HomeMy WebLinkAboutHousing Element - Huntington Beach General Plan September 19 1
E
1
1
1
1
HOUSING ELEMENT
1
Huntington Beach General Plan
1
1
1
3
1
1
i
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
CITY COUNCIL
DON MacALLISTER,Mayor '
BOB MANDIC,Mayor Pro-Tom
RUTH BAILEY
RUTH FINLEY
RON PATTINSON
JOHN THOMAS
CLANCY YODER
FLOYD G.BELSITO,City Administrator
PLANNING COMMISSION
ROBERT BAZIL,Chairman
RALPH H.BAUER,Vice-Chairman
BRUCE GREER
BEVERLY J'.KENEFICK
PRIM SHEA
JOHN STERN 1
GRACE H.WINCHELL
r
HOUSING ELEMENT
G HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN
Department of Development Services
James W. Palin,Director
s
r
September 1979
• ,cam
HOUSING ELEMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION
1.1 State Policy and Authorization 1
1.2 Organization of the Housing Element 2
1.3 Relationship of the Housing Element to
Other General Plan Elements 3
2. COMMUNITY PROFILE AND HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS 5
2.1 Housing Characteristics 5
2.2 Population and Household Characteristics 13
2.3 Housing and Population Projections 16
3. HOUSING PROBLEMS AND NEEDS 19
' 3.1 Immediate Housing Needs 20
3.2 Prospective Housing Needs 28
4. HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 31
4.1 Market Constraints 31
4.2 Governmental Constraints 36
r' 4.3 Regional Relationships 44
5. PRESENT HOUSING PROGRAMS 47
5.1 New Construction 47
5.2 Assistance to Existing Units 49
5.3 Orange County Fair Housing Council 50
5.4 Needs Addressed by Present Programs 51
5.5 Numerical Goals for Housing 51
6. GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS 53
i
6.1 Accessibility 54
6.2 Adequate Provision 57
6.3 Standards and Plans for Adequate Sites 61
6.4 Preserving Housing and Neighborhoods 65
6.5 Preserving Affordability 68
6.6 . Summary of Anticipated Impacts 69
r
7. APPENIDICES
A. Definitions
B. HCD Guidelines
C. Housing Assistance Plan Tables
10 D. Land Banking Summary
E. Inclusionary Zoning Summary
:t
FIGURES a
Figure Number Page
2-1 Housing Units by Type by Quarter Section 8
2-2 Housing Tenure by Census Tract 10
2-3 Vacancy Rates by Census Tract 12
TABLES
Table Number
2-1 Number of Housing Units 6
2-2 Resale Home Prices January-May 1979 14
2-3 Vacant Acreage and Probable Development 18
3-1 Income and Affordable Housing Payment Limits 21
3-2 Sales Prices of Affordable Housing 22
3-3 Employment Projections for Huntington Beach 30
4-1 Monthly Mortgage Payments (Principal and Interest)
30 Year Amortization 34
4-2 Processing Time and Fees 39
4-3 Comparison of Development Processing Time in Months 40
4-4 Permit Processing and Development Fees in ;!
Huntington Beach 42
4-5 Comparison of Planning and Permit Fees 43
5-1 Current Assisted Housing and Housing Met
by Current City Programs 48
' F
a
i
M
i
1
1. Introduction
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Housing Element is intended to direct residential development and
preservation in a way that coincides with the overall economic and social values
of the community. The residential character of a city is largely dependent on
the type and quality of its dwelling units, their location, and such factors as
maintenance and neighborhood amenities. The Housing Element is an official
municipal response to a growing awareness of the need to provide housing for all
economic segments of the community, as well as recent legal requirements that
housing policy be made a part of the planning process. As such, the Element
establishes policies that will guide City officials in daily decision making and sets
forth an action program designed to enable the City to realize its housing goals.
r`
1.1 State Policy and Authorization
The California State Legislature has identified the attainment of a decent home
and a satisfying environment for every Californian as a goal of the highest
priority. Recognizing that local planning programs play a significant role in the
pursuit of this goal, and to assure that local planning effectively implements
statewide housing policy, the Legislature has mandated that all cities and
counties include a housing element as part of their adopted local general plans.
Section 65302(c) of the Government Code requires the preparation of a housing
element "consisting of standards and plans for the improvement of housing and
for provision of adequate sites for housing. In addition, this element of the
general plan shall make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic
segments of the community."
MM 15
Afftk
t
Section 65302(c) also requires that local housing elements be prepared in
accordance with regulations promulgated by the Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD). A set of Housing Element Guidelines was
originally adopted on June 17, 1971. In order to more accurately reflect and
effectively implement the statutory language contained in the Government Code,
HCD adopted a revised set of guidelines on November 17, 1977 (Appendix B).
The revised guidelines were prepared in coordination with the State's Office of
Planning Research and representatives of both local government and the private
sector. In addition to providing specific direction for local agencies, the
guidelines also established criteria by which HCD can measure local housing
elements' compliance with Section 65302(c) of the Government Code.
1.2 Organization of the Housing Element
.i
The Housing Element Guidelines require elements to include two basic
components:
1) An evaluation of the housing problem and an analysis of housing needs,
indicating the capacity of the existing housing supply to provide all
economic segments of the community with decent housing.
2) A housing program, consisting of two parts,
a) A comprehensive problem solving strategy establishing local housing
goals, policies, and priorities aimed at alleviating unmet need and a
remedying the housing problem, and;
b) A course of action which includes a specific description of the actions
the locality is undertaking and intends to undertake to effectuate
these goals, policies, and priorities.
The Housing Element will delineate the City's housing problem and set forth a
program of action in accordance with the State guidelines. This section defines
the intent of the Housing Element and describes its relationship to State
directives and other general plan elements. Section 2 presents an overview of
the City's housing and population characteristics to acquaint the reader with
Huntington Beach and provide a background for the sections that follow. Section
3 identifies the needs of various segments of the community and quantifies them,
including the City's fair share allocation or estimate of additional responsibility
for regional needs which should be addressed. Section 4 will examine the market
and governmental constraints to meeting the identified housing needs and will
address coordination with the efforts and adopted elements of other local
jurisdictions. Section 5 describes current housing programs and how they relate
to previously identified needs. Section 6 presents goals and policies and discusses
the programs which the City proposes to undertake in order to ameliorate
existing inequities and promote a vigorous and well-balanced housing plan for the
community.
Af
2 i
1.3 Relationship of the Housing Element to other General Plan Elements
! The California Government Code requires that general plans contain an
integrated, internally consistent set of policies. When any one element of the
general plan is revised, and especially when new policies and priorities are
proposed, the other elements must be reviewed to ensure that internal
consistency is maintained. This section examines the relationship of the Housing
Element and its policies to the other elements of Huntington Beach's general
Plan.
Land Use
The Housing Element is most affected by development policies contained in the
Land Use Element, which establishes the location, type, intensity, and
distribution of land uses throughout the city. In designating the total acreage
and density of residential development, the Land Use Element places an upper
limit on the number and types of housing units constructed in the city. The
acreage designated for industrial, commercial, and office professional uses
creates employment opportunities; the presence of these jobs affects the demand
for housing in the city.
Ongoing modeling of the fiscal impacts associated with various land use types
and proposed developments may warrant a reconsideration of the distribution of
land uses throughout the city, especially in light of the Jarvis and Gann tax
initiatives. Early indications reveal that there may be significant policy
conflicts between providing a sufficient number and range of housing types and
i maintaining a balanced local economy and an adequate level of municipal
services. The adopted policies and priorities of both the Housing and Land Use
Elements must be carefully balanced to maintain internal consistency in the
General Plan.
Open Space and Conservation
Policies contained in the Open Space and Conservation Element call for the
preservation and protection of the city's natural environment through the
conservation of significant open space areas, acquisition of land for recreation
and parks, and restricted development in hazardous areas and areas utilized for
the production of natural resources. These policies affect both the amount of
land available for housing by designating permanent open space areas and the
cost of housing by requiring land dedication and/or development fees for the
acquisition and maintenance of public open space areas.
Circulation
The Circulation Element calls for the development of a system of arterial
highways that safely and efficiently accommodates traffic generated by adopted
land uses. At the same time, the element seeks to minimize the adverse
environmental and aesthetic effects of the road network and traffic on sensitive
land uses such as residential areas. By providing for a convenient public
transportation system and a network of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails,
am
r7
3
the Circulation Element attempts to create a satisfying living environment for
residents of Huntington Beach. The cost of producing new housing is affected by
the City's street design standards and arterial dedication requirements.
No ise
The Noise Element contains policies aimed at reducing the impacts of urban •
noise on residents, workers, and students in the city. Sources of noise include
freeway and arterial traffic, construction and oil-related machinery, and
aircraft. Residential development in areas with high noise impacts is
discouraged unless adequate noise attenuation features are included. Special
construction methods or increased landscaping to reduce noise impacts create a
more satisfying living environment but also add to the cost of housing.
Seismic Safety
The Seismic Safety Element identifies geologic and flood hazards in the city.
Although development within identified hazard areas is not prohibited altogether, r
special construction techniques are required to ensure that structures will remain
safe in the event of a disaster. Unstable soil conditions in certain areas of the
city require additional grading, fill, and compaction before development is
allowed. In addition to the extensive fault system that underlies Huntington
Beach, the majority of the city is located within the flood plain of the Santa Ana
River. The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 requires affected localities to i
adopt a program of flood plain management to prevent loss of life and property
in the event of a major flood. Provisions of this program range from prohibiting
development in severe hazard areas and requiring modification of structures or
special construction practices to securing bonds for the construction,
improvement, and maintenance of flood control and drainage facilities. All of
these actions add to the cost of housing in the city; however, they are required if
the City is to provide an acceptable level of public safety.
Scenic Highways
The Scenic Highways Element establishes local scenic routes and landscape
corridors along several arterial highways in the city. The intent of these j
designations is to establish and maintain aesthetic visual resources along major
transportation routes, implemented through landscaping programs, grading,
development, and signing controls, utility undergrounding, and architectural
review. While the scenic highways program enhances the living environment, the
costs to the City and private developers to implement the program is eventually
reflected in increased housing costs.
4
e
s
2. Community Profile and
Housing Characteristics
r
2.0 COMMUNITY PROFILE AND HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
A primary task of the Housing Element involves an evaluation of . housing
problems and needs in Huntington Beach. Housing needs exist to the extent that
the present housing supply falls short of providing all economic segments of the
community with decent housing. This section presents an overview of the
S existing housing supply in the City of Huntington Beach, including an inventory of
the number and types of dwelling units, age and condition of units, tenure,
vacancy rates, housing costs, and household and population characteristics. The
identification of the various supply and demand characteristics of the .local
housing market will provide a basis for assessing housing needs in Huntington
Beach.
2.1 Housing Characteristics
2.1.1 Housing Types and Growth
As of January 22, 1979, the City of Huntington Beach had a total of 62,251
' housing units. This figure represents an increase of approximately 27 percent
over the total of 49,183 units reported in the November 1973 special census, and
a 73 percent increase over the 1970 total of 35,971 units (see Table 2-1).
Huntington Beach has experienced continuous housing growth over the past 20
years, with an average .of 2,840 new units constructed annually since 1960. The
City's 62,251 housing units represent approximately 9.0 percent of Orange
County's estimated 688,172 units for 1979.
5
TABLE 2-1
NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS
Year Single Family 2-4 Units 5 + Units Mobile Homes Total
1960+ 3,891 -----539----- 170 4,600
1970+ 26,689 ----7,469----- 1,813 35,971
1973+ 32,538 5,219 8,276 3,150 49,183 .41
1976• 35,318 6,531 8,729 3,149 53,727
1977• 36,693 7,195 9,374 3,296 56,558
1978• 38,306 8,130 10,1.34 3,320 59,890 i
1979+ 33,003 10,663 15,320 3,265 62,251
r
1979 Single Family total is lower because condominiums are no longer counted as single
family units; rather, they appear in the multiple unit categories.
+ Source: Federal and Special Censuses
• Huntington Beach Department of Development Services Estimates ,
6
1
A variety of housing types can be found in Huntington Beach. Detached single
family dwellings constitute 53 percent of the City's housing stock, condominiums
and small multiple family units (2-9 units per structure) account for 30 percent,
large apartment complexes (10+ units per structure) account for 12 percent, and
mobile homes make up the remaining 5 percent. The location of the various types
of housing units within the city is mapped in Figure 2-1.
During the sixties, vacant land was plentiful in Huntington Beach, and housing
construction was characterized almost exclusively by large tracts of single family
1 homes. During the early seventies; planned condominium developments and small
multi-family rental units became popular in response to changing housing
demands, land constraints, and market conditions. Current housing growth is
characterized by smaller single family tracts and multi-family buildings. Between
July 1978, and June 1979, only 625 single family units, 142 2-4 unit dwellings, and
221 5+ unit dwellings have been authorized by the Building Division. This activity
1 corresponds to a 1.6 percent annual growth rate, the City's lowest rate of housinq
growth in over 20 years.
2.1.2 Age and Condition of Structures
The majority of housing units in Huntington Beach are relatively new and in good
structural condition. The table below indicates the• relative age of the City's
housing stock. The good condition of the housing supply can be partially
attributed to the large number of planned subdivisions in addition to the relatively
young age of these tracts. At the present time, less than 10 percent of the City's
housing units are over 20 years old; however, in ten years, nearly half of the
housing supply will be over 20 years old. The percentage of housing units
r potentially needing rehabilitation will increase over time.
AGE OF HOUSING UNITS
!' Awe Number Percent of Total
0 - 5 Years Old 109950 18%
5 - 10 Years Old 17,525 28%
10 - 15 Years Old 129755 20%
15 - 20 Years Old 15,560 25%
Over 20 Years Old 59461 9%
1
TOTAL 62,251 100%
Source: Huntington Beach Department of Development Services.
1
4
r 7
e
.� 439 is
f
a _ 627
a =
133 - 607 560
88 G154
MC f.WDFN
311 - 613 611 - 19299
4�
a
0 foWDlf
253 52 441 565 567 608 593 286 215 2A
►, 3 8
e 433 87 319 - _ 453 - - 565 ::stela
2� 508 - 166 - - - _ ; -
1'y� Nfa
544 56 156 184 400 455 4 299 461 403 �•
612 -9 831 127 92 11 128 640 295 112 -
9 450 834 125 10 275 208 56 651
65 224 1
117 420 555 493 464 158 75 533
45 94 - 202 %4 - 737 117
249 71 86 282 847 - 179 150
81
808 658 591 4 107 152
2 - 4 398 423
- - - - 124 21
243
auto
\. 18 _4 5 281 410
- - - 86 278
- - - 49
r 5 6 159 ;
13\\ 323 " a 167 323
s'r 305 145 e
S .I ml... a.l awaln
Z Z2 513 . 6101 5091.1 Im 335 574 - d,
---- F 34 417 6- - 120 -
_ 106 469 j
87 389 636 592 49 4S 7292
i
97 - - - - 137
4 74 i
e p 37 287 0 411 681 639 615660
F - - - - - i
A318
24
388 549 2 tel:: 'A I"')
.� 307 - 25
5
714 - 591
3')3 - - - - -i
i uuNu
UNITS BY TYPE 1 145 a:•
176
Single Family 33,003 539 6=1 = a"
i
2-4 10,663 _ 1 6 35 ao6 i "w
5+ 15,320 r6 75,0
Mobile Homes 3,265
1sz •,
Total 62,251
Housing unit totals for each quarter section are listed by type,
corresponding to the legend. A dash indicates that there are no
units of that type in the quarter section. i
SOURCE: Huntington Beach 1979 Special Census ,
Figure 2-1
221\\\0',� H 0 U S I N G 0 aIT S C T 10
nington bRe-ach plannir-ly-0- division
8
The provision of structurally sound units is a major concern in addressing state and
! regional housing goals. An important indicator of the condition of the existing
housing supply is the number of structurally substandard units and units needing
rehabilitation or replacement. Estimates of the number of unsound units in
Huntington Beach come from two sources. One source is the Regional Housin
Allocation 'Model, prepared by the Southern California Association o
Governments. According to SCAG's most recent estimate, there are 1,023
housing units in the city needing rehabilitation or replacement, 1.6 percent of the
R total housing stock. A second source of information regarding substandard units is
a survey of housing conditions in Huntington Beach that was conducted in June
1977 as part of an HCD-funded Community Analysis Report. This survey
identified a total of 1,830 substandar units by housing type and degree of
deterioration, as indicated in the following table:
DEGREE OF DETERIORATION
Housing Type Total Minor Moderate Major-Demolition
Single Family 988 402 360 226
2 - 4 Units 613 448 110 55
5+ Units 229 141 77 11
TOTAL 1,830 991 547 292
r
The Community Analysis Report further indicates that the majority of housing
units needing rehabilitation tend to be concentrated within two or three areas of
the city, particularly the Downtown and Oldtown areas. These estimates will be
useful in formulating and guiding rehabilitation and/or potential redevelopment
programs. A more detailed discussion of substandard units appears in section 3.1.6
r of the Housing Element.
2.1.3 Housing Tenure
Another characteristic of the City's housing stock is the mix and distribution of
owner-and renter-occupied units. The 1979 special census reveals that
approximately 57 percent of occupied units are owner-occupied and 43 percent are
renter-occupied. The distribution of owner-and renter-occupied units by census
tract is shown in Figure 2-2.
The ratio of owner-to renter-occupied units in Huntington Beach has been
declining steadily since 1970, at which time the mix was 71 percent to 29
r percent. In 1976, this ratio was estimated to be 65 percent to 35 percent. Several
factors contribute to this shift: increased construction of multiple family units,
increased mobility of households, rapidly escalating home values, and speculation.
Ad
r 9
s
`............... . .
0 ': !
0 •
30
92
x
8 0
3
pM
1
:}83?
17 a
11 F
s A 9
4
88
9
30 37
72 0
�'
• 75•. 32
7
63
2a 3 »�•
2 5
• 60••• 18' 37
40 Ba
63
..». ,
27
ZA
.:;•::68•.': 49 22 41
g4.. 78 59
16
: :•<'
34 58::.
66
� S
e _ o
18
4
6 ` g2 94
7
9
PrimarilyOwner ,wne Occupied d
P
Primarily Renter Occupied '.` `' `'`'
11 5.3
%Owner Occupied
47;;:
1 %Renter Occupied
SOURCE: Huntington Beach 1979 Special Census
Figure 2-2
HOUS"ING TENURE
untington beach lanning division
.10
2.1.4 Vacancy
The vacancy rate within a given housing market is a valuable indicator of the
availability of housing. In an ideal market, some number of housing units should
remain vacant to allow adequate selection opportunities for households seeking
new residences. Additionally, these vacant units should be evenly distributed
across various housing types, .sizes, price ranges, and locations within the city.
f While a certain minimum vacancy rate is desirable, too high a vacancy rate may
indicate serious imbalances in the forces of supply and demand in the housing
market.
The 1979 special census reveals an overall vacancy rate of 4.63 percent for all
units within the City of Huntington Beach. The percentage of vacant housing
units by census tract is shown in Figure 2-3. The table below shows the total
number of vacant units and those vacant units available for rent by housing type:
VACANT HOUSING UNITS
Total Vacant Percent Vacant Unit Percent
Housing Type Total Units Units Vacant For Rent Vacant for Rent
Single Family 33,003 .1,062 3.22 169 0.51
2 - 4 Units 10,663 619 5.81 306 2.87
5+ Units 15,320 1,063 6.94 503 3.28
Mobile Homes 3,265 139 4.26 7 0.21
TOTAL 62,251 2�83 -UT/0 985 T.�%
Source: Huntington Beach 1979 Special Census
2.1.5 Housing Costs
The cost of housing in Huntington Beach and in Orange County in general is
probably the most pervasive problem to be addressed in this Housing Element.
