The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPlanning Comm Reports/1992/02/26 (6) City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of February 26, 1992 Page 1 1. PUBLIC HEARING: GPA.90-09: Consideration of the Draft Cbula Vista HODSlnl> Element of 1991 A. BACKGROUND 1. This proposal involves a city-initiated amendment to the City General Plan through an update of the H01,lsing Element of 1986 as mandated by State law. Article 10.6, Section 65580et. seq. of the State Government Code requires that the Housing Element be updated at least every five years to ensure the appropriateness of housing goals, objectives, policies, and programs in response to changing needs and conditions. The Planning and Community Development Departments, in conjunction with a Blue Ribbon Housing Element Committee appointed by the Mayor, have thereby prepared the Draft Housing Element of 1991. 2, An Initial Study, IS-92-08, of possible significant environmental impacts of the Update has been conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinator (ERC). Based on that Initial Study and comments thereon, ifany, the ERC has concluded that this Update would cause no significant environmental impacts and has issued a Negative Declaration. B. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Based on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, find that the Draft Chula Vista Housing Element of 1991 will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued under IS-92-08. 2. Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the Draft Housing Element of 1991 as a component of the City General Plan. C. BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION 1. The Housing Advisory Committee will consider the Draft Housing Element .of 1991 at their meeting on the afternoon of February 26, 1992, and their recommendation(s) will be presented with staff's opening comments. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of February 26, 1992 Page 2 D. DISCUSSION 1. Document Preparation Along with most other jurisdictions in San Diego County, Chula Vista began the Housing Element update process in early 1990 in conjunction with SANDAG's preparation of the Regional Housing Needs Statement (RHNS) for 1991-96, which replaced the prior expiring statement for 1984-90. The Regional Housing Needs Statement is mandated by State law and serves to define regional housing conditions and needs for all income groups, and to equitably allocate those needs among the region's jurisdictions, It also serves as an information resource and technical reference. Each jurisdiction is required to incorporate the Regional Housing Needs Statement's revised regional needs into their Housing Elements, Employing the adopted Regional Housing Needs Statement, staff prepared the first two portions of the Housing Element, consisting of an implementation review of the 1986 Element, and an assessment of current and projected housing needs and conditions, A nine-member Blue Ribbon Housing Element Committee was then appointed by the Mayor in September 1990 to review that work and assist staff in formulating goals, objectives, policies and action programs for the 1991- 96 planning period, The Committee, consisting of a broad-based membership representing the public, development community, realty community/Chamber of Commerce, County Housing Authority, non-profit housing and finance interests, and the local social service community met in a series of 11 workshops, and unanimously endorsed a Draft in March 1991. Planning Commissioner Casillas was a member of this Committee, and served as its chairman. 2. Structure and Content: In meeting the requirements of State Housing Element Law, the Draft Housing Element of 1991 is divided into three principal parts. Part 1: reviews implementation of the 1986 Element. It outlines and quantifies housing production since 1985, and describes how the City has responded to the housing needs of its growing population, Various accomplishments are compared against previous goals, and a summary of performance successes and shortfalls is presented to establish indicators applied in development of the 1991-96 Action Plan in Part 3. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of February 26, 1992 Page 3 Part 2: utilizing available updated data provided primarily by SANDAG's Regional Housing Needs Statement and Series 7 Growth forecasts, presents a statistical survey of existing and projected housing needs, resources and constraints. It provides a quantified analysis of current unmet needs with respect to overpayment, overcrowding, substandard conditions, and various "special needs" groups such as the elderly, handicapped, single parent families, and the homeless, Projected needs based on anticipated regional growth and employment are provided, and the ability for Chula Vista's land base and regulatory framework to adequately support residential development is discussed. Finally, specific governmental and non-governmental constraints in the way of land use controls, financing availability, and land and construction costs are evaluated, Part 3: establishes the City's goals, objectives, statements of policy, and action programs to address the performance indicators, needs and conditions identified in Parts I and 2. It emphasizes the City's commitment to ensuring adequate, decent housing opportunities in suitable living environments, for all economic segments of the community. In serving as a concise, comprehensive guide, the various policy and program proposals are organized around 12 specific housing objectives, Each objective is clearly stated, followed by applicable statements of policy, and a set of "implementing actions" identifying program proposals complete with associated costs, sources of financing, responsible agencies, and a recommended schedule, 3. Previous Actions The following actions have previously been taken in developing the Draft before you: On March 13, 1990, by resolution 15552, the City Council adopted SANDAG's 1991-1996 Regional Housing Needs Statement for use in developing the Housing Element Update. That resolution recognized and accepted Chula Vista's Regional Share and Fair Share allocations as contained therein. At your February 20, 1991, workshop meeting, a preliminary draft was presented to your Commission, and you supported the document's forwarding. On March 14, 1991, the Blue Ribbon Committee unanimously authorized the document for forwarding for Council review prior to its transmission to the State. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of February 26, 1992 Page 4 At a workshop held with the Blue Ribbon Committee on April 25, 1991, the City Council authorized submittal of the Draft to the State for initial compliance reviewed as required by law, That authorization excluded the Affordable Housing Policy (pg. ill-4) , which Council referred back to staff and the Blue Ribbon Committee for further evaluation, Staff subsequently prepared an Issues Paper to evaluate Council concerns, and serve as a basis for making recommendations regarding a final policy statement (please see Attachment B). That paper was presented to the Blue Ribbon Committee who discussed its contents, and reached consensus on eight final recommendations regarding the subject policy. Those recommendations are embodied in the Draft Housing Element under the Affordable Housing Policy and Program discussions on pages ill-4 through ill-S. On July 9, 1991, the City received written response regarding the State's initial compliance review (please see Attachment A). While commending the City's efforts, that response indicated the need for several revisions in order to bring the document into full compliance with State housing element law, and outlined the areas for revision. Staff has made a variety of revisions which are represented in the Draft before you, and in conversation with the State, believes those revisions to adequately address the stated compliance issues, 4, Pendin~ Actions As provided by law, upon adoption and refiling of this revised Housing Element, the State will conduct a fmal 120-day review period within which its final determination of compliance and certification must be issued, . In such instance that the State should determine the document is still not in substantial compliance, the City may either amend the document as necessary and re-adopt it, or adopt written findings stating why it believes the document to be in substantial compliance despite the State's position. E. CONCLUSIONS The Draft Chula Vista Housing Element of 1991 represents the culmination of substantial review and input over the last 16 months, including an initial compliance review by the State Department of Housing and Community Development, as required by law. Staff has made several revisions which are believed to address the State's comments, and bring the document into substantial compliance with State laws. Adoption of this amended document is necessary so that it may be refiled with the State for final compliance review and certification. STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS. TRA~ ,RTATlON AND HOUSING AGENCY PETE WILSON. Governor t!t~.p~~ iijj ~i<<':" DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF HOUSING POUCY DEVELOPMENT "'THIRD STREET, Room 430 . ~,O BOX tS2053 SACRAMENTO, CA 114252-2053 (916)32~3176FAX (t16)323-662S A TT ACHMENT A July 5, 1991 J.l 9 199/ Mr. John Goss City Manager city of Chula vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula vista, CA 94537 Dear Mr. Goss: RE: Review of Chula vista's 1991 Draft Housing Element Thank you for sUbmitting Chula vista's draft housing element received by this Department on May 22, 1991. As you know, we are required to review draft housing elements and report our findings to the locality (Government Code section 65585 (b)). Chula vista's housing element is a well-written and comprehensive document. We commend the City's success in the previous planning period. Our review has been facilitated by a June 28, 1991 telephone conversation with Ed Batchelder, city Planner. This letter summarizes that discussion. Overall, the City has set forth an ambitious proposal to accommodate the development of housing for all income groups. However, in our opinion some revisions are required to bring the element into compliance with state housing element law. Primarily, the impact of the City's Growth Management Ordinance on the development of affordable housing needs to be made clear. Mr. Batchelder indicated that the City has amended the ordinance since the 1988 adoption and will forward a copy to this Department. In addition, it appears that many of the City's housing programs are in the early stages of development and do not demonstrate specific commitments to implement. We have noted that the City may face a great challenge given the number of assisted housing units that could convert to non- low-income uses during the new planning period. For your information, Chapter 1451, statutes of 1989, requires all housing elements to include, by January 1, 1992, additional needs analyses and programs to address the potential conversion of existing, assisted housing developments to non-Iow-income housing uses during the next ten-year period (Government Code section 65583 (a) (8) and (c) (6). Because the City has attempted to Mr. John Goss Page 2 complete these requirements in the draft element, we have included this section in our review. However, our comments will not affect the compliance of the element until the January 1, 1992 statutory deadline. Per our telephone conversation with Mr. Batchelder, the City has hired a consultant to prepare an analysis of units at risk of conversion and intends to submit an amendment to the adopted housing element prior to the January deadline. Upon receipt of the City's amendment, we will review this section for compliance. We hope our comments are helpful to the City. We appreciate Mr. Batchelder's cooperation during our review. If you have any questions about our comments or would like assistance in the revision of your housing element, please contact Ann Vargas of our staff at (916) 324-9629. In accordance with their requests according to the Public Records Act, we are forwarding a copy of this letter to the individuals and organizations below. - 2'/~ Thomas B. Cook Deputy Director cc: Ed Batchelder, Planner, City of Chula vista Catherine Rodman, Legal Aid Society of San Diego Jeffrey Francis, California Public Interest Research Group Eileen McCarthy, California Rural Legal Assistance Claudia Smith, California Rural Legal Assistance Kenneth Sulzer, San Diego Association of Governments Kathleen Mikkelson, Deputy Attorney General Bob Cervantes, Governor's Office of Planning and Research Richard Lyon, California Building Industry Association Kerry Harrington Morrison, California Association of Realtors Marc Brown, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation Christine D. Reed, Orange County Building Industry Association Rob Wiener, California Coalition for Rural Housing Susan DeSantis, The Planning Center APPENDIX City of Chu1a Vista The following changes would, in our opinion, bring Chula Vista's housing element into compliance with Article 10.6 of the Government Code. The particular program examples or data sources listed are suggestions for your information only. We recognize that Chula Vista may choose other means of complying with the law. A. Needs. Resources and Constraints 1. It is noted that tenure data for Chula Vista households "interpolated" from SANDAG census information is listed on the Housing Element Worksheet but is not found in the element. The City may want to include available tenure statistics from the 1990 census in the revised element as indicated by Mr. Batchelder. The element does not show tenure for elderly house- holds, large households and overcrowded households. This information could be particularly useful in designing housing programs. Tenure information could be supplemented by examining Section 8 waiting lists to determine the number of households that fit these special needs definitions. 2. Include an analysis of existing assisted housing developments that are eligible to change to non-low- income housing uses during the next ten years due to termination of subsidy contracts, mortgage prepayment, or expiration of use restrictions (Section 65583 (a) (8)) . The City's analysis for at-risk units is incomplete. The draft lists two bond financed projects (pages I 11- 12) and provides a short summary of four federal projects containing at-risk units on pages II 18-20, that are eligible for conversion during the five-year planning period. The element states that a total of 386 units are at risk. However, there is information in the element that indicates that there are additional at-risk units financed by local funding sources that may convert to non-l ow-income uses during the planning period. Specifically, units produced under density bonus incentives and low-income units located in the Beacon Cove and One Park developments do not appear to be included in the City's total calculation of at-risk units. Please refer to the following list and attached report of Federal Mortqaqe and Rent Subsidies to complete the housing element requirements for at-risk units. (m = mortgage restricted units, s = rent subsidy units) Federal Mortqaqe and Rent Subsidies 1. Rancho Vista Apartments, 1419 Tobias Drive, 24m, 11/3/91 2. Castle Park Garden Apartments, 272 Kennedy, 62m, 12/3/91, 18s, 9/30/92 3. Oxford Terrace, 555 Oxford Street, 132m, 3/22/93, 26s, 9/20/92 4. Palomar Apartments, 171 Palomar, 168m, 3/22/93 5. Congregational Tower, 288 F street, 186m, 6/21/14*, 110s, 12/8/93, 74s, 5/31/95. * Will not expire within the ten-year period. Locally Financed at-risk Units 6. Eucalyptus, 75m (bond), expires 1996 (page 1-11) 7. Terra Nova, 46m (bond), expires 1995 (page 1-12) 8. Beacon Cove, 35m (ARP) , expires 1996 (page I-II) 9. One Park, 71m (RDA) , expires 1996 (page 1-15) 10. 259 Density Bonus Units listed on page 11-20 The total number of at-risk housing units for the next ten years is estimated to be 872; 613 mortgaged units and 259 density bonus units. There are 228 Section 8 rental subsidies at risk in the next ten years. Based on the dates listed, all 872 units are at risk of conversion within the planning period. This list may contain numerical errors due to misinter- pretation of information contained in the draft. We recommend that the City compare this list with information available at the local level. Include a listing of each project-by-project name and address, the type of governmental unit assistance received, the earliest possible date of change from low-income use and the total number of elderly and nonelderly units that could be lost from the locality's low-income housing stock in each year during the ten- year period (Section 65583(a) (8) (A)). Please refer to the above list to complete this requirement. Estimate the total cost of producing new rental housing that is comparable in size and rent levels, to replace units that could change from low-income use, and an estimated cost of preserving the assisted housing developments (Section 65583(a) (8) (B)). The element 2 states on page 11-19 that $26 million is the estimated cost for acquisition of the four federally funded projects. Include in the element the estimated costs to preserve and construct new rental housing for all assisted at-risk units. Some units have low-income status through both mortgage restrictions and rent subsidies. An analysis of the rent structures and unit sizes will assist the City in estimating the cost of replacing existing at-risk units with comparable housing. The analysis should identify public and private nonprofit corporations known to the local government which have legal and managerial capacity to acquire and manage these housing developments (Section 65583(a) (8) (C)). The City may want to take into consideration the number of assisted units and the date they are due to expire within the planning period in identifying nonprofits with the capacity to acquire and manage them. To assist the City we have provided the attached list of agencies that have expressed interest in acquiring at-risk projects. The analysis should identify all federal, state and local financing and subsidy programs which can be used to preserve at-risk units, including any Community Development Block Grant funds, low and moderate funds from the redevelopment agency set-aside, and housing authority operating funds. Estimate the amount that could be available under each program that is not legally committed to other uses (Section 65583(c) (6)). To assist the City in completing this section, we have enclosed this Department's memo outlining housing element requirements for the preservation of assisted units and Ouestions and Answers On the Inventorv Of Federallv Subsidized Low-Income Rental Units At Risk of Conversion. 3. Include an inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having potential for redevelopment and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites (Section 65583(a) (3)). It is unclear how much vacant land is available for residential development in the planning period. a. What type of development does the Planned Community (PC) zone allow? Is there vacant, uncommitted land in the PC zone? b. Table 21 lists the 1990 Master Planned projects. 3 Clarify the unit capacity of these developments during the planning period. Are any of these developments exempt from the public facilities requirements of the City's Growth Management Ordinance? c. Table 20 shows that underutilized land is the primary resource for high-density development. What is the feasibility of producing 2880 housing units on underutilized parcels? The element should describe recent development experience on underutilized parcels and/or describe programs to encourage such development. What improvements to public facilities would be needed to build on underutilized parcels? Are these parcels impacted by the Growth Management Ordinance? Analyze the impact of the Growth Management Ordinance on the City's land-use controls, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers and local processing and permit procedures as potential and actual governmental constraint upon the maintenance, improvement or development of housing for all income levels (Section 65583(a) (4)). The element should address the following issues relative to Growth Management: Did the ordinance impact the City's ability to accommodate the regional share allocation for new construction during the previous planning period? Did the City calculate existing levels of service prior to the date the ordinance was enacted? Are threshold standards for existing development (West Chula Vista) and standards for new development (East Chula V~sta) equal? Are threshold standards the same for commercial and residential development? How does the City measure project specific impacts? How were (per project) developer contributions for public facilities benefiting the community or area as a whole calculated relative to adjacent or subsequent residential development? 