The URL can be used to link to this page

Item 4 - Consideration of Amending Affordable Housing Overlays TO: HonorableJ~ayor yCouncil [~ Honorable' ~airman and Members of the Rede--"opment Agency FROM: James L. City Manager/ DirE~ ~lNITIATED BY: ohn D. Fitch, City Manager/ Executive~Directo~A~ arren H. Shafer, Direc or of Redevelopment Services ~_~/ (} eba Wright-quastler, D rector of Planning Services~Ck~ amela R. Colby, Redeve opment Project Administrator DATE: May 16, 1995 SUBJECT: ronsideration of Amending Affordable Housing Overlay Numbered 9 -03 N rtheast Corner of Bowron Road and Civi Center Dr ye) and 92- 4 (West i e of Pomerado Road North of Poway Road to Allow enior, Fami y or - erg 1 Affordable Housing as R quired by he Judgemen r(d b h, erior Court in Smith v "Persons. ABSTRACT This report addresses the of the Jud ement entered by the Superior Court in Smith v All Persons that the City/Redevelopme t Agency modify its planned affordable housing pro ects to achieve an approx mate 60/40% family/senior unit mix. The purpose of this Pu lic Hearing is for the Ci y Council to make its determination on how to comply with he Judgement to increase he number of sites designated for affordable family hous ng. ~TA[ REVIEW The issuance of Negative Declarations indicating no adverse tal impacts anticipated is recommended. FISCAL I There is no direct fiscal impact resulting from the City Council's det on the AH Overlay Zone designation. There may be some indirect impact on the Redevelopment Agency's ability to secure leveraged financing for project development. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE Puu No ice of the hearing was published twice in the Poway News Chieftain. In add on o the standard 500' notices, 149 otices were mailed to parties req, esting not cat on. All who were mailed notices or the Redevelop ent and Housing dvisory C public hearing of March 27, 199 were mailed not ces for this mee ing. Cop es of this report were also sent to Cat erine Rodman of he Legal Aid Soc ety, the Char of the Senior Issues Committee and the Executive Direc or of Poway Valley Senior Cit zens Inc. RECOMMENDATION It is recommende that the City C uncil take the following actions:(1) receive and fil the report rom Redevelopmen Housing advisory Committee;(2) adopt a esolution des gnatin the owron site as a mily site (Option 1);(3) ado t a resolu ion des gnatin the rookview site (a three parcels) as interg wit the family uni s to b placed on the southeas portion of the property (Op ion 3). T e specific number of amily units to be place on this site will be determ ned as a function of site design and approximate achievement of the court order ratio of family to senior units;and (4) issue negative declarations with respect to the above actions. ACTION P 1 of 64 I~¥ 161995 ITEM AGENDA REPORT CITY OF POWAY ¥0: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Honorable Chairman and Members of the Redevelopment Agency FROM: James L. Bowersox, City Manager/Executive Dire¢~~) INITIATED BY: ohn D. Fitch, Assistant City Manager/Assistant'~Executive~/~]¥-- irector arren H. Shafer, Director of Redevelopment Services^ eba Wright-Quastler, Director of Planning Services ~ amela R. Colby, Redevelopment Project Administrator DATE: May 16, 1995 SUBJECT: Consideration of Amending Affordable Housing Overlays Numbered 92-03 (Northeast Corner of Bowron Road and Civic Center Drive) and 92-04 (West Side of Pomerado Road North of Poway Road) to Allow Senior, Family or Interg 1 Affordable Housing as Required by the Judgement Entered by the Superior Court in Smith v All Persons. BACKGROUND The Judgement in the case of Smith v All Persons was entered on January 26, 1995. Among other things, the Judgement requires the City/Agency to modify its current ix of affordable housing projects (Haley, Breihan, Gateway, Brookview, Bowron) o achieve an approximate 60/40% family/senior unit mix. Haley Ranch Estates and reihan are already designated as family sites, which leaves the Gateway, rookview and Bowron Road sites for potential redesignation to family housing. At the March 13, 1995 Joint Meeting between the City Council/Redevelopment Agency and the Redevelopment and Housin Advisory Committee, it was determined that the Committee would hold a publ c hearing on the subject of t'is required redesignation. As the Commit ee conducted ublic hearings on he original Affordable Housing Overlay des gnations in 92, it was felt tha this would provide an opportunity for a ditional pub c input on this su ject. The Committee held this public hearing on March , 1995 and has prepared a report with the Committee's recommendations on his subject for City Council Redevelopment Agency consideration (Attachment A). ACTION: 2 of 64 ~A¥ 16 1995 Agenda Report May 16, 1995 Page 2 FINDINGS The Gateway site has the AH Overlay Zone designation for senior housing and is owned by Retirement Housing Foundation (RHF}. As the nation's largest developer and operator of senior housing, RHF has indicated that the site is only available for senior affordable housing develo ment. This leaves the Brookview and Bowron Road sites for consideration for th family designation. As a result, the City must modify the AH Overlay Zone esignation on the Bowron Road and/or the Brookview sites from senior to lam ly housing or 1 housing to comply with the terms of the Judgement. According to the Redevelopment Agency's affordable housing consultant, David Rosen, both the Brookview and Bowron Road sites are well suited for family and senior multi-family housing, wh ther developed as market rate or affordable housing. Mr. Rosen indicat that both sites would also accommodate intergenerational, or mixed fam y/senior housing. Due to market and financing Mr. Rosen recommen s against both sites being developed as intergenerational housing (Opt on #5). Mr. Rosen indicated that there is probably inadequate market acceptance of intergenerational housing to make tw such projects viable in Poway. Financing could be difficult to obtain an vacancy factors could compromise long-term financial viability of a secon intergenerational project. However, Mr. Rosen added that one intergenerationa project, as reflected in option #3, could help the City/Agency achieve the required family/senior unit mix. The report from the R development and Housing A visory Committee briefly reviews the March 27, 1995 pu lic hearing and presents he C r commendationon the redesignation of he Bowron and/or the Broo view sites for a fordable family and senior housing, detailed accounting of he March 27, 199 public hearing is found in the meeting minutes which are attached to the Commi tee's report. In evaluating the alternatives available to them, the Committee considered the following options: Option ~1 #2 #3 #4 #5 Bowron Road Site Family Units 92 0 go 30 54 Senior Units 0 110 0 60 36 Brookview Site Family Units 0 112 37 112 68 Senior Units 138 0 75 0 44 Percentage Mix Family Units 48% 54% 60% 64% 59% Senior Units 52% 46% 40% 36% 41% 3 of 64. I~AY 16 1995 ITEM Agenda Report May 16, 1995 Page 3 0 p t i on #_[ #~2 #~3 #~4 #~5 Number/Percentage Mix for all 5 projects: # Family Units 205 227 242 257 237 % Family Units 48% 54% 60% 64% 59% # Senior Units 222 194 159 144 164 % Senior Units 52% 46% 40% 36% 41% Total # Units 427 421 401 401 401 The Committee is recommending that the City Council desi nate the Bowron Road site for affordable family housi g and the Brookview site or affordable senio housing (Option #1). The Commit ee recommends howev r, tha if it is found t a this action does not comply w th the terms of t e Smit Judge ent, or t a project financing is adversely mpacted, that the rookview site e designa e for intergenerational (family and senior) hous ng (Option #3 . If t is contingency option is selected, the Committee recommends that the m nimum num er of family units be placed on the Brookview site to achieve the required senior/family mix. In making its recommendation, the Committee gave serious consideration to the public testimony and to the req imposed by the Smith Judgement. Compliance with the terms of the Smith Judgment require an approximate unit mix of 40% senior and 60% family in the five current projec s. The City Attorney has pined that none of th five options 'ly v olates the terms of the -udgment, but that addi ional family units must be a ded to ther projects if ption #1 is selected an family units are not included in the rookview project. n the event family uni s are not added to the Brookview pro ect at this time, t is the City Attorney's opinion that the staff should be irected to review all projects and sites to find additional ways to accomplish he requirement of an 60/40 mix. If a sufficient number of additional family units cannot be added elsewhere, it will be necessary to revise Brookview again in the future to make it intergenerational. A practical matter, the Breihan site may offer the only possibility of a di ional family units ( imited to the maximum within the South Poway Specific P an other than designa ing one of the other si es an interg 1 site. I a 1 "available" units approximately 40 were a ded to the Bre hah site, then t e overall mix on Optio. #I would be 245 family 53 percent) an 227 senior(47 per ent). While the ratio is improved, it is stil necessary to p ace additional lam ly units within the overall mix. Under these it appears that des gnating as family a portion of the eastern half of the Brookview site, is the bes feasible alternative. 4 o~ 64 IvlAY 16 1995 r~EM ~. ~i Agenda Report May 16, 1995 Page 4 In addition to the redesi nation issue being consi ered, i is recommended that the City Council amend AH 92-04 to include the th rd parcel which is currently owned b the Re evelopment Age cy (APN# 3 7-521-0 ). Th s is desirable in order to impro e the a ility to deve op the wes ern pot ion o the Brookview side, which is riangular in shape ue to the location of omerado Creek. Further, this act on will eliminate dif icult development ts which would result with an isolated 1.33 acre parcel. Draft resolutions are attached which would amend AHO 2-03 (Bowron Road and Civic Center) to allow development of senior, family or in ergenerational housing and which would, amend AHO 92-04 {Brookview) to inclu e AP 317-521-02 and allow development of senior, family or intergenerational ousing. FISCAL IMPACT There is no direct fiscal impact resulting from the City Council's d of the AH Overlay Zone designation. There may be some indirect impacts on e ability of the Redevelopment Agency to obtain leveraged financing for e projects, and thereby impacting the level of Agency Due to e number of variables present, it is not possible to estimate a dollar figure. &TAL REVIEW An tal analysis was conduc ed to determine the potential 1 impacts that could result from: 1 the pla ement of the Affordable Housing Overlay on the 1.33 acre parcel loca e west o Pomerado Road and North of Poway Road, 2) the redesignation of the ad o ning 5. 7 acre site on Pomerado Road from senior to family housing and 3) the re esignat on of the 4.4 acre parcel located on the corner of Bowron Road and C vic Center Drive from senior to family housing. he analysis took into consideration potential site specific concerns as well as he action programs, strategies, policies and mitigation found in the General lan and the E 1 Impact Report prepared in conjunction with the P an pdat . Based on this review, it as determined that the placement of he Affor able Housing Overlay on the 1.3 acre parcel and the redesignation of he two o her sites from senior to family ousing would have no direct al impac . These actions, though wou d have the potential to create re a ed 'secon ary and cumulative impacts. The two main issues identified in the in t al study were the cumulative impacts on the over crowded school system an the secondary traffic impacts ~ with a development. The two sites on which a change in the housing style is proposed are bot · lly zoned. A brief traffic anal sis was conducted on the two subjec sites based on a 1 ' 1 pr ject that would meet the developmen guidelines of the parcel and zone. In otb cases, the projected number o · 1 vehicle trips per day was at east twice as high as the number o - vehicle trips that has been estimated for each of the proposed family housing sites. Regardless, if the sites are developed ' lly or residentially, traffic mitigation measures will be required. ~lAY 1 6 1995 ITEM 4 5 of 64 Agenda Report May 16, 1995 Page 5 Other concer s such as noise, light and impact on the biotic systems were noted. These and o her potential impacts cannot be fully evaluated at this level. A site specif c project with a defined number of units, architectural style, layout, lan caping plan, and circulation plan must be submitted on which an ta~ analysis can be based. The issuance of Ne ative De larations indicating no adverse tal impacts anticipated is re ommende A thorough 1 review of the potential impacts to each s te resu ting from development will be undertaken at the time the actual projec comes o the City Council for approval. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND Public Notice of the hearin was published twice in the Poway News Chieftain. A total of 149 public heari.g notices were mailed, which includes the standard 500' notices and those maile to parties reque ting notification. All who were mailed copies of the notice or the public hear n held by the Redevelopment and Housing Advisory Committee were mailed notices o this meeting. A copy of this report was also forwarded to Catherine Rodman o he Legal Aid Society, the Chair of the Senior Issues Committee and the Executive · irector of Poway Valley Senior Citizens Inc. RECOMMENDATION It is recommende that the City Council take the following actions: (1) rece ye and file the report from Redevelopment Housing advisory C mm ttee; (2) a op a resolution designating the Bowron site as a family site ('pt on {3) a op a resolution designating the Brookview site (all three parcels} as interg with the family unit to be placed on the southeast portion of the property (Option 3 . The specific number of family units to be placed on this site w ll be determined as a function of site design and approximate ac ievement of the court order ratio of family to senior units;and (4) issue negative declarations with respect to the above actions. Attachments: - eport from the Rede elopme t and Housi g Advisory Committee - ite Maps of Bowron oad an Brookview roperties - eso ution Amending he AH verlay on e Bowron Road site - eso utio Amending he AH ve lay on e Brookview site - e a ire eclara ion - eso ut on 92-1 - e a ire eclara ion - eso ut on 92-1 - n t al S udy - esolut on 2- 60 - n t al S udy - esolut on 2- 76 E:\CITY\PLAN NING\REPORT\AMENDAHO.AGN 6 of 64 MAY COMMITTEE REPORT REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Honorable Chairman and Members of the Redevelopment Agency FROM: Chairman and Members of the Redevelopment and Housing Advisory Committee DATE: May 16, 1995 SUBJECT: Update on the Committee's March 27, 1995 Meeting and Recommendation Regarding Family or Senior Affordable Housing Designation for the Bowron Road and Brookview Sites. BACKGROUND At the February 28, 1995 Joint Meeting between the and the City Council/Redevelopment Ag ncy, it was decided that t e would hold a public hearing on the su ject of redesignatin§ the ffordable Housing Overlay Zone from senior to fami y on the Brookview and/or he Bowron Road site(s) pursuant to the Judgemen entered by the Superior Court on the Smith II case. The Judgement requires t e City of Poway/Redevelopment Agency to change the mix of its current affordable housing program from ly 40% family and 60% family, to approximately 60% family and 40% senior. Accordingly, the Committee held a ublic hearin on March 27, 1995 at the Comm, nity Park Auditorium. In pre aration for his meeting, a notice of publ c hearing was published i th March 16, I 95 edition of the Poway News Chie tain and notice were mai ed o all proper y owners within 500' of both the owron Road and he Brookv ew si es (Atta hment 1). In addition, meeting notices were mailed o all ind vidua s who ha requested a copy of said notice. Copies of t e notice were a so maile to the Poway Chamber of Commerce, Poway Unified School Distr ct, and ocal community groups on file with the City Clerk's office. FINDINGS C'airman Tom Tremble opened the March 27, 1995 Committee meeting w th a review o the purpose of the public hearing and read a memo prepared by C ty Attorney S eve Eckis into the record which o, tlined the of modify ng the a fordable housing mix and the C role in this process (A tachment 2 . Mr. Tremble then reviewed meet ng protocol items, such as completing speaker slips and the three minute ime limit on most Following Mr. Tremble's introduction, the Director of Planning Services, Reba Wright-Quast!er, provided a brief overview of: Housing Element affordable housing req the Affordable Housing (AH) Overlay Zone d 7 of 64 Att b A blAY 16 1995 ITEM 4 i.* RDHAC Report May 16, 1995 Page 2 process, and the City's Development R view Process. David Rosen reviewed the findings of a report prepared by his irm (Attachment 3) which evaluated the suitability of Bowron Road and Brookv ew sites for senior and family housing and the concept of ' tional senior/family} housing on one or both of these sites. fter the st ff/consultant Chair Tremble opened the public earing. Th rty-nine perso s offered to the Committee and another 0 speaker sips were submi ted by persons indicating that they did not wish o speak. I is estimated hat a total of 150 people attended this Committee meeting. Following the pu lic Chair T m Trembl closed the public hearing and asked st ff o espond to the speci ic quest ons posed by the speakers. Following th s s af response, Mr. Trem le opene the d' to the Committee. de ai ed of th s Commit ee meeting is provided in the meeting minu es At achment ¢). As presented in a report from David Rosen, the Committee considered five options for complying with the Smith II Judgement, as found on Page 9 of said report: Option #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 Bowron Road Site Family Units 90 0 90 30 54 Senior Units 0 110 0 60 36 Brookview Site Family Units 0 112 37 112 68 Senior 138 0 75 0 44 In evaluating these options, the C mmittee expressed concerns which included: (1) whether all options presented n Mr. Rosen's report would satisfy the terms of the Smith II Judgement; ( ) the lack of facilities for children in the area of the Brookv ew site; (3) the viability of securing leveraged financing for a ly project. In developi g their recommendation, the Committee ack owledged that they were influenced y the overwhelming public input that the rookview site not be designated or family housing. Of the 39 speakers of ering testimony at this meeting, on y four offered testimony in favor of reta ning the senior designation on the Bowron Road property. fter considerable d' the ommittee approved a motion to recommen hat the City Council redesignate t e Bowron Road site to a ?amiTy AH Over ay and use the senior AH verlay designation n the Brookview si e. e ~otion included a contingency t at: in the event t at it is found tha is recommendation is not feasible, in terms of projec financing or that is option is found not to comply with the Smith II Ju gement, that the 8 of 64 IvlAY 16 1995 ITEM RDHAC Report May 16, 1995 Page 3 Broo'view si e be developed as 1 (senior/family housing as prov ded in ption #3. The feels that if this contin ency plan is acte upon, hat the Brookview pro ect include only enough fami y units to comp y with he 60%/40% family/sen or requirement of the Smith I Judgement. RECOMMENDATION The Committee recommends that the City Council designate the Bowron Road site for affordable family housin , and that the Brook iew site be designated for affordable enior housing, n the event that it s found that this recommendat on does not comp y with the terms of he Smith II Judgement or that projec financing is no available, the Comm ttee recommends that the Brookview s te be designated as an intergenerational site. Attachm nts: (for the City Council) "" - ublic Hearin Notice for March 27, 9 5 C mmittee Meeting. "" - emo From Cit' Attorney Steve Eckis a ed .arch 27, 1995. "" - eport From D vid Paul Rosen & A ated March 23, 1995. "" - inutes from he March 27, 1995 Comm tee .eeting. 