During the City's rapid growth period in the sixties, Huntington Beach provided
some of the least expensive housing opportunities in Southern California, with new
home prices ranging from $15,000 - $40,000. In the early seventies, as Huntington
Beach and central Orange County began to become more urbanized, the supply of
new homes could not match the still growing demand for housing in the r'ounty
created by tremendous commercial and industrial growth. These and other factors
led to the rapid acceleration of property values and housing costs which now
characterize the Orange County housing market.
lipll
s
� � 1
lA4
1.2 3 R
1.89
1
..
1.15 :•`2 AG:::: :;::: 1.99 1
1.2
1.88X.
1.9 ::3.O2 50 .,,.
:3.26*"** :2 Oa:: :
:!: u.en
i
:.: ':'3.19::
■ 8
15t•::}••;{}:$}} ti: ,•{�'.�, rY•.•r. �.o..,o...
kkeM
VACANCY RATES :•:::...
.65
0 —2% .42;:ti;.,}.•�. •:;;;.�}. ::�•ti'�7.2T,,:+,:;::::: 1.43 0.
M.
10% 6.6 2.93: .
..
SOURCE: Huntington Beach 1979 Special Census
Figure 2-3
VACANCY BY "ENSUE"o
T R ACT
u fl t®n b Ch y9 u�� division
i
12
An assessment of housing costs in Huntington Beach must consider two
. components: the purchase price of new and resale homes and monthly payments
for rental units. According to a survey of new development in Huntington Beach,
new single family tract homes are selling for prices ranging from $111,000 to
$250,000, with the average price being about $150,000. A survey of resale homes
in the city indicates that the average selling price of the approximately 1450
single family homes and condominiums sold between January and May 1979 was
. $92,735. The cost of resale homes has risen 8.1 percent over this five month
period; however, the monthly rate of increase has dropped from over 4 percent
between January and February to less than 1 percent between April and May. A
more detailed breakdown of resale activity is shown in Table 2-2.
The 1979 special census included questions concerning mortgage and rent
payments for residents of Huntington Beach. The census results indicated that
the median mortgage payment including taxes for owner occupied households in
the city is $339 per month. Approximately 9 percent of responding households
had mortgage payments in excess of $550 per month, with 4 percent paying over
$700 per month. About 14 percent of the households responding had mortgage
payments of less than $250 per month. These households most likely represent
long term residents who purchased their homes between 10 and 20 years ago,
prior to the acceleration of real estate values that characterize current market
conditions.
The median payment for renter occupied units in Huntington Beach was reported
at $294.per month. Less than 1 percent of respondents had payments greater
than $550 per month, with less than 2 percent paying under $150 per month. The
largest category of responses to the rent question was in the range of $250 to
$299 per month (9.5 percent of all responses). Mobile home parks generally offer
the least expensive rent payments in the city. A discussion of housing costs in
terms of affordability to prospective residents is presented in section 3.1.1.
2.2 Population and Household Characteristics
2.2.1 Population
The January 1979 special census established a new population of 167,419 for the
City of Huntington Beach. This figure represents an increase of just under 17
percent from the 1973 special census population of 143,325 and a 44 percent
increase since 1970. The rate of population growth, like housing, peaked in the
early sixties and now averages about 3 percent annually. In terms of total
population, the City of Huntington Beach represents 9 percent of Orange
County's 1,852,600 residents.
Huntington Beach is a predominantly white community, with Caucasians
constituting approximately 86.7 percent of the total population. Mexican
Americans and other persons of Hispanic descent represent the largest minority
group, comprising nearly 4.5 percent of the total population; Japanese, Chinese,
Southeast Asians, and Filipinos account for 3.3 percent, and Blacks 0.6 percent.
!
TABLE 2-2
RESALE HOME PRICES
JANU RY - MAY, 1979
Number of
Bedrooms January February March Aril a a
1 - 2 $67,355 $67,215 $67,138 $71,653 $69,543
3 85,586 87,637 89,409 90,057 899951
4 99,452 104,287 104,673 108,017 111,399
5+ 112,850 116,775 1239083 124,200 119,672
AVERAGE $88,021 $91.,731 $92,980 $94,378 $95,150
Percent increase
over previous month 4.21% 1.36% 1.50% 0.82%
Figures include both single family and condominium sales in Huntington Beach, excluding
Huntington Harbour.
Source: Data furnished by the Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Board of Realtors and
compiled by Seacliff Realty.
•
•
14 •
The 1979 data reveals that, in terms of age, Huntington Beach is becoming an
older, more stable community. This can be attributed to a decline in the influx of
large families, a general downward trend in average household size, and the aging
process. Since 1973, the citywide median age has jumped from 26 to 28. The
most significant change has occurred in the population under 18 years of age. In
1970, this group accounted for 40 percent of the total city population; by 1973, it
! had dropped to 36 percent; but today this age group represents less than 15
percent of the population of Huntington Beach. In fact, although the City's total
population has increased by 44 percent since 1970, the number of persons under 18
has actually decreased by about 6 percent. At the county level, where the median
age is also 28, the under 18 group represents 28 percent of the total population.
The most significant increase has taken place in the 20-24 age bracket, which has
a increased from 6.8 percent in 1970 to 8 percent in 1973 and 10.5 percent in 1979
to represent the largest 5-year age bracket as a percentage of the total
population. The senior citizen population (65+) has also shown a steady increase
since 1970 and now comprises 5.4 percent of the total population of Huntington
Beach.
! 2.2.2 Households
A total of 166,912 persons reside in the City's 59,368 occupied housing units, an
average of 2.81 persons per household. The remaining 507 persons are housed in
group quarters. Household density is highest for detached single family dwellings
and lowest for mobile homes, as the following table indicates:
Housing Housing Percent Population/
Type Units Vacant Households Household
Single Family 33,003 3.21 31,942 3.42
2-4 Units 10,663 5.81 10,044 2.48
! 5-9 Units 8,052 8.17 7,394 2.09
10+ Units 7,268 5.57 6,863 1.78
Mobile Home 3,265 4.29 3,125 1.69
TOTAL 62,251 4.63 ' 59,368 2.81
Source: Huntington Beach 1979 Special Census
The City's average household density is identical to that of Orange County as a
whole and represents a continuing trend toward smaller households. In 1970 the
City's average household size was 3.43, in 1973 this figure was 3.07.
r
Over half of the population of Huntington Beach reside in households containing
only 1 or 2 persons. This statistic is interesting in light of the number of large
single family homes in the city. Only 12 percent of the population is comprised of
large families (5 or more persons). The following table presents the number of
rooms per occupied dwelling unit for the city:
!` 15
Number of Rooms Occupied Units Percent
1 332 0.56
2 - 1,094 1.84
3 4,942 8.32
4 109532 17.74
5 9,917 16.70
6 10,717 18.05
7 7,312 12.32
8 4,003 6.74
9 1,446 2.44
10+ 294 0.50
No Response 8,777 14.78
TOTAL 59,368 99.99*
*Total does not add to 100.00 because of rounding.
Source: Huntington Beach 1979 Special Census
2.3 Housing and Population Projections
A number of documents provide projected housing unit and population levels for
the City of Huntington Beach. The Orange County Report on the State of The .
County, 1978-79 offers the following projections for Huntington Beach:
Date Dwelling Units Population
July 1979 62,846 167,842 ,
July 1981 66,962 173,662
July 1983 70,731 181,230
July 1988 80,223 194,147
The Southern California Association of Governments' SCAG '78 Growth Forecast
Policy contains the following projections for Huntington Beach: .
Date Dwelling Units Population
1985 72,700 178,600
1990 83,000 191,200
1995 88,600 205,400
2000 90,700 210,600
16 i
The major component of population growth in Huntington Beach is new housing
construction and the families that move into the new units. The Land Use
Element of the City's General Plan designates a total of 11,470 acres for
residential use in addition to the 433-acre Seacliff Planned Community. Table 2-3
identifies the amount of undeveloped acreage in each of the residential land use
categories and the anticipated number of additional units that could be added to
the existing housing stock.
FP Using these estimates, the City could be expected to support a total of 76,557
units (probable case) or 83,714 units (maximum case) at ultimate buildout based on
the present General Plan Land Use Element. Although there is no specific date at
which the City will attain its "built out" status, it appears that these figures fall
short of both SCAG's and Orange County's projections for the year 1990 and
beyond. Recycling and infilling may tend to increase the estimated housing
growth projections, and it is possible that amendments to the General Plan could
convert areas presently designated Planning Reserve and Resource Production to
residential use or increase densities on existing residential areas.
! 17
w
TABLE 2-3
VACANT ACREAGE AND PROBABLE DEVELOPMENT
Land Use Number of Probable # Maximum #
Category Vacant Acres Density Units Density Units
Estate 0-2 150 2 units/ 300 2 units/ 300
units/acre acre acre
Estate 0-4 137 4 units/ 548 4 units/ 548
units/acre acre acre
Low Density 670 4.5 units/ 39015 7 units/ 49690
0-7 units/acre acre acre
Medium Density 356 13.0 units/ 4,628 15 units/ 5,340
7-1.5 units/acre acre acre
High Density 55 27.0 units/ 1,485 35 units/ 1,925
15-35 units/acre acre acre
Seacliff Planned 433 10 units/ 4,330 20 units/ 8,660
Community acre acre
TOTAL 1,801 acres 14,306 units 21,463 units
Source: Huntington Beach Department of Development Services
18 lip,
r
1
i
i
i
r
3. Housing Problems and Needs
►
►
r
r
r
3.0 HOUSING PROBLEMS AND NEEDS
In order to develop strategies and programs to ensure that all economic segments
of the community are provided adequate housing opportunities, the community's
housing needs and problems must be accurately assessed. The previous section
r presented an overview of the City's housing and population characteristics and
discussed potential problem areas. This section attempts to quantify the City's
housing needs to establish a basis for the formulation of housing goals, policies,
and programs.
In accordance with the State guidelines, this section addresses two types of
housing need. The first involves an assessment of immediate housing needs in
terms of affordability, overcrowding, and suitability/habitability. In addition, the
special needs of the elderly, handicapped, minorities, families, and mobile home
residents will be addressed. The second type of need to be analyzed is that of
market rate housing over a five year period, taking into consideration anticipated
housing, population, employment, and household growth.
1
The statistical information presented in this section is taken primarily from the
January 1979 Department of Finance Special Census of the City of Huntington
Beach and SCAG's Re ional Housing Allocation Model (adopted April, 1977,
updated December, 1 and Areawide Housing Opportunities Plan (updated June,
1979).
Aft
19
i
3.1 Immediate Housing Needs
3.1..1 Affordability
State housing policy recognizes that the cooperative participation of the private
and public sectors is necessary to 'expand housing opportunities to all economic
segments of the community. A primary goal is the provision of a decent home
and a satisfying environment that is within the economic means of the households
who occupy it. The private sector is generally responsive to the majority of a
community's housing needs through the production of market rate housing.
However, in certain areas where the housing supply is limited or demand is
unusually high, housing opportunities are restricted, especially to households with
low and moderate incomes.
The federal government defines lower income households as those earning less
than 80 percent of the areawide median income, and moderate income households
as those earning between 80 and 120 percent of the areawide median income,
both adjusted for household size. The Department of Housing and Urban
Development has established the figure of $19,500 as the median income for a
family of four in Orange County for 1978. Using this income figure, and making
adjustments for household size, the 1979 special census reveals that 13,736
households or 23.1 percent of all households in the City of Huntington Beach have
lower incomes, and 13,352 households, 22.5 percent, have moderate incomes.
The remaining 32,280 households, 54.4 percent, are considered upper income
households. Estimates of the number of households were adjusted upward from
actual census responses to account for the over 20,000 households that did not
respond to questions concerning household income.
1
With nearly a quarter of the households in Huntington Beach identified as having
lower incomes, affordability of housing, and especially new housing, is a major
concern. The provision of adequate housing opportunities for lower and moderate
income households has been identified as the major component of housing need in
the Southern California region, and is one of the primary needs to be addressed in
this Housing Element. The following criteria are utilized to determine the
extent of the affordability problem in Huntington Beach:
1. For lower income households, housing is considered affordable if the
monthly mortgage or rent payment does not exceed 25 percent of the
household's income.
2. For moderate income households, housing is considered affordable if the
monthly mortgage or rent payment does not exceed 30 percent of the
household's income (see Tables 3-1 and 3-2).
While many households willingly choose to spend more than 25 or 30 percent of
their incomes for mortgage or rent payments, those households with low and
moderate incomes pay proportionately more for housing, consequently reducing
income available for other necessities such as food, clothing, and transportation.
The lack of decent affordable housing often leads to overcrowding, the continued
occupancy of deteriorated units, and other related housing problems.
AS&
20 1 HP 4
r
TABLE 3-1
INCOME AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PAYMENT LIMITS
Low 25% Monthly Moderate 30% Monthly
r Household Income Rent or Income Rent or
Size Maximum Payment Maximum Payment
1 Person $10,9 20 $227.50 $16,380 409.50
2 Persons 12,480 260.00 18,720 468.00
r
3 Persons 14,040 292.50 21,060 526.50
4 Persons 15,600 325.00 23,400 585.00
5 Persons 16,575 345.50 24,863 621.50
6 Persons 17,550 366.00 26,326 658.00
7 Persons 18,525 386.00 27,786 694.75
8 Persons 19,500 406.00 29,250 731.25
Source: Huntington Beach Department of Development Services, based on 1979 Orange
County median income of $19,500 as determined by U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development.
ANft
r
r
21
TABLE 3-2
SALES PRICES OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING(1)
Family Size Income No. of Bedrooms Purchase Price
Low(2) Moderate(3) Low Moderate
1 Person $10,920 $16,380 0 $27,300 $40,950
2 Persons 12,480 18,720 1 31,200 46,800
3 Persons 14,040 21,060 2 35,100 52,650
4 Persons 15,600 23,400 2 39,000 58,500
5 Persons 16,575 . 24,863 3 41,438 62,158
6 Persons 171550 261326 3 43,875 65,815
7 Persons 18,525 27,787 4 46,313 69,468
8 Persons 19,500 29,250 4 48,750 73,125
(1)These prices are estimated on the basis of 2.5 times annual income, a rule of thumb
often used by lenders. Actual monthly payments will vary considerably, depending on the
amount of the down payment, the length of the loan period, and the interest rate of the
loan.
(2)80% of median county average income ($19,500 in 1978).
(3)120% of median county average income.
Source: Huntington Beach Department of Development Services
22 i
3.1.2 Lower Income Households Needing Housing Assistance
Estimates of the number of lower income households in need of housing assistance
are taken from SCArls 5egional Housing Allocation Model (RHAM), recently
updated in December 197$t-L). Data from the RHAM is presented in a series of
tables which have been included in Appendix C of the Housing Element. Data
from the 1979 special census is used to determine the extent of housing need for
moderate income households and to provide comparison information for lower
income households.
SCAG estimates that there are a total of 7,595 lower income households presently
residing in Huntington Beach in need of housing assistance. . This number
represents approximately 55 percent of all lower income households in the city.
Of these households, 1,081 (14 percent) are owner occupied and 6,514 (86 percent)
are renter occupied. Elderly and handicapped households account for 1,075 (14
percent) of the total and large families (5 or more persons) comprised another
2,284 (30 percent) of the 7,595 households needing assistance. Minorities occupy
1,409 (18.6 percent) of all lower income households needing assistance and 3,215
(42 percent) households identified as needing assistance are headed by females.
3.1.3 Fair Share Adjustment
SCAG's estimates of Huntington Beach's housing needs include a "fair share"
adjustment of an additional 1,932 households. Because housing need is a function
of the regional housing market, housing policies and programs adopted by local
agencies have regional as well as local impacts. Other local land use and
development policies which determine the distribution of employment and
population also affect the region's housing supply and demand characteristics. In
order that each locality accept some share of the collective responsibility for
making adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments in the
market area, and recognizing the importance of a coordinated response to the
regional housing problem, the State housing element guidelines require regional
councils of governments to develop a fair share adjustment. The fair share
adjustment, which varies between localities, is based on the city's proximity to
jobs, its ability to provide public services and facilities, the relationship of the
local income distribution to regional income distribution, and expected community
growth.
Of the 1,932 fair share households identified by SCAG, 251 (13 percent) are
elderly and handicapped, and 560 (29 percent) are large families. Minorities
account for 363 (19 percent) of Huntington Beach's fair share adjustment. The
1,932 households assigned to Huntington Beach represent the second largest fair
share adjustment for cities in Orange County, bringing the total number of lower
income households needing assistance in the City to 9,527.
(1)SCAG estimates of lower income households needing assistance, rather than
independent local data, is preferred by the State HCD to facilitate comparison of
jurisdictions throughout the region.
r 23
3.1..4 Special Census Results
As part of the 1.979 special census, residents were asked to indicate their annual
household income and monthly mortgage or rent payments. While the census
responses differ slightly from SCAG's estimates, the data is outlined here for
comparison and to present a more detailed breakdown of the affordability
problem. The census results report that, of the households that responded to
both questions (income and housing payment), approximately 6,807 lower income
households, nearly 77 percent of all such households, are paying in excess of 25
percent of their income for housing. Renters account for approximately
two-thirds of the lower income households facing affordability problems, and
owners the remaining one-third. One-person, three-person, and large family
lower income households are the hardest hit.
LOWER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS
Household All Lower Income Total Households
Size Households Overpaying Renters Owners
1 Person 2,346 1,984 84.6% 1,318 666
2 Persons 2,969 1,974 66.5 1,304 670
3 Persons 1,554 1,358 87.4 954 404
4 Persons 1,119 746 66.7 521 225
5+ Persons 860 745 86.6 466 279
TOTAL 8,84W ,80 73-.9% ,563 2,M
The problem of overpaying also affects moderate income households in
Huntington Beach, although the problem is much -less severe for this group, in
which up to 30 percent of the household income is allowed for housing payments.
The following table presents special census results for moderate income
households. While there is not much variation by household size, overpaying in
this group affects more owners than renters, contrary to the results for lower
income households.
MODERATE INCOME HOUSEHOLDS
Household All Moderate Total Households
Size Income Households Overpaying Renters Owners
1 Person 1,407 235 16.7% 108 127
2 Persons 2,532 360 14.2 151 209
3 Persons 1,665 284 17.1 87 197
4 Persons 1,938 338 17.4 _ 76 262
5+ Persons 1�279� 175 13.7 32 143 �
TOTAL ,8 eZl 1,392 M. 47 77
It should be noted that the statistics presented in the above tables reflect only
those lower and moderate income households that actually responded to the census
questions concerning income and housing payments. Approximately 35 percent of
Afak
24
all households in the city did not respond to the census questions. It is estimated
that there could exist an additional 4,888 lower and 4,531 moderate income
households. Assuming that overpaying exists to the same extent among the
non-responding households as those responding, the number of lower and moderate
income households needing housing assistance could actually be as high as 10,566
and 9,536 respectively. The uncertainty as to the actual distribution of such a
large number of non-responding households indicates that SCAG's estimate of
7,595 lower income households in need of assistance, which lies between the
census response and the adjusted estimate, may be a more accurate assessment of
the affordable housing need of the community's lower income households.
3..1.5 Privacy and Overcrowding
The provision of housing which contains enough rooms to provide reasonable
privacy for its occupants is also a goal of State housing policy. A reasonable
privacy standard is the provision of at least as many rooms as there are persons in
the household. Overcrowding exists when the ratio of persons to rooms within the
household exceeds 1.01 persons per room according to HCD guidelines.
Bathrooms, porches, halls, balconies, foyers, and half rooms are not counted in
determining the ratio of persons to rooms.
The 1979 special census reveals that, based on actual responses compared to all
households, between 1,215 and 1,386 households in Huntington Beach currently
experience some degree of overcrowding. Furthermore, 76 percent of these
households are occupied by large families (5 or more persons).