4 How does the mitigation review process affect the production of housing? How has the City allowed a reduction of standards to help off-set costs in developing low-income housing? (page 11-33) Is low- income housing exempt? The element states that land and construction costs are 75 percent of the costs for the production of housing (page 11-39). Under the Growth Management Ordinance it takes two years to upzone property. Does this limit multifamily housing opportunities on vacant parcels which require upzoning to reduce development cost? What is the historical impact of these zoning requirements? d. One of the major objectives outlined for the previous planning period was the provision of adequate public works, facilities and infrastructure (objective 8 on page 21 of the 1986 element). Is a lack of infrastructure a constraint on the development of housing? The updated element should document what was accomplished during the last planning period to provide adequate public facilities for residential development and discuss the City's role in the development of infrastructure for residential development. For example, what types of agreements and financing were used to provide public facilities to accommodate new development or improve existing public facilities? Did the City use any of programs or activities listed in the ordinance to facilitate the development of public services? (Section 19.80.40 Bonding, Reimbursement Agreements, Development Agreements, Assessment Districts, Community Facility Districts) e. Describe and analyze the impact of the City's development requirements for parking, curb/gutter, and lighting? B. Housina proarams 1. Include a five-year schedule of actions the City will undertake to assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of low-income households (Section 65583(c) (2)). The element does not demonstrate an adequate commitment to implement 5 programs to provide opportunities for the development and conservation of low- and very-low-income housing, particularly in comparison to the City's commitment to accommodate the housing needs of higher-income groups. a. The Affordable Housing Program Implementation Guidelines are scheduled to be drafted by December 1991. However, page III-7 of the draft states that "several large projects are in various stages of approval, guideline information (regarding the Affordable Housing Program) is crucial at this time, since the opportunity to truly make this program work will only last as long as there are tracts of land available for planned developments large enough to benefit from these concepts." Page II-5 states that "the Affordable Housing Program places the primary responsibility on the private sector." The success of the proposed Affordable Housing Program appears to be contingent on the availability of adequate resources, specifically large parcels of vacant land and developer financing for construction, public facilities and infrastructure. If existing sites are used to accommodate higher-income housing, will it be feasible to use this program to facilitate the development of lower-income housing considering the scarcity of vacant land zoned at higher densities; opportunities lost in providing incentives to developers of large projects currently underway to produce mixed-income housing; and the additional financing required to meet any public facilities requirements established by the Growth Management Ordinance? This program includes actions that could be taken by the City to provide incentives and resources but lacks a commitment to implement these actions. The revised element should establish a ,timeline for implementation of the actions listed under the Affordable Housing Program. b. Many of the programs proposed for the new planning period targeted at low-income housing development are in the early phases of development and do not set forth a specific timeline for implementation. For example: The draft does not list specific timelines for the implementing actions listed under objective 3, page III-14, which includes the 6 Home Ownership Opportunities through the Affordable Housing Program, First-Time Home Buyer Loan Programs, Equity Share or Deferred Loan Proposal, Sweat-Equity Projects, the Reverse Annuity Mortgage Program, Mortgage Credit Certificates, Single Family Mortgage Revenue Bonds and marketing and educational programs. The revised element should include a specific timeline for these programs. What is the timeline for mobilehome park programs listed on pages III 17-18? What specific actions will the city take to encourage other agencies to secure and leverage state funding? When will the City apply for these funds? (B. page III-10) c. The element should demonstrate the feasibility of implementing the 10 percent low-income housing inclusionary Affordable Housing Program for projects of 50 units or more based on 1) past ill 0 -, development; and 2) the availability of uncommitted parcels to accommodate 50 unit developments. Has the City provided any, of the incentives listed on pages 11-6 and 11-7 to assist developers in developing lower-income housing? Does this program apply to both rental and owner developments? Include programs which "address" and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing (Section 65583(c) (3)). Without a complete analysis of constraints, it is not possible to determine the adequacy of the City's efforts to mitigate constraints. On page 11-36, the element states the will consider subsidizing or reducing fees for affordable housing projects. this an ongoing program to mitigate development costs? City certain Is d. Program D, on page 111-26, states that the City will investigate the establishment of a threshold for low-income housing development. The City may want to implement this policy early in the planning period to provide opportunities for the desired results. The City may also want to identify which programs can be implemented to 7 . achieve consistency between regional share allocations, zoning restrictions and other levels of service established by the Growth Management Ordinance. For example, will there be appropriately zoned vacant parcels of land to accommodate the production of low-income housing if it is required to be developed in conjunction with market-rate projects? If not, will the restrictions on upzoning delay or prevent housing production? 2. Identify adequate sites which will be made available through appropriate zoning and development standards, and with public services and facilities needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels (Section 65583(c) (1)). Without a complete land inventory it is not possible to determine compliance with this requirement. a. As stated earlier, we cannot distinguish between vacant developable land and parcels already developed. In addition, the element does not demonstrate the feasibility of developing 2080 units on underutilized land and does not document the availability of public facilities to sites listed in the land inventory. b. Since many of the City's programs appear to be designed for development on large vacant parcels, the element should identify which programs will be implemented to encourage the high-density development of underutilized parcels. Can these parcels accommodate clustering and density bonuses, the two development incentives listed on page III-6 to encourage the development of low- income housing? Does the City have a second unit ordinance that applies to underutilized parcels? c. What programs will the City implement to insure the availability of adequate public facilities for residential development? 3. The housing element should include programs to preserve the low-income use of at-risk projects listed in the ten-year inventory, with specific focus on the units at risk during the five-year planning period (Section 655883(c) (6)). These efforts should use all financing sources identified earlier, except where the community has identified other (more) urgent needs for these funds. Programs might range from regulatory and technical assistance measures to providing direct loans or grants. 8 The quantified objectives for the planning period show that the City proposes to accommodate 100 percent of the new construction need for housing affordable to households with moderate- and above-moderate-incomes, and 98 percent of the needed units for low-income households. The City is to be commended for its commitment to addressing low-income needs. Given that the objectives propose to meet only 15 percent of the need for very-low-income households and prepayment notices for at-risk units due to expire in the planning period have been received, the City may want to re- evaluate its program efforts to ensure the housing needs for all income levels are adequately addressed. C. Coastal Zone Reauirements Document the number of low- and moderate-income housing units converted or demolished and the number of replacement units provided in the coastal zone (Section 65588). Include the following: a. The number of new units approved for construction after January 1, 1982. b. The number of units for low- and moderate-income households required to be provided either within the coastal zone or within three miles of it. c. The number of units occupied by low- and moderate- income households and authorized to be demolished or converted since January 1, 1982. d. The number of units for low- and moderate-income households required within the coastal zone or within three miles in order to replace those being demolished or converted. 9 A / TACiIHF!\/T B - CITY OF CHULA VISTA DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE OF 1991 PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING POLICY AND PROGRAM ISSUES PAPER Prepared For: Chula Vista Planning Commission Chula Vista City Council Forwarded by: Blue Ribbon Housing Element Committee City Planning and Community Development Departments January, 1992 INTRODUCTION: On April 25, 1991, at a joint workshop with the Blue Ribbon Housing Element Committee, the City Council reviewed the Draft Housing Element of 1991, and authorized its forwarding to the State Department of Housing and Community Development for initial review. That authorization excluded a revised Affordable Housing Policy which proposed to shift the current 5 % low/5 % moderate-income provision for projects over 50 units to 10% low-income. The City Council referred the item back to staff and the Blue Ribbon Committee requesting further information and evaluation as to the necessity for such a change, and its potential impacts. Council concern was two-fold: · The apparent inequity of such a change since the City, in comparison to other local jurisdictions, has historically provided more than its 'fair share' of affordable housing. · Potential impacts to project fmancing and economics. In response to that referral, this document reviews concerns raised, and provides an analysis and recommendations regarding a final policy for consideration by the City Council. Topics discussed include: I, Housing Element Law/Regional Share and Fair Share Allocations IT, Policy Background and Current Conditions III, Growth Forecasts and Housing Activity IV. Financial Issues V. Financial Implications of the Affordable Housing Program VI. Methods to Address Affordability VII. Affordable Housing Policy Issues VIII. Summary of Recommendations -2- I. HOUSING ELEMENT LAW/REGIONAL AND FAIR SHARE ALWCATIONS: Housing Element Law As a State-required component of city and county general plans, the Housing Element is intended to ensure adequate provision of housing opportunities for all economic segments of the community through efforts such as rehabilitation, conservation, and new construction. State law requires that the Housing Element be reviewed and updated every five years. This periodic update is required to assess existing and projected housing needs and set goals, objectives, policies and programs to address those identified needs. Part of this process evaluates the effectiveness of a City's present housing efforts in order to determine those efforts to continue, refme, expand, or add in response to changing economic, physical, and social conditions affecting housing. The Housing Element Law (Gov. Code Article 10.6, Section 65580 et seq) sets forth specific requirements for the periodic update of local housing plans for review and certification by the State. Among those requirements is the establishment and allocation of regional housing needs for new construction to local jurisdictions by the Council of Governments (SANDAG). These determinations must be consistent with identified statewide needs, and reviewed in cooperation with the jurisdictions and the State Department of Housing and Community Development. Using statewide growth forecasts, SANDAG identifies total projected housing needs for all income levels and allocates those needs among the Region's jurisdictions. Each jurisdiction must then address its share of regional housing needs as part of the Housing Element update. Pursuant to the above noted requirements, SANDAG, in conjunction with the State Department of Housing and Community Development, prepared an update of the Regional Housing Needs Statement (RHNS) for the 1990-1996 planning period. The RHNS defines the Region's existing and projected housing needs, and distributes the needs for all economic segments of the market among the localities in accordance with seven criteria required by law (see Attachment A). The criteria are designed to ensure that all jurisdictions share proportionately the responsibility for addressing regional housing needs, The allocation process must also seek to reduce the concentration of lower-income households in cities or counties where high proportions of such housing already exist. To this end, SANDAG's allocations do take into consideration the City's past performance on affordable housing, Chula Vista's allocated share of regional housing needs ("Regional Share") has reduced over time, being 4.8% in 1981,4.7% in 1986, and 3.3% in 1991. The RHNS was completed in late 1989 and local jurisdictions were subsequently requested to approve the document for use in Housing Element revisions. City staff evaluated the RHNS and recommended its adoption by the City Council. On March 13, 1990, the City Council passed Resolution 15552 adopting the RHNS and the housing need allocations contained therein (see Attachment B). -3- Regional Share and Fair Share Allocations Rel:ional Share SANDAG's RHNS establishes two distinct forms of housing need allocation to jurisdictions: "Regional Share" and "Fair Share," "Regional Share" 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. Each jurisdiction's total new construction need is assigned to these four income groups according to the following percentage distributions established by the State Department of Housing and Community Development with the State Department of Finance: 23 % very low 17% low 21 % moderate 39% above moderate These distributions are based on existing and projected income and employment statistics within the San Diego region, For Chula Vista, a total of 5,354 units needed to be constructed within the City between 1/89 and 7/96 proportionate to these four income categories: 1232 very low 910 low 1,124 moderate 2,088 above moderate Based on actual construction activity between 1/89 and 7/91, 2326 units remain for construction through 7/96, Because a majority of the 3028 units constructed since 1/89 were affordable to moderate and above moderate ranges, the 2326 remaining Regional Share units should be distributed as follows (see Attachment C for further detail): 1232 very low 628 low 131 moderate 335 above moderate Fair Share The concept of "Fair Share" is established pursuant to local policy 'and identifies the number of lower-income households, both existing and future, needing housing assistance. Fair Share allocation is not applicable to Housing Element evaluation by the State, and is discussed here simply to make a clear distinction between it and Regional Share, which is the basis for State evaluation of the Housing Element. Fair Share differs further from Regional Share in that it can be met by activities other than new construction, such as rehabilitation and Section 8 assistance. Fair Share allocations are identified by the Regional Housing Allocation Formula which was first adopted by SANDAG in 1979 in conjunction with HUD's Areawide Housing Opportunities Plan (AHOP) proposal, The AHOP program was to provide incentives in the form of additional Block Grant monies and federal loans for housing development to jurisdictions -4- which cooperatively dealt with lower-income needs through a regional "fair share" approach, The Fair Share concept was supported by member jurisdictions with the intent that each community accept its share of the region's housing responsibilities in proportions similar to the demand created by existing lower-income needs, as well as new demands resulting from growth (see Attachment B). While the local fair share policy was enacted, the AHOP program was canceled by the Reagan Administration prior to ever reaching full fruition, At the request of member jurisdictions, however, the Fair Share concept was retained. The Fair Share formula identifies total lower-income needs for each jurisdiction, and then translates that need into a five-year goal defining the minimum level of effort that would be accepted as reasonable progress toward meeting that need. That five-year goal amounts to about 12.5% of total need (2,5% per year), primarily in recognition that total need would exceed available resources over the five-year period. For Chula Vista that goal for the 1991-96 planning period is 1,058 households. Perceptions that additional lower-income assistance efforts on Chula Vista's part are inequitable, since the City has historically provided more than its share within the region, result primarily from periodic SANDAG performance reports on Fair Share goal achievement. The most recent of those reports reflects Chula Vista providing for more than 2,5% of actual lower-income needs annually, This relative "over-performance" pursuant to provisions of the local Fair Share policy is not synonymous with the "Regional Share" requirements of State Housing Element Law. The State has consistently noted that Fair Share criterion are not part of State law, and will not be applied to Housing Element compliance review (see Attachment D). Compliance Issues The State's compliance review will consider the total level of housing activity (termed "quantified objectives") proposed through various City policies and programs in comparison to identified needs, Those needs include a variety of assistance to existing households, as well as new housing units identified by Regional Share allocations. The City's quantified objectives must represent the "maximum number of housing units which can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved over a five-year time frame." (Section 65583(b)). Therefore, the City's Housing Element must include policies and programs to meet Regional Share allocations, or demonstrate why lesser objectives for new construction constitute maximum feasible performance, If City policies and programs can be geared to meet the new construction allocations, then compliance with the law on that point is clear, whereas the State's determination of compliance becomes more subjective when a lesser number is said to be the maximum feasible, -5- Consequences of Non-Compliance If a local agency's Draft Housing Element is found by HCD to be in non-compliance, there are two possible courses of action: . Amend the Element to substantially comply; or · Adopt the Element without amendments through a resolution containing written findings which explain the reasons the draft Element substantially complies with legal requirements, despite the State's findings. Upon submission ofa locally adopted Element to the State for its final 12D-day certification review, the status of "procedural compliance" is attained. However, through its final review, the State may determine the findings inadequate, and deem the Element in non-compliance. In that instance, the City can either amend the document and re-adopt it, or ask a court to review and decide the compliance dispute. The consequences of a local agency not achieving compliance through the means described above can include legal challenges from outside organizations, or restrictions to funding from various State housing programs. -6- n. POLICY BACKGROUND AND CURRENT CONDmONS: City Policy History For the last 10 years, the City has required that affordable housing units be included within larger development projects. The requirement was incorporated with the Housing Element of 1981 as a sub-component of the broader "Affordable Housing Program" (AHP), which consisted of 20 or so activities intended to facilitate the provision of low and moderate income housing throughout the City. The requirement that 10% of the units in projects o~er 50 units be affordable to "low and moderate income" households was developed to assist in the accomplishment of two fundamental objectives: . To address Chula Vista's allocated share of regional housing needs, and · To achieve a "balanced community" exemplified by economic integration of neighborhoods and avoidance of affordable housing concentration within anyone area of the City. With the majority of the City's future growth to occur in proposed master planned developments east of I-80S, it was necessary to ensure that adequate opportunities be provided for all income levels. A "10% low and moderate" income provision was intended to guide planning efforts to develop a variety of housing essential to achieving the desired integration. With the majority of existing affordable units in Western Chula Vista, avoidance of undue concentration and the resulting east/west imbalance was also a strong consideration. The "10% low and moderate income" provision was broadly written to allow flexible application of actual low and moderate income percentage levels on individual projects, with the achievement of regional share allocations and economic balance in mind. The conditioning of projects at the rate of 5% low/5% moderate-income has evolved as a matter of practice, not as a specific policy provision. As housing and economic circumstances have changed, so have the needs for particular levels of housing affordability. In response, staff has recommended changes to the Affordable Housing Policy consistent with these needs and conditions, as outlined in the following section. Current Policy Issues Providing for Chula Vista's allocated share of regional housing needs and achieving a balanced community continue to be important objectives. With the continuation of master planned developments in Eastern Chula Vista, the inclusion of affordable housing remains an important requirement toward meeting these objectives. -7- In ensuring that the Affordable Housing Policy responds to current and projected housing and economic conditions, several issues must be recognized: . Significant population and job growth, coupled with rising land and housing costs, have increased the number of households needing affordable housing. These increased needs require expanded efforts. · Demands for lower-income affordability are greatest as a significant amount of employment growth has been in the traditionally lower paying retail trade and service sectors. For Chula Vista, these jobs comprised 42 % of the local economy in 1985 and are projected to comprise 43% in 1995. These needs are reflected by the previously presented Regional Share allocations which require 40% of new construction to be lower-income affordable housing in order to meet needs. In the City, that allocation equates to 1860 such units over the next five years. · Changes in regional median income coupled with rising local housing costs have decreased the amount of lower-income needs being met by the market while continuing, however, to provide sufficient moderate-income opportunities in both rental and for-sale housing. . As land and housing costs in Eastern Chula Vista tend to exceed those in Western Chula Vista, a general tendency exists for lower-income units to be realized in the western area. With the majority of new construction to occur in the east, mechanisms for providing lower-income units within this area are necessary to maintain desired community balance. . Current housing finance and marketing are producing mainly single-family development for middle and upper income households, especially in Eastern Chula Vista. Policy support for construction of an adequate mix and density of housing types to provide sufficient lower-income opportunities is necessary. The following discussions elaborate on the land use and economic considerations of the policy revision proposed in response to these changes in housing circumstances since 1981. -8- m. GROWTH FORECASTS AND HOUSING ACTIVITY: As indicated earlier, achieving the City's Regional Share allocations must come from new housing production. There are several growth related factors to consider in developing policies and programs to provide sufficient new housing units: . anticipated growth rates; . land availability, and the capacity of zoning and general planning to provide the density and variety of housing needed to create affordability at all income levels; . a five-year construction foreCast by unit type to determine if an adequate amount and variety of housing will be available during the time frame of the Housing Element. The following sections evaluate growth forecasts, Chula Vista's development base, and the local housing market's ability to produce sufficient units to address Regional Share. These sections evaluate whether additional actions by the City are necessary to provide an adequate number of units for all income levels. Series 7 Forecasts The City Council requested that staff review the SANDAG Series 7 growth forecasts, which were employed in the determination of Regional Share, to check their consistency with local conditions. This request resulted from observation of a 1995 forecasted City population of 132,304 as compared to the April 1990 Census population of 134,165. The primary cause of this discrepancy is that the Series 7 figure is restricted to the 1986 municipal boundary. In order to compensate for annexation and construction outside the 1986 boundary, a Sphere of Influence figure of 150,878 was also forecasted, and represents a more realistic