9 64 IY1AY 1 6 1995 CITY OF P ow^Y Dear Property Owner: The Redevelopment nd Housing dvisoryCommitteewill be holding apublic hearing on the question o changing he designation on one of two affordabl housing sites from senior o family, his is being one tocom lywith aCourt-udgement tered in alawsu t against t eCity. The udgement r quires the City ochange e current mix of affordable housing proje ts from 60 senior and 40% amily to % family and 40% senior. In order to mee this rev sed mix, at least one of ese two sites must be changed. The public is invited to comment at the hearing and/or by sending written comments, before the hearing, to: Nr. Tom Tremble, Chairman, Redevelopment and Housing Advisory Committee, P. O. Box789, Poway, CA 92074-0789. Heeting date: .arch 27, 1995 Time: p.m. Location: ommunity Park Auditorium 3094 Bowron Road oway, CA 92064 Both of the sites were previously approved for affordable housing, and both sites have been purchased by the Poway Redevelopment Agency. Both are currently designated as senior housing sites. The Committee will be making a recommendation to the City Council regarding: (1} which site to designate for family housing or (2) whether a mix of senior and family housing should be considered for either one or both the sites. The sites which will be considered are shown on the attached maps and can be described as follows: 1. Bowron Rd. A Parcel Number 317-473-18, avacant 4.4 acre property located at the northeast corner of Bowron Road and Civic Center Drive, west of Poway Plaza Shopping Center. Owner: Poway Redevelopment Agency. 2. A Parcel Numbers 317-521-02, 03 and 04, a vacant 6.7 acre property located on the west side of Pomerado Road, between Poway Road and Robison Boulevard. Owner: Poway Redevelopment Agency. Once the Advisory Committee has made a recommendation, the City Council will schedule another public hearing, probably in April, at which the City Council will make the final decision. We will send out another notice for that hearing. If you have any questions about this process, please contact Warren Sharer at 679-4249 or Pamela Colby at 679-4363. Warren H. Shafer Director of Redevelopment Services City Hall Located at 13325 Civic Center Drive ~' "ailing Address: P,O. Box 789, Poway, California 92074-0789 · (619) 748-6600, 695-1400 10 of 64 1 MAYlfii995 ITEM 4 BOgRON ROAD SITE APg 317-473-18 ' ) : I ~, BROOKVIEW SITE ~ I i) " --'J~_~ o.u.~. ~/~.~"'~, APN 317-521-02, 03 AND 04 Attachment 11of64 -- ~ ~ ~ ~IAY 16 1995 IT£M b '" ' CITY OF POWAY TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Redevelopment and Housing Advisory Committee FROM: Stephen M. Eckis, City Attorn~ DATE: March 27, 1995 RE: Your meeting of March 27, 1995 is the result of the judgment entered in the lawsuit known as v. All ] ~ns. Judgment in that case was entered in January, 1995. Poway is hound to obey the terms of that Judgment. The Judgment requires that Poway redesignate some combination of the five existing housing projects (Haley, Breihan, Bowron, Brookview, and Gateway) from approximately 40% family and 60% senior to approximately 60% family and 40% senior. The Judgment requires that all five sites be built as affordable housing sites. It further requires, aa a practical matter, combination of the Bowron, Brookview and Gateway sites be changed f housing to family housing. The City Council has asked for the C the process ofredesignating the existing five sites to provide more family housing. Your charg ':let whether or not these sites should be affordable housing sites. The Judgment requires that each be an affordable housing site. Your charge is to make a recommendation to the City Council g which site, or which combination of sites, should be redesignated from a senior designation to a family designation in order to satisfy the legal of the Judgment. Public testimony should focus on which site or sites should be changed from senior to family. Testimony that a site should not be an affordable housing site at all is ' your chazge. Speakers should be encouraged to address which should be changed from senior to family. ,. 12 of 64 A 1S9 ~ DAVID PAUL ROSEN & ASSOCIATES ~OUS,Na ~ March 23, lgCJ5 To: Mr. Warren Sharer Fro, m: Mr. David Rosen, Ms. Nora Lake-Brown Subiect: Public Hearing, Redevelopment and Housing Advisory Committee Consideration of Bowron Road and Brookview Sites as Family, Senior, or Interg I Housing CONSULTANT CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION The Bowron Road and 8rookview properties are both good affordable hnusin~ sites for eith families. Devek,pment of an affordable ' ,, housing project in Poway is feasible, but will be more difficult and may prove more costly for the City y senior or famdy project. VVe feel confident that the City can real' Ful inter.~ I affordable ha~sing project on either the Bowron Road or Brook ' We counsel against development of two interg 'l projects given the additional financial and market risk. INTrODUCTiON This memo reviews City and Consultant. site selection criteria for affordable family and ~enior housing and addresses key issues regarding the development of intergenerational housing designed to :late a mix of seniors nnd families. Part I applies the site selection criteria used by the Redevelopment and Housing Advisory Committee and the Oty Council in selecting the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone. sites and additional criteria considered by the Consultant to the Bowron Road and Brookvlew sites in summary- ~ashion. Part II describes several examples of interg I housing ptoiects in California and discusses the pros and cons of developing an inter~ I housing proiect in Poway. .' ~IAY ~L 6 1995 ITEM 13 of 64 DA'VI:) PAUL ROSEN & ASSOCIATES Mr. Warren Sharer March 23, 1995 -'-- '~ ' Page 2 I. AFFORDABLE HOUSING SITE SELECTION CRITERIA City site select;on criteria used in evaluating and selecting Affordable Housing Overlay Zone sites substantially match the C site planning criteria for affordable family and senior housing. The table on page 3 assesses the compa{ibilit'y of the Bowron Road and Brookview sites with site selection criteria of the Ci~ and additional criteria considered by the Consultant for affordable family and senior hgusing. Our is that both affordable housing, sites are appropriate for either families or seniors. II. INTERGENERATIONAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ISSUES ^fte~ a brief search, the Consultant identified five examples of interR I housing in C'alifurnia, described below. We also discuss the advantages and disadvantages of interg [ housing with respect to the following key develop 1. Financin~ 2. Market Risk 3. Design 4. Fair Housing and Marketing 5. Smith Judgement 6. Cost A. EXAMPLES OF_INTERGENERATIONAL HOUSING Affordable housing is not commonly dc'signed to house a mix of senior citizens and families. Time limited our search, but DRA was able to identified only a few examples of existing and planned interg [ housing projects in California. We are not aware of many such projects nationwide, although it is likely 1. West Hollywood The West Hollywood C Housing Corporation (WHCHC) opened a 41-unit I housing development in October, 1994 financed with Low Income Huusing Tax Credits. The project contains 12, three-bedroom unit~ for large families and '~5 on.e-bedroom units reserved f ~IAY 1 6 1995 ITEM 14 of 64 ?a&e 3 COMPATIBILITY WITH CITY AND CONSULTANT ,_ SITE SELECTION CRITERIA BOWRON ROAD AND BROOKVIEW SITES CITY OF POWAY Bowron ad Site Brook e~-Site Criterion ~emm Family Senlo [an 'Iv COMMITTEE/CITY COUNCIL CRITERIA M. inimum Site Size Y,~s Yes Yes Yes Site Size N/A Yes N/A Yes lope Yes Yes Yes Yes Transit Yes Yes Yes Yes ~ roximity to Shopping Yes Yes Yes Yes Itilities Yes Yes Yes Yes Corr,palible with Yes Yes Yes Yes Neighborhood ~oximir¥ to Schools N/A Yes; school N/A Yes may be more impacted tha,~ Brookview ADDITIONAL CONSULTANT CRITERIA Proximity to Recreational Yes Yes Less than Less than ervices Bowron Rd. Bowron Rd. Access to Health Services Yes N/A Yes N/A Access to Social Services Yes Yes Yes Yes Not App I IA¥ 1 6 19 s ITEM 15 of 64 DAVID PAUL ROSEN & ASSOCIATES M~. Warren Sharer March 23, 1995 ~ _~ , Page 4 -- 2. Frank ~4ar ~ Oakland The Frank Mar Apartments in Oakland, California contains a total of 11 9 ~Jnits, including ~,6 one-bedroom units reserved for seniors. The development includes a ni~w slaty Iowe~ wilh approximately 80 one- and ~o-bedr~m uniLs and a courtyard area conlaining ~bou~ 40 ~o-, three- and four-bedroom units. The five-year old developmen{ is owned and operated by ~he Easi Bay Asian L~al Development Corporation (EBAI. DCX and was also fixated using ~x cr~its. Hismen Mia-no, Oakland The Hismen Hin-nu development in Oakland opened in January 1995 and contains 92 one-, ~o-, three- and four-bedroom uni~. While no units are reserved f the 17 one-bedr~m uni~ are being rented to seniors and small familia. The tax credit financed development is ' d and operated by EBALDC. 4. Eldridge Go.way Commons, OaA[and [Idridge Gonaway Commons, a 40-unit affordable housinR p~oject owned by Oakland Housing Incorporated (~HI), provides a mix of senior, handi<'app~ and family housing in Oakland. The project opened in 1982 and was financ~ with a CHFA mortgage and HUD Section 8 projecl-based subsidies. The project con,ins 16 one- bedroom units in a three-story buiIdlng rese:'v~ (or seniors and handica~ed. The remainin~ 34 ~wo- and ~hr~*bedroom uni~ are ]~at~ in ~o-story f]a~ and {ownhomes. The ~o populations are ~sentially separate, with separate access provided for the seniors, There is a shared couAyard and communi~ room, which is primarily us~t by the families. The r~id: leadership is largely rep ' families wi~h pa~icipation. DAVID PAUL ROSEN & ASSOCIATES Mr. Warren Sharer March 23, 1995 -- Page 5 5. Emeryville Oakland C , Housing Incorporaled (OCI'II) is currently in the desilln phase or' an interg housing development in Emeryville, California. The dcvelopmen/ consists of two projects with two different financing The project will include lwo-stor¥, walk-up townhomes for families and three-story -I rials for seniors. 8. FINANCING ',nterg "~ housing projects mus~ be structured properly to secure finan¢in~ Three ut' [he projects described above were financed using Low Income Housing Tax Credits. Prank Ma~ competed under old TCAC rules, but tt' projects (We~t Hollywood, Hisrnen Hin-nu) cornpeted under current Tax Credit Allocation C' allocation ~rheria. West Hollywood designated units for seniors in their TCAC application; Hismen Hin-nu did not. Current TCAC allocation criteria provide an advantage to large family and SRO housing by' allowing them to earn "bonus" points for which senior housing is ineligible. Given the comp ' ' of the allocation process, in recent rounds only large family and SRO projects with a perfect score plus bonus points have received allocations. The West Hollywood and Hisrnen Hin-nu developments competed and earned allocati,,,,4 a~ large famil); housing projects, complying with the key provision-that 30% or mo, eol/he units contain at least three bedrooms. The Emeryville project will be financed using local HOME and tax ' subsidies, potentiall) with a tax-exempt mortgage from CHFA. [Idridge Gonaway Commons was financed using Section 8 project subsidies which are no longer available. C. MARKET RISK Our blief search was only able to locate a handful of affordable interg 'l t~ousing projects. We are not aware of any such projects that have been developed in the private ~ector, although some may exist. Interg [ housing has not received market acceptance and therefore is subject to increased market and financial risk. L7 of 64 ~¥ 16 1995 II'EM ~- ~1 · ..~i~ D,',VID PAUL ROSEN & ASSOCIATES Mr. Warren Sharer _. ~. ~ M~rch 23, 199S -- Page 6 D. DESIGN Interg I housing proiects must be designed to meet the needs of both the family and senior residents, The amount of separation desired bet',veen the senior and family unil~ is a r local I~ r and cultural values. All :1 (acilities ate shared by seniors and families in EBALDC's two projects. This reportedly- works well ak ~rank Mar, where both groups participate in the residents' and a real sense ty" prevails. The West Hollywood and Fmeryville pro}ects have been designed to provide separation for the senior~ and families. The West Hollywood project is built or, an %" shaped ID! with a four-story, el J senior building on the long leg of the %" and a two-story, walk-up family building on the short leg of the "Lt Each building has its own y room and patio. In addition, where the two buildings jr~ifl there is a shared central patio, room, mailbox and office. While the house rules t'all for no children in the seniors' lounge and patio, the rules are not enforced as long as the children are quiet and not disturbing the seniors. The OCtql Emeryville project is also being designed to provide separate entrances for seniors and families. The building is L-shaped, with the long side faong San t'ablo Street and the short side adjacent 1o an existing senior housing project devt. luped by Bridge Housing. The building is three, stories adjacent to the existing senior project. The seniors will have a separate access off San Pablo Street adjacent to the existing Brid~.e project. The senior project will also h to the common facilities/amenities provided at the Bridge project. E. FAIR MOUSING LAW AND MARKETING Interg I housing developments must comply with federal and Slate Fair Mousing law. Tr~e State Fair Employment and Housing Act and the Unruh Civil Rights Act require facilities must be at least 1 $O units in size if the develop be mar~,eted to persons 5S years of age and older. The size does not apply to housinl~ designated for persons 62 years of age and older. 19,11 residents mu~t mc'.t the requirement, Under federal fair housing law, marketing must provide equal opportunity for all wi' -1 and qualified to apply to live in the development. ~1AY ! ~ ]gg5 ITEM L8 of 64 O'~JlO ~'~.UL RCSEN & ASSOCIATES Mr. Warren Sharer March 23, 1995 Page 7 _- ~. WHCHC and OCHI interpret federal and State Fair Housing law as allowing the r units or projects as senior or disabled housing. Marketing of the proiect must be designed to comply with fair housing law and effectively lease-up both the senior and family units. The West Hollywood Commun;ly Housing Corporation marketed its project as an interg I project with units for seniors and families. A limited amount of newspaper advertising was used to meel Fair Housing req although the project was largely filled from WHCHC's bwn waiting list and from social service agency referrals. EBALDC does not advertise either lhe Frank Mar or Hismen Hin-rlu developments . :- specif,catlv as senior hou*ing. Rather, they specify the bedroom sizes and aflorrJabiliry levels available. As potential residents apply for Frank Mar, they are informed of the uni~ reserved for senior~. In Hismen Hin-nu, the one-bedroom unit~ are made .}vaitahle to interested ~eniors and small families alike. F. SMITH JUDGEMENT The recent Smith Judgement requires that Poway redesig combination of the five exkfing housing projects (Haley, Breihan, Gateway, Bowron Road and Brookview) flora appro,dnrately 40% family and 60% senior to approximately 60% family and 40% senior. The Haley and Breihan projects are already family. Retirement Housing Foundalion (RHF), the I~rgest nonprofit develcper of affordable senior housing in the country, 'owns the Gateway site and has expressed interest only in developing affordable senior housin8 on the site. The City is currently in discussion with RIfF regarding development at the Gateway site as affordable senior housing. That leaves only the Bowron Road and - Brookvie,,,. sites, at I' 'which must be developed with family housin§ to appruach the approximate 60% family/40% senior split. The table on page 9 shows five option~ for developing senior, family, or inter§ I hou~ing on the 8owron Road and Brookview sites, respectively, and the resulting total percentages of senior and family housing on the five sites. It should be noted that the assumed unit counts for the Bov,'run Road and Brookview sites as farnily and senior '; .~. housing are preliminary estimates only. r.)AVID PAUL ROSEN & ASSOCIATES Mr. Warren Sharer March 23, 1995 - Page 8 The lowest percentage of family housing results if 0owron Road is developed as family housing and Brookview as senior housinR (48% family and 52% senior housing). If Brookview is developed as family housing and Bowron Road as senior housing, the percentages are 54% family and 46% senior. By providing an ' I project on Bow~on Road and/or 6rookview, the 60% family/40% senior spl~t can be met or exceeded. G. ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF INTERGENEICATIONAL HOUSING The Consultant concludes that one inlerg I project is feasible bu! that two such projects a~e not :led due to tl~ J market and financial risk. We provide below our of the advantages and disadvantages of developing inter?:, I housing on the Bowron Road or Brookview sites in Pa,.vay. This is J in the attached matrix which follows the text. 1. Financing It may be more difficult to obtain financing for an interg I project. It may be necessary to develop ~vo projects using two different financing structures for the senior and family components. West Hollywood provides a clever example of responding to current program guidelines in order to obtain tax credit financing as a large family project while reserving a portion of the units for seniors. This strategy could potentially be rep!ic¢ted in Poway. Alternatively to seeking tax credits, the Agency could pay the full cost of subsidizing the project(s) from its Low and Moderate Income Mousing Fund. This al 'ties no leverage of City dollars and is dependent upon an adequate supply of Housing Funds. This approach would need to comply with the terms of the Smith Judl~emenL We anticipate a more diff~cult time obtaining I p debt on an interg I project, d ~1 market risk. :0 of 64 J~I]AY 16 1995 l~gc 9 - Cl-~¥ OF POWAY ~USING PROJ"ECT OPTIONS TO MEET 60% FAMILY/,I0% SENIOR SPLIT AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJ'ECT ESTIMATED UNIT COLq~FS _. ~ = Estimated ffordnble :adey 65 Family G-a~wa7 g4 Senior Brelha.,~ 50 Family 135 Senior 112 Family or Intergenerauona -J 110 Semor 90 Family or Inters - TOTAL ESTU'ZATED UNITS a, O1 to 447 BOWRON RD/BROOKYTE'~' SITE DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS Unit Yields Bowron Road Family Units: 90 0 90 30 54 Se~ior Units: 0 110 0 60 36 Brookv3ew Family Units: 0 112 37 112 68 Senior Units: 138 0 75 0 44 Tout] Family Units (5 Sites) 205 227 242 25'I 237 % Family Units (5 Sites) 45% $4% 60% 64% S9% Toud Senior Units (5 Sit~) 222 194 159 % Senior Uni~ (5 Sites) ~2% 46% 40% 36*/~ 41% To~ Uni~ (5 S~s) 427 421 ~I 401 401 Note ~tivns 3 ~d 4 thte~d~m f~ily uni~ in TCAC Imge f~ily requi~men~. U for Bowron Rd ~d Br~'iew siles.. ~wer famil Hor interg 21 of 64 ~1~¥ 18 1995 DA,.'ID PAUL ROSEN & ASSOCIATES Mr. Warren Sharer March 23, 1995 ~-'~ ~ Page 1 0 2. Market Risk Inrerg projects may be subject to increased market risk given the lack of acceptance of this type of housing in the marketplace, in general, and in San Diego Courtly, in particular. 3. Design The interg projects we identified largely segregate the seniors and tamilies by providing separate buildings, and common facilities. The amount of separation desirab;e is dependent upon local community p The feasibility of providing separate amenities 1or seniors and families is a function of the site's layout, local development and zoning code standards, and the creati,.ity of the selected architect. Serf, rat of the above projects have used "L" shaped sites to advantage in separating fa¢ilibes for seniors and families. 4, Fair Housing/Marketing It is important that th and marketing plan for One project does not vis,idle federal arid Stale fair housing law. It is possible to devise a marketing plan for the silt- wi~ich the risk of successful litiRation against the developer and/o~ the City alleging housing d' However, no marketing plan can prevent lawsuits, therefore the focus must be on preventing the loss of such suits. The litigation record on fair housing issues is The trend is toward careful with no d' ~, advertising, screening, or ' practices. 5. Smith Judgement An interg I housing project on eilher the Brookview or Bowron Road sites would increase the City's ability to meet the 60% family/40 senior split called for in the Smith Judgement. fvl&Y 6 1995 ITEM 22 off 64 "~'~ ~4'.'~ PAUL ROSEN & ASSOCIATES r ~1'~' Mr. Warren Sharer Marr'h 23, 1995 Page 1 1 -- 6. Cost Creative design solutions providing a mix of senior and family housing may increase ha~d development costs. I')eveloprnent consulting, le§aJ, financing and Cit,;. subsidy costs may also increase. 