The estimate of 7,595 lower income households in need of housing assistance
provided by SCAG takes into account overcrowded households as well as those
overpaying, as a considerable number of households may experience both problems.
3.1.6 Suitability and Habitability
Problems with suitability or habitability of housing refer to the number of
households occupying dwelling units which are in need of rehabilitation or
replacement. An unsuitable unit is defined as a housing unit which in its present
state materially endangers the health, safety, or well-being of its occupants in one
or more respects, and is either economically feasible to repair ("needing
rehabilitation") or is not economically feasible to repair ("needing replacement").
Estimates of the number of unsound housing units were presented section 2.1.2.
Sf AG's 1978 Areawide Housing Opportunity Plan estimates that a total of 1,370
substandard housing units currently exist in Huntington Beach (380 owner-occupied
and 990 renter-occupied). Of these units; a total of 1,023 (257 owner-occupied
and 766 renter-occupied) are considered suitable for rehabilitation. The remaining
347 units (123 owner-occupied and 224 renter-occupied) are considered as needing
replacement. Together, units needing rehabilitation and replacement represent
2.2 percent of Huntington Beach's current total housing stock and 5.1 percent of
the estimated 26,948 unsound housing units in Orange County. The City's
estimated 1,023 units needing rehabilitation represent 4.9 percent of the County
total of 20,837 units. The City's 347 replacement units constitute 5.7 percent of
the County's estimated 6,111 units.
Aft
25
If Huntington Beach's share of Orange County's unsound units remains constant at
5.1 percent through 1990, a total of 2,903 housing units will need rehabilitation
(2,168 units) or replacement (735 units) according to SLAG.
3.1.7 Special Needs
In addition to analyzing housing needs related to affordability, overcrowding, and
suitability, the State housing element guidelines encourage localities to analyze
the special housing needs of large families, minority households, the elderly, the
handicapped, and others as the locality deems appropriate. Although SCAG's
estimates of housing needs address these special groups, the following sections
provide additional information which may be helpful in determining the scope and
direction of the City's housing policies and programs.
3.1.7.1 Large Families
Large families with five or more persons occupy 7,238 households, or 12.2 percent
of all households in Huntington Beach. The preceding sections indicated that large
families account for 10.9 percent of all lower and 12.6 percent of all moderate
income households overpaying for housing, roughly equal to their distribution
among all households. The special census results report that the 1978 median
income for households with five or more persons in Huntington Beach was $27,461,
about 32 percent higher than the Orange County median of $20,720 for a family of
five. Although large families generally earn higher wages, and despite the
abundance of large homes in the city, there is some indication that housing choice
is limited. This is evidenced by the fact that large families comprise 76 percent
of all overcrowded households in Huntington Beach.
While overcrowding among larger households is to be expected to some extent, the
existence of approximately 1,000 overcrowded large family households is
significant. Overcrowding may occur as a result of couples and small families
moving into the city, and over a period of years raising large families without
moving to larger houses. Overcrowding also may occur when large families
moving into Huntington Beach cannot find large enough homes at a price they can
reasonably afford. In this case, increased crowding may be preferred to
overpaying or living elsewhere. SCAG's Areawide Housing Opportunities Plan
identifies a total of 2,284 large family households as needing housing assistance
due to overcrowding or overpaying.
3.1.7.2 Elderly Households
An estimated 11,775 elderly persons (62 years of age or older) currently reside in
the City of Huntington Beach, or about 7 percent of the total city population. A
total of 6,722 households (11.3 percent of all households) are headed by elderly ,
persons, 70 percent in owner occupied units and 30 percent in rental units. Nearly
half of all elderly households in the city are lower income households and, of
these, approximately 1,880 or 56 percent, are paying greater than 25 percent of
their, income for housing. The City's mobile home parks provide reasonably
Xgb6
BE
26
affordable housing for elderly households, and many elderly may also be original
residents of the Downtown and Oldtown areas who own their homes outright.
Nonetheless, escalating housing costs, especially in the rental market, severely
impact the elderly population, many of whom are on fixed incomes.
3.1.7.3 Handicapped Households
' Approximately 3,760 households, or 6.3 percent of all households in the city, have
one or more persons with some type of handicap. While certain handicapped
individuals (those who are blind, deaf, or have nervous disabilities) may live
comfortably without special housing accommodations, persons with ambulatory
handicaps who require wheelchairs often need specially-designed, barrier free
housing that is also affordable. In many cases, households have both elderly and
handicapped members; these households deserve special attention. Sr-AG's
Areawide Housing Opportunities Plan identifies 1,075 elderly and/or handicapped
households in need of housing assistance.
3.1.7.4 Minority Households
Nonwhite minorities now comprise over 13 percent of the city's total population
and 11.6 percent of all resident households. Of the 6,913 households headed by
minorities, Hispanics comprise 31 percent, Blacks 5 percent, Southeast Asians 4
percent, and American Indians 3 percent. The "other" category (mostly oriental)
comprises 57 percent of minority-headed households. Responses to special census
questions on income and housing payments reveal that approximately 29 percent
of all minority households earn lower incomes. Lower household incomes affect
Southeast Asians and Hispanics more than other minority groups; in these groups,
lower income households comprise 54 percent and 38 percent of all households,
respectively.
Of the 1,023 lower income minority households who responded to the census, 766
or 75 percent, indicated they were paying over 25 percent of their income for
housing. Southeast Asians showed the highest rate of overpaying, Hispanics the
lowest rate for minority households. Generally, overpaying occurred more in
rental units than in owner-occupied units. These figures are reflective only of
households who responded, the actual number of minority households needing
assistance may be as high as 1,500. SLAG has indicated a figure of 1,409 lower
income minority households in need of housing assistance, 86 percent of which are
Hispanic households.
3.1.7.5 Mobile Home Residents
There are 3,265 mobile home dwelling units in the city. These appear to represent
a significant portion of the existing low and moderate income affordable housing.
The escalating cost of mobile home space rentals is becoming a problem,
especially for those households on fixed incomes. The average size of mobile
home households is 1.69 persons, indicating that many mobile home occupants may
be elderly retired people. Households occupying mobile homes do not have a great
deal of locational choice because 1) it is very expensive to move mobile homes, 2)
' there is a great shortage of spaces for existing older units since coaches are
27
4
generally sold on the site and 3) new parks will not accept older units. Few new
parks have been developed in recent years due to high land costs and restrictive
zoning. Where new parks have been developed, rents are considerably higher than
the old parks and initial costs for new mobile homes generally exceed $20,000 -
considerably more than the value of an older coach. Because new mobile homes
are considerably less expensive than conventional housing, financing is available
only up to 20 years, with 15 year mortgages more common. Interest rates for
mobile homes are generally higher than for conventional housing, ranging from
12- to 14 percent. 4
Older mobile home parks within the city are in desirahle locations, often in older
portions of the city, where recycling of land uses is likely to occur. This presents
a problem for relocating existing residents, since the affordability of their present
dwelling will be difficult or impossible to duplicate.
4
3.2 Prospective Housing Needs
The previous section identified areas in which the City's present housing supply
falls short of providing all economic segments of the community and persons
having special needs with adequate housing opportunities. Because most of the
housing produced by current market forces is generally not available at prices
these households can reasonably afford, the public and private sectors must
cooperate to produce and make available housing at less than market rates.
Having examined the need for non-market rate households, the housing element
will now address the prospective need for market rate housing over a five-year
period, based on anticipated population and employment growth, new household
formation, and shifting housing preferences.
3.2.1 Population Growth
Population growth in the City of Huntington Beach has been and will continue to
be a function of new residential development and an increasing housing stock.
While the City experienced its peak rate of growth during the sixties, the
community's desirable location will continue to attract new residential growth and
housing opportunities. Estimates of the City's future population growth were
presented in section 2.3, and indicated continued growth through the year 2000.
Over the next five years, the following growth patterns are anticipated:
Housing 4
Year Units Population
1979 62,251 167,419
1980 63,500 169,400
1981 65,200 172,500
1982 67,000 175,900
1983 69,000 )79,600
1984 70,900 183,000
1985 72,700 1869100
4
28 '
r
New residential construction is expected to add between 1,700 and 2,000 housing
r units and 3,100-3,700 new residents 'per year through 1985. Within these growth
parameters, the City should endeavor to provide for as many lower and
moderately-priced units as is economically feasible. Even with the active
participation of the building industry in afforable housing programs, the majority
of new housing units built will be market rate units.
3.2.2 Employment Growth
The need for housing within a given market area is largely dependent on the local
economy and number and types of jobs available. During the sixties, much of the
new home construction in Huntington Beach appealed to households employed in
the Los Angeles area. During this period, the Orange County economy began to
r grow and diversify from a concentration of large industrial employers to include
more ancillary and service jobs. The continuing diversification of the local
economy attracts a greater variety of non-skilled, semi-skilled, and professional
workers, all of whom should be provided with adequate housing opportunities and
choice. To a great extent, low density zoning and inflating land values have
perpetuated the production of larger luxury homes in Huntington Beach and other
r neighboring communities, limiting the housing opportunities for households with
lower incomes. The failure of individual communities to provide a range of
housing opportunities to match the regional economy causes longer commutes to
work and the concentration of lower income groups in older areas of the county.
An assessment of the prospective need for market rate housing over the next five
r years must take into consideration the number, type, and wage levels of new jobs
created in both the City and the County. At the present time, 16 percent of the
City's households stated that the head of household was employed in Huntington
Beach, with an additional 29 percent employed in Orange County, and 26 percent
in Los Angeles County. On the other hand, the City provided employment for
36,454 persons in 1978, approximately 4.8 percent of all workers in Orange
r County. The number of jobs, average wages, and employment projections for the
City and County are presented in Table 3-3. The number of jobs in Huntington
Beach is expected to increase to 45,870 by 1985 if the City to County ratio of jobs
in each category remains constant.
A total of 82,438 city residents are employed in some capacity, or an average of
r 1.4 jobs per household. With an expected increase of some 6,800 jobs between
1979 and 1985, employment growth alone could account for approximately 4,860
additional households in the city.
3.2.3 New Household Formation and Housing Preference
r The average size of households in Huntington Beach and Orange County is
expected to drop over the next five years to an estimated 2.65 persons per
household by 1985. Given smaller households and increasing demand for housing,
the construction of smaller 1, 2, and 3 bedroom units at higher densities is
probable. New households may be willing to sacrifice space and I-ixury amenities
in order to obtain affordable housing. The obstacles encountered by smaller
households in qualifying for home purchase may increase demand for affordable
rental units.
29
TABLE 3-3
EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS FOR HUNTINGTON BEACH
Average # of Jobs # of Jobs # of Jobs # of Jobs Yearly
Yearly Actual Forecast Forecast Forecast Change Change
Wage-1977 1978 1979 1980 1985 179-85 179-85 '
Total-Orange
County $11,780 757,400 811,800 838,600 967,000 1559200 25,680
Total HB unavailable 36,454 39,072 409341 45,870 6,798 1,133
Agriculture $ 7,857 1,136 1,218 1,258 1,160 -58 -10
Mining $219151 350 375 387 299 -76 -13
Construction $169608 764 818 825 952 +134 +22 ,
Manufacturing $14,100 8,698 9,323 9,631 11,317 +1,994 +332
Trade $ 8,802 11,026 11,818 12,208 14,301 +2,483 +414
Transportation/
Public Utilities $159074 1,357 1,455 1,503 1,733 +278 +46
Financial/
Insurance/
Real Estate $11,977 1,650 1,768 1,827 2,138 +370 +62
Services $109461 59434 5,824 6,016 7,167 +1,343 +224
Government $11,900 6,039 6,473 6,686 6,803 +330 +55
Source: Huntington Beach Department of Development Services, based on data from the
State of California Employment Development Department for the Anaheim-Santa
Ana-Garden Grove Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area.
30
i
1
1
1
/
c
1 -
4. Housing Constraints
/
1
1
1
1
1
1 4.0 HOUSING CONSTRAINTS
The ability of the private sector to provide housing is affected by forces in both
the marketplace and the governmental arena. These forces will be discussed in
the following sections, and their effects on the cost, types, and quantity of
housing examined.
1 4.1 Market Constraints
Several factors influence the feasibility and cost of privately developed housing.
Within the market area there is demand for a wide range of housing types and
price categories. Which demands will be satisfied depends upon the interpretation
1 of demand by the developer, the costs of land, construction, and financing, and the
developer's opportunity for profit. The availability of land for various types and
density of housing also affects development decisions. Governmental
requirements and constraints interact with market forces and are discussed
separately in Section 4.2.
1 4.1.1 Land Costs
Costs associated with the acquisition and improvement of land include the market
price of raw land, the costs of holding land throughout the development process,
and necessary improvements to the land prior to construction. It has been
estimated that these costs contribute 25-30 percent to the final sales price of new
1 homes.
Aft
1 31
Necessary improvements to land are estimated at $5,000 - $8,000 per unit for ,
single family dwellings. This includes streets, curbs, gutters, lighting, parkway
landscaping or other amenities, water and sewage lines, and utility connections to
each site. Reductions in these expenses may depend upon reducing City standards.
Land holding costs during development are estimated at $60041,000 per unit for a
9 to 12 month period. This figure is determined by interest rates on acquisition ,
and development loans, which presently run 2-4 percent above the prime rate.
Interest rates are not amenable to control by local jurisdictions, therefore the
greatest inroad that can be made on holding costs would be through shorter
processing times for development permits. Processing time has a much larger
impact on construction costs than on holding costs, however, due to inflationary
effects on construction and labor. '
The major component of total land cost is the price of raw land. Land prices in
the city are quite high - $200,0004300,000 per acre is common. A
medium-density (15 units per acre) residential development would incur a per unit
land cost of $13,333. A density increase to 20. units per acre would reduce land
costs to $10,000 per unit and could reduce the sales price on a 1,000 square foot ,
house from $67,000 to $62,000. The City, however, cannot control the market
price of its land, which is pushed upward by speculation, high demand, dwindling
supply, and desirable proximity to the coast. One alternative to prevent inflating
land costs is for the City to 'bank" land by outright purchase or donation in order
to assure continued availability of sites that can be used for affordable housing
(see Appendix M
Left alone, the rapidly escalating market price of land will tend to encourage
mainly higher priced development. Higher density zoning could reduce the cost
per unit of land, but land zoned higher density commands a higher market price.
For this reason, density bonuses rather than zoning changes may be the preferred
vehicle for reducing land costs.
The cost of the acquisition and development of land may also be lowered by a
developer's use of mortgage backed revenue bonds if and when they become
available. Under such a program tax-free bonds would be sold by_the government
to provide low interest loans to interested developers and homeowners. This
program is presently being developed at the County level, and it has not yet been
determined what agency will administer the funds, how much money will be
available, or what the conditions on its use will be.
4.1.2 Construction Costs
Construction and land costs together represent between 65 and 75 percent of the
sales price of housing. Average construction costs at present are between $24 and
$35 per square foot depending on the level of amenities and the type of units
(single family detached, attached condominiums, or apartments).
32
1
"Bare bones" construction, or a reduction in amenities and quality of materials
1 (above a minimum level of acceptability for health, safety, and adequate
performance) could result in lower sales prices. Another alternative might be
factory built housing. Although factory built housing was not judged economically
competitive in 1976 (see 4.2.4, Appendix B of the Huntington Beach Housin
Element Background Report, August, 1976), the balance etween cost factors may
have shifted since then in such a way as to favor factory built housing. This
1 possibility should be investigated.
A major contribution to increasing prices is the rate of inflation in construction
costs. Prices for materials and wages are inflating rapidly, sometimes far in
excess of the Consumer Price Index. Delays in development are therefore very
expensive. For each month th t development is delayed, it is estimated that sales
1 price increases 1.1 to 1.5�1) percent. Streamlining of permit processing
procedures thus may help minimize housing prices.
An additional cost factor is related to the number of units built at the same time;
as this number increases, construction costs over the entire development are
reduced because 1) earlier build-out reduces the effect of inflation on prices and
1 2) some costs can be lowered by buying or installing in larger quantity. This
factor provides an additional benefit when density bonuses are utilized.
4.1.3 Financing costs
The impact of interest rates on housing is substantial, both for renters and
1 purchasers. Interest rates however, are determined by national policies and
economic conditions, and there is little that local agencies can do to affect these
ra to s.
Presently, interest rates for home mortgages on owner-occupied single family
dwellings are approximately 11 3/4 percent. Rates for rental units and interim
1 and construction loans are higher. The high costs of borrowing money are passed
on to housing consumers by developers and landlords as part of their business
expense. For purchasers, each one percent increase in interest rates on mortgages
translates into 75 cents per thousand dollars per month of payment on a 30 year
loan. Table 4-1 shows the monthly payment (principal and interest) required for a
30 year loan at various purchase prices and interest rates.
1
For prospective purchasers, the required downpayment may be an obstacle to
obtaining suitable housing. Conventional financing generally requires 10-20
percent of the sale price of the unit be paid as a downpayment. Accumulating
such a large amount of capital can be a problem for first time entrants into the
housing market. Households which are relocating will often have enough equity in
1 a previous residence to meet the downpayment requirements of the next home.
Government insured loan programs may be available to reduce the downpayment
(1)Orange County Cost of Housing Committee, Methods of Reducing Housing
1 Costs.
33
N
TABLE 4-1
MONTHLY MORTGAGE PAYMENTS (PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST) 30 YEAR AMORTIZATION
PRICE
75,000 100,000 125,000 150,000
►own Payment 0% 5% 10% 20% 0% 5% 10% 20% 0% 5% 10% 20% 0% 5% 10% 20%
iterest
'.ates
9.0 603 581 543 483 805 764 724 684 1006 955 905 805 1207 1147 1086 966
9.25 617 586 555 494 823 781 740 699 1028 977 925 823 1234 1172 1111 987
9.50 630 599 567 504 841 799 757 715 1051 998 946 841 1261 1198 1135 1009
9.75 644 612 580 515 859 816 773 730 1074 1020 967 859 1289 1224 1160 1031
10.00 658 625 592 527 878 834 790 746 1097 1042 987 878 1316 1251 1185 1053
10.25 672 639 605 538 896 851 807 762 1120 1064 1008 896 1344 1277 1210 1075
10.50 686 652 617 549 915 869 823 778 1143 1086 1029 915 1372 1304 1235 1098
10.75 700 665 630 560 934 887 840 793 1167 1109 1050 934 1400 1330 1260 1120
11.00 714 679 643 571 952 904 857 810 1190 1131 107). 952 1429 1357 1286 1143
11.25 728 692 656 583 971 923 874 777 1214 1152 1093 971 1457 1384 1311 1166
11.50 743 708 668 594 990 941 891 792 1238 1176 1114 990 1485 1411 1337 1186
11.75 757 719 681 606 1009 959 908 808 1262 1191 1136 1009 1514 1438 1363 1211
12.00 771 733 694 617 1029 977 926 823 1286 1221 1157 1029 1543 1466 1389 1232
ource: Huntington Beach Department of Development Services taken from the Monthly Mortgage Calculator for Conventional and FHA
oans, Financial Publishing Company, 1974.
requirements considerably if the household and/or desired property meet certain
/ qualifications. V.A. loans, which are available to veterans currently at interest
rates of 10 percent require no downpayment, but have an upper limit on purchase
price of $100,000. F.H.A. insured loans may require 5-10 percent downpayment,
at 10% rate of interest, with a limit of $60,000 on the loan amount. These types
of financing often require the seller to pay additional money, called points, to
compensate the lender for lower interest rates. In a constricted housing market
1 with high demand it is difficult to find sellers who will agree to these terms, even
if the property is priced within the allowable limits.
There are other financing programs available that can aid low and moderate
income households to obtain adequate housing. Graduated monthly payment
mortgages allow a purchaser to make smaller monthly payments during the early
1 years of the loan and larger monthly payments during later years when, hopefully,
income will have increased. Low interest loans may be available soon through
mortgage hacked revenue bonds. Mortgage assistance is also possible through the
235 loan program administered by the Federal Department of Housing and Urban
Development. Federal mortgage assistance programs are discussed in more detail
1 in section 5.2.3.