comparison. Series 7 forecasts assume a 2.1 % annual housing growth rate for Chula Vista through 1995 (1113 units/yr. ave.), and are comparable to current City growth management forecasts which assume a 2.3% annual rate, roughly 1250 units per year. Chula Vista's actual growth rate between 1/89 and 7/91 was approximately 2.9%, or an average of 1430 units per year. Under these circumstances, it is advantageous that Regional Share allocations employ Series 7 forecasts, as total allocations are reflective of the lower growth rate assumptions. -9- Regional Share by Income Group While overall housing production is expected to exceed total Regional Share requirements, the City is required by law to address provision of units within the four income categories of Regional Share in its Housing Element. As previously indicated, Chula Vista needs to address the following levels of housing unit production over the next five years: 1232 very low 628 low 131 moderate 335 above moderate These totals are based on construction since 1989, and represent the remainders of the City's total Regional Share requirements through 1996. The 1860 low and very low- income units will not be provided by market forces alone, and must be assured, in part, through obligations for their inclusion within new residential developments. While moderate and above moderate units can be readily provided under current market conditions, unforeseen future changes could impact moderate-income affordability as well. In order to ensure continued production of sufficient moderate-income housing, the City should monitor market conditions, and while not a recommended policy requirement, encourage developers to make good faith efforts to provide such housing. This City must support these efforts through continued land use and zoning practices which allow for the necessary density and variety of housing. Housing Capacity and Local Construction Forecasts The ability of the City to address remaining lower-income Regional Share allocations will be largely established by the Affordable Housing Policy, since it is designed for application to larger development projects which will provide the majority of new construction. The feasibility and effectiveness of that policy rests initially with the available amount and density of housing from which the requirement could be satisfied. In general, multi-family units at densities between 15-30 dwelling units an acre present the greatest potential. The following two sections review the capacity of development in both Eastern and Western Chula Vista to provide lower-income units toward meeting Regional Share requirements. F;o~tern Chula Vista In order to measure the capacity of Eastern Chula Vista developments to provide low and very low-income units, staff reviewed approved and proposed plans, growth management forecasts, and developers' 5-year construction projections by unit type. The greatest potential for addressing remaining Regional Share allocations rests with these master planned communities which will provide over 80 % of new construction activity. Table 1 has been divided to indicate the total unit type capacity of both "approved" and "proposed" developments, and the level of construction projected over the time frame of the Housing Element (1991-1996). "Approved" developments are those which have -1D- received tentative map approval, and may proceed under the Growth Management Program. These projects have been conditioned to provide affordable housing under the existing 5% low/5% moderate-income practice. "Proposed" developments have not yet received tentative map approvals and would be subject to the 10% low-income policy under consideration. It is important to further distinguish proposed projects, since the construction activity indicated is not assured unless those projects, through their facilities financing plans, can demonstrate growth management compliance, particularly adequate circulation capacity prior to construction of an interim Highway 125 facility. Table I illustrates the 'potential difficulty faced in providing low and very low-income Regional Share units through Eastern Chula Vista new construction. Approximately 80% of the approved and proposed units to be built consist of detached and attached single- family products, which cannot reasonably be made affordable to lower-income households. The remainder of the units are multi-family for-sale condominiums (857 units, or 13.8%) and rental apartments (483 units, or 7.8%), at an average density of 14 dwelling units an acre. These 1340 units, combined with units which might be constructed in Western Chula Vista, represent the available housing base from which the very low and low-income allocations would have to be satisfied. -11- ------------ --------- << " << " ~ Ie '" 0 ~ R 0 0 :;: ~ N '" 0 << 0 -' " ~ N Ie ., '" ~ N ~ -;! 0 << '" .. " '" ~ '" '" 0 o. N . N ~ " ~ << 00 ~ 0 " << '" ~ " << .. " << U " << W -------------- --------- << ~ " .. ~ << .. " ~ Ie 0 0 00 :;: N '" << :a ., ~ " 00 -;! ., '" ;! << r-: '" " .- '" .... ., << .. >- ~ " << ~ "- " . ;: .. " << " << " --------- << ~ -------------- << '" U " .. .. << .... .. .. " 0 ., ~ ~ .... 0 0 0 . ., ~ W 0 " :: .... N -;! ~ r-: 0 << ~ W Z "- 0 " - ~ ., << ., '" "- 0 >- Z " << 0 ~ 0 " << W -' ~ U " << "- W U >- " << >- > => '" " ----- << ~ W ~ ------------ ---- << 0 ~ " ~ .. << .. ~ '" " ., '" N ~ ~ '" '" '" ~ << o. ~ z " -;! -;! .... '" ~ ~ ~ ~ << '" Z 0 .. " ~ N N ~ << ~ ;;; => U ~ " N << '" " << '-' ~ " << Z .. " << W " << -' >- ------------ ----- ---- << -' " .. .. << .. ~ ~ " ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 0 ~ 0 Ie N '" ": << 0 " :: :8 o. ;;; ., .... :t ~ ~ -;! 0: . ~ r-: 0 Q " ., '" N 00 ~ << ~ ~ " N ~ .... . '" ~ >- '" " << g: '" " . " . 0 ~ " . 8: '" ------------------ ---------- << g; .. ----------------- ---------- << ~ U " .. .. << .. ~ U W " ., ~ 0 .... 0 - 0 0 0 '" << 0 o. c i!i " '" 0> 0 -;! ~ 00 0 o. o. r-: << ., r-: . u '" " N - '" N '" ~ . ~ '" ~ ~ ~ " . c. c "- " << ~ .. " << ~ C Z " << ~ W " << ~ '" --------- ----- --------- << 2 "- " .. .. << .. ~ CO " o. ~ 0 ~ ~ .... o. ~ .... ~ :;: '" << o. 0 ~ ~ 0 " ~ .... 0 OJ o. -;! ., '" .... << ., c .. ~ w 0 " - '" '" ~ N '" ~ '" ., 0 << N '" &. "- > z " N N . N '" W 0 " << ~ 0 '" u " << c ~ 00 ~ " << ~ ~ " << "- . "- .. z -------------- --------- << 0 c c w => " .. .. << .. '-' " '" >- " ~ '" '" ~ ~ '" ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ << '" '" c c " ;;; 0 ., '" .... OJ ;;; 00 .... ~ << '" c ~ '-' w .. " N '" '" '" ~ N ~ 0 '" << ., '/}. ~ ~ ~ z "- ~ " << N "- ~ ~ >- '" " << ~ ~ ~ -' ~ " . .. -' " << ~ ~ 00 ~ w " << '" " >- ---- ---------- --------- << ;: Q .. " .. .. << .. " :8 ., .... N N 00 ., <; 0> ~ 0 '" 0 << o. 0 " N .... .... ~ ;::: 0 .... 0> ~ ~ '" << ., o. .. -' :'i' " ~ ;! ~ o. 0 ~ ;! ~ '/}. '" N '" << '" -' .. " .. ~ ~ 00 << 0 ~ '" => ~ '" " << .... o. ~ '" 0 " << 1< ., u ~ " . ~ " << ~ z " u ~ ------------- ------------ ,.. c w ------------- --- --------- u . ~ " ~ ~ ~ << ~ 0 '" '" " - N '" ~ ~ '" << c . .. " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ << w -' " . c .. " 0 '" ~ ;! <; N 0 ., 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ << N ~ " ~ ~ 0 ~ ., ~ '" '" :8 ~ ~ 00 << '" c c . 0 " ~ ~ ~ .... N ~ ~ ~ ~ '/}. '" .... << ~ . . ~ " N N o. N .... << .... "- " << ~ ~ w " << c ~ -' " << c u '" " << 0 0 .. " << c ~ --- ------------ ------- << ~ ~ ~ << . . 00 .. << N N ~ .. ~ ~ << -' w c '" z '" -' . '" << .. '-' ;: w ~ . '" w z '0 . << ~ '" ~ u '" 0 ~ '" u => 0 ~ << 0 ~ ~ 5 00 '" z - ~ c -' z '" >- ~ c << ~ z => ::J .. ~ w = ~ :;: .. z ~ << w -' u -' w -g u '" '" '" .c u << u ~ ~ 'E => w ;: ~ c ~ U 0 C << ~ ~ ~ '" . "" '-' .. .. .. 00 & ~ "" z 00 & . w . u 0 w "- ~ "- w .. '" . "- ~ ~ -' ~ c w w w ~ '" ~ 0 w w w ~ "- . c z "- w '" "" "" 00 w "" "" ~ .. 00 . ~ c c ~ > u ~ .. .. . '" .. '" u 0 ~ . << '" ~ ~ ~ w 0 -' -' '" 0; ~ 0 -' -' '" '-' << '" ~ "- "- ~ '" ~ '" ~ ~ "- ~ ~ ~ u w << w '" "- -' z '" '" 0 c "! 0 ~ '" -' z -' << ~ .. "- .. => .. .. ~ .. .. .. '" w . 0 N '::; W .. '" ~ w w '" '" ~ "- w w ~ ~ ~ . z ~ -12- Western Chula Vista The total forecasted new construction activity for Western Chula Vista for the next five years is approximately 1250 dwelling units. In Table 2, staff has indicated the maximum feasible number of units within those 1250 units which could be provided as low and very low-income affordable through various assistance programs, by projects both approved and anticipated. Totals expected are 191 low-income units and 245 very low- income units. These 436 units represent about 24 % of the 1860 lower-income Regional Share units needed, and indicate a reasonable contribution from Western Chula Vista. Additional pressure to produce more lower-income units in the west over the next five years raises concerns on balanced community objectives. TABLE 2 WESTERN CHULA VISTA - 5 YEAR LOWER'INCOME NEW CONSTRUCTION PROJECT I PROGRAM I TYPE / TOTAL liVERY LOW I LOW I I UNITS II INCOME II NCOME I ====================1==========/========11=========1========1 Approved or Pend i"9 I I II I I ----------------- I I II I I I I II I I SALVATION ARMY Iseniors I 75 II 751 I DOROTHY STREET I pub. hsg. I 22 II 22 I I FIftH & L STREET I pub. hsg. I 16 II 16 I I THIRD & OXFORD Inon profit I 28 II 10 I 18 I 95 MADISON Iden. bonus I 3 II I 3 I I I II I I I I II I I Anticipated I I II I I .--------------- I I II I I I I II I I PUBLI C HOUS I NG Ifami ty I 42 II 42 I I DENSITY BONUS I fami Iy I 6D II I 6D I DENS I TV BONUS Isenior I 50 II / 50 I TRANSITIONAL Ifami Iy I 20 II 20 I I OTHER NON-PROFIT Ifamily I 20 II 10 I 10 I RELOC. HOUSING I 1amil y I 100 II 50 I 50 I I I II I I ============================================================= Totals: 436 245 191 Regional Share No.; 1232 628 --------- -------- Remainder: 987 437 -13- .- Citywide Performance Implications The information presented in Tables 1 and 2 has significant implications for the City's ability to achieve its lower-income Regional Share, and for the structuring of the Housing Element and Affordable Housing Policy. In particular is the ability to respond to low vs. very low-income needs. In summary, the pertinent data from those tables include: · 7480 total dwelling units are forecast for construction. (It should be noted that this figure may be high, based on recent and projected slowdowns in residential development for economic reasons and due to water service limitations.) . 6230 (83%) are in Eastern Chula Vista. 1,250 (17%) are in Western Chula Vista. · 1340 (21 %) of the 6230 units will be multi-family, the housing type most practical for low and very low income affordability. . Of those 1340 multi-family units, 64% are for-sale condominiums and 36% are rental apartments. The average density is about 14 du/ac. . Of the 1,250 units expected in Western Chula Vista, 191 (15%) are projected to be low income, and 245 (19%) very low income. . In addition to Western Chula Vista projections, 437 low-income and 987 very low-income regional share units remain to be addressed to the maximum extent feasible by efforts in Eastern Chula Vista. The following implications can be drawn from this information: . For balanced community objectives and Regional Share allocations to be met, Eastern Chula Vista must significantly contribute to lower-income unit production, as 83% of the City's new construction will occur there. . With a majority of the needed Regional Share lower-income units as very low- income, the Affordable Housing Policy must be structured to address not only low-income units, but to encourage that very low-income units be achieved when feasible. To ignore such would place the entire responsibility for very low- income unit production on Western Chula Vista. In indicating to the State that the City is providing opportunities to the "maximum extent feasible" for all income levels, it is imperative that the policy which governs 80+ % of the City's new construction address both low and very low-income units. . Since the ability to provide affordable housing for very low-income households has historically been linked to deep subsidies from the state and federal -14- government, the number of such units potentially produced through the policy could be limited to the availability of necessary funding assistance. In this manner, while the policy would be primarily focused on creating low-income units, the opportunity for very-low income units would be provided as the City is able to leverage its limited. funds in cooperation with the County Housing Authority or non-profit entities. Without specifying a particular number of very low-income units, such a provision would link "maximum feasibility" to required funding. . Current land use and zoning in Eastern Chula Vista offers basic opportunity to achieve lower-income affordability, with 1340 multi-family units projected for construction over the next five years. The 437 low-income units would comprise 33 % of available multi-family units. As those 1340 multi-family units are at average densities of 14 units an acre, the City may want to consider General Plan amendments or other forms of density increases (such as provided by the State Density Bonus law) which would not only increase the total supply of multi-family units, but also bring relative densities within the 15-30 unit/acre range typically associated with feasibly achieving lower-income affordability. As an example, the pro forma presented later in this Paper analyzes a project at a density of approximately 19 units an acre. . Because available multi-family units will be primarily for-sale condominiums, they as well as rental housing units must be considered as lower-income candidate. This will necessitate greater emphasis on developing ownership oriented assistance programs and controls. Affordable Housing Production Pursuant to the construction forecast data in Tables I and 2, the following table (Table 3) compares anticipated affordable housing production to Regional Share allocations under the following two AHP scenarios: Scenario A: No policy changes are made, and all new projects continue to be conditioned at 5% low/5% moderate. Scenario B: New projects are conditioned under a revised AHP with 10% 10wer- income. Although the policy is being recommended to address both low and very low-income opportunities, its primary focus would be to meet low-income needs. For comparative purposes, the following analysis has been directed at the low-income portion of Regional Share allocations. -15- TABLE 3 - AFFORDABLE HOUSING POLICY - SCENARIO SUMMARY OF LO~ INCOME UNIT PRODUCTION ----..------------------------------------------------------------------------------ II TOTAL PRDJECT REQUIREMENT II 5-YR. CONSTRUCTION FORECAST I I I SCENARIO SCENARID II SCENARID SCENARIO I EASTERN TERRITORIES I APPRDVED II A B II A B I PROJECT I UNITS II LOll MOO I LOIIER MOD II LO~ MOO I LOIIER MOD I ====================1=============11================1================ 1================1================1 APPROVED- I II I I I I --------------------1 II I I I I I II I I I I I 138D II 23 I I 23 I I I 54D (1)1 I 14 41 I I 14 41 I I I 1946 II 97 97 I 1 97 75 I I I 4D5 II 19 I I 19 I I I 2774 II 138 139 I I 138 139 I I I 360 II 72 I I 72 I I ------------------------------------------------ 1--------------------------------- o I 291 327 --------------------1 I I I I I I 350 II 17 18 I 35 II 17 18 I 35 I 1--- -- - -- - -- --11- - -- ------- -- -- -1-- -- - - - -- -- -- - --11- -- - - - -- - - -- -- - -1- -- --- -- - -- -- ---I sub total: I 7916 II 395 397 I 792 0 II 67 159 I 140 0 I III I R.D.R. SPA SALT CREEK SUNBO~ EAST LAKE VIl. tEN. EAST LAKE GREENS BREHM 1ERRA NOVA sub tota l : PROPOSED - EAST LAKE TRAilS EASTlAKE t I I SAL1 CREEK RANCH RANCHO SAN MIGUEL TELEGRAPH CANYON EAST. TERR. TOTALS: 7405 291 349 o Minus Regional Share: 628 131 ---------------- ---------------- Difference: ~estern C.V. Activity: -337 191 196 ---------------- REGIONAL SHARE PERFORMANCE: -146 196 1260 1835 2B17 1654 II II II II II II II II 50 141 10 95 63 92 141 83 126 184 282 165 63 92 141 82 *************************************************1 1********************************* 15321 686 1083 349 II 431 327 358 486 746 Minus RegionaL Share: 628 131 628 131 ---------------- -----------.---- ---------------- ---------------- Difference: Western C.V. Activity: -270 191 355 -197 191 196 ---------------- ----~_..._.--_._- REGIONAL SHARE PERFORMANCE: -79 355 -6 196 NOTES: C1> REQUIREMENTS INDICATED BASED ON RECENT APPROVAL TO ALLOW 2.5% LOW I 7.5% MODERATE INCOME. -16- Table 3 has been subdivided to indicate total project requirements in comparison to those units which would be provided over the next five years. The purpose is to indicate the effect of the policy scenarios on long term affordable housing capacity in Eastern Chula Vista, as well as in addressing Regional Share allocations for the current planning period. This distinction is important to make, as the master plan format will see projects approved and conditioned today which will constitute the City's available housing base for the next 10 to 15 years. As a result, current policy decisions will not only affect the City's ability to address Regional Share for the current planning period, but that of future periods as well. In establishing the need for an increased inclusionary percentage for lower-income units, the top half of Table 3 illustrates "approved" projects which have already been conditioned at the rate of 5% low/5% moderate. (Data for Scenario B is not included as it is assumed these projects would not be re-conditioned under a revised policy.) A total of 291 low-income and 327 moderate-income units are indicated, which when factored with Western Chula Vista figures from Table 2, indicate a 146 unit under- performance on low-income Regional Share and a 196 unit over-performance on moderate-income. Of particular note is the EastLake Greens project for which Council has "deferred" performance on affordable housing requirements pending the evaluation of density reductions made during project approval in 1989. Those potential low-income units play a significant role in the City's total Regional Share performance picture. The lower half of Table 3 illustrates "proposed" projects which have not yet been conditioned and would be subject to a revised policy. Under the 5% low/5% moderate practice (Scenario A), 67 additional low-income units would be produced, but that would still result in an 79 unit under-performance on low-income Regional Share. Under a revised policy at 10% lower-income (Scenario B), 140 additional low-income units would be produced and result in essentially meeting Regional Share for the current planning period. However, the difference in results between the two scenarios is relatively small during the 1991-96 period, and could be made up for by one or two additional subsidized projects outside of the affordable housing program. -17- The greatest impact of a revised 10% low-income Affordable Housing Policy would be on the 1996-2001 planning period. While the 10% policy is projected to create an additional 73 low-income units in this planning period, it would create an additional 324 units in the next planning period, as illustrated in the table below. PrQjected # of Units Under Present and Proposed AHP 1991-1996 1996-2001 5% AHP 358 328 10% AHP ill ~ Difference +73 +324 Therefore, while a 10% low income requirement would slightly improve performance during the current 5 year period, it would appear to have a greater potential impact during the following five year period. In projecting the level of performance shown under Scenarios A and B, staff assumed that the affordable units would be built concurrent with the market-rate units and that the concentration of low-income units would not be limited. The implications of phasing and concentration issues on affordable housing production are discussed further in Section VII of this paper. Summary The analysis of growth forecasts and housing activity presented above suggests that, at a minimum, the City should continue its current policy, which requires that all developers address affordable housing needs, and for projects of fifty dwelling units or greater, requires developers to "explore methods to devote a minimum of 10% of said units to low and moderate income housing. " In considering establishment of a more specific affordable housing requirement, certain issues need to be brought forward. The issues pertaining to establishinent of a specific "inclusionary zoning program" are summarized in a recent article written by Timothy Coyle, Director of the State Department of Housing and Community Development (Attachment H). In this article, Mr. Coyle describes some of the potential benefits and problems associated with inciusionary zoning programs, and points out that in many cases a rigid inclusionary policy can actually reduce the overall affordability of housing being produced within the community. He suggests a more flexible approach, wherein cities provide incentives for production of housing meeting affordable housing objectives, rather than a strict regulatory approach. -18- It is also instructive to look at the approaches being taken by other cities in the region with regard to this issue (see Attachment 1). While at least four cities have adopted Housing Element policies establishing "inclusionary zoning requirements" (Oceanside, Carlsbad, San Marcos, and Poway), to our knowledge none of these cities have yet established a specific permanent program which implements those policies. Given the "uneven" track record of such programs throughout the State (as described in HCD Director Coyle's article), and the lack of successful local experience in inclusionary zoning programs, the City needs to approach this issue from a realistic and practical perspective. To summarize, while a Housing Element policy containing a specific requirement for 10% low-income housing in new developments would appear to improve the City's ability to meet future regional share requirements for low-income households, staff feels that the potential disadvantages of a specific inclusionary requirement of this type would outweigh the potential advantages. Therefore, a more flexible policy which provides incentives for providing low-income housing is preferable at this time. RECOMMENDATION 1: That the Council adopt a Housing Element policy which shall be applied to all new housing developments except single-family, owner-built homes on individual lots-of-record. This Affordable Housing Policy (AHP) shall require a minimum of 10% of each housing development to be affordable to low and moderate- income households, with at least one half of those units (5 % of project total units) being designated for low-income households. For developments of less than 50 units, the developer may pay an in-lieu fee (to be established by the Council) in place of providing the affordable units. This policy should be periodically reevaluated to ensure that requirements placed on projects to be built after the current 5-year planning period will provide adequate affordable housing opportunities to meet the City's future housing needs. AHP implementation guidelines shall be developed to achieve flexibility and feasibility to meet this policy, and to maximize the use of available resources from the City, non- profit developers, and lenders. These Guidelines shall also establish a matrix of incentives to encourage developers to exceed the minimum requirem~nts by increasing the amount of low-income units provided within the 10%, and/or in producing units affordable to households in the "lower" range of both low-income and moderate-income standards. The matrix of incentives shall be structured to provide greater incentives for greater affordability. In conjunction with the policy implementation, the City shall evaluate the Land Use Element of the General