23 of 64 ~f~AY 16 1995 ITEM ~. ~-~ ADVANTAGES AND DI I~i:$ OF '"'~' INTERGENERATIONAL HOUSING CITY OF POWAY AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY ZONL Ad.at i~es Dis~dvantaees Co~_clus~n 't [inancing May be able ~o ob~in More compli~t~; may rifldtIC[n~ Of tax cr~i~ financing as r~uire two proje~ and inter~ ' ~ proje~ large family proje~ ~wo financing stru~ur~; more complicat~b~ and reserve portion of may be more diff~cu~to feJ~ible; mny improve uni~ for seniors obtmn I cornt p ~a~e(s) credits c~pared to all-senior prol~t 2. Mdrkel Risk fewer senior units the ' ' ~, affordable ,el risk all-senior proje~; and market-rate ,.ith interR rearer demand likely, examples may indicate projec~ given lack of accep~nce in a~e~ d,flerence marke~lace; market tween subsidized unfired in ~n Diego and market rents C~nty · Design Probably feasible C di~cult Design issues can likely desi§n challen§es be resolved depending upon degree of separation desired be~een senion and ~amilies 4, Fair Housing None May increase llkelihoad Marketing plan ~ m be and M~rke,,ing of fair housing lawsuit if prepared lh.~.t should "ol marketed carefully pried C fair housing feral challenge · City Settlement Allows City to reach o None :ility o[ City exceed 60% family/ to hit 60%/40% Larger 40% senior ratio of affordable housin~ 6 Cast None ikel¥ hard Inler~ r project mayt: y, may ~, require greater City legal and financing costs subsidy and required City ,ubsidy I~IRY [ 6 1995 ITEM 24 of 64 P0WAY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Redevelopment and Housing Advisory Minutes Monday, March 27, 1995 SPECIAL MEETING Members Present Tom Tremble, Chair; Richard Burke, Vice Chair; Duke Ayers; David Churchill; Jim Crosby, Kennon Dial; Lois Downs; Darwin Drake; Alan Dusi; Joyce Eiswald; Peggy Lester; Gordon Meyer; Mary Mitchell; Roger Willoughby; Bob Wolinski Committee Members Absent None Staff Members Present arren H. Shafer, Director of Redevelopment Services eba Wright-Quastler, Director of Planning Services avid Narevsky, Redevelopment Manager amela Colby, Redevelopment Project Ad orraine Gessel, Administrative Secretary Guests Present David Rosen, David Paul Rosen and A Nora Lake-Brown, David Paul Rosen and Associates 1. ~ Drder The March 27, 1995 meeting of the Redevelopment and Housing Advisory Committee was called to order at 7:06 p.m. by Chair Tremble. 2. Committe. ) Cit Coun nil' Side A. Introductory Comments by Committee Chair Tom Tremble. Chairman Tom Tremble opene this special meeting of the Committee by explaining to the audience that the Re evelopment and Housing Advisory Committee was charged by the City Council to hol a public hearing to receive input on the designation of family or senior affor able housing on the Bowron and Brookview sties. Thi was being done to accommodate the Judgement in the Smith v All Persons lawsui which mandates a redesignation of the housing projects from a 40/60 family/senior to approximately a60/40% family/senior designation. He continue by identifying the five sites designated for the Agency's affordable housing program and emphasized that the purpose of the hearing was to designate which 25 of 64 rtlAY 16 1995 Minutes of the RHAC Meeting of March 27, 1995 Page 2 sites would be d veloped as family and senior housing; not t determine whether these sites shou d have the Affordable Housing Overlay, as tha d had already be n m e in 1992. Chair Tremble went on to read he memo from City Attorney S eve ckis which clarified the Judgement and provi ed a focus for the public tes imony. Chair Tremble then reviewed the agenda or the meeting and establishe the protocol for those wishing to speak under the public hearing portion of the meeting. B. Presentation by City Planning Director Rebe Wright-Quastler on General Plan Affordable Housing Req ' Affordable Housing Overlay Designation Process, and the City's Development Review Process. Director of Planning Services Reba Wright-Quastler indicated that the City' Housing Element has been required since 1969, and by 1990, law was in place tha mandated that the Housing Elemen be reviewed by the Department of Housing an U ban Development. In 1991Poway egan its Housing Element upd te and found tha i h d inadequate high densi sites to ac ommodate ousing for the a for able/1 category. .e Council was no pleased w th the concept f h gh- ensity, but having to comp y with the law tey decide that they wou d provi e only what was necessary to remain in compl ance. The response to th s was t e Affordable Housing Overlay, which allows developers who provide th s affordable housing to develop at the higher density of up to 25 units per acre for affordable very-low income housing or up to 18 units per acre for lower income housing. Originally, approximately 36 sites were identified as potential Aff rdable Housing Overlay sites. The list of criteria for affordable housin si e was established at the recommendation of the Redevelopment and Housi.g A v sory Committee and later a proved by th City Council. Ms. Wright-quast er r efly reviewed that criteri for the aud ence. She added that the Redeve opmen and Housing A' isory Comm ttee held pu lic hearings every two weeks from February through ne of 199 , taking pu lic input and visiting the sites under considera ion. By Ju y of that year the Committee had reduced the original 36 sites to 3 and recommended them to the City Council; by September, the City Council designated the five that are presently in place. Ms. Wri ht-Quastler added that the Redevelopment Agency is mandat d to prov 'e fforda le housing and in response to that mandate, the Agency boug.t two of e fforda le Housing Overlay sites which are presently under consi eration, e owron oad and Brookview sites. Subsequently, the Legal Aid Soc ety sued e ity over its amendment to the Redevelopment Plan and challenged the validity of he Housing Element. One of the results of the Judgement entered in the suit is hat the City must provide for a higher percentage of affordable family housing han had originally been intended. Ms. Wright-Quastler gave a brief description of what the City evaluates during the development review process, indicating that the City performs a development review for all projects and looks at the design of the project to insure that it flows roperly with the surrounding area. She advised that he Affordable Housin Overlay p would also be subject to a specif c plan. The specif c plan goes into more detail than the development review an also provides for pu lic input into the design of the project wi h City design standards. 26 of 64 ~AY 1G 1995 ITEM 4 Minutes of the RHAC Meeting of March 27, 1995 Page 3 In closing, Ms. Wright-Quastler indicated that staff would make the recommendation that no through street from th Brookview project would go into Poway Estates and that a wall be built along he western side of the property, with some landscaping. She then asked the Comm ttee if there were any questions, indicating that her presentation was conclude . There were no q C. Presentation by Affordable Housing Consultant David Rosen on the Suitability of the Bowron Road and Brookview Sites for Affordable Family and Senior Housing. Consultant David Rosen began his resentation by giving information on the types of households that would be occu ying these developments by their income level, which i~ calculated based on the edian income for San Diego County, and by their job classification categories, e noted that presently the market accommodates the median income level need but not the need for lower level income housing. Based on his experience as a consultant working in the field of affordable housing development, Mr. Ros n indicated that both the Brookview and Bowron sites are excellent for either af ordable or market rate, senior or family housing. He added that they meet the ity's criteria as to lot size, slope req availability to transit, uti ities, 1 facilities and schools. Also, both fit into the character of the neighborhoods that they are nearby and are not isolated off in industrial or ' 1 sectors. Additionally, health care services and social services are available. Mr. Rosen then stated that either site would also be suited to be developed as mixed or l" housing. Although there are a few good examples of intergeneratio~al housing, he indicated there are not many examples, and no examples of intergenerational projects in San Diego County. Mr. Rosen then reviewed the following issues associated with intergenerational housing. 1. Financin financing becomes more complicated and re difficult on a mixed pr ject. It can be done, but may be more cost to the City. 2. Market R sk - will people want to live in intergenera ional developments? It is st ll an untested concept, especially in San D ego County. 3. Design - to be successful, the development must be sensitive to the natural separ tion of family and senior. 4. Fair Housing % - Both Federal and State law strictly prohibit housing d' 5. Judgement of mith v All Persons - interg 1 housing will allow the City to get close to the required housing split. 6. Cost - will an interg 1 project be an asset to the This type of project is more costly to develop. In onclusion, Mr. Rosen stated that he thought an interg 1 project cou d be successful as long as it was well-managed, but given he untested nature of he market, would not recommend that both sites be deve oped in this way. Char Tremble thanked Mr. Rosen and asked if the Committee ha any questions for him. There were no questions from the C ~IAY 1 G 1995 27 of 64 Minutes of the RHAC Meeting of March 27, 1995 Page 4 D. Overview by Committee Chair Tom Tremble of Purpose and Protocol for the Public Hearing. At this point in the meeting, Chair Tremble indicated that he had received 34 speaker slips, and 20 other speaker slips indicating they did not wish to speak, but wished to provide written comment (see Attachment 1). He then reviewed the protocol for spea ers which included a speaking limit of three minutes (unless they requested a ditional time in advance) and requested the speakers to state their name and ad ress for the record and to speak clearly and slowly. Also, Mt.Tremble suggeste that if a speaker is in agreement with the previous speaker, not to repeat, but rather state agreement. He also indicated that a section of seating was set aside for the speakers, so he would call three speakers up to the dias at one time. E. Open Public Hearing and Take Public T Chair Tremble opened the public hearing at 7:38 p.m. One f' break was called at 8:30 p.m. The public hearing was closed at 9:35 p.m. All f the s eakers were heard. The final number of speaker slips totaled 40, wi h one s eaker deciding not to address the Committee. A list of speakers is at ached ( ee Attachment 2). The following is a breakdown of the comments presen ed by t e 39 speakers. Twenty-eight speakers (72%) spoke in favor of putting affordable family housing on the Bowron site. Twenty of those 28 also stated that they were in favor of the Brookview site being developed as senior housing. The reasons cited for arriving at this cision were because the Brookview site does not provide recreational facil ies, or even a park, and is located near the second most dangerous int in Poway, whereas, the Bowron site provides a safer for chi renwith close proximity to 1 activities, grocery shopping, schools, and the new library which they felt was for residents of 1 family housing. peakers Ted B ' and akin ' ~t were opposed to the ~velopment of any 1 housing on the rookview site. Spe ker Noriko who favored the owron site as family ousing, stated that s e felt the rookview site was not sui ed for anything, and For who a so favored he Bowron site for fam ly housing, questioned Brookview's suita ility for evelopment. Speaker Teresa e was strongly opposed to high-density, low- ncome housing. Additionally, speakers Walter Marc and ene Rhodes felt hat 8rookview should be developed as a park. Two speakers addressed the Committee regarding senior issues. Paul L. Markowii 2 the Poway Senior Issues C read a for that C Chair, requesting that the Committee ake a decision soon on low- income, properly designed senior housing. Janet ba representing the Poway Valley Seniors Center, spoke to the fact that in 19 3 a survey was done of Poway seniors with reference to a site for housing. At hat time, 70% preferred the Bowron site for housing, with 20% preferring Brookv ew and 10% the Gateway site. 28 of 6A Minutes of the RHAC Meeting of March 27, 1995 Page $ She in'icated that transportation cannot be provided all day long for seniors, and no all of them can drive. The goal of the Center i to keep seniors active and ou of ursing homes, and that senior housing shoul be at the 8owron site. Commit ee .ember Roger Willoughby asked her what t e seniors thought of intergenera ional housing. She replied that she coul not speak for all the seniors, al hough she didn't have a problem with the concept. Additionally, s eaker Lonnie Sarvis indicated that he felt that Bowron should be maintained as t e site for senior housing as the area is already too busy for high-density af ordable family housing and also has a high noise level. Shirley Janus, ~ the Park Creek H A also spoke in favor of senior housing at Bowron stating that there was already enough 1 family housing in the area. Speaker Mi' w o is associated with the San Diego Community Foundation and represents Bank of merica, indicated that Bank of America has financed affordable housing projec s in San Diego and other areas of Southern California. He said he would be avai able to answer any questions the City might have on lending. Speaker Ma read from a childhood development book about the importance of children having adequate space to release energy. She felt that the community should provide for children at all income levels. peaker Sall n brought in a map depicting apartments in southwest area of oway, indicating that there appears to be a high conce tration of affordable ousing in that area. She said that Section II of the Re evelopment and Housing dvisory Charter provides that the wi 1 make recommendations or affordable housing designations avoiding ~ in any area of the ity. The development of Brookview would increase that concentration of housing. he also indicated that the Brookview site was hazardous; 2 people had been illed on Pomerado Road and that animals had been killed there also. She also felt that seniors should not get to pick a spot for housing since 1 people do not get a chance to pick a site. peaker De a Padilla indicated that she did not want to have her property evalued wi h affordable housing which she felt would bring a high crime rate, rugs and v olence into the area. She was against 1 housing for the rookview s te. A number of questions were asked by the speakers. Chair Tremble had those questions answered by staff present at the meeting. The questions and responses follow. 1. Speaker Walter Metcalf questioned the validity of the meeting since in City Attorney Eckis' memo he refers to three sites, Bowron, Brookview and Gateway, and we are only now considering Bowron and Brookview. He also ~ why the Breihan project was zoned R-8, or 8 units per acre, and not developed as high- density. 29 of 64 Minutes of the RHAC Meeting of March 27, 1995 Page 6 Warren sharer, Director of Redevelopment Services, responded that the Gateway site is privately owned, and the oners were only interested in developing senior, affordable housing on the si e. Also, according to the Judgement, one of he two sites in question must be esignated as a family site. Regarding the zon ng on the Haley II (Breihan) pro ect, the South Poway Specific Plan placed a 1 mit on the density of this projec . To change this would require an FF vote in he City. 2. Speaker ruse commented that the City would be undergrounding the creek through the Brookview site. Director Shafer indicated that the creek channel would be left open and developed to required flood control standards. 3. Speaker Jeff Sc questioned the findings regarding the impact on schools presented in the letter from Mr. Rizzuti, a Planning Technician with the Poway Unified School District. Director Shafer indicated that City staff would follow-up with school staff on this item. 4. Speaker Susan Fi ama wanted to know if the City intended to conduct an Article 34 Referendum on this issue. Director Shafer indicated that that would depend on the project's financial , and would be looked at when the project is developed. 5. Speaker Tom Ramos wanted to know why tal review was not , and questioned Poway Unified School D' long range projections. He said he called the District and they had no hard evidence to give him. lhe District indicated that they spoke with the City's Planning Department. Director Shafer's response to the tal review question was that the Redevelopment and Housing Advisory Committee is not a decisions making body under CEQA, only an advisory body, and when the issue goes to Council there would probably be CEQA req to meet at that time. Also, when the project goes through the planning process there are CEQA req Regarding the School District inf Planning Director Wright-Quastler indicated that the City does not provide pupil generation inf Sometimes the school district does call for information on zoning, the number of dwelling units, population growth p and projects that may have been approved, but the School District calculates the pupil information. 