HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991/04/25 Agenda Packet
fit (~C" '?:'~te t.H':'~(e:" t::':cn:J!~,Y err pcr.:urj e"'::~;: ! r::n
e"'," b/ -, ""i>' ci r::~:;,,~>:: W: i:n 1r. tl'e
"co, . f
;';': C;"'~~ ':::~~1. . " ,;'''';,::1
'... -.
.; ..; n;-; T~":'
;'; ;'."~ _' , . ~~: oJ:
--,',-
'"
,"':; ~',~;'-}::;(:< (',',~:!:"";:::; ~f:: ", lJ ",": ;.~;:]:; 0::1
._'J:j~zt1.L.,.:..'>r:J._ ~~'~ncil Conference Room
Administration Building
Thursday, April 25, 1991
4:00 p.m.
Relmlar MeetinsUWorksession of the City of Chula Vista City Council
CAllED TO ORDER
1.
CAlJ. THE ROIL:
Councilmembers Malcolm _, Nader ~ Rindone _ and Mayor Pro
Tempore Moore _'
OTHER BUSINESS
2.
REPORT
DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE OF 1991 - The report is being presented to
the City Council by Members of the Blue Ribbon Housing Element Committee.
(Director of Planning and Director of Community Development)
3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - this is an opportunity for the general publk: to adLlress the city Council on
any subject matter within the Council's jurisdiction that is not an item on this agenda. (State law,
however, generally prohibits the City Council from taking action on any issues not included on the posted
agenda.) If you wish to address the Council on such a subject, please complete the yellow "Request to
Speak Under Oral Communications Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to
the meeting. Those who wish to speak, please give your name and address for record purposes and follow
up action. Your time is limited to three minutes per speaker.
4. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT(S)
a. Scheduling of meetings.
5. MAYOR'S REPORT(S)
6. COUNCIL COMMENfS
ADJOURNMENr
The meeting will adjourn to the Regular City Council Meeting on May 7, 1991 at 4:00 p.m. in the City
Council Chambers.
1
MfMQRAtf!HIM
DATE:
TO:
April 17, 1991
VIA:
FROM:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
John D. Goss, City Manager~
"
Chairman Ca s and Members of the Blue Ribbon Housing Element
Committee /A~
Robert L it r, Director of Planning <Z~--- ~
Chris Salone, Community Development DlrectorC-- .
SUBJECT: Draft Housing Element Update of 1991
The nine-member Blue Ribbon Housing Element Committee, appointed by the Mayor
and Council on September 18, 1990, has completed its initial charge to provide
overs i ght and input to City staff in formul at i ng the requi red update of the
City's Housing Element. We are pleased to submit herewith copies of the Draft
document unanimously endorsed by the membership for your review and subsequent
discussion. Through a series of 12 meetings held since October 1990, the
Committee, consisting of nine individuals representing all facets of housing
provision, was able to work and reach final consensus on the wide variety of
housing issues and suggested responses contained in the Draft.
Of particular importance was formulation of the 1991-96 Comprehensive Housing
Pl an contained in Part 3. Deve 1 opment of the mult i -faceted and i nnovat i ve
approaches to addressing existing and projected local housing needs, including
the City' s allocated share of the Regi on's hous i ng needs, was the topi c of
seven meet i ngs. Staff was abl e to formul ate a 1 i st of pert i nent Committee
suggestions and input from each meeting discussion, and after receiving
Committee consensus on the 1 i st' s contents, formul ate the goal s, objectives,
pol icies, and programs contained in Part 3. While a wide range of subject
matter was covered and numerous issues were debated, the following represent
key points which the Committee feels are worthy of highl i9ht. Provided in
parenthes is after each item is a reference to the Part 3 object i ve whi ch
addresses proposed responses.
Achievement of an adequately "bal anced community" through assuring
provision of sufficient lower-income housing opportunities in the Eastern
Territories. This includes a program and set of guidelines to establish
siting, duration, and phasing requirements, and an acceptable range of
incentives and methods for compliance (Obj. #1).
Improving the existing Affordable Housing Program to increase its
effectiveness in assisting the City in providing for its share of the
Region's housing need, and to add flexibility for developers in achieving
compliance (Obj. #1).
Preservation of "at risk" affordable housing units in western Chula Vista
(Obj. #5).
~-I
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
Page 2
April 17, 1991
Establishment of a local non-profit Community Development Corporation
(CDC) to assist in the financing, development, and/or management of
affordable housing units (Obj. #2).
Special considerations to offset identified constraints to affordable
housing provision (Obj. #9).
Focusing local housing efforts towards famil ies and lower income wage
earners (Part 2 and Obj. 2).
Strengthening Public Housing efforts as a means to produce very
low-income affordable units (Obj. #2).
Undertaking a new, broader study on the mobilehome park closure/
preservation/relocation/replacement issue (Obj. #4).
Establishment of an Affordable Housing Growth Management Threshold
Standard (Obj. #7).
Establishment of permanent and temporary homeless shelters and
transitional housing programs (Obj. #6).
Consideration of economic development and jobs/housing balance (Obj. 11).
Studying provisions for Single Room Occupancy (SRO) unit construction
(Obj. #2, 11).
Establishing first-time homebuyer assistance programs (Obj. #3).
Community rei nvestment, fa i r hous i ng, and the i nvol vement of 1 enders in
local housing efforts (Obj. #8).
Increased coordination, monitoring, and evaluation of affordable housing
activities (Obj. #7).
8roadening of community awareness and interest in affordable housing
issues and related City activities (Obj. #7).
In closing, the membership would 1 ike to commend the Mayor and City Council
for their foresight in creating such a Committee, and express its thanks for
the opportunity to actively participate in development of what we bel ieve is
an innovative and responsive Housing Element. We look forward to reviewing
our efforts with you at the April 25 workshop.
WPC 9139P
~...2.
II
I
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
HOUSING ELEMENT
OF 1991
OR~
-~..
() 1\~' ;,
t, ".\0, .:
, -,
CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN
MARCH 1991
o RAFT
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
GENERAL PLAN
HOUSING ELEMENT OF 1991
City Council Members/Administration
Leonard Moore
Mayor Pro Tempore
David L. Malcolm
Councilman
Jerry Rindone
Councilman
Tim Nader
Councilman
City ManaQer
John D. Goss
City Attorney
Bruce Boogaard
City Clerk
Beverly Authelet
City PlanninQ Commission
Shirley Grasser-Horton, Chairwoman
Susan Fuller, Vice Chair
Joanne E. Carson, Commissioner
Robert E. Tugenberg, Commissioner
Joe D. Casillas, Commissioner
Laverne E. Decker, Commissioner
Tom Martin, Commissioner
Approved by the Planning Commission on
Adopted by the City Council on
, 1991, under Resolution No.
, 1991, under Resolution GPA-90-
This Element amends the Chula Vista Housing Element of 1986.
2-3
Housinq Element Staff
Administration
Robert A. Leiter, Director of Planning
Chris Salomone, Community Development Director
Professional Assistance
David Gustafson, Assistant Community Development Director
Edgar Batchelder, Assistant Planner
David Harris, Community Development Specialist
Margery Girbes, Housing Coordinator
Alisa Duffey Rogers, Community Development Specialist
Consultant Services
Pamela Johannsen
~-~
PREFACE
The principal of American freedom is rooted in the proposition that government
exists for the purpose of enhancing and protecting the natural and fundamental
ri ghts of human be i ngs. One such fundamental ri ght is the acces s to su i tab 1 e
housing opportunities in decent neighborhoods. The good society has the
obl igation to create the conditions under which these rights are protected,
and individuals can grow and work for a fuller life. In this respect, a free
society is not just a nation of laws, it is an idea with a noble purpose. It
seeks to create an environment for humanity's most enduring aspirations
including prosperity, sacrifice, idealism and beauty.
;;-5
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION - MAYOR'S BLUE RIBBON HOUSING ELEMENT COMMITTEE
As an important and integral component of developing a successful Housing
Element, and as required by State law, the City has always sought publ ic
comment and input toward formul at i on of Housi ng El ement updates. The Update
of 1991 is no exception, and actually represents a different and broader based
approach to that participation.
Given the significant changes in the housing environment. and growth of the
affordability gap since the Element of 1986, new efforts and solutions
emp 1 oyi ng increased coordi nat i on and cooperation amongst those i nvol ved in
housing provision are needed to ensure adequate affordable housing
opportunities. In response, the City felt it important to bring those
segments of the community ultimately involved in housing provision
(development, fi nance, soci a 1 servi ce, and government) together to ass i st in
development of the 1991 Update. In this way, the setting for continued
coordi nat i on is establ i shed, and the uni que perspect i ves of these "partners"
could be utilized in focusing housing assistance priorities, and in developing
the proposed solutions and strategies embodied in Part 3.
To facil itate this participation, the Mayor appointed a broad-base "Blue
Ribbon Housing Element Committee" consisting of nine (9) regular members and
three (3) alternates. The nine regular members consisted of the publ ic (I),
City Planning Commission (I), development community (3), realty
community/Chamber of Commerce (I), publ i c hous i ng authori ty (I), non-profi t
housing and finance (I), and the local social service community (l).
Assistance was provided by staff from the City Planning and Community
Development Departments. The Committee met in a series of eleven (II)
workshops which reviewed the main points of each section in the Draft Element
Update. They provided eva 1 uat i on and input regardi ng past performance and
needs assessments, and then made recommendations which were used to formulate
the 1991-96 Comprehensive Housing Plan. Their input was invaluable in
developing the Plan's structure of eleven (II) objectives, each with a set of
implementing policies and program proposals.
WPC 9116P
;2-h
INTRODUCTION
Overview
As we move into the I990's housing continues to be an area of great
importance, and challenge, for the City of Chula Vista. The Housing Element,
as a State required component of the City's General Plan, provides citizens
and public officials with an understanding of the housing needs of their
community and the responses necessary to fulfill them.
The Chula Vista Housing Element of 1991 embodies a comprehensive analysis and
update of basic housing data and growth projections, as well as, a refinement
of the pol icies and programs of the previously adopted Housing Element of
1986. The revisions incorporate the most current data and information that
are readily available regarding population, socio-economic characteristics,
housing and land use inventories, financial availabil ity, and new program
approaches utilizing both continuing and new government subsidies and
public/private financing. The purpose of the Housing Element Update of 1991
is the improvement of the City's hous i ng efforts, and the i ncreas i ng of its
responsiveness to changing local and regional housing needs.
The Element's comprehensive analyses form the basis from which Chula Vista has
developed goals, object i ves, and act i on plans to add res s hous i ng needs. By
striving to accomplish these objectives to provide suitable, fair, and
affordable housing opportunities for all segments of the population, the City
will strengthen the economic and social vitality of the entire community.
OrQanization of the Element Update
In order to provide a logical and thorough analysis in formulating an
appropriate plan of actions which respond to housing conditions and needs
anticipated during the 1991-96 planning period, the Chula Vista Housing
Element Update of 1991 is divided into three parts:
Part 1: Review of the HousinQ Element of 1986 - Outlines and quantifies
housing production since 1985, and describes how the City has responded
to both the anticipated and urgent needs of its growing population.
Various affordable housing accomplishments are compared against the
stated goals of the 1986 Housing Element, and a summary of performance
successes and shortfalls is presented in establ i shi ng i ndi cators for
development of the 1991-96 comprehensive plan embodied in Part 3.
Part 2: Needs. Resources. and Constraints - Based on various socio-economic
conditions, projects what housing needs are anticipated during the
1991-96 planning period, and evaluates the capacity of the existing
housing supply, and Chula Vista's land inventory to provide all income
groups with decent housing opportunities.
Part 3: Comprehensive Housinq Plan - 1991 to 1996 - In concert with revised
housing needs data, growth projections, and performance indicators
established in Parts I and 2, defines goals, objectives, policies, and
programs designed to increase Chula Vista's effectiveness in providing
for housing needs during the coming planning period.
~-~
HOUSING ELEMENT OF 1991
GENERAL PLAN OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Paqe
PART 1: REVIEW OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF 1986
I. Introduction/Overview
I - I
II. Affordable Housing Production for 1985-1990
A. Summary of Review Findings
B. Program Descriptions
C. Affordable Housing in Progress
1-3
1-4
1-6
1-26
III. Conclusions
A. Areas for Special Consideration
B. Suggested Steps for 1991-96 Planning Period
1-27
1-28
PART 2: NEEDS, RESOURCES, AND CONSTRAINTS
J.
Introduction
I I-I
II. Needs Analysis
A. Existing Unmet Needs
B. Special Need Populations
C. At-Risk Housing
D. Projected Needs
II -1
II -14
II -18
II - 20
Ill. Resources
A. Introduction/Overview
B. Chula Vista General Plan Update
C. Land Use/Resource Inventory
11-27
II -27
11-28
IV. Constraints
A. Overview
B. Governmental
C. Non-Governmental
11-31
11-31
11-37
PART 3: COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING PLAN - 1991 TO 1996
I. Introduction
I I I-I
III -3
I 11-4
II. Statements of Purpose
I II. Object i ves, Pol i c i es, and Programs
j-I
Table No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MaD No.
1
LIST OF TABLES AND MAPS
Housing Unit Change by Type - 1980 to 1990
Overview of CDBG Expenditures 1985 to 1990
Vacancy Rates by Unit Type
Rental Subsidy Needs for Lower-Income Households
1988-91 Housing Assistance Plan
Rent Schedules
West Side City - Rehabilitation Needs
Rehabilitation Needs - 1988-91 H.A.P.
Special Housing Populations - Needs Indicators
Historic Population Growth - Chula Vista and
San Diego Region
Total Housing Growth - Chula Vista and San
Diego Region
% Relationship Population & Housing Growth -
Chula Vista and San Diego Region
Housing Supply 1985-1990
Projected Population Growth - Chula Vista and
San Diego Region
Projected Housing Growth - Chula Vista and
San Diego Region
Projected Employment Chula Vista GPA
Regional Share Allocation
Fair Share Allocation
Population and Housing Projections - General
Plan Update
Land Use Capacity Increase - General Plan Update
Residential Construction Capacity - Vacant &
Underutilized Land
Residential Construction Capacity - Master Planned
Projects (City)
Residential Construction Capacity - Master Planned
Projects (Planning Area)
County-wide Development Fee Comparison
Average Residential Processing Fee
"Marketplace" - Mortgage and Borrowing Rates
Manufacturing Employment
Affordable Housing Location Map
.J -,
Paae No.
1-2
1-23
II-2
II-3
II-5
II-11
II-12
II-17
II -21
II-21
II-21
II - 22
II -23
II - 24
II - 24
II - 26
II - 26
II - 27
II-28
II -29
II -30
IHO
II -35
II -36
II -38
II-41
1-30
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART I: REVIEW OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF 1986
Paqe
1.
Introduction/Overview
I -I
A. Pol icy & Goal Implementation
B. Summary of Housin9 Built Prior to 1985
I -I
1-2
II. Production for 1985-1990
1-3
A. Summary of Review Findings
B. Program Descriptions
B.l Guaranteed Housing
I. Public Housing
2. Section 8
3. Military Housing
1-4
1-6
1-6
1-6
1-7
]-7
1-8
1-8
1-8
]-9
] -ll
I -ll
1-12
1-13
1-13
1-13
1-14
1-14
1-15
1-15
1-15
1-15
1-16
1-16
1-17
1-18
1-21
1-21
B.2 Potential Housing
I. Senior Density Bonus
2. Affordable Housing Policy
a. For Sale Opportunities
b. Rental Opportunities
3. Tax-exempt Bond Financing
4. Family Density Bonus
B.3 Redevelopment Housing Fund Programs
I. Home Ownership
a. Brandywi ne
b. Orange Tree
2. Landbanking
3. Rental Housing New Construction
a. Mobilehome
b. Multi-Family
4. Rehab Programs
a. Single Family
b. Mobilehome
c. Rental Rehab
5. Mobilehome Programs
6. Relocation and Demolition
7. Weatherization Program
B.4 CDBG Funded Programs
I. Overview of Expenditures
2. Shared Housing
3. Homeless Sheltering and Referrals
a. South Bay Voucher Program
b. Inter-Faith Program
c. Hotels & Motels in Partnership
d. Victory Outreach
e. St. Vincent de Paul
1-22
1-22
1-24
1-24
1-25
1-25
1-25
1-26
1-26
C. Affordable Housing in Progress
III. Conclusions
1-27
A. Areas for Special Consideration
B. Suggested Steps for the 1991-96 Planning Period
1-27
1-28
~-I()
PART 1 - REVIEW OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF 1986
1. INTRODUCTION
In relation to other Elements of Chula Vista's General Plan, the Housing
Element is somewhat unique in that while it envisions long range
community goals characteristic of general plans, its comprehensive
directives for meeting the housing needs of all economic segments of
Chula Vista's population must also be responsive to varying
socio-economic conditions continually influenced by factors both internal
and external to the San Diego region. In recognition of this, the
Housing Element Law, Article 10.6 Section 65580 (et seq) of the
Ca 1 iforni a Government Code, requ i res that each city rev i ew and update
previous housing pol icies and programs regarding their effectiveness in
achieving stated goals and objectives. This law requires such a review
at least every 5 years in order to make necessary changes in policies and
programs respons i ve to changi ng 1 oca 1 hous i ng needs and cond i t ions. The
last local review was conducted in 1986.
The following section of the Housing Element Update of 1991 reviews
achievements during the 1986-1991 planning period, and also recaps the
accomplishments of pre-1985 housing activity.
A. POLICY AND GOAL IMPLEMENTATION
Under the direction of the City Council, Chula Vista has, in
accordance with Part 2 of the Housing Element of 1986, substantially
undertaken the task of providing adequate and affordable housing
opportunities for all segments of its population. During the
1986-1991 planning period, as illustrated in the following pages,
the City successfully endeavored to attain its goals to meet
identified needs through provision of new construction in
well-planned decent neighborhoods, as well as through systematic
renewal, rehabilitation, conservation, and improvement of housing
within the Planning Area. These efforts included substantial
involvement of the private sector.
As indicated in Table I, Chula Vista has consistently provided a
variety of new housing opportunities, both single and multiple
family, in seeking to achieve a truly "balanced community". Since
1985, the City has built an average of 1400+ housing units per year,
with at least 50% of these in varying densities of multi-family
construction. In this effort to broaden resident's choice of
housing types and neighborhoods, the City has approved several large
master-planned residential communities each offering a wide range of
residential densities, commercial services/employment, industrial
employment, and recreational opportunities in a coordinated 1 iving
env ironment. Examples woul d i nc 1 ude the EastLake, Rancho Del Rey,
and Sunbow developments. In order to ensure economic integration,
the City's Affordable Housing Policy requires these and other
developments over 50 units to provide a minimum of 10% of the units
to low and moderate-income households.
1-1
~-/J
In addition to these implementation efforts, the City adopted growth
management "Thresholds Standards" in 1987 to address protection of
residents "qual ity of 1 ife" through establ ishment of performance
criteria for provision of 11 vital public facilities and services
such as pol ice, fi re, schools, and parks and recreat i on. The City
is currently in the final stages of adopting the Growth Management
Program document which serves as an implementing tool in relating
facil ities master plans and Threshold criteria to specific project
approval and phasing.
TABLE 1
HOUSING UNIT CHANGE BY TYPE
ACCORDING TO STATE DEFINED CATEGORIES
1980 TO 1990
Single Family Multiple Fami ly
Year SFD SFA 2-4 5+ Totals
1980 35 6 180 221
1981 99 15 382 496
1982 42 36 14 37 129
1983 16 74 188 278
1984 291 142 18 70 521
1985 490 207 10 845 1552
1986 518 29 17 556 1120
1987 1077 195 200 1018 2490
1988 382 43 24 380 829
1989 599 147 575 1321
1990 590 17 133 812 1552
TOTALS 4139 669 658 5043 10,509
B. SUMMARY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING BUILT PRIOR TO 1985
In order to provide reference to the "at-risk" housing analysis
presented in Part 2, the following pre-1985 new construction
activity overview is also provided:
Affordable HousinQ - New Construction
Unit Total to Date:
Units Prior to 1985:
Elderly:
HUD Section 202
HUD Section 236
(Non-Profit Owner)
City Density Bonus
1,950
728
100
186
32
Family:
HUD Section 236 386
(4 projects)
HUD Public Housing 24
(Melrose)
1-2
:;.-1'-
II. AFFORDABLE HOUSING PRODUCTION FOR 1985-1990
Chula Vista has demonstrated that affordable housing can be developed
through local directives and private sector incentives. The City
produced 1222 un its of affordable hous i ng duri ng the 1985-1990 p 1 anni ng
period exclusive of Section 8, rental housing assistance, and mobilehome
convers ions to low and moderate- income househol ds. Ni nety-three percent
of this new construction affordable housing production was developed by
the private sector, with limited cash involvement by the City through the
Redevelopment Housing Fund and tax-exempt bond revenue. More affordable
housing was actually produced by the City's density bonus program in new
construction (32%) then through any other program during this period.
This program requires no actual cash commitment from any public funds.
Units Durinq 1985-1990:
HUD Elderly Public Housing
Elderly Density Bonus
Affordable Housing Policy
Family Density Bonus
Multi-Family Bond Sale
Redevelopment Housing Fund
Navy Housing
1,222
59
374
255
16
121
197
200
In addition to the new construction units made affordable to low and
moderate-income households during the past planning period, the City also
provided: a) rental housing assistance through HUD Section 8; b)
mobilehome conversions to low-income rentals and ownership; and c)
rehabilitation loans for owners and rental housing.
1. Section 8 Rental Housinq Assistance
Elderlv
Fami 1 v
Total
Pre-1980
1980-85
1985-90
144
101
184 (33%)
220
117
366 (66%)
364
218
550
Source:
SANDAG
10/90.
wi 11 be
Revised
Program
tabulated
Housing Needs Performance
activity implemented since
in the next Element review.
Report
1/1/90
2. Mobilehome Conversions
In 1987, Chula Vista assisted a total of 55 households within
the existing Orange Tree Mobilehome Trailer Park. 24
mobilehome spaces were purchased by the City and are being
rented to 1 ow- income seni ors, and 31 1 ow- income sen i or
households were assisted with low interest loans for the
purchase of their spaces.
3. Rehabilitation Lendinq Activitv
A total of 250 loans to single family and mobilehome owners
were made. In addition to this, ten rental units were
rehabilitated using the HUD Rental Rehab Program.
1-3
......
~.II:I
.2.-/3
The City has conducted an aggressive marketing program to rehabil itate
many homes in the newly annexed area of Montgomery. The City has also
maintained a commitment to mobile home park rehabilitation, conversions,
and relocation assistance, as well as continuing to expand its
involvement in housing related social services, such as homeless shelter
referral s, in order to create a well-bal anced and comprehens i ve hous i ng
program.
A. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PRODUCTION
The following is a summary of Housing Program productivity over the
1985-1990 planning period in accordance with quantified objectives:
1. Previous objectives stated the City needed to provide
assistance to 740 lower-income households during 1985-1990.
During this time period, Chula Vista has provided 1,511 units
of new construction, Section 8 rental assistance, and
mobilehome conversions to low-income households.
2. Density Bonus production for senior housing in this planning
period produced 374 units. The previously set objective of 60
units was greatly exceeded. Although no objectives were set
for family housing in the last Element, 16 low-income family
units were built.
3. Homeownership opportunities were extended to 53 low-income and
245 moderate-income first-time buyers, and 48 low-income
elderly buyers. No specific objectives were previously stated
for moderate-income famil ies, and the low-income elderly goal
was exceeded by 8 units.
4. A HUD Section 202 senior housing project has remained unfunded
pending new appropriations from Congress. The funding approval
for this project was delayed in 1989 when the proposed
structure was reduced from a 5-story building to a 4-story
building. The non-profit sponsor, the Salvation Army, is still
pursuing this 75 unit project, for which the City has approved
a conditional use permit.
5. Low-Rent Public Housing production exceeded the stated elderly!
handicapped objective by 23 units, but did not achieve the
family housing objective of 114. There are currently 22 units
of 1 arge famil y hous i ng in the construct i on phase of
development (Dorothy Street Site), and another 295 units
remaining to be built pending site selection. These units
represent the remaining balance of authority to "construct,
acquire or develop" 400 low-income housing units approved by
the City voters in 1978.
6. The HUD Section 8 deep rental assistance subsidy objectives to
assist 455 low-income households were exceeded in three out of
the last five years as reported by SANDAG. A total of 550
low-income households were assisted during the planning period
with 33% of these units assisting elderly households, and 66%
assisting family households.
1-4
2. -1"1
7.
The housing rehabil itation loan programs taken
(Single-family and mobile home) exceeded the stated
of 200 assi sted households by 25% for a total of
loans.
together
objective
250 rehab
8. The Shared Housing referral program also exceeded the number of
successful annual matches performed. The annual object i ve was
60, but over the last five years the actual annual average
reached 80 matches per year.
9. The last quantified objective previously identified in the
Housing Element was the renter rehab loan program. This
program has averaged 2 units a year rather than the 15 per year
previously stated. The Community Development Department has
since hired new staff to aggressively market this program
beginning January 1991.
10. Consideration should be given to the following areas in which
substantial activity did not occur during the last five years:
1. Demonstration projects which reduce building costs, and
provide a substantial number of affordable units.
2. Modular or factory built housing.
3. Other experimental infill projects utilizing tailored
standards.
4. Structured annual reviews of Element implementation.
5. Specific fast track procedures and check 1 ists for the
processing of low-income housing projects.
6.
Enforcement of the existing
"Affirmative Fair Marketing Plan"
more than 50 units.
requirement for an
for projects involving
7.
Inter-departmental
affordable housing
submittal s.
pre-planning
provision
conferences
on residential
regard i ng
project
1-5
2-/5
B. PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS
The following ;s a more detailed discussion of each program's
product i v i ty duri ng the 1 ast fi ve years. All qua ran teed hous i ng
provided either through new construction units or rental assistance
will be described first, followed by a discussion of all Dotential
housing production through the City's various regulatory ordinances,
pol icies, and the new Mil itary Housing Project. Following this, the
rehabilitation, mobile home, and relocation programs will be
discussed, and finally those social services related to housing
funded by Commun; ty Development Block Grants (CDBG) wi 11 be
described.
The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) distinguishes
between "guaranteed" and "potential" affordable housing units.
Guaranteed unit rents are regulated according to an individual
tenant's household income. Potential units are given benchmark
rents for the entire project which cannot exceed 1/12 of 30% of
either 80% (low) or 120% (moderate) of the area median income. The
area median changes yearly. These HUD generated figures are
supp 1 i ed to the City through the Hous i ng Authority of San Di ego or
SANDAG every year. (Median incomes rose significantly in 1990 which
will affect the next planning period benchmark rents.)
A list of all projects classified by program along with a project
location map (#'s) have been included in this section as reference
points to the narrative description. (Assisted housing map locator
#'s are inserted throughout the text.) This exhibit is located on
page _ of th i s report . All affordable hous i ng projects since 1971
are included in this exhibit because 386 units built prior to 1985
may be at-risk during the next five years. At-risk units are those
units owned by private investors who may elect to convert the
affordable units to market rate rentals within the next planning
period.
B.1 Guaranteed Housinq
1. Public Housinq
All guaranteed housing units were HUD assisted. Chula
Vista produced 59 guaranteed housing units. These units
of new construction were funded through HUD Public Housing
under a development contract the City has with the San
Diego County Housing Authority. The Housing Authority
a 1 so manages the Sect i on 8 cert i fi cate and voucher
programs for the City.
1-6
2. ., 'I,
On 4/11/78, and pursuant to State Constitution Article 34,
Chula Vista voters passed a 400 unit referendum for
1 ow- income hous i ng product i on. Subsequently, in 1978 and
1987 the City of Chul a Vi sta entered contract agreements
with the County Hous i ng Authority to develop and manage
123 units within the City limits. Under this
authorization, one public housing project was developed
within the planning period in 1985; "Town Center" (#27) a
59 unit senior project. Tenants are currently
contributing between $150-200 a month for rent, making
these affordable to those earning 50% or less of area
median income. This project is extremely popular and
currently has a 2 year waiting list.
2. Section 8 Certificates and Vouchers
During the planning period, Existing Section 8
certificates and vouchers assisted over 550 households.