Plan to determine the extent to which, in warranted cases, increases in density would facilitate the provision of affordable units. As appropriate, the City shall consider amendments to the Land Use Element. The City Council should make this evaluation a priority and request its completion within 6 months. -19- IV. FINANCIAL ISSUES: The central issue facing Chula Vista and other cities in the region is how to balance growth, the quality of life, and housing opportunities. This section is an analysis of the factors which affect the cost of housing, the cost of producing affordable housing, and methods to address the affordability gap. The rise in regional housing costs over the past decade can be attributed to several interrelated factors. These include strong economic growth, rapid population growth, diminishing land resources, and stronger environmental regulation. These factors have created upward pressure on housing prices and have made affordable housing development largely unprofitable. The City has control over four factors which can significantly reduce the cost of housing development: density levels; parking and public facilities requirements; design standards; and development fees. While the City may wish to consider altering these standards to make affordable housing development feasible, any deviation should be evaluated to determine its effect on the quality of housing and quality of life. Current Market Conditions Over the last year, residential construction activity in San Diego County has been at its lowest levels in 10 years. New housing starts are down 40.5% and multi-family development activity is down approximately 70% from 1990 levels (San Diego Economic Bulletin, July 1991). The building industry attributes the slump in multi-family housing construction to lending conditions. The equity requirement for multi-family lending is as high as 40% (as compared to 10% previously) and the return on investment is lower than it was prior to 1986 (when the federal tax advantages were eliminated). Over the past five years, residential construction has been largely for-sale development, which produce profits in a shorter time frame. In a for-sale development, the developer is not required to make a long-term equity investment nor to secure long-term financing. In the 5-year construction forecast (Table I), only 7.8% of anticipated construction is targeted for multi-family rental units. Low activity in rental housing construction could cause inflation in rents. Chula Vista's current rental vacancy rate is 3.4% (San Diego Apartment Association). If the rental vacancy rate remains low, rent escalation will directly decrease the supply of affordable housing (unless incomes rise as rapidly as rents). Homeownership Affordabili(y The cost of a median-priced single-family home is beyond the means of 77% of San Diego County residents (San Diego Economic Bulletin, November 1991). Since 1975, housing prices have more than quadrupled. The American dream of owning a single-family home has moved -2D- beyond the means of many moderate-income households in San Diego County, including families of police officers, teachers, and machinists. Lower-priced homes continue to rise in price even as the overall market declines, making it especially difficult for the first-time home buyer. During a recent 6 month period, a composite of lower-priced housing areas increased by 2.8 percent while the overall market declined by 1.6% (San Diego Economic Bulletin, July 1991; figures not adjusted for inflation). In Chula Vista, homeownership has become significantly less affordable for low and moderate-income families. During the past five years, housing prices increased by 60% while the local consumer price index rose by just 23% (San Diego Economic Bulletin, July 1991). Presently, single-family homes are selling in the $160,000 to $250,000 range (Multiple Listing Service). The median-priced home is selling for $180,000 (San Diego Union). Market Housine Prices and Affordable For-Rent Housin~ As shown in Attachment E, the AHP levels of affordability have been defined as 80% of median income for low-income and 120% of median income for moderate-income households. These definitions target only the hiehest percentiles of the low-income and moderate-income ranges. As far as the State is concerned, these definitions are satisfactory for the purpose of meeting regional share goals. One shortcoming of these definitions is that they do not guarantee that housing will be constructed which is affordable throughout the entire range: 51-80% of median income for low-income households and 81-120 % of median income for moderate-income households. As shown in Attachment F, the lowest percentile of rental opportunities for households on the western side is 61 % and on the eastern side is 70%. The market is not providing affordability for the 51-60% range on the Western side nor for the 51-70% range on the Eastern side. If a primary purpose of the City's affordable housing program is to provide new housing opportunities for all economic segments of the population, then it should be designed to produce housing for the entire low-income range. The AHP should encourage an equitable geographic distribution of affordable housing, creating new housing opportunities on the eastern side comparable to those provided by the market on the western side. RECOMMENDATION 2: For the purpose of meeting regional share goals, the City's affordable housing program shall defme low-income and moderate-income in accordance with State law. (Current defrnitions are 51-80% of median-income for low-income and 81-120% of median income for moderate-income). -21- Market Rate and Affordable For Sale Housin~ Low-income households cannot afford to purchase a home in Chula Vista without direct fmancial assistance. Condominium and townhome units, which are the most affordable for-sale housing units, are currently selling in the $100-160,000 price range in Chula Vista. From the data previously presented, it appears that the market will provide adequate for-sale housing opportunities for moderate income households to meet the City's regional share. However, on the eastern side of the City where the majority of new construction is expected to occur, the market is currently providing few moderate-income units. Two-bedroom attached units are selling for $14D-168,000 and three bedroom units are selling for $165-190,000. A $165,000, 3 bedroom is barely affordable to a six-person moderate income household with a 10% downpayment. All the other prices are out of the moderate-income affordability range. Presently under the City's AHP, 111 moderate-income for-sale units are planned for development in the next two years. A project which includes 72 affordable condominiums will be built in Terra Nova, and the Baldwin Company will be building 39 affordable condominiums in Salt Creek I. If the demand for above moderate-income housing is strong throughout the planning period, the Affordable Housing Program may be the only way to ensure moderate-income affordability on the eastern side of the City. RECOMMENDATION 3: The City shall encourage, through the plan review process and negotiations with developers, for-sale housing opportunities in the moderate-income range. Moderate-income affordability shall be based on not more than 33 % of gross household income applied toward the total housing payment, including principal, interest, taxes, insurance, homeowners fee, and assessment fees. -22- V. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM: The Cost of the Inc1usionary Housin~ Requirements A key question is what is the actual cost to provide affordable housing if the City requires developers of 50 units or greater to develop 10% affordable housing. The cost of the inclusionary requirements will vary greatly from development to development depending on the size of the project, the housing types, and the density allowed. Where the cost of developing affordable housing will not provide an adequate rate of return for the developer, the inclusionary requirement becomes, in essence, another development fee. For the developer, the affordable housing requirement is a cost which will either lower profits and/or be incorporated into the cost of the market-rate units in the development. This additional cost raises the concern that the market rate units may become less competitive with similar units in other developments. Financin!! Affordable Rental Housin!! Upon the request of staff, Eastlake and Baldwin submitted pro-formas for multi-family housing projects involving 80% market-rate and 20% low-income rental units (80/20 project). Based on these pro-formas, a generic pro-forma for a 80/20 project has been developed (see Attachment G, which was provided by South Bay Community Services Community Development Program). South Bay Community Services found that the generic project will provide an II % return on investment over the 40 year life of the project. The $23.4 million, 267 unit project will require a $9 million equity investment, which will be paid back to investors within 12 years. The equity investment represents 38 % of the development cost (net operating income will service debt covering 62% of the development cost). Finding the equity to invest in the project would be a problem for developers. Given present economic conditions, lending regulations, and tax structure, this type of development is difficult to undertake. At this time, very few 100% market-rate apartment projects are being built. Without a change in market conditions, multi-family projects will need to be subsidized with local, state, and federal funds. Non-profit developers who have been successful in developing low-income housing have taken advantage of such subsidies, which include land write-down, below market-rate loans, loan guarantees, and state and federal tax credits. A joint venture between a non-profit and for-profit developer holds great potential for creating affordable housing. Four non-profit housing corporations are currently active in the South County. They are Casa Familiar, Civic Center Barrio/Hermandad Mexicana, MAAC Project, and South Bay Community Services. -23- Financinl! Affordable For-Sale Housinl! Utilizing data on a proposed for-sale housing project planned for eastern Chula Vista, staff analyzed the impact of a 5% low/5% moderate-income requirement on a prototype 520 unit development. This development includes 166 single-family detached, 213 townhomes, and 141 condominiums; all 52 affordable units are to be built in the condominium project. Market prices are based on comparable area for-sale prices. In accordance with tables indicating affordability levels in Attachment E, a moderate-income household can afford current market-rate two- and three-bedroom condominium units. Therefore, it does not appear that a 5 % moderate income requirement places a financial burden upon the developer. The following criteria have' been used to analyze this project: 26 two-bedroom and 26 three-bedroom condominiums; household income = 80% of median adjusted for household size with two persons per bedroom; fixed rate loan at 9.5% with 5% down; 33% of household income for housing expenses, which includes principal, interest, taxes, mortgage and house insurance, homeowner association fees, and special assessments. The gap between the market price and the affordable low-income price is as follows: Unit size Market price Affordable Drice G3,p 2bdrm $ 110,000 $ 75,550 $ 34,452 3 bdrm 138,000 91,360 46,640 The total gap for providing the 52 low- and moderate-income units described above is $1,054,196. If this amount is spread evenly across the other market rate units, then the average cost increase per market-rate unit would be $2,253. However, as any price increase is limited by what the market will bear, the subsidy of the affordable units would probably be spread proportionately (e.g., on a percentage basis). -24- VI. METHODS TO ADDBF.'\S AFFORDABILITY: This affordability gap does not have to be filled solely by the developer. Various public and private resources can be utilized directly by the developer or through City assistance reducing the subsidy by 10 - 40%). Many of these resources are listed in the section below. State and Federal Housing Programs The Rental Housing Construction Program (RHCP) is a competitive program which provides construction and permanent financing at 3 % interest. RHCP funds have been exhausted but additional funding will become available if California voters approve a new bond issue in June 1992. The California Housing Finance Agency (CHAFA) offers various subsidies to first-time home buyers, including below market rate loans (interest rates 1-2% below market) and $5,000 silent seconds. CHAFA is also initiating a new program to guarantee conventional home mortgages, similar to the FHA program (but at a lower cost). These programs are also dependent upon voter approval of housing bonds issues. Low-Income Housing Tax Credits is a highly competitive program which provides equity for affordable housing development. To raise equity, the tax credits are syndicated through private financial institutions or, for non-profit projects, through the California Equity Fund. The tax credit program must be renewed by Congress on an annual basis. Lender Assistance Under the Community Reinvestment Act, banks are required to increase lending for low-income housing. They have formed consortia and pooled their capital for such loans. A developer can secure pre-development, construction, and permanent financing for low-income housing projects through SAMCO, CCRC, Low Income Housing Fund, and other consortia. The funds available from these consortia are growing significantly. Many banks have initiated new loan programs targeted to first-time homebuyers (e.g., Community Homebuyers Program through G. E. Mortgage). These programs have relaxed underwriting standards which include a 33% debt to income ratio, 5% downpayment, and no cash reserve requirement. The Federal Home Loan Bank has a competitive program, the Affordable Housing Program, to subsidize construction and permanent loans for low-income housing through member institutions. Joint Venture with Non-profit Organizationsw Non-profit housing developers are typically given preference for affordable housing loans from both public and private sectors, as well as equity sources such as Low-Income Housing Tax Credits. These joint ventures do not necessarily prevent the developer from making a profit as is demonstrated in Attachment E. Corporate-Assisted Housing Programs Some corporations in San Diego County have begun to assist their employees to purchase homes. Many companies do not pay their skilled and professional employees salaries sufficient to purchase housing in the high-priced local market. The company benefits from this program through higher retention of valued employees. City Participation in the Affordable Housing Program The City's primary interest in implementing an inc1usionary policy is to meet regional share goals and create balanced communities. While the City's direct participation in subsidizing lower-income housing is disCretionary, the City may wish to assist developers in providing affordable housing opportunities in one or more ways described below. Local Funds: The Redevelopment Agency's Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund receives revenues of about $1 million annually. In addition, the City will receive $748,000 of federal HOME funds over the next two years. Because these funds are very limited and are in high demand, projects providing very low-income units should be given priority. The City makes the best use of local funds when it is able to leverage other larger sources of funds or make gap financing loans. Competitive State and Federal Funds: The City of Chula Vista was recently awarded over $2 million of Mortgage Credit Certificates (MCC). The MCC can be used by the homeowner to reduce their taxes by 20 %, thus increasing income available for their housing payment. If these mortgage credit certificates (MCCs) were used by the 52 low-income homebuyers in the prototype for-sale project described above, the affordability gap could be reduced by 38 %. The MCCs increase the purchasing power of the low income household by $10 to 15,000. Density Increases: Fifteen to thirty units of density per acre is necessary to build affordable multi-family housing. Some master-planned communities in Chula Vista do not have any density in this range (e.g. Rancho San Miguel) and others have very limited amounts. In approving general development plans and SPA plans, staff and Council may wish to look at creating sufficient density to allow affordable housing development. For projects already in the pipeline the City may want to consider density transfers or general plan amendments to increase density. Density Bonus Pro~ram: Under the new State Density Bonus law, the City is required to grant a 25 % density bonus if the developer agrees to restrict the 20 % of the pre-bonus units to low or very low-income households occupancy for a period of ten years. If City gives other incentives, the duration of affordability would be increased to 30 years. Under the new law, the rent restrictions has been lowered to 30% of 60%; a developer will need to calculate whether the density bonus units and other incentives will compensate for the decreased income from rents. -26- Restructure DIF Fees or ParticiDate with Infrastructure: The City could assist by restructuring the DIF fees to provide a fee reduction on the affordable units. One problem with the DIF fees is that the developer pays the same fees on a 800 sq. ft. townhouse as on a 2500 sq. ft. single family house. This creates an incentive to build larger, higher-priced housing units. One possible alternative approach would be to base the development impact fee either on the square footage of residential development or number of bedrooms, which may improve the affordability of smaller units. However, it should be noted the DIF fee is tied to the true cost of providing adequate public facilities and services. If the restructuring created a funding gap, the difference would either have to be made up with local funds (e.g. redevelopment housing set-aside funds) or by the acceptance of a lower level of public facilities and services. Relax Desil!n Standards and Buildinl! Codes: Relaxing the City's design standards or building codes requires careful analysis by both the City and the developer. Lower parking standards, narrower streets, or reduced open space requirements may create a less desirable living environment; however, it could substantially increase the amount of developable land. Relaxing certain types of standards may make the overall community less desirable and lessen the value of market rate units. This approach could thus result in long-term negative social impacts to the community which would outweigh any short-term improvement to housing affordability. Down-sizing the affordable units can also reduce costs, although not as significantly as effectively increasing density. However, again the long-term social impact of this approach needs to be considered. RECOMMENDATION 4: The AHP implementation guidelines shall identify ways in which the City, non-profit developers, and the private sector can assist developers to fulfill their affordable housing requirements. The developer should be required to demonstrate the feasibility of providing affordable housing. The City should make a good faith effort to assist the developer to address the cost of providing the affordable units. -27- VIT. AFFORDABLE HOUSING POLICY ISSUES: Affordable Housing Types Although a majority of the housing units planned during the next five years are single-family detached, staff believes it is unreasonable to require these units to be designated as affordable units given the difference between the affordable price and the market price. The AHP implementation guidelines should allow developers to meet their requirement with for-sale attached housing and multi-family rental housing. The implementation guidelines should address the need for a variety of sizes of affordable units including 3 and 4 bedroom units for families. Limiting the Concentration of Affordable Housing The percentage of affordable low-income units in a given project or neighborhood is an issue as is the distribution of these units throughout the complex or neighborhood. In the past the City has not limited concentration except in public family housing projects (to 25 units). One consideration is the limited amount of land in eastern Chula Vista with sufficient density to build affordable multi-family projects. Given the low percentage of medium high and high density in the eastern communities, a restriction on concentration may make it more difficult to achieve the affordable housing requirement. For example, a 25% low-income concentration restriction would require a development to have 4 times its low-income requirement in approved multi-family units. To illustrate this example, a 2000 unit project with a 200 unit low-income requirement would need a base of 800 multifamily units in order to meet the concentration restriction. However, there may be creative approaches to project design which could also address this issue. Another consideration in restricting concentration is that certain types of projects require 100% concentration, e.g. Navy housing, HUD Section 202, senior density bonus housing, and public housing. The key to making these projects fit successfully into the community is good on-site management and appropriate design standards. RECOMMENDATION 5: The AHP implementation guidelines shall identify creative ways in which affordable housing projects can be successfully integrated into planned communities, taking into consideration social factors, programmatic constraints, and the amount of multi- family units in the project. Phasing of the Affordable Units In order to meet Regional Share, the City will need to ensure that affordable units be built in proportion to overall development. The AHP implementation guidelines should phase in the construction of the affordable units throughout the development project time frame. It should not allow affordable units to be deferred to the end of a project. -28- The AHP implementation guidelines also need to factor in the relationship between the master plan developer and merchant builders. If the affordable units are deferred and become the responsibility of a single merchant builder in a late phase, it may make his/her project financially infeasible. Phasing requirements are especially critical as growth management policies may restrict implementation of later phases of a SPA. For example, a finite number of building permits will be allowed in eastern Chula Vista prior to Highway 125 completion. Consideration of this factor can help assure timely affordable housing development. Phasing may need to be reviewed on already conditioned projects. Because of the low percentage of planned multi-family development in the approved master-planned communities, the City should encourage the affordable housing to be developed in the early phases. This will be critical for meeting the low-income regional share goal during this planning period. RECOMMENDATION 6: The AHP implementation guidelines shall include phasing requirements which will ensure timely development of the affordable units in the earliest development phase possible. The guidelines shall allow consideration of the logical development of the units in terms of facilities, the general development plan, fmancing, and merchant builder involvement. Duration of Affordability Some criteria need to be established to maintain affordability over time. Under the City's AHP, the duration of past restrictions have ranged from 