Program S. Date of Checklist: April 20, 1995 Page J WPC F \HOME\PLANNING\STORED\ 1718 94 I. LAND USE AND PLANNING, Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low- income or minority community)? Comments: The primary site # I is designated as residential medium-high which would permit 348 dwelling units at mid point of the density range. however, the current entitlement permits 4.5 dwellling units per acre which would permit 108 dwelling units. By bringing the entitlement density into conformity with the General Development Plan density this conflict for affordable housing would be achieved. POlenlian} Sil"ifkanl IlIIp'~1 Pote"ti.lI~ Significant Unit''' Mitigated No hnp,cl Luslhan Si,Dlfic.nt Impact D 181 D D D D 181 D D D 181 D D D 181 D There are no adopted environmental plans or policies that could result in a conflict because of this project. There are no agricultural resources that would be impacted by this project. This project is on the edge of the EastLake project surrounded by a High School, a major utility element. the future SR- 125. a planned major street and an enclosed water storage facility. This project is at both a project level and a program level. Therefore, this environmental analysis must also be at both levels. The above analysis is at a project level of analysis for Phase I-Immediate effort. The following is a programatic analysis of the Phase" Future-efforts of the EastLake Affordable Housing Program. Project site #9 may be in conflict with the GDP/GP, however, as with each of the project sites more precise analysis will be necessary; this site may not appropriate for the proposed use. The project may be in conflict with the existing General Plan or zoning. However, as future proposals under the policies are developed they will be the subject of further and more detailed environmental analysis to determine the precise level of impact. II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure )? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? D 181 D D o o o 181 D D D 181 ",PC F \.HO~JE\PL"'J.,,~Iy..;G\STORED\!718 Q~ Page 2 Polpnlia!l~ Significant ImpaCI Potpnli.all~' Significant l'nlus Mitij!:atpd Ln. than Significant Impart "'0 ImpaC! Comments: The proposal at a project level would not exceed any regional or local population projections with the exception of site #3 which would require a General Plan amendment to residential use. The number of units that would be produced would not create any significant impact. Phase II of the proposal is detailed enough to provide an analysis of even a policy level of analysis. This program level of analysis will be subject to further and more detailed environmental analysis prior to any consideration of future action. III. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential Impacts involving: a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in 0 0 0 181 geologic substructures" b) Disruptions. displacements. compaction or 0 0 0 181 overcovering of the soil? c) Change in topography or ground surface relief 0 0 0 181 features? d) The destruction. covering or modification of 0 0 0 181 any unique geologic or phy'sical features? e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, 0 0 0 181 either on or off the site" f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach 0 0 0 181 sands. or changes in siltation. deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay inlet or lake0 g) Exposure of people or property to geologic 0 0 0 181 hazards such as earthquakes. landslides. mud slides. ground failure. or similar hazards0 Comments: There are no Geographical conditions that would result in any significant environmental impact that would not be fully mitigated through standard development regulations which are in place. IV. WATER. Would the proposal resull in' a) Changes in absorption rates. drainage patterns. or the rate and amount of surface runoff? o o 181 o b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? o o o 181 c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g.. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? o o o 181 d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? o o o 181 Page 3 WPC FHO\IEPL>\'\""J,\'GSTORED 17]804 e) Changes in currents. or the course of direction of water movements. in either marine or fresh v..-aters? f) Change in the quantity of ground waters. either through direct additions or withdrawals. or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of ground\....ater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality" i) A Iterations to the course or flow of flood \J.,'aters? j) Substantial reduction in the amount of water othem ise available for public water supplies? Potrnli.lI~ POlrntialh Signifielnt Lns Ihan Signifieanl t"nlns Significant ~o Impael ~Iiligalrd Impan Impael 0 0 0 181 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 181 181 181 181 181 Comments: There wilJ be some increase in absorbtion rates. rate or amount of surface runoff. As was found in the EastLake FEIR and Greens/Trails and Greens SPA FSEIR"s these changes will not result in any significant. On a programatic basis there may. depending on precise plans there may be change in the discharge into the lower Otay reservoir it has been concluded form previous environmental documents (noted above) that this change \,'"ould not result in a significant environmcnta1 impact. V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal. a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? b) E'pose sensitive receptors to pollutantsO c) Alter air movement. moisture. or temperature. or cause any change in climate. either locally or regionally? d) Create objectionable odors" e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or non-stationary sources of air emissions or the deterioration of ambient air quaJity? o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 181 181 181 181 181 Comments: The project. at a project and program level. is in compliance with the projections of SANDAG Series 7 & 8 long range forecasts and does not violate any in quality standards. On a program level an alignment of SR-125 may expose residents to a higher level of air pollutants. This potential wi1l need further analysis when the precise route is known, as well as traffic volumes for the type of facility has been established. VI. TRANSPORT A TION/CIRCULA TION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion" o o 181 o \\PC FHO'!!: PL.-\'\\I'\GSTORED l~]S ,q Page 4 b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g.. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.. farm equipment)" c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site" e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts. bicycle racks)? g) Rail. waterborne or air traffic impacts? h) A "large project" under the Congestion Management Program" (An equivalent of 2400 or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or more peak-hour vehicle trips.) POIt"..tiall~' POIt"ntlall~ Significant LfI'u Iha.. Significant linlf'n Significant !'Iio Impact !\Iiligalt'd Impact Impart 0 0 0 181 0 0 0 181 0 0 0 181 0 0 0 181 0 0 0 181 o 181 o o o o 181 o Comments: The project. at a project level. would not result in any increase in vehicle trips. The change in land use in site #3 in Phase I could result in a reduction in the number of vehicle trips. There are no inadequate design elements that would result in any significant impacts. There are no conflicts with any alternative transportation modes and any change in trips would not constitute a "Iarge project" under the congestion management program. VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to' a) Endangered. sensitive species, species of concern or species that are candidates for listing? b) Locally designated species (e.g.. heritage trees)" c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest. coastal habitat. etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g.. marsh. riparian and vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors" f) Affect regional habitat preservation planning efforts? o o o 181 0 0 0 181 0 0 0 181 0 181 0 0 0 0 0 181 0 0 0 181 Comments: Almost all of the project site has been used for agricultural purposes for over 100 years and much of the site has been graded. The exception is site #9 within the Phase 11 are. This potential site involves on site biological resources and is adjacent to the Salt Creek Maritime Coastal Sage habitat area. The evaluation of this site is at a Phase II programmatic level and must be further studied at the time of more specific analysis; this site may not be appropriate for further analysis. WP( f "HO\IE .PL\""I"G.5TORED]718 <14 Page 5 Potfnli.lI~ PotfnliaJl) Si~nifiOlnt Ln! than Si~n;fi(anl lInlu! Signifinnt 1'\(1 Impa(1 ~1itigatfd Impa(t Impan VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal' a) Contlict with adopted energy conservation 0 0 181 0 plans" b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and 0 0 181 0 inefficient manner" c) If the site is designated for mineral resource 0 0 181 0 protection, will this project impact this protection? Comments: There are no adopted energy conservation plans that would be impacted by the proposed project. nor would there be no wasteful or insufficient consumption of resources in these areas of higher than typical densities in suburban development of past years. IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal inmh'e a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including. but not limited to: petroleum products. pesticides. chemicals or radiation)" b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? o o o 181 o o o 181 c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard" o o o 181 d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with tlammable brush. grass. or trees? o o o 181 o o o 181 Comments: The project as proposed, nor anything at the project site would result in an accidental explosion. release of hazardous substances, exposure of people to any of the above or to a fire hazard. There are no emergency or evacuation response plans that would be impacted by the proposed project. X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels" 0 0 181 0 b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0 0 0 181 Comments: The project will result in an increase in noise levels that is commensurate with other urbanized areas in the vicinity. There is a potential for exposure to noise levels from SR-125 and other high volume streets. Without specific traffic volumes and site and street designs specific mitigation measures can not be presented at this level of analysis. But this will be subject to a more detailed Programmatic analysis at a future time. Page 6 \\PC FHO\!EPL.