HUD officials maintain that Chula Vista has been
consistently over-leased in each of the five (5) planning
years. Meaning that for every tenant whose eligibility
expires, another equally qualified tenant replaces them
immediately. Current waiting lists for large family units
exceed 2 years.
3. Military Housinq
The Navy and a turn-key developer built a 200 unit family
housing project called Lofgren Terrace (#13). This
project is subsidized and managed by the Navy. Senior
enlisted families of class E4-E6 range, with a minimum of
two years service, are eligible for units. In this
project, the mil itary does not distribute the "Basic
Allowance for Quarters" (BAQ) and "Variable Housing
Allowance" (VHA). These two bonuses are considered
add-ons to family household income, but according to
SANDAG's Housing Needs Performance Report, do not disturb
the "guaranteed" status of these family units because
technically each household is paying 0% of their military
income on housing. Currently, there is a 2-3 year waiting
list for this and other military family housing,
indicating that the value of the Lofgren unit is greater
than the $500-$600 combi ned value of the BAQ and VHA in
the market place.
1-7
2,.../-r
B.2 Potential Housinq
Chula Vista has produced 963 newly constructed potential
housing units in the last five (5) years. This represents
about 93% of the new construction affordable housing developed
during this period.
The following table categorizes each project by the deeoest
level of subsidy it received as some projects did receive more
than one i ncent i ve. Projects produced under the "Affordabl e
Housing Program" usually received no cash or density bonus
incentives. Projects receiving both a density bonus and bond
financing are discussed under the bond program. The below
1 i sted categori es follow the State HCD gui de 1 i nes in order to
avoid over or double counting of units.
The units by category of housing are:
Senior Density Bonus 374 un its
Affordable Housing Policy 255 un its
Family Density Bonus 16 units
Multi-Family Bond Sale 121 units
Redevelopment Housing Fund 197 units
Total: 963 units
l. Sen i or Dens it v Bonus
In the Chula Vista Senior Density Bonus program 374 units
in seven (7) complexes were produced (#' s 3, 4, 6, 14, 17,
23, 24). This represents 30% of the total new
construction affordable housing produced during the
planning period. Each project is under a separately
negotiated Cooperation Agreement, which compels the owners
to restrict the rents for 10-25 years under a Conditional
Use Permit (CUP) in exchange for significant density
bonuses and reduced parking space requirements.
The average rent in these un i ts are $345 for a stud i 0,
$468 for a one bedroom, and $630 for a two-bedroom. In
some complexes, 40-50% of the tenant rents are also
subsidized by Section 8 programs. These subsidies,
however, are not mandated as part of the dens i ty bonus
cooperat i on agreement and may be termi nated by the
landlord. Each unit rent must fall within the guidel ines
of HUD Section 8 Fair Market Rents (FMR) by unit type and
household size. The senior density bonus program has
out-performed all other programs in the City.
2. Affordable Housinq Policy
The Affordable Housing Policy requires developers of
projects with more than 50 units to explore Federal and
State subsidy programs and other economically feasible
means of reducing the price of housing, in providing at
least 5% of the units to low-income households, and 5% of
1-8
~"'19
the units to moderate-income households. In reviewing the
two development projects "EastLake" and "Beacon Cove"
which produced units under this program, two main areas of
concern arose: 1) the duration of restrictions are too
short, i.e., in the case of "for sale" EastLake
propert i es, no restri ct ions on the next sale were
required, so that these units would not necessarily be
affordable after the first-qualified buyer takes title;
duration of the rental restrictions is only ten years
(refer to Beacon Cove di scuss i on page II) ; 2) the
affordability range of sales prices and rents appear to be
at the high end of the low and moderate-income thresholds
as illustrated below.
a. For-Sale Opportunit i es Under the Affordable Hous i nq
Policv
The EastLake development, comprised of several
subdivisions totaling 2,384 single-family and
condominium units, produced 101 units for low-income
buyers, and 139 units for moderate-income buyers.
The following discussion analyzes the affordability
of the three EastLake tracts which qual ified between
1986-1g89:
The three tracts of homes which sold over three years
during planning period were: Camelot (#5), Villa
Martinique (#28) and The Cottages (#9).
In the Camelot project, average sales prices were
between $82,344-$105,127 for low-income buyers
($22,880-$29,360) annual incomes), and $85,750-
$117,041 for moderate-income buyers ($23,166-$44,040
annual income). These units were sold in phases over
a three-year peri od between 1987 -1989. The Cottages
sold during 1987 for $107,072 and were affordable to
moderate-income households. Finally, Villa
Martinique was the most affordable project with sales
prices ranging from $67,778-$74,061 for low-income
households, and $74,527-$74,870 for moderate-income
households during 1986-1988.
Un 1 i ke rental hous i ng, many factors must be combi ned
before a determination can be made about true
affordability. In the analYSis of for-sale
affordability key factors are the terms and
conditions of financing (i.e., lending terms and
underwriting ratios).
1-9
:I. -/'/
Accord i ng to performance data provi ded by the
developer, about 36% of the low-income households
appear to have qualified for FHA loans which only
require 3%-5% down payment. Approximately 40% of the
1 ow- income buyers had 1 arge (greater than 25%) down
payments. While no clear proof was provided by the
deve 1 oper, it coul d be that many of the buyers with
large down payments and low annual incomes were
"empty-nester" seni or 1 ow- income homebuyers. In thi s
way, the City met the stated goal to provide
affordable housing to senior home buyers on fixed
incomes.
In the total development, 61% of the moderate-income
purchasers appeared to use some type of FHA financing
or a conventional 95% adjustable rate mortgage (ARM)
as evidenced by the very low (< 5%) recorded down
payments.
Using Villa Martinique as an example, estimated
principal and interest payments for the low-income
buyers exceeded the prescri bed affordable 1 i mi ts by
about 23%, while the average moderate-income
principal and interest payments only exceeded the
affordable limits by 10% at most. It should be
noted, however, that th i sana 1 ys is does not take into
account the tax advantages in homeownersh i p or the
long-term advantages of equity-building American home
owners have long enjoyed in markets such as Southern
California with steadily rising appreciation rates.
Additionally, it seems that as long as people
continue to have confidence in the potential economic
gains of homeownership, they are will ing to pay more
than 30% of their gross median income for the ability
to own a home. For planning purposes, it may be time
to develop another method of analysis to gauge
homeownership affordability which incorporates
tax-incentives and appreciation factors.
1-10
2-20
b. Rental Housinq Under the Affordable Housinq Policv
The second affordable housing policy project is
Beacon Cove (#1) in which 35 rental units were
set-aside out of 177 units for a period of 10 years.
Built in 1986, the current restricted rents are $585
with market rental rates of $630-650 for a
one-bedroom: and $705 restricted rent with $750-785
market rate for a two bedroom. The current rents
shou 1 d be rest ri cted to 30%, 1/12 of 80% of the area
median ($37,900). This would mean, that to be truly
affordable, a one-person household should pay no more
than $530/month: a two-person household should pay no
more than $606/month: and a four-person household
(maximum allowable for a two-bedroom) should pay no
more than $758/month. Using this criteria, some of
the tenants may be overpaying per their individual
househo 1 d income 1 eve 1 though the project is
operating within contract conditions.
Restrictions will continue to be monitored until 1996
at which time the owner may convert this complex to
market rate rents.
3. Tax-Exempt Bond Financinq
Tax-exempt bond revenues helped finance 608 units of which
20% were set-aside for restricted rents for a minimum of
10 years. Bond revenues were used to provide below
market - rate construct i on and permanent fi nanc i ng in
exchange for the fo 11 owi ng 121 rest ri cted rental un its.
The two projects include:
Low Income Total Units
Eucalyptus 75 units 376
Terra Nova 46 units 232
Built in 1986, current rents at the Eucalyptus project are:
Bedrooms Size: Sinqle ill ill
Monthly Rent: $420 $475 $535
The owner is also restricted from any condo-conversions
for 10 years. Vacancy rates fluctuated in the last 4 years
but have stabilized at 5% in the total project. There are
no vacancies in the affordable unit category.
1-11
01. - ~I
The second project is Terra Nova. Built in 19B5, this 232
unit project has 46 restricted rental units. The current
rental schedule is:
Bedroom Size:
ill
$580
$630-635
ill
$685
$745-755
Restricted Rent:
Market Rent:
In review, the restricted rents under the the current bond
programs appear to be more affordable than those provided
under the "Affordable Housing Program". However, the ten
year restriction of rents seems too low given the level of
subsidy each developer received (below market interest on
permanent financing for the life of the loan).
4. Family Density Bonus
Under thi s program, Cooperat i on Agreements are negotiated
with each developer to set aside up to 25% of the
project's pre-dens i ty bonus units for restri cted rents in
accordance with establ ished contract guidel ines for 10-25
years. An annua 1 rev i ew of current rent rolls is
required. A total of three (3) projects involving 16
affordab 1 e un its were produced under the fami 1 y dens i ty
bonus program. (#'s 11,29,21).
Restricted
Units
Total
Units
Fourth Avenue:
Woodlawn:
Zuniga:
Totals:
9
6
-.l
16
53
37
~
98
The following rent schedules illustrate both the current
restricted rents and the market rates for density bonus
family projects:
Restricted Rents/Market Rents
Bedroom Size: Studio ill ill
Fourth Avenue: $420/ $475/5B5 $535/705
Woodlawn /595 /695
Zuniga/Oxford on /575*
Section 8 Contract 157*/
* The Zuniga project built in 1987 has only one restricted
rental out of the eight (8) in the project. Current
contract rent is $575 for a one bedroom, one bath.
However, this tenant is assisted by Section 8 and
contributes $157 per month toward the rental payment.
1-12
d-d-~
The 1 eve I of a ffordabi I ity, whi I e with in the acceptable
cont ract range, does not effect i ve I y meet the needs of
those families earning between 50-80% of area median
income. It is thi s groups' needs that the future
comprehensive housing programs will address during the
next planning period.
B.3 Redevelopment Housinq Fund Proqrams
The Redevelopment Agency was incorporated in 1972. Since then,
two Redevelopment Di stri cts have generated tax increment funds
whi ch have been used to increase and improve the supply of low
and moderate-income housing.
According to the Chula Vista finance records, the followin9
funds were available in the Housing Fund from 1987-1989.
New Funds:
'87
$742,890
842,471
'88
'89
Total:
$660,242
987,639
$ 595,693
1,110,290
During the planning period, several very different projects
have been funded. Following is a detailed description of the
programs expanding home ownership opportunities for single
family and mobile home owners, landbanking, and finally an
equ ity share deferred loan rental complex. Wh i I e 50% of the
Fund is currently used by the Community Housing Improvement
Program (CHIP), the detailed discussion of that program follows
under the separate heading of Rehab Proqrams.
1. Homeownership
a. Brandywine
In addition to the home ownership opportunities
offered through the affordable housing policy,
between 1988-1989, a unique home-ownership program
for qual i fi ed fi rst- time home buyers was made
available to 126 moderate-income households in a 168
unit condo complex called Brandywine (#2). $1.6
Million of the Affordable Housing Fund supported this
project in the form of a 50/50 loan and grant to
Housing Opportunities, Inc. (HOI). HOI is a
non-profit, housing corporation that managed the
project.
The Housing Fund made a 50/50 combination loan and
grant to the non-profit who would market the program
to first-time buyers. The program offered to reduce
1-13
01-;J.3
the principal amount to be financed in each unit by
originating a "silent second" purchase money loan
which would have been secured by a second Trust Deed
payable in 20 years. However, as previously
mentioned, the interest rates became so attractive
that 75% of the first-time buyers were able to
qualify for permanent financing using FHA and/or
CHFA loans through Home Federal Bank at very
favorable interest rates and terms (8.8%, 30-year
fixed rate).
The loan to the Agency was pa i din full and that
portion of the profits in excess of 10% of the
project sales were also returned to the Agency in
1990. The grant portion ($800,000) was used to
write-down the costs of needed project
infrastructure.
b. Oranqe Tree Mobile Home loans
The Commun ity Development Department loaned $500,000
to the Orange Tree (#19) Homeowners Association to
help existing residents purchase spaces within this
mobilehome park. Additionally, in the FY 88/89, the
Agency made direct loans in the total amount of
$250,000 from the Fund to another 26 eligible
1 ow- income res i dents to help purchase thei r spaces.
In order to be eligible, borrowers had to be over 62
years of age and low-income (under 80% of area median
income). These loans are secured by Deeds of Trust
and are due in 2017 or when the property is sold.
The Agency will al so participate in an equity share
of the appreciation of the mobile home property at
the time of sale.
The Commun ity Development Department also secured a
$600,000 loan from the State Housing and Community
Deve 1 opment Department to help acqu i re the site for
the Homeowner's Association. In addition, $100,000
from the City Housing Fund helped make the necessary
park improvements required by the final subdivision
map approval.
2. landbankinq
lower Sweetwater Site
In 1986, the Redevelopment Agency purchased a 14.5 acre
site known as lower Sweetwater for $160,000. At the time
this site was not committed to a specific use, however, in
1-14
~-~LJ
1989, St. Vincent de Paul initiated a proposal to build a
mobile home relocation park on the site. Since then, the
site has been under consideration for this use and is
currently awaiting a final EIR determination.
3. Rental Housinq New Construction
a. Oranqe Tree Mobile Home Park
In February 1989, Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency
purchased 29 spaces and coaches in Orange Tree mobile
home park using $600,000 as a 25% down payment from
the Redevelopment Hous i ng Fund. The balance of the
sa 1 es pri ce was fi nanced through mortgage loans from
the Bank of America. Loan payments are serviced
through the rental income from the 24 space rentals.
The park is a senior citizen park, and to qualify for
residency at least one resident per trailer must be
62 years of age or older. Orange Tree is
predomi nant 1 y owned by the park res i dents who have
reta i ned a property manager to collect common area
maintenance fees and enforce park rules. The
Redeve 1 opment Agency has reta i ned the same property
manager to collect the rents and manage the remaining
24 rental units it owns in the park. The space rents
are $307/month and include association fees and
$375/month for the one space and trailer available
for rent.
The long-term goal of these City-owned spaces is to
sell them to low-income senior residents. To date
five (5) spaces have been sold with the proceeds
deposited back into the Housing Fund.
b. Multi-family Rentals
In 1986, the One Park project (#18) restricted 71
units out of a 94-unit family complex in exchange for
an $850,000 deferred second loan payable in 10 years,
or at the time of sale. The Redevelopment Agency
will participate in an equity share of the
apprec i ated market value of 4.5% of the property at
the time of sale. All of the City's profit share of
the proceeds will be deposited into the Redevelopment
Housing Fund.
4. Rehab Proqrams
Chul a Vi sta' s rehabi 1 itat i on program, known as the
Community Housing Improvement Program (CHIP) incorporates
three elements of assistance in originating single family,
mobile home, and rental rehab loans. Together these
elements offer low-interest or deferred loans to all
I -1 ~
~-~.r
segments of housing in need of repair. Approximately 90%
of the loans were ori gi nated through the Redevelopment
Fund, while the remaining 10% of the funds utilized either
CDBG or the HUD Rental Rehab Program.
Durin9 the years of 1985 to early 1990, nearly $4 Mill ion
dollars have been loaned to 134 low-income single family
homeowners at an average of 27 loans a year. The City has
also originated 107 loans and grants totalling over
$155,000 for mobile home rehab. In addition, 10 rental
rehab un i ts benefi ted from the City's two Rental Rehab
Programs.
a. Sinqle-Familv Rehab Loans
The s i ngl e fami 1 y rehab loans i nc 1 ude every facet of
home repa i rand remodel i ng such as roof replacement,
kitchen and bath renovation, complete floor-covering,
fenci ng, and outdoor sid i ng. Loans cover the cost of
room additions, and in some cases complete new home
replacement when the existing home is beyond
economical repair. The loan amounts vary but
typically are $27,000-34,000jeach. Terms are 5%
interest for 15 years or deferred for the 1 ife of
anyone 62 years of age or older whose income is equal
to or under 80% of the median income, payable upon
change of ownership and secured by a lien on the
property.
Loans made to non-elderly individuals with incomes
less than 50% of median income may have their loan
payments deferred for two years and secured by a lien
on the property. Recertification is mandatory to
defer the loan for another two years or placing the
owners in a paying status of 5% for 15 years.
b. Mobilehome Owner Rehabilitation Loans
This program provides a grant to eligible mobile home
owners of up to $1,000 to cover the costs of
rehabilitation items. Under certain circumstances,
this can be increased to $1,999 by approval of the
Trailer CHIP Loan Committee.
The Agency has originated 107 loans and grants over
the past five years in excess of $155,000. The
average grant is above $1,500 and usually is enough
to complete the required work. Projects requiring
more than $2,000 worth of work may be eligible for a
5% loan. Deferred loans are not made for mobilehomes
and trailers.
1-16
J-~ '"
Most eligible grantees chose to accept the full grant
amount and make up the difference in any addit i ona 1
cost from thei r own resources. Approximately 70-90%
of the mobile home loans were made to elderly
households. The remaining loans were made to
disabled individuals, of which 2% were minority
households.
I n the 1 ast fi ve years, 3 coach replacement loans
were made to owners whose exi st i ng coach was beyond
repair.
c. Rental Rehab Proqram
There are two rental rehab loan programs owners can
avail themselves of in order to maintain their
properties at acceptable levels, and keep rents
within the levels required by Section 8 Rental
Guidelines.
(1) The City's own program will originate a loan to
cover the full cost of rehabi 1 itation in
exchange for a 5% loan payabl e over 15 years.
Annual payments may be estimated at $8 of debt
service to every $1000.00 borrowed. Rents may
be no higher than Section 8 rental guidelines
for a period of 10 years.
(2) In this HUD Rental Rehab Program, the owner
applies for a schedule of rehabilitation work.
If all the work requested falls within the
guidelines established by HUD as to per unit
costs, the loan amount (including administrative
costs) is matched on a 50/50 basis with HUD
funds. The amount of money loaned is a 10 year
deferred forqiveness loan in that every year 10%
is deducted from the principal amount and at the
end of 10 years the owner owes nothi ng. The
owner must agree to continue renting to
low-income famil ies for 10 years and must not
convert the units to condominiums.
Max i mum loan ass i stance is 50% of the per unit rehab
costs to a maximum of $7,500 per unit for two bedroom
un i ts and $8,500 per un it for a three bedroom un it,
but this can be increased 14% by permission from
HUD. Eighty percent of the loans were made to
rehabilitate two bedroom units. Occupants in 50% of
the units had incomes of below 50% of area median.
1-17
~-~r
During the planning period, 8 units were refurbished
using HUD rental rehab funds of $58,611.34. A total
of (4) Sect i on 8 vouchers and (4) Sect ion 8
certificates were used in conjunction with this
program.
Summary
Overall the combined efforts of single-family, mobile
home and rental rehab programs makes this one of the
strongest performing elements of the City's housing
programs. Thi s program targets properties with
substandard conditions which warrant structural
repair loans. The residents of the rehabilitated
units are predominantly (70%) occupied by lower
income people (incomes below 80% of median). Either
by direct 1 end i ng or through Sect ion 8 rental
subsidies low-income household are receiving direct
benefits from these efforts.
Loan ScreeninG and Evaluation
All proposed loans are screened and evaluated by the
City staffed CHIP loan committee. Approved loans are
then referred to the Bank of America for loan
processing. Mobile home park loans are screened by a
committee of mobile home park residents and are
processed through the Bank of America as well.
5. Mobilehome ProGrams
The City has made a deep commitment to mobile home park
issues with its ordinances regarding mobilehome relocation
assistance, rent arbitration, mobilehome assistance
program, and mobile home rehab loans (previously
discussed). Each program adds an important component to
the overall assistance made to low-income mobile home park
residents.
Mobile Home Park Relocation Ordinances
Under the Mobile Home Park Relocation Ordinance, park
owners are required to submit a relocation assistance
plan with the Community Development Department pri or
to any park conversion/closure being approved.
During the planning period, one park closure occurred
at Al's Trailer Haven. This park owner went beyond
the requirements of the ordinance and assisted all
tenants who requested assi stance regardl ess of thei r
income or the length of time the tenants had resided
1-18
d-~ 'i
in the park. This owner rented space in other parks
and held them open unt i 1 his former tenants had an
opportunity to move the trailers into the new space.
All relocation costs were borne by the park owner who
a 1 so offered to buy tenant trail er and mobile homes
at negotiated rates. A total of 49 units were
assisted in this park closure (3/31/89). Total costs
of relocation assistance were all privately financed.
Rent Arbitration Ordinance
This ordinance outlines the procedures by which a
mobile home park owner may raise space rents in their
parks. A fund was set-up, initially with a $4,000.00
grant from an association of mobile home park owners,
who wished to better coordinate and organize rental
increase disputes.
Notice requirements for regular rent increases up to
the current annual rate of the Consumer Price Index
(CPI) prevail. That is, if the space rent is a month
to month tenancy, a GO-day not i ce is requi red.
However, if the 1 andl ord wi shes to ra i se the rents
above the current annual CPI a copy of the proposed
rent increase must be sent to the Housing Coordinator
of the City. This specially worded notice (see
ordinance addenda) must be reviewed by the
coordinator and then given to the park residents.
Notice is hereby given to all affected lower income
residents (those whose incomes fall between $13,000 -
$15,000 per year) that they may be eligible for
monetary ass i stance to defray part of the cost of
arbitration in the event the residents dispute the
increase. As a result, the City's Housing
Coordinator is responsible for monitoring compliance
and managing the arbitration process of any di sputed
rent increases.
Bavscene
In 1987, the residents of Bayscene Mobile Home Park
were given a rent increase above the appl icable CPI
increase. At the time, the City's Ordinance provided
a mechanism for the residents to request mediation by
a third party. When mediation failed, the City
enacted a Binding Arbitration Ordinance.
1-19
;J-~'
In the interim period, specifically in February of
1989, the park was sold. Both owners were involved
in the arbitration process. In July of 1990, the
arbitrator made an award in favor of the claimants,
the Bayscene resident negotiators. The award only
covered the period in which the original owners were
the owners. As a result, thousands of dollars in
excess of increases in the CPI have been collected by
the new owner which still need to be addressed. If
the new owner is requ i red to correct the error, he
would have to refund over-charged rents and a rent
roll-back to those residents on month-to-month
tenancies.
A major mi sconcept i on has exi sted in that the
residents believed the Ordinance was designed to
avoid attorney fees, court costs, etc. and would be
timely. This has not been the case. Having
exhausted the arbitration remedy, the residents have
since retained an attorney to bring this case to a
final resolution.
Mobilehome Assistance ProQram
In June 1986, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of
Chula Vista ("Agency") approved a program of
assistance for the residents of Orange Tree
Mobilehome Park in response to their specific
requirements and also to provide a guide to evaluate
future requests. While the actual assistance
provided to Orange Tree is di scussed under projects
Funded by the Redevelopment Housing Fund, the program
provides loans to assist eligible mobilehome park
residents to purchase their mobilehome parks, convert
parks to resident ownership and reduce the costs of
mobilehome park ownership to an affordable level for
el igible buyers. The intent of this program is to
preserve a I ow- income hous i ng opt i on preference for
low and, in some cases, moderate-income families and
seniors. Financial assistance may include: 0%
interest on interim financing, long-term financing of
both blanket loans or individual loans which may be
deferred interest or equity share loans due and
payable 30 years from origination if no sale occurs
within that time.
Summarv
The City has again been successful in creating a
comprehensive program that meets the diverse needs of
mobile home park residents in providing rehabilitation
grants and loans, relocation assistance and rent
arbitration resolution, in addition to expanded
homeownership opportunities.
1-20
~-JO
6. Relocation and Demolition Ordinance
In accordance with State and Federal laws, the City
provides assistance to any individual displaced through
Redevelopment activities. During the planning period,
three (3) eligible home owners and fifteen (15) tenants
were relocated.
Displaced tenants renting the acquired property for at
least three (3) months were eligible for up to a $4,000
displacement sum and an additional dislocation payment of
$200, and up to $400 in movi ng costs. Relocated tenants
with Section 8 vouchers received $850 for moving and
dislocation costs.
Displaced homeowners who had owned and occupied the
acquired property for at least six (6) months prior to the
initiation of negotiations for property acquisition were
eligible for a $15,000 relocation payment.
Table of Relocation Assisted Households
1985 2 Tenant Relocations
1986 No Residential Relocations
1987 6 Tenant Relocations
1988 7 Tenant Relocations (incl. 5 Section 8
transfers)
1988 I Owner - Occupant Relocations
1989 2 Owner - Occupant Relocations
Total: 18 Relocated Households in the 5-year period
7. Weatherization Proqram
While the City does not operate a weatherization program,
one of the largest non-profit organizations in the San
Diego area, Metropolitan Area Advisory Committee (MAAC),
use State monies of approximately $500,000 a year on a
grant program targeted towards individuals whose annual
incomes are below $9,264 (two person maximum). The
maximum grant size is $1,600 but due to the reduction in
tota 1 funds ava i 1 ab 1 e each year, the program manager now
only authorizes $400 grants per household. This allows
the program to serve as many people as poss i b 1 e,
approximately 254 households in the South Bay a year.
These grants are used to weather-strip homes and replace
windows and/or doors.
1-21
~-al
B.4 CDBG Funded ProQrams
1. Overview of EXDenditures
The City has used the Community Development Block Grant in
a variety of ways to promote neighborhood improvement
projects that directly affect the overall health of the
commun i ty. The foIl owi ng is a record of the CDBG
performance from 1985-1990.
Whi 1 e the tot a 1 budget appropri at i on has grown each year,
the percent allocated to housing has decl ined. As
presented in Table 2-CDBG expenditures, during '85 through
'89 single family and mobilehome park loans were
originated in targeted low-income or economically
distressed neighborhoods. During fiscal year 1984/85
approximately 23 single-family loans and 25 mobilehome
loans were completed. In fiscal year 1985/86, 22 single
fami 1 y loans and 20 mobil ehomes were completed. Duri ng
fiscal year 86/87, single-family lending dropped to 2
loans and 13 mobilehome loans were made through the CDBG
fund. During the planning cycle, a total of $2,415,801
was spent on housing rehabilitation loans specifically
targeted to low-income households. While these program
achievements assisted many families, redevelopment staff
have determined that due to the inflexibil ity of Federal
guidelines with regard to construction and rehabilitation
it is far more effective to use CDBG funds in public works
and social service activities such as the housing referral
programs than rehab 1 endi ng. One such funded act i vi ty is
the Fair Housing Coordinator, a part-time position, whose
function is to refer individual tenants to the appropriate
social service agency regarding tenant landlord disputes
or other fair housing conflicts. The other housing
re 1 ated soci a 1 servi ce programs funded through CDBG are
described below, i.e., the Shared Housing Service and
Homeless Shelter Referrals.
1-22
Gl""~
TABLE 2
OVERVIEW OF CDBG EXPENDITURES 1985-90
1985 $890,103 Total Expenditures
Housing Loans
Referrals
Code Enforcement
Public Works
Social Service
Administration
Economic Dev.
* Housing Related
47%
339,000 *
42,000 *
33,000 *
188,200
52,500
69,403
166,000
1986 - $1,129,444 Total Expenditures
Housing Loans
Referrals
Code Enforcement
Public Works
Social Service
Administration
Economic Dev.
* Housing Related
37%
351,000 *
47,200 *
9,000 *
426,100
75,160
214,450
6,534
1987 - $351,000 Total Expenditures
Mobile Home Loans
Housing Referrals
Public Works
Social Service
Administration
Economic Dev.
* Housing Related
20%
42,600 *
29,800 *
110,500
103,100
64,900
100
1988 - $1,469,500 Total Expenditures
Housing Loans
Referrals
Public Works
Social Service
Administration
Economic Dev.
* Housing Related
5%
17,100 *
61,400 *
1,188,000
57,100
57,000
88,900
1989 - $782,380 Total Expenditures
Housing Loans
Referrals
Public Works
Social Service
Administration
Economic Dev.
* Housing Related
16%
44,107 *
83,070 *
396,322
111,802
84,670
62,409
1990 - $1,412,694 Approved Total Budget * Housing Related
3%
Housing Referrals
Public Works
Social Service
Econ Dev.jAdm.