6. Speaker Shi' Janus questioned the status of Poway Villas. Director Shafer responded that Poway Villas is a HUD 236 affordable mix project; Haley Park Estates was a housing re lacement project for the tr iler park originally on Poway Road and was desi hated family; however, it is u ilized as a mixed project to accommodate those se iors originally moved in from t e trailer park; Breihan is designated as family ousing; Poway Royal Estates wi 1 have 44 of affordability, which the City is considering buying, for moderate income level. NAY 1G 19~5 IT~,~ ~ 30 o~ 64 Minutes of the RHAC Meeting of March 27, 1995 Page 7 7. Speaker Alice Lawless questioned the compatibility of affordable housing on the Brookview site with the adjacent neighborhood, as she felt it did not meet the affordable housing criteria for family housing. This question was a swered by Consultant .avid Rosen who indicat d he compatibility was base on two sets of issues, he first is the eneral p ann ng and zoning on major ar erials such as Pomerado oad. It is not ncommon o f nd high-density projects uilt along a major arter al, backed up wi h lower- ens ty housing on the non-arterial streets. The other issue n neigh orhood compatibility is the hearing itself, and a decision such as t is is really a function of the residents spe king and the Council making a decision. He went on to say that both of these s tes are quite suitable for the densities that are provided for in the Affordable ' using Overlay zone, and the inf costs of one site will naturally di ~er from those of another site. Once the questions from the speakers were answered, staff proceeded to answer some additional from the C Chair Tremble ~ th t the uestion before the Committee was if they should ecommend changing the owron oad site from senior to family or changing the rookview site from sen or to amily or some combination of both, keeping in min the stipula ed by he Smith Case Judgement. Chair Tremble then as ed the Commi'ttee to express heir opinions. Kennon Dial - wished to reserve comment until he had more information and also wanted to take the time to digest everything. Bob Wolinski - indicated his preference for the Bowron site for family housing so that children would have access to all the facilities. Darwin Drake - based on the public input, favored the Brookview site for seniors, Bowron for families. Lois Downs - preferred Bowron site for seniors. Suggested 56 senior housing units go behind the library, the rest could be family. She added that she had never approved of purchasing or building on the Brookview site; however, if it must be built then split the mix. Gordon Meyer - had no comments. Peggy Lester - asked the speakers (mostly from Poway Estates) if the conditions for the Poway Estate children were any different than for children in a Brookview development, if Brookview was designated for family units. (The audience responded that their children played in their neighborhood, they had large lots and cul-de-sacs.) David Churchill - after hearing he was convinced that the Bowron site should be family and the Brookview site developed for seniors. Richard Burke - it was his opinion that Brookview should be family and Bowron developed as intergenerational housing. ~IAY 1 6 1995 17Ei~ 4 , ~ 31 of 64 Minutes of the RHAC Meeting of March 27, 1995 Page 8 James Crosby - indicated that he was swayed by the public opinion, and favored senior housing at Brookview, and family at Bowron. Joyce Eiswald - suggested doing a mix or family on Bowron; however, she had not really decided. Ms. Eiswald felt the approach by the speakers was inappropriate, and took offense to their attitude toward 1 parents. Mary Mitchell preferred senior for Brookview, family for Bowron, or mix on Brookview. Alan Dusi - preferred family for Bowron site and a mix on Brookview. Duke Ayers - preferred a mix on Brookview and family on Bowron. Roger Willoughby - preferred a mix on Brookview, family on Bowron. Chairman Tom Tremble reviewed the comments from the twenty residents not wishing to speak but wanting to provide written comment. He then indicated that, gathering from the public testimony, written comments at the meeting, and comments from the Committee, that it was the of the majority that the Brookview site remain as senior housing. At this poi t, Roger Willoughby made a motion to adopt Option i as presented in Consultant osen's r port. This motion was seconded by Darwin Drake. D' followed wi h some o the Committee expressing that this was a premature motion, which shoul be with rawn, and perhaps they should continue their d' next Monday or a the nex regular meeting of the C Darwin Drake requested a vote on t e motion; it failed with a vote of 4 - 11. Further d' by the Committee followed. The final motion, made by Jim Cro by and clarified by Chair Tremble, was to recommend to the City Coun il to des gnate the Bowron site as family affordable housing and the Brookview s te as sen or affordable housing. However, due to the fact that the 0/40% fam ly/s nior percentage was not exactly et with this recommendation, i this was unsa isfactory to the Smith Judgemen , then the Brookview site should be develope a intergenerational housing w th the stipulation that the site be develope w th the smallest number of lam ly housing units to allow compliance with the Ju gement. Further, this recommendation would stand and the issue not be revisite . The motion was seconded by Joyce Eiswald. Chairman Tremble called for a vote on the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 8 - 7 as follows: AYES: Ayers, Churchill, Crosby, Dusi, Eiswald, Mitchell, Tremble, Willoughby NOES: Burke, Dial, Downs, Drake, Lester, Meyer, Wolinski 3. At 10:55 p.m., the March 27, 1995, meeting of the Redevelopment and Housing Advisory Committee was adjourned to April 10, 1995, at 6 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. MAY 1G 1995 4 ~ 32 of 64 ATTACHMENT 1 WRITTEN COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC HEARING Redevelopment & Housing Advisory Committee Meeting, March 27, 1995 1. Stephen R. Hoyen 13115 Ridgedale Drive 2. Jennifer Leyva 12389 Mesa Crest Road 3. John P. Williams 12403 Robison Boulevard 4. Rina Shamir 12120 Sageview Road 5. Farid Shamir 12120 Sageview Road 6. Sang Nguyen 13116 Valewood Road 7. Thomas M. Clenney 13342 Tobiasson Road 8. R. Moore 13210 Frame Court 9. Lorraine Clenney 13342 Tobiasson Road 10. Robin Mueller 13838 Frame Road 11. Anne-Marie Mueller 13838 Frame Road 12. Myron Klippert 13042 Creek Park Drive 13. Janice Rubacky 13333 Rollin Glen 14. Jim Hockett 12439 Danes Road 15. Susan A. Dunlap 13249 Powers Court 16. C.J. Rubacky 13333 Rollin Glen Road 17. Theresa Hockett 12439 Danes Road 18. Steven & Maria Papet 13243 Ridgedale Drive 19. Victoria Jirik Sage View Road 20. Earl A. Woods 12339 Sage View Road Of the twenty written comments received at the public hearing, 10 were against development of the Brookview site for 1 housing; 3 favored the Bowron site as senior housing; 2 favored developing Bowron as family site with Brookview as the senior site; 2 made no comment; 1 preferre Bowron as a family site; I recommended Brookview be developed as a park; questioned if an tal impact finding had been made on the sites be ore the Agency had invested in them. 33 of 64 M~Y 1G 1995 ATTACHHENT 2 LIST OF PUBLIC HEARZNG SPEAKERS Redevelopment & Housing Advisory Committee Meeting, Hatch 27, 1995 aul L. Markowitz 4 ldrin Avenue ar'lou Haselton 3 a e View Rod ar ara Eagle a Knoll Dr ve al er Metcalf a ewood Roa an y Victor Va ewood Roa ue Fo Sage View Road usan rines Valewood Road enry 'eissbuch alewood Road itch hompson treet, Ste. 740, San Diego ean Doig age View Road Larry Cruse topia Jeff Schipper esa C est Road ~. David Wright III age V ew Road ois Fon -Sakai age V ew Road usan Fu uyama rest oad -ohn M 1 s age V ew Road -anet h ba ox 75 , Poway ally orden obiasson Road ~ather ne L. Anderson a e View Road Kather ne Marsh o ison Boulevard Tom Ramos a ewood Road eanna Padilla c eron Road .ich el C. Price a e View Road roo Nienstedt e a Crest Road ary nn Valenzuela a ewood Road ue etcalf Va ewo d Road ob ox Sage V ew Road alter Marggraf Sage V ew Road onnie S rvis reek ark Lane ay Rick es topia Roa ark Law ess a e View oad oriko M yazaki a e View oad lice S. Lawless a e Vi w oad u ene Rhodes a ewoo Road h odore P. Bauer uak Kno 1 Drive i 1 Rickles Utopia oad a ty Leyva Mesa Crest Road h rley Janus Creek Park Drive ichael Murphy Sage View Road eresa Cope Mesa Crest Road Bowron Road Site APE//317-473-18 RESOLUTION NO. 95- A RESOLUTION F T CIT' UNCIL OF THE CITY Y C ORNIA AMENDING AF. DA n~ G OVERLAY 0 RO Y 0 T THE NORTHEAST CORNE .~ 0 0 R ~ CIVIC CENTER DRIVE COUNTY TAX AS -S~ EL ,dM E 317-473-18 AND RES JN R OLU IO' 9 -160 0 2-03) WHEREAS, the City Council certified the Final E tal Impact Report for and approved the Poway General Plan Update on November 19, 1991; and WHEREAS, a subsequent 1 analysis was performed to assess the impacts of changing the designation from seniors only to allow residential development for seniors or family or an intergenerational development which determined that no significant tal impacts are expected; and WHEREAS, the City Council designated the property described above as an affordable housing site by Resolution No. 92-160 which attached Affordable Housing Overlay 92-03 to the property to allow development of senior housing at a density of up to 25 dwelling units per acre on August 4, 1992; and WHEREAS, the validity of the City's General Plan of the Poway Redevelopment Agency's Paguay Redevelopment Plan was subsequently challenged in the case of Smith rsons- and WHEREAS, a judgement in the case of Smith v All Persons was entered on January 26, 1995 which requires the City/Agency to modify its current mix of affordable housing projects to achieve an approximate 60/40% family/senior unit mix; and WHER AS, the General Plan Housing Element includes goals, policies and implementa ion strategies for the provision of adequate affordable housing opportunit es for very low, tow and moderate income households pursuant to the req of State law; and WHEREAS, the General Plan Housing Element authorizes the placement of an Affordable Housing Overlay designation on property within any land use category; and WHEREAS, the Redevelopment and Housing Advisory Committee (RHAC) conducted a noticed public meeting to obtain public input ~ the potential redesignation; and WHEREAS, the RHAC recommended that this site be redesignated to allow family development; and WHEREAS, the Poway City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on May 16, 1992 to consider the redesignation of this site to allow family affordable housing. MAY 1 ~ 1~g5 II'~1 4 ~ 36 of 64 a~ '~ 0 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED that the City Council finds that: 1) the City Council has reviewed the ~al analysis and finds that the redesignation will not result in any significant unmitigated impact on the and hereby issues a Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures; and 2) the City Council hereby rescinds Resolution 92-160; and 3} the City Council hereby amends the Affordable Housing Overlay on the property described above and shown on the attached map, to allow development of very low income family housing at a density of up to 25 dwelling units per acre. APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Poway, State of Califorpia, this 16th day of May, 1995. Don Higginson, Mayor ATTEST: Marjorie K. Wahlsten, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) I, Marjorie K. Wahlsten, City Clerk of the City of Poway, do hereby certify, under the penalty of perjury, that the foregoing Resolution, No. , was duly adopted by the City Council at a meeting of said City Council on the day of , 1995, and that it was so adopted by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: sten, City of Poway e:\city\planning\report\ahog203.res 37 of 64 ~A¥ 1 8 1995 I"~ 24 RESOLUTION NO. 95- A RESOL ION F T CIT' COUNCIL OF THE TY D ' Y, C FORNIA AMENDING TH F RD L HnU NG OVERLAY 0 R. ER, 0 T D ON THE WEST SIDE 0 0 RA ^ TH OF POWAY ROAD COUNTY TAX ASSES R ARC ,- 1-02,03 AND 04 AND RE C ND RES U ON 92-176 (A 0 9 -04) WHEREAS, the City Council certified the Final E Lal Impact Report for and approved the Poway General Plan Update on November 19, 1991; and WHEREAS, a subsequent Lal analysis was performed to assess the impacts of changing the designation from seniors only to allow residential development for seniors or family or an intergenerational development which determined that no significant ~al impacts are expected; and WHEREAS, the City Council desi hated the propert' descri ed as County Tax Assessor parcels 317-521-03 and 04 - an affordable h using s te by Resolution No. 92-176 which attachedAffordable using Overlay (A O) 92-0 to the property to allow development of senior hous ng at a density o up to 5 dwelling units per acre on September 8, 1992; and WHEREAS, the owners of property to which AHO 92-05 is attached have expressed an intention to develop it as a medical office; and WHEREAS, the eneral Plan Housing Element requires that if any of the five properties to whic the Affordable Housing Overlay has been attached are developed as other t an affordable housing, or at a density less than the target density, replacemen site{s} will be selected; and WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency has acquired Assessor Parcels 317-521- 03 and 04 to which AHO 92-04 is attached and Assessor Parcel 317-521-02 to which the Affordable Housing Overlay is not attached; and WHEREAS, it is intended that parcels 317-521-02, 03 and 04 be jointly developed; and WHEREAS, the validity of the City's General Plan of the Poway Redevelopment Agency's Paguay Redevelopment Plan was subsequently challenged in the case of Smith v A1 and WHEREAS, a judgement in the case of Smith v All Persons was entered on January 26, 1995 which requires the City/Agency to modify its current mix of affordable housing projects to achieve an approximate 60/40% family/senior unit mix; and WHER AS, the General Plan Housing Element includes goals, policies and implementa ion strategies for the provision of adequate affordable housing opportunit es for very low, low and moderate income households pursuant to the req of State law; and WHEREAS, the General Plan Housing Element authorizes the placement of an Affordable Housing Overlay designation on property within any land use category; and WHEREAS, the and Housing Advisory (RHAC) a noticed public meeting to obtain public input ~ the potential redesignation; and CITY OF POWAY NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1. Name and Address of Applicant: P.O. Box ; Brief Description of Project: An amendment to Resolution 92-160 to allow the 3. In accordance with Resolution 83-084 of the city of Poway, implementing the California E iai Quality Act of 1970, the City of Poway has determined that the above project will not have a significant effect upon the :. An' E Impact Report will not be required. 4. Minutes of such derision and the Initial Study prepared by the City of Poway are on file in the Department of Planning Services of the City of Poway. 5. This decision of the City Council of the City of Poway is final. Contact Person: James H. L~ I -6600 Approved by: ~-----~-~-. ~c/,~Z' -~c -~ Date:. Reba Wright-Q/uastler, Ph.D., AICP Att '1; E' ~IAY 1 6 1995 ITEM \ City Hail Located at 13325 Civic Center Drive 40 of 64 iliagAddress: P.O. Box 789, Poway, California 92074-0789 · (619) 748-6600, 695-1400 CITY OF POWAY NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1. Name and Address of Applicant: Ci ' Powa P.O. Box 7; =ow CA 92064 Bdef Description of Project: An to 92-176 to allow the devele ,nt of fami )usir a densi to 25 unit .-r acre on APN 317- 521-03 and 04 and the attachment of the Affordable Hour' the ~ ~cent ~el 317-521-02 to all~: ~velo it of senior or fa~i at a densi to 25 dwE ~er acre. 3. In accordance with Resolution 83-084 of the dry of Poway, implementing the California E Quality Act of 1970, the City of Poway has determined that the above project will not have a significant effect upon th L An E :al Impact Report will not be required. 4. Minutes of such decision and the Initial Study prepared by the City of Poway are on file in the Department of Planning Services of the City of Poway. 5. This decision of the City Council of the City of Poway is final. Contact Person: 33es H. ~n Phon{ 748-6600 Approved by: ~_~.~- T'A/*-'~Z..~--~/'{~-~ Date: Reba Wright-Q~uastler, Ph.D., AICP Att '1: F MAY 1 6 1995 ITEM City Hall Located at 13325 Civic Center Drive ~' "~ilin§ Address: P.O. Box 759, Poway, California 92074-0789 · (619) 7~,$-6500, 41 of 64 R.cv~.*~P CITY OF POWAY INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST DATE: 1995 APPLICANT: of Powa ~' ' PROdECT: .~-160 to allowthe d ~ou~ ' at a , to 25 ul 'e PROJECT LOCATION: Northeast comer of Bowron Road ~ ~dve APN 317-473-18 I. ENVIF IMPACTS (Explanation of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) YES MAYBE NO 1. Will the proposal have significant impacts in: a. Unstable ground conditions or in changes in geologic relationships? X b. Disruptions, displ ~ compaction, or burial of the soil? X c. Change in topography or ground surface contour intervals? X d. The C ~, or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? X e. Any potential increase in wind or water erosion of soils, affecting either on- or off-site conditions? X f. changes in erosion, siltation, or deposition? X g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? X [flAY 1 6 1995 ITEM 42 of 64 At;t t C- YES MAYBE NO 2. I- VVill the proposal have significant impacts in: a. Changes in currents, or the course in direction of flowing streams, dvers, or ephemeral stream channels? X b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? X c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? X d. Change in the amount of surface water in any body of water?. X e. Discharge into surface waters, or any alter- action of surface water quality? X- f. Alteration of groundwater ch X g. Change in the quantity of groundwaters, either through direct additions, or with- drawals, or through interference with an aquifer?. Quality? X Quantity? X h. The reduction in the amount of water other- wise available for public water supplies? X i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or seiches? X 3. Air QL Will the proposal have significant impacts in: a. Constant or periodic air from mobile or indirect sources? X Stationary sources? X b. D of ambient air quality and/or interference with the attainment of appli- ._. cable air quality standards? X c. Alteration of Iocel or regional climatic conditions, affecting : moisture or temperature? X 43 of 64 ~IAY 1 6 1995 ITEM A, YES MAYBE NO 4. Flora. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in the ch ' ' of species, including diversity, distribution, or number of endangered species of plants? _ _~ . __ X b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of plants? X c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of plants into an area? X d. Reduction in the potential for agricultural production? X 5. Fauna. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in the characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or numbers of any species of animals? X b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of animals? X c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the mitigation or l of animals? X d. Deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat? X 6. n. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Will the proposal alter the location, distri- bution, density, diversity, or growth rate of the human population of an area? X b. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? J.. X ~AY1Gl°.95 IirJ-M 4 44 of 64 YES MAYBE NO 7.Socio-Economic Factors. Will the proposal have signii- in: a. Change in local or regional ch including diversity, tax rate, and property values? .._._~.. __ X b. Will project costs be equitably distri- buted among project b ' ' i.e., buyers, taxpayers, or project users? X 8. Ge an~ Will the proposal have significant results in: a. A substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? X b. A conflict with any designations, objectives, policies, or adopted plans of any govern- mental entities? X c. An impact upon the quality or quantity of ,- existing consumptive or ~tive opportunities? X 9. Tran.~ ~tion. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular ~? X b. Effects on existing streets, or demand for new street ? X c. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? X d. Substantial impact upon existing transpor- tation systems? X e. Alterations to present patterns of circu- lation l of people and/or goods? X f. Alteration to or effects on present and - potential water-borne, rail, mass transit, · or air traffic? X g. increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians? X 45 of 64 MAY 1 6 1995 ITEM 4 YES MAYBE. .NO 10. ral R Will the proposal have significant impacts in: a. A d to the integrity of archaeo- logical, paleontological, and/or historical - X 11. Healti' id Nuisance Factors. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? X b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? X c. A risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident? X d. An increase in the number of individuals or species of vector or parthenogenic organisms or the exposure of people to such organisms? X e. Increase in existing noise levels? X f. Exposure of people to potentially dangerous noise levels? X g. The creation of objectionable odors? X h. An increase in light or glare? X 12. Aesthetics. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic vista or view?, X b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site? X c. A conflict with the objective of designated or potential :lors? X 46 of 64 ~AY 1 6 1995 ITEM YES MAYBE NO 13. I ties 'vices. Will the proposal have significant need for new systems, or alter- ations to the following: a. Electric power? X b. Natural or packaged gas? - X c. C . systems? X d. Water supply? X e. Wastewater facilities? X f. Flood control X g. Solid waste facilities? X h. Fire protection? X-. i. Police protection? X j. Schools? X k. Parks or other recreational facilities? X I. M of public facilities, including roads and flood control facilities? X m. Other g services? X 14. Erie and Scarce R Will the proposal have significant impacts in: a. Use of substantial or fuel or energy? X b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy? X c. An increase in the demand for development of new sources of energy? X d. An increase or perpetuation of the consump- tion of ~le forms of energy, when feasible renewable sources of energy are available? X e. Substantial depletion of any 31e or scarce natural X 47 of 64 MAY 1 6 1995 ITEM ~. III. MINATION On the basis of this initial ~ I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the :, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the ~, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation' described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. ~ I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the :, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. DATE', /is'~ SIGNATURE:~ ~ ~SIS"~ANT PL 48 of 64 ~AY 1 6 1995 ITEM DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION r-- The project site is located on the northeast comer of Bowron Road and Civic Center Drive. The use of the site as an overflow parking lot and in with annual brush management permits only weeds and annual grasses to grow. The parcel is surrounded by development to the north, east and west and residential multiple family housing to the south. The Poway City Council adopted Resolution 92-160 on August 4, 1992 approving ~e placement of an Affordable Housing Overlay for senior housing on the 4.4 acre site. This:ln'iti~l study will evaluate the potential impacts associated with the redesignation of the site from senior to family housing. The density range of up to 25 dwelling units per acre, originally provided to the senior designation, will remain unchanged. 