4.1.4 Availability of Land
The greatest constraint to the production of new housing in Huntington Beach,
regardless of price, is the availability of vacant developable land. The
1 incorporated area of the city encompasses approximately 17,174 acres of land; of
this, an estimated 14,980 acres are currently developed, 'about 87 percent of all
land in the city. Of the nearly 2,200 vacant acres that remain, approximately
1,288 acres are presently designated for residential use, with the majority in the
Estate and Low Density categories. Only 400 acres of vacant medium and high
density land are available for the development of condominiums and rental units
1 to accommodate the city's housing needs. The City will consider implementing
general plan amendments and/or zone changes to increase density and offering
density bonuses to developers of large projects in order to achieve identified
housing goals. However, any contemplated increases in density are limited by the
ability of the City's existing and planned system of community facilities and
municipal services to adequately and safely accommodate designated land uses
1 throughout the city. The City is currently developing the scope of work for a
Community Facilities Element to the General Plan, which will set forth policies to
guide the timing and extent of the development of public facilities and services in
the city.
Subdivision patterns also affect the availability of land for new development.
1 Much of the remaining vacant land in the city exists in scattered, smaller parcels.
In some cases, these parcels may be landlocked or substandard for development.
While the collective acreage may be adequate to allow development in pursuit of
housing goals, the suitability of individual sites is often hampered by multiple
ownership and/or poor configuration, poor location, or environmental constraints.
1
1 35
4.2 Governmental Constraints
Local governments affect the supply, distribution, and cost of housing through
land use controls, building codes, development permits, and processing fees.
Compliance with State-mandated requirements such as environmental impact
assessment and Coastal Commission approval procedures may also influence the
cost and nature of residential development. In addition, property taxes and
special assessments contribute to governmental impact on housing. This section '
discusses how each of these factors relates to the City's ability to respond to its
housing needs.
4.2.1 Land Use Controls
The City's policies for development are set forth in the General Plan, which 1
contains nine state-mandated elements dealing with the issues of land use,
circulation, housing, noise, safety, seismic safety, open space, conservation, and
scenic highways. While the issues and policies related to housing are addressed
primarily in the Housing Element, policies contained in all of the other elements
significantly affect the character and production of housing in Huntington Beach.
The relationship of the other general plan elements to the Housing Element is 1
discussed in Section 1.3.
The location and types of housing in the city are determined to a great extent by
development policies contained in the Land Use Element, which establishes the
amount and distribution of various land uses throughout the city. Residential
development is allowed in the following General Plan land use categories: 1
Total Percent of
Land Use Allowable Acreage Total City
Category Density Designated Acreage
Estate Residential 0-4 units/gross acre 287 acres 1.7% 1
Low Density Residential 0-7 units/gross acre 8,846 51.5%
Medium Density Residential 0-15 units/gross acre 1,857 10.8%
High Density Residential 15+ units/gross acre 480 2.8%
Mixed Development varies 195 1.1%
Planned Community varies 433 2.5%
The density of development allowed under these designations determines the type
1
of housing that is developed. Over half of the city's incorporated land area is
planned for low density residential use, which explains the predominance of
detached single family homes. Considerably less acreage is planned for medium
and high density uses, which characteristically provide condominium and
apartment units. Mobile home parks are found in both low and medium density 1
areas. The areas of the city designated Mixed Development and Planned
Community allow for a mixture of uses, densities, and housing types.
1
36 1
Generally speaking, the more units per acre, the less cost per unit for fees,
required improvements, and developers' overhead cost. It is estimated that,
1 considering all of the costs associated with development, low and moderate
income housing is not economically feasible to produce at densities lower than 1.8
units per acre. Presently, only 55 acres of undeveloped high density land remain
in the city, and the majority of this exists in small remnant and unconsolidated
parcels. Nearly half of the 55 acres are located along the first block of the
1 townlot area within the coastal zone boundary where land costs are high. The
suitability of this area for low and moderate income housing is very limited.
The City currently has approximately 356 acres of undeveloped medium density
land. With the adoption of an inclusionary zoning ordinance offering density
bonuses and/or reduced off-site improvements, this medium density land could
1 provide for affordable housing.(1
Under the existing City code, a developer may build a portion of any one project
at a higher density and a portion at a lower density, as long as the overall density
of the entire project does not exceed that which the zoning allows. This approach
may allow certain units within a project to be available at a lower cost.
/ The City's coastal location and lack of abundant vacant land has contributed to
the inflation of land values. High land costs, when coupled with the relatively low
density of development allowed under the City's General Plan, constrains the
building industry from producing abundant affordable housing. In the absence of
special incentive programs (i.e., density bonus, reduced improvements,
1 inclusionary zoning, etc.) the private sector will continue to experience
difficulties in expanding housing opportunities for low and moderate income
households given present residential land use controls.
1 (1)"Inclusionary zoning" refers to a method by which communities require or
encourage developers to include housing that is affordable to low and/or moderate
income households in new projects. The effective mechanisms for either requiring
or encouraging a specified percentage of new development to include these units
are usually zoning and/or subdivision ordinances.
In order to make the inclusionary zoning requirement economically feasible and
palatable to developers, it is often combined with a "density bonus" which allows
the builder to construct more units per acre than would be permissible under the
existing zoning regulations. Particularly where land costs are high and represent a
significant proportion of total unit cost, a density bonus may be the only means of
obtaining new non-market rate housing without government subsidy. The
additional units allowable with a density bonus offset land and site preparation
costs for the required non-market rate units, thereby permitting the developer to
fulfill the inclusionary zoning requirement without increasing the cost of the
market rate units. Density bonuses can be combined with fast-track processing, a
permitted reduction in amenities, slightly smaller unit size, and/or government
assisted financing programs to further increase the production of affordable
housing. Appendix E presents a review of inclusionary zoning programs adopted by
other jurisdictions.
Af
37
1
4.2.2 Local Building r.odes
1
Huntington Beach has adopted the Uniform Building Code, which establishes
minimum construction standards. Although a locality may impose more stringent
standards, it cannot adopt any which are below those of the UBC. Thus, the City
cannot reduce construction costs by revising the City Code, as some cities with
stricter standards are able to do.
1
4.2.3 Required off-site and on-site improvements
Developers of single family residential tracts in the city are required to install
arterial and local streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, sewers, street lighting, and
trees in the public right-of-way within and adjacent to a tract. These facilities
are, in most cases, dedicated to the City, which is responsible for maintenance. 1
The cost of these required off-site improvements is estimated at $50 per front
foot, which in turn adds approximately $5,000 to the sales price of each dwelling
unit.
While there are no required on-site improvements for lots created by a typical
single family subdivision, some on-site improvements are required for planned 1
residential developments and apartments. For example, private streets and
landscaping within a planned development must meet standards set forth in the
zoning ordinance. Additionally, a minimum of 10,000 square feet of recreational
area is required within all planned developments, regardless of the size or density
of the project. All off-site improvements mentioned above are also required for
planned developments. Apartment developments are subject to minimum on-site 1
open space and parking requirements as well as off-site improvements.
4.2.4 Permits
As specific projects are initiated, detailed approvals are required which take the
form of permits and inspections. The average application and permit processing 1
times are given in Table 4-2.
The skyrocketing cost of housing is often blamed in part on governmental delays
and bureaucratic red tape. Unquestionably, more stringent development
regulations have increased processing time and thus added to housing costs. It has
been estimated that every month a residential project is delayed beyond its
planned construction start date, the cost per d elling unit increases by at least
1.1 to 1.5 percent of the planned selling pricer One potential way to reduce
housing costs would be to reduce the time necessary for processing of permits. A
comparison of average processing times for Huntington Beach and selected other
localities is presented in Table 4-3. At present, it would not appear that
significant savings would result from "fast track" processing because these times 1
are relatively short in the City.
MOrange County Cost of Housing Committee '
Aft
38 1
r
TABLE 4-2
PROCESSING TIME AND FEES
Processing Time Application
Application In Weeks Fee(l)
BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS
r Lot Line Adjustment 2-3 $75.00
Use Permit 3 $75.00
Conditional Exception 3 $75.00
Plot Plan Amendment 3 $75.00
Administrative Review 2-3 $10.00
Tentative Parcel Map 3 $75.00
r
PLANNING COMMISSION
Conditional Exception 4 $150.00
Conditional Use Permit 4 $200.00
Tentative Tract Map 4 $250.00
Zone Change* 4 $325.00
general Plan Amendment* 12 $325.00
Code Amendment* 6 $325.00
Precise Plan of Street Alignment* 6 $325.00
Special Sign Permit 4 $ 75.00
General Plan Amendment &
Requiring Zone Change* 16 $525.00
*Requires City Council approval also: Add approximately 3 weeks.
Source: Huntington Beach Department of Development Services
�l)These fees are as of August 1979 and include a 20 percent increase following Proposition
13. All fees are subject to change by ordinance of the.Huntington Beach City Council.
AML
39
r
TABLE 4-3
COMPARISON OF DEVELOPMENT PROCESSING TIME IN MONTHS
Costa Orange Riverside Riverside
H.B. Irvine Newport Mesa County (County) (City)
General Plan 1.5 3 - 24 6 4 4 - 12 4 - 12 . 4
Amendment (15 Avg.)
Zone Change 1.75 3 - 4 2 4 5 - 8 7 - 9 4 - 6
EIR's 2 4 - 6 (1) 4 3 - 4 3 - 5 3 - 4
Tentative
Tracts 1 3 3 1 3 - 4 6 1 - 2
Site Plan
Review (Staff) 1. 1 - 2 (2) 1 3 1 2 - 3
Site Plan
Review (Comm.) 1.5 1 - 2 (2) 2 4 (3) (2)
Plan Checking/
Building Permits I. 1 - 2 1 1 1.5 1.5 1.5
Source: City of Irvine draft Housing Element and Huntington Beach Department of
Development Services
(1) No specific time; varies by project
(2) (7ommission reviews only on request
(3) All site plan reviews performed at staff level
i
40 a
f The City's permit processing procedures include assessment of the environmental
impact of proposed projects, and review of the environmental impact report, if
one is required. This portion of the processing procedure is mandated by State
law under the California Environmental Quality Act.
About 12 percent of the remaining vacant residential land within the city's
rj boundaries lies within the coastal zone. Projects proposed within this zone must,
in addition to City approval, obtain the permission of the Regional Coastal
Commission. This procedure will be expedited after the approval of the Local
Coastal Plan, when the City will assume the approval process (expected by April
1980.)
4.2.5 Fees
Fees are collected by the City to help cover the costs of permit processing,
inspections, environmental impact determinations, and to contribute to the
delivery of services such as water, sewers, storm drains, libraries, and parks and
recreational facilities. These fees are assessed on the basis of square feet of
10 building space, number of dwelling units, or acres of development. As land use
densities increase, the proportion of the cost borne by each unit decreases for
those fees which are charged on a per acre basis.
Costs per dwelling unit for fees in Huntington Beach averaged $1,745 as of July
1, 1979. At medium and high density zoning, between 44 and 62 percent of this
cost consists of fees (or property dedications) for parks and recreation purposes,
or an average of $832 per unit. A detailed analysis of City fees appears in Table
4-4. Table 4-5 compares the City's fees with other Southern California
jurisdictions.
4.2.6 Taxes and Insurance
The current estimate of the share of the cost of own renting attributed to
taxes and insurance is 10 percent post-Proposition 13.cI) This burden falls more
heavily on lower income households, whose expenditures for housing require a
larger proportion of their household income. Since property taxes on homes
which are sold will be based on their purchase price rather than the formula
mandated by Proposition 13, new home buyers face higher taxes than those who
remain in their current residences. Renters too are vulnerable since they are
unable to control the sale of the property in which they live, yet the rent they
pay may be raised to cover the new landlord's higher taxes.
One effect of Proposition 13, therefore, will be to deter the mobility of owners.
Proposition 13 also reduced City revenues and those losses are being offset in
part by increased or new fees on construction which increase the cost of private
and rental units.
r (1)Orange County General Plan Draft Housing Element, January 1979.
41
XA
N
TABLE 4-4
PERMIT PROCESSING AND DEVELOPMENT FEES IN HUNTINGTON BEACH
(Average Per Unit For Selected Construction 1976-1978
Low Density Medium Density High Density
Single Single
Per Unit Family Condo- Mobile Family Condo- Apartment Apartment Condo- Apartment Apartment
Average Detached minium Home Detached minium 2-4 Unit 5+ Units minium 2-4 Units 5+ Units
Fee Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 Type 5 Type 6 Type 7 Type 8 Type 9 Type 10 Type 11
Parks &
Recreation $903 $812 $610 $1,171 $976 $785 $454 $878 $772 $870
Library 58 30 191 36 6 58 40 45 52 42
Sewer 378 65 60 60 60 60 59 60 60 60
Water 195 38 36 36 36 36 30 36 36 36
Drainage 475 151 1,160 566 161 151 260 N/A 385 200
Other 679 622 42 539 316 341 180 385 325 333
Per Unit
Average Total $2,688 $1,718 $2,099 $2,408 $1,555 $1,431 $1,023 1,404 $1,630 $1,541
Number of
Units Surveyed 286 137 145 112 473 90 110 45 39 96
Source : Huntington Beach Department of Development Services
• t • a. V it • • i A
�+ W # r I. V 0) i ,v
TABLE 4-5
COMPARISON OF PLANNING AND PERMIT FEES
Building Plan Electrical Plumbing Tent.
Permit Check Permit Permit Grading/ Conditional Park Site Tract Zone
City 1500 sq ft 1500 sq ft 1500 sq ft 1500 sq ft Inspection Sewer Use Permit In Lieu Plan Map Change
Anaheim 295.71 189.80 49.00 50.00 98.00 300.00 2.50 578.76 0 6.00 8.00
Buena Park 432.01 270.20 57.50 68.00 . 125.00 300.00 10.00 600.00 4.00 8.00 10.00
Costa Mesa 175.15 86.00 34.50 44.00 NA 250.00 0.50 1,205.00 0 2.50 12.00
Fountain Valley 172.05 84.50 25.25 34.00 90.00 300.00 2.00 1,000.00 2.00 5.00 6.50
Garden Grove 201.72 125.13 70.35 80.25 98.00 375.00 6.00 325.00 8.40 5.40 3.00
HUNTINGTON
BEACH 195.60 97.80 33.30 40.80 98.00 310.00 4.00 1,171.00 1.50 3.00 6.50
Irvine 615.00 115.80 20.75 28.75 226.00 1,075.00 12.00 2,400.00 22.00 34.00 Included
W/GPA
Newport Beach 250.50 162.83 39.00 37.50 215.50 282.00 5.50 3,050.00 4.20 8.00 7.80
Santa Ana 195.60 97.80 49.00 49.00 98.00 312.75 11.00 340.00 1.00 10.00 7.00
Westminster 207.00 102.50 28.50 34.00 104.00 250.00 3.00 785.00 1.50 2.50 3.00
Orange County 212.00 125.40 41.78 36.78 200.00 263.00 4.20 255.00 29.00 16.00 13.00
Fees are shown per dwelling unit although not all fees are collected on a per unit basis.
Source: California Building Industry Association, Orange County Chapter.
.�
w
Much of Huntington Beach lies within the flood plain of the Santa Ana River and
has been designated a special flood hazard area by the federal government.
Under the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, mortgage lenders are authorized
to require that structures located in flood hazard areas be insured against
potential flood damage. Flood insurance is available (and is required for homes
in the special flood hazard area) at subsidized rates of $88 per year for single
family dwellings and slightly more for multi-family buildings under the current
emergency phase of the program. Upon additional studies, varying insurance
rates will be established throughout the city based on the actual risk of flood
damage, which should reduce premiums for most areas of the city. The flood :7
insurance requirement adds slightly to the price of affected homes in Huntington
Beach, and may indirectly add to the cost for affected rental units.
4.3 Regional Relationships
The provision of adequate housing for all sectors of the community is an
area-wide problem, closely tied to economic expansion and employment growth.
Particularly in Southern California, where long commute trips to work are
common, the location of market rate households tends to be dictated more by
preference than by necessity. Long commuting distances increase traffic
congestion and lower air quality. The rising cost and growing shortage of
gasoline should provide incentives to reduce commuting travel in the future, 40
putting greater pressure on the housing market in the older, more accessible
cities.
4.3.1 Employment-Residence Balance
At present, 9,389 heads of households (15.8 percent) residing in the city are also
employed here.
Total Orange County employment is expected to increase by 155,200 jobs by
1985. Using present proportions, 4.8 percent or 6,800 of these jobs would be in
Huntington Beach. An estimate of jobs which would be provided by development
of existing vacant industrial/commercial land is 6,721. Currently 53 percent of
the jobs in the city provide salaries that are below 80 percent of the county
median salary. However, many of these may be secondary income sources for
households. Income distributions for the County in 1976 characterize 39.1
percent of all households as low income, and an additional 20.8 percent as
moderate income. City proportions in 1979 are 23.1 percent low and 22.5
percent moderate income.
4.3.2 Regional Pressures on Local Housing Market
The southern portion of the county is where much recent growth has centered
and where most new residential growth is expected to occur. There should also
be a larger proportion of employment opportunities in these areas resulting from
new commercial and industrial development. To the extent that sufficient low
cost housing is not provided in these areas, demand will increase in established
residential communities whose housing stock includes older, less expensive units.
This demand will continue to increase the resale price of homes and rental value
of apartments, as well as generate traffic and air quality problems.
Afak
44
HUD estimates that at least 45 percent of all demand for future sales units will
be in the moderate and low cost range. Almost all demand for rental units will
be moderate and below, with about 68 percent for low cost rentals. The Irvine
Company estimates that 20.7 percent of the people employed in the Irvine
Industrial Complex-East will have household incomes in the 19W range and an
additional 16.5 percent will have incomes in the moderate range(_ . The shortfall
of affordable units in the immediately adjacent cities - Costa Mesa, Newport,
r Irvine, Tustin, and Santa Ana will increase the demand placed upon Huntington
Beach and other more distant communities.
4.3.3. Housing and Employment
The cost of existing single family dwellings in Orange County rose 24.6 percent
during 1977-1978, while the median household income rose 4.8 percent from
$18,600 to $19,500. Residential rents increased 8.5 percent from 1976 to 1977 in
the Los Angeles-Orange County area. The disproportionate rise in housing costs
as compared to incomes means that more households are being squeezed out of
the housing market or forced to pay too large a share of their income for shelter.
There are indications that industry is beginning to consider the availability of
affordable housing which affects its supply of labor, in making locational
decisions. A lack of reasonable housing alternatives for workers could result in
loss of employment opportunities with a concomitant drop in revenues and
economic vitality for the community.
6
r
(1)City of Irvine, Draft Housing Element, March 1979, page 69.
i
45
M
5. PresentPrograms
r
r
c "
5.0 PRESENT HOUSING PROGRAMS
The City takes an active role in providing housing assistance through its Housing
and Community Development programs. At present, 565 households receive or
have received housing assistance. Another 470 households will be assisted by .
projects that are now underway, bringing the total number of households assisted
to 1,030 (see Table 5-1). The City's present housing programs are described in the
following sections and summarized in Section 5.4.
5.1 New Construction
5.1 Four projects are currently approved and under construction in Huntington Beach
that will utilize HUD Section 8 Low Income Rental Assistance - New Construction
funds. Under this program, owners or developers of projects are guaranteed
long-term housing assistance payments to make up the difference between a unit's
"fair market rent" (established by HUD) and the tenant's contribution toward the
rent (at least 15 percent, but not more than 25 percent of income.) The projects
using Section 8 subsidy are:
Wycliffe Gardens - A 14 story, 185 unit apartment for senior citizens being
constructed near Main Street and Beach Boulevard. Individual units will rent for
approximately $332 per month and are all eligible for federal subsidy.