1-23
02 -s.3
40,000 *
967,094
174,150
231,450
2. Shared Housinq
Approximately 400 people were assisted in finding room and
board through the South County Counc i 1 on Ag i ng in the
last five years. This program has received approximately
$18,000 a year from Chula Vista's CDBG allocation. They
match seniors with single mothers, and other single
individuals who need room and board, with elderly
homeowners who have extra rooms which they are willing to
rent. Typical rental rates are $250-275 per month.
3. Homeless Shelter Referrals
Although there is a lack of detailed information that
accurately enumerates homeless individuals by geographic
area, in 1988, The Regional Task Force on the Homeless
prepared a report for the South Bay sub-region which
includes National City, Chula Vista, Imperial Beach and a
portion of San Diego. The total number of South Bay
homeless who spend the night on the streets, in an
automobile, in a park, on the beach, in a campground or in
unauthorized campsites on any given night, is estimated to
be between 135-200. A more conservat i ve est imate of 125
is supported by observations reported in the Task Force on
Homelessness in the South Bay published in 1988.
Homelessness is recognized as a regional problem shared by
all cities within the South Bay. To help meet its share
of the problem, 12 churches in Chula Vista have been
permitted to participate in the Inter-Faith Emergency
Shelter Program, and two local motels participate in the
South Bay Voucher Program within the City limits of Chula
Vista. Additionally, the homeless may be referred to some
of the other shelter programs listed below.
The homeless service screening agent in the South Bay is
the Lutheran Soc i a 1 Servi ce. They screen the South Bay
cases and evaluate the emergency needs of these people.
The ultimate purpose is to refer them to the following
facilities and/or programs:
a. South Bay Voucher Proqram
According the the Task Force Report on the Homeless
(1988),"during some portions of the year, homeless
families and a limited number of single adults may
receive vouchers for a two-week stay in selected
motels through local social service agencies. During
peri ods of shelter voucher ava i 1 abi 1 ity, an average
of five single adults and twenty-five family members
1-24
d--3l1
can be found in the two participating South Bay
motels each night in Chula Vista and Bonita. During
...a vouchering period, nearly half of the 177
separate individuals sheltered were children."
A voucher is issued to individuals and families which
provides room and board for up to (2) two weeks.
Th i s system served 527 cases in two 1 oca 1 hotels in
the 1 as t year. The next cycle of funds wi 11 not be
available until December 1990. This program is
funded through the Cathol ic Charities by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
b. Inter-faith Emerqencv Shelter Proqram
Twelve beds are available to homeless people during
the months of December - Apri 1 each year for up to
six weeks at a time. This is a volunteer effort done
in cooperat i on with several South Bay churches
including twelve in Chula Vista.
To facilitate this program's success, the Chula Vista
City Council adopted an urgency ordinance on
September 13, 1988 estab 1 i sh i ng an accessory use of
12 local churches as temporary shelters for the
homeless. A permanent amendment to Section 19.58.110
of the City's municipal code became effective on
12-9-88 allowing the accommodation of up to 12
persons to be temporarily housed at church facilities
subsequent to the adherence to specific conditions.
c. La Ouinta - Hotels and Motels in Partnership
The La Quinta motel in Chula Vista participates in a
nation-wide effort by the Motel Owners Association of
America who volunteer to provide up to 10% of their
rooms a year for the homeless. This program provides
28 free nights a year up to three nights per fami 1 y
unit. This facil ity consistently uses its quota of
rooms per year.
d. Victory Outreach
This communal housing shelter has been operating in
its downtown San Diego location for the past six
years. Upon referral from Lutheran Services,
prospective cl ients undergo further screening at the
Outreach facility. This is a live-in, total
immersion training program for people with histories
1-25
OJ-dS
of substance abuse. Approximately 120 people a year
complete the 9-12 month training program designed
around Christian Fundamentalist practices. There are
facilities for single men and women but no children.
The project counselor maintains that once enrollees
complete the program, approximately 50% are
completely successful at re-entering the working
world and leading normal lives.
e. St. Vincent De Paul
Again, according to the Task Force study, "
approximately 10% of the 900 shelter beds in San
Diego are occupied by individuals who originated from
the South Bay, according to shelter provider
estimates and actual tallies... ."
The St. Vincent De Paul shelter is just one of those
centrally located in the City of San Diego. This
shelter sponsors many live-in, job-training
programs. Also during the 89/90 measles epidemic,
infectious cases were quarantined here. These
programs depleted the supply of beds available to the
homeless.
In conclusion, the South Bay homeless population, is
estimated to be approximately 60% homeless families.
Almost two-thirds of these family members are
children. These estimates are primarily based on the
observations of social service agencies. In addition
to the above referral efforts, an effort will be made
duri ng the next p 1 anni ng cycle to develop and
construct a new shelter or transitional home to help
serve homeless families in the Chula Vista area.
C. AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN PROGRESS
Guaranteed HousinQ (392 units)
Public Family Housing
22 Units Dorothy Street
18 Units (Undetermined Site)
40 units
Remaining Balance of Referenda
Authority
277 units
Section 202
75 units
1-26
J~3(,
Potential Housinq (616 units)
Family Density Bonus
Senior Density Bonus
3 units
units
23 units
72 units
195 un its
18 units
55 un its
250 units
Rancho del Rey (balance due)
Pinwheel Condos
Sunbow (pending)
EastLake I (balance due)
Salt Creek I (pending)
Salt Creek Ranch (pending)
III. CONCLUSIONS
Areas SUQQested for SDecial Consideration
While Chula Vista has an impressive record of affordable housing
production, some areas of improvement have been noted which will be one
target of the proposed programs described in Part 3. There are four main
areas which need special consideration:
1 )
deficiencies in
providing more
periods of time.
application of private sector
units to lower-income families
programs in
for longer
2) expansion of funding sources including investigation of new
state programs and public-private partnerships.
3)
attention to ensuring full and equitable
integration of lower-income affordable housing
City's new eastern territories development.
neighborhood
within the
4)
an increased inter-departmental effort
implementation of the goals and objectives
El ement.
in monitoring
of the Housing
While these four special considerations form a broad framework, and
summari ze opportun i ties for improvement i dent ifi ed through comprehens i ve
review of the 1986 Housing Element, more specific refinements are
necessary to meaningfully guide development of the Comprehensive Housing
Plan embodied in Part 3. In order to further direct policy and program
development responsive to these special considerations, the following
corollaries have been developed as suggestions for the 1991-96 planning
period.
1-27
0)-31-
Suqqested Steos for the 1991-96 Planninq Period
To assist the City in meeting the next 5-year goals the following steps
are recommended:
1. A more coordinated and integrated approach among departments in
meeting stated housing element goals which would include; building
and code enforcement referrals to the rehab coordinator for
potential financial assistance, and increase in communication on
project decisions between the Planning and Community Development
Departments during new construction project reviews.
2. A commitment to annual inter-departmental reviews of goals and
objectives in order to keep all departments apprised of the numerous
changes in the laws, regulations, financial constraints and market
cond it ions affect i ng hous i ng development. Th is expanded commi tment
would include
a. A rev i ew of the Hous i ng Adv i sory Commit tee membersh i p, role,
and function. Suggested expansion of responsibil ities would
include review and recommendation on all affordable housing
proposals, and an annual review and report on all housing
policy and program performance from the Housing Advisory
Committee to the Planning Commission and City Council.
b. Consideration of affordable housing early on in the planning
process, including the General Plan Development (GDP) process
for those projects utilizing Planned Community (PC) zoning.
c. Standardized notification to the Housing Coordinator of all
projects which require affordable housing provisions at the
time of initial project application.
3. Exploration of non-profit sponsored low-income housing production as
the best way to insure long-term affordability and the leveraging of
limited City dollars into funding programs.
4. The Community Development Department may want to cons i der taki ng a
more assertive role in packaging the first SAMCO (Savings
Association Mortgage Company Organization) or CCRC (California
Commun ity Rei nvestment Corporat i on) or Federal Home Loan Community
Investment Fund (CIF) loan proposal for selected developer(s) in
Chula Vista. In this way, the City could lay the ground work for
successive activity in this type of "layered-private-sector
financing".
Additionally, new State programs have now become available for which
the City may want to take the lead in land assembly and
pre-development on behalf of selected non-profit social service
agencies who provide a broad spectrum of services to particular
segments of the population (i.e. the elderly, handicapped, the
homeless, and the at-risk population).
1-28
~-.3-g
5. In bringing the current density bonus ordinance into conformity with
new State mandates, the City will alter current guidelines for
density bonus family units, and put before Council an alternative
calculation which better responds to the needs of lower-income
households.
6. An alternative calculation might be considered for "for-sale"
properties which would distinguish between two groups: first-time
buyers and "empty-nesters". In other words, it may be too 1 imit i ng
to exclude people who would be paying more than 30% of the area
median income on a housing payment and not make some adjustment for
tax credit advantages, value of appreciation, and the value of
upward mobility of home buying vs. renting. The City may develop an
equity share formula on a deferred loan program for first-time
homebuyers. This home ownership program would allow future re-sale
and loan pay-backs to be reinvested in future affordable housing
projects.
7.
The Commun i ty Development Department has recently
person to the task of annual rent monitoring
cooperat i on agreements. A further recommendation
cooperation agreements be filed separately and not
the performance periods have expired.
assigned a staff
of all on-going
is that on-going
stored away until
8. In a joint effort between Community Development and Planning, a
marketing program should be developed to facilitate applicant
understanding of affordable housing requirements and compliance.
This program would include brochures describing the various
procedures, programs, and compliance requirements for affordable
housing production in the City.
9. Establ ish specific requirements and procedures for the submission
and revi ew of an "Affi rmat i ve Market i ng Pl an" for the provi s i on of
10% affordable housing in projects over 50 units when the applicant
claims such housing provision is not economically feasible.
10. Improve systematic monitoring of rents and sales of units reliant on
conditional use permits or under cooperative agreements.
These recommendat ions are the subject of further program addressment in
Part 3.
WPC OOOlp
1-29
C) -J~
.
CHULA VISTA
ASSISTED HOUSING PROJECTS
1971 THRU 1989
\
\
\
.\
,:\
:,':\
,',\ ~.--
\'~~~.~~.
~\ -v,'c
\,
~"~~_.
I
-t
h
/'
.._J "
,..,.
/'...
-~
.,,-......,..-.
1 r., r--
L -I,.L_J
r-~.4----.
J I
l
--.:s=.;:;---",\
\
\
\
,
\
\.
\
\
\
t:=:\ ""OJI!CT LO'CATION
\:!;; lEE RECORD LISTING I
....UNITT DEVELOPMENT 1-80 8LP'.
\)
I
"t.
.......
Pr--O,JE"ct
t'''tddt'""E'SS
.
1. Be-a con Cove
2.Brandywi.ne
3. B,oadway Apts
4.Uurkhar-t. Senior-
S.Lamelot
6.Cante....-bLlt"""y Cour--t
7.Lastl.e Pa.rk Gar-den
a.Congregational lowe.
9. Cotta.ges.
lOEucalyptLls Grove
ll'FoLlrth Ave Ap-ts
12.K.iku Gardens
13.Lo-rq r-en
14.I'leadows
IS.lvle 1. .....ose 1"1an 0 r-
16.1....0<55 Street West
17. () a k reo............. a. ceo
18.une Pa.......k
19.u,...-anqe Tr--ee fv1obi.le Pa.,.-V
20.Uxfo.......d Tet"'"race
21.0 )( T C) ...... d ~ Z Ll n i g a.
22.Paloma....... Farni ly
23. P a. ...... k F i f t h A v eo _
24.Pa......kway Senl0.......
25.Rancho Vi.sta
26.Te......-.a Nova
27. r Cl w n Ceo n t r- e M a. n Cl t"
2a.Villa. l'1a..--tini.que
29.WClOd 1.. awn
~ _56 I:::: _ .. H .. S t _
1501 Brandywine
1053 Broadway St
12'l1 5th
Lakerldqe Dr.& B,aokstone
3...56 "CoO St.
Rd.
272 Kennedy St.
288 "F" St
Clear--water- PI
67 E.... Flowe...... St
~.q-66 4th Ave
IL60 -5rd_
(~ve
l"'l:iracost.d C:ir
1061 GranJds Rd
1678 '....eJ rase Ave
533 140ss St.
423 Church AvE"
350 .:...'O;t~d_
AvE".
521
~~5
:::'51
UranqE"
U x f 0 ,- d
Ux .T'or-d
Pa l(::lma.r
Ave
St
St
St
1/1
~-564 5th
AvE'_
1~11-41S Parkwa.y Dr.
l.q.l'/ Obld.S Dr
4C-lO E "1-1" St.
4 ~6 "f-" S t
LastL.ake
er-r-ace
M~6~~8~5~ Woodlawn Ave.
DRAFT
~ ".~, ~- ~ r., ~~'T
c.' _ ,;, !
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART 2: Needs. Resources. and Constraints
I.
Introduction
Paqe
I 1-]
II. Needs Analysis
A.
Existing Unmet Needs
Vacancy and Absorption Rates
11-]
A.I Overpayment in Rental Housing
A.2 Overpayment in Owned Housing
A.3 Overcrowded Housing
A.4 Substandard Housing
11-2
11-6
11-9
11-]0
B. Special Need Populations
B.l The Elderly and Disabled
B.2 Homeless Families
B.3 Single Headed Households
B.4 Large Families
B.5 Farmworkers/Dayworkers
B.6 Mobile Home Park Residents
B.7 Students
II -14
II-IS
II -15
11-16
II -16
11-16
11-18
C. At Risk Housing
C.l Family Units - HUD 236 Contracts
C.2 Other Housing Units at Risk
D. Projected Needs
0.1 Introduction/Current Estimates 11-20
0.2 Population and Housing Growth Forecasts 11-23
0.3 Chula Vista's Share of the Region's Housing Needs 11-25
Regional Share Allocation 11-26
Fair Share Allocation 11-26
11-18
11-20
III. Resources
A. Introduction/Overview
B. Chula Vista General Plan Update
C. Land Use/Resource Inventory
11-27
11-27
11-28
~-I.f~
',." ;-
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd)
PART 2: Needs. Resources. and Constraints
Paqe
IV. Constraints
A. Overview II -31
B. Governmental Constraints 11-31
B. I Land Use Controls 11-31
B.2 Growth Management II-32
B.3 Building Codes and Enforcement II-33
B.4 Improvement Requirements/Development Standards II-33
B.5 Processing, Permits, Fees, and Exactions II-34
C. Non-Governmental Constraints 11-37
C.I Financing Availability 11-37
C.2 Land and Construction Costs 11-39
C.3 Employment Opportunities 11-40
C.4 Other Impacts 11-42
V. Summary 11-43
;;-4f.3
,-- "-,", .--'.'1-
I .. ' "',::'"
~... "..,' \..
PART 2 NEEDS, RESOURCES, AND CONSTRAINTS
I. INTRODUCTION
As part of its response to the ever-growing and critical need for not
only affordable lower-income housing, but also decent and suitable
housing for families in all income groups in the rapidly growing State of
Cal ifornia, the State Legislature has declared in Article 10.6 of the
Cal ifornia Government Code, Section 65583, that as part of their Housing
Elements, cities shall periodically identify and analyze the existing and
projected needs for housing within their communities. Part of this
analysis shall include an inventory of available resources, and an
identification of constraints relative to the City's ability to provide
for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing to meet the
identified need.
In accordance with these requi rements, Part 2 of the Hous i ng El ement of
1991 has been structured to provide an assessment of local needs,
resources, and constraints in establ ishing the basis for a comprehensive
set of poliCies and programs, calculated to address Chula Vista's
prov is i on of adequate hous i ng for all income groups through 1996. The
resulting pol icies and programs are embodied in the five-year housing
plan outlined in Part 3.
The following pages provide quantified analYSis for current unmet needs
in terms of overpayment, overcrowding, substandard conditions, and
various "special needs" groups such as the elderly, handicapped, single
parent families, and the homeless. Projected needs based on expected
regional growth and employment are provided, and the ability for Chula
Vista's land base and regulatory framework to adequately respond is
discussed. Finally, specific governmental and non-governmental
constraints in the way of land use controls, financing availabil ity,and
land and construction costs are evaluated.
II. NEEDS ANALYSIS
A. Existing Unmet Needs
Vacancy and Absorption Rates
Within the following section, general population characteristics are
discussed relative to the existing supply of housing to determine if
the 1 eve 1 of product i on has kept up with overall demand in the area
as indicated by vacancy and absorption rates. Information was
gathered from several sources: Department of Finance (January 1,
1990 estimates), SANDAG Regional Housing Needs Statement and Series
7 Population Forecast, and the Home Mortgage Disclosure Data for
1988.
Generally, the older, well established neighborhoods with smaller
homes have smaller average households of 2.67 persons, wh i 1 e the
newer census tracts (CT 134.03 and 134.04) east of HWY 805 have an
average household of 3.5 persons. The Department of Finance
estimated an overall population per household size at 2.693 for
January 1990. Although these are the best available estimates, all
the researchers cautioned that the methodology for calculating these
figures may not reflect the actual living conditions of certain
neighborhoods, especially those in Chula Vista south of L Street.
II-I 02 - ~~
The total estimated number of dwell ing units for January 1990 was
49,863 according to the State Department of Finance. This figure is
used by SANDAG to estimate the City's capacity to meet existing and
future needs. The overall Department of Finance vacancy factor was
3.29%, however, the following table shows the significant difference
in vacancy between types of housing.
TABLE 3
VACANCY RATES BY UNIT TYPE
STATE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE - POPULATION ESTIMATE
January 1, 1990
Overa 11
Vacancv Rate
1. 79
3.18
4.14
4.94
4.57*
3.29
SFD
SFA
2-4
5+
MH
*Staff-generated vacancy rate based on number of occupied units.
In analyzing SANDAG'S Series 7 Population Forecast information for
1988, four census tracts appeared to have higher than average
vacancy rates. Three of these tracts (CT 131.01, 132.01 and
133.03), in older neighborhoods south of l Street, also had a large
proportion of low-income rental housing units. The fourth tract
which estimated higher than average vacancy rates (CT 134.04)is in
the developing eastern side of the City where new growth is expected
to exceed demand for the short-term.
In a survey conducted by Commun ity Development, vacancy factors for
new projects (Terra Nova and Beacon Cove) stabilized at 5%, while
those projects, espec i ally seni or projects, located south of "l"
Street had vacancy rates between 8-10%. The apparent over-abundance
of new senior housing projects which compete with other older
low-rent units in the area may cause the vacancy rate to remain
higher than average. Other possible explanations for the high
vacancy rates could include poor marketing, or that these units are
located in an area which may not be considered attractive to seniors.
Projections for 1995 growth estimate an 8-10% increase in total
occupied dwelling units over the next planning period. The housing
programs outlined in Part 3, if fully executed will contribute
approximately 240 units of affordable (low income) housing a year.
A.I Evidence of Over-Pavment in Rental HousinQ
BackQround:
According to SANDAG's Regional Housing Needs Study, "The
dynamics of supply and demand can be indicated by measuring the
portion of a household's income that is spent for housing" and
indicates the extent of the availability of affordable housing
in the market place.
I1-2
J,lf5
The incidence of over-payment is an area where sol id evidence
is hard to find. SANDAG estimates from the 1980 Census Data
indicate that there are 6,193 households in Chula Vista who
will pay more than 25% of their household income for rent. The
tremendous popularity and waiting 1 ists for Section 8 rental
assistance in the City also suggests that over-payment is
indeed a problem for many people in the area. The success of
the Section 8 program is usually the result of two phenomenon
1) a large segment of the population who can not comfortably
afford to pay rent and other 1 iving expenses and 2) the HUD
rental guidelines for the area reasonably reflect the true
market conditions, allowing people to find units which can meet
the program guidelines for rent and unit condition, HUD
officials have reported that Chula Vista has been consistently
over-leased, which means that there is more than one el igible
household for every available certificate or voucher
allocated. Current wa it i ng 1 i sts are two to three years long
for larger family units.
In addition to SANDAG estimates derived from 1980 Census Data,
Table 4 indicates the level of overpayment analyzed during 1988
and presented in the City's current Hous i ng Ass i stance Pl an
(HAP).
TABLE 4
RENTAL SUBSIDY NEEDS FOR LOWER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS:
1988-91 HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLAN (OVERPAYMENT)
Very-low Income
Low-Income
Total
Elderly:
Small Fami ly:
Large Family:
Total:
1,782
4,106
410
6,298
779
1,950
234
2,963
2,561
6,056
644
9,261
Analysis:
Typical rental rates for the Chula Vista area are presented in
Table 5. Rents surveyed include HUD fair market rents (FMR),
the City assisted rents for housing complexes under both
density bonus and bond programs, and by way of comparison, the
allowable rents under the tax-credit programs and new State
Prop. 84 programs.
The City rental projects surveyed are regulated by a
cooperation agreement between the property owner and the City.
The unit rents can not exceed 1/12 of 80% of either 25 % or 30
% of the area median. (Currently $37,900 adjusted for bedroom
and maximum family household size,)
11-3
.J-~"
Most of the density bonus and affordable housing program rents
are restri cted at the top of the affordabi 1 i ty range maki ng
these units unaffordable to these households whose incomes fall
below 80% of median. This means, the population of those who
earn less than 80% of the median may be subject to overpayment
of rents without additional subsidies such as Section 8
certificates or vouchers.
In some cases, especially, in the senior density bonus
projects, up to 40% of the units are being assisted by Section
8 subsidies. This program subsidizes the contract rent
allowing the tenant to pay between $150-200 a month for rent.
These contracts make the units truly affordable but the owner
is not obligated to renew Section 8 contracts. In the case of
family housing, only one out the 16 family density bonus units
had a Section 8 rental contract.
The shortcomings of the current density bonus program are:
1) tenants may be paying more than 30% of their individual
household income on housing costs for rent and 2) none of the
City assisted complexes provide affordable housing beyond a
time certain contract date which ultimately reduces the net
affordable housing available City wide.
11-4
~-"i.l7-
TABLE 5
Rent Schedules-Area Median $37.900
SRO Studio ill ill ill ill
SQ FT 850 900
HUD FMR $583 $684 $857 $959
.67 .74
COOP Aqreements:
@ 25 % 442-505 505-568 631
/SQFT .52-.59 .56-.63
@ 30 % 530-606 606-681 758
/SQFT .62 .67-.75
Senior Density Bonus $345 $468 $630
/SQFT .57 .55 .70
Family Density Bonus $460 $575
/SQFT .54 .63
Family Bond $580 $685
/SQFT .68 .76
Fami ly Market Rate $630-35 $745-55
/SQFT .74 .83
HUD 236 Fami ly Units $260 $305 $339
/SQFT .33 .38 .36
Tax-Credit:
>40 % $357-408 $378-432
/SQFT .42 .48
20-40% $298-340 $315-360
/SQFT .35 .40
Prop. 84: New Construction
V.Low 232 232 265 298 332
Low 232 393 455 512 569
Prop. 77: Rehab Projects
V.Low 249 332 379 426 474
Low 249 393 455 512 569
I 1-5
;2-~'
A.2 Over-Pavment in Owner-Occuoied Housinq
Overpayment among homeowners is 1 ess than that among renters
according to 1980 Census Summary Reports of Census Designated
Places (COP). Overpaying homeowner households, according to
these estimates, accounted for ],248 of the Chula Vista (COP)
while 6,]93 renter households were estimated to have overpaid
in ]980. This section describes the existing unmet needs as
i nd i cated by the over-payment of certa in sub-popul at ions of
homeowners. The underl yi ng data anal yzed for these purposes
are provided by SANDAG's Regional Housing Needs Statement
(RHNS) and Series-7 population forecasts, and the latest 1988
Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA-88) data. The limitations
of the HMDA data are that only one year of lending practices
were analyzed. As previously stated, the attempt here is to
suggest economic indicators of need rather than to provide
proof positive of any economic trends.
Census Tracts Analvzed
The following 22 (1980) census tracts were used as points of
reference both by Series-7 and HMDA data. For a quick
reference, the following tracts are arranged according to major
geographical divisions in Chula Vista:
North of L Street
South of L Street
East of 805
101. 03
123.01
]23.02
]24.0]
]24.02
125.00
126.00
127.00
]28.00
]29.00
130.00
131. 0]
131. 02
132.0]
132.02
]33.0]
133.02
133.03
133.04
133.05
134.01
134.03
134.04
While census tracts 116, 121, ]01.07, ]00.01, 32.04 and 32.07
not listed contain small sections of the City, the above census
tracts reflect the main population of the City boundaries as of
]990.
In the following discussion, certain significant sub-
populations are analyzed relative to ]988 mortgage lending to
determine housing needs unmet by normal market conditions,
thereby, gauging the level of financial or other
non-governmental constraints each sub-population has in meeting
their housing needs.
]1-6
j"lf'
These sub-populations include 1)
percent change in growth 2) tracts
of minority households and 3)
percentage of low-income households.
tracts with the largest
with the 1 argest percentage
tracts wi th the 1 argest
Although all City tracts showed evidence of lending activity,
affordability and balanced community issues surfaced in several
of the above mentioned tracts.
Growth Tracts Example:
First, the newly developing "eastern territory" tracts of CT
134.03 and 134.04 reported a heavy concentration of home
purchase lending. Federally assisted mortgage lending,
however, was less than 1% of the 955 home mortgages financed.
A total of $224,100,000 was lent on home purchase loans and
another $3,400,000 on home improvement loans.
The socio-economic profile of the population in these tracts
has undergone some major sh i fts in the 1 ast ei ght years. The
total population of these two tracts has nearly doubled.
Nearl y all of the sub- popul at ions have doubled except in the
case of the Asian population which tripled in the same time
frame. The fo 11 owi ng tabl e shows the percent change of each
sub-population in CT 134.03 and 134.04 over the last eight
years:
Ethnicitv CT 134.03 and 134.04
White
Asian
Hispanic
Black
Total
'80:
75%
9%
13%
1.4%
17,240
32,195
'88:
66%
15%
17%
1. 6%
Medi an incomes in these two tracks i ndi cate that over 50% of
the reporting households earned more than $50,000 in 1988 (in
1987 $) as demonstrated in the table below, out of a total
9,452 households:
Median Incomes CT 134.03 & 134.04
9,452 Total Households
<15K
15-25K
'88:
1. 7%
6%
25-35K
12.5%
35-50K
+50K
25%
53%
11-7
;1 -SO
As an index of affordabil ity, assume that no real increase in
income occurred between 1988 and 1990 and increases in median
incomes only reflect the rate of increase in inflation.
Further assume, for a single family home in this area, a
typical mortgage would be at least $160,000 (a 10% increase
since 1988 when the average mortgage in this area was
$144,315). Assuming a 10%, 30 year mortgage, monthly principal
and interest payments would be $1,490 per month. A payment
affordable to households earning in excess of $59,000 per
year. That is to say, at least 14% of the population in this
tract could not easily afford to finance a new single family
home in this area.
Minoritv Tract Example
The second tract analyzed was CT 132.02 south of L Street in
the Montgomery area, reported as having the highest
concentration of minority households at 57% of total tract
population. The following table demonstrates the percentage
changes in the ethnic sub-populations of this tract over eight
years:
Ethnicitv CT 132.02
Hispanic
Wh ite
Asian
Bl ack
'80:
'88:
47%
51%
43%
38%
6%
7%
3%
4%
Total
8,173
7,267
A total of 11 home purchase loans were made in this area in
1988, totaling $896,000. To test the affordability index in
this census tract, assume the same 10% increase in the average
mortgage amount (in 1988 average mortgage was $81,454). That
is, an average mortgage now would be $89,500, at 10% amortized
over 30 years with a monthly principal and interest payment of
$871 per month. This mortgage would be affordable to
households whose median was over $34,000. Just assuming
inflation increases, the median income in this tract is under
$20,000 per year ($18,336 in 1988).
Therefore, as demonstrated below, nearly 2,000 households would
be unable to finance a conventional mortgage. Indeed, the debt
service that could be supported by incomes under $20,000 are
too low ($500jmonth) even to support market rate rents. This
last fact may explain why this tract evidenced the least amount
of multi-family and non-occupant lending in the whole City.
