Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-A GPA 08-001 (HOUSING ELEMENT) ERRATA SHEET 06-17-08 -Com Inter CITY OF TUSTIN City Clerk’s Office DATE: June 17, 2008 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: MARIA R. HUIZAR, CHIEF DEPUTY CITY CLERK SUBJECT: JUNE 17, 2008 COUNCIL AGENDA PACKET REVISIONS Attached is an errata sheet that replaces pages 65-66 of the Housing Element Plan. Also included is a letter received from the Department of Transportation with the City’s response that must be incorporated into Exhibit D (Letters received). If you have any questions, please call my office at 573-3025 c: City Manager City Attorney Department Heads S:\Agendas\Agendas\Memo Agenda Items.doc Item #1 Housing Element Update Errata Please replace pages 65-66 with the attached TABLE H-18 REHABILITATION, PRESERVATION, AND OTHER AFFORDABLE HOUSING QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES SUMMARY CITY OF TUSTIN 2006-2014 Total # Very Low Low Moderate Upper ProgramCategory of Units (<50%) (<80%) (80-120%) (120%+l REHABILITATION Sin le and Multi-Famil Rehab Sin le Famil 54 32 16 6 Multi- Famil 108 21 21 66 Rental Rehabilitation Loans Grants 120 24 48 48 Multi-Family Rental Ac uisition Rehab/Conversion/Resale 31 31 ''' Total Rehabilitation 313 77 116 120 rx~5~tcvA~r><ut~r Tustin Gardens 100 100 Rancho Alisal 72 18- `` 54 Rancho Maderas 54 14 " > 40 Rancho Tierra 51 38 13 Affordable Senior Housing -Mitchell Avenue 2f} 12 8 Herita a Place 54 54 Total Preservation 351 236 115 u i r~rec arrc~~Ats~ riuu suV c;- 1St Time Homebuyer and/or Foreclosure Ne otiated Purchase 30 5 10 15 Section 8 Rental Voucher Assistance 1,500 1,500 Shared Housin Referrals 75 50 25 Homeless Housin Partnershi Pro am, 242 242 Emer en Shelter 282 282 Total Other Pro ams 2,129 2,079 35 15 Source: t:trecnveness of ttousmg 1~rograms 1'~YLhZtR1M, City of Tustin; Five Year Lmplementation Plan for the Town Center and South Central Redevelopment Project Areas for Fiscal Yeazs 2005-06 to 2009-10; Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy for Fiscal Years 2008-18. Summary of Quantified Objectives Table H-19 summarizes the City's Quantified Objectives for the 2006- 2014 period. Based on the requirements of AB 2634, statute of 2006 (Government Code Section 65583(a)(1)), each jurisdiction must address the projected need of Extremely Low-Income households, defined as households earning less than 30 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI). The projected Extremely-Low Income need is assumed to be 8.85 percent, or 211 units based upon the percentage of extremely-low income households contained in the regional housing needs assessment determined by SCAG using census data as the baseline. CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT GENERAL PLAN 65 2008 TABLE H-19 SUMMARY OF QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES CITY OF TUSTIN 2006-2014 Income Grou RHNA New Construction Rehabilitation/ Preservation Other Pro ams Ve Low 301 318 313 2079 Extremel -Low 2111 211 Low 410 410 231 35 Moderate 468 468 120 15 Above Moderate 991 2,959 0 -- Total 2,381 4,366 664 2129 1 Pursuant to Government Code Section 65583(a)(1), Ciry's share of extremely-low income units is 211 (8.85 percent of the total new construction ~~bjE~tive). Total number of units for extremely-low income and low income units eduals t<~ Cit}'s share of vey-low income units of 512 units Source: 2007 RHNA, SLAG IDENTIFICATION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING RESOURCES The City has prepared a Consolidated Plan and Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy identifying and describing all funding programs available to the City and Tustin Redevelopment Agency to assist in meeting the City`s housing needs. Included in the plan are descriptions of a wide variety of major housing assistance programs available from federal and state agencies and private lending institutions. .More specific information including details regarding eligible projects. and activities and funding availability can be found in the document. The following is a summary of this information along with updates to reflect new state and federal programs. Table H-20 provides an illustrative example of the estimated amount of locally identified resources that could be available to finance housing program objectives on an annual basis over the remaining six-year planning period. The amounts shown are estimates; actual revenue amounts and the timing of their availability could be more or less and would adjust over time. Specific decisions are made on an annual basis as part of the City and Redevelopment Agency budget process. CITY OF TUSTIN GENERAL PLAN 66 HOUSING ELEMENT 2008 Rev. 06/08 Response to Initial Study for Housing Element Update The attached letter was received from the Department of Transportation, District 12, commenting on the Initial Study prepared for the Housing Element Update. The following are responses to comments received: 1. DOT Comment: Since the Program EIS/EIR for MCAS-Tustin was completed nine years ago, land uses, densities, transportation models, growth rates may have changed significantly. Due to the length of time that has passed since then, an updated analysis of traffic impacts should be provided to determine the short-term and long-term impacts associated with the General Plan Housing Element Update. In particular, the Department would like to see an analysis of impacts to State Route 55 and Interstate 5. Staff Response: The MCAS Tustin FEIS/EIR was adopted in January 16, 2001. On April 3, 2006, an addendum to the Program FEIS/EIR was adopted by the City Council in conjunction with a Specific Plan Amendment for refined land use boundaries and designations. In the analysis of the land uses associated with the Specific Plan Amendment, a revised traffic analysis dated February 2006 (Tustin Legacy Trip Generation Analysis, Traffic Analysis, Thresholds Analysis by Austin-Foust Associates, Inc.) was submitted and considered in the Addendum. The traffic analysis identified and evaluated the revised land use alternatives and their associated impacts. This traffic analysis is available upon request at the City Public Works/Engineering Department. In addition, upon review of a specific project, a review of project specific traffic will be conducted and a new traffic analysis would be prepared if determined to be necessary. 