-\'.''''J'\G STQREDI718 9~ POltntilllh Sip:nilkllnl Impllrt Pottnlillll} Significant lInlt~S Mi!iJliIl!td Ltu thlln Significllnt Impllct XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal hove an elfecl upon. or resu/l in a need for new or aliered govl!rnment services in an}' of the follmn'ng areus. a) Fire protection? 0 0 0 b) Police protection? 0 0 0 c) Schools" 0 0 0 d) Maintenance of public facilities. including 0 0 0 roads? e) Other governmental services? 0 0 0 ""0 Imllar! 181 181 181 181 181 Comments: All City Departments. any other effected public agencies have found that they will not be significantly impacted by the proposed project. Xtl. Thresholds. Will the proposal adversel)" impact the ell.. '.\ Threshald Standards? o o o 181 As described below. the proposed project does not adversely impact any of the seen Threshold Standards. aJ Fire/EMS The Threshold Standards requires that fire and medical units must be able to respond to calls within 7 minutes or less in 85% of the cases and within 5 minutes or less in 75% of the cases. The City of Chula Vista has indicated that this threshold standard will be met. since the nearest fire station is 2 miles away and would be associated with a 3-4 minutes response time. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: For Phase I there will be an adequate level of fire protection. For Phase" the programmatic element. will have to be evaluated for any requirements for a high level of service in later phases of EastLake. b) Police The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84% of Priority I calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority I calls of 4.5 minutes or less. Police units must respond to 62.10% of Priority 2 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls of 7 minutes or less. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: The Police Department will be adequate level of police protection for Phase I of the program. The program element will have to be evaluated at the time that Phase" of the project is further evaluated. WPC FHO\IEPL.-\'""SI'G,STORED ]718 <14 Page 7 P"I~n1ial\, SignificlIll1 Impllfl PO[l'n I i all ~ Sii:nifiunt l:nl~!! Mitigat~d Lns tllan Significant Impacl " Impart c) Traffic The Threshold Standards require that all intersections must operate at a Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) "0" may occur during the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections. Intersections west of 1-805 are not to operate at a LOS below their 1987 LOS. No interse.ction may reach LOS "E" or "F" during the average weekday peak hour. Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempted from this Standard. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: The Engineering Department has found that there will be no significant effect in maintaining adequate LOS standards for the project given the Public Facilities Financing Program for the project area and the necessary updates required for any revision. d) Parks/Recreation The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres/1.000 population. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: The Parks and Recreation Department has indicated that there will be adequate parks provided throughout the life of the project. e) Drainage The Threshold Standards require that storm water flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: The Engineering Department has found that there will be no significant impact on these services. f) Sewer The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project wi/I comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: The Engineering Department has found that there will be no significant impact on these services. g) Water The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage. treatment, and transmission facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. WPC f .HO~![ PL:\,\,\],\G.5TORED IllS <)~ Page 8 P(I!~n!iall~ Signilican! Impac! POlentialh Signilicant Coles! !'I1ieigaled Lns than Signilicant Impact !\o ImpRC! Comments: There has been any indication from water providing agencies that they will not be able to provide water services in accordance with the City's Threshold Standards. XIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems. or sunstantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Po\ver or natural gas" 0 0 0 r8I b) Communications systems? 0 0 0 r8I c) Local or regional \vater treatment or distribution 0 0 0 r8I facilities? d) Sc\\'er or septic tanks? 0 0 0 r8I eJ Storm water drainage? 0 0 0 r8I f) Solid waste disposal? 0 0 0 r8I Comments: All of the services are adjacent to the project or can be easily extended to serve to Phase I and Phase II sites. No agency has indicated any difficulty in providing any of these services. XIV. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal a) Obstruct an: scenic vista or view open to the public or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public vie\\ ? o o o r8I b) Cause the destruction or modification of a scenic route? o o o r8I c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? o o o r8I d) Create added light or glare sources that could increase the level of sky glow in an area or cause this project to fail to comply with Section ] 9.66. ]00 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Title 19? o o o r8I e) Result in an additional amount of spill jight? o o o r8I Comments: The project ]evel Phase I analysis and the Phase II program analysis do not provide enough detail to evaluate the Aesthetic impact of the proposal. Further analysis will be necessary as individual project sites reach discretionary approvals. XV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal a) Will the propos a] result in the alteration of or the destruction or a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? o o o r8I \\ PC r HO\1E PL""'\,],\G5TORED ]:]8 ()4 Page 9 d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area" e) Is the area identified on the City's General Plan EIR as an area of high potential for archeological resources" Comments: As was previously determined in the EastLake and EastLake Greens/trails documents. there are no archeologicallhistorical sites that would be directly or indirectly impacted by the proposed program. b) \Vill the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building. structure or object? c) Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? XVI. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will Ihe proposal result in the alteration of or the des/rue/ion qf pa/ronla/ogiea! resources? POI~nliall~ POlfnt;lIlI~ Signifi(anl Lru cha" SigRifklln! L.nlu~ Significlln! :0.;0 Impacl Mitigated Imparl Imparl 0 0 0 181 o o o 181 o o o 181 o o o 181 o o 181 o Comments: The project is in an area of potentially significant paleontological resources. Standard development regulations require that Paleo mitigation monitors be present during grading operation with the authority necessary to avoid any impact and assure the recovery of all discovered resources. XVII. RECREATION. Would ,he proposal a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or 0 0 0 181 regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities" 0 0 0 181 c) Interfere with recreation parks & recreation 0 0 0 181 plans or programs? Comments: As has been noted above impacts on existing recreational opportunities, future demands will be achieved through existing requirements and there will be no interference existing plans or programs. XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: See Negative Declaration for mandalory findings of significance If an EIR is needed. Ihis seclion should be compleled W?C F HO\IE PL'\''''.'\I'GSTORED]7189~ Page ]0 P(llentiall~ P(lI~nliall~ Significanl Less Ihan Significanl linin) Signifiunl ~n Impacl Mitigated Imparl Impacl a) Does the project have the potential to degrade 0 0 0 I8J the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species. cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods or California history or prehistory? Comments: Please refer to Section E. of the Negative Declaration. b) Does the project have the potential to achieve 0 0 0 I8J short-term. to the disadvantage of long-term. environmental goals? Comments: Please refer to Section E. of the Negative Declaration. c) Does the project have impacts that are 0 0 0 I8J individually limited. but cumulatively considerable" ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable \\-'hen viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects. and the effects of probable future projects.) Comments: Please refer to Section E. of the Negative Declaration. d) Does the project have environmental effect 0 0 0 I8J which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. either directly or indirectly" Comments: Please refer to Section E. of the Negative Declaration. WPC F HO\!F PL...."'\j'\GSTORED 17]8 cq Page 11 ENVIRONMENTAL FALORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project. involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. . Land Use and Planning D Transportation/Circulation D Public Services D Population and Housing . Biological Resources D Utilities and Service Systems D Geophysical D Energy and Mineral Resources D Aesthetics D Water D Hazards D Cultural Resources D Air Quality D Noise D Recreation D Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. and D a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment. . there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGA TlYE DECLARA nON will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment. and an D ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least D one effect: I) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentiaJIy significant impacts" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I~ Environmental Revie ,- City of Chula Vist if/Z,,/'5 Date I' WPC r HO\IEPL"";'\!'..;G5TORED 17]8 94 Page 12 Case No. /s - 7':- -_;1/ APPENDIX III CITY DATA SHEET PLANNING DEPARTMENT I. Current Zoning on site: NOM South -----pC (r-~IY'--') East p r 4/1- (~ - ) West () ( L"A i~-.....; \ , , -- Does the project confonn to the current zoning? 0...:.1 ~f L~ ~,,:....... - ~. fC- n. General Plan land use designation on site: NOM South East West Is the project compatible with the General Plan Land Use Diagram? ~v- Is the project area designated for conservation or open space or adjacent to an area so designated? ~. 