Only two multi-family and one non-occupant loan were made
during 1988, for a combined total of $1,196,000.
11-8
a' 6/
Median Incomes for CT 132.02 (INC-OI)
Total Population 3,114
<15K
15-25K
25-35K
35-50K
+50K
38%
31%
17%
9%
3%
Lowest Income Tract Example:
The last tract analyzed, CT 123.02, in the central city area
demonstrated the lowest median income levels City-wide. In
1988, the median income in this tract was $9,846, and of the
total reported households 91% (653) were homeowners. Nearly
70% of the total population of 1,030 were white, elderly
(median age 64), and female (55%).
Median Incomes CT 123.02
Total Population 633
<15K
'88
68%
15-25K
22.4%
25-35K
35-50K +50K
7.4%
2%
.16%
Nearly 50% of the owner-occupied households received a home
mortgage loan in 1988. No Federally assisted loans were
ori g i nated. A total of $2,826,000 in home purchase loans were
originated in that year, and three multi-family loans were
originated for a total of $3,787,000.
The affordabil ity test appl ied here would suggest an average
mortgage loan of $115,500 (up from $104,666 in 1988) again at
10% interest amortized over 30 years for a monthly, mortgage
payment of $1,100 which would be affordable to households with
annua I incomes of $44,002. Even though 60% of the households
in this tract reported low annual incomes, these households had
other tangible assets available to them which would make them
credit worthy customers.
Conclusion
This cursory analysis does suggest an affordability gap is
present in the eastern territories, and where high
concentrations of minority households live. If this
affordability gap is not addressed in the City's slate of
program responses, its goal of creating affordable housing in
balanced communities could be seriously compromised.
A.3 Over-Crowded HousinQ
According to SANDAG's review of overcrowding region wide, the
combination of low income and high housing costs has forced
many households to live in overcrowded conditions.
11-9
~ -6 0\
The term "overcrowded" is appl ied to units with 1.01 or more
person per room exclusive of the kitchen and bathroom(s).
Ident i fyi ng the extent of overcrowded problems can serve as a
warning sign that the community does not have an adequate
supply of affordable housing and/or housing units for large
famil ies.
SANDAG estimates that in 1980 there were 1.763 overcrowded
housing units in Chula Vista. This statistic represents about
3.5% of the total housing stock (49,000 TDU). As an
illustration of the type and degree of overcrowded conditions
present in Chula Vista, a review of the City's Building and
Housing Department code inspections for 1989 revealed that
about 42 violations a year, or 17% of all code violations
regarding substandard housing conditions, are the result of
overcrowding. About 22 violations a year involve 8 to 10
people 1 iving in a single-family residence. Another 20 of
these violations occurred in the older sections of the City,
and involved people sleeping in cars, shacks, garages, and RV's
parked on streets. These part i cul ar over-crowded conditions
may be the result of immigrant day works who have just crossed
the border. Est i mates from the U. S. Immi grat i on and
Naturalization Service have indicated that 6,678 individuals
c 1 aimed the South Bay as thei r home when fi 1 i ng for Amnesty
Immigration Status as seasonal agricultural workers in the
South Bay region (MAAC Report 1988). Many of these workers
move on to agricultural, gardening or construction day jobs
outside the South Bay.
Overcrowded conditions are clearly intolerable and are
inconsistent with 1986 Element pol icies. While continued Code
Enforcement act i vit i es wi 11 reduce the number of i nd i vi dua 1 s
1 iving in overcrowded conditions, an assertive effort on the
part of the City is necessary to provide more affordable, even
if temporary, shelter for very low-income people, and increased
efforts to elevate overcrowding perhaps by referral to the City
rehab programs for room addition loans where feasible.
A.4 Substandard Housinq
Introduction
Article 10.6, Section 65583 (a)(2) of the Government Code
requires that as part of its assessment of housing needs, each
City must include an analYSis and documentation of its housing
characteristics and housing stock condition. The primary
purpose of thi sana lys is is to address the matter of
"substandard" housing resulting from various degrees of
phys i ca 1 dec 1 i ne, deteri orat i on, and/or non - adherance to the
standards of the Health and Safety Code and local building
requirements. The required result of this analysis is to
identify the number of housing units needing rehabilitation,
and the number of units needing actual replacement.
11-10
~-5.3
In order to determine the number of housing units needing
rehabilitation or replacement, the City consulted the Code
Enforcement Section of its Building and Housing Department,
which since 1987, has embarked on a systematic program of
neighborhood by neighborhood inspect ions to improve conditions
and appearance primarily through the "Neighborhood
Revitalization Program" (NRP) and "Neighborhood Improvement
Program" (NIP). Given that the City is virtually divided into
eastern and western communities, with the eastern area the site
of much of the City's new construction since 1980, the Code
Enforcement! Inspect ion Di vi sian i nd i cates that substandard
cond it ions do not preva i 1 there, and has thereby focused its
efforts on the older western side of the City, including the
Montgomery Community annexed in late 1985.
The following sections provide an outl ine of the efforts and
findings of the systematic neighborhood inspection program, and
divide the various substandard conditions into areas of major
and minor rehabilitation needs.
Buildinq Code Enforcement and Inspection Activities
As previously indicated, the majority of the inspection
activity has occurred west of I-80S in the older part of the
City, which has also been the focus area of the targeted
Neighborhood Revitalization Program. The inspections are part
of an extern a 1 inspect i on program per departmental pol icy, and
all code violation citations are compiled and reviewed
monthly. Currently, internal health and safety inspections are
limited to multi-family dwellings (apartments), and are in
response to compl ai nts recei ved from tenants. Internal
inspections of single-family residences may be made on a
request basis.
Housinq Stock Condition
Since the newer, eastern territories are primarily comprised of
units built since 1980, and have thus far not been the focus of
much code enforcement activity, the following estimates of
tot a 1 hous i ng stock in need of some kind of rehabi 1 itat i on
pertain to the western half of the City in accordance with
Building and Housing Department records.
TABLE 6
WEST SIDE C!TY
HOUSING STOCK WITH REHABILITATION NEEDS
Total west side stock:
12% with rehab needs:
37,422 housing units
4,490 housing units
Type % of total # of Single fam Multi - fam Rehab un its%
of need rehab need un it s % units % units owned rented
Major rehab 37% 1661 30% 498 70% 1163 30% 70%
Minor rehab 63% 2829 50% 1415 50% 1414 50% 50%
Totals 100% 4490 1913 2577
I I-II
d-S~
As a means of comparison to current Building Department
findings, Table 7 indicates estimated City-wide rehabilitation
needs as presented in the City's current Hous i ng Ass i stance
Plan (HAP).
TABLE 7
REHABILITATION NEEDS - 1988 TO 1991 H.A.P.
Stnd. Units Substnd. Units Suitabl e for Rehab
Lower
Dec. Vac. Dec. Vac. Tot. Income Vac.
Owner: 23,432 817 800 27 766 239 26
Renter: 20,861 1,119 1,594 85 1,527 1,032 82
Maior Rehabilitation
Major Rehabil itation, that requlnng some kind of financial
assistance, would account for approximately 4.5% (1661 units)
of the total housing stock in the western area. Typically, the
need for fi nanc i a 1 ass i stance from the City is seen to occur
when necessary repairs exceed $1,000.00. Typi ca 1 loans cover
the expense of roof replacements, room add it ions, and kitchen
modern i zat i on. In some cases, complete homes have been
reconstructed on existing foundations, should the deterioration
of the existing house warrant such.
The rehab lending activities presented in Part I described the
level of funding over the past planning period. It is
anticipated that the same level of funding will be continued in
the western half of the City for the 1991-96 planning period.
Deteriorated Units - Demolitions
According to the Building and Housing Department's estimates,
only about 1% (374 units) of the approximately 37,422 housing
units on the western side of the City are in truly
deteriorating condition with either crumbling foundations,
serious dry rot, and/or termite infestation. This stock could
be a potential candidate for demolition activity.
Approximately 19 single family dwelling units were demolished
duri ng the 1 ast p 1 ann i ng peri od due to seri ous deteri orat i on.
If deteriorating units cannot be economically salvaged through
rehabi 1 itat i on efforts, the City wi 11 cont i nue to i nst i tute
demolition to ameliorate serious health and safety concerns.
Demol itions
1985-88 10
1989 6
1990 -1
Total 19
I I -12
~-55
Minor Rehabilitation
Those items which can be classified as minor "fix-it" items,
such as replacing hot water heater safety valves, window and
door replacement, painting, weatherstripping, minor electrical
and plumbing repairs are the focus of the City initiated
proactive program of inspection commenced in late 1987. This
proactive approach is a preventative program that sets rules
and guidel ines, and thereby seeks to educate citizens about
code enforcement in an effort to correct problems before
significant deterioration occurs. Since 1985, there have been
several neighborhoods annexed (i .e. Montgomery) that are
acutely problematic. Therefore, as part of the proactive
inspection program, the Building Department has set monthly
goa 1 s for its inspection teams, con cent rat i ng on the foll owi ng
neighborhoods all south of "L" Street in the Montgomery Area:
Woodlawn Park
Otay Town
Connelly Park
Broadway/Malta Square
Bay Vista
Harborside
This community suffered from serious neglect of publ ic
services, and haphazard regulation for years while it was in
unincorporated San Diego County. The results are neighborhoods
with a great deal of deferred maintenance, non-conforming
zoning violations, and a high concentration of low-income
rental housing (refer to project location map). For this
reason, both the departments of Building and Housing and
Community Development have initiated a special program emphasis
in rehabil itat i ng thi s area through the use of CDBG funds for
either capital improvements, sidewalks, street widening, new
street lights or community facility enhancement such as the
expansion of open space and parks and neighborhood clean-up and
trash remova 1 days subsi di zed by the Neighborhood
Revitalization Program. These mini-programs give Code
Enforcement Officers the opportunity to educate neighbors,
property owners and resident-tenants on the value of Code
compliance in maintaining high neighborhood health and safety
standards, and sponsoring community pride.
Monthlv InsDections
Monthly inspections are structured around the following three
areas:
1. Housing (Overcrowding)
2. Health and Safety Items (Inadequate Sanitation Facilities)
3. Property Violations (Illegal Conversions)
Annual volumes of code violations are currently being
internally monitored to more accurately track the location,
level, and type of violations occurring in the City. According
to the recDrds for 1989, approximately 247 housing-related code
violations were cited in single family residential
Il-13
~-5'-
neighborhoods. Approximately 42 of the 247 citations involved
issues of overcrowding, 61 citations involved the improper use
of vehicles, shacks, garages or RV's as permanent housing
facilities, but 144 citations involved the following items,
most of which were in neighborhoods south of L Street:
Health and Safety Items
(i.e. inadequate sanitation) 12%
Minor "fix-it" repairs
(leaky roofs, and deferred
maintenance under $500) 6%
Vermin Infestations
(rats, roaches, maggots) 8%
Property Violations 32%
(zoning violations, encroachments,
and construction without a permit)
Sub-Total 58%
The NeiQhborhood Revitalization ProQram CNRPI
The NRP focuses on the code enforcement of property standards
whi ch are based on " . . . condit ions affecting the general
appearance, health and safety of the occupants, and are
enforced as zoning regulations." In effect, these guidel ines
establish the City's property maintenance standards. The
concentration of these efforts has been to enhance the
aesthetics of the neighborhood, educate inhabitants of code
enforcement activities, inform residents of available low cost
financing for rehabilitation projects involving at least $1,500
and up to $90,000, and to help coordinate trash removal and
general neighborhood clean-up activities including inoperative
vehicle removals.
Again the departments of Building and Housing and Community
Development have initiated this program in the neighborhoods
south of "L" Street to augment the efforts of code enforcement
and rehabilitation lending activities in these areas.
B. SPECIAL NEED POPULATIONS
B.l The Elderlv and the Disabled
The elderly and disabled population comprise about 20% of the
population in Chula Vista or 26.536 persons. The previous
discussion on homeowner over-payment suggests that this
popul at ion is not as burdened by mortgage payments as some
family households may be. Additionally, during the years
between 1971-1985, 45% of the affordable housing produced was
targeted toward elderly and disabled households. In the last
II -14
J -S 1-
five years, 35% of the affordable housing produced benefited
low-income seniors and the disabled households. Another 33% of
all Section 8 housing assistance went to low-income seniors.
These efforts are laudable, and clearly show senior housing
being addressed in some what greater proportion to the
expressed need. At this time, many of the senior housing
projects located south of L Street reported high (over 8%)
vacancy rates. The high vacancy rate among senior density
bonus projects monitored by the City may be the result of one
of two things: the current supply of these units exceeds the
demand for them; or these units may be in an inappropriate
1 ocat ion. The demographi cs of the census tract where these
seniors density bonus projects exist indicate a high
concentration of minority households and a low median age.
8.2 Homeless Families
According to a report by the Regional Task Force On The
Homeless prepared in 1988 for the South Bay Region of San Diego,
"... homeless families and a limited number of single
adults may receive vouchers for a two-week stay in
selected motels through local social service agencies.
During periods of shelter voucher availability, an average
of five single adults and twenty-five family family
members can be found in two participating motels in Chula
Vista each night. During a recent two month shelter
voucher peri od, nearl y half of the 177 separate
individuals sheltered were children."
According to the statistics provided in the RHNS, 60% of the
homeless population (350-500) in the South Bay are families, an
additional 5% of whom are children.
8.3 SinQle-headed Households
Single individuals with dependent children represent an
important group with special housing needs. The proportion of
single-parent households with children forms a significant
portion of lower-income households "in need". Single parent
households require special consideration and assistance because
they have a greater need for day care, health care, and related
facilities. (SANDAG:RHNS:page 137)
A rental survey conducted by Community Development of assisted
housing projects revealed that most family rental units were
not aided by Section 8 certificates, while up to 40% of the
senior units were. Thus, family units were not receiving the
level of subsidy required to guarantee that no more than 30% of
household income was spent on housing costs. Waiting lists for
Section 8 certificates are the longest for family housing units.
Loca 1 est imates from SANDAG suggest that 7.3% of the City 's
total household population for 1990 are headed by single
individuals for a total household population of 3.520.
1 I -15
.J-Sf
B.4 LarQe Families
There are other sub-populations within the City which are being
under-served, notably 1 arge famil ies with incomes below 80% of
median. Almost all family housing produced in Chula Vista,
with the exception of 24 Publ ic Housing and Section 8
subsidized units, are not truly affordable to this group.
Social service providers have testified that large families
have the most difficult time finding affordable housing.
In 1980, 13% of the Chula Vista population were comprised of
1 arge fami 1 i es of fi ve or more people. Absent better data,
SANDAG has assumed that the same percentage of 1 arge fami 1 ies
exist in the 1990 population. The large family household
population in Chula Vista is expected to be 6.269 in 1990. One
can assume that if families have a difficult time finding
affordab 1 e hous i ng the s ituat i on becomes worse as the fami 1 y
size increases, and the family is within a lower income group.
B.5 Farmworkers and Dav Workers
Due to the rapid suburbanization of Chula Vista, only 5% of the
county's agri cultura 1 employment base is 1 eft in the area.
Approximately 1% of the labor force is currently classified as
farmworkers or day 1 aborers many of whom may work on small
construction jobs. An estimated total of 234 people, mostly
single-men, are thus described. Many of these people may at
various times also be counted among the homeless as they drift
in and out of work. (SANDAG RHNS page 19)
B.6 Mobilehome Park Residents and Relocation
County-wi de, mobilehomes account for 4 percent of the total
housing stock. In Chula Vista, mobilehomes account for
approximately 7% of the housing stock. Currently, two parks
have given notice of their intent to convert the park to
another commerc i a 1 use wi thi n the next p 1 ann i ng peri od. These
two park owners are in the process of complying with the City's
Mobilehome Park Relocation Ordinance provisions which were
previously discussed in Part 1. While some units may be last
through these conversions at least the hardship of relocation
is mitigated by the mandatory compliance by owner to the
mobilehome relocation ordinance.
11-16
~"'5'
TABLE 8
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
SPECIAL HOUSING POPULATIONS - NEED INDICATORS
AUGUST 1990
Estimated Population
Estimated Occupied Households
133,760
48,225
The following table enumerates the populations which present special housing
needs. Previous sections of the report have already described the unmet needs
of populations within the eastern territories, and among census tracts with
the highest concentrations of minority populations.
Elderly Population
Estimated % Estimated Estimated
of Total Individuals Households
10% 13,376
10% 13,160
13% 6,269
7.3% 3,520
350-500
255
107
22
22
22
Handicapped Population
Large Famil ies
Single-Head of HH (Families)
(Female HH)
Homeless (Regional)
Families
Single Persons
Children
Substance Abusers
Menta 11 y III
Household Ethnicity
HispaniC
Asian
Black
White
29% 38,790
9% 12,038
2% 2,675
60% 80,256
200
3,453
234
9,602(1)
Military Households
Mobilehome Park Households
Farmworkers
College-Student Population
Source: SANDAG Regional Housing Need Statement, August 1990
1. Based on est i mated popul at i on for 1989 Census Des i gnated PI aces (CDP)
which use slightly different data boundaries than actual incorporated
areas.
I I -17
;) - ~()
B.7 Student Population
Chula Vista is the location of one community college named
Southwestern College with an enrollment of approximately
9,602. The college director indicated that in times of
recession, full and part-time enrollment is expected to
increase as adults re-enter school to enhance employment skills
needed in the work force. While most of these community
college students commute from outside the area, some do compete
for local housing along with other low-income groups.
C. AT-RISK HOUSING
There are three types of housing potentially at risk during the next
planning period as shown in the following table:
Potential At-Risk Housing
645 total units
Family Units - HUD 236
Family Non-236 Units
Elderly Units
386 units
227 units
32 units
C.l Familv Units - HUO 236 Contracts
In 1968, HUO developed the 236 program that provided both
mortgage insurance and mortgage interest reduction to any
for-profit or non-profit developer who agreed to build
affordable housing units for families. Typically, the
contracts for these projects included a 40 year mortgage which
could be prepaid after 20 years, and if prepayment occurs, then
the project no longer has an affordability requirement. This
prepayment opt i on only app 1 i ed to for-profit developers.
Unfortunately, HUO did not consider the consequences of this
prepayment option, and as a result, the nation now faces a
seri ous threat to its ava i 1 ab 1 e stock of affordable hous i ng.
In 1987, this threat was brought to the attention of the
federal government, and Congress passed the Emergency
Low-Income Housing Preservation Act (ELIHPA). This Act
prec 1 uded any prepayment unt i 1 February of 1990, and in
February, the Act was extended until new permanent legislation
could be adopted. In 1990, the National Affordable Housing Act
was passed, and this Act included the Low-Income Housing
Preservation and Resident Homeownership Act (LIHPRHA). LIHPRHA
wi 11 provi de a permanent sol ut i on to the preservat i on probl em
if it is adequately funded.
Chula Vista has four projects which were HUD financed using the
236 program. Currently, two of these projects have filed a
Notice of Intent which states that they intend to prepay their
mortgages. In reality, these projects probably will not be
able to prepay since both ELIHPA and LIHPRHA have strict
requirements for prepayment. Under LIHPRHA, these property
owners can elect to proceed under ELIHPA or LIHPRHA.
11-18
J..",
Nonetheless, both acts require an owner to prove that
termination of the affordable units will not materially
increase economic hardship for current tenants (which generally
means annual rent increases of less than 10%); will not
involuntarily displace current tenants; or will not adversely
affect affordable housing opportunities for low-income and very
low-income families, including those families seeking
employment in the area, and minorities.
Both ELIHPA and LIHPRHA state that these units should be
acquired by either a non-profit or a publ ic agency whenever
possible. Undoubtedly, the acquisition costs of these units
will be high. Nonetheless, both laws provide acquisition
incentives to non-profits and public agencies, but LIHPRHA
mandates that the following incentives be given: (I) insurance
for financing up to 95 percent of the preservation equity
(equ ity as determi ned by HUD) under the HUD Sect i on 241 (f)
program; (2) grants up to the present val ue of the total of the
projected publ ished Fair Market Rents for Section 8 Existing
Housing for the next 10 years (or longer, if necessary); (3)
reimbursement for transaction expenses relating to acquisition,
such as ordinary transaction costs, financing fees and
ope rat i ng defic it coverage. Subject to appropri at ions, LlHPRHA
also states that HUD must provide assistance sufficient to
enable acquisition at a purchase price not greater than the HUD
defined preservation value, to pay the debt service of the
mortgage and debt service on any rehabilitation loan, to meet
project operating expenses and adequate reserves, and to
receive an adequate return on any cash investment made to
acquire the project.
The approxi mate cost of acqu is it i on for all four complexes is
$26 million. This figure was determined by using the Section 8
Fair Market Rents and a gross rent multiplier of 8.
These "at-ri sk" projects should be preserved, whenever
possible, since it would be impossible for the City to replace
these 1 ost units. The City has already rece i ved the not i ce to
prepay from two owners, and the other two projects can fi 1 e
thei r not ices in March of 1991. The owners of these bu i 1 ders
are receiving very small rents since the average rent for a two
bedroom apartment is $292, and for the most part, they have
burned the i r tax deprec i at i on benefits. Therefore, it is very
1 ikely that they may attempt to sell or prepay. As a result,
the City should be prepared for whatever these owners decide to
do with their affordable housing projects.
11-19
~-,~
C.2 Non-236 Housinq Units At-Risk
In addition to the HUD-236 assisted projects at-risk, Chu1a
Vi sta has a number of units at ri sk under the City density
bonus program. Thirty-two units of senior housing may be at
risk in 1992 (Moss Street #16), and 227 family units in 4
projects. (Project Location Map # 1,10,18,26)
Generally speaking, the senior projects built under the density
bonus program are 1 ess at ri sk of convers i on to market rents
due to the Conditional Use Permits under which they operate.
In order to grant a conversion, the owner would have to
underwrite a considerable expense to bring the senior projects
into code compliance mainly for parking requirements.
The family density bonus projects are built to normal code
requ i rements and as such are more "at ri sk" . A total of 227
units of family housing are potentially" at risk" but as most
of these units currently have unit rents at or near to
prevailing market rates, the real impact of losing truly
affordable housing is minimal.
Conclusion
Th is sect i on was intended to i dent i fy segments wi th i n the City
that wi 11 impact the compet it i on for a ffordab 1 e hous i ng. The
demand is important as each group often competes for the same
type of limited low cost housing. The limited supply of
affordable housing units is compounded by the lower incomes
associated with the special need populations.
A greater effort must be made to provide truly low-income
family housing opportunities to address these under-served
populations.
D. PROJECTED NEEDS
D.l Introduction/Current Estimates
Since the beginning of the last Element's planning period in
1985, the San Diego Region has experienced fairly rapid and
consistent population growth at an average of 3.6% per year,
coup 1 ed with an average growth in the number of hous i ng un i ts
of 3.7% as illustrated in Table 11. By comparison, Chu1a Vista
has generally paralleled the region with average growth
Il-20
~","3
TABLE 9
POPULATION GROWTH
CHULA VISTA AND SAN DIEGO REGION
1985-1990
Year
(Jan 1)
Chula Vista as a
Chula Vista San DieGo ReGion % of the ReGion
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
91,166 2,102,502 4.3%
116,295* 1,165,457 5.4%*
120,285 2,248,482 5.3%
124,253 2,327,684 5.3%
128,028 2,418,176 5.3%
131.603 2.509,914 5.2%
40,437 407,412
44.3 (18.6) 19.4
Total Increase:
% Increase:
*Also reflects the Montgomery annexation
Source: State Dept. of Finance Annual Jan. 1 estimates
TABLE 10
TOTAL HOUSING GROWTH
CHULA VISTA AND SAN DIEGO REGION
1985-1990
Year Chula Vista as a
(Jan 11 Chula Vista San DieGo Reqion % of the ReGion
1985 33,544 787,210 4.3%
1986 43,951* 821,228 5.4%*
1987 45,101 857,098 5.3%
1988 47,696 894,333 5.3%
1989 48,691 921,940 5.3%
1990 49.863 946.362 5.3%
Total Increase: 16,319 159,152
% Increase: 48.6 (22.8) 20.2
*Also reflects the Montgomery annexation
Source: State Dept. of Finance Annual Jan. 1 estimates
TABLE 11
PERCENTAGE RELATIONSHIP
POPULATION AND HOUSING GROWTH
CHULA VISTA AND SAN DIEGO REGION
1985-1990
Year
% Chanqe POP
Reqion C.V.
% Chanqe Housinq
Reqion C.V.
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
Averages:
3.0%
3.8%
3.5%
3.9%
3.8%
3.6%
4.9%*
3.4%
3.3%
3.0%
2.8%
3.5%
4.3%
4.4%
4.3%
3.1%
2.6%
3.7%
5.2%*
2.6%
5.7%
2.1%
2.4%
3.6%
*Excludes the Montgomery annexation.
1 I -21
~-,t
rates for popul at i on and hous i ng over the 5 year peri od bei ng
0.1% higher than regional rates. Tables 9 and 10 provide the
actual numerical growth in establ ishing the current population
and housing totals for 1990. The figures in parenthesis under
"% increase" represent the actual growth percentage without
influence from the Montgomery Annexation in late 1985.
In further establishing the status of current conditions, Table
12 has been provided to illustrate the changes in Chula Vista's
housing supply, by type, since 1985. As indicated by the
footnote, the re 1 at i ve overall increase of 48.6% is i nfl uenced
by the Montgomery Annexation which included approximately 8,670
housing units and 23,500 persons according to City records.
The 22.8% in parenthesis represents the actual new growth
excluding existing units annexed with Montgomery. As indicated
by the bottom entries in the Table, while Chula Vista's overall
housing stock has a slightly greater percentage of single
family than multiple-family units (51.9% vs. 41.2%), the unit
growth from 1985-1990 reflects a trend toward greater balance,
with new multi-family units exceeding single family (50.5% vs.
40.7%).
TABLE 12
HOUSING SUPPLY
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
1985-1990
Single 2-4 5 or more Mobile Total Vacant Total
Year Familv Un its Units Homes Occupied Un it s Units
1985 19,265 2,985 9,279 2,015 32,328 1,216 33,544
1986* 23,089 3,379 14,013 3,470 42,250 1,701 43,951
1987 23,641 3,396 14,569 3,495 43,948 1,153 45,101
1988 24,913 3,596 15,587 3,600 45,692 2,004 47,696
1989 25,388 3,784 16,003 3,566 47,006 1,685 48,691
1990 25,901 3,931 16,578 3,453 48,225 1,638 49,863
Total
Change: 6,636 946 7,299 1,438 15,897 16,319
% Total
Change: 40.7 5.8 44.7 8.8 48.6*
(22.8)
% Total
Housing 51.9 8.0 33.2 6.9
Stoc k:
*Also reflects the Montgomery Annexation
Source: City Hous i ng Inventory, State Dept. of Fi nance annual Jan. I
estimates.
11-22
~""5
D.2 PODulation and HousinQ Growth Forecasts
The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) is the
pri mary agency respons i b 1 e for the product i on of popul at i on,
housing, employment, and land use projections for the San Diego
regi on. I n order to respond to chang i ng economi c and
employment conditions affecting population influx and the
related needs for housing, SANDAG periodically produces updates
to its forecast model s, the most recent of which is the Series
7 Regional Growth Forecast for 1986-2010. The foreCast
consists of two basic parts, the first being development of the
regional projections for population, housing, and employment
const itut i ng the overall expected demand for jobs and hous i ng.
The second part involves the process of distributing the
expected population, employment, land use growth, and the
related job/housing needs amongst the region's communities.
The following tables and discussion present the Series 7
Forecasts, adopted by local jurisdictions, and provide a
compari son of expected regi ona 1 growth i n reI at i on to that
anticipated for Chula Vista and its General Planning Area. The
comparison to the General Planning Area (GPA) is offered, since
the figures projected for the "city only" in Series 7 are fixed
within the 1986 municipal boundary. Since Chula Vista has
annexed territory, and plans at least one additional annexation
with i n th is Hous i ng El ement' s hori zon, the GPA fi gures offer a
more realistic picture for overall growth expectations.