Additionally, the City has contributed $56,000 of CDBG funds to subsidize land
costs for the Wycliffe project. The project is scheduled for completion in June,
1980.
i
47
s
TABLE 5-1
CURRENT ASSISTED HOUSING
Program Household Type
Elderly Family Mixed Total
Scheduled New Construction
1980 Completion 185 105 290
1982 Completion 157 157
Existing 211 349 560 !
Completed Rehabilitation 5 5
Scheduled Rehabilitation 18 18
TOTAL 557 454 23 1,030
HOUSING MET BY CURRENT CITY PROGRAMS
Household SCAG Assisted by Remaining
Type Estimated Need Present Programs Need A
Elderly 1,075 553 51.4 522 48.6
Handicapped 219 U U U U ,
All Families 6,520 454 7.0 6,061 93.0
Large 2,284 149 6.5 2,135 93.5
Small 4,236 200 4.7 4,036 95.3
Minorities 1,772 U U U U
Female Head 3,215 U U U U
TOTAL 7,585+ 1,007 13.3% 6,583 86.7%
U Unavailable
+ Total is not a sum due to double counting
Percentage of SCAG Estimated Need
Source: SCAG Areawide Housina Owortunity Plan. and Orange County Housing Authority
48
Old Civic Center Site - A mixed use development in the downtown area which will
feature 157 studio, one, and two bedroom units for senior citizens. The City will
Y also fund construction of a 10,000 square foot senior recreation and activity
center and rehabilitation of an existing neighborhood library on the site ($450,000
CDBG.) The housing project is being financed through the California Housing
Finance Agency's Section 8 New Construction program which offers low interest
mortgage financing. At least 49 percent of the units will be subsidized, and
depending on the availability of additional rent subsidies, up to 100 percent of the
project may be subsidized. The City has donated a portion of the 3.6 acre site to
the developer under a nominal cost lease arrangement and has allocated $100,000
in CDBG funds to assist with site clearance/preparation and for offsite utility
improvements. This project is scheduled for completion in January, 1982.
As conditions of approval for two private residential condominium projects
located at Beach Boulevard and Atlanta Avenue the California Coastal
Commission has required the construction of low and moderate income apartments
utilizing Section 8 New Construction subsidies. W and B Builders, Inc. will
construct 75 assisted rental units in conjunction with a 295 unit condominium
project, and Ayres Construction, Inc. will construct 30 assisted rental units in
conjunction with 120 condominiums. Neither project involves financial
participation by the City. Completion dates for these two projects have not been
set.
5.2 Assistance to Existing Units
5.2.1 Section 8 Assistance to Existing Units
HUD's Section 8 program also provides rental assistance to households occupying
existing units. Under the Existing Housing Program, assistance is provided
directly to families through a public housing agency which makes payments to
owners of rental units that qualify for the program. The City contracts with the
Orange County Housing Authority to administer 'the Section 8 Rental Assistance
Program, which has issued 644 rent certificates in the city to date. Recipients
locate their own housing subject to the landlord's participation in the program and
the rent limits set by HUD. The recipient pays 25 percent of his or her household
income toward the rent and the program pays the remainder. Section 8 subsidies
have limitations on the amount of rent the certificate holder can pay for housing;
since rental housing is often priced above these limits, acceptance in the program
1k does not guarantee that housing will be obtained. As of June I, 1979 about 560 of
the certificates issued were in use and 55 other certificate holders were seeking
housing. Another 135 households have been deemed eligible for the program and
are on a waiting list.
If recipients of Section 8 rental housing assistance certificates do not locate a
housing unit that meets the program requirements within 60 to 120 days, their
certificate becomes inactive. There are 416 inactive certificates for the city to
date, indicating that households are often unable to locate suitable/affordable
housing even when assistance is available to them. Of these inactive certificates,
only 37 were elderly, but 379 were families.
MM
i
49
5.2.2. Neighborhood Preservation/Rehabilitation Loans
The City has allocated $850,000 in CDBG funds for a four year program to
provide low interest rehabilitation loans to owners of residential properties. This
program has been in effect for one year and work has been completed on five
single family homes. Eighteen other requests are currently being processed.
5.2.3 Other Assisted Housing
Housing assistance is also provided to a number of households in Huntington
Beach through HUD's Section 235 (Homeownership Assistance for Low and
Moderate Income Families) and Section 236 (Rental and Cooperative Housing
Assistance for Low Income Families) programs.
The 235 program provides mortgage insurance to purchasers of single family
residences whose adjusted gross income is less than 95 percent of the area
median income. After a 6 percent down payment, purchasers are required to
spend at least 20 percent of their adjusted income toward monthly mortgage,
insurance, and tax payments. This program also provides for subsidizing the
mortgage interest rate to as low as 5 percent. A total of 751 condominiums were
sold under the 235 program in 1964. It is not known how many original owners A
still occupy the units purchased with Section 235 assistance.
Section 236 provides payments to mortgage lenders for multi-family projects to
reduce mortgage interest rates to as low as I percent in order to make
inexpensive rental or cooperative units available to low income households.
Rents are limited to 25 percent of tenants' adjusted income. HUD pays
additional subsidies to cover the difference between rents collected and the
actual operating costs of the project. The 236 program has been suspended and is
currently unavailable; however, two apartment complexes of 198 and 40 units
were previously constructed utilizing Section 236 assistance. Portions of these
projects are occupied at subsidized rents, although the exact number of assisted
households is not known.
5.3 Orange County Fair Housing Council
Huntington Beach is a member of the Orange County Fair Housing Council and
will contribute $10,000 in Community Development Block Grant funds for the
next three years for its support. The basic programs of the Fair Housing Council
include 1) housing discrimination response, 2) landlord-tenant counseling, 3) low
income housing advocacy, 4) publication of the semi-yearly Forum newsletter,
and 5) community awareness and education. In 1978, 1,018 individuals residing
in Huntington Beach were assisted by the Fair Housing Council.
50 4
5.4 Needs Addressed by Present Programs
SCAG estimates the number of elderly and handicapped households currently
needing assistance to be 1,075. When completed, the Wycliffe Gardens and old
Civic Center projects will house 342 elderly households. There are 211 elderly
households currently being assisted with Section 8 Existing subsidies; by 1980 a
projected total of 553 elderly households will be assisted, about 51.4 percent of
the estimated 1980 need.
Section 8 Existing subsidies are also assisting 349 families. (The actual number
of certificates issued in the city, and their distribution to elderly and family
applicants is determined by HUD based on the City's Housing Assistance Plan.)
New construction will provide an additional 105 units to be completed in 1980.
This will provide a total of 454 family units or 7 percent of present need for all
families. Of the 349 families receiving Section 8 assistance, 149 are large
families (5 or more persons) and 200 are small families (4 or less persons).
Current family need is estimated by SCAG at 2,284 for large families and 4,236
for small families. By 1980 present programs will have met 6.5 percent of the
large family need and 4.7 percent of small family need. Families, especially
small families, appear to have the greatest need for housing assistance at this
time. Table 5-1 indicates the number of units currently being assisted and the
percentage these units constitute of the City's overall need.
5.5 Numerical Housing Goals
The SCAG-estimated low income housing need in Huntington Beach is 7,595 units
plus a fair share allocation of 1,932 units for a total low income need of 9,527.
The State Department of Housing and Community Development suggests local
jurisdictions should realistically try to meet three percent of their housing need
per year. Current programs should provide 290 units by 1980--185 for the
elderly and 105 for families, plus an additional allocation of 23 Section 8 Existing
rental units for a total of 318 units. There will be 157 units for the elderly
completed by 1982. Discounting these units, an additional 954 units of low
income housing should be provided by 1985 or 191 low income units per year.
Current moderate income housing need is estimated to be 1,392 units. An
additional 1,021 moderate income families are expected to need housing in the
city by 1985 as a result of projected employment growth, for a total of 2,413
moderate income households. By 1985, the City should provide 362 units of
moderate income housing, or an average of 73 units per year. In addition, 31
units per year should be rehabilitated or a total of 154 units by 1985.
F am
1 F
51
r
A
e
r
6. Goals, Policies, and Programs
r
r
r
r
r 6.0 GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
The City of Huntington Beach has adopted three goals for its housing program
which are consistent with State and Regional housing policies. These goals are:
r 1. The attainment of decent housing within a satisfying living environment for
households of all socioeconomic, racial, and ethnic groups in Huntington
Beach.
2. The provision of a variety of housing opportunities by type, tenure, and cost
for households of all sizes throughout the city.
r
3. The development of a balanced residential environment with access to
employment opportunities, community facilities, and adequate services.
In order to progress toward the attainment of these goals; the City has
committed itself to specific policies and programs. The policies are organized
around five issue areas which are identified by the California Department of
Housing and Community Development as important priorities in addressing local
housing problems. This section presents a discussion of the problems inherent in
each of the issue areas, followed by policies adopted by the City to resolve these
problems. The programs intended to effect their solution then are discussed,
including anticipated impacts; responsible agencies, financing, and the time
frame for completion of each program.
r
55
6.1 ACCESSIBILITY
Providing housing opportunities for all households regardless of race, color, a
religion, sex, family size, marital status, national origin, ancestry, age or
physical disability is an essential element of a sound housing program. In order
to assure non-discrimination in housing, the City contracts with Orange County
Fair Housing Council which investigates complaints of discrimination because of
race, ethnicity, marital status, or sex. The Fair Housing council also handles
problems with evictions, rent increases, substandard housing conditions, and
disputes regarding deposit returns, as well as arbitrating landlord-tenant
conflicts.
An important aspect of discrimination in housing is the exclusion of families in
Huntington Beach with children from the rental market. While this problem is
not yet as large as in some localities, recognition and appropriate preventive
steps should be encouraged. A constricted rental market tends to exclude
families with children because landlords will prefer to rent to adults in order to
minimize maintenance and management costs. A healthy balance between rental
and ownership units may reduce this trend.
Another problem needing attention is that of handicapped and elderly persons r
whose access to decent housing may be prevented by architectural barriers.
Policies and actions addressing these special needs have been included under
accessibility because it is felt that the lack of assistance to these groups may
constitute a subtle, if unintended, form of housing discrimination.
6.1.1 Policies r
In order to assure accessibilty to decent housing for all, the City of Huntington
Beach shall:
• Promote fair housing practices throughout the city.
• Promote housing which meets the special needs of handicapped and elderly
persons.
• Encourage the provision of adequate numbers of housing units to meet the
needs of families of all sizes.
• Encourage the provision of sufficient rental units for families with children.
6.1.2 Programs
6.1.2.1 Action: Utilize the services of the Orange County Fair Housing Council .
Anticipated Impact: All complaints of discriminatory practices in housing within
the city will receive attention. In addition, Or'FHC will provide counseling in
landlord-tenant disputes, special assistance for Hispanic and female-headed
households (which includes escort services to locate adequate housing), bilingual
54
!
housing literature and video-tape presentations, day-care services, and housing
assistance counseling.
Responsible Agencies: Huntington Beach HCD
Fina�ncinq* The City will contribute to the Orange County Fair Housing Council.
Annual contributions of $10,000 in CDBG funds have tentatively been approved
through 1982.
Schedule: 1979-1982
6.1.2.2 Action: Demolish existing buildings and provide new off-site improvements on
the old Civic Center site (3.6 acres) in preparation for the construction of senior
citizen housing.
Anticipated Impact: Aid in production of up to 157 subsidized units for senior
citizen housing.
Responsible Agencies: Huntington Beach HCD
!
Financing: $100,000+ in CDBG funds
Schedule: 1980-1981
f 6.1.2.3 Action: Conduct a city-wide survey of rental housing suitable for handicapped
occupants.
Anticipated Impact: The identification of available rental housing for the
handicapped.
! Responsible Agencies: Huntington Beach HCD and the Dayle MacIntosh Center
Financing: $60,000 in CDBG funds
Schedule: 1979-1980
6.1.2.4 Action: Maintain a directory of accessible housing for handicapped persons, and
provvide referral services.
Anticipated Impact: Assistance to handicapped persons in locating housing.
Responsible Agencies: Huntington Beach HCD and the Dayle MacIntosh Center
Financing: No cost to the City
Schedule: Ongoing
r
55
6.1.2.5 Action: Provide grants to owners of rental housing for modifications necessary
to maT<e units accessible to and suitable for the physically disabled.
Anticipated Impact: The provision of an increased number of rental units
suitable for physically disabled persons.
Responsibile Agencies: Huntington Beach HCD
Financing: $20,000 in CDBG funds
Schedule: 1980-1981
6.1.2.6 Action: Fund rehabilitation loans to make housing accessible to handicapped
persons within designated neighborhoods.
Anticipated Impact: An increased amount of locational choice for the physically
disabled.
Responsible Agencies: Huntington Beach HCD
1
Financing: CDBG funds (see Section 6.4.2.3)
Schedule: Ongoing
56
6.2 ADEQUATE PROVISION
r
Adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the
community is an issue of the highest priority in Huntington Beach. For reasons
previously discussed, it appears unlikely that market forces alone will produce
housing that is affordable to low and moderate income households. Since decent
housing for all is important to the welfare of the entire city, it is particularly
S important to address this need through the use of those public powers which
impact housing.
6.2.1 Policies
To ensure adequate provision of housing for all economic segments of the
community, the City of Huntington Beach shall:
• Undertake economically feasible programs to provide for housing
throughout the community to meet the needs of low and moderate income
households.
• Provide the management and personnel resources necessary to carry out
identified housing programs and responsibilities.
• Continue and expand utilization of Federal and State housing assistance
programs.
r • Encourage the participation and financial commitment of private entities
in attaining housing goals.
• Encourage the provision and continued availability of a range of housing
types throughout the community, with variety in the number of rooms and
level of amenities.
A Promote the availability of sufficient rental housing stock to afford
maximum choice of housing type for all economic segments of the
community.
• Encourage the provision of alternative housing through replacement housing
and/or relocation for low or moderate income households displaced by
public or private developments.
6.2.2 Programs
6.2.2.1 Action: Investigate the feasibility of utilizing inclusionary zoning (including a
mechanism for offering density bonuses) to provide for construction and
continued availability of low and moderate income housing..
Anticipated Impact: The production of affordable housing. The exact number of
units would be dependent upon the provisions of the inclusionary zoning
ordinance. The range of units produced could be between 525 and 1,380 (see
Section 6.6.1).
Responsible Agencies: Departm of Development Services and the Office of
the city Attorney
lip
57
i
Financing: Department budgets
Schedule: 1979-1980
6.2.2.2 Action: Investigate the feasibility of an amendment to the Municipal Code to
permit waiver or reduction of development fees for projects participating in an
affordable housing program. !
Anticipated Impact: If feasible, such an amendment could be expected to
decrease the cost of housing.
Responsible Agencies: Department of Development Services
Financing: Department budget
Schedule: 1980
6.2.2.3 Action: Provide consultation to aid private developers in expanding housing !
opportunities.
Anticipated Impact: Increased housing choice and more affordable housing.
Responsible Agencies: Department of Development Services and Huntington
Beach HCD !
Financing: Department budgets
Schedule: Ongoing
6.2.2.4 Action: Initiate an outreach campaign to solicit participation of private
developers in affordable housing programs; maintain a roster of interested firms.
Anticipated Impact: The production of affordable housing.
Responsible Agencies: Huntington Beach HCD
Financing: HCD Budget
Schedule: Ongoing
6.2.2.5 Action: Continue to contract with the Oranqe County Housing Authority to
administer the Section 8 Leased Housing Assistance Program.
Anticipated Impact: Maintenance and expansion of the current level of assisted
housing participation in the city. Up to 23 additional units may be subsidized in
1979. Federal budget cuts in the Section 8 program make it appear unlikely that
the program will expand greatly in the next few years. If funding continues at
1979 levels, an additional 100 uni ay be expected by 1985.
58
r
Responsible Agencies: Huntington Beach HrD and the Orange County Housing
Authority.
r
Financing: Department budget
Schedule: Ongoing
6.2.2.6 Action: Expand the existing contract with the Orange County Housing Authority
to include Section 8 Existing funds to subsidize mobile home space rentals when
funds become available.
Anticipated Impact: A reduction in the number of households needing assistance
in the city, depending on the level of Section 8 funds available.
r
Responsible Agencies: Huntington Beach HCD and the Orange County Housing
Authority.
Financing: CDBG funds
r Schedule: 1979-1980
6.2.2.7 Action: Assist developers in applying for funding for assisted housing through the
e� coon 8 New Construction for Families and Large Families and other relevant
programs.
Anticipated Impact: The production of family housing units to meet the Housing
Assistance Plan goal of 192 small families and 117 large families (total 309
families in three years). Actual construction is dependent upon the availability
of HUD funding.
Responsible Agencies: Huntington Beach HCD
Financing: CDBG funds
Schedule: 1979-1982
6.2.2.8 Action: Monitor subsidized mortgage program availability and where applicable
utilize such programs to reduce housing payments. Mortgage programs include
Section 235, CHFA and County mortgage backed revenue bonds.
1 Anticipated Impact: Reduction of the number of households needing assistance
in the city whose incomes are between 80-120 percent of the county median.
Responsible Agencies: Huntington Beach HCD
Financing: CDBG, funds, Orange county bonds
Schedule: Ongoing
59
r
6.2.2.9 Action: Assist developers in applying to FHA for a reservation of mortgage
un—cs fior new construction under the Section 235 program. ,
Anticipated Impact: The production of moderate cost housing.
Responsible Agencies: Huntington Beach HCD
Financing: Staff time and administrative costs will be paid from CDBG funds. .
Schedule: 1980-1981
6.2.2.10 Action: Subsidize the cost of land and off-site improvements for the provision of
rental units for low income families. ,
Anticipated Impact: The production of up to 260 units of affordable family
housing within two years.
Responsible Agencies: Huntington Beach HCD
Financing: $400,000 CBDG funds
Schedule: 1980-1982
6.2.2.11 Action: Contract with the Orange County Housing Authority to screen and i
verify incomes of potential participants in housing programs.
Antici ated Impact: Ensure that recipients of affordable housing are qualified
for such housing.
Responsible Agencies: Huntington Beach HCD
Financing: To be developed Possible Sources: Developer fees, CBDG funds or
of eh r grants
Schedule: 1980-1981
am
60 4
6.3 STANDARDS AND PLANS FOR ADEQUATE SITES
A key element in satisfying the housing needs of all segments of the community
is the provision of adequate sites for housing of all types, sizes, and prices. This
is an important function of both zoning and General Plan land use designations.
Since the city is already developed to a large extent, provision for future housing
needs may require the rezoning of some areas where appropriate to meet housing
needs and where economically feasible in terms of City facilities and services.
An assessment of the adequacy of sites must include the collective capacity of
sites community-wide as well as the suitability of individual sites for non-market
rate housing.
6.3.1 Policies
To assure the adequate provision of sites for housing, the City of Huntington
Beach shall:
• Locate residential uses in proximity to commercial and industrial areas and
transportation routes to provide convenient access to employment centers.
• Plan for residential land uses which accommodate anticipated growth from
new employment opportunities.
• Utilize the following criteria for identifying and evaluating potential sites
for low and moderate cost housing. Sites should be:
- located with convenient access to:
arterial highways and public transportation
schools, parks, and recreational facilities
shopping areas
r employment opportunities
- adequately served by public facilities, services, and utilities
- minimally impacted by seismic and flood hazards. Where such hazards
cannot be avoided, adequate mitigation measures shall be incorporated
into the design of all proposed development.
- minimally impacted by noise and blighted conditions
- compatible with surrounding existing and planned land uses
- located outside areas of predominantly lower income concentrations
• Ensure that any adverse impacts resulting from the provision of low and
moderate income housing are minimized.