1- I Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes? .....-vv,----- (If yes, describe the design techniques being used to protect or enhance the scenic quality of the route). m. Schools If the proposed project is residential. please complete the following: School Caoacitv Enrollment Units PrODOSed Generating Factors Students Generated From Proiect Elementary .30 Junior High Senior High .29 .10 IV. Remarks: +/"2'o/er&? Dak / WPCJ',\HOMNLA>INING\ST!JIlEI:NO:u.93 (Rei. 1021.931 (Rd. IO:I<J.931 Pagel Case No. /s 9'- - ~/ APPENDIX IV Comments Received During the Public Review Period L No Comments Were Received During the Public Review Period . WPC,F,\IIOMElfLANNING'5TORElNOn93 (Rd. 1021.93) (Ref. 1020.93) Case No. /.5 9,-, ::2/ FIRE DEPARTMENT A. What is the distance to the nearest fire station? And what is the Fire Depanment's estimated reaction time? fc" +~ .r\\~_~ -yYt1<-,,, .'s,x>-i-II c,-c F-<1h~\ak.e. \\,'*' -Jh~ dir-,.t(!lIC Q -\(~ +enf90\Cl..l"l .(1",e ",,4a..::k'Of\ .<;i)( i~ OWrox:. :J !hiie.-,:> I'W-"+,cr\ +Irn~ \ b .'~-4 mi",.. Ad(l.J.t-iOC\Cll ti me C'U\(L.d "/,;~OJ)CE'- f'5t, vY\o:\e.s w i\~ b'"- ~\ ve...~ c0heV\ ~?ec ;,--",e. S;~.s o..re. '1d.<1.vd;{';~. B. Will the Fire Depanment be able to provide an adequate level of fire protection for the proposed facility without an increase in equipment or personnel? 50" ~~b. A2di~~~ ~~C\=' =:r ~i~ ~ ~~e~s~Vl I ~; PfuQh+ 1 '" ~. r' '-I lo..ke [c..n. c. Remarks ....D..1cr€- cr'(11f1ie.nis 5 ?12 C, .C'; c. s i-ie ~ (H'e t.Li ; LLb e rYY~ d. € , {\(1 mea. whoQ.n 9;, l)i~@' , F Marshal 03 -14- 9s Date WPCJ','HOME\PLANNIN=roREI>\1022.93 (Ro{. 1021.93) (Rd. 1020.93) Page 6 Lf,BEL 7C3 APPLICATION CANNOT Bro _ _CEPTED UNLESS SITE PLAN IS FOLDED TO m INTO AN 8-1/2 X II FOLDER A. BACKGROUND 1. Project Title c.f>...~n.A-r Ii ~ H6~I...)b r>RP(P~ 2. Project Location (Street address or description) ~/A . INITIAL STUDY For Office Use Only . Case No. IS- '/5- V 'Dpsl Amnt. -c>- Receipt No. --&- Date Rec'd. <:-/ ~ Accepted by "IJ ~ Project No. FA-L.ln '1 Dpst. No. QQ:... _ I aPNo. . Related Case No. City of Chula Vista Application Form Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. Brief Project Description A ~tz4V\.- C.O~I""",...)6 I(\.A.PoJ..~.~."r.a..t1.",J Po ....., "'- I &.5 ""T2> ~ P (2.4.$ $ Jt..I-L. Lo...J' Wl.oDe.-aA-rlir /.-3 c. .-......c... j..\.cU>-IIo.I... ~"I,I!";;"~ Fo:>II! €A5Tt.-....tc-E: (b~S N-.JC fVrVlU:. . A~ 5V"1::"I...OP~ Name of Applicant r'.l""""" e)F- ,..u..... \1.... t.JI~~ Address 'Z.. 710 "'"'~ ""16- . Fax# Phone ~"'t, - 51 01 City c..\oW\.A LJ ,.....T1.- State C-A. Zip '" I q \ D Name of Preparer/Agent ~~~ 1!>A-~"6.L Address 2...1 ~ Fo~ I-\--Vi... ' Fax# City c.u.u..J>.. J, ...~ State c..p.. Relation to Applicant rF2-c>~or PLPrlt,..,fC,y'l.. Indicate all pennits or approvals and enclosures or documents required by the Environmental Review Coordinator. 3. 4. 5. 6. Phone /O"'tI-~'Z.,)4- Zip ~\,\O a. Pennits or approvals required. General Plan Amendment _ RezonejPrezone _ Grading Pennit _ Tentative Parcel Map Site Plan & Arcb. Review _ Special Use Pennit _ Design Review Application _ Tentative Subd. Map _ Redevelopment Agency OPA _ Redevelopment Agency DDA _ Public Project Annexation _ Specific Plan Conditional Use Pennit Variance _ Coastal Development X Other Pennit IT project is a General Plan Amendment and/or rezone, please indicate the change in designation from to b. Enclosures or documents (as required by the Environmental Review Coordinator). _ Grading Plan _ Parcel Map _ Precise Plan _ Specific Plan _ Traffic Impact Report Hazardous Waste Assessment Arch. Elevations = Landscape Plans _ Tentative Subd. Map _ Improvement Plans _ Soils Report _ Geotechnical Report _ Hydrological Study _ Biological Study _ Archaeological Study Noise Assessment - Other Agency Pennit ::& Other Page I WPC,F,WMNu.NNING'ST0RIDJ021.A.93 (R.f. 1020.93) (Rd. 1022.93) E. CERTIFICATION I, as owner/owner in escrow" Print name or w~~ ~ ~~ ,I\~A-I1~ W-O.J'S/~~ T"PtS4:- ~~ Print name HEREBY AFFIRM, that to the best of my belief, the statements and information herein contained are in all IeSpects true and COITeCt and that all known information concerning the project and its setting has been included in this application for an Initial Study of possible environmental impact and any enclosures for attachments thereto. Owner/Owner in Escrow Signature or t:--::; Date 2./11;/1:15 I I "If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name. WI'C,p:~021.A.93 (ltd. 1020.93) (ltd. 1022.93) Page 7 ATTACHMENT 5 DRAFT PROGRAM FOR THE PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING WITHIN THE EASTLAKE PLANNED COMMUNITY Prepared Bv: Eastlake Affordable Housing Task Force John Moot (Planning Commission), Chairman James Kell (Eastlake II), Vice Chairman Gary Bloch (Eastkake I) JR. de Jesus Chantengco (Lending/Finance) Dan Marcus (Non-Profit Housing) Bill Ostrem (Eastlake Development) Bob Snyder (Eastlake Development) City Staff Dave Gustafson, Assistant Director of Community Development Juan Arroyo, Housing Coordinator Duane E. Bazzel, Principal Planner Edgar Batchelder, Senior Planner Prepared For: The Chula Vista City Council December 21, 1994 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................. iii I. INTRODUCTION / BACKGROUND ................................. 1 A. Purpose of the Task Force and .Program ........................ 1 B. Public Involvement ........................................ 2 C. The Chula Vista Housing Element and Affordable Housing Program ................................. 2 II. EASTLAKE AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS ................. 3 A. Eastlake I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 B. East/ake II .............................................. 3 C. Eastlake III .............................................. 4 D Eastlake Land Swap .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 E. Olympic Training Center .................................... 4 III. EASTLAKE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM I STRATEGIES. . . . . . . . .. 6 A. Definitions of Affordable Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 B. Proposed Eastlake Affordable Housing Program I Strategy . . . . . . . . . .. 9 1. Site Selection Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9 2. Phase I - Immediate Efforts ........................... 11 a. Phase I Area Defined. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 b. Proposed Affordable Housing Site Locations and Attributes ................................ 11 c. Implementation of Phase I ....................... 13 3. Phase II - Future Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16 a. Phase II Area Defined .......................... 16 b. Proposed Affordable Housing Site Locations and Attributes ................................ 16 c. Implementation of Phase II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16 IV. SUMMARY OF NECESSARY IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS. . . .. . .. .. .. ... 19 A. Phase I Implementation Tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . .. 29 B. Phase II Implementation Tasks .............................. 20 APPENDICES -i- LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE NO. Figure A - Eastlake Neighborhoods and Surrounding Communities ....... 5 Figure B - Maximum Annual Household Income ..................... 7 Figure C - Affordable Rents and Sales Prices by Income Level and Unit Size ...................................... 8 Figure D - Market-rate Housing in Eastlake Greens. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Figure E - Potential Affordable Housing Sites ....................... 15 -ii- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In December, 1993, the City Council directed that a Task Force be formed for the purpose of recommending a comprehensive affordable housing program for the Eastlake Planned Community. This paper represents the Task Force recommendation for a two-phased implementation program, both short-term and long-term, that will achieve the goals and objectives of the City of Chula Vista Housing Element, that complies with related approvals for the Eastlake project, addresses Eastlake residents' concerns and input, and acknowledges contemporary economic constraints and opportunities. Affordable housing under the City's Affordable Housing Program is briefly defined as for-sale or rental housing units which are offered to qualified families whose income levels range from 50-80% of the regional median income (low-income), to 80-120% of the regional median income (moderate-income). The median income level in San Diego County for a family of four is currently $45,400. Financing or other creative techniques are used to make up the difference between market-rate sales/rental prices and those which families within these income levels can qualify for. Through research and discussion, the Task Force recognized that the quality of affordable housing projects today, in most cases, is the same as that provided through "market-rate" residential projects. These projects cannot be discerned as different from other quality development projects. To inform the community of their findings, the Task Force published articles in the Eastlake community newsletters and conducted a public forum at Eastlake High School. The Chula Vista Housing Element and City Council approvals for Eastlake require that a minimum of 10% of the approved units be provided as affordable housing and that one-half of those units qualify for low-income families. Based on a total of 6,958 residential housing units approved for development within Eastlake Greens, Trails, Woods, Vistas and remaining undeveloped portions of Eastlake, a total of 696 low and moderate-income housing units will be provided. Within the Greens (Phase I Implementation), a total of 320 units, and in remaining areas (Phase II Implementation), a total of 376 units. This affordable housing program identifies a total of 9 proposed affordable housing sites, all of which will require additional evaluation and approvals prior to final site selections. Phase I of this program, representing short-term implementation tasks, consists of the provision of 160 low-income housing units on a 24-acre parcel of land located directly south of Eastlake High School. It is estimated that approvals could be obtained and construction begin within 24 months of adoption of this program. The Task Force determined that all of the required moderate-income housing units can and are being provided throughout