As indicated in Table 13, the Chula Vista GPA's population is
expected to increase by 44.7% between 1986 and 2010; an
increase of 57,749 people. At only 1% less than the 45.7% for
the re9ion, Chula Vista will continue to pace itself to
regional indicators, similar to the 1985-90 activity previously
presented.
TABLE 13
PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH
CHULA VISTA AND SAN DIEGO REGION
1986-2010
Total Increase
1986 1995 2000 2010 # %
Chula Vista 116,430 132,304 140,682 158,112 41,682 35.8
Chula Vista GPA 129,159 150,878 161,997 186,908 57,749 44.7
San Diego Region 2,165,689 2,585,134 2,784,195 3,154,490 988,801 45.7
Source: SANDAG Series 7 Regional Growth Forecast
II -23
~ - lit,
In conjunction with population growth estimates, Series 7 also
projects and distributes figures for expected growth in the
number of housing units. Table 14 identifies these projections
and again offers comparisons between Chula Vista, its GPA, and
the Region. While the City GPA's rate of increase is projected
to be slightly less than that of the Region (53.7% vs. 57.3%),
the expected increase of 24,719 housing units will continue to
keep pace with population increases shown in Table 13.
TABLE 14
PROJECTED HOUSING GROWTH
CHULA VISTA AND SAN DIEGO REGION
1986-2010
Chula Vista
Chula Vista GPA
San Diego Region
Source: SANDAG Series 7 Regional Growth Forecast
Related to both population and housing growth is the expected
growth in employment within the region. In order that adequate
housing be provided, the issue of jobs/housing balance be
addressed, and an understanding of household economics as it
ultimately relates to affordability be gained, projections of
employment become important. Table 15 provides a 20-year
projection of employment growth by sector for the Chula Vista
GPA. The far right hand column indicates the employment
profi 1 e for 1995 since that year best coi nci des with th i s
Housing Element's planning horizon of 1996.
Total Increase
1986 1995 2000 2010 # %
42,203 50,251 54,027 60,950 18,747 44.4
46,068 56,088 60,956 70,787 24,719 53.7
771,082 964,764 1,058,179 1,212,773 441,691 57.3
TABLE 15
PROJECTED EMPLOYMENT BY SECTOR
CHULA VISTA GPA
1986-2010
1986-2010
Increase % Total
Sector 1986 1995 2000 2010 -1 % Emolovment 1995
Agriculture 533 533 533 533 0 0 1.1%
Manufacturing 7557 8599 8848 9306 1749 23.1 18.3%
Wholesale 1443 1639 1746 1958 515 35.7 3.5%
Transportation 445 580 652 827 382 85.8 1. 2%
Hotel/Motel 332 332 358 424 92 27.7 0.8%
Reg i ona 1 Govt. 877 957 1007 1112 235 26.8 2.0%
Retail Trade 9666 11625 12661 15805 6136 63.5 24.7%
Retail Service 7203 8849 9730 12358 5155 71.6 18.8%
Business Service 1757 2369 2713 3502 1745 99.3 5.0%
F. I. R. E. 1676 2048 2395 3370 1694 101.1 4.4%
Loca 1 Govt. 5609 7113 7593 8497 2888 51. 5 15.1%
Other 2273 2396 2560 2863 590 26.0 5.1%
TOTAL 39371 47040 50796 60552 21181 53.8
II -24
d' " 1-
As seen in Table IS, local planning area employment is
projected to increase by 21,181 jobs or 53.8% by the year 2010,
with the greatest numeric increases occurring in the retail
trade and service sectors (6136 and 5155 jobs respectively).
In 1995, 43.5% of the Planning Area employment will be in
retail tr.ade and services, with the next largest sector being
manufacturing (18.3%). Given that retail trade and service
jobs are traditionally lower paying, the impact of
affordability in the local housing market may be magnified,
assumi ng that those retail trade and servi ce employees al so
reside within the community.
0.3 Chu1a Vista Share of the ReQion's HousinQ Needs
As requ i red by State Hous i ng E1 ement Law, SANDAG, in
conjunction with the State Department of Housing and Community
Development, has prepared an update of the Regional Housing
Needs Statement (RHNS) for the 1990-1996 planning period. The
RHNS serves to define the Region's existing and projected
housing needs, and to equitably distribute the needs for all
economi c segments of the market amongst the 1 oca 1 it i es. The
purpose is to ensure that all juri sdi ct ions share the
respons i bil ity for addressi ng regi ona 1 hous i ng needs, and to
avoid concentrat ion of 1 ower- income househol ds in areas where
high proportions of such housing already exist. All
jurisdictions have adopted the current RHNS, and State Law
requires that each jurisdiction's Housing Element contain
provisions for addressing its allocated share of Regional need.
The RHNS estab 1 i shes two forms of hous i ng need all ocat i on to
jurisdictions; Regional Share and Fair Share. Regional Share
(Table 16) identifies needs for new construction housing units
for all income groups (very low, low, moderate, and above
moderate), and is the allocation the Housing Element is
required to address by State Law. Fair Share (Table 17) is
established solely by SANDAG, and identifies the number of
lower-income households needing assistance. In conjunction
with the Fair Share allocation, SANDAG has developed as-year
performance goal figure amounting to about 12.5% of total
lower-income needs, which serves as a benchmark for the minimum
number of households each jurisdiction should assist.
As illustrated in Table 16, Regional Share allocations apply to
the period starting January 1989. In the RHNS, SANDAG
proportionately reduced the allocations for the period from
July 1991 to July 1996 to assist local jurisdictions, since
that period closely coincides with local Housing Element update
timeframes. While this adjusted figure provides a benchmark,
actual local allocations for the 7/91-7/96 period must be
determined by subtracting actual local housing construction
activity for 1/89 to 7/91, by income group, from the January
1989 total allocation figure. In Chu1a Vista's case, total
construction activity for the period exceeded SANDAG's
interpolation by 1,243 units, and thereby would constitute a
reduction of the Regional Share allocation figures shown in the
RHNS. The revised remainder of needed construction activity by
income group is shown in the right hand column, and in part,
forms the basis for the City's Quantified Assistance Objectives
and Housing program proposals contained in Part 3.
11-25 ~ _, f
As shown, Chula Vista was originally allocated 3.3% of the
Region's new construction needs, or 5354 units between 1/89 and
7/96, which based on a 1/1/89 City estimate of 48,691 units,
represents a 1.5% annual increase. The ability for Chula Vista
to accommodate the remaining 2326 Regional Share units for the
7/91 to 7/96 period is discussed with the Resource Inventory on
page 26.
TABLE 16
REGIONAL SHARE ALLOCATION
CHULA VISTA AND SAN DIEGO REGION
1989-1996
REGIONAL NEEDS STATEMENT(I}
Region Actual City(2} City Regional
Allocation by Chula Vista 1/89 to C. V. as Construction Share Balance
Income GrOUD 1/89 to 7/96 7/96 % Reoion 1/89 to 7/91 7/91 to 7/96
Very Low (23%) 1,232 37,313 3.3 1,232
Low (l7%) 910 27,579 3.3 282 628
Moderate (21%) 1,124 34,068 3.3 993 131
Other (39%) 2.088 63.269 3.3 1.753 ~
TOTAL 5,354 162,229 3,028 2,326
(I) Based on SANDAG Regional Housing Needs Statement - Table A, July 1990.
(2) Based on City records, and construction activity in accordance with
State Department of Finance annual reportin9.
Table 17 illustrates Chula Vista's Fair Share allocation for
lower-income household assistance, and provides the 5-year goal
for programs to reach at 1 east 1,058 househol ds, or
approximately 212 households per year. In difference to
Regional Share, Fair Share goals also include assistance from
programs other than new construction such as rehabilitation and
Section 8 assistance. Chula Vista's allocation of 4.9% of the
region's total lower income households is determined relative
to past income, housing, employment, and population trends as
provided in SANDAG's RHNS.
TABLE 17
FAIR SHARE
HOUSING NEEDS STATEMENT
CHULA VISTA AND SAN DIEGO REGION
1991-1996
Existing
"Fair Share"
Households
Growth
"Fair Share"
Households
Total
"Fair Share"
Households
Chula Vista
as % of
Reoion
Five-Year
Goals
Chula Vista 7,905
SO Region 161,320
561
12,467
8,466
173,787
4.9
1,058
21,728
II -26
;1..'1
III. RESOURCES
A. INTRODUCTION/OVERVIEW
Of equal or greater importance to the identification of existing and
projected housing needs, is the communities ability, through its
land use and infrastructure base, to accommodate these needs. In
order to meet the existing and future demand for dwelling units, an
adequate number of appropri ate 1 y zoned and pub 1 i c 1 y served bu i 1 ding
sites must be available within the community. The following section
presents the activities of the Chula Vista General Plan Update, and
illustrates the adequacy of Chula Vista's land base, facilities, and
projected development schedules to respond to the anticipated
hous i ng needs of all segments of the popul at i on, in accordance with
projected income distributions identified by SANDAG's Regional Share
allocation in Table 16.
B. CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
On July 11, 1989, the City Council, after two years of work, adopted
the first comprehensive update of the City's General Plan in 15
years. The revised General Plan provides guidance for the City's
development through the year 2010, and for the first time designates
urbanizing land use patterns for buildout of the entire Planning
Area. It represents the potent i a 1 for sign i fi cant growth, and is
based on a "balanced community" concept provi ding for development of
a variety of residential densities in conjunction with commercial,
industrial, and recreational development. The Udpate also
incorporated major revisions to several facilities master plans
including circulation, wastewater, drainage, schools, and fire
stations, and added a Growth Management Element which defines the
City's commitment to ensuri ng adequate provi s i on of faci 1 it i es and
services in conjunction with growth. Tables 18 and 19 indicate the
population, housing, and overall land use growth projections
contained in the General Plan Update, and illustrate Chula Vista's
ability to continue to provide for its share of the region's housing
need s .
TABLE 18
POPULATION AND HOUSING PROJECTIONS
CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLANNING AREA
1988-2010
1986-
1986 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2010
Population:
Total 131,294 142,700 158,800 177,200 197,050 209,600
Change 11 ,406 16,100 18,400 19,800 12,550 78,306
Ave. Annl.Chg. 2,851 3,220 3,680 3,970 2,510 3,246
Housinq:
Total 48,609 53,570 60,420 67,920 75,911 80,945
Change 4,961 6,850 7,500 7,991 5,034 32,336
Ave. Annl.Chg. 1,240 1,370 1,500 1,598 1,007 1,343
Source: Chula Vista General Pl an Update - Scenario 4, P&D Technologies
11-27
Ol~?-O
As can be seen in Table 18, bu i 1 dout project ions through the year
2010 indicate an increase of 32,336 housing units, (67%) and a
population growth of 78,306 (60%). These increases in housing units
and popul at i on wi 11 actually exceed the expected rates of growth
forecast for Chula Vista's GPA in SANDAG's Series 7 as shown in
Tables 13 and 14.
TA8LE 19
PLANNING AREA LAND USE ACREAGE
CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Existing City
Land Use
1988 (acres)
Total General
Update Land
Use (acres)
Increase
1988-2010
(acres)
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Public, Quasi-Public
and Open Space*
*Includes streets, vacant land, and water.
Source: City Land Use Inventory; General Plan Update, P&D Technologies.
5,621
804
1,278
9,721
19,328
1,431
2,404
21,254
I3,707
627
1,126
11 , 533
C. LAND USE/RESOURCE INVENTORY
In order to more specifically determine the amount of acreage
available for residential development at various densities, the City
conducted an inventory of sites using its computerized Land Use
Inventory which contains information regarding the land use, general
plan, and zoning designations (among other data) for all lands
within the Planning Area. The analysis was performed in two parts,
the first looking at availability of land already within the City
and substantially served by existing infrastructure including vacant
land, underutilized land, and land regulated under specific master
plans such as EastLake. The second part analyzed lands outside the
existing City limits but within the Planning Area and for which
annexat i on into the City coul d occur withi n the hori zon of thi s
Element. Tables 20, 21, and 22 provide the results of this
inventory analys i s and demonstrate Chul a Vi sta' s abi 1 ity to
accommodate its new construction needs for all income groups.
11-28
:J.-' 1-1
TABLE 20
RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION CAPACITY
VACANT AND UNDERUTILIZED LAND
CHULA VISTA CITY LIMITS
1990
Under-
Utilized
Land Total
Residential Vacant Potent i a 1 Potential Potent i a 1
Densitv ZoninQ Districts Acres Un its Units Units
Low RE, R-I-I5 32.61 69 13 82
(0-3 du/ac)
Low-Medium R-I-I0, R-l, 154.51 569 157 726
(3-6 du/ac) R-I-5
Medium R2, R2T, R2X, 9.99 119 377 496
(6-11 du/ac) R3L
Med. High R3M, R3T, R3G 2.28 35 66 101
(11-18 du/ac)
High R3 8.58 203 2267 2470
(18-27+ du/ac)
TOTALS 995 2880 3875
It should be noted that the number of potential units indicated have
been derived using general density formulas and are subject to
change predicated upon actual project proposals, and the outcome of
the General Plan/Zoning Consistency Study discussed on page 30.
Since this study is in its initial phases, impacts to unit capacity
under existing zoning have not yet been determined.
Table 21 illustrates the residential building capacity of lands
within the City regulated under project master plans utilizing the
Planned Community Zone (PC). As previously mentioned, the majority
of vacant land within the City's eastern territories is held under 5
large ownerships, each employing the master planned community format.
II - 29
;)-~;;.
TABLE 21
RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION CAPACITY
MASTER PLANNED PROJECTS
CHULA VISTA CITY LIMITS
1990
Low Medium Med. High
Low (3-6 (6-11 ( 11-18 (18-27+
Proiect (0-3 acl du/acl du/acl du/acl du/acl Totals
EastLake Village Ctr 405 405
EastLake Greens 97 944 919 814 2774
EastLake Trail s 1260 1260
EastLake I II 746 255 260 374 200 1835
Sun bow 1128 160 444 214 1946
Rancho del Rey I 66 701 462 975 2204
Rancho del Rey II 533 243 776
Rancho del Rey III 314 838 228 1380
Salt Creek I 169 237 144 550
Woodcrest S.W. 54 54
Woodcrest T.N. 123 230 353
TOTALS: 909 5358 3242 3209 819 13,537
In addition to the previous resources, the City also has two master
planned projects currently under review within the Planning Area
which plan to annex; Salt Creek Ranch and Rancho San Miguel. Salt
Creek Ranch has received initial approval, and will be moving toward
tentative map review within the next year. Rancho San Miguel is
still in the preliminary planning stages, but could see some
construction prior to 1996. Table 22 indicates the residential
capacity associated with each project.
TABLE 22
RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION CAPACITY
MASTER PLANNED PROJECTS
CHULA VISTA PLANNING AREA
1990
Low Low Med. Medium
Proiect (0-3 du/acl (3-6 du/ac) (6-11 du/acl
Salt Creek Ranch 869 1442 405
Rancho San Miguel 1522 ~
TOTALS: 2391 1538 405
Totals
2716
1618
4334
Cumulatively, the results of the resource analysis indicate that
within existing zoned and served land, and land regulated by
approved master planned projects, sufficient residential
construction capacity exists to accommodate the housing needs
allocated to Chula Vista by SANDAG's Regional Share distributions.
II-3D
;J - =t3
IV. CONSTRAINTS
A. OVERVIEW
As required by State law, this section of the Housing Element
includes an identification and discussion of various constraints,
both unique to and beyond the community, that may inhibit the
development, maintenance, or improvement of housing for all income
levels. There are two primary realms of possible constraints;
governmenta 1 and non -governmenta 1. Governmental constra i nts address
such matters as land use controls, building codes and enforcement,
site improvement requirements, permits and processing procedures,
and fees and other exactions. Non-governmental constraints include
such issues as availability of financing, price of land, and costs
of construction.
B. GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
B.l land Use Controls
The various policies and regulations contained in the City's
Genera 1 Pl an and Zoni ng Ordi nance have a direct impact on the
ability to provide not only affordable housing, but housing for
all income groups. Excessive constraints exercised through
inadequate 1 and use and zon i ng opportunit i es to provi de a wi de
vari ety of types and dens it i es of hous i ng can preclude the
attainment of housing objectives. As previously illustrated in
the "Resource Inventory" discussion (pgs. 26-29), the City's
recently updated General Plan designates substantial areas of
vacant land for residential development at a variety of
densities, and additional multi-family units are represented by
underutilized land in the older central area. Much of the
vacant land is proposed for development under the "Planned
Community (PC) Zone" which permits the use of flexible
development standards, and tailored density and unit type
mixes. In addition to the PC zone, the Zoning Ordinance
provides for a wide variety of residential uses, including its
exclusive Mobilehome Park (MHP) zone, and further supports
affordable housing through its density bonus provisions, and
re 1 ated allowances for reduced or mod i fi ed standards through
the Precise Plan (P) modifying district. Additionally, the
Ordinance provides for mixed use development, and the
construction of residential projects in certain commercial
zones.
Conclusively, the City's land Use controls do not at this time
present significant constraints to meeting housing objectives,
and actually provide a generally supportive framework.
General Plan/Zonina Consistency Study
When the General Plan Update was adopted in July 1989,
evaluation was undertaken for the older areas of the City west
of Interstate 805 to determine in what specific areas the new
11-31
~-~""
General Plan and the existing zoning were not in full
consistency as required by State law. The result was
identification of several areas primarily within the Central
Commun ity, where zon i ng confl i cts were present. The City is
currently in the process of performing detailed analysis of
these areas in developing a recommended course of actions,
involving both general plan amendments and rezonings, to
achieve required consistency. Where potential residential
density reductions arise, the City will evaluate their impact
on affordable housing provision prior to reaching a final
recommendation for action.
In order that the intents of the updated General Plan be
recognized while the Consistency Study is undertaken, the City
Council adopted an interim measure to address processing of
project proposal s in affected areas. Where projects propose
imp 1 ementat ion in accordance wi th exi st i ng zoni ng in confl i ct
with the new General Plan, the measure requires a general plan
amendment to be processed.
Otay Water District Allocation Proqram
One of two water districts serving the Chula Vista Planning
Area, Otay Water District recently adopted an allocation
program due to existing infrastructure inadequacies involving
distribution and terminal storage facilities. Scheduled
completion of an additional supply pipel ine to the South Bay
area in 1994-95 will correct inadequacies. In the interim, the
District has restricted annual water allocation for development
to approximately 1,900 units. Otay's projections indicate
Chula Vista will receive between 700-1000 units/year of this
total district-wide allocation, which compares favorably with
the 714 units/year average derived from the RHNS' Regional
Share (Table 16). Additionally, the western half of the City
is served by the Sweetwater Authority which has no such
restrictions on water availability.
B.2 Growth Hanaqement
In order to ensure the adequate and timely provision of
facilities and services in conjunction with growth, Chula Vista
has adopted growth management provi s ions through a three-part
effort consisting of the following:
a. Threshold Standards: Provide performance criteria and
standards for eleven (11) public facilities and services
which must be maintained with growth. Annual City-wide
reviews are conducted by an oversight group to monitor
compliance.
b.
Growth Manaqement Element:
Pl an Update in Apri 1 1989.
objectives, and policies
residents quality-of-life.
Incorporated with the General
Sets forth the City's goal,
related to protection of
11-32
;)- ~5
c. Growth Manaqement Proqram: Currently in draft form and
under City Council review it serves as the implementing
mechanism. Provides guidelines for relating development
phasing to facil ities master plans at the project level,
and establishes performance requirements for facilities
guarantees at various stages of project planning and
review.
Because Growth Management efforts are primarily targeted to the
City's Eastern Territori es, and several of the 1 arge
developments there had approved development agreements prior to
the Program, or have already satisfied program requirements for
building permit issuance, direct constraints to housing
construction are not anticipated. Current forecasts estimate
construction of approximately 1200 units per year, which
includes an average 200 units/year of infill on the City's west
side generally not affected by the measures. Given Chula
Vista's Regional Share of 3,569 units from 7/91 to 7/96, or 714
units/year, total needs can be sufficiently accommodated.
However, since the Growth Management Program document is still
under review, the City will continue to evaluate potential
impacts to housing development as refinements are made.
B.3 Buildina Codes and Enforcement
The City Building Department administers and enforces the
Uniform Building Code which ensures construction in accordance
with widely adopted health and safety standards. While the
City may establish standards beyond those provided in the Code,
these standards do not significantly affect or increase the
cost of construction. As previously discussed in the Needs
Assessment, the Code Enforcement Divi si on admi ni sters a
proactive program of community outreach in attempt to prevent
Code violations from reaching a point of costly remedy.
B.4 ImDrovement Reauirements/DeveloDment Standards
The City has a variety of requirements establ ished by both the
Zon i ng Ordi nance, and plans and programs admi n i stered by the
Engineering Department. The majority of these requirements are
those necessary to ensure adequate livability and lasting value
in housing such as sewers, streets, curb-gutter-sidewalk,
1 ighting, drainage, recreational open space, parking, etc.
While there are definite costs associated to these, they are
those which are incidental to the provision of a sound living
environment. In such instance that a developer is required to
provide improvements which may offer service beyond that of the
project, the City has and will use either reimbursement
d i stri cts, or other methods of equ itab 1 e compensat i on. In the
case of certa in affordable hous i ng projects, such as those for
sen i ors, the City has a 11 owed the reduct i on of standards to
help offset costs. The City also proposes to consider possible
financial participation in the construction of infrastructural
improvements as a method of "add it i ona 1 i ncent i ve" under the
State's revised Density Bonus Provisions.
11-33
':1-7'-"
8.5 ProcessinQ. Permits. Fees. and Exactions
a. Project Processing
The extent and duration of project processing varies
widely by type of application. Residential projects
requ i ri ng subd i vi s i on of 1 and wi 11 experi ence an extended
period of review, and/or those projects which required
additional regulatory approvals such as rezonings or
conditional use permits. Regardless, the processing
required is that necessary to comply with the law and
ensure proper and thorough review without comprising
environmental quality or public safety.
The City has and will continue to use "fast-track"
processing to expedite projects, such as those providing
affordable housing. This "fast-tracking" can be
accomplished primarily in two ways, the first being
re-prioritization of work to focus staff resources to
these projects. The second is the i nst itut i on of
"parallel processing" whereby normally sequential approval
processes are run concurrently, such as environmental
review, design review, site plan review and architectural
plan check. The result is a substantial savings of time
in achieving complete project approval and the start of
construct i on. However, to date, the app 1 i cat i on of
fast-track procedures has not occurred in a consistent
manner, and no specific policy or procedures exist for
expediting affordable housing project proposals. It is
proposed in Part 3, that such pol icies and procedures be
developed and implemented.
b. Fee Schedules
Like many other cit i es in San Di ego County at tempt i ng to
deal with substantial improvements to infrastructure and
the expansion of services necessary to meet demands
induced by rapid growth, Chula Vista has found the need to
revise and expand its fees in order to maintain service
1 eve 1 s. Whi 1 e fees have increased, the City has expended
great efforts in developing equitable methods to ensure
the fees are only those necessary to address the actual
impacts of development, and ensure timely implementation
of required facilities.
Table 23 provides the most recent County wide comparison
of processing and impact fees available (1990) as provided
by the Construction Industry Federation (CIF), and
referenced in SANDAG' s RHNS. As i nd i cated in the table,
Chula Vista compares favorably with other jurisdictions of
similar size and complexity. To further illustrate Chula
Vista's relative position within the region, and provide
an estimate of impact useful in constraints assessment,
11-34
~- ? ':1-
PROCESSING
tJ
,
~
~
c.tlIIc-.dl12401klt
"""""""
- - p---j- - .
o-gn FWIiIIwI S260
GeneralPIIn 1105001'
ArNIr'D1'IenI. 12\00
P\aIV1tIdI~(Jf
~ 11C600
<>_. :1260.~
.--91'1". Qfli10
Sb Plan s::
-""
P..ml (CUP)
SpedIIcPla/l
,~
Terna\lVeP~
...
flf'\alPan:::.l
...
T...."'"
~...
,,,.
~...
FEES
1990/1991
Construction
TABLE 23
Industry Federation Regional
'<1",..... /"" ,/..t!' -,,*," ~o" ,,;cP ~~ "",0'
~ ~,vI' / .;*" ~rfi'"
"'"
I 1231
I
f.....;;;
r~.
iUaooil-'
I~
t---.
,
! S2000d I
\~'=-l
"ooo~-l
..... :
'IMO. ~----~-:
"" .""
,-
""
._;~
~-I
...... i
I
_I
.'''''
"""
'H."
.,.,.,
,--
Inm.lStuctt
"""
''''''''''''''''
"'- -
""
,,,.
'''',
..""
,..,
,..,
'HlOO
11190
~.
'HlOO
$1190
~.
"'"
~.
S300
"00
. .
$596+120; $500.
1\oI.-45Ocl; $5tICIl
S300
$'201\01+
"00d
"500
11780.
"""
"""
11200.
"00d
"'"
--T---- --~--
"'00
"""'"
"""
'50' .
~.
~.
~.
1116
~.
S366 $100
""
"00
""'"
"
''''''800
, Of 12000
"'"
......
"""
IPllClfit
"'"
"'"
"'"
-
-
"00
S1700d
"""
......
J300
,-
"'"
......
"'"
"00
"'"
om
''''
,.,.
""'"
''''''''
I2SO.7!.O
orIIS?S
"""
"500
S1()I(_
...-
"""
"'"
"00d
""
......
$1:250
.""",
$1132
......
''''''
"""
"'"
~,.
IS%
"000>
"""
'HXl
,,'"
"""
"
""
S300
...,
"""
,..,
-
...c,
...".
$600
$3000
$3000
.''''''
$6500
...
.....
.,..
17lS
J300
+110000
"
$250..00
$71S
J300
.$8Iage
.,..
....
$715
....
~"
""
"""
"'"
"800
$6000
"'"
,HXlOd
c:o&l.lO'l1o
$200
~.
'''F'
"""
~.
.m
~.
.',.
"'"
~.
-
.",
.."'.
~"
J200
N.
.-.
~8,~le
"""
$2574
$5147
.''''
"""
$1238
"""
",,.
"'"
$1995
J300
$876
+$0491101
"
"'"
.$35101
"00
"""
,HXl
N.
N.
w.
"'"
$11S2
..."
C061_20">0
Fee
Survey
.... Q.,f <,0. o;:;~'" <,0./0 <,0.'" .,po""....t.
'HXXl
"000
""
00'
provided
.'''''
00'
~,,-
.,,'"
.,,'"
",,00
S17~
w.
"600
$1750
.-
00'
~,-
""
$500
"""'"
.'''''
:-
00'
plovlOlld
."'"
"000
1&'-1
"""
,,,,0.,,,
$1850.
HXlOd
$1300.
556'"
"""'-
.CUP'-
$,3775.
"000d
N.
$1850+
'000d
$:1700+
'HlOOd
"00
'500
.'''''
""'-
.CUP '-
GPA t_
"'"
--
$184500 GPAllMl6
""'"
$2700+
""'"
'''''''''
"""'"
'\lOO,
$6()()()d
"""'"
$'75QC
IS"'"
""""""
0_
,,""
$5OOOd
'\lOO
$woat
00'"
"""
Il""~ 00:1
"'6P__
.-
"""
."'"
$3'"
<l(I01~ 00:1
.~-
."'JC
.'''''
"00
"'"
$300
"''''',
$IOOilol
"00
$700+
"""
$600
""""
""
"00
"~~.
.12Q'lI,,,,,,,"
w.
"''''
..J.\.~
$185
n.
N'
$1700
~.
"500
~.
,,500
$1015
IS'" .
$2(),'lOt
"''''''
'llOO
$300
CO~l$ .
"
"'"
w.
..."
$2.,0
$IlOO
"S4~,"""
1~~1I'ICl
""..
"...
"'
$3'00
$IlOO
"'"
19"
"
$3375
.,'"
"'"
"
"...
,"".