6.3.2 Programs
AMk
I HP
/ 61
6.3.2.1 Action: Acquire sites to provide for future affordable housing, utilizing CDBG
funds—and other available resources.
I a
Anticipated Impact: Increase the supply of.affordable housing.
Responsible Agencies: Department of Development Services and Huntington
Beach HCD
Financing: $500,000 per year CDBO funds; other resources as available
Schedule: 1980-1981
6.3.2.2 Action: Review the proposed comprehensive revision of Division 9 of the city
Municipal Code to ensure it reflects Housing Element policies and programs
while maintaining adequate standards for development.
Anticipated Impact: Ensure consistency in carrying out the housing program
while maintaining quality development.
Responsible Agencies: Department of Development Services
Financing: nepartment budget
Schedule: 1979-1980
6.3.2.3 Action: Develop zoning ordinances to implement the Mixed Development and
Planned Community land use designations.
Anticipated Impact_: Increased use of these designations will add flexibility to
land utilization and increase the potential for a variety of housing types. ,
Responsible Agencies: Department of Development Services
Financing: Department budget
Schedule: 1981
6.3.2.4 Action: Monitor changes in industrial and commercial land uses to assess their
impact on residential land use.
Anticipated Impact: This action is intended to reflect changing conditions in the
city in order to adequately respond to current housing needs.
Responsible Agencies: Department of Development Services
Financing: Department budget
Schedule: Ongoing
62
6.3.2.5 Action: Investigate General Plan land use and zoning designations to determine
w—Pere increased densities can be utilized to provide for rental units for
households of lower and moderate incomes.
Anticipated Impact: Increase in the number of suitable sites for development of
affordable housing.
r Responsible Agencies: Department of Development Services
Financing: Department budget
Schedule: 1979-1980
r 6.3.2.6 Action: Develop a Community Facilities Element which provides for a capital
improvement program.
Anticipated I�mea�ct• This project will provide direction for the orderly
development and adequate provision of facilities and services to all areas of the
community. This is especially important if densities in certain areas are
increased to provide affordable housing.
Responsible Agencies: Department of Development Services and Department of
Public Works
r Financing: Department budgets
Schedule: 1979-1980
6.3.2.7 Action: Investigate the feasibility of utilizing vacated school and park sites and
other publicly owned land for low and moderate cost housing.
Anticipated Impact: Increase in the availability of sites for low and moderate
income housing, and provision of incentives to private developers to produce
affordable housing.
Res onsbile Agencies: Department of Development Services and Department of
Public Works
Financing: Department budgets
Schedule: 1979-1980
/
6.3.2.8 Action: Create and maintain an inventory of sites suitable for affordable housing.
Anticipated Impact: This action will facilitate the production of affordable
housing.
Responsible Agencies: Huntington Beach HCD
we
/ 63
Financing: CDBG funds
Schedule: 1980
N
r
64
6.4 PRESERVING HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOODS
The State of r'alifornia has made housing preservation and conservation a high
statewide priority. While most of the city's housing stock is less than 20 years
old and in good condition, a recent Community Analysis Study identified areas of
deteriorated older units. Two neighborhoods in particular, the Downtown and the
Oakview neighborhood, have been designated as targets for rehabilitation under
r the Community Development Block Grant Program. Efforts to interest area
property owners in low interest or no interest loans have met with only marginal
success. In many cases, owners of rental units appear to consider the present use
an interim one until the property can be recycled. A public information
campaign is being conducted by the Huntington Beach Housing and Community
Development Department to disseminate information to owners and encourage
the use of available funds for rehabilitation.
6.4.1 Policies
In order to preserve housing and neighborhoods, the City of Huntington Beach
shall:
• Encourage the maintenance and repair of existing owner-occupied and rental
housing to prevent deterioration of housing in the city.
• Encourage the rehabilitation of substandard and deteriorating housing where
feasible.
r
• Where possible, take action to promote the removal and replacement of
those substandard units which cannot be rehabilitated.
• Provide and maintain an adequate level of community facilities and
municipal services in all community areas.
r
• Improve and upgrade community facilities and services where necessary.
6.4.2 Programs
6.4.2.1 Action: Review all changes in planned land uses to determine the cumulative
impact on community facilities.
Anticipated Impact: The assurance of adequate levels of community facilities
and services to all areas of the city.
Res onsible Agencies: Department of Development Services and Department of
1 u lic Works
Financing: Department budgets
Schedule: Ongoing
1
1 65
6.4.2.2 Action: Provide individual rebates of up to $250 per assisted household for the
"Cherish" program. (Operated by the Kiwanis Club, this program utilizies high
school volunteers to perform minor home repairs and improvement chores for low
income senior citizens.)
Anticipated Impact: Upgrading of neighborhoods where elderly residents have
problems maintaining their premises. Program goals are 20-25 units per year.
Responsible Agencies: Huntington Beach HCD
Financing: rDBG funds (a component of action 6.4.2.3)
Schedule: Ongoing
6.4.2.3 Action: Continue to publicize and make available low interest rehabilitation
loans7or owner-occupied and rental housing.
Anticipated Impact: Rehabilitation of deteriorated housing in the city and
reduction in the numbers of units requiring rehabilitation. The program goal is
25 units per year with a maximum loan of $15,000 per unit.
Responsible Agencies: Huntington Beach HCD
Financing: $850,000 in CDBG funds
Schedule: 1978-1982
6.4.2.4 Action: Investigate the feasibility of instituting a program of grants to low
income owner-occupant households for rehabilitation, particularly repainting and
repairs.
Anticipated Impact: Rehabilitation and improvement in areas where
deterioration is not severe; prevention of further deterioration of neighborhoods
which are marginal. The program goal is 20 units per year (including households
assisted under 6.4.2.2).
Responsible Agencies: Huntington Beach HCD
Financing: Grants of up to $2,500 will be made from CDBG funds (a component
of action 6.4.2.3)
Schedule: Ongoing
6.4.2.5 Action: Monitor housing conditions in neighborhoods considered marginal or at
risk for deteriorated conditions in order to identify the need to expand existing
rehabilitation programs.
Anticipated Impact: The prevention of deterioration in marginal neighborhoods.
AfWk
sm
66 4
Responsible Agencies: Huntington Beach HCD
r Financing: CDBG funds
Schedule: Ongoing
AMk
r
r
r
r 67
6.5 PRESERVING AFFORDABILITY
An important aspect of making housing available to all economic segments of the '
community is ensuring that assisted housing remains affordable to the income
groups for which it was intended or which presently occupy it. In the rental
housing market, the priority of preserving affordability may conflict with that of
preserving housing and neighborhoods, since rehabilitated units can command
higher rents. This conflict necessitates a delicate balance.
6.5.1 Policies
In order to preserve affordability, the City of Huntington Beach shall:
• Promote and where possible require the continued affordability of all units
produced with participation by the City or its authorized agents (including ,
inclusionary zoning).
• Encourage the continued affordability of those units utilizing public funds
for rehabilitation.
• Discourage the conversion of existing apartment units to condominiums
where such conversion will diminish the supply of low and moderate income 1
housing.
6.5.2 Programs
6.5.2.1 Action: Establish a program for continued affordability of low and moderate .
cost units developed under the housing program.
Anticipated Impact: The retention of affordable units produced under the
housing program.
Responsible Agencies: Department of Development Services and the Office of ,
the City Attorney
Financing: Department budgets
Schedule: 1979-1980
6.5.2.2 Action: Investigate the effect of condominium conversions on the housing
market and prepare a condominium conversion ordinance.
Anticipated Impact: Prevention of the potential loss of affordable rental units.
Responsible Agencies: Department of Development Services and the Office of
the City Attorney
Financing: Department budgets
Schedule: 1980
68 lip
6.6 SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATF_D IMPAOTS
Confronted with the need to provide large numbers of affordable housing units
and limited or declining budget prospects in the near future, the City can satisfy
its housing needs only through an active partnership with the private sector. The
preceeding actions have been designed to foster cooperation between the City
and private enterprise. An assessment of the impact of these actions on housing
need follows.
6.6.1 Assisted Housing
If the proposed actions are carried out as planned, 569 units of assisted housing
for low income families will be provided by 1985. This represents 60 percent of
the Housing Program's 1985 goal, leaving 40 percent, or 385 units, to be
developed by other means. One mechanism being considered which would provide
these .additional units is inclusionary zoning and density bonuses (See footnote to
Section 4.2.1).
The following table estimates the numbers of units which could result from such
a program. In order to make these estimates, the vacant medium and high
density residential acreage which is expected to be developed by 1985 was used
as a computational base. In reality, many of the smaller parcels currently vacant
may not be large enough to be subject to an inclusionary zoning ordinance. The
City plans to study the feasibility of inclusionary zoning and the number of units
which would result from adoption of an inclusionary ordinance. Therefore, the
following figures should be taken only as a rough guide to the maximum medium
and high density units the General Plan would allow if inclusionary zoning were
adopted; the actual numbers may be considerably smaller. It should also be noted
that the number of acres estimated to. be developed by 1985 have not been
assessed in detail. A more refined estimate will be developed with the feasibility
study.
Medium Density High Density Total
(300 acres) (30 acres) Units
10% inclusionary 450 75 525
+5 units/acre density bonus 600 90 690
15% inclusionary 675 113 788
+5 units/acre density bonus 900 135 1,035
20% inclusionary 900 150 1,050
+5 units/acre denisty bonus 1,200 180 1,380
The net result of an inclusionary zoning ordinance could be the production
sufficient low and moderate cost housing to fulfill the City's Housing Program
goals by 1985. The exact numbers of units produced would depend upon the
details of the enacted ordinance and the rate of development of vacant
residential land.
XWk
69
6.6.2 Rehabilitation
Under the proposed programs 45 units would he rehabilitated yearly through
1982. If federal funding permits these programs to continue, the City will be
able to more than fulfill its rehabilitation goals through 1985.
70
1
r
r
1
r '
1
Appendix A
1
1
1
APPENDIX A
DEFINITIONS
Adequate housing: Housing which
1) is structurally sound, water-tight and weather-tight, with adequate cooking and
plumbing facilities, heat, light, and ventilation.
2) contains enough rooms to provide reasonable privacy for its occupants.
3) is within the economic means of the households who occupy it.
Affordability: The relationship between household income and housing costs. A housing unit
is considered affordable if the cost to occupy it does not exceed 25 percent of the gross
. income of the household that occupies it.
Amenity: Any service or facility which extends beyond the definition of adequate housing.
Council of Governments: An organization created to undertake regional planning and whose
membership is composed of elected officials of local governments in the planning area; an
organization recognized as an areawide planning organization by the Federal Department of
Housing and Urban Development.
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD): The department of the
California 5tate Government which is responsible for preparation of the statewide housing
element and housing element guidelines, review of local housing elements, and technical
. assistance to local jurisdictions.
Elderly: Persons 62 years of age or older.
Fair Share Adjustment: A city's additional housing responsibility for regional housing market
nee s as-developed by the regional council of government. It is based on the city's proximity
to jobs, its ability to provide public services and facilities, the relationship of the local
income distribution to regional income distribution, and expected community growth.
General housing market or market area: A regional geographical unit characterized by an
economic and social interdependence with respect to the provision of housing and
employment opportunities.
Handicapped: Persons determined to have a physical impairment or mental disorder which
is expected to be of long-continued or indefinite duration and is of such a nature that the
person's ability to live independently could.be improved by more suitable housing conditions.
Household: All persons occupying a single dwelling unit.
Housing Unit: The place of permanent usual abode of a person, including a single-family
dwelling, a single unit in a two-family dwelling, multi-family or multi-purpose dwelling, a
unit of a condominium or cooperative housing project, a nonhousekeeping unit, a
mobile-home, or any other residential unit which is considered to be real property under
State law.
Income: Salary and/or wages, interest from assets, tips, pensions, assistance grants.
A-1
Income ranges: Those categories established for the purposes of defining households of
low, moderate, and upper earnings. The listing below shows income categories and their
corresponding dollar ranges based on the most recent Orange County median income for
a family of four (1978: $19,500).
Category Definition Current dollar range
Low 0-80% of OC median $ 0 - 15,600
Moderate 80-120% of OC median $15,600 - 23,400
Upper Over 120% of OC median $23,400 and over
Large family: A family of 5 or more persons
Locality: Any county, city and county, or city including charter cities.
Market-rate household: A household which, as determined by the allocating entity, has
the financial capability to meet its housing needs without sacrificing other essential
needs.
Needing rehabilitation: A housing unit which in its present state materially endangers.
the health, safety, or well-being of its occupants in one or more respects, and which is
economically feasible to repair.
Needing replacement: A housing unit which in its present state materially endangers the
health, safety, or well-being of its occupants in one or more respects, and which is not
economically feasible to repair.
Non-market-rate household: A household which does not have the financial capability to
meet its housing needs without sacrificing other essential needs.
Overcrowding: Households which have 1.01 or more persons per room.
Southern California Association of Governments (SLAG): The council of governments
established y local governments in Los Angeles, range, Ventura, San Bernardino,
Riverside and Imperial Counties to facilitate regional planning for the area.
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) An entity consisting of a central city (or
cities) and economically dependent suburban cities including the counties in which they
are located, as determined by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget.
Suitability/habitability: The condition of a housing unit; households living in units
requiring rehabilitation or replacement are considered to have needs with respect to
suitability and/or habitability.
Very low-income household: A household whose income, with adjustments for household
size, does not exceed 50 percent of the median household income of the county.
1
A-2 .
Appendix B
FOR FILING ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS
. - WITII THE SECRETARY OF STATE a
(Pursuant to Government Code Secuon 113S0.L)
Copy below is hereby certified' to be a true
and correct copy of regulations adopted. or
amended. or an order of repeal by:
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
�nMMUN ITY VELr1PMFNT
- - t4t�ee7)
Date of adoption, ndment, or repeal:
By: or
-
}
ITwoo
O NOT WRITE IN TMIS SPACE 00 NOT WRITE IN T"IS SPACE
Pursuant to the authority vested by Section 41134 of the Health and Safety Code,
and Section 65302(c) of the Government Code, and to. implement, interpret, and
make specific Section 65302 of the Government Code, 'the Department of Housing
and Community Development adopts regulations in .Title 25, California Administra-
tive Code, as follows:
Subchapter 4 is added to Chapter 6 to read:
Subchapter 4. HOUSING ELEMENT GUIDELINES
Article 1. General
6400. Authority. The regulations contained herein are prescribed by the
Department of Housing and Community Development, pursuant to authority granted
in Health and Safety Cade Section 41134 and Government Code Section 65302(c) ,
and are to be followed in the preparation of local housing elements required
by Government Code Section 65302(c) . These regulations are binding on all
counties , cities and counties , and cities including charter cities.
6402. Short Title. These regulations may be cited as the "State Housing
Element Guide ines' (hereinafter "Cuidelines") .
� u
6404. State Policy. The Legislature has found the subject of housing to be
of vital statewide importance and has declared the early attainment of a decent
= home and a satisfying environment for every Californian to be a priority of the
highest order.
_ • The early attainment of this state housing goal requires the cooperative
participation of the private and public sectors of the economy in efforts to
z expand housing opportunities to accommodate tt:e needs of all Californians for
housing which:
o (a) Is structurally sound, water-tight and weather-tight, with adequate
z cooking and plumbino facilities , heat, light, and ventilation.
a (b) Contains enough rooms to provide reasonable privacy for its occupants .
(c) Is within the economic means of the households who occupy it.
(d) Is not unavailable because of discriminatory practices .
(e) Is situated in an environment which does not endanger the health, safety ,
or well-being of its occupants, and which provides convenient access to eriniploy-
ment as well as adequate services and facilities.
B-1
AOOA ts.?tt CONTINUAtION SHUT
FOR FILING AOMINSTRATIVE REGULATIONS
WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE .
(IWWAM to Go►*rnn"ewl Cod• soctien 11180.1)
The requirement that housing elements be included as mandatory components
of local general plans reflects a legislative recognition that local planning
.and program commitment play an integral role in pursuit of this goal . To
assure that local planning effectively implements statewide policy, the
Legislature , in Government Code Section 65302(c) , has established general
standards to be followed in the preparation of mandatory housinq elements :
(a) A housinq element is to consist of standards and plans for the improve-
ment of housinq and for provision of adequate sites for housinq.
(b) In addition, this element of the qeneral plan shall make adequate ,
provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community.
6406. Purpose. The purpose of these Guidelines is to make specific the general
legis ative mandate established by Section 65302(c) of the Government Code. As
interpretative regulations , the Guidelines also establish the criteria against
which local compliance with the general mandate of Section 65302 is to be measured.
Local housing elements are to be developed pursuant to these regulations.
In a,ddi ti on , if barriers to. effective housing delivery are to be reduced,
it is desirable that all activities relative to the planning for and delivery
of housing on the state, regional , and local levels 'be both cooperative and
coordinated. These Guidelines are intended not only to provide localities with
specific guidance and direction in complying with the mandate of Section 65302(c)
but also to promote compatibility of efforts at the various levels of government.
6408. Scope. In requiring a local housing element, state law calls for a
W comprehensive problem-solving strategy responsive to the housing needs of the
entire community. If needs are to be adequately addressed , Vt is essential
that the scope of the local housing problem be documented and analyzed. While
z documentation of the scope of the housing problem is essential , the heart of
i the housing element lies in those provisions relating to the development and
implementation of a housing program. If a housing element is to make adequate
provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community, it
must contain assurances that the problems it documents and analyzes will be
Z addressed on the practical level through the strategies and policies it
S develops. These Guidelines are intended to elicit such assurances.
6410. Definitions. As used in these Guidelines , each of the following terms
shall have t e meaning indicated:
(a) "Allocating entity" means a public entity operating pursuant to
Section 6424 of these Guidelines.
(b) "Council of Governments" means an organization created pursuant to a
joint exercise of powers agreement to undertake planning and whose membership
is composed solely of elected officials of units of local government within
the planning jurisdiction or their representatives and which is recognized
as an areawide planning agency by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
(c) "Department" means the Department of Housing and Community Development.
(d) "Director" means the Director of the- Department of Housing and Community
Development.
(e) "Elderly" means persons 62 years of age or older.
( f)~ "General housing market area" or "market area" means a regional geo-
graphical unit, established by the allocating entity, within which local inter-
action has resulted in an economic and social interdependence with respect to
the provision of housing , employment and service opportunities.
(a) "Handicapped" means persons determined to have a physical impairment
or mental disorder which is expected to be of long-continued or indefinite
B-2
WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE
(►wsww, le Go...ww«w cede S.�Kew 11»0.1)
duration and is of such a nature that the person's ability to live independently
could be improved by more suitable housing conditions.
(h) "Household" means all persons occupying a single dwelling unit.
( i ) "Housing unit" or "unit" means the. place of permanent or customary and
1 usual abode of a person, including a single-family dwelling, a single unit in
a two-family dwelling, multi-family or multi-purpose dwelling, a unit of a
condominium or cooperative housing project, a nonhousekeeping unit, a mobile-
home, or any other residential unit which either is considered to be real
property under State law or cannot be moved without substantial damage or
unreasonable cost.
1 (j) "Large family" means a family of 5 or more .persons.
(k) "Locality" means any county, city and county, or city including charter
cities. -
(1 ) "Lower-income household" means a household whose income with adjustments
for household size, does not exceed 80% of the median household income
1 of the standard metropolitan statistical area (SMSA) or,' outside SMSAs, the
county.
(1)• "Market-rate, households" means those households ,-rho, as determined by
the allocating entity, have the financial capabilia.ty to meet their housing
needs without sacrificing other essential needs.
(n) "Needing rehabilitation" refers to a housing unit which in its present
1 state materially endangers the health, safety or well-being of its occupants
in one or more respects , and which is economically feasible to repair.
(o) "Meeding replacement" refers to a dwelling unit which in its present
state materially endangers the health, safety or well-being of its occupants
in one or more respects , and which is not economically feasible to repair.