10 to 30 years on rental units (depending on the programmatic restrictions); no restrictions have been placed on for-sale units. For sale units are more problematic to restrict than rental units due to appreciation in value. Examination of past efforts under the City's affordable housing program can provide some insight on how to proceed into this new planning period. In Eastlake, for-sale units sold to low income families 5 years ago are presently selling in the moderate-income range as the result of rapid appreciation in value. (These units were not assisted by public funds.) Apartments complexes developed in Rancho Del Rey under the AHP will become market-rate by 1996 as the ID-year affordability restriction expires. (Due to the way in which low-income rents are calculated, some of the restricted rent levels permitted under housing cooperation agreements actually exceed market-rate rents.) RECOMMENDATION 7: The AHP implementation guidelines shall include specific methods to maximize the duration of affordability restrictions on low-income rental units produced under the Affordable Housing Program. The City shall ensure the continued affordability of assisted low-income and moderate-income for-sale units by recapturing a percentage of the appreciation at the time of sale. These recaptured funds shall be used to fund an on-going affordable homeownership program. An assisted unit is any unit so designated whose affordability has been created through a subsidy of public funds, special incentives, or other discretionary -29- considerations to the unit or the project as a whole. State density bonus units and Section 8 assistance carry their own duration restrictions and therefore are excluded from this defrnition. Impact of the AHP on Overall Development Fees The inclusionary housing requirement is like a development fee in that it should be calculated into a pro-forma as an overall development cost. The City should consider how this "fee" increases the level of total development fees in Chula Vista. There is a point at which the total amount of development fees could make a given project infeasible. The City should examine where this feasibility point is and consider placing a cap on the developer's "fee" for affordable housing. This cap could be determined according to a per market-rate unit cost for providing affordable units (e.g. $6,000 per market rate unit). If the cost of providing the affordable units exceeded the cap, then the affordable housing requirement would be reduced appropriately. Or as a last resort option, the cap amount per unit could be paid as an in-lieu fee or credited toward a land set-aside. A Regional Affordable Housing Program SANDAG has recently identified the infrastructure needs of the region for the next 20 years and estimated the cost of this at several billion dollars. It is anticipated that developers will have to pay for their fair share of this infrastructure cost as they undertake development. The cost of providing the regional share of affordable housing could also be calculated on a regional basis. Based on this calculation, SANDAG could develop a regional Affordable Housing Program and implement a fair Housing Development Impact Fee. SANDAG could also assist local jurisdictions to determine the value of various types of offsets, e.g. reduced parking standards. The advantage of a regional approach would be to "level the playing field" for developers and local jurisdictions and establish comparable levels of development fees for all jurisdictions. Currently, a developer in a city with an inclusionary requirement or affordable housing policy is at a competitive disadvantage with a developer in a city without one. It should be recognized that the concept of regional impact fees is a controversial one, given its potential effects on overall housing affordability and economic development. However, there should at least be an effort to evaluate and monitor on a regional basis the "level of effort" which the various local jurisdictions are applying to meeting their regional share requirements, SO that jurisdictions which are conscientiously attempting to meet their regional share obligations are not penalized either fiscally or economically. RECOMMENDATION 8: The City shall encourage SANDAG to develop a regional Affordable Housing Program in order to "level the playing field" for developers and local jurisdictions. This regional program should create consistency in the requirements and incentives of local affordable housing programs, including the amount of in-lieu housing fees and the value of various offsets. vm. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDATION 1: That the Council adopt a Housing Element policy which shall be applied to all new housing developments except single-family, owner-built homes on individual lots-of-record. This Affordable Housing Policy (AHP) shall require a minimum of 10% of each housing development to be affordable to low and moderate-income households, with at least one half of those units (5 % of project total units) being designated for low-income households. For developments of less than 50 units, the developer may pay an in-lieu fee (to be established by the Council) in place of providing the affordable units. This policy should be periodically reevaluated to ensure that requirements placed on projects to be built after the current 5-year planning period will provide adequate affordable housing opportunities to meet the City's future housing needs. AHP implementation guidelines shall be developed to achieve flexibility and feasibility to meet this policy, and to maximize the use of available resources from the City, non-profit developers, and lenders. These Guidelines shall also establish a matrix of incentives to encourage developers to exceed the minimum requirements by increasing the amount of low-income units provided within the 10%, and/or in producing units affordable to households in the "lower" range of both low-income and moderate-income standards. The matrix of incentives shall be structured to provide greater incentives for greater affordability. , In conjunction with the policy implementation, the City shall evaluate the Land Use Element of the General Plan to determine the extent to which, in warranted cases, increases in density would facilitate the provision of affordable units. As appropriate, the City shall consider amendments to the Land Use Element. The City Council should make this evaluation a priority and request its completion within 6 months. RECOMMENDATION 2: For the purpose of meeting regional share goals, the City's affordable housing program shall define low-income and moderate-income in accordance with State law. (Current definitions are 51-80% of median-income for low-income and 81-120% of median income for moderate-income). RECOMMENDATION 3: The City shall encourage, through the plan review process and negotiations with developers, for-sale housing opportunities in the moderate-income range. Moderate-income affordability shall be based on not more than 33% of gross household income applied toward the toW housing payment, including principal, interest, taxes, insurance, homeowners fee, and assessment fees. RECOMMENDATION 4: The AHP implementation guidelines shall identify ways in which the City, non-profit developers, and the private sector can assist developers to fulfill their affordable housing requirements. The developer should be required to demonstrate the feasibility of providing affordable housing. The City should make a good faith effort to assist the developer to address the cost of providing the affordable units. -31- RECOMMENDATION 5: The AHP implementation guidelines shall identify creative ways in which affordable housing projects can be successfully integrated into planned communities, taking into consideration social factors, programmatic constraints, and the amount of multi- family units in the project. RECOMMENDATION 6: The AHP implementation guidelines shall include phasing requirements which will ensure timely development of the affordable units in the earliest development phase possible. The guidelines shall allow consideration of the logical development of the units in terms of facilities, the general development plan, financing, and merchant builder involvement. RECOMMENDA TION 7: The AHP implementation guidelines shall include specific methods to maximize the duration of affordability restrictions on low-income rental units produced under the Affordable Housing Program. The City shall ensure the continued affordability of assisted low-income and moderate-income for-sale units by recapturing a percentage of the appreciation at the time of sale. These recaptured funds shall be used to fund an on-going affordable homeownership program. An assisted unit is any unit so designated whose affordability has been created through a subsidy of public funds, special incentives, or other discretionary considerations to the unit or the project as a whole. State density bonus units and Section 8 assistance carry their own duration restrictions and therefore are excluded from this definition. RECOMMENDATION 8: The City shall encourage SANDAG to develop a regional Affordable Housing Program in order to "level the playing field" for developers and local jurisdictions. This regional program should create consistency in the requirements and incentives of local affordable housing programs, including the amount of in-lieu housing fees and the value of various offsets. -32- negative declaration PROJECT NAME: 1991 Revision to the Housing Element of the General Plan PROJECT LOCATION: City of Chula Vista ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. City-wide PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Chula Vista CASE NO: IS-92-08 DATE: October II, 1991 A. Proiect Backaround The State 'of Cal ifornia Department of Housing and Community Development requi res that the Housi ng El ement of the General Plan be peri odi ca 11 y updated to ensure that local policies and programs are responsive to changing conditions and future housing needs. The attached document entitled, "The City Chula Vista Housing Element of 1991" is proposed to replace the existing Housing Element as mandated by the State (California Government Code Article 10.6, Section 65580 et. seq.). B. Proiect Descriotion The purpose of the Housing Element Update of 1991 is the improvement of the City's housing efforts, and the increasing of its responsiveness to changing local and regional housing needs. The Housing Element of 1991 embodies an analysis and update of basic housing data and growth projections, and a refinement of the policies and programs of the previously adopted Housing Element of 1986. The revisions incorporate current data and information regarding population, socio-economic characteri st i cs, hous i ng and 1 and use i nventori es, fi nanc i a 1 ava il abil ity, and new program approaches ut i1 i zi ng both cont i nui ng and new government subsidies and public/private financing. C. Comoatibilitv with Zonina and Plans Adoption of the revised Housing Element may require zoning text amendments to incorporate new and revised programs. The proposed General Plan Amendment is not at vari ance with the General Pl an or other associ ated elements. D. Comoliance with the Threshold/Standards Policv The City of Chula Vista's Threshold/Standards Policy requires that individual projects comply with City standards for Fire, Pol ice, Traffic, Parks/Recreation, Drainage, Sewer, and Water. The proposed Housing Element will not cause an increase in density which could impact community services. Future development will be required to provide public services in accordance with City Threshold Policies. Individual projects will be subject to additional environmental review. ~I~ - :.--" .....$-..;-; ~....~- --- city 01 chula vista planning department environmental review ..ctlon erlY OF CHULA VISTA -2- E. Identification of Environmental Effects An initial study conducted by the City of Chula Vista determined that the proposed project will not have a significant environmental effect, and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. A Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The following impacts have been determined to be less than significant. Air Oualitv/land Use/Communitv Infrastructure/Enerav/Utilities/ TransDortation/Growth Inducement The Housing Element of 1991 employs the most current data available as presented in SANDAG'S Regional Housing Needs Statements (July 1990). The Element's Quantified Assistance objectives and related policies and programs (Part 3), represent the maximum amount of housing activity expected, and are compatible with the City's General Plan, zoning, and Growth Management Program. No new density bonus programs are proposed and the continuation of present programs will not result in density increases beyond present General Plan ceilings which are used to control regional air quality, infrastructure and other growth related services. A maximum of 25% net density bonus may be granted in certain instances pursuant to State law. Previ ous environmental review was conducted in 1981 for the Housing Element of 1981 (IS-81-44) and in 1986 for the Housing Element of 1986 (IS-86-44) which assessed s imil ar envi ronmenta 1 issues and found no si gnifi cant impacts. Therefore, air quality, land use, infrastructure, energy, utilities, transportat i on and growth inducement are not expected to be adversely impacted as a result of the adoption of the Housing Element of 1991. F. Mitiaation necessarv to avoid sianificant effects The proposed project is not associated significant environmental impacts, mitigation will be required. with any significant or potentially therefore, no project specific G. Findinas of Insianificant ImDact Based on the following findings, it is determined tha~ the project descri bed above wi 11 not have a s i gni ficant envi ronmenta 1 impact and no environmental impact report needs to be prepared. 1. The project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal conmunity, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate illportant examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. -3- The project is not site specific and no increase in density above current General Plan ceil ings is proposed. No specific development will result with the proposed Housing Element Update; therefore, the project does not have the potential to impact any biological or cultural resources. Future proposals to implement the Housing Element on a site specific basis would be subject to additional environmental review. 2. The project has the potential to achieve short-tenn environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. The proposed revision of the Housing Element is designed to achieve long - term hous i ng goals in conformance with the General Plan goals and object i ves. There are no short-term impacts whi ch woul d occur with implementation of the proposed project. 3. The project has possible effects which are individually 1 imited but cumulatively considerable. As used in the subsection, .cumulatively considerable. means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. The proposed project will not result in any significant, adverse environmental effects which are cumulative or growth-inducing in nature. The project will not cause an increase in density which has not been accounted for in General Plan projections. 4. The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. There is no evidence that the project will have a substantial adverse effect on human beings. Air quality impacts were deemed to be less than significant. No other public health impacts direct or indirect were identified. H. Consultation I. Individuals and Orqanizations City of Chula Vista: Roger Daoust, Engineering John Lippitt, Engineering Cliff Swanson, Engineering Hal Rosenberg, Engineering Bob Sennett, Planning Ken Larsen, Director of Building and Housing Carol Gove, Fire Marshal Captain Keith Hawkins, Police Department Shauna Stokes, Parks and Recreation Department Diana Lilly, Planning Chula Vista City School District: Kate Shurson Sweetwater Union High School District: Tom Silva -4- Applicant's Agent: Ed Batchelder City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 2. Documents Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code General Plan, City of Chula Vista IS-BI-44, Housing Element of 1981 15-86-44, Housing Element of 1986 3. Initial Studv This environmental determination is based on the attached Initial Study, any comments received on the Initial Study and any comments received during the public review period for the Negative Declaration. Further information regarding the environmental review of this project is available from the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010. Yv..a.N-( MM (I. ~ ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR EN 6 (Rev. 12/90) WPC 9829P APPLICATION CANNOT BE ACCEPTED UNLESS SITE PlAN IS FOLDED TO FIT INTO AN 8-1/2 X 11 FOLDER A. BACKGROUND INITIAL STUDY City of Chula Yista Application Form FOR OFFICE USE Case No. I$-9&-C8 Deposit ---- Receipt No. ---- Date Rec'd ~. ;;/1'f/ Accepted by ---:. --f#Jo Project No. __ 1. PROJECT TITLE Draft Housinq Element of 1991 2. PROJECT LOCATION (Street address or description) Citv of Chula Vista Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. Citv-Wide 3. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION Revises the Housino Element of 1986 as reouired by Sta te Law Updates va ri ous backqround da ta. assesses hous i no neE'ds. sets goals and objectives, and presents a 5-vear plan of actions to address needs. 4. Name of Applicant City of Chula Vista Address 276 Fourth AVE'nlJE' City (hula Vista State r.A 5. Name of Preparer/Agent Ed Batchelder Address Same as above City St~te Relation to Applicant Emplovee Phone f;Ql_E;1nl Zip 91910 Phone Zip 6. Indicate all permits' or approvals and enclosures or documents required by the Environmental Review Coordinator. a. Permits or approvals required: 2L- General Plan Amendment ___ Design Review Application ___ Public Project ___ Rezone/Prezone ___ Tentative Subd. Map ___ Annexation ___ Precise Plan ___ Grading Permit ___ Redeyelopment Agency ___ Specific Plan ___ Tentative ~arcel Map ___ O.P.A. ___ Condo Use Permit Site Plan & Arch.Review ___ Redevelopment Agency Variance ::: Project Area Committee D.D.A. ::: Coastal Development Use Permit ___ Other Permit b. Enclosures or documents (as required by the Environmental Review Coordinator). ___ Grading Plan Arch. Elevations ___ Parcel Map ::: Landscape Plans ___ Precise Plan ___ Tentative Subd. Map ___ Specific Plan ___ Improvement Plans ___ Other Agency Permit ___ Soils Report or Approvals Required ___ Hazardous Waste Assessment ___ Hydrological Study ___ Biological Study ___ Archaeological Survey ___ Noise Assessment ___ Traffic Impact Report ...L Other 1991 Housing Element Text WPC 9459P -6- B. PROPOSED PROJECT 1. Land Area: sq. footage N/A or acreage N/ A If land area. to be dedicated, state acreage and purpose. * Project is an update of the General Plan Housina Element. 2. Complete this section if project is residential. a. Type development: Single family Two family Multi family Townhouse Condominium b. Total number of structures c. Maximum height of structures d. Number of Units: 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms 3 bedrooms 4 bedrooms Total units e. Gross density (DU/total acres) f. Net density (DU/total acres minus any dedication) g. Estimated project population h. Estimated sale or rental price range i. Square footage of structure j. Percent of lot coverage by buildings or structures k. Number of on-site parki~g spaces to be provided 1. Percent of site in road and paved surface - 3. . Complete this section if 'project is commercial or industrial or mixed 1lll. a. Type(s) of land use F1 oor area Type of construction used b. Height of structure(s) in the structure c. d. Describe major access points to the structures and the orientation to adjoining properties and streets e. Number of on-site parking spaces provided f. Estimated number of employees per shift , Number of shifts Total g. Estimated number of customers (per day) and basis of estimate ___ h. Estimated number of deliveries per day WPC 9459P -7- i. Estimated range of service area ind basis of estimate j. Type/extent of operations not in enclosed buildings k. Hours of operation 1. Type of exterior lighting 4. If project is other than residential, commercial or industrial complete this section. I. Type of project revised Houisna Elpmpnt of thp Cit~ Gpnpritl Plitn b. Type of facilities provided N/A c. Square feet of enclosed structures d. Height of structure(s) - maximum . e. Ultimate occupancy load of project f. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided g. Square feet of road and paved surfaces N/A h. Additional project characteristics Dresents an evaluation of thp 1986 N/A N/A N/A N/A Element's imDlenlentation. Analizes current and oroipcted nppd~.rpsources and constraints related to the Drovision of housinq citv-wide. Sets forth goals, objectives, polices, and programs for the 1991-1996 planning period. C. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS 1. If the project could result in the direct emission of any air pollutants, (~ydrocarbons, sulfur, dust, etc.) identify them. N/A 2. Is any type of grading or excavation of the property anticipated N/A (If yes, complete the following:) . a. Excluding trenches to be backfilled, how many cubic yards of earth will be excavated? b. How many cubic yards of fill will be placed? c. How much area (sq. ft. or acres) will be graded? d. What will be the - Maximum depth of cut Average depth of cut Maximum depth of fill Average depth of fill - WPC 9459P -8- 3. Will there be any noise generated from the proposed project site or from points of access which lIay impact the surrounding or adjacent land uses? N/A 4. Describe all energy consuming devices which are part of the proposed project and the type of energy used (air conditioning, electrical appliance, heating equipment, etc.) N/A 5. Indicate the amount of natural open space that is part of the project (sq. ft. or acres) N/A 6. If the project will result in any employment opportunities describe the nature and type of these jobs. N/A Will highly flanvnable or potentially substances be used or stored site? N/A 8. How many estimated automobile trips, per day, will be generated by the project? N/A 7. explosive materials or within the project 9. Describe (if any) off-site improvements necessary to implement the project, and their points of access or connection to the project site. Improvements include but not limited to the following: new streets; street widening; extension of gas, electric, and sewer lines; cut and fill slopes; and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. A variety fo public facilities and infrastructure will be necessary to Q\,.\,..uJlludaLt: I,uu:::>ill~ dC'vclu~IIIt::IIL D'JL;l.;...cLcd b] tin:: lIuu~;II~ [1'C:1llt;1IL. Adl;;quate provi~ion of thp~p i~ an Element coal and will be ensured throuah arowth management controls and other conditions applied to specific project proposals. D. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 1. Geoloav Has a geology study been conducted on the property? N/A (If yes, please attach) Has a Soils Report on the project site been made? N/A (If yes, please attach) 2. Hvdroloav Are any of the following features present on or adjacent to the site? N/A (If yes, please explain in detail.) a. Is there any surface evidence of a shallow ground water table? b. Are there any watercourses or drainage improvements on or adjacent to the site? WPC 9459P -9- c. Does runoff from the project site drain directly into or toward a domestic water supply, lake, reservoir or bay? d. Could drainage from the site cause erosion or siltation to adjacent areas? e. Describe all drainage facilities to be provided and their location. 