,~-
,
d
"'
AD'
EDU
MFD
SFD
KEY
'"
~,
""'-
.WJllIfiIIIdlWylfTP
~.lenIa-I/ll1Q~llIt
fTlu~'wrWlydwfJlllt1fJ
~.'.mlydw8Jlil1Q
Subdivision F_5~b./IHdona
-~~ ~~~~~~:..--
T/>Io....-.or._IOr~purpou
.- Ev.y.~IwI_~IO"""'"
"''''''''''"'YoIIr'''''''~r>onpt~
n..~h;1<J$b')'F_.,"",
~",~IOr"'~"""
""oiNr:JFRoww>fWiF_S......,
PUBLIC FACILITIES
DEVELOPMENT & IMPACT FEES
PARKLANOS
PST single family ~ hon'l6 (SFD).
c.r1~ 35 % of building permit YBluallon,
housmg &. non. residential
ChuaI V.'" W"I oll.80~ .5Jaloll.8mi
~ S1,047/unit ('1,374'unlt"""
. 00fT1I'nttdal $10,402/r.cre Te';717/lCfe
Incluotrial $ un / IafI $8,240 / IOtO
I!~ 52,2591unil $133/sl-non-reBidential.
(.iooMnt4<le S 503 I -.lnil $() non-residential
::tM DM90 Ctty (s.&e SIdebar)
San"'rcos S6.4521SFD, $.5 ,377!l.4FD. $18.156 or
528,49;3 ~r induslnal acre $47,378. $5-04,639 or $60.963 per
~daJ acre Higher!... appiy 10 ~ Im.nu UN.
ao..n. 8Mc;:f, 1 % of building ~rmjt valuatIOn
Vi...... - S 150 I unit. $ 938 per commerCial
1tCt. S 572 per Inclultrtal tc"
.. lne'....' expected In .arty '99'
~
~
~
TRAFFIC MITIGATION
F96 p6r SFO.. divide by 10/0 g8/ fee per ADT;
(excepl for Sanr98 divide by 12)
c.nabed: S 78e In pe~ distnct:a 1-3,
S 983 in distl1ct "
S,4(j per industrial 5Q ft, faCility
manaoement zone 5 only
S60
200
125
i56
Powoy: 2.500
-: 3..2S8
!Ion DIogo Cfty, 1_ aiclobon
S.n CMego County: 400. east COuf'ty
800 . mid-county; , ,OClO . coastal araa
S.n MwcoI: ($3.,,1-4: bullncluded ,n
public 1000lity IMI
--:
Yl"',
Chula VI"",
Del Mer:
EI Cajon,
EncinItM:
_Ido:
1__:
""-,
Lemon Qrove:
_, Cfty:
OalMeI..:
SCHOOl ~Ea Stale law allows ICtioollees of up
10 $1.508 pel' f95idenllal squar,IOOI anc;l $.26 per square 1001 of
oornmera.al, Indu,tnaJ or NnIOf rMiOenlial pro,ects MOlt
d1stncu d\a.roe the maxImum allOwed
POauc A1fT Eaoondido II"l"IpOMI an "In.lleu
i~ '..0 to tvnd '/'1 it" In publIC places program All
oovebpmel'1! pto~s are cnarQed $ 30 per square !oo!. Wllh
I"e hrSI 'BOO square teeT exemp1
SEWER & WATER
Capacity 198 P8r EOU. SEWER
i Carl'bed $ 1,250
i Chula Vlata 2,220
Coronado 850
0.1 Mar 975
EI Cajon 1,728
Enclnlla. 2.600
Eacondldo 4.790
I",pertal BNch 2,400
La ..... 1 , 1 90
L..mon Grove 2,631
National Ctty 1,540
OCNnllcM , ,565
Poway 2,856
S~.n DI.go 3865
in DI.go County 2,000
n Marcoa 2,4OQ
nt.. 489
lan.8Meh 4,500
VI.la 1,782
RESIDENTIAL ' , , . , , , , _ _ , . _ _
Car1.tNId $ 6Oe-area 1, $67')-area 2.
Additional $ 530 In Overlapping B & T area
. Chulo VI... (Ea,,): $ 3,060
Enelnl",: $ 900
Escondida: $ 1,930
OceIn.ide: S 1,650
PowIY' $ 660 I' '1 acre or less
$ 990 If o'o'er ' 2 acre 115 A::;T s
San Diego CIty: {see sloebar;
San "'reo.: Includec In 'aclllty tee
Stinl..: S 2,256
VII1I: S , ,200
NON-RESIDENTIAL
Calr1aHd :
Chull Vllt. (East):
1,680
770
300
1.526 - 2.321
2.289
1,100
ene/nil..:
bco/\clldo:
OoMnal(kJ .
Pow.y:
SonlM
eoo
1.290
Vi....
WATER
$ 1.713
300 . 800
o
1 14C
'90
3165
3.670
o
'9()
'9()
No
1,095
2,515
1.960
C 3,500
2.700
<9()
2,600
225
DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL
F8fI$ rafJ(}fl widely dr.HJ to draifll#(J6 basin characteristics.
c.rtlbed Fees range S 200 . 4<445 per acre: ten fee 'reas.
Median fee - $ 2465
$ 3m I acre; Te~ra.ph Canyon BasIn only.
$ .21 per SQ. f'1 ot new Impervious surface area.
Fees range $ 1000,8000 I acre, depending on baaln,
FH' range S 1.79 ' 9574 I acre. MedIa" f.. . S 3785.
Feea range $ 950.2600 I acre. Median I... S 1385.
Fees range $ 1343.10474/ acre; six lee .,8as. MedIan
lee . $ 7006.
$ 597! uni1, S 17313 i acre. orS .43persq,tt. olntt
ImpeMOUs area
Fees S , 584 . 3431 / acre; len areas. Median fee . $2384.
Chulo Yl...
Ene/nlttl.
Eocondldo
Ocoonolclo
Powoy
San MIIn::oe
Sont..
Viola
S 10 AOT
$122,400 acre. commercial !
$ 61.200 acre '00"S\r:al
$ 90 ADT
$ 49 ADT tees are per S ,
$ <4 !.25 ADT
S 16.!'lCJ 1..01
$ 69 AOT ' commerCial
$ 178 ADT . induslr'al
S 1 O.4,OT . COrrlr"'erc'al
$75 ADT, Ifld..;s'C\a
~
i
"
,
, "''-
CIF also compiled a comparison of total fees that would be
required of a building permit appl ication for a prototype
home. Table 24 illustrates the results of the survey,
which ranked (hula Vista #8 out of 19 jurisdictions.
TABLE 24
TOTAL FEE COSTS TO BUILD A PROTOTYPE HOME (JAN. '91)
1 Escondido $21,507
2 San Marcos 19,131
3 Poway 16,740
4 San Die90 City 15,755
5 Carlsbad 15,742
6 Solana Beach 14,590
7 Encinitas 14,527
8 Chula Vista 14,193
9 Santee 12,397
10 Oceanside 12,012
11 Vista 10,791
12 San Diego County 9,279
13 Imperi a 1 Beach 8,567
14 Lemon Grove 8,459
15 Del Mar 8,222
16 La Mesa 7,733
17 El Cajon 7,645
18 National City 6,443
19 Coronado 5,908
CIF PROTOTYPE HOME: Three bedroom, two bath
single-family detached home. 1800 square feet
living area. 400 square feet garage and 240
square feet patio. Approx. $139,000 valuation
(calculated by each jurisdiction). Type V wood
frame construction. 100A single phase
electrical. 100,000 8tu FAU gas service, and a
common set of fixtures.
As stated in past Housing Elements, and included in Part 3
of this Element, the City will continue to consider
subsidizing or reducing certain fees for affordable
housing projects where such subsidies or reductions are
clearly necessary to create the required project economics.
Since application of subsidies or reductions have
previously not occurred in a consi stent fashion, or under
the direction of specific policies and procedures, it is
proposed that such be developed. The pol i c i es and
procedures should address analysis which establish
criteria for determining the level of assistance
necessary, including pro-formas, and evaluate the relative
impact reduct ions may have on overa 11 budgets for
facilities and service plans.
11-36
~-gD
C. NON-GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
C.l Financial Availabilitv
The availability and cost of financing for both new
construction and home mortgages are a major component of
housing affordabil ity. The previous analysis of 1988 mortgage
lending, in select census tracts, previewed lending practices
in the newly developed areas, and older, more establ ished areas
of Chula Vista. The following discussion looks at the
availability of conventional lending for multi-family and home
mortgages.
Multi-Family
According to 1988 HMDA data analysis, multi-family lending was
made available in every census tract in the City for the
purposes of new construction and/or purchasing of existing
housing complexes. City-wide multi-family lending exceeded
$30,000,000 on 36 loans, and $19,305,900 on 221 non-occupant
loans. While it appears that money was available, without
specific information regarding credit terms, it is inconclusive
to find that lending conditions were restrictive. However, as
it can be stated that increases in interest rates and other
such changes in the finance arena tend to inhibit construction,
the City is proposing to assist developers in avail ing
themselves of alternative and supplemental financial assistance
available through consortiums such as SAMCO and CCRC.
Home MortGaGe LendinG
The following page contains the table "marketplace" of mortgage
borrowing rates taken from the San Diego Business Journal
(l0/90). It indicates that interest rates are still around 10%
for a 30-year fixed rate loan of under $187,450 in yalue. The
median resale price of homes in the San Diego area is
$160,000-$170,000, which using a 95% loan, would be affordable
to a household with income in excess of $60,000, of 158% of the
area median. Under the current market conditions, condominiums
become the "affordable home ownership opportunity". In
summary, the high cost of housing continues to rise which
restricts the number of new homebuyers into the market place
without special programs like deferred secondary loans from
parents, the State, or local agencies.
As illustrated above, as interest rates rise more and more
households can no longer qual ify for home mortgages without
special assistance programs such as that mentioned above.
Additional assistance programs are proposed in Part 3.
11-37
~-rl
MARKETPLACE
MORTGAGE AND BORROWING RATES
Adjustable-rate mortgage (below $187,450)
Lender Rate-% Oown-% Points Index Margin I AnnuaICap-% ; Payment Cap-% Lifetime Cap % i Phone
res Mortgage Banking 6.85 10 1.25 1 yr. T-bill 2.5 oa : 7.5 14.125 : 452-8000
Allegis Mortgage 69 20 0 11lhdislricl 2625 "" , 7.5 13625 =f286.7161
First Bankers Mortgage 69 20 0 11th district 2.625 n' j 7.5 13.625 722-0456
--------
Fouts Financial 69 10 0 11th district 2625 n. .-! 75 13.625 587.1400
... -6-9-- 11lhdistrict ----- ---IT-- j---........- -. - ...
La Jolla Newport Financial 20 .25 25 na j 13.875 454-3386
. - ..---- .----......-
U.S. Bancorp 69 20 0 11th district 2.75 na I 7.5 13.875 931-4900
r .---. -----''--
Weslern Residential 69 20 '.25 11lhdistrict 2.625 n. 7.5 13.5 576-2227
Terrill Financial 7.375 20 2 111hdistrict 2 oa j 7.5 13.95 578-0741
11th district 2.25 I 75 13.50 . 434-7079
A. Telach & Telech 7.5 20 1.5 na
Bank ot Commerce 7.5 20 1.5 11th district 2.35 na j 75 13.95 (800)464-2263
Great American 75 20 1.5 11lhdistricl 2.25 n. I 75 14 (800)423.2265
Norwesl Mortgage 7.5 10 2 1 yr. T-bill 2.75 2 I oa 13.5 720-0045
30-y""; lixad (below $187,450)
Lender
! Rate-% ! Oown-% I Points
Phone
Terrill Financial !
-AJlegis Mortg~~---r
--=--".
Bank of Commerce I
Fouts Financial I
La Jolla Newport Financial I
Norwest Mortgage
TCS Mortgage Banking
U.S. Bancorp
Uni-Fed Mortgage Corp.
A. Telech & Telech
American City Mortgage
Household Bank
975 i 20 j 2.5....s78.0741~.
9.875 i 10 1 1.875 286-7161
9.8~~ 1:9'i-~OO)464-2263 ~
9.875 10 2 587-1400-
9.875 10 2 ~.~~~~~_
9.875 5 2 720-0045
----
9.875 10 2 45~.80~~
9.875 5! 2 931-4900
9.875 5 2.25 673-3630
10 10 2 434-7079
10 10 2.25 293-7283
10 5 2 595-8381
30.year IIxed (above $187,450)
Lender Rate-% Oown-% Points Phone
~~rwest Mortgage 10 20 2 720-0045
TCS Mortgage Banking 10.25 10 2 452-8000
Terrill Financial 10.25 I 20 ':751 578-0741
~....
Allegls Mortgage 10.375 i 10 I 286-7161__
Fouls Financial 10375 i 10 2 587-1400
~. I
La Jolla Newport Financial 10.375 I 20 2 454-33_8~
U.S. Bancorp 10.375 10 2 i 931-4900
... Bank of Commerce 1.95 , (800)464-:2263
10.5 10
~. -.
Un i-Fed Mortgage Corp 10.5 10 1.625 I 673.3630
Union Bank 10.5 25 1.75 1541-0180-
--Weste-mResidential 10.5--- ~-- ~~-576-2227 --
10
American City Mortgage 10.625 10 2 I 293-7283
SAVINGS INSTRUMENTS (Based on a $2,500 minimum)
Ties are listed a/ph80etically.
na -notavaila/)Ia.
. Indicates institution pays simple inlerest only
! Two-year CD.
15-year fixed (below $187,450)
Lender I Rate-% 'Down-% i Points I Phone
Terrill Financial I 9.375 i 20 : 2.5 I 578-0741
A. 1'elech & Telech ~ r~~9~-5i~'~-i-o-~-T~~2~5-~r--434-70'79'
Bank of Commerce .- '-'~~'j --~5--l-~-~-i-O~--i~9'5~~(800)464-~2263--~
~~~w~:~~o~~gage - ~~-~.~~~=l=::.~"--- =-: ~ -t=f=:~=~;~~~~~~~-
Allegis Mortgage-~-----'" 'r~_ 9.625.:-.n lC)- rl-.875~" -286-7161--~
FoutsFlnanclal--~--~! g:-62~~~10---.t-~ 2 - -58i1406~-~
La Jolia Newport Fma'ncial'-r~~25- i '-1~t-1:'75 1--- 45,f'3386~'- -~
American City Mortgage -t--l-'-975 --'.10 ,.-7S-t__ 293-i283--'~-
Household Bank 975 5 2 595-8381
TCS Mortgage Banking 9.75 -----'0--+--2'-- ~8000---
Uni-Fed Mortgage Corp 9.75 5 1.75 673-3630
Home Equity Une of Credit Second Trust Deed
Lender
Phone
Rate-%
Points:
AllegisMortgage 10 2 286-7161
Fouts Financial 10 variable 2 I 587-1400--
GlendaleFederal__.__~-_.m:O variable +' 0 -1~ (800)834-10QO-
North Island Federal CU I 10 variable ~1T- 563.1600--
Mission Federal CU ,--~ ~j - --,-,-- variable 0 I 546-2039
San Dieg-o Teachers'CU---~ -1~~2(-~ variable -~~()~~. 49(:3500
Sanwa Bank ----~-~--- " '-1123- variable -0 -t+- 234-35'1'1~
Great American-~- ------r~7-.-t- variable T-'-5--~ -(800)4-ij~2265
Wells Fargo Bank -.--.~- t variable ~:~-ci"-~ (800)225:5932-
~-~--._.t ----r---...---.~..t~~.-..
CoaslFederal ----~--~_-1 12 ' .~a~~~ i_~._O
USA Federal CU I variable 1 2
Union Bank-- var;<ible-~ ~-~O
F--~~~~l~::;-~
-- -". 541-:0180
6-monthCO 1-yearCO 2~-yearCD 5-yearCD Money Market
Insmutlon rate/yleld-% rate/yield-% rate/yleld-% rate/yleld-% Account-% Phone
Fireside Thrift 8.3/8.63 8.35/8.69 na 8.35/8.69 5.75/5.9 234-4101
FoOlhill Thrift & loan 8.3/8.65 8.3/8.65 na na 6/6.1-ct-- 234--5655---
TopaThritt & Loan 8.25/8.6 8.3/8.65 8.3/8.65 I 8.3/8.65 7.18/7.44-: -747-0715'
Landmark Thrift & loan 8.125J8.56 8.25/8.69 8.375/8.83 8.375/8.83 na -+--~698-61~
Western Financial Savings 8.125/8.46 8.2518.6 na 8.25/8.6 7.5/7.79 -L-~~86-00~
Cuyamaca Bank 8.05/8.38 8.1/8.44 8.15/8.49 8.218.55 5.9/6.06 I 562-6400
IDS American Express' 8 8 8.05 I 8.3 7.63 '~T942-7258~'
WeslernFamilyNal.Bank 818.3 8.1/8.41 8.1/8.41 _J~ 8:~.~.4C -~25---r 434'6131 ~--
GrealAmerican t---!955/8.279 8.07218.406 7.76318.071 I 7.809/8.121 --------s:-25Jt;3-g-- j (800)423-2265
HomeFedBank -._-- t__~_795/8.27 -~a03/826-- 7.97/8.35 - -r-~~8~0218~'3'5-'---' 52515.38- + (800)554-2626
~~:~~~~n.:s~~~~l;,~~_:-=---.=, - ;~~~6 ~~ ~-iX2;~~ ,=~7:~~5~~=J-_ ~:.~J 5:5:\8 . L ;:~;:: ~
_~~hlslandFederaICU ___ 7.75/8.03 7.85/8.14 8.1/8.41 ---1. 8.25/8.57 '---6.51i6-7i'~- 563-1600
Coast Federal -- -7.74/8.047 7.8918.209 8.09/8.425~ I ~ '8~09/8.425-------r-_t'--5.25/5.39 .-.~ ~ 531-8833
Union Bank 7.4/7.68 7.4/7.6a-,. 7-W.9 ~~-7~6i7.g----- ---. 5.9/6.06-- r'-~ 541--0'180---
,
Tn.. .."""'_ 1..""....__ r~ ~_.-...-.. .....,... '~"'''''''''_~ "~'~8 ___ 8' ~'--"- -~__~- ---<.1:iIC '...0 ... _ ___ ~ . ~_ ~___ _... __..._._ _ , '._
C.2 land and Construction Costs
The rl s 1 ng costs of 1 and and construct i on in Southern
Ca 1 iforn i a represent the s i ngl e 1 argest factors in the
spiraling cost of housing. The most frequently encountered
constraint in affordable housing provision is the "lack of
economi c feas i bi 1 i ty" expressed by the pri vate sector in
attempting to make units available to lower-income households
given these costs. Together land and construction costs
compri se about 75% of the tot a 1 cost of a res ident i a 1
dwell ing. The following sections present an overview of local
conditions, and provide information for use in addressing the
level of economic barriers to lower-income affordability in new
construction. The information was collected from local
developers, the Construction Industry Federation, and The Myers
Group-a local San Diego firm specializing in market analysis
and consultation to the development community.
a. Land Costs
Residential land costs in Chula Vista, on average, are
currently $200,000/acre, with the specific dollar/unit
ratio obviously dependent upon density. In surveying
recent land purchases for several proposed single family
developments in the City, the average per lot cost for the
raw land was approximately $40,000. Improved land costs
can vary widely depending upon the amount of improvements
necessary including, in Chula Vista, the amount of site
grading to create buildable lots. As an example, a
recently approved master planned project with 1900+ units,
has an estimated per unit site work cost of $22,500.
In order to further illustrate total buildable lot costs
for new development, the following table was provided by a
local developer as an example of costs per type and
density of residential development:
Product Type
Finished lot Cost
Single Fam (8000 s.f. lot)
Single Fam (5000 s.f. lot)
Multi-Fam (8 du/ac)
Multi-Fam (12 du/ac)
Multi-Fam (22 du/ac)
$203,000
130,000
76,000*
62,000*
40,000*
*per unit cost assuming 100+ units on a 12t acre site.
b. Construction Costs
As mentioned, increased construction costs have also
contributed significantly to the problem of housing
affordability. Current estimates place single family
costs between $36 and $42 per square foot dependi ng on
unit amenities. Given an average 1,500 sq. ft. home on a
[[-39
d-f3
5,000 sq. ft. lot, construction costs would range between
$55,800 and $65,100, which assuming a $225,000 purchase
price, represents 25%-29% of the home.
Costs for multi-family construction vary according to the
type of structure generally as follows:
Wood frame low rise (1-3 stories) - $36 to $42 sq. ft.
Steel frame mid-rise (4-6 stories) - $65 to $70 sq.
ft.
Steel frame high-rise - $75 to $100 sq. ft.
(up to 20 stories)
(add $25/sq. ft. if underground parking or parking
structure)
Est imates used for the sample development pro- formas followed
these cost assumptions:
ComDonent Costs in Multi-Family Housinq
New Construction Unit Price
Land
Hard Costs (improvements, const.)
Soft Costs (arch., eng., marketing, etc.)
$105,000
$ 25,000 (24%)
$ 60,000 (57%)
$ 20,000 (19%)
(INSERT AFFORDABILITY ANALYSIS)
(PER PRO-FORMA REVIEW)
C.3 EmDloyment ODDortunities
In an effort to address the public policy issues involved in
providing low-income housing, the rationale offered usually
focuses on housing as a "social service", and a moral
obligation that City's must absorb. While this argument has
merit, a more compell ing publ ic pol icy may be at stake. That
is, the future economic vitality of the City may depend on its
providing affordable housing for all segments of the
population, especially "the working poor".
To define what public purpose will be served by providing
affordable housing to all economic segments of the population,
three questions must be addressed:
a. Will the City lose jobs?
b. Will the City lose workers?
c. Will the City lose economic opportunities?
11-40
0> -8'1
The probable answer in all three cases is yes. Thus, in an
effort to preserve as many of the nearly 36,000 employment
opportunities in Chula Vista, the City should continue to
provide as many affordable housing opportunities as possible
during the next planning period.
According to an economic survey prepared by Southwestern
College in Chula Vista, the highest concentration of employment
opportun i ties (# of fi rms) are in South Bay, wi th 2,481 fi rms
physically located in Chula Vista. In general, the highest
concentrations of employment opportunities are in the following
two sectors of employment (see also Table 15, pg. ___):
998 Service Firms 40%
717 Retail Firms 29%
Therefore, within the City 1 imits nearly 70% of all existing
employment opportunities are offered by traditionally low
paying service and retail industries. Most of these firms are
very small with 1 - 5 employees. Manufacturi ng facil it i es,
with the exception of Rohr Industries, employ under 200
emp 1 oyees. Ni nety-n i ne percent of these fi rms are located in
the older west side of the City (west side of 1-805).
TABLE 26
MANUFACTURING EMPLOYMENT
Nellcor, Inc.
Rohr Industries, Inc.
Apparel Suppliers of California
Crower Cams and Equipment Co., Inc.
Hyspan Precision Products, Inc.
The Kedall Company
Ratner Corporation
Risi Industries, Inc.
Corsair Marine
C&BSteel, Inc.
Laing Thermotech, Inc.
Nelson and Sloan Concrete
225
7,213
130-200 (Seasonal)
160
170
100
500
45
45
35
40
235
SANDAG's Series-7 suggests that during 1986, 20-50% of the
population in 14 of the City's census tracts left those tracts
to work elsewhere in the City, or out of the City altogether.
Considering the concentration of high-income households in the
eastern territori es, the overall cost of hous i ng in the City,
and the number of highly skilled job opportunities in Chula
Vista, we can assume many residents commute to highly-skilled
and high paying jobs elsewhere.
Il-41
d-io
C.4 Other Sianificant Imoacts
Internat i ona 1 Border
The regional business cl imate is continually improving,
affording industry new opportunities both within the City
limits and in nearby Tijuana, due in part to proximity to the
international border only seven miles away. A growing number
of American companies are capitalizing on the twin-plant or
"maquiladora" concept which links labor-intensive American
industries with Mexican labor pools for assembly operations.
Many of these American companies rent warehouse/distribution
space within the City's light industrial business parks located
along the southern edge of the City limits.
While some critics decry the advent of dual-plant
manufacturing, many experts say this is a growing trend which
wi 11 have s i gnifi cant impact on some 1 abor i ntens i ve
industries. The University of Texas in the "[1 Paso
Maquiladora Impact Survey of 1987", reported to the Department
of Labor (DOL) that production sharing is a net creator of U.S.
jobs in a rapidly evolving global marketplace. Much of the
City's newly developing eastern territories are considering
warehousing and mini-distribution operations within the new
commercial/industrial centers. Many of these centers will
provide new jobs for the area. Most of these jobs, however,
are neither highly skilled nor well paid which would create an
additional demand for more affordable housing units if these
workers chose to live in Chula Vista.
11-42
.;2 ...g"
V. SUMMARY
In order to assist the direction of policy and program development
responsive to the needs, resources, and constraints analysis provided in
Part 2, the following summary points have been compiled to highlight
specific matters for focus in Part 3:
Investigate
projects,
management,
cause(s) of unusual vacancy rates in certain seniors
(i.e., demand, location, Section 8 certificates,
etc. )
Addressment of overpayment (1980 est imates) , espec i ally in future
City-monitored projects, in proportion to the following:
Rental housing - approximately 6,193 households
Homeowners - approximately 1,248
Address overcrowded conditions of 1,763 housing units.
Provi de a mi n i mum of 1,058 new hous i ng opportun it i es to households
below 80% of the area median income. These opportunities may
include new construction rental and home ownership, public housing,
Section 8 rental subsidies, and homeless sheltering.
Increase awareness and utilization of rental
western side of the City through intensified
(i.e., 70% of major rehab work needed is within
stock).
rehab programs in
staff commitment,
the rental hous i ng
Encourage both affordabl e rental and home buyi ng opportun it i es in
the eastern territories to promote balanced and integrated
communities within the City.
Investigate options which will mitigate the loss of all 386 family
housing under HUD Section 236 mortgage subsidy contracts, including:
Temporary rent control on all projects
specific relocation assistance cost
owner, and the City.
seeking conversion with
shared by the tenant,
Limited equity coop conversion options for low-income renters
willing to consider ownership responsibility.
Cons i derat i on of all unexplored fi nanc i ng opportun it i es with for-
and non-profit developers seeking to build affordable housing.
Evaluate the nexus between the growth of service and retail
employment opportunities and affordable housing supply. In order to
attract and retain manufacturing and service firms in Chula Vista,
encourage affordable hous i ng product i on for thi s work force as a
matter of public policy.
11-43
~"'~r
The following areas of need will be addressed under existing City Code
enforcement and rehab efforts:
1. Minor rehabilitation complaints which constitute 63% of all rehab
activity in the City's older west side are usually mitigated through
the combined efforts of the Code Enforcement Officers, and the
Community Development Rehab Loan Program funded by the Redevelopment
Housing Fund.
2.
Demolitions of deteriorated units in such poor
rehabi 1 i tat ion woul d not be cost effect i ve account
the 37,422 units on the west side of the City.
enforcement sufficiently mitigates this problem.
condit i on that
for only 1% of
Existing Code
3. Neighborhood awareness of the value of Code compliance in
maintaining community pride-of-place is reinforced by the City's
support of the Neighborhood Revital ization Program in conjunction
with CDBG funding for community social serVlces, and enhanced
infrastructure expenditures, (i.e., street widening, etc.).
4. Continued enforcement of the mobilehome relocation ordinance to
mitigate displacement.
WPC 0002p
11-44
~ -7r
I. INTRODUCTION
DRAfT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART 3: COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING PLAN - 1991 TO 1996
II. STATEMENTS OF PURPOSE
JII. OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
Objective 1 - Balanced Communities
A. The Affordable Housing Program
B. Implementation Guidelines
Obj ect i ve
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
2 - Rental Housing Opportunities
Facilitiate Use of Federal Funding
Facilitate Use of State Funding
Non-Profit Community Development Corp.
Federally-Assisted Housing Projects
Shared Housing Program
Family Public Housing
Density Bonus Program
Single Room Occupancy Program
Objective 3 - Home Ownership Opportunities
A. Affordable Housing Program
B. General Marketing Information
C. First-Time Homebuyer Loan Programs
D. Community Reinvestment Home Loan Programs
E. Equity Share or Deferred Loan Program
F. Sweat Equity Projects
G. Reverse Annuity Mortgage Program
H. Mortgage Credit Certificates
1. Single-Family Mortgage Revenue Bonds
J. Educational Programs for Homeowners
Objective
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
Objective
A.
B.
C.
D.