1 (p) "Nonmarket - rate households" means households who , as determined by
the allocating entity, do not have the financial capability to meet their
Z housing needs without sacrificing other essential needs.
Id
_H
Q
(q) "Very low-income household" means a household whose income, with
1 z adjustments for household size, does not exceed 50% of the median household
$ income of the standard metropolitan statistical area or, outside tMSAs , the
county.
6412. Terminology. The following words are used throughout these Guidelines
to indicate whether a particular provision is mandatory, advisory, or permissive:
1 (a) "Must" or "shall" identifies a mandatory provision which all localities
are required to follow.
(b) "Should" identifies guidance provided by the Department based on policy
considerations contained in state law. Localities are advised to follow that
, guidance in the absence of compelling, countervailing considerations, but are
1 not required to do so.
(c) "May" identifies a permissive subject or part of the Guidelines which is
left fully to the discretion of the localities.
6a14. Purpose of Local Housing Elements . As the major local housing strategy
document, the local housing element is intended to provide citizens and public
officials with an understanding of the housing needs of the community, and to
1 set forth an integrated set of policies and programs aimed at -the attainment
of defined goals. In so doing, the housing element will serve not only as a
programmatic expression of a local commitment to act, but will also provide
guidance and. direction to local governmental decision-making in all matters
relating to housing. In addition , the provision of decent housing in a
1
B-3
COWINVA110H SM111
FOR FILING ADMINSTRATIVE REGULATIONS
WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE
(Punuowl fo Ge.vinnwnt Cod* $.Co.** 11380.1)
satisfying environment, especially for lower, income households ,
is a goal whose attainment depends upon the shared commitment of federal ,
state and local government. The local housing element is intended to
promote closer coordination of local , state and federal housing policies
and programs.
6416. Housing Element Content -- General . Local housing elements shall
include the following:
(a) In accordance with the provisions of Article 3, an evaluation of
the housing problem including an analysis of the capacity of the existing
housing supply to provide all economic segments of- the community with
decent housing.
(b) In accordance with the provisions of Article 4, a housing program
consisting of a comprehensive problem-solving strategy adopted by the
local governing body which both establishes local housing goals , policies ,
and priorities aimed at alleviating unmet need and remedying the housing
problem, and sets forth the course of action which the locality is
undertaking and intends to undertake to effectuate these goals , policies,
and priorities. Making adequate provision for the -housing needs of all economic
segments of the community requires each locality to plan affirmatively,
through its housing element program, for a balanced housing supply
suited to the needs of the community as defined in Section 6 418 of these
regulations.
u 6418. The Community To Be Served by the Local Housing Element. Because
local housing policies and programs have market area as we _as local
impact, and because housing need is a function of the general housing market,
it is not enough for a locality to measure its responsibilities to the com-
z munity in terms of the housing needs of its resident population. In
addition, each locality within a general housing market area shares with other
3 localities the collective responsibility for making adequate provision
0 for the housing needs of all economic segments of the market area popula-
o tion. Therefore, the housing element also must be responsive to the
° housing needs of a fair share of those households who do not live in
the locality but whose housing opportunities are affected by the planning
decisions of the locality.
For housing element purposes the community to be served by the local
housing element includes a fair share of those market area households
determined pursuant to Article 2 of these Guidelines , who would live within
the local jurisdiction were a variety and choice of housing appropriate to
their needs available.
Article 2. Fair Share Allocation Plans
6420. Fair Share Allocation. To assist localities in evaluating their
fair share responsibilities and to provide for an equitable and reasonable
distribution of responsibility for accommodating the locational needs of
all economic strata of the market region , the Department of Housing and
Community Development shall , for each general housing market area within
the state, prepare or delegate preparation of, as provided in Section 6424
of these regulations , a fair share allocation plan.
B-4
^ WITH THE SECRETARY Of STATE .`..-
(Ivneowt to eo"I'M ..d code Section 11780.))
6422. Purpose cf Fair Share Allocation Plans. The purpose of the fair
share allocation plan is to provide localities with a general measure of
local responsibility for addressing a fair share of the market area housing
need. The fair share allocation will provide each locality with a pre-
sumptive identification of housing needs for which adequate provision must
be made in the housing element.
6d24. Allocating Entity. Each Council of Governments is delegated the
preparation of a fair share allocation plan for the housing market or
markets within its geographical jurisdiction; provided that, where pre-
paration of a fair share allocation plan is delegated to a Council of
Governments , initial allocations shall be completed no later than July 1, _
1978. If the Council of Governments does not allocate market
area housing needs among the localities within the general housing market area
by July 1 , 1978, the Department shall perform the housing needs allocation
which had been delegated to the regional planning body.
.there general housing market areas are established by the Department
outside the jurisdictional reach of a Council of Governments, the Depart-
ment shall provide the localities within the general housing market area
with an opportunity to formulate an allocation plan for the area. The
localities shall have a period of one year after notification by the Depart-
ment that they constitute a general housing market area , within which to
establish a fair share allocation plan. The Department shall upon
request provide the localities with technical assistance in preparing their
plan. If within one year of the date of notification a plan has not
been prepared, the Department may at its discretion prepare a plan for
a the general housing market area.
z
z Ea26. Focus of Fair Share Allocation Plans. In allocating fair share
responsibilities , the allocating entity should focus on non-market rate
households. In most circumstances the private market m chanism will
o adequately provide for the housing needs of market rate households. At
c the discretion of the allocating entity, however, the allocation plan may
° also incorporate such market rate households.
6428. Content of Fair Share Allocation Plans. Each fair share alloca-
tion plan sha
(a) Identify the general housing market area to which it applies.
(b) Estimate by tenure and rent/sales price the immediate and projected
regional housing need of nonmarket-rate households. Such need estimates
should include the following categories :
( 1) Household size
(2) Elderly
(3) Such other special needs as are deemed appropriate by the
allocating entity.
The estimate of projected need should extend over at least a three year
period following the effective date of the plan.
(c) Assign to each locality a fair share of the need estimated in (b)
' of this section.
6430. Distribution Criteria . In allocating to each locality a fair
share of the responsibility for addressing nonmarket-rate housing need ,
each allocating entity shall establish its own distribution criteria.
B-5
CONIINUGTION small
FOR FILING ADMINSTRATIVE REGULATIONS
WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE .
(Purtwonl to Govornmonl Code Socllon 11]80.1)
The distribution criteria developed by the allocating entity must be con-
sistent with the policy objectives outlined in Section 6450(a) and must
seek:
(a) To expand the range of locational choice within the market area
for nonmarket-rate households.
(b) To improve access to employment, services, and other opportunities
for nonmarket-rate households.
6432. Efforts to Accommodate .Housing Need in Excess of Fair Share
Allocations. The fair share allocations called for by these Guidelines
are not intended to discourage or prevent any locality from seeking and
encouraging the development of assisted housing in excess of that necessary
to meet its fair share of the market area housing needs. Local commitment
measured in terms of the supporting programs a locality is willing to
bring to bear on its housing problems is a factor which should not be
ignored in distributing government subsidies. While a state or federal
agency may wish to give priority to applications for housing subsidies
from those localities who have not yet satisfied their fair share res-
ponsibilities , the fact that a locality wishes to take responsibility for
accommodating housing need in excess of its fair share should not
be a basis for denying a locality's application.,
Y
u
6434. Public Comments on Fair Share Allocation Plans. the allocating ,
entity shall , prior to the effective date of the allocation plan, afford
reasonable opportunity for full review, comment, and input by both the
Z affected localities and' the public on the determinations of nonmarket-
rate housing needs for the general housing market area or areas, the dis-
tribution criteria developed pursuant to Section 6430, and the proposed
i fair share allocations made pursuant to Article 2 of these Guidelines.
8 6436. Challenging a Fair Share Allocation. The- allocating entity shall
establish a proce ure y which a locality may challenge its fair share
allocation as inequitable or unreasonable. Where such a challenge does
not result in a mutually acceptable allocation, the locality may, in its
housing element indicate its belief that the allocation exceeds its fair
share responsibilities. Where a locality proposes to substitute its own
fair share figures for a challenged allocation, however, it assumes the
burden of establishing in its housing element factors or circumstances which
indicate that the assigned allocation is unreasonable or inequitable as applied
' to the local jurisdiction and of justifying the fair share figures it
proposes to substitutefor the challenged allocations.
Article 3. The Housing Problem
6438. Ascertaining Housing Needs . The fundamental measure of success of ,
a local housing element is its effectiveness in addressing housing needs.
If a housing element is to make adequate provision for the housing needs
of all economic segments of the community, the dimensions and character of
need must first be ascertained. Housing needs exist to the extent that
B-6
FOR FILING AdMINSTRATiVE REGULATIONS
WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE
(Purlww,to Govo1""M Cods Section 11780.1) 7
the existing housing supply falls- short of providing all economic segments
of the community with decent housing. In assessing the dimensions and
character of need for which adequate provision must be made in a local
housing element, a locality must consider 'the housing needs of households
residing within its geographical jurisdiction and the prospective need for
market-rate housing along with its fair share allocation of the nonmarket-rate
housing need within the general housing market area of which it is part. In
evaluating housing needs local housing elements shall include estimates of:
(a) Prospective need for market-rate housing over a five year period --
such estimate to take into account:
(1) Expected new household formation.
(2) Adjustments in the housing preferences of resident households.
(3) Anticipated population growth.
(4) Expected growth in employment opportunities .
(5) Such other factors as the locality deems appropriate. Where the
locality accepts a fair share allocation covering market rate as well as
ncnmarket-rate housing need, independent local evaluation of prospective market-
rate housing need is optional .
(b) Immediate housing needs analyzed in terms of:
( 1) Affordability -- the number of very low and lower income house-
holds occupying units at a cost greater than 25% of gross household income.
(2) Overcrowding -- the number of housing units with 1.01 or more
persons per room.
(3) Suitability/habitability -- the number of households living
in housing needing rehabilitation or replacement. ;
(4) Special needs — attention to the special needs of large
families , minority households, the elderly, the handicapped, and persons'
displaced as a result of public activities, and others as the locality deems
Z appropriate.
6440. Methodoloqy. The locality's assessment of housing need called for
3 by Section 6438, is based on analysis of the relationship between the
z existing housing stock and the economic and demographic characteristics
S of the community. In evaluating the existing housing stock and' the socio-
economic character of the community, the locality may use any methodology
which assures reasonably accurate and reliable estimates of need. The
methodologies upon which the housing element relies in evaluating need
must be identified, either in the housing element itself or in an appendix
accompanying the element.
6442. Data Collection. The primary source of data is the United States
Census. Beginning in 1980, U.S. Census data will be collected every 5
years. As the more accurate and timely census information becomes available,
-it should be incorporated into the data base. Prior to the availability
of 1980 census data, localities should use the best readily available data.
6.144. Market Constraints. If the housing element is to have an impact
on the private market through the standards and plans it sets forth, it
should first analyze the market constraints which affect the production
of housing. Included in this analysis should be an assessment of the
cost factors which contribute to sale price or monthly rentals and an
evaluation of the types of housing (single-family, multi-family, mobile-
homes , etc. ) which can be provided at different price levels within the
existing constraints of the market.
B-7
TO. 400A ,6.711 CONTINUATION SHE[T
FOR FILING ADMINSTRATIVE REGULATIONS
WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE
(Pursuant to Go•eroTwnt Code Section 11760.1)
6446. Governmental Constraints. The housing element should also analyze
those public actions which constrain the maintenance, improvement or develop-
ment of housing. This analysis should include:
(a) Local land use controls.
(b) Local building codes and their enforcement.
(c) On site and off site improvements required of developers.
(d) Local processing of zoning changes , use permits, building permits.,
environmental clearance, and any other types of permits, approvals or clearances
required by the locality prior to construction or rehabilitation of a
housing development.
(e) Fees required by the locality prior to construction or rehabilita-
tion of a housing development.
(f) Other public actions as deemed appropriate.
6448. Reoiondl Relationships . While a locality' s fair share alloca-
tion is based on an evaluation of local interrelationships, localities
may ' find it helpful for program development purposes to include in their
housing elements an analysis of the regional context within which the
locality operates. This analysis of regional relationships could, for
example:
(a) Compare and contrast the local housing, income , population, and
employment trends with those of neighboring jurisdictions , the general
housing market area, and of the region.
(b) Assess the impact of regional pressures on the local housing problem,
and of local pressures on the housing problems of neighboring jurisdic-
tions, the general housing market area, and of the region.
= Article 4. The Housing Program
W
F
6450. The Housing Program. Once needs have been identified and the
0 housing problem analyzed , a locality must, through its housing element,
$ move toward the alleviation of identified need and the remedying of
the housing problem. For this purpose, housing elements shall include a
housing program consisting of:
(a) A statement of the goals . policies . and priorities , which together provide
the framework around which the local housing plans are developed and
implemented. In adopting local goals , policies and priorities, the
locality expresses a comrritment to act in accordance with the standards
they provide.
As indicated in Section 6404 of these Guidelines , the Legislature has
established the provision of a decent home and a satisfying environment
' for every Californian as the state housing goal and has declared attain-
ment of this goal to be a priority of the highest order. In support
of the state goal of decent housing for all , the Department has established
the following three policy objectives :
( 1) The provision of decent housing in a satisfying
environment for all persons regardless of age, race, sex, marital status ,
ethnic background, source of income or other arbitrary factors.
(2) The provision of housing selection by location ,
type, price, and tenure.
(3) The development of a balanced residential
environment with access to employment opportunities , community facilities ,
and adequate services.
FOR FILING;"ADMINSTRAb4 REGULATIONS
W9?H THE SECRETARY OF STATE
(►u"We .to Ge"folmom Code section 11380.1)
Local housing goals, policies , and priorities mus be related to the
state housing goal as set forth in Section ,6404 of these Guidelines and
consistent with the three policy objectives set forth above. Local housing
goals, policies , and priorities should be- well integrated so as to present
a sound set of guiding g principles for the housing program.
(b) A description of those plans which the locality is in the process
of implementing or intends to implement in furthering the goals, policies,
and priorities it has established. Each plan description shall :
( 1) Identify the specific objective 'to be accomplished. Where
possible, specific objectives should indicate in quantitative terms the
anticipated impact of the program with respect to' diminution in housing need.
(2) Specifically describe the actions which are being or will be
undertaken as part of the plan strategy. -
(3) Discuss how the plan will be or is being financed.
(4) Identify the public agency which has the principal responsibility
P for implementing the plan.
(5) Establish a reasonable time frame for accomplishment of the
specific objective, which allows for the assessment of progress.
(c) If a particular strategy is still in the developmental rather than
implementation stage at the time the housing element comes up for adoption,
the housing element should clearly set out:
(1) The particular aspects of the housing problem to be or being
studied,
(2) The policy the study is intended to implement,
Id (3) The group responsible for its study,
96
(4) A time frame for completion of the study.
i
z_
Y
F
3 6452. Preserving Housing and Neighborhoods. The housing. program of_ a ._
local housing element shall describe the steps being taken to preserve
z existing housing and neighborhoods through such measures as rehabilitation,
S code adoption and enforcement, improvements in housing management and
maintenance, and the provision of adequate municipal facilities and
services , recognizing that housing preservation and conservation are high
statewide priorities.
i
6454. Preserving Affordability. In areas where actions are aimed at
conserving or expanding the supply of sound housing, the effect of such
actions on housing affordability should also be evaluated. For example,
the plan description should consider the effect of rehabilitation programs ,
• including anti-redlining activities, and conservation programs , such as
code enforcement, on rents and property taxes in the affected areas .
The housing program shall emphasize the importance of preserving afforda-
bility at the same time condition is being improved or maintained.
6456. Standards and Plans for Adequate Sites. The physical capacity
of a local jurisdiction to address need is in part a function of the
availability of adequate sites. Each locality must include in its housing
element standards and plans for provision of adequate sites for housing.
Sites are adequate only to the extent they provide suitable locations
which can collectively accommodate a ranae of housing (type, size, and
price) responsive to the needs of all economic segments of the community.
B-9
ROpr 400A CONTINUAtION $UNIT
FOR FILING ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS
WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE A
(Pursuant to Government Code Section I1300.1) C
(a) Suitability of individual sites -- housing elements should include
standards to be used in evaluating the suitability of individual sites
for nonmarket-rate housing.
(b) Collective capacity of sites to accommodate an appropriate range
of housing -- in developing standards and plans for the provision of
adequate sites , local housing elements shall focus on assuring that both
local land use controls and the local infrastructure of services and
facilities are compatible with the provision of a range of housing opportunity
and choice suitable to the needs of all economic segments of the community.
6458. Accessibility. The locality should, through its housing program,
seek to reduce the effects of discrimination in housing based on race,
color, religion, sex, family size, marital status, national origin, -
ancestry or other arbitrary factors and to provide safeguards against
future discrimination in housinn.
.__6460. Adequate Provision. Adequate provision for the housing needs of
al 'economic segments of the community requires each locality, through its
housing element, to make a good faith, diligent effort to provide opportuni-
ties for and to facilitate the maintenance, improvement and development of
an appropriate variety and choice of housinn for all economic segments of
the community, consistent with its identified need and fair share respon-
sibilities. A locality is not required to undertake programs .which are
economically infeasible in order to make a good faith , diligent effort.
Such effort, however, must emphasize the use of those public powers which
impact on housing , including , but not limited to land use controls , develop-
; ment controls , and regulatory concessions and incentives . Such effort
must also include a commitment to pursue and cooperate in available
federal and state housing programs or indicate the manner in which
3 the locality intends to address its housing needs without such assis-
tance. In fulfilling its responsibilities under Government Code
3 Section 65302(c) , a locality also may, but is not required to, expend
c local revenues to provide rental subsidies, to finance the acquisition of
= land for the construction of housing , or to finance the actual construction of
8 housing, except as otherwise provided by law.
Article 5. Comprehensive Planning
6462. Environmental Review. The State EIR Guidelines (Title 14,
Division 6 of the Ca ifo rnia Administrative Code) indicate in Section
15037 that local housing elements are projects subject to the provisions
of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code
Section 21000 et seq. ) Therefore, an initial study and a negative declara-
tion or envirrnmental impact report must be prepared and filed with appro-
priate agencies prior to the adoption or amendment of a local housing ,
element. Detailed procedures and requirements for such environmental
review are specified in the State EIR Guidelines.
646a. Relationshio to Other Generdl Plan Elements - Internal Consistent
Required. Internal consistency among general pan elements is required.
Section 65300. 5 of the Government Code states that the general plan shall
comprise an integrated, internally consistent set of policies. This
applies not only to the mandated elements but to the optional elements
as well . (The mandated elements are land use, housing, circulation, noise,
i
B- 10
FOR FILING_4DMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS
WITH THE .SECRETARY OF STATE
(Nn"-" N Ge womm"Cod. srcfiew I I32M1) -
conservation , open space, seismic safety, scenic highways , and safety.
Optional elements include community design, redevelooment.' and historic
preservation. ) Where a locality undertakes revision of any element of
its general plan, it should also examine the other elements (especially
those elerents most directly related) to assure internal consistency.
6466. Housing Assistance Plan. To apply for and receive federal
community development bock_ grant funds under the 1974 Housing and Com-
munity Development Act, P. L. .93-383, a locality must submit a Housing
0 Assistance Plan that: .
"(A) accurately surveys the condition of the housing stock in the
community and assesses the housing assistance needs of lower- _
income persons ( including elderly and handicapped persons, large
families, and persons displaced or to be displaced) residing in or
IV expected to reside in the community.