3. Noise a. Are there any noise sorces in the project vicinity which may impact the project site? N/A 4. Bioloav N/A a. Is the project site in a natural or partially natural state? b. If yes, has a biological survey been conducted on the property? c. Yes Describe location, any) will all trees and vegetation on the site. height, diameter, and species of trees, and be removed by the project. Indicate which (if No (Please attach a copy). 5. Past Use of the land N/A a. Are there any known historical or archeological resources located on or near the project site? b. Are there any known paleontological resources? c. Have there been any hazardous materials disposed of or stored on or near the project site? d. What was the land previously used for? WPC 9459P -10- 6. Current land Use I. Describe 111 structures and land uses currently existing on the ~roject site. existinQ housinQ stock is evaluated in Part 2 of the Draft HouisnQ Element update. b. Describe 111 structures Ind llnd uses currently existing on Idjacent property. N/A North South East West 7. Social a. Are there any residents on site? (If so, how many?) Citv population as of 1/1/91 is 138,722 b. Are there any current employment opportunities on site? (If so, how many and what type?) 8. Please provide any other information which lIIay assist in the. evaluation of the proposed project. California Gov. Code Article 10.6. Seciton 65580 et seQ.. requires the Housinq Element to be periodicallv updated to assure that local policies and prOQrams are responsive to chanQinQ conditions and needs. The Housinq Element of 1991 employs the most current data available. as presented in SANDAG's ReQional HousinQ Needs Statement - July 1990. The Element's Quantified Assistance objectives and related policies and prOQrams (Part 3), represent the maximum feasibi~ amount of housing activity expected, and are substantially compatible with the City's General Plan, zoning, and Growth i'lanagement Program. In certain instances, a net density bonus of up to 25% may be granted pursuant to State Law. Additionally, zoning text amendments may be necessary to incorporate revised policies and programs. As reference, the previous Housing Elements of 1981 and 1986 were reviewed under 15-81-44 and 15-86-44. WPC 9459P -11- E. CERTIFICATION I, Owner/owner in escrow* or I~~& , Ed a tche 1 der, Emp 1 oyee rit~ nf rhrllrl Vic::t:l onsu1tant or Agent* or HEREBY AFFIRM, that to the best of my belief, the statements and information herein contained are in all respect~ true and correct and that all known information concerning the project and its setting has been included in this application for an Initial Study of possible environmental impact and any enclosures for attachments thereto. DATE: SeDtembpr In. lqql *If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name. WPC 9459P -12- -_.--- .. . . ; . , 1 , , . J . I~ I! ," ..' .1 .. 1- &4 -. ,,, :>f I 1 " ii" J! .' 1;1; I . - '-h- II- ;I E ;-I"i I" 1.: _ u .- 2" -I!"':! i,;:: .... uliu ,,; .: II E'I .. 13 i Ii c. ')( 'Y ~'~. >f I I I I I I I I I I ~ _I - J . u~ .=j1 .10;;1 rl~ ,,1.; I". - ~E -r 1!~ . -.---. - liS 11 I :; t . Ii i- .1 - - -" . I " ... __ I i U i i Ii a .: ;Ii. .. .; .. I :'5 I IJ~ 1"( ". I ~~~ . .. ..=~ I,s - I . - _ l li~ '1 . - ~i. 'Iii i i :c,'U \ -' \ . .. .. ..--- ----- 'K1 -:>.t "XI I I 1 I I I ,.= . J" ; 11 u c: - II 11 I ,:I -I! w. I!~ .,E. - ~i - - I.. III Ii J iii --I XI XI ..,.L I ; I I I I I I E! I' I I I S I -! I I . 1'= .i .' 'i~ II } - j n ~l ~ 111 D .. I . 1, 1: i: .i II! . Is; jl 11:. li~ " ,,~ -, I' ~ i. .. Wi i Iii:: J . - .... Ii .. ..",; i ~1 .; _ 'I- h : ! j ill: I I!: ! .,'i i Ij~ I.'" -- .. . - .. . Ii ! a ~ 'J! . 1': ii 11 I -'-I J . 1'=.1 !i i- ,i! . . . . a K , ' ---.---- --.--------- - __ .J_ - - -.. - ------ - ------------------. . 7'1 "'4 ..!I YJ '>1 --:YI >t ><t ~I' . I I I I I I I I I 1 I 'I J . I 1 I I I I' ,. . ...." ~ ~;I , I -, - li-;5 I ~ i-I) I ... i . .1" 11 . iI ~ = IV ~- _ i II iI, .- J I ~ ~- i ... . - . - I , I - ~.= .. I~I - i i ...! I i Ili~ ,1 1: JI i. I~I . ~It I' -... r:: ... I! . iE . .f ~i )i .... i ! '~1'1! ~, I, .i -. ,11 . .i ., ..... = -::, .~... J;.~ ~ C.. _E; Ii -I o. -.: i i r"- I:! Ii! -.. - : .... Ii 5';. II i I i=i - .. ... In -.- r .0:;1 :; ,eft sit. i~ 11 .. u'; - !I ,-- . i . !U I .. .. . .. . .. i .; .. . .. '" .. ..: oi I: :I I )'1 ...,.1 > I I 1 I .1 1 I ~ i~S' i ~i!l , S!ii .. 1,- j.. ~ in' ~I I. iij ~l '! h 0 . .I. f!l'b I~I .I_i_ Iii n )1: a ..!n 1;;'5 I I ... .: 1 I 1 1 ':'1 Xl .>1, I I. I 1.1 1 .,. I '> I ;.~ Uti ~u Ilj! ,1'5'; ~'.'" . -i Ji!li slH .. )! . J! .Ii II: Iii -. I I-I;! 'ait ,.. JI: i= = ~ if..! - -II' . 11 : I." ~. "&!i i ~,;.. I 'h ~I~ .1 ~~!!i !~i II! 'J:Ji ~,~~! . ~i' ~ -..n .1 II! . i..{' Ii ':"JI1. -jr: 11_: -HI: ,! ,!! i! _I Ii _1 .;. E'; .. v'" i: . , . .. I I .. -- ----. - -----.-. --- - . ' ~ -:J ~ )l'.d V '14 '::.::1 ~ )<I I I I I I I I r I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II 11: JI' 'i . II 1111 fi I .. . ..~ r - - - .. _ i e I - . ]f' al II~ - - f ! .. . 'I; $ J . .5 i j I .111 D II IJ!1 .. I - J!:: = I i Ii I,i, c. Ei ill' i i . a - ,,1: i I!' .. .~ .~ E I I II _11 I; II.. I i = !'I; ..- -.. .. II ... I Ii" J~ -oS w - .. ~ :1 Ire: Ii 1iJ!! II j ii I .! - HI :Ii. i -II ~ .. ut:_ . .- Ji! =..~ I . .. .: I.II! . .. u .. . .: .. _Z- .' .; ..: .. - I - - ~ . I : ! : i t '. ~I I. Ii ""I" _:I 'i e . ,.(1 , ~ Xf~ ><J . >4 A ~ ><'1 I I I, I I I . -. _r=.. I' ..~ ;I _ Ii i I = iii, Ii -. ..I I: t . 1= ~i II II Ij '1;1 I~ _J Jill.. i" II; 1.:1 ut J! II i~ II Iii I. .. u . t . I . .1 I' .1 I I; - a!'i .. ;I ... -)' i!!! tll } i I ...!.. ... . ...,Ii :I-I. - · ... ... - .1 · .1 i I ;ji!l 1"1 _Iii i I~:. II ~ t. . ~ il!~1I :;1 Iii '.-- - 11!lIi _e -I .i ~ 'I; _1.:1 . '~II iU ij'j J ~ ~I e .w. ~ i .. 1.;1 - : c'l;lt'l; ii~; I'I! ;; . .. 11 e iJ .. . .; ::i t ,;. .- - - - a ~ . --- .-...-- ~_._--_.." " .,. . . ---- '7'- , Y, . ><J . I I I . I II$iJ~-,. Iii jj;;"!!- liJ~ :J! r.=". I ~ J i..t~i! - J II g Jiih Ii.. II fi1!; .; it !' =1:; {!If ." .r 5 ,t... j;Ui:;ii Iii! ~ I I I I . ". =!!~~iJj" '! j 1"'1-- !'j~-"= _ . ~~I eJ. i n~1I IIi! II "I-,Ii . l Ji=t!f i'''' :: j 51:: .i.f.fJji: , ..-I"-"!. if f . ,- .!I~b-l~i~ j:l UUI-J! I t j ~.ijil!:lil~t. . ~-! _II -,,- "J ...-- - --I I ,'..It Jlj-~II I I I;; . - c - J - .. =,= Ji' ,-:-. ~ ~ - .1 I ~!J!i~E (u: Ii! nil. ~h I i_ ii~J! r' : :; Un_J! - , $:; . u .,; ;:j ! a K ::XI /1 -( ~ ::>t >", .1, '>1. I I .. II" .. ~!-= .... ,.u I;j "~j 1'1 i -. - i Ii - I ....I: ..~ ".. i\ ii- -, - II: "I~ J!ii .il ~hb -. I =i !I~ r t= .. u n , r · Ii ~ - 1'5 t . i... -- ji:i !J!~.. z . jJ . ~"i i ,i! II~! . lit III . , t=.. , '. I, - ~ 'I t';jJ . "i "i III ~ ,Ii ::!! lIull 5 ::":: I J ~III e Iii 5jl,J 511 '!If Iii.. - In . -i- Jj 'j' .. J ~i ~~l i Iii J :J!I ju i ~..t_ iU1: :Ii ii . Ji ... I;i 'iil J; . .. .II..... i .- .. .; ... - " .. ~" .: .. .. Ii ! - - - ,. .: III. Dete,.ination (To be completed ,by the Lead Agency.). On the basis of this tnitial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will.be ~repared'."~..[1i] I find that although the proposed project could have a stgnificant effect on the environment, there will not be . significant effect in this case because the .itigation Masures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION WIll BE PREPARED........~..........................................[ ] I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT i$ required........[ ] Date 12(0.0\ ~~~ Signature For \ .- VPC 9459P -28- MEMORANDUM FEBRUARY 18, 1992 TO: VIA: FROM: SUBJECT: CHAIRWOMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNIN~MISSION KEN LEE - ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PLANNING ED BATCHELDER - ASSOCIATE PLANNER ~ ATTACHMENTS FOR ITEM #2, AGENDA OF FEBRUARY 26, 1992 It was discovered that a set of attachments to the Affordable Housing Policy Issues Paper was inadvertantIy left out of the packets distributed yesterday. That Issues Paper is Attachment B of the staff report. Please find the missing attachments enclosed. My apologies for any inconvenience. ATTACHMENT A CRITERIA FOR CONSIDElUTION IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS TO LOCAL JURISDICTIONS Pursuant to State Housing Element Law, Government Code Section 65584, following are the leven factors to be employed by the Council of Governments (SANDAG) in establishing each jurisdiction's "Regional Share" of new housing needs for all income groups: . market demand for housing . employment opportunities . availability of suitable sites and public facilities . community patterns . type and tenure of housing need . loss of units in assisted housing development to non-low-income use through mortgage/repayment, subsidy contract expiration, or termination of use restrictions . housing needs of farm workers and other disadvantaged segments of the housing market . ,"".. ATTACHMENT S' RESOLUTION NO. 15552 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING THE REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS STATEMENT FOR THE PERIOD 1991-1996 AND ADOPTING THE REGIONAL SHARE AND FAIR SHARE ALLOCATIONS THEREIN The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby resolve as follows: I WHEREAS, on Jafiuary 17, 1984, the San Diego Association of Governments adopted a Regional Housing Needs Statement for the period 1984 to 1990, which recommended the regional share and "fair shjlre" of housing needs for each jurisdiction as part of the San Diego region's total housing needs; and WHEREAS, the City of Chu1 a Vi sta adopted the Regi ona1 Housi ng Needs Statement and the Regional Housing Allocation Fonnula as part of its Housing Element; and - WHEREAS, the existing Statement and Fonnu1a relied upon the 1980 Census, Series 6 Regional Growth Forecasts, and other infonnation available at that time; and WHEREAS, the effective period of the Statement and Fonnu1a (1984-1990) is about to lapse; and WHEREAS, the jurisdictions in the San Diego region are submitting revised Housing Elements for review and cormnents by the State Department of Housing and Community Development; and , WHEREAS, the State Housing law requires each jurisdiction to identify its share of the region's housing need as part of its Housing Element and to avoid the concentration of lower income households; and WHEREAS, the San Diego Association of Governments has revised the Regional Housing Needs Statement and Fonnu1a for 1991-1996 which uses the 1980 Census, Series 7 Regional Growth Forecasts, and other infonnation currently available; and WHEREAS, the adoption of the revised Regional Housing Needs Statement would provide a step in a locally developed method of addressing housing needs of all households. . NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chu1a Vista does hereby resolve as follows: Resolution No. 15552 Page 2 1. The Ci ty of Chula Vi sta recogni zes the Regi onal Housi ng Needs Statement, including the Regional Share and Fair Share goal numbers as indicated in Exhibit A & B attached hereto and incorporated as though fully set forth herein, for use in the City of Chula ~ista Housing Element revisions. 2. The City of Chula Vista hereby adopts its regional share of 3.3 percent, and its "fair share" allocation of 4.9 percent and a five-year goal to assist 1,058 lower income households as part of the total lower income household goal for the region (21,728). Presented by: Approved as .to form by: ~~~ K~ert A. el er Director of Planning < ~ :E . I- - c o ~ Q E =~ ~- - . !V)g ~~~t.CI ., t"I '" ~ >-"'=...... :z=7 ~ ~~:ft c- -=:0 ~W"J__ '" ~ - _.2= I!:~ Q. -0 P:':! =" ~ = ! ~.. ~.E., e~_ 1:''800 c;E .S! j ~ M . -..,., CI~I~ .,1_- E C ] !I., ~~ ~ - 0> =~t.J;: " 0 &.. 0 >- bD~ - .;. ~ en_I a: EJ .. ~I -C"',.. ~O&..O O~!- ... IHn~ = ~ ~!;I .- 8 :I, ='" < 'j ~ !., 00> -" < ~".~-.~...-_D..___~I ..~"o.___."_,.._"~._~ ~~"-.~~ .".~.~~~-~o "- " "~--~ ~..."~-~~.~hN.".-.-1 -.".~.O_.~".N."'O._" ~,..- ."~ "-"~~~,... 10ft - - - ~ ~ _ it- -=- III .. 1ft 0 ... 1ft In .. .,. fI't CII '" _ . ... ..I .a-"'.fI't_"fI't"_t.CIN.""...._ ~.- ""~ "--~.~." CII'" - - - ~ "1 :~:==~:::~:~:=:::~=I .__ _"III "-..,..'"o_.__,..~ - - - - 0 .. =:=~~:~~:~;:=:==~::I N~~"O....N_...Q._Ct.CI._.t.CIl c~ ~~~ ~ ~~N""~ ftOI . 00 _.."..."Cft'__.."__".O.OCII' O~"'_.C,"Na"N."O_N.._ _"._C_C"__~_......,""'._", ~~ ""0 N~~~"~~~ ~ol - -.., " _"."_""""...OCft""'__.._ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~'~~~~~~ . - jl II .., or: ... X II~ .c ! ~o ~o! i50 08 : S i>~&..e.~..o.~ r~ = ~ ~ ~~~~~~~C~~~_.~. 0 ~~o~.~a~~o~..Q~~e.g ~~~_Ugu~ E-~.ecc=-- ~G8!~~~!~~~~~~~~~~5 Reso1 uti on No. 15552 Page3 .. ~ .. IS .. " II: - . .. - '-:!:. " =. ~ .- . .. ol- e f . 6S ii co c i = - ~ 0>- ~ .. ..- = - . ;!. " ! ~ 00 00 ol . - . N- o. oA- t: M i: " z .. co ;; ~ - 0_ .~ ..- o = .-...: _~c ~:~ -.... _2",--: ""- . lit cg,;~ EUf!" .!1It." O_Ll:Z YE>" "fee "".,..e J!c._~ "'_"0 t.ccu E E ~ H =-~ f'Oo:'- c..tJ~::; ... - .. ..... -00 ~ ccc! E E E E = =' ~ ::) 00,0'0 UUUU - .. 00 _ 00 00 .;- .. = - - - .. - M II ! '" - . e I:' .. g .. ~ = .. .. " ;: ~ i . M ~ :E (!. "C .. e ~ . in .a .. ~ z ~ !i ~ .. co .S! t' '" I:' < C z < II> I) ~ .s ~ - .. ~ o . .. '" ." o . - .. '0 ~ "! - .. '0 ~ ~ -: - . EXHIBIT A Resolution No. 15552 Page 4 , " ~ c: E c u -- -. ~V,j~ '" ~- -e ~ ~~ =CoIC::cPI "Z - .!'.. & I - t:CoI- ",_'-cPI =!lC=: '" c c: U'J=~ ~- -. C "' ...,2 t' = OJ ~:!2 -.2 =t5 ., .~~ ! . c ..- . . -. Of~ "i.!; -"'~ ~.!: t ... ... o 00;;, ~BII · '" u E ~ . eGO :-E o '" f~ _ c c . '" u c'" u ~ ~ ~ .. _ u ~... ... o o :;t .. f "'I c.- =:;:i ..... CoIl - &. ~I M_ =1 "-1 II 01 ~S O~ ..~::1 c: . "'I -"'~ ';i:r.. CoI iC..!: tl ~ .~I ...- o . ; _I ..- .= .0 ;:; ...~O__"".~~__.~._.ij "~~W~"..~~ftc._"n.~~ ~~" ..- .- ..~-.-.~ -- -., o."__~.."__..._." "e~ O~~"CO."_~~~_""ft~~N ~~~n~~~ft~~"~~~~~~~. ._ft ..,.. ~_ ~...._"_ .. .. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I .._0"""0"009""""0"_1 .. - ~;=~~:=~~:E~~;:::::! ~ '" _ N N.. N _ , '" t"t _ t"t., _ N ..( -.n 4 ""'_~'~NC__."_~__".".t ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I ..... -I ~- " .. =:- " - - .. e_ ":.~ .. .. - - .. "'- ~= .. 1- ~~~..."_"e_".".NON_C 0 "~"~.."cPlN_cPlN~cPI~~""'.~- "_ ~~~_~~~R~~R~~~~~~~1'~c _~_ .,..w .,_ ~,,:",,-"~,,~ - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I - .._0"""0"00"":""0": = c:, ..=~ ~~ . ~. '" ~ .. ~ ~ ~ "i . =-... ColI II 0 . ::.J ot:j II. &. ; ~o .0= ~ ~, O::.J ~ 2 ~~~~C~~-eC~; ~~ = r ~ J>==~~~~~c~~~~~~. 0 g ~~~2~.5~~~=~=~-~!c.~ _.. ~=~_~~~~ E-~Ic~~~~- cE8~~~~!1~~~l~~Q.~>3 ~ i 'i '" o It i5 " 01 .!i '" ] ~ . ~ - ~ . - .. e - " .. .. .,; ... .. '" ~ . i:* t:~ - . - .. ~': - - V;.t; - iC':::,.. .: :.Jf:N .. ...~- :. c~. 13 ::t>-~ C,I _lit" Z ......: III =-=~ -! 1:111'1- 11'1 ~~r;o "iC ze..... ~ r>"; E =~~ E .J:! f.. :. ~5~ -.. c :;1Iti- .... "- g -::- c':: -='1.:: :; c.:! ~-= ~ E..o oe.,. >- ...1It....... .e_ -co.C:c" oE f~EE'" rJ_ _-~~_ .r&Dg.!~Oron -"t,.;wuco.tJtJe-i .!..!IC;:..... 'O_~..._e-I..~ {!.~~c~t:.c= E~E~i~g; 2cecrooo-:) ""c.;:-tJCt.H.,;i;,,) .. c: .. ;;: .. ~ c: ~ - ;; .. < .. c: ;; ~ c .. " ~ .. - """ """ """ -e-I...... C C = C ; ; ~ ; "5==:) t..t..t,...... _.i~ c: c: c: E - - :) = = "'O-S-S t..:..t." EXHIBIT B - ;: .!! :;; ~ . :.. ~ .. .. '8 c S " ~ E i '" .. ] ~ z i:' ;; ~ c ~ Z .. '" .. .. k :i. '. Resolution No. 15552 PageS PASSED, APPRDVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, this 13th day of March, 1990 by the following vote: AYES: Councl1members: Malcom, McCandliss, Moore, Nader, Cox NOES: Councilmembers: None ABSENT: Councl1members: None ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: None 4:J;1. !.Qr" ATTEST: ~i!i!'trtlfi. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss. CITY OF CHULA VISTA ) I, Beverly A. Autheiet, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing 'Resolution No. 15552 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 13th day of March, 1990. Executed this 13th day of March, 1990. ~~{il~-r;~~/' ATTACHMENT C Regional Share allocations apply to the period starting January 1989. In the RHNS, SANDAG proportionately reduced the allocations for the periQ(! from July 1991 to July 1996 to assist local jurisdictions, since that period closely coincides with local Housing Element update timeframes. While SANDAG's adjusted figures provide a benchmark, state law requires actual allocations for the 7/91-7/96 period to be determined by subtracting local housing construction activity for 1/89 to 7/91 (by income group) from the January 1989 total allocation figure. In Chula Vista's case, total construction activity for that period exceeded SANDAG's interpolation by 1,243 units, and thereby would constitute a reduction of Regional Share allocation figures shown in the RHNS as adopted by the City Council on March 13, 1990. The revised remainder of needed construction activity by income group is shown in the right ~d column. The need to provide 628 new low-income units over the next five years will, in large part, be met by units required under the Affordable Housing Policy and Program, as the majority of new construction will occur in large projects east of 1-805. REGIONAL SHARE ALLOCATION CHULA VISTA AND SAN DIEGO REGION 1989-1996 TOTAL REGIONAL NEEDS STATEMENT' Region Actual City' City Regional Chull ViaU 1/89 to C.V. as Construction Share alllnee 1/89 to 7/96 7/96 X ReQ;or 1/89 to 7/91 7/91 to 7/96 1,232 37,313 3.3 (OX) 1,232 910 27,579 3.3 282 (9%) 628 1,124 34,068 3.3 993 (33%) 131 2.088 ~ 3.3 ~ iml ill 5,354 162,229 3,028 2,326 Allocation by Income Grouc Very Low (23%) Low (In) Moderate (21%) Other (39%) - IBased on SANDAG Regional Housing Needs statement - Table A, July 1990. 2Based on city records, and construction acti vi ty in accordance with state Department of Finance annual reporting. -34- IITAn 01 '~UFOItNIA otoaOE ~IAH. ~, )PEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND Division of Housing Policy Development P. O. Box 952053 I Sacramento, CA 94252-2053 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ~, ~ ATTACHMENT D August 8, 1990 Michael McLaughlin Senior Regional Planner San Diego Association 01 Governments 401 B Street, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101 Dear Mr. McLaughlin: Thank you for the copy of the draft "Regional Housing Needs Statement" for San Diego County which you provided to us, We understand that the plan is being reviewed by your members and will soon be presented to your Board for adoption. .~ We have reviewed the plan for conformance with the provisions of Government Code Section 65584. Subject to the understandings and actions described below, in our opinion, the draft plan conforms to statutory requirements. If there are any changes in the plan, we will review those independently 01 this finding. , The instructions In paragraph 2 on page 102 may not be sufficiently clear to prevent misunderstandings in the housing element review process, ~n reviewing housing ~ elements, we will require that each locality account for Its allocation of construction needs from January 1. 1989 to July 1, 1996 by the four Income group percentages shown in Table 56. localities may subtract units completed since January 1, 1989. Subtractions by Income group should be based on evidence of the Income levels for which . the housing was provided. The Instructions on page 102 reler to net surpluses and net shortages, and this method can be used; but localities should understand that this is to be . clone by Income group served by the new units. Because January 1990 DOF estimates will be helplul In updating construction needs, we recommend that you provide a copy 01 those estimates. A copy 01 DOF's Report E-5, May 1990, is enclosed. The plan Indicates that "Fair Share" goals are calculated on the basis of a "2.5 percent per year 'good faith' effort." As previously stated In our letter of June 11, 1984 on your last plan, we must note that this criterion Is not part 01 State housing element law, and that this Department will not apply It In Its housing element review..As your plan Indicates on page a, quantified objectives pursuant to Government Code Section c 15583(b) call for "the maximum number of housing units that can be constructed, ~rehabilitated and conserved over a five-year time frame." 245 .. - Michael McLaughlin Page 2 ..... ~ The plan does not discuss the 90-day local revision periOd provided for In Section 65584. We recommend that you provide each local government with written notice of this provision. _& " you have any questions, please feel free to contact Camilla Cleary of my staff at any time at (916) 323.3180. We look forward to continuing 10 work with you on planning 10 meet the housing needs of San Diego County. Sincerely, t1~~. Na cy J. Ja4r, '4 I) Div ion of H'ousing POlic~velopment '- ...~ - -.. Enclosure - _06 - -- -- , -~ -- -- =.J '] -J ~J -- I ~ ~ -~J 246 - 1 J Attachment E Affordable Housing Program-Defmitions of AffordabiIity The City has not adopted specific definitions of affordable rental and for-sale housing. The affordable rent and housing payment levels which staff proposes is as follows: (Note: The size of household is assumed as follows: For rent units: I bedroom-2 persons; 2 bedroom-3 persons; 3 bedrooms-5 persons. For-sale units: 1 bedroom-2 persons; 2 bedrooms-4 persons; 3 bedrooms-6 persons.) Affordable Housin~ Pro~ Income level Rental Units % for payment x % of median I bedroom 2bedroom 3bedroom low-income 30x80 $ 661 $744 $ 893 For Sale Units low-income 33 x 80 727 909 1,055 mod-income 33 x 120 1,089 1,363 1,581 Assisted Housing Development-Defmitions of AffordabiIity For housing assisted with the low and moderate housing set-aside funds or provided with a density bonus, State law provides the following definitions: Assisted Housinl! Develonment % for payment Income level x % of median I bed/2JJer 2bed/4per 3bed/6JJer Density Bonus-Rental very low 30x50 $ 413 $ 465 558 low 30x60 495 558 669 Redevelopment-Rental low-income 30x60 495 558 669 mod-income 30 x 110 909 1,023 1,226 Redevelopment-For Sale low 30x70 579 723 839 mod-income 35 x 110 1,059 1,325 1,537 For the AHP and Redevelopment For-Sale programs, the loan amount supported at various income levels is as follows: (Note: The figures below are based on 9.5% interest, 30 year loan, homeowner & assessment fees deducted, For units built on the western side of Chula Vista, add $10,000 to the figures. To calculate the affordable sales prices, add the amount of the downpayment to the figures.) Income level Su-P-POrtable Loan Amounts at Various Income Levels % for payment x % of median lbed/2per 2bed/4ner 3bed/6JJer Affordable Housing Program low-income 33 x 80 $ 52,000 $ 74,000 $ 90,000 mod-income 33 x 120 94,000 125,000 150,000 Redevelopment low 30x70 35,000 52,000 120,000 65,000 mod-income 35 x 110 90,000 145,000 r;.. = i ! i ~ :>-. .0 13 "0 .~ ~ l;> .~ - .~ ~ .... .s ':a ~ 8 .5 I ..... o '" "is .s ] ! \0 00 00 l"- I"- I"- ~ 1 : ..... !D !D ~ \0 ! on on ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ = &! i 8 on 0 ~ ~ on ~ on I"- ~ ~ ~ os ::!: 5 on I"- :g ..... !") on \0 I"- ~ ~ ~ ~ - ! !") = :g g;: GO ~ ~ ! ~ ~ on 00 ~ C'I on oS i ~ on ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ !") on 00 - \0 on ~ ~ ~ on ~ J '" '" '" j 8 j ] ~ ~ !") on Cl) ~ j j ..... N !") ~ ~ ~ ~ -J Attachment G C:7Y 8F CHULA VISTA AFFOR~ABLE APARTMENT2 ANAL'fSIS E:E:':: ------------.-----------------.---------------------- 1:/'~~: F"_:;~~,:lse: To EYa:~2t2 the imPQct Qn ~pefatinG cash flows and ~~v5st~e~t of 2pa(tm2~t ~evelo~ment with 20% of ~~Ie I..ln i t~ a f f.:,y- :lab 1 e t ,=, 111.:,1,0,1- in,:ctmell (8(:'~~ .:.f AMI) ,.-",sidE;;";". Ass\..\mpt i ,:,j:S: - ?~s2d 0n C~~y ~umb2~s, Baldwin 8( E&5tla~(e p~oformas, and S3SS rEsearch. NPV calc ~a5ed on a 40 /ea~ buildi~g life. Very cc.~servative. !='":;-,c:.!-,g:::: OPErat:.ons can support a~pro~. 