Eastlake Greens. Alternative low-income housing sites have been -iii- identified within or adjacent to the Greens if all 160 low-income units, required within the Greens, cannot be achieved on the 24-acre site. Phase II consists of a long-term implementation plan for providing affordable housing units within all remaining undeveloped areas within Eastlake. The provision of affordable housing will be addressed progressively at each future level of planning evaluation and approvals (e.g., General Development Plans, Sectional Planning Area Plans and Tentative and Final Subdivision Maps). Affordable housing will be addressed at each level of project approval and timetables will be set for performance on various tasks including affordable housing agreements and building permit phasing schedules. Using this program as a guide for the provision of affordable housing within future development areas of Eastlake, it is expected that development of future affordable housing units will be commensurate with geographical development phasing. At the end of this report a section has been included that summarizes the implementation tasks necessary to be performed at each phase of the development process. This information serves as a summary of the Phase I and Phase II implementation tasks and will function as a quick reference, outlining the actions that have to take place in order to implement the program. -iv- I. INTRODUCTION I BACKGROUND A. Purpose of Task Force and Program In December, 1993, the City Council directed that a Task Force be formed of residents from the EastLake community, professional representatives familiar with affordable housing provisions, a member of the Planning Commission and representatives from the EastLake Development Company, for the purpose of recommending a comprehensive affordable housing program for the EastLake Planned Community that: (1) addresses needs. identified in the City's Housing Element, (2) complies with related provisions of current government approvals for the EastLake project, (3) addresses EastLake residents' COncerns and input, and (4) acknowledges contemporary economic constraints and opportunities inherent to implementing alternative affordable housing solutions. This paper represents the Task Force's recommendation to the City Council for an affordable housing program for EastLake. The structure of the program implementation consists of a phased approach, with the first phase to be implemented in the short-term, and the second phase to be refined and implemented commensurate with the geographic development plans over time. The Task Force recognized that there is a strong need to inform the community of what constitutes the makeup of wage earners that actually fall into the various income groups targeted for affordable housing. In other words, the typical wage earners and the occupations associated with affordability levels often represent people that we all work or deal with every day. Another recognition of the Task Force was that the quality of affordable housing projects, in most cases, cannot be discerned from other quality development projects. The Eastlake Affordable Housing Task Force has researched successful affordable housing programs locally and in other areas of the state and have found many common myths to be false. What is true are the following factors: 1. Affordable homes today are designed and built to look like surrounding neighborhoods. 2. People who rent or buy affordable housing are as stable and community-spirited as those who live in higher-priced homes. They belong to the PTA, the Neighborhood Watch, and sell Girl Scout cookies. -1- 3. Many if not most people who buy or rent affordable housing already live in the community or are people you know at work. 4. The presence of affordable homes in a community does not affect the property values of surrounding higher-priced homes. C. Public Involvement In order to create and keep open a channel of communication, particularly with Eastlake residents, the Task Force: 1. Published a brief article in the August 1994 "Currents" and "GreensView" newsletters announcing the Task Force's existence and purpose, and phone numbers for Eastlake representatives as well as City staff. 2 Published a second article in the September 1994 "Currents" and "Greens View", profiling information about who affordable housing is for and the importance of providing it. The article also announced the location and date for an upcoming public forum on affordable housing 3. Held a public forum at Eastlake High School on September 29, 1994, to present the Task Force's findings and proposed program for providing required affordable housing within the Eastlake planned community, and to receive community input and reaction to the proposed program. The forum, which involved a presentation by the Task Force, a non-profit affordable housing provider (Bridge), and City staff, was attended by 10 to 15 EastLake residents. Appendix A, attached hereto, contains questions that were asked at the forum and responses to those questions. D. The Chula Vista Housing Element and Affordable Housing Program The City of Chula Vista, along with all other cities in California, is required by State Law to have a Housing Element as a component of its General Plan. It describes the housing needs of the community, and the responses necessary to fulfill them. State law requires that Housing Elements be updated every five years. The Housing Element of 1991 contains numerous objectives and related action programs. Key among these is the Affordable Housing Program (AHP) which was conceived as a response to the onset of large-scale -2- master planned communities. The AHP applies to projects involving 50 or more housing units and requires the reservation of 10% of the development's housing units for low and moderate-income households, with at least one-half of those (or 5% of the total units) for low-income households. II. EASTLAKE AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS A. Eastlake I - Hills, Shores, Village Center, Business Center Phase I. The Eastlake I development, which includes the Hills and Shores residential neighborhoods, was approved in 1985, and includes a total of 1,834 units, of which 101 low-income housing units were provided. These residential neighborhoods have been completed with a resultant total of 9 low-income units constructed in excess of the minimum requirement. This Program will address the following partially or undeveloped portions of Eastlake. B. Eastlake II - Greens, Trails. The Eastlake II development was approved in November, 1989, and authorized a total of 4,034 housing units involving both the Greens and Trails neighborhoods. The Greens included 2,774 housing units and the Trails 1,260 units. In December, 1993, the City Council considered and approved an amendment to the General Plan for 44 acres within the Greens which resulted in the potential increase of 418 units to the Greens. Subsequent approvals by the City will be required to establish the exact number of units, however, this could bring the total number of units within the Greens and Trails to 4,452. At present, only about 32% of the approved units (1,032 units) within the Greens have been completed or have started construction and .no units have final authorization for construction within the Trails. The total number of low-income housing units required to be constructed within the Greens is 160', with a commensurate total of 160 moderate- income housing units (5% /5%). Affordable housing requirements for the Trails amounts to a total of 63 low-income and 63 moderate-income units (5% / 5%). I The City Council authorized the totallow.income housing units for the Greens to be reduced to 4% of the project requirement (128 units), with 6% for moderate-income units (192 units), if it is found that a total of 5% low-income units are not found to be feasible. See footnote #2 for additional provisions applied to the Trails. -3- C. Eastlake III . Woods, Vistas, Business Center Phase II, Olympic Training Center. The Woods and Vistas have General Development Plan-level approvals for a total of 1,767 housing units, which would amount to 88 low and 88 moderate-income units (5% / 5%).2 Subsequent levels of City Council approval will still be required prior to authorization to construct units within the Woods and Vistas. D. Eastlake Land Swap In 1990, Eastlake Development Company and the Baldwin Company executed an exchange of adjacent land holdings to create more logical geographic planning boundaries between the Eastlake and Otay Ranch development projects; hence the reference "Land Swap". The Land Swap area contains 161 acres and is authorized at the General Plan-level only which would authorize approximately 739 units at mid-range densities. Subsequent planning approvals are expected within the next several years, however, development timing for the area would likely be coordinated with that of the adjacent Otay Ranch. The total number of low-income housing units estimated for the Land Swap properties is 37, with a commensurate total of 37 moderate-income housing units (5% / 5%). E. Olvmpic Trainina Center (OTC) The Olympic Training Center facility, located on 160-acres adjacent to Lower Otay Reservoir will contain a variety of open sports fields, ancillary conference and training buildings, and 300-400 dormitory units for athletes. Construction of the OTC, which commenced in 1992, is expected to be phased over the next few years. Subsequent to approval of the OTC, the City Council authorized an amendment to the General Plan for the adjacent Vistas neighborhood in Eastlake III, to provide support commercial and residential land uses next to the OTC. The Eastlake Development Company has expressed interest in receiving affordable housing credits for the installation of athlete's dormitory units within the OTC. The Task Force has examined the potential and 2 A Development Agreement betwcen the City of Chula Vista and the Eastlake Development Company covering the Eastlake III development area (also including the Eastlake Trails neighborhood), was approved in 1990. This agreement states that the City acknowledges that low and moderate income housing may be economically impractical to build at current density levels, and that the City agrees that it will consider granting Developer density bonuses and/or other incentives. -4- appropriateness of this approach, and while there was no consensus reached on this issue, the Task Force requested that further consideration be given to affordable