4 - Mobilehome Park Living
Mobilehome Rehabilitation Grant Program
Upgrade Trailer Parks
Mobilehome Rent Arbitrationh Ordinance
Mobilehome Park Conversion Ordinance
Mobilehome Assistance Program
County Mobilehome Rental Assistance Program
Preserve Affordability
5 - Renewal, Rehabilitation, and Conservation
Conserve At Risk Affordable Housing
Community Appearance/Neighborhood Improvement
Housing Inspection Program
Abatement of Non-Conforming Uses and Dilapidated
Structures
~ ..g,
Paqe
II 1-1
II 1-3
111-4
111-4
I II-7
II 1-9
I II-9
111-10
III-II
III-ll
III-ll
III-ll
1 II -12
II I -12
I I 1-14
I I 1-14
111-14
III-I4
Ill-IS
III-IS
I II -15
II I -15
III-I6
III-I6
III-I6
I II -17
I II -17
III-17
III-I7
III-17
I1I-17
III-I7
III-17
111-19
I II -19
II I - 20
III -20
I I I - 21
TABLE OF CONTENTS
III. OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS (cont'd)
Objective
E.
F.
G.
H.
Objective
A.
B.
C.
D.
Objective
A.
B.
C.
D.
5 - Renewal, Rehabilitation, and Conversion
Rehabilitation Programs
Neighborhood Revitalization Program
Condominium Conversions
Educational Programs
(cont'd)
6 - Housing Assistance for Homeless
Participate in a Regional Approach
Facilitate Transitional Housing Programs
Shelter Programs
Support Existing Homeless Services
7 - Coordination, Monitoring, and Evaluation
Affordable Housing Standards
Funding and Assistance Strategy Plan
Monitoring and Evaluation Program
Affordable Housing Threshold Standard
Objective 8 - Fair Housing and Lending
A. Fair Housing Program
B. Annual Fair Housing Assessment
C. Fair Marketing Plans
Objective
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
Objective
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Obj ect i ve
A.
B.
C.
D.
9 - Reduction/Removal of Constraints
Expedite Affordable Housing Projects
Affordable Housing Ombudsman
City Assistance/Subsidies
Reduction of 8uilding Costs
General Plan/Zoning Consistency Study
Flexible Development Standards
Alternative/Supplemental Financial Assistance
10 - Environmental Issues
Energy and Water Conservation
Weatherization Programs (MAAC)
Piping for Reclaimed Water
Air Quality and Water Management
Title 24 Energy Analysis
II - Other Housing Issues
Jobs/Housing Balance
Housing Linkage Fee
Coastal Zone Housing
Relocation Assistance
Plans
;J .. <10
~
II I -21
II I -21
II I -22
I II- 22
I II- 23
II I -25
II 1-27
II 1-28
III-3D
111-31
PART 3: COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING PLAN - 1991 TO 1996
I. INTRODUCTION
A mandatory component of every Housing Element is establ ishment of a
comprehensive set of quantified objectives and related policies and
programs designed to substantially address the development, maintenance,
and improvement of housing for all economic segments of the community
(Article 10.6, Section 65580, et. seq. of the State Government Code).
This comprehensive housing plan must be responsive to identified local
conditions and needs, and address particular housing problems including
the reduction or removal of identified constraints.
Part 3 of the Housing Element of 1991 constitutes the integrated series
of directives and actions to be implemented by the City in discharging
its responsibil ity and commitment to providing adequate and affordable
housing opportunities for both the existing and future residents of Chula
Vista. Its various policy and program proposals delineate the responses
designed to substantially address the needs, conditions, and problems
identified in Parts I and 2 of the document, and together, form the
5-year plan to ensure the development, maintenance, and improvement of
adequate housing opportunities and affordabil ity for all economic
segments of the community.
Based on the identification of local needs in Part 2, the City has
establ i shed quanti fi ed assi stance object i ves for its 1991-96
Comprehensi ve Housi ng Pl an. The assi stance objectives are those
anticipated through implementation of the policies and programs contained
in Part 3. For ease of correlation, the table on the following page has
been structured according to Part 3 objectives and programs, and
indicates the level of projected assistance by program area and income
group. These objectives serve as benchmarks, and represent the maximum
number of housing units that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and
conserved over the 5-year timeframe.
;;.-'11
III-I
QUANTIFIED ASSISTANCE OBJECTIVES
1991-96 COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING PLAN
Obiectives 1. 2. and 3 - New Construction
Total Units: 725
Very Low - 195 units
80 Public Housing Units (County Housing Authority)
75 Senior Housing Units (Section 202)
40 Family Housing Units
Low - 612 units
60 Family Housing Units
50 Senior Housing Units
420 Affordable Housing Program
82 Other Eastern Territories
Moderate - 131 units
131 Market Rate for Sale and Rental Units
Other - 335 units
335 Market Rate for Sale and Rental Units
Obiectives 3 - Oooortunities for Very Low-Income Renters
Total Units: 500
200 Section 8
300 Shared Housing Program (Seniors)
Objective 5 - Rehabilitation and Conservation
Total Units: 651
386 At Risk Units (Section 236 Family)
200 Single Family and Mobilehome Rehab (CHIP)
(180 very low income, 20 low income)
65 Rental Rehabilitation
Ob.iective 6 - Transitional Housina
Total Units: 20 (New construction or rehab)
111-2
d -,a.
II. STATEMENTS OF PURPOSE
The following statements are meant to guide the deciSion-making process
in formulating and implementing the Comprehensive Housing Plan.
Together, they constitute the City's overall intentions in establ ishing
the integrated series of objectives, policies, and programs contained in
the following pages.
The City is committed to
its residents and will
following:
A. Fulfillment of the City's share of the Regional need for affordable
housing and progression towards the solution of problem areas
described in the performance review and needs assessment (Part 1 and
2).
providing a comprehensive housing program for
pursue reasonable means to accomplish the
B. The overall increase of the housing stock through provision of
decent housing in well-planned neighborhoods for families and
individuals of all socioeconomic levels.
C. The effective utilization of all financial options available to
promote decent, affordabl e hous i ng product ion withi n the Pl anni ng
Area.
D. The development of "balanced communities" representing economic and
social integration of neighborhoods, and the availability of housing
for all people regardless of their class, gender, age, race,
national origin or religion.
E. The provision of quality residential and environmental amenities,
such as open space, landscaping, parks, convenient shopping and
adequate parking for all communities.
F. The protection of residents' quality-of-life throughout the City
through the provision and maintenance of adequate public
improvements, facilities, and services and expansion of this
infrastructure in a manner cons i stent with the Growth Management
Element of the General Plan.
G. Conservation and rehabilitation of existing housing stock, in order
to protect and preserve affordable housing opportunities that would
otherwise be lost.
H. Encouragement of private sector participation in the solution of
local and regional housing issues, and in development of innovative
concepts for the provision of affordable housing.
I. Coordination of local affordable housing efforts through cooperation
with the Federal Government, State of California, the County of San
Diego, SANDAG, and neighboring municipalities.
I 11-3
j - 9.3
III. OBJECTIVES. POLICIES. AND PROGRAMS
The following section of the Comprehensive Housing Plan embodies policies
and programs to be implemented by the City in addressing identified needs
through the development, maintenance, and improvement of adequate and
suitable housing opportunities for all economic segments of the
community, including achievement of the quantified assistance objections
for lower-income households. As a means to providing a concise and
comprehensive guide for addressment of housing conditions in the City,
the policy and program proposals have been organized around eleven (11)
specific housing objectives. Each objective is clearly stated, followed
by the appl icable statement(s) of pol icy, and a set of "implementing
actions" identifying program proposals complete with associated costs,
sources of financing, responsible agencies, and a recommended schedule.
By associating objectives and responses in a straight-forward manner, a
clear and comprehensive direction is created.
OBJECTIVE 1
Achievement of a balanced residential community through integration of
low and moderate-income housing throughout the City, and the adequate
dispersal of such housing to preclude establ ishment of specific
low-income enclaves.
Policy
1. The City shall encourage citizens, developers, and builders to
support the development of neighborhoods which provide housing for
people of all economic classes, races, and age groups.
2. The City shall require every developer of projects in excess of 50
units to provide 10% of the units for 1 ow- income househol ds, in
accordance with the Affordable Hous i ng Program to be adopted by the
City Council. The City shall periodically review this requirement,
and may revise it, in accordance with the City's intent to meet its
share of regional housing needs.
3. The City shall identify locations in newly developing areas where
siting opportunities for low and moderate income housing exist, and
establish controls whereby such housing can be provided. These
controls shall include timely phasing of the affordable housing
component.
ImDlementinQ Actions
A. The Affordable Housing Program (AHP)
The AHP is designed to guarantee the provlslon of low income housing
opportunit i es wi thi n resident i a 1 developments. Where projects
exceed fifty (50) dwelling units, the City specifically requires
developers to provide 10% of the total units to low income
households. A "project" shall be considered as the entire
residential development proposal as set forth by the associated
development appl ication, whether or not the subdivision of land is
involved. In the case of master planned communities, the "project"
shall be that development encompassed by the Specific Plan, Precise
Plan, or General Development Plan/Sectional Planning Area Plants).
II 1-4
~-,'t
In an effort to respond to each individual project, the City may
consider flexible appl ication of the 10% affordable housing
requi rement. Appl i cat i on of these fl exi bl e approaches as outl i ned
on pages 111-6 and 111-7, shall be established as part of the
Affordable Housing Program Implementation Guidelines.
Determinations of possible adjustments, if any, to the 10%
requirement in accordance with intents to meet the City's share of
regional housing needs, shall be undertaken annually in conjunction
with performance reviews.
In order to guarantee provi s ion of these uni ts, the Ci ty requi res
each developer to formulate, review with staff, and have adopted a
specific program and agreement for the project which delineates how
and when the units will be provided, including intended subsidies,
income/rent restrictions, and methods to verify compliance.
Formulation of project-level programs and agreements is handled in a
tiered fashion, starting at the General Development Plan (GDP)
stage, or similar level of review, and progressing in specificity
and detail through the planning process, with a final agreement
required prior to recordation of the final map or final project
approval where land subdivision is not applicable. The City will
work with each developer to create a reasonable phasing schedule for
the affordable housing units, taking into consideration the need for
substantial facil ities and services to serve such housing, and the
City's overall growth management policies.
Understanding that the feasibility of siting lower income rental
projects presents unique considerations, the City proposes to
establ ish a program to identify locations, primarily in the newly
developing eastern territories, for siting these projects including
establ ishment of a minimum number of units to be provided at each
site. Siting considerations will take into account proximity to
mass transportation routes, and the availability of incidental
services such as shopping, medical, child care and schools. Since
these considerations may make it infeasible to site a project within
each development, those developments without sites will still be
required to contribute to the provision of this housing at a level
commensurate to 10% of thei r tot a 1 project uni ts for 1 ow- income
households. The City will establ ish mechanisms whereby
responsibilities can be equitably shared amongst the developments.
In order to precl ude the undue concentrat i on of 1 ow- income hous i ng
units, the City will establ ish guidel ines which specify the amount
of units allowable within both completely low-income, and
mixed-income projects.
While the Affordable Housing Program (AHP) places the primary
responsibil ity on the private sector, clearly new types of
public/private ventures, and assistance from the City would be
beneficial to accomplish the goals of low-income rents and long-term
affordability. The following mechanisms are offered to be used
either singularly or in combination as means of reducing the cost
burden normally placed on the developer, and in providing additional
flexibility for each project in achieving compliance:
III-S
~-CJ5
I. New Public/Private Partnerships
As the cost of land development and housing production
continues to rise, developers are finding it ever more
difficult to produce affordable housing, especially for low and
very-low income households. In order to maintain the provision
of at least 10% of a new project's units to low and moderate
income households for the longest time possible, the following
new public/private partnership concept is offered.
a. Joint Venture PartnershiD - In the joint venture, a
private and a non-profit developer join together so that
each may use special development incentives which neither
would have if they pursued a project separately. For
example, they can implement a "layered financing" proposal
involving low-income housing tax credits and below market
rate financing through the non-profit entity. The private
developer could use these incentives to make construction
of the units financially feasible, and then turn the units
over to the non-profit for management responsibilities.
In using the tax credits and other financing assistance,
specific affordability requirements and contract durations
are applied depending upon the methods and financial
entity used.
2. Development Incentives
As a means of reducing overall development costs, a developer
may negotiate with the City early on in the planning process
for application of various incentives such as flexible
development standards and density considerations. Such
flexibility might allow for in-project transfers or clustering
of density to create affordable units, or other such means
including use of State Density Bonus provisions to produce
identifiable cost reductions associated with achieving the
affordable units. An important step in producing acceptable
incentives is development of guidelines to outline what types
of incentives may be considered, criteria for when and how to
apply them to specific developments, and a means to assess
their financial value in equity to the units provided.
3. Other Considerations
In order to respond to the unique conditions of each
development, and to allow flexibility in meeting affordable
housing requirements, the City may, under certain
circumstances, consider methods other than actual developer
built in-project unit production as a means to achieving
affordable housing opportunity. Use of these alternative
methods will be considered only where such are not
significantly detrimental to achieving balanced residential
communities. These methods include the following:
I I1-6
~-~t-
a. Land Set Asides - Where unit construction by the developer
is not feasible, consider the equitable donation of a
building site within the project, or elsewhere in the City
as satisfying compliance. The City (or developer) could
then make these sites available to the County Housing
Authority or other non-profit entity to construct
affordable units.
b. Off-Site Proiects Consider developer construction,
either individually or in partnership, of an affordable
hous i ng project at an off - s ite 1 ocat i on as long as the
project satisfies the original requirements placed on the
developer. Both new construction, rehabilitation, and
"at-risk" preservation projects will be considered.
c. In-Lieu Contributions - Where construction of units or
provision of land within the project has been duly proven
to be economically infeasible, then the City should
consider the acceptance of in-l ieu contributions to be
placed in a trust fund and used to provide assistance to
other identified affordable housing efforts. The level of
contri but i on shall be evaluated to ensure its adequacy in
relation to achieving assistance opportunities
commensurate to the level of the original project
requirement.
Affordable HousinQ ProQram ImDlementation Guidelines
In order to facilitate the successful application of incentives and
flexible approaches to the provision of affordable housing, and the
attainment of an adequately balanced community, a set of "Implementation
Guidelines" need to be formulated and adopted for the Affordable Housing
Program.
These guidelines will outline overall Program requirements throughout the
deve 1 opment revi ew process, defi ne City and developer roles and
responsibilities, establish low-income project siting, distribution, and
phasing standards, define minimum addressment for a project's program and
agreement, establ ish allowable development incentives and criteria for
their application, and define conditions under which alternative methods
of compliance may be considered, including an in-lieu contribution
program and trust fund.
Given that several large projects are in various stages of approval,
guideline formation is crucial at this time, since the opportunity to
truly make this program work will only last as long as there are tracts
of 1 and ava i 1 ab 1 e for planned developments 1 arge enough to benefit from
these concepts.
I I 1-7
Ol-CJ ~
Cost/Sources of Financinq
The Affordable Housing Program places responsibility for unit production
on the private sector. However, on a case-by-case basis the City may
utilize the Redevelopment Housing Fund, or other funding to assist
provision of the units.
Staff time incurred in developing and reviewing projects' Affordable
Housing Programs will be reimbursed through the existing deposit account
system.
Staff time incurred in developing
Guidelines, development incentives,
will be supported by the General Fund
Affordable Housing Implementation
and in-lieu contribution programs
and Redevelopment Housing Fund.
ResDonsible Aqencies
Planning Department
Community Development Department
Housing Advisory Committee
Blue Ribbon Housing Committee
Schedule
The Affordable Housing
completed by June 1991
Housing proposals.
Program Implementation Guidelines should be
and utilized in evaluating specific Affordable
I II-8
~-'9
OBJECTIVE 2
The provi s i on of adequate rental hous i ng opportunit i es and ass i stance to
households with low and very low incomes, including those with special
needs such as the elderly, handicapped, single-headed households, and
large famil ies.
Policy
1. The City supports and encourages usage of a broad spectrum of
approaches to produce 1 ower- income affordabi 1 i ty in rental hous i ng
including:
Util ization of available Federal, State, and County programs
and funding.
Participation of non-profit development corporations either
indiVidually or in partnership with the private developers.
Exploration of innovative and experimental housing concepts
which identifiably reduce costs in providing for lower-income
needs.
2.
The City wi 11 pl ace primary
lower-income families, especially
families.
emphasis on efforts to assist
large famil ies, and single headed
3.
The City will continue to utilize
Redevelopment Housing Funds to support
lower-income affordable housing.
available Block Grant and
and augment the provision of
ImDlementinQ Actions
A. Facilitate the Use of Federal Funding as Available
The City will examine ways to directly secure and/or leverage
Federal funding, or encourage other agencies to do the same. These
Federal programs include, but are not limited to:
Sect i on 8 Cert ifi cates and Vouchers - The HUD Sect ion 8 program
continues to be in high demand in Chula Vista, with a 2-3 year
waiting list. The City will continue to encourage the County
Housing Authority to apply for an additional number of certificates
and vouchers to be added to the current allocation.
Communitv Deve 1 ODment Block Grant ProQram - The City wi 11 cont i nue
to receive CDBG entitlement funds. These monies can be used to
facil itate affordable housing production by the following methods:
land acquisition for low-income housing, assistance to non-profit
development corporations, and funding for housing assistance
services.
I Il-9
01- "
Famil v Pub 1 i c Hous i nq Funds - The City wi 11 encourage the County
Housing Authority to pursue Federal Public Housing funds for at
least 80 additional family units within the next five years. The
Community Development Department will directly assist in this effort.
HUD 202 Senior Housinq Funds - The City will encourage local
non-profit development corporations to pursue HUD 202 senior housing
funds.
HOME Investment Partnerships Proqram
Created under the Cranston-Gonzalez Hous i ng Act of 1990, HOME is
designed to assist with new construction, substantial and moderate
rehabil itat i on, and tenant-based ass i stance. The City may recei ve
up to $1.5 million during the first two years. HOME requires
matching State and/or local funds.
B. Facilitate the Use of State Funding as Available
The City will examine ways to directly secure and/or leverage State
fund i ng, or encourage other agenci es to do the same. These State
programs include, but are not limited to:
Proposition 84 and 77 Funds - Encourage developers to apply for
State Funds as primary sources of funding for new construction and
rehabilitation projects.
Multi-Familv Mortqaqe Revenue Bonds - The City will pursue the
issuance of additional tax-exempt multi-family Mortgage Revenue
bonds when feas i b 1 e under State and Federal gu ide 1 i nes. Bonds can
be issued by the City, County or non-profit organizations for
multi-family housing. Federal law requires that bond issues
restri ct at 1 east 20% of tot a 1 ava i 1 ab 1 e un its for ten years to
households earning under 80% of the County median income.
Tax-exempt bonds can also be issued for the purpose of refinancing
units; this could be initiated for the existing County and City
bond-financed apartment units prior to the expiration of the ten
year term of affordability.
Low-Income Housinq Tax Credits - State and Federal tax credits are
available to both for-profit and non-profit housing developers to
subsidize low-income housing projects. The State allocates these
tax credits annually on a competitive basis. The tax credits can be
syndicated through agencies such as the Local Initiatives Support
Corporation (LISC). The City will disseminate information to
developers on how to apply for the tax credits.
111-10
~-IOO
C. Non-profit Community Development Corporations (CDC)
One purpose of a Community Development Corporation (CDC) is to
develop, rehabilitate, and facilitate low-income housing.
Non-profits can directly obtain Local, State, and Federal assistance
for pre-development, construction, and permanent financing.
Increasingly, private lenders are looking to non-profits to fulfill
their Community Reinvestment Act obligations.
Local non-profits have begun to work together to form a Chula Vista
CDC. Once established, this CDC can become an active participant in
local housing programs. The CDC could initiate its own projects or
enter into joi nt ventures with the Redevelopment Agency or pri vate
deve 1 opers. The CDC coul d enter into a cooperat i ve re 1 at i onshi p
with the City to operate housing programs, e.g., screening occupants
for low and moderate-income housing eligibility.
The City will support the establ ishment of the local COC and seek
ways to work toward mutually beneficial housing goals. Whenever
reasonable and feasible, the City will assist non-profit developers
to create low-income housing opportunities.
D. Encourage and Support Federally Assisted Housing Projects
The City will promote availability of Federal Housing funds to the
local development community, such as HUD Section 202 and
multi-family mortgage revenue bonds, and will provide staff
assistance to developers in appl ication for those funds. The City
will also provide administrative support regarding necessary permits
and regulatory procedures for such projects.
E. Support a Shared Housing Program
The City has supported a Shared Hous i ng program for several years
and wi 11 continue to fund thi s type of effort as long as it is
effective in creating affordable housing opportunities. The current
Shared Hous i ng program is operated by the South County Counc i 1 on
Aging and facilitates approximately 80 matches a year between
households with extra room and individuals seeking low-cost
housing. Most matches involve senior citizens or disabled citizens.
F. County Housing Authority - Family Public Housing
Given the current need for low-income housing units and the
remaining 295 units of Article 34 referendum authority (granted by
voters in 1978), a minimum of 80 units of publ ic housing should be
built over the next planning period. According to the County
Housing Authority, HUD is encouraging the production of family
housing units, 3 bedrooms and larger, rather than senior units. To
avoid undue concentration of these units, publ ic housing projects
should generally involve no more than 20-25 units each, and be
dispersed to sites throughout the City, as defined by the memorandum
of understanding between the County Housing Authority and the City.
The City will continue to aid the Housing Authority in site
selection and permit processing as necessary.
III-II
a - I() I
G. Density Bonus Program
The City's density bonus ordinances are under staff review in order
to bring them into compliance with new State law requirements. The
density bonus ordinance is an appropriate incentive to produce
1 ower- income affordabl e un its and its use shoul d be encouraged by
the City where appropriate.
The new State law mandates that either 20% of the households in the
restri cted rent category be at the 1 ow- income 1 eve 1 (under 80% of
HUD Area Median), or 10% of the households in the restricted rent
category be at the very 1 ow- income 1 eve 1 (under 50% of HUD Area
Median). Rents for the 20% low-income must be set no higher than
30% of 60% of HUD Area Med i an Income, and rents for the 10% very
1 ow- income at no more than 30% of 50% of HUD Area Med i an Income.
The affordability time frame is reduced to a minimum of 10 years
(rather 25 years), unless the City offers an additional development
incentive, in which case the duration of the restriction could be
lengthened to 30 years.
Senior Density Bonus projects remain unchanged and still must
reserve 100% of the total units for seniors who are 60 years of age
or older (or 55 years and up in seni or developments of over ISO
units). This ordinance will be reviewed for its effectiveness and
compliance with applicable State laws.
H. Single-Room Occupancy Hotels (SRO)
The City will further investigate the need for SRO housing in
downtown Chula Vista and other activity centers. The growth in
1 ow-payi ng servi ce sector jobs may requ i re thi s type of hous i ng to
be provided as an economical alternative. In addition, some
low-income senior citizens may find an SRO unit to be the only
economical housing. If it is determined that this type of housing
is needed but is not adequately provided by the private sector, then
the City wi 11 cons i der opt ions for encourag i ng such development,
such as those implemented by the City of San Diego.
Cost/Sources of Financinq
It is proposed that CDBG, redevelopment, or General Fund funds will be
used to assist Federal projects (202's etc.), Family Public housing, and
the Shared Hous i ng program. The Redevelopment Hous i ng Fund and General
Funds will be utilized for staff time necessary to review and implement
the density bonus ordinances.
In addition to other sources of funding the Community Development
Corporation could be assisted with Redevelopment Housing funds for
specific projects and/or operating expenses.
ResDonsible Aqencies
Planning Department
Community Development Department
City Attorney
I I I -12
;}-IO~
Schedule
The exi st i ng Sect i on 202 Sa 1 vat i on Army project and the 22-unit Dorothy
Street Public Family Housing Project could begin construction as early as
Spring of 1991. An additional 18 units of Family Public Housing can be
built as soon as a suitable site is found. Shared Housing is an on-going
activity. Staff and citizen review of the density bonus ordinances will
be completed and presented to City Council by July 1991 (concurrent with
the Housing Element Update). In addition, Community Development staff
should initiate study of vacancy rates in certain Senior Housing projects
and incorporate applicable findings into the Senior Density Bonus
Ordinance recommendations.
Establishment of the local CDC, which involves forming a Board of
Directors, incorporating, and initiating projects, will probably take one
to three years depending on organizational strength.
II I -13
Ol -IO.J
OBJECTIVE 3
The broadening of available housing types and the increase of home
ownership opportunities for low and moderate-income households.
Policy
1. The City encourages the construction of projects offering a variety
of housing types including townhomes, condominiums, and other units
providing low and moderate-income ownership opportunities.
2. The City shall endeavor to provide assistance to low and moderate
income families seeking homeownership, including exploration of
available Federal and State programs and funding.
3. The City shall support and assist the development community in their
efforts to provide units for low and moderate-income ownership.
ImDlementina Actions
A. Home Ownership Opportunities through the Affordable Housing Program
Through its Affordable Housing Program, the City requires
lower-priced homes to be built throughout the community.
The City requires that each developer of for-sale projects over 50
units address the provi s i on of affordabl e homeownershi p
opportunities. As a means to providing this housing, the City will
assist the developer to explore creative financing opportunities,
and to develop a Market i ng Pl an to target low and moderate- income
households.
B. Distribution of General Marketing Information
The City will endeavor to compile current information on home
mortgage lending including Federal, State and local programs, and to
make this information available to the public. This information
should include the names and phone numbers of lending institutions
originating FHA, VA or other federally-guaranteed loans. All
developers should be encouraged to work with FHA direct endorsement
lenders or be required to provide such information to prospective
home buyers.
C. First-Time Home Buyer Loan Programs
The City can assist low and moderate-income first-time homebuyers in
the following ways:
1. Ident Hying a loan counsel i ng program through a 1 ender
participating in such programs as the General Electric First
Time Home Buyer Counseling Program;
II I -14
:J-I()~
2. Applying for a Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) allocation
from the State;
3. Disseminating information on the California Housing Finance
Agency (CHFA) first-time homebuyers assistance programs.
4. Investigating the establishment of a City-sponsored first-time
homebuyers assistance program for both new construction and
resa 1 e hous i ng. The City shall exami ne ways to 1 ever age 1 oca 1
funding to enable the program to create as many homeownership
opportunities as is possible.
D. Community Reinvestment Home loan Programs
The City can provide information and direction to prospective
homebuyers on loan programs with modified underwriting standards for
homes purchased in low-income census tracts.
E. Equity Share or Deferred loan Proposal
The City wi 11 explore sett i ng as ide a port i on of its Hous i ng Fund,
or util izing in-l ieu contributions collected under the Affordable
Hous i ng Program, to ass i st fami lies whose incomes are be low 80% of
median, and who do not have enough cash reserves to reduce a
principal mortgage to an acceptable lending ratio. In exchange for
this, an equity share participation at the time of resale, or a
deferred low interest loan option would allow the City not only to
recoup the loan but build the fund for future program activity.
F. Sweat-Equity Projects
Sweat-equity projects reduce the production costs for housing as the
homeowners prov i de some or all of the labor requ i red to construct
the homes. The City will explore assisting a low-income
sweat-equity project by participating in site selection and land
write-down. The City wi 11 ensure that such projects meet accepted
standards, and will investigate ways to promote better public
understanding and acceptance of such projects.
G. Reverse Annuity Mortgage Program
The concept of thi s program is to hel p elderly homeowners gain
access to the cons i derab Ie equ i ty they may have in thei r homes.
Under thi s program, the Federal government guarantees the loans to
senior citizen homeowners which allows them to draw down a monthly
stipend. The senior can enjoy the additional monthly income (with
no fear of eviction). The program has worked well in Northern
California cities but suffers from inadequate funding appropriations
from Congress. In the event new appropriations are available for
San Diego, Chula Vista will explore participating in the program.
I II -15
~ - los
H. Mortgage Credit Certificates
The City will investigate the feasibility of applying for a Mortgage
Credit Certificate (MCC) allocation for Chula Vista. The MCC
authori zes the holder to take certa i n Federal income tax credits.