1. SOILS and GEOLOGY The four acre site is fiat requiring primarily light grading and recompaction of the existing soil to create a proper building pad. MITIGATION Although no site specific project is proposed, Conditions of approval for future development will require submittal of a soils report, geological report and grading plans which will provide information and :~ations to ensure the stability of the site and compliance with the City of Poway grading standards. 2. HYDE There are no creeks or intermittent streams that traverse the parcel and, therefore, there are no ' direct hydraulic or hydrologic imp :ed with the redesignation. The northwest corner of the parcel, consisting of approximately 0.2 [hin the 100 year floodplain of Rattlesnake Creek and could potentially be impacted by subsequent development. Typical landscape setbacks would :lat half of the impact area. Additional landscaping and parking could be placed to absorb the remaining 0.1 acre without significantly impacting a site design MITIGATION Conditions of approval for any subsequent development may require the submittal of hydraulic and hydrologic for the Rattlesnake-Creek to accurately determine the necessary flood control improvements and limits of inundation I ~ate a 100 year flood. 3. AIR ( No direct air quality imf licipated in the redesignation of the parcel 1~ to family housing in that there is not a site specific project which would have the potential to create the impacts. Potential secondary short and long term impacts that could result I project will be evaluated in association with a site specific development plan. 4. FLORA The use of the sil 'flow parking lot' ~h annual brush has reduced the on-site vegetation to weeds and annual grasses. Redesignafion of the parcel from senior to family housing is an administrative act which will not directly impact any vegetative spedes. Secondary impacts associated with subsequent development are equally unlikely due to the site's poor biological condition. ~AY ~-6 1995 ITEM 49 of 64 5. FAUNA D :l birds spedes typically ' :1 with the urban I ' :1 on the site. No direct impacts to th l are anticipated with the redesignation the parcel in that th ~ :1 will not directly effect the land. Equally, secondary impacts to the local animal species is unlikely because of the poor biological condition of the parcel. 6. The redesignation of the subject parcel 1' to family housing has the potent.iai 1 the human population in the immediate area. Based on a density of up to 25 ~n~s~per acre, a density permitted by the General Plan and Poway Municipal Code, a family housing project on the 4.4 acre site could :late approximately 311 people and a senior housing project 242. This is based on a conceptual project yield of 90 family units or 110 Is. The current population of the City of Poway is estimated at 46,800. The General Plan population estimate at "buildout" of the City is 55,000. Although the potential impact associated with this action is considered cumulative, it is not considered significant in light of the remaining projected growth that could be 3ated by the City. 7. SOCIO- tS An Affordable Housing Overlay designation has previously been assigned to the parcel with a density of up to 25 units per acre. The redesignation of the site from senior to family housing will not have a significant =t'ect in that the overlay is already in place and there are no physical changes proposed with this action. The potential impact on surrounding properties in uncertain. Few studies have been conducted in this area. Due to the varying ',ed with an individual site such as land costs, the level of development on surrounding properties and differing appraised values, the ability to establish whether a potential impact exists, be it p ' ' 3ative, is difficult. The impacts may be considered positive if the project improves a blighted site, ' ' existing impacts such as the noise and light from a nearby roadway or use. 8. LAND USE and PL. The redesignation of the parcel from senior to family housing is an administrative act creating no significant Iai impacts on the land nor does it change the previously adopted density of up to 25 units per acre. Given that the parcel ' :led by land uses on three sides and multiple family housing on the south, the extension of multiple family housing, as a transitional use, is consistent with City land planning strategies. 9. TRANSPORTATION Development of the site as a family housing project has the potential to create approximately 90 dwellings. This, in turn, has the potential to generate 540 vehicle trips per day compared to the estimated 440 trips if the site were developed as senior housing. Under the existing General C zoning on the 4.4 acre site a 40,000 square foot office or retail structure could be considered. At 40 vehicle tdps per 1,000 square feet, th' d generate approximately 1,600 vehicle trips per day or three times as many as proposed under a family housing project. Actual traffic volumes, direction and l patterns cannot be evaluated at this level. A specific development proposal must be submitted upon which an analysis can be made. MITIGATION A traffic analysis must be conducted in with any future development application. The study will :l mitig to address the impacts, which could include road widening, of traffic signals and the payment of traffic mitigation fees. 50 of 64 MAY 1 G 1995 ITEM ~, '' 10. CULTURAL RESOURCES - The General Plan Map of Projected Archaeologically Sensitive Areas within the City indicates a Iow probability that an .]ical site is present on the parcel. 11. HE,~ SAFE; CE FACTORS There will be no significant in noise, odors, light or glare resulting from the redesignation of the parcel 1 to family housing I: physical changes to the site are proposed by this action. - 12. AESTHETICS Since there is not a site specific development application associated with a change in the type of housing, there will be no direct aesthetic impacts. Secondary visual impacts could potentially occur in association with a proposed development. These issues will be discussed with that application. 13. CES The redesignation of the housing type on the subject parcel will not require th " or demand on any utility system. The designation of the parcel for family housing will have a direct impact on the school system. The Poway Unified School District I~ :ed that a family development on the 4.4 acre site would generate approximately 41 elementary, six middle school students and eleven high school students. Students generated by this project will go to Valley Elementary, Meadowbrook Middle and Poway High School. Valley Elementary School is currently operating above capacity. Long Range studies by the school district project a steady increase for .- this elementary school. Although Meadowbrook Middle School is operating at 40 students below design capacity, school officials expect a steady' Iment exceeding capadty by the 1997-98 school year. Poway High School is currently operating above design capacity by 595 students with enrollment expected to steadily increase. Use of the site for senior housing would have no direct significant impact on the school system. MITIGATION Despite the potential overcrowding issues, current regulations require only the payment of school mitigation fees of $1.72 per square foot for residential development. 14. ENI The redesignation of the parcel from senior to family housing will not require the use or demand of fuel or energy nor substantially deplete any 31e resource. MAY 1 6 1995 ri'EM 51 o.F 64 CITY OF POWAY INITIAL STUDY - ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST DATE: APPLICANT: - PROJECT: Amendment to Resolution 92-176 to allow the PROJECT LOCATION: West )3 and 04 _~064 I. ENVIRONMEN~ (Explanation of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) YES ~ 1. Will the proposal have significant impacts in: a. Unstable ground conditions or in changes in geologic relationships? X b. Disruptions, displ' compaction, or burial of the soil? X c. Change in topography or ground surface ~ lervals? X d. The d covering, or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? X e. Any potential increase in wind or water erosion of soils, affecting either on- or off-site conditions? X f. changes in erosion, siltation, or deposition? X g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? X MAY 1 6 1995 ITEM 52 of 64 t H YES MAYBE .N.O 2. dro Will the proposal have significant impacts in: a. Changes in currents, or the course in direction of flowing streams, rivers, or ephemeral stream channels? ~. ~ , X b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface ~'? X c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? X d. Change in the amount of surface water in any body of water?. X e. Discharge into surface waters, or any alter- action of surface water quality? X f. Alteration of groundwater cY " X g. Change in the quantity of groundwaters, either through direct additions, or with- drawals, or through interference with an aquifer?. Quality? X Quantity? X h. The reduction in the amount of water other- wise available for publ' ;)plies? X i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or seiches? X 3. Air Qual Will the proposal have significant impacts in: a. Constant or periodic air " from mobile or indirect sources? X Stationary sources? X b. D ; of ambient air quality and/or interference with the attainment of appli- - cable air quality standards? X c. Alteration of local or regional climatic conditions, affecting [ moisture or temperature? X 53 of 64 ~AY 1 6 1995 ITEM YES MAYBE .N.O 2. I r( Will the proposal have significant impacts in: a. Changes in currents, or the course in direction of flowing streams, dvers, or ephemeral stream channels? .----a-~ -- X b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? X c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? X d. Change in the amount of surface water in any body of water?. X e. Discharge into surface waters, or any alter- action of surface water quality? X f. Alteration of groundwater ch X g. Change in the quantity of groundwaters, either through direct additions, or with- drawals, or through interference with an aquifer?. Quality? X Quantity? X h. The reduction in the amount of water other- wise available for public water supplies? X i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or seiches? X 3. Will the proposal have significant impacts.in: a. Constant or periodic air from mobile or indirect sources? X Stationary sources? X b. C of ambient air quality and/or ' with the attainment of appli- cable air quality standards? X c. Alteration of local or regional climatic conditions, affecting air I moisture 54 of 64 or temperature? MAY 1-8-7~5 X YES MAYBE .NO 4. Flora. V¥~II the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in the ch of species, including diversity, distribution, or number of endangered species of plants? _ ~ . .. X b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of plants? X c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of plants into an area? X d. Reduction in the potential for agricultural production? X 5. Fauna. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in the ch of species, ~ including diversity, distribution, or numbers of any species of animals? X b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of animals? X c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the mitigation : of animals? X d. C of existing fish or wildlife habitat? - X 6. ~ ulation. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Will the proposal alter the location, distri- bution, density, diversity, or growth rate of the human population of an area? X - b. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? X 55 of 64 ~AY 1 6 1995 ITEM YES MAYBE NO 7. Socio-Economic Factors. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in local or regional ch including diversity, tax rate, and property values? _ - .. X b. Will project costs be equitably distri- buted among project beneficiaries, i.e., buyers, taxpayers, or project users? X 8. Land Use and ~ Considerations. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. A substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? X b. A conflict with any designations, objectives, policies, or adopted plans of any govern- mental entities? X c. An impact upon the quality or quantity of existing consumptive or ptive opportunities? X 9.Tra~ ~ortation. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular ~? X b. Effects on existing streets, or demand for new street ? X c. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? X d. Substantial impact upon existing transpor- tation systems? X e. Alterations to present pattems of circu- lation [ of people and/or goods? X f. Alteration to or effects on present and potential water-.borne, rail, mass transit, or air traffic? X g. Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians? X 56 of 64 i'~IAY 1 (i 1995 ITEM 4 ~ YES MAYBE NO 10. Cultur~ Will the proposal have significant impacts in: a. A d to the integrity of archaeo- logical, paleontological, and/or historical = .~ ~ 11. Heal sance Factors. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? X b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? X c. A risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident? X d. An increase in the number of individuals or species of vector or parthenogenic organisms or the exposure of people to such organisms? X e. Increase in existing noise levels? X f. Exposure of people to potentially dangerous noise levels? X g. The creation of objectionable odors? X h. An increase in light or_ glare? X 12. Aesthetics. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic vista or view?. X b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site? X c. A conflict with the objective of designated or potential ' :lors? X 57 of 64 bIAY 1 6 1995 ITEM YES MAYBE .NO 13. Utilities and Public Services. Will the proposal have significant need for new systems, or alter- ations to the following: a. Electric power?. X b. Natural or packaged gas? - X c. C systems? X d. Water supply? X e. Wastewater facilities? X f. Flood control structures? X g. Solid waste facilities? X h. Fire p X i. Police protection? X j. Schools? X k. Parks or other facilities? X I. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads and flood control facilities? X m. Other g services? X 14. d Scarce R W~II the proposal have significant impacts in: a. - Use of substantial or fuel or energy? X b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy? X c. An increase in the demand for development of new sources of energy? X d. An increase or I: of the consump- tion of 31e forms of energy, when feasible renewable sources of energy are available? X e. Substantial depletion of any 31e or scarce natural X 58 of 64 MAY 1 6 1995 ITEM 4 YES MAYBE .NO 15. Mandate a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the l, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wild- life population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of the California history or prehistory? X b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, ;al goals? (A short- term impact on the I is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will _ endure well into the future.) X c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but y considerable? (Cumulatively considerable means that the ' effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in with the effect of past projects, and probable future projects.) X d. Does the project have effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X II. DI,< iF EN\ ~NMENTAL EV,~ TION (i.e., of affirmative answers to the above questions plus a discussion of proposed mitigation SEE ATTACHED PAGES 59 of 64 I~IAY 1 6 1995 ITEM 4 Iii. DETEF I On the basis of this initial [~ I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the l, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. --] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the I, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. r---] i find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the l, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. DATE: ~//~//~5'" SIGNATURE~ TITLE: ASSISTANT PLANNER I1 J'YIAY 1 6 1995 ITEM , 60 of 64 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The project site is located on the west side of Pomerado Road between the Sav-On Shopping Center and Robison Boulevard. Pomerado Creek bisects the site in a northeast/southwest direction flowing into a 10' X 17' box culvert which extends under the shopping canter and Poway Road. Much of the site is covered with eucalyptus trees, especially the along the creek and the Pomerado Road frontage. Over half of the area lies approximately five feet below the grade of Pomerado Road. A large quantity of uncompacted fill soil was relocated from .the adjoining Poway Estates single family subdivision and encumbers a portion of the south%~l ~parcal. The original oveday site consisted of two adjoining parcels with a combined gross acreage of 5.37 acres. A third parcal, consisting of 1.33 acres, located immediately to the west was acquired in June, 1994 by the Poway Redevelopment Agency. The third parcel is somewhat elevated above the adjoining land, cont ' large groupings of eucalyptus trees and a building pad of the former single family residence. On February 13, 1990 the City Council issued a Negative DecJ :1 approved Conditional Use Permit 90-13 for a 108 unit senior housing complex on the 5.37 acres site. The project, however, was never constructed. The Poway CitY Council adopted Resolution 92-176 on September 8, 1992 approving the placament of an Affordable Housing Overlay for senior housing on the 5.37. This initial study will evaluate the potential imp :l with the redesignation of the 5.37 acre site from senior to family housing and the placement of the Affordable Housing Overlay on the third (1.33 acre) parcal so that the three parcals (6.7 acres) may be considered as a single project area. This designation will permit the development of either a senior, family or intergenerational housing development at a density of up to 25 units per acre. 1. SO and )GY The 6.7 acre site lies approximately five feet below the grade of Pomerado Road and must ultimately be raised to near street grade for the proper utilization of drainage sewer and utility services associated with a future family or senior housing project. MITIGATION Although no site specific project is proposed, Conditions of approval for future development will require submittal of a soils report, geological report and grading plans which will provide :l :lations to ensure the stability of the site and complianca with the City of Poway grading standards. 2. HYDROLOGY Pomerado Creek, a year round stream with a f 00-year floodway, traverses the adjoining parcels. Preliminary drafts of the new FEMA floodway/floodplain maps indicate that a portion of the subject parcel may be within the 100 floodplain of Pomerado Creek. A designated floodway and floodplain traverse through the adjoining I: 1beast southwest direction. Construction of any type on the property will likely involve modification of the channel. MITIGATION General Plan policies encourage the p of natural stream channels. Conditions of approval for any subsequent development will require the submittal of hydraulic and _ hydrolo{~' for the watercourse to accurately determine the necassary flood control improvements and limits of inundation to :late a 100 year flood. This could include widening and/or deepening of the channel, placement of dprap and the extension of the box culverts. 