housing credits for the OTe dormitories. FIGURE A EASTLAKE NEIGHBORHOODS AND SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES Salt Creek Ranch 0I8y Ranch VilJ.ge 11 II C~~~ Eastern Urben Center r.:J ~~'K~ -5. ~ III. EASTLAKE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM I STRATEGIES A. Definitions of Affordable Housing In September, 1993, SANDAG prepared common definitions to be used by all the jurisdictions to account for new affordable housing units, especially those added by the private sector. The resulting annual income figures according to income group and family size, and affordable rent and sales prices by unit size are presented in Figures Band C respectively. What the exhibits show are the various income qualification levels for not only low-income (80% of median income) and moderate-income (120% of median income). but also verv low-income (50% of median income). The median income today in San Diego, for a family of four, is $45,400 per year. The provision of an adequate amount of affordable housing is a problem throughout Southern California, including Chula Vista. Over the past two decades, housing prices have soared ahead of family incomes. Today, the average price of a two-bedroom home in Chula Vista is $157,900. Additionally, workers' salaries have increased modestly or remained stagnant in recent years. Today's median income of $45,400 a year for a family of four in the San Diego region is barely enough to afford the basic three-bedroom house. Home ownership for many people has been out of the question. The affordable housing shortage is no means confined to for-sale housing. Being able to afford the average monthly rent for apartments in Chula Vista is a major problem for those working people whose incomes are below 50 percent of the median ($22,700). Appendix D identifies employment profiles, based on a family of four, by income group. This exhibit effectively demonstrates the types of occupations that typically fall within the targeted affordable housing income levels. As an example, an Accountant" earns approximately $36,300 a year. If this individual were supporting a family of four, this would qualify the family within the low- income range. The most significant factor in providing for-sale and rental of market-rate homes to buyers that cannot qualify due to their income level, is providing a means to eliminate the difference between affordability levels and actual loan or rental costs. This difference, known as the "affordability gap", must be eliminated in order to make market-rate homes available for lower-income families. There are a variety of ways to reduce or remove this gap, many of which take the form of subsidies which are provided -6- through many different sources. An example of what these programs consist of is listed in Appendix B to this report. FIGURE B MAXIMUM ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME BY FAMILY SIZE AND INCOME GROUP * ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME LEVELS . FY 1994-95 ** Family Size Very Low Law Median Moderate Above Mod. (50%) (80%) (100%) (120%) (121%+) 1 15,900 25,400 31,800 38,150 38,151+ 2 18,150 29,050 36.300 43.600 43.601+ 3 20,450 32,700 40.850 49.050 49.051+ 4 22,700 36,300 45,400 54.500 54.501+ 5 24,500 39,200 49.050 58.850 58.851+ 6 26,350 42,150 52,650 63.200 63,201 + 7 28,150 45,050 56,300 67,600 67,601+ 8 29,950 47,950 59,950 71.950 71,951+ . Table data derived from HUD Fiscal Year 1994-95 Income Limits for San Diego County as published May 31, 1994. and obtained from the State Department of Housing And Community Development .. Percentages shown are of median income; resulting figures reflect the maximum allowable income for the respective income category. -7- FIGURE C AFFORDABLE RENTS AND SALES PRICES BY INCOME LEVEL AND UNIT SIZE . FY 94-95 FY 94-95 FY 94-95 No. of Affordable Housing Affordable Level of Income Bedrooms Rents Expense ** Sales Very Very Low Studio $171 $204 1 239 272 $32,670 2 298 341 40,860 3 339 395 47,385 4 382 450 53,955 5 432 504 60,480 Very Low Studio $307 $340 1 421 454 $54,450 2 525 568 68,100 3 602 658 78,975 4 677 749 89,925 5 768 840 100,800 Low Studio $512 $545 1 693 726 $87,120 2 865 908 108,960 3 997 1,053 126,360 4 1,127 1,199 143,880 5 1,272 1,344 161,280 Moderate Studio $784 $817 1 1,056 1,089 $130,680 2 1,319 1,362 163,440 3 1,524 1,580 189,540 4 1,727 1,799 215,820 5 1,944 2,016 241,920 . Figures in this table apply a persons-per-bedroom rate in determining the family size whose annual income is then used to derive the affordable rates shown. ** Applies to rental housing, and reflects a monthly utility allowance. -8- B. Proposed Eastlake Affordable Housing Program I Strategy As a result of the phased implementation of the Greens project and future development scenarios for the remaining EastLake holdings, it appears that a phased affordable housing program would best meet short-term performance requirements, and allow enough flexibility to respond to economic conditions through the remainder of the project. Figure E identifies potential low-income housing sites that, however, have not received development entitlements. Targeted moderate-income units (80-120% of median income) within Eastlake have been found to be adequately provided through market-rate housing units that are proposed in subsequent phases or have already been provided. This is demonstrated in Figure D. The Task Force decided that since the moderate-income housing units will be provided and dispersed throughout the development. that the primary focus of the Program should be targeting low-income units (50-80% of median income). 1 . Site Selection Criteria Each of the potential sites identified on Figure E must be analyzed through subsequent levels of planning analysis and review and ideally be selected based on the following selection criteria. With the exception of the following Phase I requirements, this Program is in no way meant to prejudice future siting considerations for affordable housing. The City Council shall have full and independent authority to decide on the appropriateness of each of the potential sites, or others that may be identified in the future. In determining the appropriate locations for affordable housing sites, the following selection criteria should be used: a. Units should be located near public transit facilities, including bus routes. b. Units should be located within walking distance (ideally 1/4 mile) of retail commercial services and support services. c. Units should be located near public park facilities, however, most of the projects will be provided internal open space. d. Every effort should be made to make targeted sites compatible with adjacent residential (i.e., densities, design, etc.). -9- FIGURE D MODERATE-INCOME HOUSING IN EASTLAKE GREENS Units Below Units from Units from Project Bed/Bath $163,440 $163,440 to $189,540 $189,540 to $215,820 RGC 2/2 33 (Lot R-22) 3/2 68 37 CYPRESS 3/2 51 (Lot R-14) 4/2 35 CLASSICS 2/2 35 (Lot R-24 3/2 42 & 25) 4/2 47 MASTERSI 2/2 13 BRISTOLWOOD 3/2 93 (Lot R-17) 4/2 38 VILLAS 2/2 33 (Lot R-19) 3/2 81 (Lot R-20) 3/2 55 4/2 54 TOTAL 182 441 92 Note The total moderate-income housing requirement for Eastlake Greens and remaining undeveloped areas is 348 units. or 5% of the total number of authorized units. Based on the above table. at least 715 moderate-income units are expected to be provided within Eastlake. -10- 2. Phase I - Immediate Efforts a. Phase I Area Defined. The Phase I area of the EastLake Affordable Housing Program consists of the entire EastLake Greens Master Tentative Subdivision Map area, including those portions of the Eastlake Land Swap incorporated as part of a revision to the EastLake Greens Master Tentative Subdivision Map approved by the City Council in August, 1994.3 The total number of units within the Phase I area is 3,192 units. b Proposed Affordable Housing Site Locations and Attributes. The following sites have been targeted as proposed low- income housing site(s) within or adjacent to the EastLake Greens community. One site has been identified as the primary site for the provision of housing units targeted for low-income families, and it is anticipated that this site will be built on within the next two years. Two secondary sites are also identified in case the primary site cannot absorb the total Phase I requirement of units (160 units). Moderate- income sites are anticipated to be distributed throughout the Greens neighborhood and have not been graphically identified (1) Site #1 - Primary site Site #1, depicted on Figure E (also identified as Parcel R-26 on the Greens SPA plan), is a 24-acre parcel of land located directly south of EastLake High School and the S.D.G. & E. utility easement. This parcel is bounded on the west by the SR125 right-of- way, on the east by EastLake Parkway and on the south by the future extension of East Palomar Street and a large enclosed water storage facility. The General Plan Land Use Diagram designates this property as "Residential Medium-High" (RMH), however, current entitlements permit only 4.5 dwelling units per acre. A General Development Plan and ) As a resu1t of a City Council-approved Tentative Subdivision Map condition which deferred the Greens affordable housing requirements in 1989, a unique situation exists which has permined development to proceed within this planned community without targeting the construction of low-or moderate-income housing units. As a result of this condition. the Greens has approximately 1/3 of its 3.192 units completed, therefore, this Program anticipates the provision of affordable housing units in the short-term. -11- SPA Plan Amendment will be required to enact the RMH General Plan designation and, if approved at mid-range densities, the property could permit up to 348 total units. The City Council approved the General Plan density increase on this parcel after considering compatibility with adjacent land uses, the need to provide a balance of housing product types and the increased opportunity to meet the Greens affordable housing requirements. This site has been reviewed by the Task Force for compatibility with the selection criteria identified previously. The Task Force has found that the site is compatible with adjacent land uses, is located along a future express bus transit route, and is approximately 1/4 mile from a community park and a future retail shopping center. (2) Site #2 - Secondary site Site #2, depicted on Figure E (also identified as Parcel R-9 on the Greens SPA Plan), is a 20-acre parcel located west