2. DOT Comment: Please see the Guide for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies for the recommended level of service (LOS) on State facilities, which may differ from what is stated in the Congestion Management Plan (CMP). Staff Response: No revision to the Traffic Analysis is required at this time. Future projects will be reviewed on a case by case basis. In addition, the City will review the State's guidelines when applicable. 3. DOT Comment: The Department requests a definition of the City's significance threshold for direct, indirect, and cumulative traffic impacts, as it is currently unclear from the document provided what the current thresholds are. Staff Response: Chapter 1.0 of the above noted Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis dated February 2006 provides the scope and methodology for determining the significance threshold. A one percent (1%) threshold was utilized in determining whether additional traffic mitigation would be required. 4. DOT Comment: The Department understands that it is the lead agency's right and responsibility to choose an appropriate significance threshold when analyzing a project's environmental impacts. However, the requirements that a 10% increase in V/C established by the City would require mitigation is not the type of thresholds the Department would use for requiring mitigation. A fixed ratio of percentage may not be appropriate threshold for Response to DOT Page 2 of 2 cumulative impact analysis. A minor increase (less than 1 %) in traffic could affect the operation of SR-55 and I-5. Should there be any significant impacts on State facilities, appropriate measures are to be identified and submitted for our review and comment. If the City has any questions about selecting an appropriate threshold, we would be happy to provide assistance. Staff response: The City uses a 1 % threshold when determining the level of mitigations applicable to projects. The Initial Study inadvertently indicates 10 percent thresholds. A correction will be made to the Initial Study to indicate a threshold of one (1) percent. STATFSZECAt.(FORMA.-BUSIIQPSg'rBAN9PORTATION AND HOUSING AG&NCY A Hrnn gcFlww 7m,tcr/'~RQ DEPARTMENT OF TRANS~'OR'lC'ATION Diafict 12 3337 Michalwm aarivc, suite 3Q0 Irvine, CA 9261 Z-8894 Tcl; (949) 724-2241 Fax: (949) 72d-2J92 dune 9, 2045 Justine Willkozn City of Tustin community Development Department 3(30 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92780 sgbject: City of Tnstl~a Houpfng Element Update Dear Ms. Willlcom, Post-iC F~c Note 7671 To r _L~ . ~,... C~ 3-ltl5 S - all' ~'~"~ Flir yntm pmw-~ Bt orter~ ~ete--f! ~^~+ i''!a on t t S Co. ~ y ~'raiv O r~r~` Phony t qN~ ~2~1 _ 22L1 Thartlc you for the oppoxtunity to review atad comment on the Iniitial Stady and Negatlve Decll~ratiaa for the City o;f Tustin Housing. Upditte. The 2006.2014 Hou.4ing Element T.t~,rtatn wi11 detail the City's strategy for enhancing and preserving the community's chatactoa~, sots forth strategics for e;Kpanudirag housing opportunitios for the City's various economic segnnants, and provides the primary policy guidance far local decision-making related to housing. The planning area is citywidq and the neatest State routes to the project sitQ arc I-5, SR-SS, axad SR-261. The.Depsrtme~at oaf Transportation (Departcutent) is a responsibit agency on this project and we have the following commeirts: 1. Since the Pxogram EL5/E1R for MC,A~S-Tustin was completed aaina years ago, land use, densities, transportation models, sad growth rotas may have changed sigiaificautly. Due to the length of time that lass passim since then, an updated analysis of tragic ia><xpacts should be provided to determine tlxe shortterm and long-term, impacts associatod with the General Plan Housing Element Update. In particular, the Deparbnent would like to see an analysis of ianpacts to Stakes Ruu1c SS caul Inl~rsta~ln 3. 2. Please See the Guide for the Preparation of Trs-ffic Impact Studie$ for the recommended lovol of service (LUS) on Stato facilities, which, zaay differ fiom what is stated in the Congestion Manageanent Plan (CMP'). hit p:/~W.dot.ca.QOV/hg/traffops/devologscrv/ovcrationals tys oms/rQports/tisguidc vdf 3. The I)epartmetat requests a definition of the city's significance threshold for direct, indirect, and cummulativa tra.f~c impacts, as it is currently unclear from the document provided what the curretat thresholds arc. 4. The T)~artment undesstan,ds that it is the lead agency's right aa~d xesponsx~bility to chooso an appropriate signuitxcaaxce threshold when analyzing a pmjcxt's environmental impacts. $owCYCr, the requirement that a 10% izacreasa in Y/C establishod by the city would require mitigation is not tho type of threshold the Departa~oent would use for requiring mitigation. A fixed ratio or percentage may aaot be an appropriate threshold for cumulative impact analysis. F,A~ 8c 1V)<AIL "Caltrnas l-aprov~s nabfllry acraa~s Cal~brnto" A minor increasa (less than 1 %) in traffic could affect tho operation of SR-55 and i S. Should there be any significant impacts on Stata Facilities, appropriate mitigation measures are to be identificcl and submitted #or our reviow and comment. 1£ the City has any questions about selecting an appropriate threshold, we would be happy to provide assistance. Ploase continue to keep us uifoxa.ziexl of lhia pzoject and any mature developments, which could potentially impact the= State Transpoztation Facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact us, please d~ nc-t hesitate to call Marlon Regiafocd at (94A) ?2~L 2241. Sincerely, c~ you Chemb~rlain, $ranch Chief Local Develeypment/Intergovernmeutal Roview C: Terry Roberts, t~'ioe of Planning and Zi,eaearch "Cattrnna iArprovea mobtllly acrora CAljo~ntn"