61 of 64 ~IAY 1 6 1995 ITEM 3. AIR" ~LITY No direct air quality imp 3ated in the assignment of the Affordable Housing Oveday designation to the third parcel and the redesignation of the other two I: to family housing in that them is not a site specific project which would have the potential to impact air quality. Potential secondary short and long term impacts that could result f project will be evaluated in with a site specific development plan. 4. FLORA ,, ~., On-site vegetal' primarily of annual grasses, weeds eucalyptus trees ~nd landscaping. Although no direct impacts are anticipated with the assignment of the Affordable Housing Oveday on this parcel or the redesignation of th ;~ I: to family housing in that the assignment is administrative in nature, secondary impacts to the dpadan vegetation could occur. MITIGATION- A biological study of the project area will be required. Specific mitigation I be "led to address any impacts that could occur from the development and a plan will be prepared and implemented to enhance the value of the dpadan area. Under the previously approved Conditional Use Permit on the adjoining parcels, the project required the acquisition of a Streambed Alteration Permit from the State Department of Fish and Game, enhancement and replanting of the stream channel with dpadan plant and tree species and a tree retention plan to insure the ' of some clusters of the larger eucalyptus trees. 5. FAUNA An on-site survey revealed the presence of domestic animals and birds species typically associated with the urban MITIGATION A biological study of the project area will be required as part of a development application to determine the potential impacts on animal habitats. Specific mitigation will be :led to address any impacts that could occur from the project. 6. POPULATION The proposed assignment of the Affordable Housing Overlay and the consideration of family housing on this and the adjoining parcels has the potential to increase the human population in the immediate area. Based on a density of up to 25 units per acre, a density permitted by the General Plan and Poway Municipal Code, a family housing project on the 6.7 acre_site could :late 387 people and a senior housing project 305. The current population of the City of Poway * ' "l at 46,800. The General Plan population estimate at "buiidout" of the City is 55,000. Although the potential impact associated with this action is considered it is not considered significant in light of the remaining projected growth that could be :lated by the City. ~AY 1 6 1995 ITEM 6?- of 64 7. OMIC FA~ ~S The assignment of the Affordable Housing Overlay designation to the third parcel and the redesignation of the other two parcels from senior to family housing will not have a significant ~fect in that no physical changes are proposed with this action. The potential · ' ~ :ling properS* 'rain. Few studies have been conducted in this area. Due to the varying ' ~ :1 with an individual site such as land costs, the level of development on surrounding properties and differing appraised values, the ability to establish whether a potential imp be it I: ~ative is difficult. The. impacts may be considered positive if the project improves a blighted site, · ' i~g~mpacts such as the noise and light from a nearby roadway. 8. LAND i and PLANI~ ;ONSID ~,TI* Application of the Affordable Housing Overlay on the 1.33 acre parcel provides the potential to increase the existing land use density from four to 25 units per acres. Given that the combined three parcels are located between land uses and a single family land uses, the introduction of multiple family housing, as a I use, ' : with City land planning strategies and common planning practice. 9. TRANSPORTATION The assignment of the Affordable Housing Overlay designation to the 1.33 acre parcel will create the potential t the density from four to twenty I: 3ondingly from 10 to 100 vehicle trips per day. Redesignation of the 5.37 acre site from senior to family housing will create a potential reduction of 104 vehicle trips per day because of fewer housing units. Under the existing C Office zoning on the 5.37 acre site a 50,000 square foot Office structure could be considered. At 20 vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet of office space this d generate approximately 1,000 vehicle trips per day. In contrast a conceptual 112 unit family housing p d generate 672 trips per day at six trips per unit or 48% fewer vehicle trips. Actual traff' d :l l patt : be evaluated at this level. A specific development proposal must be submitted upon which be made. MITIGATION A traffic analysis must be conducted in with any future development application. The study will :1 mitigation to address the impacts, which could include road widening, of traffic signals and the payment of traffic mitigation fees. 10. C TURA The General Plan Map of Projected Archaeologically Sensitive Areas within the City indicates a Iow probability that an archaeological site is present on th~ parcel. 11. HEALTH :ET kCT( There will be no significant ' odors, light or glare resulting from the assignment of the Affordable Housing Overlay designation to the third parcel and the redesignation of the other two parcels from senior to family housing. The potential for project specific health, safety and nuisance impacts will be evaluated in with the development review of any proposed project. 63 of 64 12. THETICS Removal of existing mature trees associated with a subsequent development will decrease the aesthetics of the site. MITIGATION Substantial landscaping and the retention of some of the existing mature trees will be required in with any development on the site. 13. UTILITIES an, CES The designation of all three parcels (6.7 acres) as family housing will have a dire'ct~mpact on the school system. At a density of up to 25 units per acre, the Poway Unified School Distdct has estimated that a family development on the 6.7 acre site would generate approximately 50 elementary school, eight middle school students and thirteen high school students. Students generated by this project would go to Pomerado Elementary, Meadowbrook Middle and Poway High School. Pomerado Elementary School is currently operating above capacity. Long Range studies by the school district project a steady decline for this elementary school. Although Meadowbrook Middle School is operating at 40 students below design capacity, school officials expect a steady increase in enrolment exceeding capacity by the 1997-98 school year. Poway High School is currently operating above design capacity by 595 students ~th enrollment expected to steadily increase. Family residential development on both this site and the Bowron Road Affordable Housing Oveday site will ' ;)acts on the Meadowbrook Middle and · Poway High School. However, based on the projected declining enrollment at Pomerado Elementary, the Poway Unified School Distdct has indicated that Pomerado ~ "y School would be best equipped to handle students from an affordable housing development. Utilization of the site as a senior facility would obviously have no impact on the school system. MITIGATION Despite the potential overcrowding issues, current regulations require only the payment of school mitigation fees of $1.72 per square foot for residential development. 14. ENERG'~ The placement of the Affordable Housing Oveday on the subject parcel and the redesignation of the other two parcels from senior to family housing will not require th demand of fuel or energy nor substantially deplete any 31e resource. 64 of 64 12975 Creek Park Dr. Poway, CA 92064 May 11, 1995 Mayor Don Higgenson ~ ~_/~. ~ED.- 13225 Civic Center Dr. ?~ Pow y, c^ 92064 - Dear Mayor Higgenson, I understand th ~ you and the city council will be voting on the sites of family 1 ~ senior housing in Poway. I am writing to you since I may not be able to attend the meeting. I am very concerned about the reversal of the original plans to place senior housing at the B I think that placing th Brookveiw is wrong. It is unfortunate that the housing advisory ~peared to bow to the tremendous pressure placed on them by what I understand were very vocal and bellicose residents from near the proposed Brookview site. I know th ~ere the family ] housing is placed nearby residents will complain about the decline in the prope J their reduced safety. N ~ere the council decides to place the family ] housing some of) II be unhappy. The question before you is really which site is best for the seniors. Reasons that the aould be designated for senior housing are listed below. Many of these based on the indisputable fact th less physically mobile than young families. ] ) The ~ a g~ocery stores, the post office, theater, a variety of pet store, the pool, and above all the WeinE 2) The only transportation provided f ' for the nutrition program. Location at the E d ~er a very long walk for the extremely elderly or a costly development of specially designated transportation for these folks. Location at the 13 d permit them to walk to Bingo and other social events at the Senior Center. 3) For tt~ ~o do ~ ' aoroughf a easier. I don't -know if you I~ ' J to get onto Pomerado road going south or especially north from the shopping center driveway just north oftha Dunkin Donuts. If so, you know what a challenge this is. Expecting ~ lon~ ~]isb this · ' J is unsafe. Signal-guided ~ly exists via Civic Center onto Community. Do we really want another traffic light on Pomerado a short distance north of Poway Road? 4) Despite what others may t~ to make you believe Tuesday night, young f with small children have fewer physical mobility problems th Imagine a 23 year-old single parent of 2 preschoolers getting the cb. il .let and walking a mile to Luck)/ [es to the pool or Library. Compare that with the task before and 88 year old with arthritis accomplishing the same journey. We know who would have greater difficulty getting there. ~IAy ! 6 1995 iTEM 5) As I'm sure ~ y of oi:' ' ~ seniors polled by the Weingart center produced a 70% vote in favor of locating senior housing at B' ~posed to the other available sites. The Poway News Chieftain today stated that "It's virtually a fore8 hat the Ci~ Council will accept ~ ?the Housing C designate Bowron as the family I I hope that this repc .;, and ~ good judgment will prevail amongst you and your colleagues. There are clear advantages to tl~ t of nearby venues of daily placing the senior housing at Bowron. These advantages were percieved after much deliberation over many meetings only to be obfuscated by loud protest at ~ Housing C · We know t 'y close 8 to 7 vote. TI~ ~y is counting on the City Council to make the wise choice. I hope that you will keep these Mark Nespeca,M.D. ' DISTRIBI"TED ~ ~" ~-~--.~ -~,~,~ Poway, CA 92064 "~ ~ay9, 19~ Fi E C E J ~' E ~ ~.~v 1 0 l~S5 OITY OF POWAY CITY MANAGERS OFFtCE Mayor Don Higginson 13225 Civic Center Drive Poway, CA 92064 Mayor Higginson: I am writing to you requesting that you vote for Senior Housing to be built at Bowron Road and Civic Center Drive. Due to the proximity of the Senior Center at Community Park this I fl give t1~ y access to -- these programs. Also this ] 7 of stores and services (City Hail, Post Office). Thank you for taking ~ ' tier these issues, Sincerely, I~AY 1 6 1995 ITEM RECEIVED May 15, 1995 MAY 1 5 1QQ~ Poway City Council CITY 0F MI)WAY City Hall CffY CL~RK'~ OI=FIC~ 13325 Civic Cemer Drive Poway, CA 92074 REF: Recommendation Regarding D ."Affordable Hous'mg Sites I would like to thank the members of City Council and Staff'for ~ t cooperation during the events leading up to this public hearing. The following are my recommendations for the Bowron Road and Brookview sites. · Since tI~ , facilities for families, particularly children, near the Brookview site, Bowron is a better choice for family affordable housing. · Because Bowron Road is directly adjacent to the Poway park, including swimming and sports facilities, B : for families. · Bowron Road site offers easy access to Poway Road, with very Iow traffic flow in the immediate area ofthe proposed hous'mg site. This provides a SUl~ safety for children and t :~ared with the high speed traffic on Pomerado Road directly adjacent to the Brookview site. · Bowron Road site offers, according to David Rosen and .~ excel] " aeadj ': properties. · Bowron Road site is witk' ' g ~l : ~ermarkets and shops necessary for family housing, while Bronloa' J area with only a drug store and ae area. · Although preliminary reports from the Poway Unified School District indicate the Bowron Road site has less impact on the school system (only tl~ y school), further investig hat an analysis has not been performed or completed. · Safety for children should be a primary t decision when locating family housing, The high speed traffic on Pomerado Road t present danger to the children of the proposed Brookview site, The added congestion and danger ora I: ~reat to young ~ting to cross this busy boulevard sized street. I~IAY 1 6 1995 ITEM The Brookview site poses sub ' y risk to children that would play near the open stream. During heavy rainfall, the stream becc ~ torrent. With the proposed mod Ne streambed, there will be no way t trapped in the rushing water. There is no plan to place protective t' g the stream. · The Brook~ ijacent to a dangerous, dark alley behind Sav-On and adjacent s~ores. This poses a threat to children, especially at night. · The Bowron Road site is well placed near the City of Poway agencies housed in the City Hall complex. This proximity will provide Poway an opportunity t' family Affordable Housing management. As Direaor of Redevelopment Services Warren Sharer stated ' g of'March 23, 1995, "the most important part of Affordable Housing is Management, Management, Management." · Should tl~ ' ' FPoway Estates and nearby ~ be successful in preventing ti~ ~ affordable housing on the Brookview site, Family Affordable Housing on the Bowron Road site will ? family to senior aat mandated by the Court ludgment. · A "Negative ]3 f Review of the Brookview site is recommended by Staff. This should not be issued. The 1: Assessment for CUP 88-06 was incomp] left blank Section 7.a. concerning impact to property values ofadj ' y areas. Al Assessment has been performed for the larger scale project -- the initial for the proposed 67 unit senior housing project. The Army Corps of Engineers will request an EIR due to the imF habitat and · The Staff' ting an Affordable Housing Overlay designation for the remaining parcel (317-521-02) of Brookview land. This will place h/Eh density affordable housing in the backyards of residents on Valewood Road, with properties valued at over $300,000 each. TE aese homes will be destroyed. · The newly reopened lawsuit appeal (All Persons v. City of Poway) by the Legal Aid Society will impact the affordable housing element for the Poway General Plan. The City of Poway should delay any action on the five sites (including Brookview) l/sted in the January 1995 gudgment until the appeal 1~ vlete. · If the City Council approves the Brook'view site for Senior housing, they can be assured of cooF ~ers of the Poway H ' y in creating a well designed site that meets the needs of Poway. hlAY 1 6 1995 13-EM ~ J' cview site: · The Poway Comprehensive Plan: General Plan -page 23- (copy enclosed) clearly states "Land use within the 100 year floodplain should be restricted to very Iow density or intensity uses." Page 47 (copy attached) item 22 states "Land within the 100 year floodplain should be designated for low density residential or open space uses." ] that "DeveloF ~' the 100 yenr floodway is prohibited." · The enclosed FEMu~ Flood Plain Map, dated October 31, 1994 was obtained from the Poway Planning Services Department. It clearly indicates that the Brook~' ' ' the 100 year floodplain, and that a significant portion of the property is in the 100 year floodway. No matter how well the site is prepared or streambed modified, the General Plan would have to be violated by the City Council by ' g the danger to property and life outlined in the Plan. · The Poway Municipal Code (copy enclosed), Section indicates that "the Director shall refer the application for such permit to the Director of Planning Services f t d whether the proposed work ' ~ the City's general plan." Section : t states "th permit shall not be issued unless and until the Council authorizes such issuance following a review of the permit application and making a finding that the propose drainage or flood-control structure a the general plan. Thus, the City Council ae proposed site and any changes to the streambed to conform to the Poway Generai Plan. Building affordable high density housing in the Brookview floodplain and floodway does not conform to the General Plan. · The residents of Poway Estates believe that the Brookview property I: be community as dedicated park land or open space. This will allow the Council to comply with the Poway General Plan, provide for much needed area in south Poway, and mitigate the potential damage to life and property with high density housing on the site. Thank you for your consid ~is matter. Sincerely, Jeffery D. Schipper 12347 Mesa Crest Road C Poway, CA 92064 POWA Y COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: GENERAL PLAN Warren Canyon Creek. and the Green FLOOD MANAGEMENT AND Valley Truck Trail Creek. Drainage from IMPROVEMENT these creeks flows into Lake Hodges and Previous Poway community land use eventually into the Pacific Ocean along policies under the County of San Diego the San Dieguito River. clearly did not effectively mitigate flood hazards. S' the City of' The majority of Poway is within the Los Poway has taken several steps to Penasquitos Creek Drainage Basin. The manage and improve the flood-prone creeks that drain into Los Penasquitos areas. In the future, proper flood hazard basin are Poway Creek, Pomerado management and improvement can be Creek, Los Penasquitos Creek (Beeler accomplished by a four-fold process: (1) Creek) and Rattlesnake Creek. Poway th ~s should h ' ' :ltd Creek is the largest creek with a keep free and clear of flood water drainage area of 21 square miles. The oh (2) appropriate land uses other creeks are similar in size with should be delineated within flood hazard drainage areas averaging seven square areas; (3) upstream detention basins miles, should be :~ to reduce the volume and velocity of flooding areas; FLOOD HAZARD DAMAGE and (4) continue to improve and expand In recent years, the amount of damage the City's drainage system. caused by flooding has increased. This _ is both a result of changes in rainfall and Creek is essential to more development within flood hazard utilizing natural war as flood areas. Essentially, damage is done control channels. In recent years, debds because homes and other st that included over-vegetation and located in the floodplain without proper dumping worsened upstream flood mitigation. The Zone I Comprehensive hazards by restricting the free flow of Plan for Flood Control and Drainage water. (published July 1976) states that ~' approximately 350 homes along Poway / In the long-term, the proper management Creek would be inundated by a 100 year of the flood hazard areas will do the most storm. The 100 year storm is the value to reduce potential loss of life, injury and used to design flood control facilities and property damage. Land use within the delineate flood control facilities and 100 ~arfloodplain should be restricted delineate flood hazard areas. A City to or intens uses. study perfotTned in December 1981 Flood control improvements may be found 465 homes within the same area. :~ to reduce the extent of the Along Rattlesnake Creek there were 115 flood hazard area. homes in the 100 year floodplain in 1976 ~ and 213 in 1981. Clearly, past Flood hazard management p development within the floodplain is the reduce future ' in flood hazards primary cause of th property but will not assist those uses already damage and loss due to flood hazards, within the floodplain. Remedial to reduce the floodplain area PUBLIC SAFETY - 23 INCl..[.IDES AMENDMENTS THROUGH GPA 94-01 ~i '/ POWAy COI~4~PREHENS/VE PLAN: GENERAL PLAN to the area now within the floodway (the the amount of runoff. Each of these ? area within the actual creek b I sources ! adds to the total need to be ' ' :l. .