60% o~ dEve! cost ~quity invsstment I~f $3.0C1o,OOr:! pai~ b~c~~ in 1~ years _ ~evelGpment yields an 11% yet urn on investment over 40 year lif? E5-!M~TZ~ ~EV~~Q~'~ENT B~DGET ------------------------------------------ OF.~RAT~8NA~ BASICS: 267 Tctal units: 122 3 bedroom, 74 2 ~d~ 71 1 bd 224 M~rket F:ate units: :02 3bd. 62 2 bd, SO 1td _:+:' L'jl:.-';:;?~7fo"i'..dab:.e to LI "rente,'"s; 20 3bd, 12 2bd, 11 1bd :""AND ACQUISITION CONSTRUCTIO~ ($4(:/sf x 255~600 sf) SI~E IMPROVEMENTS (offsite ExistsY $/UNIT 19000 ~EVE~OF'ME~~ C02~S: FEES 12000 12500 4806000 10224000 3204000 3337500 1833578 ( : ) ,...,-.,=,", -=---, , C:JS~S (<;t 3. 5:~) ----------- ----------- TOTAL ESTIMAT~~ DEVEL (:OST $23,405,078 EST!MATED DEVEL COST / UNIT $87,55'3 NOTES: (1) 122-3 bd 12005f,74-2 bd 9005f,71-1 bd 5005f=255,5005f C:HU~A V~S7A AFFORSAB~E AF'ARTMENTS SDUF:C:=:'3 ;~~..JD USES ---------------------------------- ----------------------------------- USES ----- ;;CDC: 31;1 C!'.! 42.06000 CONSTF.:UCT ~ ON : ~)224C'OO SITE ! :""!F'F:O\'Et'-1ENTS 3:::04000 e:-.......... _w,- , ~::OSTS 1833578 FE:::: 5 2::'37::,00 --------~- ----------- TOTAL 1 i~r-"'-' '...t;:)';:;''::' $23 ~ 405 ~ 072. SOUF.:CES ------- ------_. 8. 5~'~ LOAI~J PRIVATE INVESTMENT TOTP,L SOUF'C~S:; SE:CS 11/'31 144E{20E..8 8'3::::3010 _._- -------- ___.____n______ $23,405~078 SHU~A ~'!S~A AFFJ~:DAD~E APARTMEi~TS ~::::;;;: L:::; ~F'!:::::A"'T! NC3 BL!:JI:::E: :"'1P.t.-!AI3E!"'!E!".!T !"':~,;-;':"tgerrIErd; F(:?s Mg-(. Apt. :=:ent S21~ry 8~ Benefits MA:;: ~.!T=:~'-,~P~NC.E Repairs/Ma~nt~~an,:e Materi&~s ~&i~t2~~n~2 ~3b0r E;i;'~(~:-iT;i:-,2,t ::-;; ~~~~=~~~2/'S~:.~n~s I-.;i_~__'''';_ - , ,";;',"" -= i _ ;;.\... ....:; ~~~~=c~=2.!e~-:;u~d= _.~d: ,:,'.r ~2~~~~~~./Sec~~at~~g ~~~:=m~~: ~~~t.-:,-~- Tr ':=1::;-, f.;:EiTlc,val :ITTI --:T=-'-' '.,J , ... '-... . ... ......_. !..-Jate'l'" ;:" Se'...'t:-~ TA>~S:S /! N2UF:Ar\!C:E :=":":p2rty Ta:.;es Other T2.>:es Fi~e/Liability !nsu\"ance ADMIN! STF.:AT I ON Legal Aucit M2Jketir:g Offi~e Phone/Supplies TOTAL EXF'E~'lSES TOTAL Exp2nses/Unit/Year Squar E FOCit age TOTAL Expenses/Square Foot $/u/ iii':' -,C' ~,-' ~~ ..:;;~ "':"I~ "'"', ., i !.'~ 17 :( ::: '::~ 18 1 - .0 5 11) $/1",,':' 28(:'25 22'362 '" ~ 7743 1 (I 2 4E, 4 6408 5 3 ct:J,-.r::. '-'......--.'-' 1 1 .!'~I ........, ...... $/-y'ea~r :33E.420 275544 '=2'31 E, ~ "~..\ ...,.!;::"~, ..........,,..!..... 768'35 282 -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- 903528 ...........-. .~ .:;.,,,,:,a-,. 255600 3.53 7~2'34 C~ULA V:STA Ar~ORDABLE APAR~ME~TS SAS~! ~LOW ANALYSIS MAR~(ET-RA~E UNITS 1 bec1'" t:.om un its :: bec)""t:;I:tm ;....nits 3 ~ecr 1:..:.,1\ un i"t:5 TH Gr055 R~~t/yea~ # ;..In ~ t s SO c~, '..J.... 102 I Fa,:tC"rP 1.05 1 ,.,11::" - . ...'..... 1.05 e-. ~- $/mc< E,75 810 '3'30 1 ';"33 40500 50220 100'380 SBCS 1:: /'3 1. 1'?'3.~ 42~25 52731 -------- -------- -------- -------- 1 (l602'? c,n 80:/~ LOW-INCOME RENTERS (based p'~':"" ) ;:;e':"" > 1 .~, 1 ~ 1.05 1 ~ ;)5 1. .:)~ - ....'.. ~ 1 ,",~C' .... ._......'....' (3% op e:.';p) (0.6% of const cost) 1. 15 Debt ServicE Supportable at following rates: (30 year term, monthly calc.) :::c' ~2S~ IJac~~cj Rese~ve T0ta! ~~et Effe,:tive Income Net !ncome Availab!e fo~ D~bt Service Yearly De~t Payment After-Debt Cash Flow Accumulated After-Debt Cash Flow NOTE - NPV based on a 40 year life vEry consErvative NPV of After-Debt Cash Flow at cap rate of: 640 743 853 2300400 2415420 AFFORDABLE AF'TS. FOR: ---------------------------------------------------------- med :. ail :. I: C ': 7392 '33E,:;:: 18123 -------- -------- -------- -------- 418~2::: SD Cc 7040 '=1':'11 C --... - '-' 17260 T0~al G~oss ~e~~/'Ye~r --------------------------------------------------------- 3'28::;'32 ~~ Gross ~:e~t/year ~ 34'~J50 2S'38'3'3'2 2832'~42 :"A..:..~,'?7 -------- -------- -------- -------- 28035 2::'?62 7743 10145 5408 2259 5112 2564042 25.3'::'::45 ':f31'378 1572055 235810 10255'37 1655547 24'3832 -------- -------- -------- -------- 1335255 1415715 1235255 133E,255 -------- -------- -------- -------- C> C> 7'3450 79450 .:!. bed",.. ':'C'tn 1.Ir,:."t s ~ b~~ u~its ~avg :: :: 2C :..:r,:, t; (,::'-,.'g 3~,:4 .1 C!.II::" ""T."'...... CPERAT!~G ~XF'~~JSES MANA(3Et"1=:!\IT MA! NTENP.NCE UTILITIES TAXES/ !~.~EUF.:ANC~ ADMINISTR:AT I ON OPERATING RESERVES REPLACEMT RESERVES NET OPERATING INCOME Debt Coverage Amount 10.C>0 12588945 9.00 1383'3354 8.00 151757'30 7.00 16737435 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 ~8740027 15147318 1237458'3 10215078 8517747 1 '':I'::'.!'f: ...___....J 44:SS:!. 1.'3'35 1'~'=7 :';'=:8 51 S8'~\ S40'?=: 1'3'3'3 2000 5S'?8S 70e.S5 14208'31 2001 ;.;:uu~ .;,~E,884 4'3:228 54274 5'?837 r.-::,,~.-::..~ c"....'__... r:~..",:o ...J....~.....''..J i 1133~) 58135 1:6237 51043 67300 741'38 14'~1'33 77'~~08 122742 12887'3 " "'c:""':"'-'''' ......J-..J....'........ 15E.S!S2 -------- -------- -------- -----.--- -------- --------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- 2S~:S 1'3 ~ 2iSE,:~OO 1 27'35151 2'335'358 3082756 32358'~4 33'3873'3 3558675 T'52 81 50 8557 8'385 '3434 9'306 10401 10'321 '3830 1 (\,:\'~' 1 1 0837 1 137'3 1 1'348 12546 13 1 ..,." , -.,....,~.-, _.-..J..... i _, . ~CJ.;....... 1 '302'3 , '3'32.1 :20'350 2202'3 23120 24287 25501 .~,'= ""7""7.': _'-'I,' ,.,;! -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- ,======= -------- -------- ---..---.-- --_._--_.._- ---------- ---_.._-,-- -------- -------- -------- ,"1-3'?4.:.~8 4E.~ 42(:) 43.:i.4'3 1 50871 '" c:"-'.:.i~ '" 1 56085'3 588'302 61 8347 ...J..:J.... lS4C32 ~:444E74 172234 3E,16'307 18(:'845 37'37753 3'32.7640 4187022 2'375S2':;' 312~.4"::: 22201::'42 >~.E.7c::':: ::''::t.':':':':! 1. 8'=1888 .. ,::.,:.;~,=.~, .;. ... ... ..........'..... ~.':'-','::-4r::'~t ....'_. ---........ -------.- ----------- -.------- --_._---- -------- -------- -------- ----~---- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- ------~-- -------- --------- -,,::>.~.,: ':\1:"""7 ....._.~'-'.....'-...Ji 2'::-52.20(' 311E.E,10 327::" ~~.C 34360iS2 3E078E5 37882=:8 3'377tS71 10S2e,31 10'}'?824 1133217 ~1"'O~l:'a _.;.i............J'..J 1::: 1 '3::'34 1262072 : 30E24=, 13=-1 '?EA 17E,4225 18E.837tS 13782'32 20'34282 , 2216668 23457'~2 2482013 2625707 2EA634 280256 2'36744 314142 332500 35186'3 372302 3'33855 -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- 14'3'?5'? 1 1582.120 1581548 178013'? 1884168 19'33'323 210'~71 1 .~,.-,~, ~ 01:''' ...............I.......-...i... ~ "":1":'1: '-.,I:'C" 1 "':"':\C '~,c:'t::" 133tS255 1336255 1336255 1336255 1335255 133\S2~5 .I.,..:.....\,...,__'..J ........-..J..............J~ -------- -------- -_._----- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- ---------.- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- 153337 251865 345293 443884 547913 657663 773455 8'35596 2427'37 4'34662 83'3'~55 1283840 1831753 248'3421 3252877 4158474 2003 2004 2005 2COE. 2007 2003 200'3 2010 65'370 E,.?2E,'3 72732 7636'3 80187 841 '37 88405 '32827 81803 858'33 '30188 '34b':~7 '3'3432 104404 10'3524 1 !5105 164486 172710 181345 1'30413 1 '3'3':33 20'3'330 220427 231448 -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- ---_._--- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- ----.---- -------- -------- 374710'? 3'334465 4131 ~oc 4337747 4554635 4 7E~2366 5021485 527255'3 ...'-''-' 1 1457 12041 12543 1 ""-'Fe:- 1393'3 1 4635 15357 15135 _'...i o-J 14523 1524'3 15012 15812 17653 1 8535 19463 2043E.. 281 15 29520 30'3'36 32546 34174 ::5882 37575 3'3560 -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- ----.---- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- ----.---- -------- -------- 54'3254 581728 715814 7~lb05 78'3185 . e.:::8EA4 870075 '313580 43'36374 45151'32 4847002 508'335::: 5343820 551 101 1 58'315E..l 518513'3 21'381'3 22081 0 242350 2544F)S 2571'31 2t:0551 2'34578 30'3307 -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- ----,---- -------- -------- --------- -------- -------- ---.----- --------- ----,---- -------- -------- 417b5~5 4385383 4504E.52 4834884 507tSE.2'3 53::::0460 55'36'383 5876832 ~ 3'?'?283 1448258 14'?2'347 1551410 160570'3 15E, 1 '30'3 1720075 1780278 2777272 2'337125 3105705 3283475 3470'31'3 36E8551 3875'307 40'36554 4155'31 44055'3 465856 4'32521 520638 5=0283 581536 514483 -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- 2360581 24'36556 253'384'3 27'30'353 2'350282 31 18258 32'35371 3482071 1336255 1336255 1336255 1336255 1336255 13::6255 1336255 1336255 -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- 1024425 1 160301 13035'34 14545'39 1514027 17E2014 1 '35'91 15 2145815 5182'300 6343202 75457'35 91014'35 10715521 124'~7535 14455551 15502457 ::011 '?74SS 120850 243020 -------- -------- 5535187 lS943 21457 41 ~.38 -------- .--------- '~=_..::J25..3 54'35446 ...,.-, ~ ".-, ~ I ""_ -------- -------- 5170574 ~E:4:::588 201.... 1023':':;'1 126'?03 2551 1 -------- -------- 5212'?'~tS 177'30 :::25:;:0 43515 -------- -------- 100722::: E,8202: ~: 3,';! 1-\11 -------- ---..----- 647'3207 1 '?07C7'3 2018 10745'::' 13324'3 2E. 7'330 -------- -------- 6103EA6 1867'? 23557 457'36 -------- -------- ~ 05;S~::::: 7ie.!22'? 35S0E.:!. -------- -------- SB031S8 1'?73S2E 2014 112831 13'3'311 281327 -------- --------- 6408828 13613 24840 48086 -------- -------- 1:'104t:..2 7::: 1 ';;'2'31 375'~~E5 -------- --------- 7143325 2042'31 (1 2015 118473 145'307 .~..=.,='":I'::'':' .......~...J./..., -------- -------- 672'3270 205'34 25082 504'30 -------- --------- 1165'=186 78'3=255 3'347tS3 -------- -------- 75004'33 2114412 2015 1243'37 15.;.1.252 3~OlG':: -------- -------- 7055733 21524 273SE. 53015 -------- -------- '1224285 82'30018 414501 -------- -------~-- 7875517 2188417 2017 :::::::OE.: 7 161 '365 325671 -------- -------- 741'3020 22705 28755 55665 -------- -------- 12854'3'3 870451':' 43522tS -------- -----.--- 825'32'33 2255011 2018 137147 1700e..3 341 '?54 -------- -------- 778'3'371 23840 301'33 58448 -------- -------- 134'3774 '? 13'3745 455'387 -------- -------- 8582758 2344287 4328085 457212'3 482'3341 5100415 5386080 5687100 5004282 5338471 64'3213 e.,858 1 '? 724401 755062 , 807'312 853055 900542 '350771 -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- 3678873 388630'3 4104'340 4335353 4578158 4834035 510353'3 5387700 1 "':"":'r; .--:,c::-c: 1 '":I':"'=' .~,c::-c:- 1335255 133E255 1336255 1336255 1335255 1335255 ..........,_.,.;......)...J _..........\-1__....) -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- ------.-- -------- -------- -------- -------- ---.----- -------- 2342S18 2550055 27E,8tS85 2'3'390'3'3 3241'313 3497781 3767385 4051445 18'345085 214'35140 24263825 27252'~23 30504837 34002617 377700()2 41821447 2C~ '3 144005 178565 35';:'052 -------- -------- 817'346'? 25032 31702 ~~":\""'1 0........' .. -------- ----.---- 1':::. 17::::S3 '?~'~E 732 .-,-,~,........, ". -';...:" -------- -------- '31152'?5 242E,337 2020 151205 1874'?4 377004 -------- -------- 8588443 2E..284 33287 6443'? -------- -------- ::'4E:812S ~ 00765E..'::~ ~C28::::8 -------- --.------ '357:::740 2511252 2021 1587S5 1';:'585'3 3'35855 -------- -------- '3017865 275'38 34'352 S7551 -------- ----.--..-- : 552S::2 1058C'3'3'7 5:2'::.'020 -------- -----.---,- 10051377 25'3';' 153 2022 16E..703 20571::: 415EA7 -------- -------- 9468758 28'378 365'3'3 71045 -------- -----.--- 1 E.~';'065'3 _:. 10'34< / 555471 -------- --------- 10553'346 2E.'30 123 2023 17503'3 217048 436430 -------- -------- '9'3421 '36 3042E I"'"\OC'I"'"\.~ ':'O...........~"'i' 745'37 -------- -------- . 7226'.:;!:..;: .. ., E.S4E:8E: 52~'-_' :~_.::i. -------- ------.-- 11081544 2784277 2024 1837'31 227'300 458251 -------- -------- 1043'330E. 31'348 404E,l 78327 -------- -------- " 80882S ~ .-,,~,.~ ~ ~ ....,-~. ........:..""TO.....:...:.. 612.:.107 -------- -------- 1163572::', 2881727 2025 1 '32'380 23'32'35 481154 -------- -------- ! O'?6 1. 271 33545 42484 82243 -------- -------- 18'3'=J2S8 : 28S~)52'3 6.;130:~'7 -------- _.__._---- 12217512 2'382587 ::::0:::6 20262'3 251260 505222 -------- -------- 1150'3335 I"'"\C".-,'-,,-, ..;.~..:;...:;...;;. 44508 86355 -------- -------- :!. '3'~4231 ~ ::S035::=.E,. E:75~78 -------- -------- 12828388 308E,'='78 55'3055'3 7051482 7452225 7853823 82'37355 8753'3'3'3 9234'325 9741410 1003584 105'3222 1 1 17834 1 17'3574 1244605 1313100 138523'5' 145121 1 -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -----.--- -------- -------- -------- -------- 5685'975 6002260 63343'31 5584250 7052751 74408';:'9 784';:'585 82801';:'8 1336255 133E.255 1335255 1336255 -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- 4350720 4(0,55005 4'3'38136 5347'395 70527E.,1 74408'2'3 784'2585 82801';:'8 46172157 50838172 55835308 51 184303 68237065 75577954 83527650 91807848 2027 2028 212761 22239'3 253823 277014 530483 557007 -------- -------- -------- -------- 12084802 12589042 36':184 38833 4683'3 4'3181 '30E,73 '35206 -------- -------- -------- -------- 20'?~:':-!42 :::.: '~8E..40 1.~178744 14887631 708'?:'7 74.:.l38.:; -------- -------- --------- ---------- 13469807 14143297 31 ';':::')22 3306848 10274785 10836449 1541218 1625467 202'3 23456'3 2'30855 . 5848~8 -------- -------- 133234'34 40774 51640 '3'3'357 -------- -------- 2308~72 15632065 721S03 -------- -------- 148504E,2 342:::588 11427875 1714181 -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- 8733557 9210982 9713693 ======== ======== =====.~== 203(; 2462'37 305408 614100 -------- -------- 13'38'~66'3 42813 54222 104'355 -------- -------- 242400(,' 1 S4136(:.'= 820583 -------- --------- 155'32'38~ 3542378 .-:"-,,,,:\ ~ ....._'-..i.l. 258512 32057'3 644805 -------- -------- 14E,S'? 152 44'354 56933 110213 -------- -------- 2S45:200 ~ ...., ',":. "':'.:i ":'Ie: .,":' ...1..................... 8'':~ ~18 -------- -------- 1637:::635 3665361 12050607 12706273 18075'31 I 1 '3~)5'~41 -------- -------- ! 1~):::43() 16 -------- -------- -------- -------- 10800332 -------- -------- 2022 271542 336713 677045 -------- -------- 15423610 47201 5'~780 115724 -------- -------- . :::6724E.O 180'3507C '30480'2: -------- -------- 171'312S5 37'34E,84 133'36582 200'3487 -------- -------- 113870'35 -------- -------- 8728567 9210982 ~-~3693 10243016 10800332 11387095 *****************.~.~********************************** AT,TACHMENT H Timothy L. Coyle ....~~~~ tlJ.,J".".11 INCLUSIONARY ZONING Is It Helping or Hurting Housing? A s California struggles with its affordable housing crisis, it has be- come clear that local governments will need to throw their creativity and capability into the fight. Although state and federal governments have tak- en several approaches to provide housing subsidies, the success of any ef- fort to meet the state's housing needs will be detennined by local land use planning. The state has given cities and counties the authority to decide what to build where and under what conditions; this de- tennines the type, pattern, and amount of residential development. Increasingly. lo- cal governments are using this authority, througb inclusionary zoning, to compel developers to provide affordable housing as part of new development. Will this help solve California's housing prob- lems, or will it be another barrier to de- velopment? What role should the state play in the ~ ! r ~ , ~ ~ Timothy L. Coyle land use and housing affairs of local gov- ernments? The state-under direction of a Statewide Housing Plan and with there- sponsibility of reviewing housing ele- ments in local general plans-provides guidance and assistance to cities and counties in their effortE to address Cali- fornia's bousing needs, See Planning for Affordilbre Housing, p 9, Should the state support or discourage indusionary zoning? How can it best work with local government to provide affordable hous- ing? TImothy 1. Coyle was appoioledDirector of the De- partment of Housing and Community Development by Governor Pete Wilson in February 1991. With a $412 million annual budget, HCD sets bousing stan- danls. assists toca1 governments in developing hous- ing policy, and oversees affordable housing }X'D- grams for the elder1y, the pocI', and the homeless. Mr. Coyle also served in severa] capacities in the Depart- ment of Housing and Urban Development. induding Assistant Secretary for Legislation and Congressio- nal Re1ations-a position 10 which he was appointed by President Bush in 1988. A graduate of San Diego State University, Mr. Coyle hoMs a B.A. in JouruaJ- ism and Business Marketing. WHY INCLUSIONARY ZONING? Local governments have come to rec- ognize the primacy of their zoning pow- ers and are putting them to wod< on be- half of affordable housing. While some places still exclude multifamily housing. impose inordinate conditions on new res- idential development, or arbilrarily limit growth or densities, more and more local officials are responding to the housing needs of their constituents by upzoning sites, being creative and flexible with de- sign standards, or otherwise helping to reduce the cost of affordable bousing de- velopment Some cities and counties have turned to inclusionary zoning when fIrst wres- tling with the affordable housing issue and their responsibility to ensure that 10- caI planning SUPPOrtE the development of housing for all income levels. With the best of intentions or in response to politi- cal pressure, many local governments have established rules under wbich IO or 20 percent of the units in any new devel- opment must he set aside at affordable prices. Sucb a response to California's housing afford ability problems is straightforward and simple, but frequent- ly it is the wrong way to build housing. WHAT'S RIGHT AND WRONG WITH INCLUSIONARY ZONING Inclusionary zoning appeals 10 local governments for several good reasons and because of a few very bad realities. First, affordable bomes in a mixed-in- come housing development look like market-rate housing and this avoids the stigma too often attacbed to subsidized "affordable" housing. Integrating lower- income households into aparnnent com- plexes, townbome villages, and planned comnllmities gives all members of soci- ety access to the better scbools, good parks, and higher quality of life often found in newer neighborhoods. impor- tantly, it also gives lower-income resi- dents access to new jobs, most of which tend to open up in suburban locations. In part, inclusionary zoning has spread because local officials in land-shon Com- munities recognize that every new devel- opment represents the use of land, a vital resource for affordable housing produc- tion. Sites using lower densities mean less opportunity for more "land-efficient" higher-density construction. To the de- gree that local governments make more sites available for the construction of af- 27 f f f f I fordable housing, inelusionary zoning may be a useful tool. In those cities that provide density bo- nuses and creatively apply design stan- darcls or otherwise work with developers to encourage housing, a requirement that a ponion of units be made available for low- and moderate-income households "All too often inclusionary zoning follows a decision by a community to limit or halt growth, reduce allowable densities, or place vacant land off limits to residential development. Stung by the criticism that these actions constrain the housing market and reduce the sites available for subsidized projects, many localities have adopted inclusionary zoning as a fig leaf to cover the nakedness of their land use and housing " programs. ...... Cl can usually be easily met. Most success- ful inelusionary programs are in cities that allow homebuilders design flexibil- ity to integrate affordable housing into new subdivisions, grant healthy density bonuses to apartment developers, or pro- vide high-density sites in master planned communities. However, the record on inclusionary zoning in California shows rigid guide- lines being used by communities that are not truly interested in the development of affordable housing, All too often inelu- 28 sionary zoning follows a decision by a community to limit or halt growth, re- duce allowable densities, or place vacant land off limits to residential develop- ment Stung by the criticism that these ac- tions constrain the housing market and reduce the sites available for subsidized projects, many localities have adopted in- clusionary zoning as a fig leaf to COver the nakedness of their land use and hous- ing programs. In these too common instances, incIu- sionary zoning becomes a constraint or an exaction on new development For ex- ample, in cities or counties reluctant to approve new housing construction, sing- le-family homebuilders are forced to pro- vide inelusionary units or pay exomitant in-lieu fees as a condition of approval. To recover the cost of providing units at less than market-rate cost (or pay fees), build- ers have to raise the price of the other houses. Thus, new homebuyers-a rapid- ly shrinking group in California-must subsidize other new homeowners with lower incomes. To make housing affordable to lower- income families and individuals typically requires a subsidy. Cities can provide this subsidy througb zoning. Raising the den- sity on a site increases its value and local governments can recapture this value in the fonn of inelusionary units. These units may be provided as pan of a specific project or separately as pan of an alterna- tive public-private strategy to build af- fordable bousing. However, cities moti- vated more by a desire to generate funds favor in-lieu fees rather than actually building housing. As practiced in most of California, inelusionary zoning has be- come a tax on new homebuyers and rent- ers. This is wrong. Providing affordable housing is a community-wide responsi- bility and should not be a burden placed on only those whose job it is to construct housing or on fmt-time homebuyers wanting to share in the American dream. HOW TO USE INCLUSIONARY ZONING At its worst and, unfortunately, most common use, inclusionary zoning serves as an inequitable tax to subsidize hous- ing. At its best. inelusionary zoning re- flects a local commitment to encourage and work with developers to provide af- fordable housing. Local governments have a responsibility under California law to abide by the Stltewide Housing Plan and accommodate their fair share of the housing needed by current and future residents of all income levels. The most effective tool cities can apply is their au- thority Over land use. We must find a way to ensure that lo- cal governments fully utilize their land use powers to support aggressive afford- able housing strategies. Sacramento and Washington have, in the last few years, increased their fmancial commitment to lower-income housing, but their SUppOrt alone cannot adequately deal with exist. ing and future needs. To get the most for Our subsidy dollars and catalyze new de. velopments, local governments must create a regulatory environment that en- courages. not discourages, the develop- ment of affordable housing, "As practiced in most of California, inclusionary zoning has become a tax on new homebuyers and renters. This is wrong. " .... Cl Inelusionary zoning can be a pan of local land use and regulatory strategy that also creates adequate sites, minimizes de- sign requirements, waives fees, eases growth controls, and-most important- ly-helps meet Stlte and regional hous- ing objectives. The housing element of every city and county general plan points the way to the adoption oflocal plans that are pro-housing. The current reasses- sment of the proper roles oflocal, region- al, and state government in the manage- ment of California's growth offers the way to fully institute housing element law. This will enable local governments to not only carry out the Statewide Hous- ing Plan, but also meet their affordable housing needs in a much more productive and equitable way. . ATTACHMENT r The Responses of Other cities similar to Chula Vista, several other cities in the region are considering some type of inclusionary