of the S.O.G. & E. easement, immediately north of future East Orange Avenue and east of EastLake Parkway. This site is combined with a 25-acre parcel of land located within the Land Swap area, also located south and west of the S. O. G. & E. easement, immediately adjacent to Eastlake Parkway.. Access to Site #2 will likely be provided from EastLake Parkway. However, this site will require Prezoning and Annexation, the approval of a General Development Plan and SPA Plan and the extension of infrastructure (e.g., roadway, sewer, water, etc.). Site #2 is identified as a supplemental site for the provision of the balance of the 160 low-income units required as part of Phase I of the EastLake Affordable Housing Program. The Task Force has reviewed Site #2 and finds that this site also meets the selection criteria identified previously. (3) Site #3 - Alternative Secondary site . Site #3, depicted on Figure E, is a 17-acre site located west offuture SR-125 and south of Telegraph Canyon Road. This site is bounded on the west by the S.O.G. & E. easement and future single family -12- residential development included in Village 5 of the Otay Ranch. This site is currently designated as "Professional and Administrative" (permits commercial office) on the General Plan Land Use Diagram. An alternate secondary site has been selected for the following reasons: (a) Site #2 may not be developable within a reasonable timeframe due to delays in the provision of infrastructure (e.g., extension of roads and utilities), and (b) Site #3, if land use relationships are found to be compatible through further planning analysis, has earlier development potential due to proximity to support services, minimal infrastructure needs, and close access to transportation facilities. A revision to the General Plan, Prezoning and Annexation of the property, and the approval of a Precise Plan would be required to implement the site as a low-income housing site. c. Implementation of Phase I. (1) Performance Criteria The Eastlake Development Company, or its successors, shall enter into a Affordable Housing Agreement (AHA) with the City of Chula Vista to construct 160 low-income housing units on Site #1, as identified above. If all 160 low-income housing units cannot be provided on Site #1, then the agreement shall include provisions for the construction of the remaining units on Site #2 or #3. The Agreement shall delineate how and when the units will be provided, including intended subsidies, income/rent restrictions and methods to verify compliance. Also included, shall be specific details regarding site location, number of units, mix of bedrooms for targeted units and the principals involved in the funding and construction of the units. The Agreement shall also identify the number, location and pertinent financial data regarding the 160 moderate-income housing units to be located within the Greens neighborhood, subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development Department. -13- (2) Enforceability The Affordable Housing Agreement for Phase I of the Eastlake Affordable Housing Program shall be executed prior to the issuance of the 2.230th building permit for the Eastlake Greens subdivision. This benchmark is estimated to represent 70% of the Greens project. Building Permits for those targeted units to be developed on Site #1 shall be issued prior to approval of the 2,550th unit of the Eastlake Greens subdivision. This represents approximately 80% of the units within the Eastlake Greens subdivision. Building Permits for the remaining Phase I low- income units targeted for Site #2 or #3 (if necessary) shall be issued prior to approval of the 3.030th unit of the Eastlake Greens subdivision, or 95% of the units within the Eastlake Greens subdivision. The ex1ension of infrastructure may dictate this delay in the provision of low-income housing units. The above benchmarks for performance are intended to allow sufficient time for appropriate planning and document approvals, and to ensure that affordable housing units are constructed in a timely manner along with other market-rate housing. If compliance with the above policies are not adhered to, the City shall not issue additional building permits for the Eastlake Greens subdivision until full compliance is guaranteed. (3) Potential Multiple Family Project The City has initiated discussions between experienced non-profit affordable housing developers and Eastlake about the possibility of developing a large apartment complex (120-160 units) on Site #1 for lower income families in Eastlake. Many non- profit builders have ex1ensive experience in developing successful affordable housing projects throughout California. In light of recent discussions, the likelihood of short-term Phase I implementation -14- appears positive. It is anticipated that, based on the Eastlake Development Company's construction schedule and site negotiations, Site #1 could be developed within 24 months of the date of this program's adoption. FIGURE E POTENTIAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING SITES PHASE I AREA I r E LEGEND o Potential Affordable Houling Sites PHASE I AREA PHASE II AREA -15- ~ .... 3. Phase II - Future Efforts a. Phase II Area Defined The area defined as Phase 1/ of the EastLake Affordable Housing Program consists of all of the remaining undeveloped areas within the EastLake community, as graphically depicted in Figure E. These areas include the Trails, Woods, Vistas, Village Center, Business Center and the Land Swap. b. Proposed Affordable Housing Site Locations and Attributes As a result of the uncertainty of future amendments being contemplated by Eastlake Development Company, as well as unknowns regarding future economic conditions, Phase II is not intended to be specific in terms of exactly where the ultimate affordable housing sites for future Eastlake development will occur, but rather give some idea of where potential sites might be located, set up the regulatory framework for future approvals, and provide guidelines for implementation. Phase 1/ shall be refined and appropriate steps taken, as described below, concurrent with approval of the first SPA Plan for the Woods, Trails, Vistas and remaining Land Swap areas. Figure E depicts a total of nine potential affordable housing sites that may be selected to provide future low income units to be developed concurrent with those development areas. As stated previously in Phase I, these sites will require additional planning review and analysis and consideration of the site selection criteria discussed previously in Section 3D. These proposed sites may also require, in most cases, consideration of density transfers, increases and/or shifting of land use locations. c. Implementation of Phase 1/ (1) Performance Criteria / Enforceability General Development Plan Amendments Concurrent with the submittal of any revised General Development Plan for the Trails, Woods and/or Vistas the Eastlake Development Company, or its -16- successors, shall identify the type and location of proposed affordable housing site(s). Proposed housing sites shall be reviewed for consistency with this program and where there are differences proposed, these shall be identified and addressed in the General Development Plan. SPA Plans Each of the SPA Plans submitted for future development areas, including the Trails, Woods and Vistas, shall contain an affordable housing component which shall be consistent with the governing General Development Plan and with this Program. The City's Housing Coordinator shall notify the Housing Advisory Commission, and other interested parties, of pending SPA hearings. The following information shall be provided within subsequent SPA plans within the Phase II area: (a) Consistency with Affordable Housing Programs The SPA plan housing section shall identify how the plan is consistent with the City of Chula Vista Housing Program as well as the Eastlake Affordable Housing Program. (b) Location of Affordable Housing Units - The SPA plan housing section shall identify where the affordable units will be located, by income group, number, type and tenure. (c) Phasing of Affordable Housing Units - The SPA plan housing section shall include an acceptable phasing program for the timely provision of the affordable housing component in the earliest development phase as possible. -17- (e) Identify all local, state and federal incentive and funding programs - The SPA plan housing section shall identify all funding programs which will be employed to provide the reserved units, including but not limited to density bonus programs, tax exempt mortgage revenue bond financing, and the use of non-profit partners. Where density bonuses are intended, the SPA plan shall indicate the following: . the area or areas where such bonuses are to be applied; . the number of bonus units and total project units within those area(s); . the increased level of infrastructure necessary to accommodate the units; . the income level of affordability of the bonus units; . whether the bonus units are for families or senior citizens; . the duration of reservation. (f) Alternate building technologies/materials Indicate the extent to which alternate building technologies and/or materials are proposed to be used in both market rate and restricted units. (g) Affordable Housing Agreement(s) The housing component of each SPA Plan shall identify the timing and contents expected with the adoption of a Affordable Housing Agreement(s) (AHA) which will guarantee the provision of the housing units described in the plan. The formulation of such agreement(s) shall be handled in a tiered fashion, starting at the SPA level and progressing in specificity -18- and detail through subsequent planning processes, with final project-specific agreements required prior to the recordation of the respective final subdivision map, or final project approval where the subdivision of land is not involved. The following is an example of the information to be contained in a agreement(s): . Site acquisition, pre-development and development. The general financing strategies, the roles and commitments anticipated of the various players, including the City, Eastlake and/or non-profits to bring projects about. Site development issues, density bonus', DIF payment deferrals, or any other concessions or special processing considerations to be requested of the City. . Tenant / Owner Assistance. Define/describe, based on any identified affordability "gaps", the type and amount of individual household assistance programs which may be needed to provide units to qualifying families. Identify any issues this might present to marketing, sales and/or lending circumstances for the project developer or Eastlake Development Company. -19- IV. SUMMARY OF NECESSARY IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS In order to ensure implementation of the various provisions of the Eastlake Affordable Housing Program / Strategies as presented in this document, it will be necessary for both the City and Eastlake Development Co. to meet certain milestones during the course of future planning and permit processing for the Eastlake Community over both the near and longer-term. The following is thereby provided to clearly identify those actions required of the City Council, staff, and/or Eastlake Development Co. during the continued processing of the combined Eastlake projects so that prerequisites and commitments necessary to eventually construct the affordable housing units are achieved in a timely manner. Such prerequisites and commitments could range from input on the necessity for any General Plan Amendments or prezonings to create sufficient density, and/or the need for the City to consider density transfers or clustering, housing product type mixes, or special financial incentives during the review of future GDP, SPA and Tentative Map applications. A. PHASE I IMPLEMENTATION TASKS SITE #1 1. General Development Plan (GDP) Amendment Applicant shall submit applications and obtain approvals for an amendment to the Eastlake II General Development Plan, 2. Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Applicant shall submit applications and obtain approvals for an amendment to the Eastlake Greens SPA. 3. Design Review Committee Applicant shall submit applications and obtain approvals for the site plan and architectural design from City's Design Review Committee. 4. Affordable Housing Agreement Applicant shall negotiate and execute an agreement with the City of Chula Vista for the guarantee of the prescribed number of affordable housing units. -20- SITE #2 (Lot R-9 of Eastlake Greens)4 1. General Development Plan Amendment Applicant shall submit applications and obtain approvals for an amendment to the Eastlake II General Development Plan (for Site #2) 2. Submit Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Applicant shall submit applications and obtain approvals for an amendment to the Eastlake Greens SPA. 3. Design Review Committee Applicant shall submit applications and obtain approvals for the site plan and architectural design from City's Design Review Committee. 4. Affordable Housing Agreement Applicant shall negotiate and execute an agreement with the City of Chula Vista for the guarantee of the prescribed number of affordable housing units. SITE #3 (If further planning analysis determines that this site meets the criteria as a affordable housing site) 1. General Plan Amendment Applicant shall submit applications and obtain approvals for a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation for Site #3 from "Commercial Professional & Administrative" to "Residential Medium-High" (11-18 du/ac). . Site #2 is designated primarily as Lot R-9" of Eastlake Greens, however, a portion of the Eastlake Landswap may be considered for Phase I implementation if the number of Iow.income housing units for Phase I (160 units) are not accommodated on Site #1. Implementation would require approval of a Prezoning and Genera! Development Ptan. Annexation, SPA Plan, Tentative Subdivision Map, Affordable Housing Agreement, Final Subdivision Map and Design Review Committee approvals. -21- 2. Prezoning Applicant shall submit applications and obtain approvals for a prezoning of the 17 acre site to an appropriate Muliple-family Residential zone. 3. Annexation Applicant shall submit applications and obtain approval from the City and LAFCO for annexation into the City of Chula Vista. 4. Design Review Committee Applicant shall submit application and obtain approvals for the site plan and architectural design from City's Design Review Committee. 5. Affordable Housing Agreement Applicant shall negotiate and execute an agreement with the City of Chula Vista for the guarantee of the prescribed number of affordable housing units. B. PHASE II IMPLEMENTATION TASKS (Implementation tasks are similar as those stated for Phase I above) 1. General Development Plan Amendment 2. Annexation 3. Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan 4. Tentative Subdivision Map 5. Affordable Housing Agreement 6. Final Subdivision Map 7. Design Review Committee -22- APPENDICES APPENDIX A - APPENDIX B- APPENDIX C- APPENDIX D- APPENDIX E- ("SSUE1C PAP) Responses to Questions Asked at Public Forum Programs and Techniques for the Provision of Affordable Housing Affordable Housing Requirements and Implementation Status Employment Profiles by Income Group Glossary of Terms APPENDIX A APPENDIX A RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED AT A PUBLIC FORUM HELD ON SEPTEMBER 29, 1994 AT EASTLAKE HIGH SCHOOL Question: Why was there not more emphasis on home ownership opportunities versus rentals? ReSDonse: There is and will be an adequate supply of for-sale affordable housing provided by market forces in Eastlake Greens. Three of the projects currently being built and sold qualify as housing for moderate-income families as defined by the affordable housing task force. Housing for low- income families will be designed and built to the same standards as housing for families in higher-income housing. Quality rental housing has always been contemplated as being a part of the Eastlake community plan. The emphasis here is quality which will apply to the affordable housing that will be designed and built for Eastlake Question: Will the apartment tenants belong to the homeowners association and be able to use the facilities? ReSDonse. It is not known yet whether the affordable housing residents will have their own common area facilities and/or whether they will have access to the homeowners' association facilities. If they do use homeowners' association facilities, their use will be paid for in dues just like other resident members of the association. There will be no free use of homeowners' association facilities by any residents. Question: Who's going to enforce the CC & Rs and take action on any violations? ReSDonse: The property management company, as part of its contract to manage the housing units, will be required to enforce the homeowners' association CC & Rs as part of its overall management responsibilities of the property. Question: Will the affordable housing owners be required to pay Mello-Roos? ReSDonse: Yes. The Mello-Roos financing mechanism runs with the land, irrespective of what income level of housing is built. A-2 Question: Are you going to spread out the affordable housing units throughout the community to avoid over-concentration or ghettos? ReSDonse' First, it's important to keep in mind the affordable housing that will be built in Eastlake is designed and built to the same appearance and construction standards as housing for other families. The people who already live and work in the community. Various affordable housing projects will be located throughout the community. Question: Will anyone neighborhood, such as Eastlake Greens, have to carry the brunt of the affordable housing requirement for the entire community? ReSDonse' No, The sites will be located in areas now being developed as well as areas where future development will occur. Question: Will the non-profit builder be local or from out-of-town? ReSDonse A non-profit provider is represented on the Eastlake Affordable Housing Task Force and it is expected that participation by local non-profits in providing the needed affordable housing for the Eastlake community will occur. A-3 APPENDIX B APPENDIX B PROGRAMS AND TECHNIQUES FOR THE PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING The following is a list of programs and strategies which have been successfully implemented in the past which are designed to close the afford ability gap, depending on the uniqueness of each household. These programs however, like most financial resources are limited and in most cases not sufficient to meet the great need which exists for affordable housing. Additional efforts are needed to continue to identify more methods and techniques for the provision of affordable housing. Affordable Housina Assistance Proarams Development Stage . Density Bonus - 20% of units set aside for low-income households, reduction in site development standard and or other regulatory concessions. . Joint Venture Partnerships - Private and non-profit developers join together each bringing unique incentives to table. . Fee Waiver/Reduction - Development fee reduction contribution in exchange for concessions. . Land Set Asides - If unit construction by developer not feasible equitable donation of building site for other entity to build. . In Lieu Contributions - If project proven to be economically infeasible acceptance of financial contribution in trust for affordable housing. . Off-Site Projects - Off-site location provided it meets original requirement. . Non-Profit Housing Corporations - Specialized corporation - access to private money - sole purpose is affordable housing. B-1 OwnerlTenant Assistance Stage . 1st Time Homebuyer Programs - Mortgage Credit Certificate - Federal Income Credit - 20% annual credit against Federal income taxes. Value increases applicant affords higher mortgage payment. Silent Second Mortgage - No monthly payments, not due until sale of unit. - Downpayment Assistance - Provides financial assistance to help with down payment. . Section 8 Rental Assistance Certificates - Federal program which provides financial assistance to qualified tenants with the difference between 30% of their monthly income and fair market rent. Funding Sources . HOME - New Federal source of funds to promote housing production. Funds can be used to acquire property, rehabilitation, new construction, etc. . Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) - Federal funds available to cities to promote housing and community development activities. . Housing Set Aside - 20% of redevelopment tax increment set aside for housing projects. . Mortgage Revenue Bonds - Tax exempt source of revenue for production of units - restrict 20% of units for ten years - households under 80%. . Federal Home Loan Bank-Affordable Housing Program - Nonprofits apply through financial institutions for either direct equity subsidy or interest-rate writedown on permanent loans. Funds both rental and ownership projects at an average of $5,000 per unit. . Low Income Housing Tax Credits (Federal and State of CAY - Nonprofit and for-profit developers access these equity investments for new construction of rental projects. Tax credits provide tax incentives for corporations to invest as project general partners (developers are limited B-2 partners). Project equity accessed through LlHTC syndicator like Mission First Financial and California Equity Fund. . State Bond Funds - In past years the State of California has had funding available for low-interest loans for predevelopment, acquisition and rehabilitation, self-help, mobile home park acquisition, and new construction. Housing advocates are pushing for a new housing bond to revive these programs. . Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LlSC) - Through its local office, this national non-profit offers low-interest, unsecured and secured loans of early stage, predevelopment funds to community-based non-profits. . Low Income Housing Fund, Savings and Mortgage Consortium (SAMCO), and California Community Reinvestment Corp. (CCRC) - Three different consortia of financial institutions providing below-market rate predevelopment, construction, and permanent loans to non-profit affordable housing developers. . HOME-CHDO - 15% of City's HOME funds must be utilized in developments by community-based non-profit housing developers. B-3 APPENDIX C o >< C Z W Q. Q. e:( m ::> l- e:( l- I/) Z o ~ e:( I- Z W ::E)- WI- ..J- Q.Z ::E::> -::E c::E zo e:(0 mC I-W zz WZ ::Ee:( W..J a::Q. 5w O~ We:( a::..J I- C)m ze:( ii5w ::> o :t: W ..J to e:( Q Q: o u. u. e:( 000 0 NM '" CO CO r-- r-- 0 "'''' '" CO CO M M CO ~ N M " , , , Z 0 M CO U; '" N ... ~ N M ~OO OwO J:U:E W~ M-O € OM M CO CO r-- r-- '" ...JO NN "'''' N CO CO M M M 11)0 !:1 ~ N M <II:: , , , On.~ CO ~ r-- ~WO N '" 0 u.1I)..J ~ ~ M 11..0 <I- M"'O N 00 0 0 0 0 0 N N '" '" '" C) Z -W IJ)I- ~<O 000 J:6:E WI- ...JO O~ 0 ~ 00 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~W 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ OU~ II::~ 000 u..0..J 11..11:: <n. M"'O N NM '" CO CO r-- r-- N N'" '" "'''' '" CO CO M M r-- " ~ N ... , , , ~ 0 M 0 IJ) '" N ... ~ ~ N ... 0 0 J:. 0 . :E W ...JZ M'" 0 N OM M CO CO r-- r-- 0 11)0 N'" '" "'''' N CO CO M M ... <- ~ N ... 01- , , , II::~~ CO ~ CO 0-0 N '" 0 u....J...J ~ ~ ... 11..11) <0 ...00 ... NO N r-- r-- '" '" N 0 "'CO M "'''' '" '" '" M M '" "'M CO ~N ... r-- r-- r-- r-- r-- I-W ~ ~ M~ ... ~ ~ CO Z >. WO II::II::IJ) 1I::n.t:: ~n.Z U<~ III 0 ~ ~ Q) 0 - c: 0 Q) . . . J: U . . . II:: '" Q) OJ '" OJ ! OJ 0 Q)en c: '" II) '" ~ II! B Q)- a 0 a =.,g= Q) .- J: ~ ~ !!' 15 15 15 C) J:IJ)> :> 01- :> :> :> ii:i Q) Q) Q) en Q) Q) en en II! en .><.>< .>< .>< .>< I!! Z II! II! II! ~12 <( ;:: ;::;:: , en 00 , W , '" '" '" - c. :.: II! II! II! II! II! - II! ~< Q)www Q)ww Q) ~ .>< .>< .>< en II! II! II! IJ)W 'jj; ~ ~ " <II:: '" '" c: II! II! II! II! w< W W W ..J " Q) " .:; e c. Q) :5 c: ~ i '" c: Q) E I!! .5 r:::r Q) ~ ~ .9 '" " o o -EO .8 .r:; en '0; c: Q) :5 c: ;S .i '" - '" :> " Q) > e c. c. II! Q) :5 0- J: <( ~ J2 ~ c: ~ OJ ~ c: . Q).9! 15:8 c.:(; II! Q) - '" " Q) .- " Q) ':; .D 00 50- .r:;" u ~ :E 0 ~ a. g.!!! ~ Q) ~n; ~ . Q:i u 0 " :E Z 0 '"' ~ c: E -- 0 m~qj:=* ""~D.21.O .<( m 0 ~ ,... -'E ~ ~ ~E,ga:.Q 1:~m=~ Eg>.,g", Q)~E--- -a.. -'.- c. 00 J!enuUQ)E c:c:- - 'US " 0 0 0:) ~ ~ g '" 0 II!....- m::r Q)- cD "'Q)""n; m:c OE ,2 Qj >(0 ~"C e"E ","g 0 ~oll!oE fO~oo <(~f1J,* ~cnL()uco 0..... 'C II) . -....&::= Q) .!J1.- II! I!! E :>U - 8 ~~~~.5 oQj-E~~ en "0 0 - ::J C:t:: J!! 0 10 :::J co 'E ~ U;~!!1,:'" Q)"Eo~ :5 .2 8 Q) 0 ~ c: 0')- en "C .- &:: ~8~!!'~ = -q,Q) ~~:(;~t5 - o "" o '" '" I!! '5 r:::r I!! in Q) a z. : . . . APPENDIX D APPENDIX D EMPLOYMENT PROFILES BY INCOME GROUP (Based on a Family of Four) Very Very Low Very Low Low Moderate 35% Median 50% Median 80% Median 120% Median $15,890 $22.700 $36,300 $54,500 ($7.64 per hr.) ($10.91 per hr.) ($17.45 per hr.) ($26.20 per hr.) Dental Assistant Secretary Librarian III Fire Captain Retail Manager ClerkfTypist Assistant Planner Superv. Economist Bookkeeper I Machinist Biologist II Associate Engineer Teller Auto Mechanic Fire Fighter II Mainten. Superv. Stock Clerk Welder Accountant II Associate Planner Walter/Waitress Truck Driver Building Inspector I Property Agent Nurses Aid Deputy City Clerk Senior Buyer Sr. Plan Techn. Custodian I Tree Trimmer Junior Engineer Police Sergeant Pool Guard I Lifeguard I Park Designer Library Aide Cashier District Manager Recreation Aide Account Clerk APPENDIX E APPENDIX E GLOSSARY OF TERMS Affordable Housing - Residential housing units, either rentals or for-sale, that are targeted for families which qualify within pre-determined income levels. Affordable Housing Program (AHP) - A program that provides an action plan for providing affordable housing units. Affordable Housing Agreement (AHA) - A legally-binding contract between the City and the developer of residential units that defines the terms (Le., number and size of units, prices, etc.) that targeted affordable housing units will be sold or rented for. Affordability "gap" - The difference between what a family can afford to pay for housing and what the market price is. Annexation - Incorporation of property within the jurisdiction of a city. Most services (e.g., sewer, police and fire protection, etc.) are typically provided by the governing jurisdiction. Building Permit - Authorization given by the governing jurisdiction (City) to construct one or more structures. Density - The number of residential units that can be built within a single acre of land. Final Subdivision Map - The final recorded legal documents which establish a division of land. Typically submitted to the City, these documents include final grading plans, erosion control plans, legal descriptions of property and deed restrictions. General Development Plan (GDP) - A plan, consisting of a map diagram and text, which is required to accompany the application of the PC (Planned Community) Zone. This plan depicts a refinement of land use arrangements generally described on the city's General Plan. General Plan - A document consisting of diagrams and text which identify or describe goals for the future physical, social, and economic development for the City of Chula Vista as well as the public policies to attain those goals. Housing Element - A State of California-mandated element of the City's General Plan embodying a comprehensive analysis and update of basic housing data and growth projections as well as goals, objectives, policies and programs to address housing E-1 needs in the City. The Housing Element was revised in 1991 and is required to updated every five years. Low-income - Household whose annual income is between 50% and 80% of the median income for the area ($36,300 in 1994). Land Swap - A total of approximately 161 acres of land located south and west of East/ake Greens that was obtained from the Baldwin Company, developer of the adjacent Otay Ranch, in exchange for the 160-acre Eastlake IV development property located on the west side of future SR-125. Moderate-income - Household whose annual income is between 80% and 120% of the median income for the area ($54,500 in 1994). Market-rate housing - For sale or rental housing built and made available to the public without any public or private subsidy and sold or rented based on supply and demand market conditions of the area. Prezoning - The application of certain uniform regulations and requirements or various combinations thereof to a property being considered for annexation into the City. Upon annexation, these regulations and requirements would apply to activities that occur on the property. SANDAG - San Diego Association of Governments. An organization consisting of staff and policy makers representing each of the City's within the County of San Diego, as well as the County of San Diego, charged with administering regional planning policies. Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan - All Planned Community (PC) zones in the City shall be divided into sectional planning areas. These areas of subcommunities shall be depicted on the plan diagram of the general development plan of a PC zone. Tentative Subdivision Map - In order to divide a parcel of land into 5 or more parcels or create a condominium ownership of 5 or more units, a map, recognized by the State of California, must be filed with the agency having jurisdiction over the land where he subdivision is proposed. Very Low-income - Household whose annual income is at or under 50% of the median income for the area ($22,700 in 1994). (:\EASTI..AKEW>PENDIX) E-2 ATTACHMENT 6 May 16,1995 "/1 /~ { Chula Vista Planning Department c/o Duane E. Bazzel 276 Fourth Ave. Chula Vista, CA 91910 RE: EastLake Affordable Housing Plan Dear Chula Vista Planning, I am a homeowner at EastLake Greens. I want to welcome our new neighbors who will reside in our new subassociation of EastLake Greens. The purpose of this letter is to stress the importance of establishing this new subassocation as another first class residential group with full rights and privileges as all EastLake Green residents now enjoy. To date we already have three subassociations within our community. They are The Masters, Fairway Villias and The Championship Classics. Each of these subassociations have their own private facilities but also have full use of the EastLake Greens private gated facilities as well. In keeping with the spirit of assimilating these new housing units into EastLake Greens, the residents must have full rights and also the full responsibilities as all EastLake Greens residents. The units and residents must confonn to already established CC&R's and rules and regulations. At this time each living unit -house or condo- pays a montWy association fee to the EastLake Greens Homeowner Association. If the living unit is rented, the owner of the unit, not the tenant, is responsible to pay the montWy assessment. This system must also continue with the Affordable Housing Units. The tenant must enjoy full use of the faacilities with the landlord being responsible for maintaining the montWy association dues. I request the Planning Department keep in mind we want to maintain the quality of our neighborhood by having all first class residents and not create a second class subassociation with limited access and responsiblity in our EastLake Greens community. Respectfully, Barry Stinson 2295 Cobb Meadow Place Chula Vista, CA 91915 cc:file