~ there amount of drainage water that travels · are two alternatives One is to down the street or behind houses before construct concrete tr~ ~ezoidal channels flowing into one of the major channels. that can ~ ate ra id volumes of water v, The City of Poway is divided into five drainage basins· The location and size These are normall re( Jired when of these basins are determined by the floodwaters mu,, ~e channeled tl~rough creeks that traverse through them, the ~eloped area. Ther amount of residential development in ~ ~cks with the concrete channel, them and the type and size of drainage One is the expense of 3e~ imp T ' ' the flooding are the most ;> ,ensive form ~ d potential in each of the drainage basins, control the City has proposed over 85 drainage ~s and are a improvement projects that include si ificant el )f P0wa's rural expanding earthen channels, character and atmosphere, new underground pipe systems and replacing old and inadequate systems. The other is to construct The timing and ' of these upstream detention basins. The projects will be based on need and detention basins are less costly, can be financing. ~ at one time (concrete ~ channels are normally :~ in segment due to the high costs), and will save the natural creeksides of Poway. Detention basins reduce the width of the floodplain by holding back the floodwaters and letting them out slowly, but cvera longer duration. However, the primary purpose of reducing the volume and velocity is achieved and the amount of damage reduced. Although flooding poses the greatest potential dar :o life -' .f_or those residences ir ~ximit to major streams and .'ia_hEels, losses from flooding are not y limited to th Drainage waters that follow tributaries and ditches often swell beyond their channels during heavy rain Storms. New development often ' the '-~ amount of iml~ 'f · INCLUDES v'r's THROUGH GPA ~1.-01 PUBUC SAFE'rY-24 1A¥ 1995 ITEM ~LAN Floodplains and Floodways __ 22. Land within the 100 year floodplain should be designated for Iow density residential _ or open space uses. j.. 23. S ~ich do not conform to Poway Flood Hazard Management standards must be brought into conformance with these standards if rebuilding or repairing made necessary by damage will exceed 50 percent of the reasonable replacement value of the structure prior to any damage. 24. Critical emergency uses (hospitals, t police stations, public administration buildings and schools) shall not be located in flood hazard areas. 25. Development within the 100 year floodway is prohibited, j 26. Development in the 100 year floodplain may be approved if the following conditions are met: All structures, both permanent and temporary, must be raised one foot above the 100 year flood level; certifying the 100 year flood level must be submitted by a qualified civil or hydrological engineer; All-weather access must be provided to all developments for divisions of land, ' units, I buildings, r ;~ buildings or public buildings; · information certifying that no upstream or d ~ ~anges to the 100 year floodplain will occur must be submitted by a qualified civil or hydrological engineer. 27. For purposes of land division, floodway areas shall not be included in the calculation of net area. 28. To prevent increased flooding within Poway, all new land divisions and ~ developments shall be reviewed to determine the feasibility of storm drainage detention. Should the project increase the storm drainage runoff by ten percent or more, the differential storm drainage runoff shall be detained to the sal ' the City Engineer. Tl~'is does not preclude the City from requiring storm drainage detention for projects which do not exceed a 10 percent differential ' drainage, 29. No development shall be approved that would inhibit, prevent or preclude the location of proposed detention basins on Rattlesnake Creek and the north and south branches of Poway Creek, as outlined in the Floodwater Detention Basin Survey, dated August 1981. INCLUDES AMENDMENTS THROUGH GPA 94-01 PUBUC SAFETY- 47 "' .~IAY 1 6 1995 ' ITEM 4 acts are and with such pur- suits; and, further, that such acts do not sub- impair, impede or divert the flow of water in the G. Section does not repair, recon- or to residential and nonres- within the floodplain, provided such repair, or 1. Is not a 1 ' 2. Is . (modified) and anchored to present collapse or lateral of the 3. Uses and utility equip- ment that are to flood damage; and 4. Uses methods and that will flood damage. H. and do not prohibit the of parking within the floodplain fringe a ea below the one-hundred-year flood level The parking facility will service a nonresiden- tial The is open and will not impede the flow of (Ord. 29 SI(part), 1981: CCS85.104) Eme= ~n~ work 16- .58.020 and do not any person from per- forming or work within, upon, over, under or thr6ugh'any when such work is and proper for the p of life or property an when an urgent has arisen; p ovided, the the person such work appl es for a wr tten permit for such work within'fiv~ ays after t e end with al terms and condi- tions of the permit so issued. In any act on at law, or in equity between the City and the person doing the emergency work, the latter shall have the burden of proving that an existed if such question be in issue. (Ord. 29 §l(p~rt)', 1981: CCS88.105) to Re w Board. ~r~o.r to the a , ~e [rec- tor ~hal re r ~ e ' for such perm ~ t the Eh- Review Boar (ERB) for review an whether the proposed work ~-6~ld have a effect upon the ' ' provided, however, ~uch app need not be to the ' Review oard (ERB) if any of the are m t: A. A City board, or off cer having finai for project has that the Envi- ~ Impact Report which analyzed t e work has been in ' with the mental Quality Act and the State and has consi- ~dered the in said rep6rt; or has that 16, ,.070--16.58.100 the project, which included the proposed work, would not have a ' ' affect upon the or B. The proposed work is to a map of sub which has been approved or conditionally ap- proved on or before April 4, 1973. (Ord. 29 SI(part), 1981: CCS88.106) 16.58.070 tl ect does not have ~i upon t the proposed work would not have a sig effect upon the it shall so inform the app icant and the d Upon receipt of of such d by the I Re- view Board (ERB), the director may issue the permit without requiring an 1 Impact Report. (Ord. 29 ~l(part), 1981: CCS88.107} ¢ ficant effec~ view Board (5 ~e proposed work could have a sig effect upon the the permit shall not be issued unless and until the City Council such following the adoption of an Envi- Impact Report prepared to the mental Quality Act of 1970 and City rules and procedures adopted pursuant (Ord. 29 §1(part), 1981: CC§88.108) Referral t¢ ' ~r- '~ es. Prior to the ' pez lot -- ' of any drainage or fl ' i the ~ shall refer the app ' for such permit to the ' of ' ' for review and d whether t~e proposed work is ' with the City's gen- eral plan, provided, however, such application need not be ~ to the ' of Planning if any of the J A. A Cit~ .rd, or having final for project approval has d ~ that the proj- ect, which included the proposed work, is with the general plan; or - B. The work is to a map of which has been approved or ly ap- proved. (Ord. 29 ~l(part), 1981: CC~88.109) t! ~sed ~ or :h ~ al plan. If the of that %he pro- posed work is with the City's general plan, he shall so inform the applicant and the Upo9 re- ceipt of of such by the 723 ~es~ns for Poway C~ Council and Redeve~pment a~ Housing Adv~o~ Comm~ee March 21, 1995 1.1. Why was the E ; As~ t Conditional Use Permit 88-06 and Development Review 88-13 for a 67 housing complex on 2.92 acre site used for the expanded 108 housing complex on 5.38 acres? 1.2. Why was an l: t NOT performed for the expanded 108 unit site? 1.3. Why were variances listed in VAR 89-16 allowed, knowing that adjacent single family 1~ being built on the western boundary of the site? For example, a 15 foot setback for a building on the west property line? ---~> 1.4. Why do the £ ' t ' for CUP 88-06 for the property development at Sycamore Springs/Woo&rest Poway/Poway Estates? 1.5. Why are the "City of Poway Initial Study E ' Checklists" incomplete7 1.6. How can the flora and streambed be preserved? 2. Housing Use and Cost 2.1 Resolution No. 90-005 adopted January 16, 1990 finds potential benefit to the redevelopment project at Brookview Village, and issues a S Sewer Availability reserving 41 EDUs for CUP 88-06M. The record states: "Staff believes it would be beneficial to have a larger percentage of low and moderate income units, however, the appl :l that the high cost of developing this project precludes the possibility of providing more Iow income units. Based on the I: ! 4.76 acres ( ded )tracted) the d~velopment has a proposed density of 22.7 dwelling units per acre. The applicants are asking for a density bonus of 13.4 percent, i.e., 13 than the 20 dwelling unit per acre allowed by fight for a senior project." What has changed to make high density attractive to a developer now? 2.2. Why was CUP 88-06 allowed to lapse on May 13, 1994 (recorded May 26, 1994) without the project being started? In other words, why was the senior housing complex not built? "1995 I'fF_i'~ 4 Questions for Poway City Council and RedeveloF g Advisory Committeee 3. Site Selection 3.1. Why would the Poway City Council continue to pursue development of the Brookview site for ] housing after a ~even year lapse since the initial project proposal? ' · 3.2. Is the Poway City Council using the Brookview site or veil pt to satisfy the HCD req :1 Superior Court judgment by continuing to press for its develol: g that it will never be built because of flood, cost, and local community pressure? Is the Poway City Council using this m-called "blighted" property (Ref: Item 3 (Category F) of Agenda Report dated December 19, 1989) as a smokescreen to keep Poway the City in the Country and ely with SB22747 We don't believe this, but does the Legal Aid Society? 3.3. Has the City pursued additional sites since the lapse of CUP 88-06? There '. property "unload" their properties at very reasonable prices in ble for I housing. 3.4. Would Poway City Council be willing to work with Poway Estates maintain our property values? 3.5. How will a developer be secured to build the Brookview site.* By what method, other than tax credits, will the site actually generate revenues to provide a profit to the builder? 3.6. At what density and income levels will the site be profitable, without the variances previously listed on VAR 89-16 and Resolution P-90-137 3.7. Would the City of Poway consider a mixed used site? If so, we propose senior housing at Iow and moderate income with first-time homebuyer townhomes in a mix proportionate to the financial req [ the builder. City Council response? 4. Planning and Future Use 4.1. Please provide a copy of the South Poway Transportation Corridor Plan. 4.2. Please provide the latest copy of the Poway General Plan and a copy of the report to the State of California that the City of Poway submitted to comply with SB2274. 4.4 Is the City of Poway contemplating selection of additional sites for very low and 1 housing in the South Poway area? 2 I~I/~Y 1 6 1995 Q~ , 0' C Committet. e 5. Contention 5.1. Resolution P-89-132 Section 2: Findings: Conditional Use Permit 88-06- TE Item 4 states "That there will not be a harmful effect upon desirable neighborhood ch in that the project is physically separated, from single family residential uses on three sides and where it will adjoin a future single family subdivision, a wall and 30 foot setback with landscaping will provide a buffer between the two uses." Resolution P-90-13 adopted February 13, 1990 by the Poway City Council states "V ' requested ..... to allow buildings to observe a ten foot rear yard setback where 25 feet is required." Variance 89-16 filed October 12, 1989 allows "a 15 foot setback for one building at the west property line which has adj ' and open space immediately to the south of the building." How will our neighborhood ch be maintained with the destruction of the mature flora and with apartment buildings directly behind the newly constructed Poway F~tate homes? 5.2. Variance 89-16 allows "a private drive that aligns with Robison Blvd. east of Pomerado Road. This private drive will have an unaccepted I.O.D. granted for it, and could become a publ' time in the future." Agenda Report dated January 16, 1990 and adopted as Resolution No. 90-005 states "The 67 unit Sycamore Springs project (now called Woodcrest Poway) to the west has only one access which is not very desirable from a Safety Services standpoint. The project will provide the opportunity to extend Robison Boulevard through the site to allow a secondary access for Sycamore Springs." Why would Poway City Council not identify this as an and neighborhood impact to the Woodcrest Poway (Poway Estates) area? Be assured that we will not allow this road to I: ~. 5.3. Resolution No. P-89-132 Approving Conditional Use Permit 88-06-TE and Development Review 88-13TE apl: for of a 67 housing complex on the Brook'view site. Section 2 Item 6 states "That the site is suitable for the type .and intensity of use of development which is proposed, in that the property is level, with the exception of a streambed and the site is an ideal location in terms of proximity ~ t public transportation. All develop :lards will be met through proj " Continuing in Section 2 Development Review 88-13TE Item 5 "and the project will be of benefit to th y because it will provide senior housing units where recent studies show that a total of 606 senior housing units will be needed to meet ! y demand." Section 2 Item 10 states "That there has been no material change in the project :ling area since the original approval on November 1, 1988." City C There has been a material change in the surwundin8 area since th ' ' ~proval o£ the Brookview site. An : family residential subdivision has been built. We rec, ~lete :' the site and proposed project. In light of the City Coundl findings in Resolution P-89-132, we Fred a 67 housing project the minimally acceptable use of the site. No additional units, higher density, or very low to ] family housing are acceptable. An imp the minimally acceptable use is a mixed use project of first- time homebuyer tow~ housing, without any variances that would allow the I: on the Poway Estates properties. Most suitable use for the site would be p ? the natural flora and fauna, imf ~ the strearnbefl to prevent stagnation and to provide flood control measures, and overall imF ~ the site for park use by the t community. 1995 ITEM ROBBIN5 ~ KEEHN May 16, 1995 Poway Cty Council 13325 C vic Center Drive Poway, 92064 .... "' .... Re: Poway Housing Our File No. 4576.01 Dear Council This firm represents at Poway Estates in with their to the le housin? that has been proposed for the site near the of Poway Road and Road in Poway. A you mi ht know, Poway Estates is located west of the site. The will be impacted by any housing at that 1 an question the y of the for any type of ense mu1 i-family and the ~ used to designate that site. Specifically, we believe the site is inappropriate because (1) he City entered a stipulation that formed the basis for the udgment in the case th v ns and improperly way its police powers; (2) multip y le ~ous~ng is with the zoning at , (3) the is inadequate and a should be issued and an impact report (4) the housing for this site appears , and (5) ho~sing is not a viable 1. s ~ined Awa a Po e were We that in 1993, before Poway Estates was completed, the City of Poway made . efforts toward imp1 a redevelopment plan, which ' a housing element to housing. T e Le al Aid Society ~ the hous ng element of the plan an ult mately filed a awsu t oth the plan and oway's General lan. The li~igat on was settled by a stipulat on arrived at brough which apparently became the basis of the Smith judgment. Poway City Council May 16, 1995 Page 2 While we commend the City's efforts to negotigte a settlement of the dispute, and acknowledge the City's past to high- density housing, we believe that the Brookview site should not have been among the designated for ef The site is of three parcels: one 1.33 acre parcel (31' (the "02" parcel)); and two other parcels (317- 521-03 and 04 (the "03 and 04" parcels)) ] 5.37 acres both of which are zoned for use. Despite the "zoning, the City has designated the 5.37 acre site for multiple-residential use at an exceptional densi y of up to 25 units per acre. The City now takes the posit on that the judgme t Brookvie (and four other sites to be used for af ordable housing and hat it should not the j esignated uses. We elieve the City's _ posit on raises a question whet er the cit has improperly away its police powers as to the site. 58 724, 734 (1976); S' 994 F.2d 650 ( t Cir. 1993). In a laudable effort to reach an agreement with t e Legal Aid Society, the City now seems to have surrendered its control over the proper use of the 2. The city to use its Housing Overlay to allow hi ~ multiple-family housing on property currently zoned fo use (parcels 03 and 04) and for low density 1 use (parcel 02). We assume that the present zoning is with the General Plan designations for the parcels. Although we are informed that Poway's General Plan has a Housing Element that allows an Af Housing Overlay Zone on in any land use c tegory, we do not believe that el the need for actua zoning to be with the General Plan designations for he parcels. Affordable Housing is y a high-density mul iple-family use. Floating zones, such as the AH Overlay are to land owners to have their rezoned with the overlay. The zoning for is y with the AH overlay. The city staff has the of a Negative Declaration ] that no adverse 1 impacts are Poway City Council May 16, 1995 Page 3 at the site by development as eenior or family housing on the 02 parcel, or by development as family housing on the 03 and 04 parcels. We believe that the staff's study is d for purposes of the California 1 Quality Act. Although the staff has stated that a thorough review of impa ts will be done when an actual project comes before the i seems that impacts will result at from the housing contemplated. At a t can be "fairly argued" that family and senior hous%ng at a e~sity of up to 25 units.per acre will have a impact, the n ed for an impact report. 13 Cal.3d 68, 75, 81 (1974). Just the act that property in a is being esignated for ig housing at the of two 0 the most heavi y streets in the City, suggests mpacts. More , the Initial Study finds: a. No adverse impacts to the physical of the parcels despite the floodplain and the el which is five feet below the adjacent street (~l(d)); b. Only a impact to the f despite the and the that "any type" of development on the site "will likely involve of the (~2(a)); c. No impact on air quality despite the potential for 1000 vehicle trips per day (~3(a)); d. No impact on flora despite natural growth in the creek bed that has not been mapped (~4(a)); e. No impact on fauna despite the created by the creek (~5(a)); f. Only a possible impact on despite an influx of over 300 people, only two persons per unit, in south Poway which we believe already a dis~ amount of the City's housing (~6(a)); Poway City Council May 16, 1995 Page 4 g. No impact despite the that "the potential effect on surrounding properties is (S7(a)); h. No land use impact .despite the proposed high-density multiple-family use of 11y-zoned parcels (SS(a)); i. No transp impacts again despite the p for 1000 vehicle trips per day and children located at a site removed from schools and facilities (~9(a)(f)(g)); j. No health, safety or impacts despite being located next to two of the most heavily travelled streets in Poway, and a floodplain ] the site, which will limit the useable open space, especially at the density end force the children into the street area (~11(a}(b) (e); k. No impact on despite the creek in the fl the flora and fauna already there, and the that removal of the mature trees will have an impact (~12(a)); and 1. Only a possible impact on Public espite the that emily housing will have a direct ef ect on the school system, wi h some schools already at capacity ( 13(j)); and no impact on floo control structures despite the admi ted need to modify the floodp ain channel (~13(f). With the sig impacts that must be anticipated from the affordable housing being ~, a positive should have been and an Impact Report 4. We ~ that the City originally designated 33 sites for affordable ousing, and that following public hearings, the list was reduce y to 16 sites and y to the five currently esigned. Of the five sites, the owner of the Gateway location apparently has stated a willingness to build only senior housing, and the City has agreed. It also appears from the limited to us and the at Poway that certain areas of Poway were not considered for housing ~ in a disprop to south Poway. ~AY16 ~995 ~"~M 4 Poway City Council May 16, 1995 Page 5 Because Poway Estates was after t e sites were the could not participate n the public and y we have incomplete However, many b~lieve that there are other imilarly situate parcels, and parcels better suited for affor able housing, t at were not designated. We ask the City counc 1 to ts housing and to identi y other more appropriate sites now that public input is available on the Brook¥iew site. 5. w While the of Poway Estates oppose any affordabl~ housing at the Brookview site, the use as "Family" or housing is particularly Mr. Rosen, the la'd-use to the City, acknowledges that there is little ~ for interg 1 housing. The only 1 he ' are urban areas of much larger cities (Hollywood and Oakland), where the utility of this approach is far from The only reason for even ] this social experiment to the Smith j On the other hand, is and costly, m~rket acceptance is desi n requires separation of the seniors from the in a size high-density made even more compressed by t e floodplain, and such a project will be more costly to developmen Interg housing is simply a for the sake of and is not good Nei her this firm nor the at Poway Estates the task faced by the City in p However, we think the best way to the hous ng with a minimum of conflict is to place it in teas of similar uses. Poway has multi-residential projec s for and and can use its land use powers to esigna e other areas where housing will be easily nto the uses. , however, laces the y us s on propert- where a flood lain exists, and w ich s ~y a .shopping enter, a church and sing e fami y he use posed by hous ng at , s ag. by its proximity to Poway Road and omerado Road, and the real risk to children and We I' IAY 1 6 1995 FI'EM 4 · Poway City Council May 16, 1995 Page 6 y ask you. to the housing designation for Very truly yours, ROBBINS & KBEHlq, APC John H. Stephens JHS/wps cc: Poway Estates ~,~;~¥ 1 ~ ~995 ITEM RECEIVED Poway Cty Council City Ha 1 ClTYOFPOWAF 13125 C vic Center Privs ~rrYCL~RK~OFFIC~ l'oway, A 92064 ~/~ ~.