housing policy/program as a principal means to addressing the state Regional Share new construction allocations for lower-income households. Given the growing need for this housing, and the markets tendancy toward higher priced single family units, the inclusionary approach becomes a logical, direct reaction to the opposing directions between needs and the housing market. Without such an approach to ensuring affordable housing, cities' are finding it difficult to provide an adequate number of lower-income units as previous federal programs are scaled back, and the cities alone do not possess sufficient revenues to underwrite housing development. While most of the proposals are in their initial stages, the following offers an overview of the major components of each: CARLSBAD: - Policy: Minimum of 15% of all units approved in master plans, specific plans, and residential subdivisions shall be affordable to lower- income households. For master plans involving more than 100 acres, an additional 5% of the units must be affordable to moderate-income homebuyers. Where it is demonstrated as economically infeasible to build the required units, an in-lieu contribution of funds, land, or other contributions may be made. The in-lieu fee may be attomatically used for developments of less than 5 units. The amount of contribution is to be studied and will be based on the cost differential in developing and constructing market rate .vs. lower-income affordable housing. - Affordabi1ity Levels/standards: 15% lower-income not specifically defined by policy as to amount of very low or low-income. The city recognizes that very low- income is essentially infeasible within private master planned developments, and will require other specialized programs such as public housing and SRO's. Future implementing ordinance will refer to the folowing ranges for low-income affordability consistant with state Law: * Non-government assisted - up to 30% of 80% of median income. * Gov. assisted rental - up to 30% of 60% of median income. * Gov. assisted for-sale - up to 30% of 70% of median income. - Financial Impact: Under study. Preliminary evaluations utilized a multi-family condominium project at 20 dulac, with no total project size assumed. Including land, construction and fee costs, a 2-bedroom unit production cost of 143,000 was reached. Utilizing a 3 person household size, a low-income family could qualify for a $43-45,000 loan, leaving approximately $100,OOO/unit to be addressed through down payment and various private sector and/or public subsidies. - Subsidy Approaches: Carlsbad is studying the following 5 methods to address the $80,000 - $90,000 gap per unit after a 10% or 5% down payment- * Density bonus * Fee waiver/reduction * Loans or other direct assistance * Flexible building/site planning standards * Expidited processing If all 5 methods are employed, general estimates are that about 50% of the gap can be closed, with the remaining $40,000 _ $45,000/ unit to be addressed by the developer alone or through assistance external to the city.. - status: City Council adopted policy statement as part of the Housing Element Update in November 1991. Staff and a committee, with local development representation, reviewed financial impacts and policy implementation and have issued a report. Staff is drafting an in-lieu fee ordinance based on a nexus study, which establishes relation between purpose and the amount of the fee. OCEANSIDE: - Ordinance: At least 10% of the units in all developments must be affordable to low and moderate-income households. Projects within the Redevelopment Area are exempted. An in-lieu fee option is offered to be used in-part or in-total for the required units. - Affordability Levels/Standards: Different approaches are established for for-sale and rental units as follows: Rental- * Restricted units must be affordable to low-income households * Max. rent at 30% of 60% of area median income adjusted for family size, using a 2 person per bedroom rate. * If rental units are within a master plan development including for-sale units, 10% of the rental units must still be low-income affordable. * 30 year duration For-Sale- * Price not to exceed 250% of area median income adjusted for family size using a 2 person per bedroom rate. * Restricted units must be affordable to moderate-income households at 100% of area median. * Re-sale restriction to other moderate-income households for 30 years. * Units must be proportionate in square footage and number of bedrooms to market rate units. * units must be built prior to or concurrent with other units. In phased developments, affordable units must constitute 10% of the units in each phase. - Financial Impacts: The in-lieu fee program requires each of the units which would have been reserved to pay an amount sufficient to subsidize the median priced home in Oceanside to be affordable to a moderate income household. The formula is; median sales price of homes in Oceanside -minus- affordable sales price for a 3-bedroom home = In-Lieu Fee. That affordable sales price is 250% of the area median income for a family of six. Based on a $170,755 median home price and $112,750 income figure, the current in-lieu fee per restricted unit is $58,500. The total fee for any project is then spread equally over all the units, with the resultant amount collected at the time of building permit issuance. - Subsidy Approaches: No formal assistance stategies were adopted, and the City expects developers to absord financial impacts through spreading costs to other units or by obtaining subsidies. The city is willing to assist developers in availing themselves of such external subsidies, participate in bond financing, and consider other requests on a case-by-case basis. - Status: Ordinance is in force, adopted by City Council on October 2, 1991. VISTA: - Policy: New policy requires 15% of the units in all projects to be set aside for lower-income households at affordable rents. (6% has been required since 1985). Allows for payment of an in-lieu fee, or land dedication. - Affordability Levels/Standards: Draft policy uses 80% of median income and requires restricted units to be comparable to other units in the project (not all condo/apt.). Also includes 30 year duration for for-sale and rental. - Financial Impact: Based on an intricate formula which employs construction costs per square foot, average square footage size of units, average number of rooms per unit, building fees, average persons per room and median income, the in-lieu fee for a prototype 2000 sq. ft. house is $8300. - Subsidy Approaches: None prescribed, but make referrals to San Diego County Housing Authority if developer choses to provide units. staff indicates the in-lieu fee payment is typically chosen. Approximately $2,000,000 have been collected since 1985. - Status: 15% policy adopted with Housing Element update. In-lieu fee ordinance revisions expected for adoption in March 1992. ENCINITAS: - POlicy: Has adopted inclusionary housing ordinance which requires 10% very low-income housing in any development of 10 units or more. Provides for an in-lieu fee option but does not specify amount of fee. city is currently working onm establishing an in-lieu fee amount. SAN MARCOS: - policy: Residential developments over 4 units would be required to include 15% affordable housing as a condition of development. That 15% is generally intended to be split 5% very low/ 5% low/ 5% moderate-income, however these distributions can vary by project area and type. Alternate compliance through in-lieu fees or off-site options is available. - Affordability Levels/standards: Proposed to vary for for-sale and rental housing, and by method of financing or subsidy used. * Moderate-income affordability in for-sale at 100% median income. Sales price not to exceed 2.5 times annual household income by family size. * Low-income affordability in rental housing between 50% and 80% median income. * Very low-income in rental housing at up to 50% median income. * Affordability restrictions to last 50 years. - Financial Impact: In-lieu fee approach is to require an amount sufficient to bring a market rate product to the particular level of affordability. In-lieu fee is based on the difference between a median priced home and 2.5 times the median income. Range may vary between $10-15,000 unit. - Subsidy Approach: Specific approaches are not outlined, however tax increment set asides, and design flexibility are identified as available incentives. In general the City is not focused on offering substantial subsidies to build units in larger projects, but rather for developers to directly absorb or spread costs to other units. - Status: Policy has been previously reviewed by ad-hoc housing committee and approved by City Council with Housing Element Update. Ad-hoc committee to continue work on implementation strategies, in-lieu fees, alternative compliance options, and ordinance. CITY OF SAN DIEGO: - policy: Considering a 15% requirement which would produce both for-sale and rental housing as folows: * 7.5% very low and low-income rental * 7.5% low and moderate-income ownership Half of that amount (3.75%) would then apply to each income group How and to what size projects the requirements will be applied is under study by a task force. It is anticipated that a variable program will be devised according to type and scale of project, and area of the City. In-lieu options are not being recommended. - Affordability Levels/Standards: To be determined by task force. Proposed levels are as follows; * very low-income rental - 40% of area median. * low-income rental - 60% area median. * low-income ownership - 70% area median. * moderate-income ownership - 90% area median. Calculation methods, persons per bedroom rates, and other standards also forthcoming. - Financial Impacts: Under study by task force and consultant. Housing Commissions position is that developer should not be excessively burdened, but rather empowered to provide units by the City through development and regulatory offsets. The idea of "robbing Peter to pay Paul" by spreading costs to market rates units is not viewed as sound housing policy. - subsidy Approaches: The following are being studied as candidate areas for compensating the economic impact of the requirement on developers * street widths and other site planning and design standards which consume land area and increase development costs. * density bonuses * fees * processing * non-profit joint venture partnerships The intent is to identify a level of offsets sufficient to avoid direct costs to the developer. - status: Task Force to review and vote on policy percentages and standards on Nov. 20, 1991. Consultant studying financial impacts and value of various development incentives. Draft report to be available in January 1992. COUNTY OF SAN .DIEGO: - Policy: An inclusionary "Balanced Communities Policy" is being suggested for development with the County's Housing Element Update to address provision of low and very low-income units. Changes to the existing "Affordable Housing Development Fund" are also proposed to support an in-lieu contributions program. - Affordability Levels/Standards: The percentage of inclusionary requirement, tarket income groups, and standards for application to projects have not yet been defined. - Fiscal Impact: Unknown - subsidy Approaches: Unknown - Status: Balanced Communities concept to be considered by Board of Supervisors with Hpusing Element Update on Nov. 20, 1991. Staff will be asking Board to authorize needed studies to develop a working policy and program. city planning commission Agenda Item for Meeting of February 26, 1992 Page 1 2. consideration of Final EIR-91-03. Salt Creek Ranch SPA A. BACKGROUND The public hearing on the Draft of this EIR was held before the Commission on January 22, 1992 and was continued until February 12, 1992 for comments from the State Clearinghouse; no comments were received. Attached please find the staff report for the first hearing and the executive summary from the previous EIR on the General Development Plan to provide an overview of the environmental effects of the project. B. RECOMMENDATION Certify that the FEIR has been prepared in compliance with CEQA and all applicable guidelines and that the commission has reviewed and considered the FEIR. C. FINDINGS/MITIGATION MONITORING After the commission has taken action on this project, staff will submit CEQA findings and monitoring program for Commission consideration. element of the a mitigation I I SUMMARY OF IMPACTS r MITIGATION IMPAcr SIGNIFICANCE IMPAcr SUMMARY AFIER MITIGATION I 1. LAND USE: I Potential compati- The GDP proposes GDP guidelines and EIR bility impacts would guidelines to ensure recommendations will exist with adjacent compatibility with mitigate potential impacts I p.operties and adjacent land uses, to below a level of developments. specific ~hniques to be significance. . developed at the SPA Plan level. This EIR I identifies sensitive surrounding areas and specifies mitigation to I provide adequate buffer and design at those boundaries/areas to I ensure compatibility. Inconsistancies with Recommended measures As proposed, these the General Plan include reducing densities impacts arc not mitigated. -. involve the residential to levels acceptable to the Implementation of the densities and the City and addressing recommended measures provision of methods to provide would eliminate the I affordable housing. affordable housing. inconsistencies. 2. CONVERSATION QE I AGRICULTURAL LANDS: I Project urbanization No mitigation proposed Impact represents a will preclude the (Only the No Project or contribution to the site's use in Agricultural Land Use cumulative unavoidable I agriculture and result Alternatives would impact on agricultural in agricultural soil mitigate this impact) land use in the region. loss, contributing to a cumulative impact on I the area's agricultural resources. I I , I 1-3 I I MITIGATION IMPACf SIGNIFICANCE , IMPACf SUMMARY AFlER MITIGATION 3. AES1HETICS: I Urbanization will Measures require detailed Measures will partially pennanently alter Open Space and mitigate impacts. I existing topography, Landscape Plans; Project-specific impacts views to the site and sensitive grading; design will be mitigated to an will change the standards; natural open acceptable level; the I aesthetic character of space preservation; project will unavoidably the area. greenbelt and scenic contribute to the highway view treatments; cumulative adverse and extensive buffer impact on the existing I treatments to be created at natural and rural character the SPA Plan and of the area. subsequent stages. I 4. GEOLOOY AND SOn..S: I Geotechnical con- Recommendations for Potential impacts can be straints to develop- site grading and other mitigated to a level below ment onsite include engineering techniques significance by ~ difficulty in rock from the geotechnical geotechnical engineering excavation; soil and repon adequately address practices and topsoil removal; and and mitigate potential implementation of I slope instability. impacts (refer to recommended mitigation. Seismic ground Appendix B). acceleration potential I exists, typical of the area. 5. HYDROLOOY: I The project's Additional hydrologic Potential flooding and resulting increase in analysis is required to hydrologic impacts can I impervious surfaces specify facilities (size, be mitigated to below a will change drainage dimension, etc.) level of significance by courses and increase necessary to handle implementation of 1\ flow rates onsite and downstream recommended mitigation. downstream. flows after development I I -- 1.4 I I I r MITIGATION IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE IMPACT SUMMARY AFTER MITIGATION I 6. WA1ER OUALITY: Project development Project runoff/drainage Water quality impacts can I would create potential may require a diversion be mitigated to below a water quality impacts ditch to protect the Otay level of significance by to downstream areas Reservoir from water implementation of I and the nearby/ quality impacts due to recommended measures adjacent Otay development. The State (Sections 3.5 and 3.6). Reservoir. DHS and other involved agencies shall determine I precise mitigation requirements to protect the Reservoir and I associated drainages. Further mitigation includes erosion control I in accordance with City standards. 7. BIOLOOICAL -. RESOURCES Project development Mitigation recommended Direct impacts will be I will significantly and herein generally includes reduced to a degree by directly impact wetland habitat mitigation measures riparian wedands and creation/enhancement recommended herein. coastal sage scrub (defined in a mitigation Only the No Project I and native grassland plan); wetland protection Alternative or Agri- habitats, and the from grading, cultural Use Alternative California gnatcatcher !:1''1''Hmelltation and presented in Section 5 I and cactus wren, both erosion; retention of would fully mitigate sensitive species. coastal sage scrub in impacts to the coastal open space (proposed in sage scrub and native I GDP); native scrub grassland habitats, revegetation of gnatcatcher and cactus manufactured slopes; and wren to below a level of project redesign to create significance. Design I additional contiguous Alternative A would open space (See Section result in less significant 3.7 Mitigation and impacts, but would not I Alternatives Section 5). reduce impacts to a level below significance. I , ( 1.5 I I MITIGATION IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE , IMPACT SUMMARY AFTER MITlGATION Construction Secondary impact Secondary biological I practices and mitigation includes impacts can be mitigated long-term urban construction activity to below a level of activities present limitations to protect significance by I secondary threats to resource preservation implementation of the adjacent and/or areas; revegetation with measures proposed sensitive native species in fire herein. I non-development break and cut slope areas; areas. clearing and trimming restrictions; fencing and I landscape buffering around natural open space areas; and long-term protection of I natural open space areas by dedication of a natural open space easement. I 8. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Seventeen prehistoric Recommended mitigation Implementation of the ~ and historic resource includes avoidance and/or measures herein will sites would be data recovery of mitigate potential I impacted by important cultural paleontological and development. Also, resources. This involves cultural resource impacts the site possesses a a complete data recovery to below a level of I high potential for program for cultural significance. existence of resource sites, and paleontological paleontological resources. monitoring during I grading and, if necessary, a salvage program for resources I discovered. I I I , 1.6 I I IMPACf I I I I I I -. I I I I I I I , I 9. TRAFFIC: Project vehicles will generate 36,440 ADT onto local roads. Cumulative traffic levels at buildout will result in levels of service (LOS D) or worse along four roadway segments; the project's contribution to these four cumulatively impacted segments ranges from less than 1 % to 3% of the total traffic. 10. NOISE: Traffic-generated and urban noise will result from project implementation. Onsite future noise levels due to cumulative traffic will require onsite noise attenuation along various roadways. MITIGATION SUMMARY The project is required to construct onsite and adjacent roads, contribute to various roadway improvements, and install two traffic signals. The project shall also participate in cumulatively warranted improvements identified in the ECVTPP, on a phased improvement! development basis determined by the City, identified in this EIR. Exterior and interior noise attenuation is required as mitigation to reduce future onsite noise. Future specific analyses and monitoring are required at the SPA Plan and subsequent stages. 1.7 IMPACf SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MIGRATION Project-specific traffic impacts can be mitigated to below a level of significance. The project's contribution to significant cumulative traffic impacts can be mitigated to a level below significance by implementation of measures recommended herein. Implementation of mitigation proposed can adequately reduce noise impacts to a level below significance. I MITIGATION IMPAcr SIGNIFICANCE IMPAcr SUMMARY AFIER MITIGATION 11. AIR OUALITY: I Projcct traffic will Traffic flow The project, as with any I contribute to improvements, bicycle development, will cumulatively and bus routes are contribute to the significant regional incorporated into project unavoidable cumulative air quality impacts. plans, serving to reduce impact on regional air I Bccause the project impacts slightly. No quality. was not incorporated mitigation other than the into regional growth No Project or I forecasts and air Agricultural Use quality attainment Alternatives would plans, project significantly reduce I emissions will impacts. constitute a cumulative impact I contribution. Project traffic will Traffic flow The project and contribute to improvements, bus and cumulative traffic will ~ cumulatively bicycle routes are create unmitigated significant local air incorporated into project cumulative local air quality impacts on plans, serving to slightly quality impacts. I four street segments, reduce impacts. Only projected to operate at traffic mitigation to create an unacceptable level future LOS C or better on (LOS D or worse) all roadway segments I under future would fully reduce cumulative traffic impacts. conditions. I Local short-term air Short-term air pollution Short-term air quality quality impacts will impacts can be reduced impacts can be reduced to I result from grading by watering/dust control, below a level of activities and ;mmPl'li~te 1andscaping significance by construction and other measures implementation of equipment described in Section measures herein. I 3.11. 12. FISCAL ANALYSIS: I The project will have No mitigation is No significant adverse an overall positive necessary. fiscal impacts per CEQA I fiscal impact on the are identified. City. -- 1.a I I I r I I I I I I -. I I I I I I I ~ r IMPACT MITIGATION SUMMARY IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE AFIER MITIGATION 13. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES: The project will create an increase in demand for public services including police, fire protection, schools, parlcs/recreation, public transit, library and solid waste services. The project will create an increase in demand and impact on utilities and non-renewable energy resources, including water, sewer, gas and electric services. Increased demands for services can be offset by provision of the project's school site(s), parks and recreation facilities, potential fire station site; school facility financing; and adherence to City threshold standards, codes,andfUnding programs. Impacts related to water distribution and storage, and sewer distribution and treatment can be adequately offset by requirements cited in Section 3.13 (water and sewer sub-sections). Regional cumulative water supply impacts can be slightly reduced by water conservation mitigation herein. Energy impacts can be slightly reduced by energy conservation and other mitigation measures herein. Public service impacts can be mitigated to below a level of significance by implementation of measures in Section 3.13. Project -specific and cumulative water distribution/storage impacts and sewer impacts can be mitigated; project-specific energy impacts can be mitigated. The project's contribution (as with any development) to regional cumulative water supply and non-renewable energy SOI1ICe impacts are unmitigable and significant 1.9