Qualified applicants may take an annual credit against Federal
income taxes up to twenty percent (20%) of the annual interest paid
on the applicant's mortgage. This value is taken into consideration
by the mortgage 1 ender in underwrit i ng the home loan, and may be
used to adjust the borrower's housing costs, thereby increasing the
applicant's ability to afford a mortgage payment.
I. Single Family Mortgage Revenue Bonds
The City will pursue the issuance of additional tax-exempt Mortgage
Revenue bonds when feasible under State and Federal guidelines.
Bonds can be issued by the City, County or non-profit organizations
for single-family housing. Federal law requires that bond issues
restrict at least 20% of total available units for households
earning under 80% of the County median income for ten years.
Tax-exempt bonds can also be issued for the purpose of refi nanc i ng
units; this could be initiated for the existing County and City
bond-financed apartment units prior to the expiration of the ten
year term of affordability.
J. Educational Programs for Homeowners
The City will encourage developers, lenders and social service
organizations to provide educational programs and materials for
homeowners and potential homeowners on home maintenance,
improvement, and financial management. The purpose of the
educational programs will be to help, especially first-time
homeowners, understand the importance of ma i ntenance, equi ty, and
appreciation, and to budget properly to accompl ish such and avoid
losing their homes.
Cost/Source of FinancinQ
The Redevelopment Housing Fund will fund the staff time necessary to
research the potent i a 1 app 1 i cabi 1 ity of all of these recommend at ions.
In-lieu contributions potentially collected under the Affordable Housing
Program, and monies from loan repayments and equity shares could also
provide funding for assistance.
ResDonsible AQencies
Community Development
Schedule
The City will begin distribution of general marketing information as soon
as possible. The City will also initiate, by June 1991, an assessment of
the desireabil ity and feasibil ity of developing a comprehensive
first-time homebuyers program, and the establishment of a revolving fund
of monies to provide such assistance.
111-16
::/-10e,;,
OBJECTIVE 4
Preservation of mobilehome park living as a source of affordable housing.
Policy
1. The City will evaluate programs related to mobilehome 1 iving and
support those which are needed to preserve affordability.
ImDlementinQ Actions
A. Cont i nue to provide grants to 1 ow- income fami 1 i es to rehabi 1 itate
their mobilehomes through the Mobile Home Rehabilitation Grant
Program (Trailer/Mobilehome CHIP Program).
B. Explore upgrading trailer parks to allow conversion to exclusive
mobilehome park zones. Prepare a staff report recommending which
trailer parks are the most viable for such conversions. Utilize
both Redevelopment Hous i ng Fund tra i 1 er loans and CDBG ent it 1 ement
funds to upgrade infrastructure in these parks.
C. Monitor and enforce the City's Rent Arbitration Ordinance to protect
the rights of mobilehome residents in preserving this affordable
housing alternative. To provide financial assistance to low-income
residents requesting arbitration through the Rent Arbitration
Assistance Fund.
D. Monitor and enforce the City's Mobilehome/Trailer Park Conversion
Ordinance to protect the rights of mobilehome residents.
In conjunction with anticipated mobilehome park closures, and the
City'S redevelopment efforts, urge the Council to undertake a
comprehensive study to relocate or replace affordable housing
opportunities at risk by such actions. Consider the establishment
of a pol icy and/or program for replacement through acqu i sit i on and
redevelopment of these sites with affordable housing projects.
Where underlying zoning is commercial, consider the provision of
afforable units as part of a mixed-use development. Additionally,
consider a condition of "first right of refusal" to the City or
non-profit on land acquisition and/or a "first right of refusal" on
the new units to existing park residents.
E. Assist mobilehome park residents to purchase their parks and convert
to resident ownership by operating the City's Mobilehome Assistance
Program and assisting with the application for other funding sources
such as the State Mobilehome Assistance Program.
F. Promote participation by referring eligible residents to the San
Diego County Mobilehome Rent Assistance Program. The County program
assists by subsidizing space rent for low-income seniors.
G. Ident i fy new programs in cooperat i on with the Western Mobil ehome
Park Owners Association to preserve the affordability of mobilehome
park residency.
111-17
,;}-/O1-
Cost/Source of FinancinQ
Housing Fund
Redevelopment Fund
CDBG Fund
General Fund
WMA
ResDonsible AQencies
Community Development Department
City Attorney
Planning Department
Building and Housing Department
Mobilehome Issues Committee
III-IB
a -I tJ8
OBJECTIVE 5
The systematic renewal, rehabilitation, conservation, and improvement of
the residential neighborhoods of the Chula Vista Planning Area.
Policy
1. The City shall address the development of mechanisms designed to
prevent at-risk affordable units from conversion to market rate
rents.
2. The City will continue to initiate pro-active programs for
neighborhood revital ization and improvement, and to supply support
funding for these efforts, especially in neighborhoods with higher
concentrations of lower-income households.
3. The City shall continue to advocate conservation measures to
preserve existing housing stock, variety, and affordability.
ImDlementinQ Actions
A. Conserve At-Risk Affordable Housing Units
The City has 386 affordable housing units which are potentially
"at-risk" during the planning period because the property" owners
have prepayment options in their mortgages. Since Congress passed
the Emergency Low-Income Housing Preservation Act in 1987 (ELlHPA)
and the Low- Income Hous i ng Preservat i on and Res i dent Homeownershi p
Act of 1990 (LIHPRHA), the likelihood of prepayment has been
1 essened. The City can play a crit i ca 1 role in protect i ng these
units by making sure they do not "fall through the legislative
cracks" .
Under both federal laws, the owner who is interested in the
prepayment opt i on can take advantage of the i ncent i ves that both
ELIHPA and LlHPRHA offer to provide a reasonable return and yet
maintain affordability.
Some property owners who feel frustrated by HUD wi 11 not want to
take advantage of the i ncent i ves offered to them under ELlHPA and
LIHPRHA. The law allows these owners to prepay if a qualified owner
does not come forward in fifteen months. The City must be prepared
to deal with owners who are determined to sell.
The City has received Notice of Intent to Prepay from two projects,
with a possible loss of 86 affordable units. The City shall involve
itself in the negotiation process that is mandated under ELIPHA and
LIHPRHA to ensure that every opportunity to retain affordability is
pursued.
I II -19
~ -/fJ1
The following actions are proposed to respond to the "at-risk"
conditions in Chula Vista:
1. The City will review its inventory of rental housing and
determine which units have prepayment options and at what
date. The City will monitor the process of negotiations and
participate as necessary. The City will work to prevent
prepayment based on a unsuccessful escrow or a finding of "not
needed in the community".
2. The City will identify potential buyers for "at risk" projects
and assist in finding financing for purchase. The City will
give assistance priority to non-profit community development
corporations who can demonstrate capability and who will
maintain long-term affordability. Joint ventures between
non-profit and for-profit developers will also be considered.
The City may consider providing predevelopment funding to
enable non-profits to complete the initial steps in acquisition.
3. The City may form an ad-hoc committee comprised of non-profit
and for-profit developers, City staff, other I oca I government
officials, and tenants of "at-risk" units to develop a formal
strategy for preservation.
B. Community Appearance/Neighborhood Improvement Program
The Buil di ng and Hous i ng Department wi 11 cont i nue to oversee and
impl ement thi s pro- act i ve program of nei ghborhood preservat i on and
improvement. Initiated in March 1989, this program targets specific
neighborhoods exhibiting high volumes of citizen complaints in which
Code Enforcement Officers, teaming with residents and designated
"Block Captains", formulate clean-up/fix-up campaigns for the
neighborhoods. Announcement handbi 11 s specifi ca lly descri bi ng what
residents and homeowners can do to improve their property standards,
and what items Code Enforcement Officers will be inspecting,
including dates and times, are then distributed. Free trash
dumpsters are al so provided. Each property is subsequently
inspected by Code Enforcement Offi cers with spec i fi c defi c i enci es
highl ighted and aesthetic recommendations identified. Not ices are
left with residents identifying targeted clean-up dates, follow-up
reinspections, and available assistance.
C. Housing Inspection Program
The Building and Housing Department will continue to administer this
program directed toward the ma i ntenance of health and safety in
mult i -family rental hous i ng. Under the program, a Code Enforcement
Officer is designated to systematically inspect all rental housing
complexes and to issue reports on conditions in violation of current
Hea lth and Safety Codes. Where necessary work is fa i rly extens i ve,
referrals to the City's rehabil itation loan coordinator are made.
This pro-active program prioritizes inspections based on structure
age and condition, with all complexes showing advanced deterioration
receiving annual inspections and complexes newer than 10 years being
inspected every 2-3 years.
111-20
~ -liD
D. Abatement of Non-Conformi ng Uses and Removal of Dil apidated
Structures
The Building and Housing Department will continue to monitor
adherence to minimum standards of habitability and appearance in
targeted nei ghborhoods, and upon request. Nonconformi ng uses and
dilapidated structures will be removed from residential areas.
Nonconformi ng uses, if allowed to rema i n on an i ndefi nite bas is,
tend to encourage zoning violations and ill-advised zoning
amendments.
E. Rehabilitation Programs
1. Community Housing Improvement Program (CHIP)
The CHIP program provides favorable loans to low-income owners
for rehabil itation of mobilehomes and trailers, owner-occupied
homes, and rental units. In addition, the City provides grants
of up to $1,000 for minor repairs. The City will maintain the
same level of approximately 40 single-family and mobile home
rehabilitation loans each year. If additional funding becomes
ava il abl e through the HOME Investment Partnershi p program, the
City will consider increasing the level of rehabil itation
activity.
2. Rental Rehabilitation
As the Federal government is expected to phase-out this program
within the next year, the City has a limited time to make use
of this funding. The new federal program, HOME Investment
Partnership, will provide a new source of funding for rental
rehabil itation but with different rules and regulations. The
City wi 11 coordi nate an effort to inform apartment owners who
are cited for code violations about the rental rehabilitation
program and ass i st those who are interested in app lyi ng for
funding.
F. Neighborbood Revitalization Program (NRP)
The City will continue to implement and fund the NRP which was
developed in 1988 and targeted to the newly annexed Montgomery
Community. The NRP is a comprehens i ve res i dent-part i ci pat i on
renewal-oriented program of housing and infrastructural
rehabil itation within select target areas whose physical condition
is in need of special attention. The program seeks to prioritize
needs for housing and infrastructural improvements such as paving,
curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and drainage facilities, and to develop a
schedule to coordinate provision of improvements with available
resources and the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) schedule,
and the Housing Rehabilitation Program (CHIP).
II I -21
;) - III
G. Condominium Conversions
The City shall continue to regulate residential condominium and
stock cooperat i ve convers ions in order to protect exi st i ng tenants
and promote the orderly growth and amenity of Chula Vista. If such
conversions adversely affect the availability of housing for low and
moderate income households to an appreciable extent, the City shall
adopt remedial measures.
H. Educational programs for homeowners
The City will encourage developers, lenders and social service
organizations to provide educational programs and materials for
homeowners and potent i a 1 homeowners on home ma i ntenance and
financial management. The purpose of the educational programs will
be to help homeowners to maintain their property in good condition
and appearance and to budget properl y to avoi d 1 os i ng thei r home
through foreclosure.
Cost/Source of FinancinQ
Redevelopment Housing Fund, CDBG entitlement funds, HUD Rental Rehab
Funds, State Rental Rehab Funds and General Funds.
ResDonsible AQencies
Community Development Department
Housing and Building Department
Planning Department
Schedule
Ongoing
111-22
~/~
OBJECTIVE 6
To provide housing assistance to individuals and families who are
homeless and enable them to move back into permanent housing.
Policy
The City shall actively participate in regional and local efforts to
establish transitional housing and emergency shelter programs in the
South Bay, and will encourage the involvement of local non-profits.
Imolementina Actions
A. Participate in a Regional Approach to Address Homelessness
The City has identified the need for both transitional housing
programs, in which families are housed for up to one year and
provided with assistance to get back into permanent housing, and
emergency shelter beds, in which families are allowed to stay for up
to 30 days. Any facilities sited within the City are likely to
serve the entire South Bay subregion.
With a regional plan and a commitment from all participating
juri sdi ct ions and interested soci a 1 servi ce providers, it wi 11 be
easier to site and develop transitional and emergency housing
programs. The groundwork has already been laid with a study on
homelessness in the South Bay conducted by the Regional Task Force
on the Homeless.
One obstacl e to development of shelter programs outs ide the urban
core is community opposition, as residents fear the effect homeless
programs and people may have on their neighborhood. Regional
coordination in the establishment of transitional housing and
shelters can help overcome community opposition.
B. Facilitate Transitional Housing Programs
Although regional cooperation is a logical approach, the City will
not depend solely on this strategy to address the homeless problem.
The City will consider providing financial and technical assistance
to any organization or consortium of organizations seeking to
establ i sh programs to serve the homel ess popul at i on. The Ci ty wi 11
take other steps, as necessary, to hcil itate these programs (such
as amending zoning regulations to allow temporary church-sponsored
shelters).
Site control is of paramount importance for securing State and
Federal funding. The City will consider providing assistance in the
site selection and acquisition process, and this may include loans,
land dedications, or land cost write-downs.
C. Identify Non-profit Providers to Operate Emergency Shelter Programs
Non-profit providers are hesitant to undertake emergency shelter and
transitional housing programs because of the difficulty in securing
adequate operat i ona 1 funds. In addit i on to room and board, most
I II - 23
~ - /13
shelter programs provi de some type of soci al services. Providers
rely heavily on private donations and volunteers to fill funding
gaps. The matter of securi ng adequate ope rat i ona 1 funds shoul d be
referred to the Human Servi ces Council for eva 1 uat i on and
recommendation. The City can directly assist shelter providers with
CDBG or Redevelopment Housing funds, and encourage them to apply for
available Federal and State Funding (McKinney, LS.P. etc.). If
needed, the City may also consider assistance from General Fund
revenues.
D. Support Existing Services for the Homeless
Four non-profit agencies distribute shelter vouchers to needy
families, which allows them to stay at the St. Vincent de Paul
Center or a designated local motel. One hotel provides free rooms
on a limited basis through the Hotel/Motel Partnership Program.
Duri ng the wi nter months, the Interfaith Shelter Network provides
shelter for up to 12 people at local participating churches. The
City will continue to encourage these efforts to provide emergency
shelters and will util ize CDBG funding, as appropriate, to aid in
these efforts.
Cost/Source of Financino
Funding for acquisition and operation of shelters and transitional
housing are available from Federal and State programs and private
foundations. Staff time to facilitate a shelter project would be
supported by CDBG entitlement funds, or Redevelopment Housing Funds.
ResDonsible Aoencies
Community Development Department
Non-profit social service providers
Schedule
The process of establishing a shelter program will take approximately one
year after the fundi ng is approved. Referra 1 to the Human Servi ces
Council for evaluation of operational funding will be made by August 1991.
The 1 oca 1 Federal Emergency Management Admi ni strat ion (FEMA) board has
placed a high priority on funding a shelter program in the South Bay; a
proposal from Chula Vista will automatically receive extra points. The
City and/or a non-profit provider can apply for up to $500,000 in the
next funding cycle.
II I -24
02 -II~
OBJECTIVE 7
Ensure the successful implementation of housing policies and programs
through effective coordination, monitoring, and evaluation.
Pol icy
1. The City will develop standards of performance upon which all
affordable housing units will be measured, and will implement a
monitoring and evaluation program to ensure that builders and
beneficiaries meet program requirements.
2. The City shall annually review affordable housing efforts and make
necessary adjustments to meet quantified objectives.
3.
The City shall play an active role in
affordable housing and will devote resources
non-profits, and other providers as necessary.
the encouragement of
to ass i st developers,
ImolementinQ Actions
A. Review and revise affordable housing standards
Staff will review, revise, and establish
standards and performance guidel ines for
assistance programs.
affordable
the City's
housing
various
Definitions will include:
1) Acceptable affordability income and rent ranges
2) Minimum duration of restrictions
3) Percentages of units to be set aside per unit mix and by total
project
Once the updated standards and performance guidelines have been
completed, City staff will prepare a brochure explaining the various
requirements, terms and conditions of each affordable housing
program available. Staff will also develop a flow chart which
delineates project processing and indicates when and how affordable
housing efforts are considered and by whom.
In addition, the City will initiate a proactive information campaign
to foster greater community awareness of affordable housing issues,
available assistance programs, and associated City efforts.
B. Establish a Comprehensive Funding and Housing Program Assistance
Priority Strategy
In conjunction with recent National Affordable Housing Act
requi rements for development of a fi ve- year Comprehens i ve Hous i ng
Assistance Strategy (CHAS), the City will seek to identify possible
funding sources, the anticipated amount of funds available for local
housing efforts, and therewith develop and prioritize a schedule of
III-25
:J -lIS
specific assistance activities to be undertaken. The primary
purpose of such efforts is to focus available resources to
shorter-term (annual or bi-annual) objectives, as a means to
ensuring implementation throughout the broad spectrum of housing
activities embodied in Part 3 of this Element.
C. Implement an on-going monitoring and evaluation program
In order to improve methods of overseeing successful implementation
of Housing Element pol icies and programs, and provide for ongoing
evaluation crucial to ensuring achievement of goals and objectives,
the following actions are proposed:
1. The Commun i ty Development Department shall estab 1 ish and
maintain a standardized system of evaluation to ensure that
projects adhere to restrictions and that beneficiaries qualify
for affordable housing programs. The initial formulation of
this system will include a compl iance study of existing units
under contract restrictions.
2. The Departments of Planning and Community Development shall
establish a monitoring and reporting system for evaluating
policy and program implementation and progress in achieving
quant ifi ed hous i ng object i ves. In accordance wi th report i ng
requirements under AS 2248, and HUD's Comprehensive Housing
Assistance Strategy (CHAS) plans, an annual report of findings
and recommendat ions wi 11 be comp 1 i ed. Th i s annual report shall
be reviewed by the Housing Advisory Committee, Planning
Commission, and City Council for their direction regarding its
recommendations.
3. The City shall review the existing Housing Advisory Committee
(HAC) with intent to redefine and expand its role, functions,
and makeup to include oversight of the Housing Element's
implementation. In this expanded capacity the HAC would review
all affordable housing proposals and forward recommendation to
the appropriate decision making body. They would also provide
observations and input to staff on overall Element
implementation, and would be the body through which the annual
evaluation report is formulated.
4. The Departments of Planning and Community Development shall
establish procedures for notification on activities which
affect housing, including early notification and referral on
residential project inquiries and applications to the
designated ombudsman in each Department.
D. Establish an Affordable Housing Quality of Life Threshold Standard
City staff will investigate the establishment of a threshold
standard for affordable housing efforts to be added to the existing
eleven (II) other standards, and annually reviewed by the Growth
Management Overs ight Commi ttee (GMOC). Sa i d standard woul d defi ne
minimum criteria for affordable housing efforts on an annual basis
in conjunction with the Housing Elements needs assessment and
Comprehensive Action Plan.
III - 26
~-/l1rI
Cost/Source of Financinq
Redevelopment Housing Funds, application fees, and limited General Funds
will support this monitoring and evaluation effort.
Responsible Aqencies
Community Development
Planning Department
Housing Advisory Committee
Schedule
The informational brochure will be made available to the public within
six months of the date the guidelines are adopted by City Council.
Prior to adoption of this Element in July 1991, the Housing Advisory
Committee expansion shall be analyzed, and the new roles and functions
formally adopted, including the appointment of new members as necessary.
The first Housing
conducted one year
adopted by the City
be July 1992.
Element
from the
Council.
implementation progress review will be
date the Housing Element Update 1991 is
The approximate date for this review would
II1-27
~ -II~
OBJECTIVE 8
The elimination of racial, age, religious, sexual and economic bias and
discrimination in housing provision, and the ensurance of fair lending
practices.
Policy
1. The City will work to ensure the provlslon of fair housing practices
in the sale, rental, and advertising of housing units and in the
lending practices of banks and thrifts.
2. The City will endeavor to create a working dialog with the lending
community, and to actively encourage their involvement in affordable
housing efforts.
Implementinq Actions
A. Fair Housing Program
The City will continue to provide fair housing counseling services
and other referral activities which are designed to further the fair
housing requirements of Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968.
The City currently has a part-time Fair Housing Officer who responds
to any requests or complaints regarding fair housing practices
within the City.
B. Annual Fair Housing Assessment
In accordance with HUD requirements for the CDBG program, the City
will conduct an annual fair housing assessment to determine the
actual level of discrimination in rental housing, for sale housing,
and lending. This assessment shall also include a review of the
Community Reinvestment activity of local lenders.
C. Affirmative Fair Marketing Plans
The City will require all developers of housing projects which
contain more than twenty (20) dwelling units to prepare an
"Affirmative Fair Marketing Plan", which will be designed to attract
prospective home buyers and/or tenants within specified income
ranges, and the proposed market area, regardl ess of gender, age,
race, national origin or religion.
Cost/Source of Financinq
CDBG
Responsible Aqencies
Community Development Department
Schedule
Ongoing
II I -28
;J-lIt
OBJECTIVE 9
Reduction and/or removal to the greatest extent possible of identified
constra i nts to the development, ma i ntenance, and improvement of hous i ng
within the Planning Area.
Policy
1. The City is committed to providing all feasible assistance to
project applicants to reduce the time and costs associated with
project review and approval.
2. The City will evaluate on an ongoing basis City policies and
programs related to housing and infrastructure provision as they
present potential constraints.
3.
The City will continue
to offer ass i stance
financing.
to monitor finance and lending conditions and
to applicants in obtaining supplemental
ImDlementina Actions
A. Expedite the Processing of Affordable Housing Projects
In order to reduce project costs associated with lengthy review,
staff will develop a policy and set of guidelines which:
1. Specify the type of projects which will receive priority
processing
2. Estab 1 ish procedures to evaluate projects to determi ne if they
meet affordable housing goals.
3. Establish specific procedures for "fast tracking." This may
i nc 1 ude a central i zed app 1 i cat i on process for all affordable
housing projects, and tailored review procedures to reduce time
and costs.
In addition, staff will create a flow chart delineating project
process i ng and i ndi cat i ng when and how affordable hous i ng efforts
are considered and by whom.
B. Designate an Affordable Housing Ombudsman
The "ombudsman" position would be responsible for coordinating all
affordable housing projects, and would oversee intradepartmental
coordination of all aspects of a projects processing and review as
they relate to the Housing Element's objectives, policies, and
programs. It is intended that this person would assist applicants
in expediting projects.
C. Establish specific procedures for evaluating requests for subsidies
involving fees, land write-downs, and other forms of City assistance.
II I - 29
9 -II'
D. Encourage demonstration or experimental housing projects which
reduce building costs and increase affordability. The City will
study and identify viable and acceptable methods for reducing
housing production costs and increasing affordability where such
methods will not jeopardize the goal for equal amenities in housing
for all incomes.
E. Consider the impacts to affordable housing which may result from
rezonings involved with the General Plan/Zoning Consistency Study.
F.
Continue to encourage the use of flexible development
through the Planned Community (PC) Zone and Precise
Modifying District, where such are clearly identified with
availability of affordable housing.
standards
Pl an (P)
increased
G.
Designate staff and
availing themselves
assistance.
develop resources to assist developers in
of alternative and supplemental financial
Cost/Source of FinancinQ
Staff time for development and implementation of the "fast-track"
processing will be provided by General Fund and Development fees.
ResDonsible AQencv
Planning Department
Community Development Department
Schedule
Preparation of fast track procedures and an application process for
affordable housing projects will be undertaken by July 1991. Staff will
continue, on an ongoing basis, evaluation of City actions on housing as
they present potential constraints.
I II-3D
~-1J~ 0
OBJECTIVE 10
To encourage the development of new housing, and the retrofitting of
existing housing, with features to address environmental issues such as
energy and water conservation and recycling.
Policy
The City will require new developments to comply with applicable Federal,
State, regional, and local policies and regulations regarding energy and
water conservation and air quality improvement.
ImDlementinQ Actions
A. Encourage energy and water conservation features and recycling
storage areas in new housing in conjunction with the City's existing
"Policy for the Conservation of Energy and Water within the City of
Chula Vista".
B. Continue to encourage the weatherization programs for low-income
households currently sponsored by the MAAC project.
C. Continue to require the installation of dual-piping systems in new
projects to accommodate the use of reel aimed water for 1 andscapi ng
and other applications as feasible.
D. Continue to require the submission of a "water management plan" and
"air quality improvement plan" for large development projects at the
Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan stage or similar level of review.
E. Title 24 Compliance Review - The Building and Housing Department
will continue to perform residential Title 24 energy analyses as
part of building plan check procedures.
Costs/Sources of FinancinQ
There will be no direct cost
conservat i on and recyc 1 i ng.
providing CDBG funding for
housing with water and energy
to the City for encouraging water and energy
The City will explore the possibility of
the retrofit of low and moderate-income
conservation features.
ResDonsible AQency
Building and Housing Department
Planning Department
Community Development Department
Schedule
Dngoing.
I Il-31
~-/~I
OBJECTIVE 11
To fully address specific housing issues as they affect our community and
to enforce applicable laws and ordinances.
Policy
1. The City wi 11 seek to ma i nta in an appropri ate balance of hous i ng to
jobs in order to provide adequate housing opportunities for
employees of local businesses.
2.
The City will
rep 1 acement in the
local ordinances.
require affordable housing construction and
Coasta 1 Zone in accordance with State 1 aw and
ImDlementinq Actions
A. The City will encourage a balance of housing to jobs
The City will investigate the 1 inkage between employment generation
to the increased demand for 1 ow- income hous i ng. As can be seen by
the needs assessment findings in Part 2 of this Element Update, the
most significant employment opportunities forecasted to be generated
withi n the next fi ve years wi 11 be in the trad it i ona lly lower payi ng
servi ce and reta i 1 sectors. In conjunct i on with th i s forecast, it
is proposed that the City's Economic Development Commission and
Housing Advisory Committee initiate a study and provide direction
towards addressment of jobs-housing balance.
If the housing demand is for non-family housing, the conversion and
rehabil itat i on of exi st i ng hotels to Si ngl e Room Occupancy Hotels
(SRO's), or the construction of new SRO's, for service sector
employees should be investigated. Some zoning and code requirements
may be amended in an effort to make these projects feasible. The
City may establish requirements which restrict City lending or
assistance involvement to guaranteed affordability levels, and/or
first priority to local persons in need.
B. Housing Linkage Fee
In conjunction with the above referenced study on jobs/housing
balance, the City will also investigate the establishment of a
housing linkage fee for commercial and industrial development,
and/or establishment of an affordable housing development impact fee
system. Should such fee program(s) be developed, a trust fund for
the monies would be established concurrently.
C. Protect Coastal Zone Housing
In accordance with the Affordable Housing Program, any housing
projects constructed within the Coastal Zone will be required to
provide at least 10% of the housing units to low and moderate income
households. The City will encourage those developers to investigate
all financial and development incentives currently available to
assist provision of the units.
111-32
J-I"a
Where conversion or demotion of housing units in the Coastal Zone
occupied by low or moderate-income households is proposed, such
act i vity wi 11 be undertaken in accordance with State 1 aw and the
City's adopted Coastal Plan as follows:
1. Replacement of such housing will be required within the Coastal
Zone or, when infeasible, within three miles of the site of
conversion or demolition.
2. Where conversion or demolition of low and moderate-income units
is a result of a private action, the party taking action will
be required to provide the replacement units.
3. Where conversion or demolition is a result of City or
Redeve 1 opment Agency act i on, the City or Redevelopment Agency
will provide the replacement housing units under existing
Relocation Ordinances.
D. Provide Relocation Assistance As Required by Law
The provision of relocation assistance for families forced to move
due to government i ntervent i on wi 11 cont i nue to be enforced through
municipal ordinance and all applicable State and Federal guidelines.
Cost/Source of Financinq
The staff time for research on the jobs/housing balance, monitoring of
coastal zone projects, provision of relocation assistance, and
enforcement of mobilehome ordinances will be supported by the
Redevelopment Housing Fund.
Responsible Aqencies
Community Development
Planning Department
Building and Housing Department
Schedule
Prior to the end of 1991, the matter of jobs/housing balance should be
brought before the City's Economic Development Commission for discussion.
WPC 0010p
111-33
~ -/~3