~ ~ Housing Dear Council Thank you for giving the citizens of Poway this to uddress you and give you cur input the and Bowron site. While I that this public meeting is for the type of housing that should be built on the and Bowron sites, I will also address the City Council as to -=he of the Brookview site for d In my opinion, the site is perhaps one of the least ~or of any kind, not only that of low income ~or ' while an 1 Impact Report was for the site, it was p internally by City staff, ly, and prior to any FE~A floodp sin maps were ever for this site. The October 1995 FEMA loodplain maps that the Creek's floodpl~ n limits cover 75% of the site. This means that o y a very limited 25% of the site is for develo ment. For the City to build any out of the the of the site needs to be raised at least 6-feet, an a huge box culvert would need to be put in. In i will be needed on Road to ensure tha~ he that OCCURS on this road a~er storms ~ill not be worse shoul~ occur on this site. These will be very In fact, of the Broo~view site will prove to be ~he most costly of any site the City of Poway has id While it is unknown whether Pomerado Creek will be designated a it is true that the City will need to get from the Corps of Engineers, of Fish and Game, and the of Fish and Wildlife. will most be and I remind you, that the will not be cheap. It is also possible that one or more c! these may deny the City of Poway the f approvals to b~{l~ on the site. Does the City have a back-up plan? It would seem to me that if any sites were to be built on, i% wou~d be for tho City to first build on the Bowron s%te. Th ~ s~te is already graded, end ready for Tt ~s ad ~cnn% %0 Va%Le¥ School, and within we[k~nq ,~f two cent~r~ with larg,~ grocery stores. Vehicle acce~ from th ~ ~it- l~ good, capable of easily merging {nrc the stro.%m of traffic on Poway Road ~31felX from side The 1,%Tout of the I A¥ 1 6 1995 ITEM with ¥ounq children that may play out of doors. On tho other hand, development of £amily housing on the Brookview s cc tot family housing ia totally inappropriate and 0 children play in driveways and The o t ia to the highly Road is a ~ g safety hazard. Traffic at Poway and Road is a rea y the second highest in the City, Is the city of ~oway ready and wlling to de~end itself from any lawsuits that may occur from · whose have been hurt or killed beca%~e of the to the property? Some members of the city Council have said that in their there have been no cases where low income housing caused :he adjacent properties to decrease in value. It is with heavy heart that I infor~ you that this has already . in the ?oway Fstates , one of our put his house on the market. Within a short period of time~ a buyer was found. When the buyer d' ~ that the City was lann ng on putting low income housing at the Brookview site, the bu'er his offer. We are already seen that of he site will result in ~ home values. Is t · Cty of Poway going to for the loss in the r property values? If le family housing must be built in Poway, I urge the city to it where it makes sense. To p that are adjacent to the to es that are ready to buil~ on, without which will save the City .money; and to . es that will be safe for its and future While I would like to see the site if the site is to be developed at all, I would prefer to see senior housing ~ at that rather than family I do note that all the 1 use permits for the sites have and that the City will need to for them. Due to the FEMA now on Creek's status, it is highly that award of a use permit for this site may not come so easily now. If senior housing were planned on this site, and env' 1 and use permits were noL by family housing at the ~owron site, the City will been able to move forward in meetin9 the City's need for large numbers of family ! t the importance of thie matter to thm City of Powey and ~hs City Council, Plmame do not feel like you need to proc~cd on t~s very important iesue on your own. Your residsnt~ ~ro your greatest and ! urge you &o seek us out and let us work with you on ~hame very impo~ant projects. Thank you very much. Lois Fong~Sakai 12133 Sage View Road Poway. CA 92064 (~) 1995 I"J'EM ~ "~ '~ .Majororie K. Whalsten, City Clerk - ty Hall .0. Box 789 R E C E ! V E D oway, CA. 92074-0789 MAY i 6 1995 RE: Public Hearing - Bowron Road Site/Brookview Site To Whom it may Concern: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE I ' ' ~ my objection to the Low Income Housing Pwject currently planned at the Bowron R ' ;, si?ce I ~d the May 16, 1995 meeting in person. I have to be out of g on that date. Please ' :leration that when I bought my. house (5 years ago) at 12903 Creek Park I: fairly secluded area with a ] Since it has been open to foot traffic from Poway Royal Mobil ~ petty crime has increased considerably. My house is located at the end of the block near the new foot bridge. My car has been broken into and all d the air has been let out of the tires on another ear, a long scratch mark was put on the length of another car (with a sharp object), ~er (graffiti markings)was marked on anot~ tail lights have been brol~ 'her car, I had to have the Sheriff's del: .d van that was parked in the cul-de-sac f ~, my house has been hit with raw eggs, my outside trees has been toilet-papered (it rained so I 1~ the paper by hand), my mail has been found in the creek behind my house. When I return from out of town, I always have to go behind my rear fence, pick-up beer/wine bottles and just last week a guest was frightened by a Peeping Tom late one night. The abe -xl happenings. have occurred within the last 6 months. It has be '~y proven that · high in ] housing areas. '- From the data I l~ by other groups, the pros for placing Senior Housing on Bowron road far outwe,~, the pros for placing Low In.come Housing at the amc site. The only argument I have card in favor of placing I housing on · owron Road is the heavy traffic on 7'omerado Road would be dangerous for children. 7~resently ~ y housing developments on Pomerado Road with children residing n those homes. Has anyone considerexl that the housing site on Bowron Road is only a alfa block from Poway Road, one of the busiest and main thoroughfares to the freeway? The traffic on Poway Road is far heavier than that on Pomerado Road and, therefore, far more dang ~ children who might w. ander off unattended. Th' supported by ~ ' aild neglect in I housing areas. Based upon the above facts, I am firmly opposed to any Low Income Housing Project being started' I '.d how is it going to look and what will the life style be in the next 5 years in Poway??? Clark Moskop / 1995 ITEM 13243 ~rivo .o. R E C E IV E MAY 1995 ~ ~ ~ 6, 1995 CtTYOFPOWAY CITY MANAGERS OFFICE ;~'~ O~)en Letter to the MByor and City Council On ~o~d~y, ~arch ~ 1995~ ! attended the special off and hou~Jng advisor Davi~ ~osen, a consultant ),izad to the y of ~nterg 1 affordable gave his opinion on intcrgonerational housing. He an housing project on either the Bowron Road or site, but not on both sites. After reading his report, ~sil to see the basis for his opinion and ~.~ t4¢ ~est of ~avid ~osen's no such projects have been ,~[w~]oi:ed in ~he private sector. Thi~ indicates the private &octet tkinks such are not worth the ri~k. Yes, m~ney ~osers. That aione should tell us' muJt ~ffer 1 in the form of tax credits to realize such ~,)~jecrs. But Mr. Bosen thinks s%lch a project will work in Poway. ~eadinQ from Section C the report ~tatc~" housing has ,~o~ market and is'subject to ~JrKct and risk. It ~houl~ probably re~d "D~e to the ]~ck of market interg housing is subject to great marxct and risk." Things that are not ' in the mF, rket place are m12bje~t to hu~e r~$k. Yet the overall that David Paul Rosen A reach is ~uc?~ n project would work. It just doesn't add up. to thc report only fouz -~ even exist in ~' Of the four, only one project is more ti%mn 5 yca~s old. Two of the four are less than one yeaz old. It is amazing to me that !.,~;Jd Rosen could reach the conclusion to build 1 housin9 in Poway based on so little. T)~ co~cept of 1 hot)s~ng shol~]d be Commnn sense tells us that if it is not in the it won't be here either. Should Poway Icon West Hollywood and the San ~ay Area and with I vote NO a~ so shooid The n~synr and the city Either 100% fBmily hou~in9 or log's, senior housing should bc placed on the site. Steven Fapet ~AY 1 6 1995 ITEM INTERGENERATIONAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS Number Project Date Opened of Units Allocation of Units West Hollywood, CA October 1994 41 Families: 13 three-bedroom ur~ts. Seniors: 25 one-bed Frank Mar Five Years Old 119 Fnmilles: 83 one- to four- OakJand, CA b Seniors: 3 H~smcn Hin-nu anuary 1995 92 Families: one to f Oakland, CA units, Seniors: allowed but no ,,nits reserx, ed for seniors. Number of seniors p ~ymg =ined with number oe small families for a total of 17. S d be as few as las I6 Eldridge Gonaway 982 40 Families: 34 two- and three- Commons bed' Oakland, CA Sen/ors: 16 one-b y be occupied by non senior handicapped Number of occupying units not given Thc doesn't work here -- 34 and 16 does not equal Emcryvillc, CA Currently in design Not General description of project. near Oakland, CA phase stated. No breakdown of family vs Sourcc: David Ro~en & Associates Report, March 23, 1995 I~IAY 1 6 1B95 ITEM Di ,TRI UTED May 12, 1995 ~.~.r Mayor Don Hi~nson R E Poway, ~. 92074-0~9 Re: ~ok~ew and Bo~n C[~ CF POWAY Dear Mayor Hi~nson: GI~ MANAGERS O~F~CE ~ Tuesday, May 16, 1995 is the date you and ~r ~eemed '~m ~11 vote on the housing issues ~r the B~ew and Boron sites, we ~sh to e~mss our ~me opposition to p~sing '~e~ h~using" ~ the Broo~iew site. Mo~ng to this fine ci~ f Ihs ago into the new d .~ : ~o~ as Poway Estates, our family ~ndu~ed ~ ~ ~ Broo~ew, espedally since our back ya~ ovefl~ the vaunt B~ew p~dy. At no time during o~r many ~nve~fions ~th the Poway Ci~ staff and our developer, Centex Homes, was men~o~ made of '~ 1 h~sin~ as a possibility on the Bmo~ew site. We were a~sed of the that a housing establishment f L' d ~me to ~ss on B~o~ew, but that this was s~ll unlikely due to ~sts ass~ated ~th this ~ of development. It is my undemtanding that Br~ew is to ~ ~ilt ~th md ~ ~nds. ~ these monies n~ d~ved ~ residents such as ~e~es7 Should we have a s~nge~ voice in th' ' [1 be those most dimply ~ed by this impo~ant derision? A~rding to info~ation disseminated ~ the Redevel~ment and Housing Ad~so~ ~mmittee meeting of Ma~ 27, 1995, the ~ site is ~nsidemd ~m~tible ~th the neighbored ~th ~pe~ to adj~ning apa~en~ and ~nd ' ' To ~t~ high densi~, "v~ 1 h~tn~' (which equates to a household annual ' ~ app~mately $20,000 for a family of four) on the Broo~ew p~peffy,. ~ ~ainly n~ ~tible ~th our neighbor- h~d. With the median h = Poway ~tates at appro~mately $300,000, we all stand to suffer if ~e~ 1 ho~ is plaid on Broo~ew. To place family housing on B~o~ ning shoff of asinine, y human and animal deaths does the Ci~ of Poway need to assist it in ma~ng the right choice? ~e int ' Poway and Pomerado Roads is the se~d busiest in all of Poway. We am in~fing ~ouble by pla~ng our small children in ha~'s way if we Io~te high density family h~s~g on ~ok~ew. ITEM Once again, we might discuss the issue of locating another site altogether for this type of development. The Brook'view acreage could be easily developed into an extremely beautiful park and recreational ~ as the Hilleary Park near Wal- Mart. This would make an excellent choice, since th irks within our immediate vicinity. With the amount of wildlife, foliage, and natural habitat thriving on the Brookview site, it would be criminal to destroy its beauty. Why not build around and within it making it enjoyable for all?. While the Smith II judgment is in th being re-opened by the Legal Aid Society, with respect to Brookview, this is the mort opportune time to revisit the issue and propose another site in its place. Much of the dat :ling this affordable housing issue indicates three sites in question: the Brookview, 1~ ~ Gateway sites. Gateway has not even been considered in the calculation with respect to complying with the Smith II judg~'~ent Why is that? Did some developer decide senior housing to be more appropriate on this location, which ' the chances of obtaining high density family housing on Brookview? The Brook~' ! suitable f by, ~ Iow income housing The Bowron site can b , :)date family housing. The chilclren will be y of the faciliti 'y to enhance their growth and development. Not only will they h to tl~ hy pool, tennis courts, parks, et~ and the en~' ty center, but construction of the new Poway library will be adjacent to the Bowron site. We don't feel that placing family housing on the Brookview site, with the pool hall providing the ~ recreational vehicle for the children, to b ~oice. For these many reasons, we request that ~ cl "very 1' housing" on the Brookview site. Let's combine to q and every one of us when making choices that will have such a profound effect on us. Let's strive to maintain our City within the Country, by developing Brookview into a parle Sincerely,__ . Michael W. and Susan I. Prines 13139 Valewood Road Poway, Ca. 92064 1 6 lss5 ITEM Dear Mayor Higginson and Members of the City Council, ~q~_~ I am a senior citizen living in Poway, and also a men%ber of the Senior Center. We have been asked to sign a petition and attend the May 16th hearing to urge you all to vote for the use of the Bowron Road property for Although I can see why it would make a nice home for senior I can't help but think how much better it would be for families with children. When my children were young it was very important for them to be able to walk to the neig pool, littl league field and parks because I had to work. I can imagine dur ng the summer this spot on Bowron, being so central to sports fie ds, the movies, and I guess the new libra.ry too some day, an also maybe the new police it would be a goo place for poor families to live. Also, as the k~ds get older, t ere will be lots of places to find part- time jobs after school. The senior in this town just amaze me. No m~tter how much they usua ly for little or nothing in return, hey still don't seem ~. We have Dial-a-Ride, the Senior Bus and the Trans t to get us around town almost for ree. Also, there ar n't t at many of us who are really hard up. 'm guessing maybe on y 20% or less of the elderly in this town would really be consi ered poor. On the other hand, there do ppear to be lots of amilies who could use a break. It won't urt seniors to live over on Pomerado Road, but it might hurt Youngsters are important, we should think of them irst. I'm not going to sign this because I'll be as popular as a skunk at a wedding. A ~ senior citizen RECEJyE , CITY OF POWAy CITY MANAGERS OFFICE MAY ! 6 1995 ITEM Zoe A. Sarvie 13259 Creek Park Lane Poway, CA 92064 Msy 12, 1995 Dear Council Member ~' ! ·m writing ·bout the concern ! have on the taeue of the Senior Mousing During the past 5 years ·s & resident of Poway and Lhe Park Creek *rea, we have been promised that the Bowron area would be s·nSor bousing. That nn~ seems to be in Jeopardy. I have always felt :he council would do an lc promised s~,d not be ewayed by issueS. The seniors in Pow·y have paid the~r debt to society and deserve to be during this time in thai: lives. This cha~ge would no: benefit the se~iors and they need all the benefits afforded them by · nd ac this late st·ge of L4eir lives. They hove many apeclal needs that can be ~et at the Mowron site. They should mot have te take their lives in their hands to cross · busy eLreet or Mull out on a major ~oad such as They should not have to ctoaa Lows to get to the Senior Center and be at the mercy of limlted bus service. Due to the close vote on the advisory the~e is · strong support a~n~or housin$ on )o~ron ·~d yet :here were very few sealers due to the evening There would be an support if they were able be at the I believe in the of the council and that they will do what is best for our seniors. As the )ibla says in Xsaih ~:)/ Learn t* do good, seek Justice, correct defend the and plead for the widows. I plead fo: the w~dows, becaume the more wa do mot help them, the more they depend on the city, state and for help. Can't we do what ia besc :or everyone and vote the co:tact way to keep )owzom the senior cite it has been fo: the past $ years. Thank you ~or your to this matter and Z loo~ forward to · positive vote at the meeting om :he ~6th. ~Zoe A. Servia 1995 iTEM The ~onorable Don ~igginson, Mayor and Council Members City of Poway 13225 Civic Center Drive Poway, CA 92064 Dear Mayor Higginson and Council AS you know, the lo~ on the corner of Bowron Road.and Civic Center Drive had been previously designated as the location for ffordable housing for ' At a ecent meeting the ousing advisory was overwhe med by owners adjacent to he ' affordable housing site just north of Poway Road on he west si e of Pomerado Road) who ob ected to the placement of ~ 1 housing next to thei development. There were hen ul of Park Creek residents at that meeting. The result of is was that the advisory voted 8 to 7 to 9 at the Brookview site be designated as a senior housing.si e an~ that the Bowron site become the primary site for new family low income housing. The Bowron Road site should remain as the primary location for senior housing for the following 1. Many seniors have physical mo~ility problems and will have a d time ~ from the Brookview site. 2. The Bowron site is closer than the Brookview site to the followin ~ senior citizens center, grocery stores, pool for senior sim/ ' programs, theater, variety of (Creeksi e), city hall, pet store, post office, discount store (WalMart end the library. 3. For those seniors who drive, access onto Poway Road via Civic Center Drive and Community Road is safely guided by traffic lights with turn signals. Access onto southbound and especially onto northbound Pomerado is extremely difficult from the west side of Pomerado just north of Powa~ Road. Elderly individuals have slower physiologic times than young adults and signal-guided access provides a greater margin of safety for them. 4. In a survey of senior performed at the senior center, 70% preferred of senior housing at the Bowron s--~e compared with al The Don Bigginson, Mayor and Council Members Page 2 May 12, 1995 5. Trens~ for seniors is only provided for the 9to,ram end not for other social events such as bingo at the senior center. Because of the above reasons I urge you to retain the senior housing designation at the Bowron Road site. Thank you. ~. ~lippert 13042 Creek Park Drive Poway, CA 92064 MAY 1 6 1995 ITEM 4