(8) specifies a realistic annual goal for the number of dwelling
units or persons to' be assisted, including (i ) the relative propor-
tion of new, rehabilitated, and existing dwelling units, and (ii )
the sizes and types of housing projects and assistance best suited
to the needs of lower-income persons in the community, and
(C) indicates the general locations of proposed housing for lower-
income persons , with the objective of (i ) furthering the revitaliza-
tion of the community, including the restoration and rehabilitation of
stable neighborhoods to the maximum extent possible; (ii) promoting
greater choice of housing opportunities and avoiding undue concentra-
® tions of assisted persons in areas containing a high proportion of
low-income persons ; and (iii) assuring the availability of public
facilities and services adequate to- serve proposed housing projects."
z Section 104(a)(4) .
These Guidelines are structured so as to encourage an integrated housing
3 planning process which will provide much of the information necessary
o to comply with federal law relating to community development block grant
z funding. In particular, the housing problem analysis required by these
o Guidelines provides localities with a base from which to prepare their
Housing Assistance Plans and can be used in the following ways:
(a) The analysis of suitability/habitability required by Section
6438(b) (3) of these Guidelines provides the information on housing condition
P called for by federal law.
(b) The assessment of the housing assistance needs of lower-income
households can be derived from the analysis of need required by Housing
Element Guidelines Section 6438 and the fair share allocation made pursuant
to Article 2.
i (c) Ir arriving at a realistic annual goal for the number of dwelling
units or persons to be assisted, localities can also rely heavily on the
housing problem analysis.
(d) The standards and plans for adequate sites contained in Section 6456
will be helpful to localities in identifying general locations for proposed
assisted housing.
In addition, the Guidelines are designed to elicit from localities a
comprehensive strategy for addressing housing need. In that the use of
federal funds to alleviate housing needs is an important component of local
strategy, the federally funded activities outlined in the locality's
1 B-11
IONO dOOA CONTINUA110N SNlL?
FOR FILING ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS A
WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE
(PanuoM to Govowwinent Code section 113#o.1)
Housing Assistance Plan are- properly included in the program section of
the local housing element. For housing element purposes , however, the
activities must be described in accordance with the provisions of
Section 6450 of these Guidelines.
Article 6. Preparation, Update and Review
6468. Public Participation. The housing element shall be developed
through a decision-making process which is accessible to and directly
involves all economic segments of the community. -Effective public involve-
ment requires that citizens be- kept informed as the housing element is
developed and be provided opportunities to review and comment on the
element as it is being prepared. Examples of participation techniques to
c�
help ensure responsive planning include:
(a) Informal working sessions.
(b) Public hearings.
(c) Advisory Committees.
(d) Public information programs.
The public participation process employed by the locality in developing
its housing element must be described in the element.
6470. Intergovernmental Coordination. If housing need within a general housing
market area is to be confronted effectively, the localities within the market
U area must cooperate on a continuing basis. The development of a fair.
share allocation plan provides one vehicle for ongoing intergovernmental
coordination. Localities should pursue other regional or sub-regional
approaches to confronting the housing problem.
A Council of Governments can also provide a valuable service to localities
by reviewing local housing elements from a regional perspective. Each
locality should provide a copy of its housing element to the Council of
a Governments for its area. Localities should also provide the governing
Z bodies of contiguous local jurisdictions with copies.
8
6472. Update. Because of the Inherently dynamic nature of the local
planning process, periodic review and appropriate revision of the local
housing element Is essential . 4
The housing element shall be revised as need dictates, but no less than
once every five years. This periodic revision shall include, as appropriate:
(a) Revision of the housing problem analysis to incorporate new census
data made available by the United States Census at five year intervals.
(b) Revision of the housing program to:
(I) Evaluate the effectiveness of the housing program in accomplish- i
ing housing objectives and effectuating the policies and priorities
established in the housing element.
(2) Set out plans the city has undertaken since the last update
or intends to implement in the future.
(3) Identify the current plans which have been discontinued since
the last update or will be discontinued, indicating the reasons for their 4
discontinuation.
In addition to the periodic updating of the housing element itself,
localities should informally re-evaluate their housing programs at more
frequent intervals. Such re-evaluation may be accomplished through a
yearly report which examines the housing program in accordance with the
B- 1 2
FOR FILING A0MINSTRATIV IEGULAT10NNS
WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE
(IvisweN to Ceveo wows Cod*Section 11]80.1)
outline set forth in subsection . (b) of this section. This report could
be incorporated in the annual report which each local planning agency
.must file with its governing board pursuant to Government Code Section
65400(b).
6474. Housing Element Review. Health and Safety Code Section 41134
authorizes the Department to review local housing elements for conformity
with the requirements of Section 65302 of the Government Code and these
Guidelines, and report its findings.
At least 120 days prior to the applicable operative date as set forth
in Section 6478 of these Guidelines, the local housing element shall be
submitted to the Department to be reviewed 'for conformity with Government Code Section 65302 and these Guidelines. The Department shall
report to the locality its findings as to the adequacy of the element within
60 days of receipt. If the housing element is found to be inadequate,
the Department shall set forth in its report the areas of non-conformance
and 'shall , upon request, work with the locality in alleviating the inadequacies.
Subsequent to the applicable operative date as set forth in Section 6478,
the Department, upon request of the locality or of any interested party
or at the Director' s discretion, shall review adopted local housing elements.
The Department shall report its findings within a reasonable time, but in
no case later than 90 days after receipt of a request for review. If the
housing element is found inadequate, the Department shall set forth in its
reports the areas of non-conformance with the requirements of Government
Code Section 65302 and these Guidelines. Exhaustion of this administrative
review process is not a prerequisite to judicial review of a local element.
The Governor's Office of Planning and Research will be provided with
a copies of all findings- issued by the Department.
The failure of a locality to comply with the procedural requirements of
this section shall not in any manner effect the substantive validity of
3 the element if it otherwise conforms to Government Code Section 65302(c)
and these Guidelines.
8 6476. Housing Element Submission. Within two weeks after the applicable
operative date as set forth in Section 6,08 of these Guidelines, each
locality shall provide the Department with a copy of its housing element.
Copies of all subsequent housing element revisions, amendments, or updates
shall also be sent to the Department upon adoption.
6478. 0 erative Date. In order to facilitate effective. Departmental
review of local housing elements, the operative date of these Guidelines
. is staggered. The following schedule groups localities by regional loca-
tion and provides the dates by which localities in each of the regional
groupings are to have prepared and adopted housing elements in conformity
with Government Code Section 65302 and these Guidelines.
(a) Localities within the "regional jurisdiction of
the Southern California Association of Governments July 1, 1979
. (b) Localities within the regional jurisdiction of
the Association of Bay Area Governments April 1, 1979
(c) Localities within the regional jurisdiction of
the Sacramento Regional .Area Planning Commission, the
Comprehensivq Planning Organization of the San Diego
B-13
,TO. 400A ,s. tt CONTIMUAIION SNEIT
FOR FILING ADMINSTRATIVE REGULATIONS
WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE
(Pursuant to Govaraina..s Coda Section 11380.1)
Region, the Council of Fresno County Governments ,
the Association of r:onterey Bay Area Governments,
or the Kern County Council of Governments October 1 , 1979
M . All other localities January 1, 1980
Localities should seek earlier compliance where practicable. In the interim,
the Housing Element Guidelines originally adopted by the Housing and Com-
munity Development Commission on June 17 , 1971 and promulgated as emergency
regulations by the Oepartment on August 3, 1977 , shall continue in effect.
W
v
•
•
x
r
x_
Y
f
6
f-
0
2
8
r
li- 14
!
!
Appendix C
r
•: • • • w • _
_ T
TABLE I — SURVEY OF HOUSING CONDITIONS — '7 9 — ICI C 0 16
— 0 1 5�0 6
3. PER!00 CF APPLtCABILITY 4 t R, ;
S. GATE OF SUfavEY(S) USED
I ORIGINAL
FRCS'•' July 1979 TO- June 1982 REVISION,DA.TE AHOP 1978
AKIENC.MENT,OATE j
NUMBER OF HOUSING UNIT S
AL'_ IN'TS OWNER RENTER
1 STATUS AND CONDITION YEAR OF
OF ALL HOUSING UNITS SUITABLE FOR
ESTIMATE TOTAL SUITABLE FOR �( TOTAL SUITABLE FpR�' TOTAL REII SUITABLE
ATIR
REHABILITATION i REHABILITATIOIJ -.
( 1 (a) (b) Ic) (d) M
Occupied Units-Total 197$ 942 4 2S0 19 169 692
612 -r
2 a. Sutst indard 1 266 942 371 250 895 692
3 b Standard(fire 1 minus line?) 55, 346 37, 0 7 2 18 274 - { " 'IWO
�4 j 2. Vicart Available Units-Total
1978 833 81 304 7 529 74
II
5 I a. Substandard 104 81 ( 9 7 913 74
6 b. Standard fline I minus line 51 729 :Y 2 9 S 4 3 4
' 7 i 3. Housing Stcck Available-Total 1978 S 7, 4 4 S 1023737 , 747 2 5 7 19 698 766
/sum n.f lines f and d)
IF
---
ram`--«r�-_•�r.,.�;� _ C•
s i'4
' E 4. Standard Housing Stcc!c Available•Tots! 18 -0 8
19 7 8 ( S 6 , 0 7 S .3 7 , 36 7 t '1 'Fc
' I (sum of fires 3 and 61
5. Current Standard AvarI2ble a 7 9 2 . 3 2
9 I •yaw^cv fate 1978 1 3 { = =`
DEFINITIONS. '.ATA SOURCES,AND METHODS (Arrech additional sheets, if necessary,a.,d identify with items above.)
1. 0,?nn,t-on of -s,tstanda:d•'used.
'2. Defir,;,cn of -su,zable to; rehabilitation"wed.# See attachment .
3. Da-a: =ems and inet^,�ds used.
4. St-ciai �r-.�•.,,a--orr!i•,cns. - •.
i! R'_�vi•ed on;y it the 3pp:'csn:Proposes rcha'ilia tion as a Dart of. •:s iousi,g Strategy and as a goal for housing assistance.
HUD-7091 I[C '
1
�" '� s, � � -_..�,.��'tiy' ,'ks .'�M _ _ .gin -'1_..��• SFh:,� :+�=sc -r` ,• �r r �,- F.F .,9:- � �. ,»�.r.� 'v= .g'
34. t °"2.u+ �?L ,F _ d'.•.°•- "`'§�.:._- -,-=F"r g-4 ,T u
-
,�?.�:
'f!.+�'�Y •itti++'� s�"..,.s:.� �� ..w7'is`?_. _..r.:.�..�..'�_3r.a.-ii.P�.. .a,`-S§.rn. L'`a,`�`:r3:a'��,.2-�,�tr�=-?.>,''�_..:.�3.:.u:� tea..,,•_,c.,�si��sn.-'» ..�.�,�Q._�9.:.:°v'�.� 'x. - - r+-.,..�.'.?�:r'�
( U.S.DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 1. NAME OF APPLICANT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM City of Huntington Beach
HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLAN 2. APPLICATION GRANT NUMBER
(ABLE 11-1 — HOUSING ASSISTANCE NEEDS CF LOWER-INCO'ME HOUSE4O!_DS B — 7 1 9 — I M IC — 0 1 6 — 0 15 0 1 6
' '`RIOD OF APPLICABILITY 4. 5. DATE OF SURVEY(S) USED
i _
I C ORIGINAL
REVISION,DATE_ ffu � 19 1978 AHOP
.toM:July 1979 TO: June 1980 LI AMENDMENT. DATE
j NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS
ALL HOUSEHOLDS ALL MINORITY HOUSEHOLDS ALL FEMALE-HEADED HOUSEHOLDS
ELDERLY SMALL LARGE ELDERLY SMALL LARGE ELDERLY SMALL LARGE
STATUS OF HOUSEHOLDS 11-2 FAMILY (1.2 FAMILY FAMILY (1.2 IF-AMILY FAMILY
REOUIRING ASSISTANCE FAMILY persons] (4 or 1
personsl (4 or persons] (4 or (5 ror
e
TOTAL end less more TOTAL and less m5oore TOTAL and ! less i more
HANDI• persons) persons) HANDI- persons) persons] HANDI- (persons) persons)
CAPPED CAPPED CAPPED
(e) (b-1) (b-2) (b-3) (b-4) (c-1) (c-2) (c-3) (cl) (d-1) (d-2) (d-3) (d-4)
1 ! A. Total Owner Households
(sum off lines�and 3J 1081 2 4 6 ( � �4 -4 2 8 407 152 3 6 (6 SS 61 3 S 8 1 (
21 13 169 68
f
2 I Owner Households to be
Displaced during the 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
three year program
' ) Owner Households
(excluding displaceesl 1081 2 4 6 (4 ) 428 407 152 3 6 6 SS 61 358 112 1 1 16 9 68
Per-entc_*of Teal
_ by Ho:tc`.o'dTyae t00% 23 (4)% 40 % 37 %
S a. rota; Renter Households
_ (surtof lines 6. 7eid8) 8446 1080 4929 2437 1620 260 897 463 2857 1864 (94 1495 498
ri Renter Households to be
Displaced during the 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0
three vear program
7 Renter Households (17 9
(e+cludingdi:placees) 6S14 629 3808 1877 1257 213 686 358 2857 864 9 1495 498 I
R Hou�ehoids Expected to Reside 1932 251 1121 560 363 47 211 10 S
Percecttage of Tqta:
by Household Type 100% 13 % 58 % 29 %
s NARRATIVE (Azrdch additional sheen, ifneocesseryl 1 . Data and methodology based on 1978 areawide housing oppor
1 Data sources and rt•et�oc7s.
tunity plan/regional allocation model .
2. St>rial hous,r:g need m s of lower-income househcfds. 2 . See attachment:
:•p:e^:c gor- HUID-7015.9.v h,Cl• is Obsolete Page 1 of 2 P29es HUD-7092 (6-7E
Or=_.,:f-Q�r>���t, 'O' ����.s���'la�`si��:�:,..�:;:��;�.:a�� `�ari±�rlF ��a�i, s :.�� _ !' . - � � �`
W U.S. DEPAWMENTOF H,)UMIGANU URBAN'W\,'-_GP.%4ENT W W W
I ffl
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT eLOCBLOCKGPIANT PROGRAr.', C'it - of Huntir ton BeaclP
HODS:N'G ASSISTANCE PLAN 1 2 APPLICATIC% 6 ......
TABLE 11.2 HOUSE-OLDS ASSISTANCE NEEDS OF LOWER-INCOME HOUSOLDS IB 1 —L7 19 M 11C -10 1 6 0 5 01 6
I -
1 11100 OF APPLICABILITY 4 5. DATE OF SURVEY(S) USEC
ORIGINAL
REVISION,DATE 6/11Z79 1978 PAM/AHOP
. ItOM.July 1979 TO: June 1982 AMENDMENT, DATE
PROVIDE DATA FOR EACH CATEGORY OF MINORITY HOUSEHOLD,AS APPROPRIATE
(Check appropriate box) (Check appropriate box) (Check appropriate box)
I .1. Reserved 1. Reserved
Reserved
2. Black,not Hispanic 2. X71 Black.not Hispanic 2. ED Black.not Hispanic
3. American Indian or Alaskan Native 3. = American Indian or Alaskan Native 3. American Indian or Alaskan Native
STATUS OF MINORITY 4. Hispanic 4. = Hispanic 4. Hispanic
HOUSEHOLDS REOUIRING 5. Asian or Pacific Islander 5. = Asian or Pacific Islander 5. Asian or Pacific Islander
ASSISTANCE I
ELDEPLY ELDERLY ELDERLY SMALL LARGE
0.2 SMALL LARGE (1-2 SMALL LARGE (1-2 FAMILY FAMILY
FAMILY FAMILY persons) FAMILY FAMILY persons) (4 or or
persons) per$and
TOTAL 14 or (5 or TOTAL (4 or (5 or TOTAL end
and less
HANDI- less more HA NDI_ less More HANDI- personal persons)more
CAPPED Persons/ persons) CAPPED persons) persons) CAPPED
(11-2) (1-31 (1-4) (g-2) (g-31 (OA) (h-2) (11-3) (h.41
I 1 A Total Owner Households 130 132 (S) 45 . S3 2 0 (0) 1 1 20 4 (1) 9 7
(sum of 1'n-es 2 and 3)
Owner Households to be 0 0 0 0 0
Dlsl):a.-ed during the 0 0
three year prog-am
Owner House!-o.ds 130 32 (5)I 4S 53 2 10 (0) 1 1 20 i 4 (1)
9 7
%excludirc d,splicres)
4 B. To[;.; Fient=( Households 1078 82 (40) 590 306 21 '4 (1) 10 7 158 27 (S) 86 45
(sun?of fines 5 and 61
Sewer Households to be 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0
D,s-,);jcz!d ciu-,ng the
0e-z year p.ro;,am I -
6 i Renter House:--ci6s 1078 L82 (40 S90 306 21 !4 (1) 10 7 158 7 (s) 86 45
L 1-,rc ludirg d.-sp',icees)
I IEN'.A R K S Data and methodology based on 1978 RAM/AHOP
1 .
HUD-7092 I&V
0 Page 2 of 2 Pages
1
r
r
r � '
r
Appendix D
APP=IX D
LAND * BANKING SUMMARY
V
Of the eleven counties surveyed, four or five offer the most resources to
others in planning land banking activities. They are Oroville, Palo Alto,
San Francisco, Sacramento City, and Monterey County.
OROVILLE has three programs. Using CDBG funds, the city buys land and the
ouunty—rousing Authority builds the needed elderly units. Secondly, because
of a zoning overlay, private developers are encouraged to use vacant land in
the downtown commercial area for elderly housing; this is all privately funded.
Thirdly, after a citizen committee pinpointed sites for future development,
the city is considering purchasing some of these sites before their value
escalates. Contact David Jinkins at (916) 533-9551 for further information. {
PALO ALTO began land bankingseveral years ago, buying sites for low-income
ousFi s ing -Trom their capital improvement money in the General Fund. This last
year they used CDBG money. Two sites have been built and the are ready to
build on the third and fourth. Contact Lynnie Melena at (415� 329-2347 for
r further information.
SAN FRANCISCO is just beginning to land bankland for low-income housing, and
are currently considering sites to purchase with CDBG money. They are also
exploring the possibility of using surplus land for low-income housing. This
land may be currently in another department like the Department of Recreation,
or may have been acquired by the city because of defaulted taxes. For further
information contact Dave Cintotta at (415) 558-4566.
SACRAMENTO CITY has seven different projects in mainly two areas of the city.
On one project they are seeking to acquire additional land in a 2-block area
so that they can then go in and clear the entire area for low-income housing.
In another project Sacramento City acquired a. railroad right-of-way and used
it for elderly housing. They also have acquired land, relocated the buildings ,
for rehabilitation, and plan to build market-rate multi-family housing on the
site. They also have a Homeowner Opportunity Program (urban rehabilitation
by the owners). For further information please contact Andy Plesia at
(916) 449-5604.
MONTEREY COUNTY does not hold the land for a very long period of time, but
because their program is unique, it deserves mention. The LHA buys the
land and sells it to a developer (who pays for it when he/she sells the P
project). LHA sells property and. takes bank loan with interest. The developer
then builds the units usinq private construction financing. Family uses FmHA 502
loan to finance purchase. The LHA, during this time, is working with the prospective
buyer in a counseling program regarding financing, budgeting, maintenance, etc:
After the private party purchases the home, the county reinvests their money in
more land and the process is bequn again. For additional information contact
Bruce Moore at (408) 424-2892.
Also, since the charts went to the typist, we have become aware of possible
land banking programs in Berkeley and San Jose. The list continues to grow.
Source: State Department of Housing and Community Development
i
U- 1
DAVIS
Contact Person: Gloria McGregor
Community Development Department
(916) 756-3740
Davis first received an Innovative CDBG Grant for the planning of energy-
conserving homes. The next year they received an Innovative CD Grant to buy
six scattered sites on which to put the homes (they had one additional lot
which had been an old well site) . In 1977 , they received a grant from
Farmers Home Administration to cover 90°a of the cost of putting the energy-
conserving homes on the seven lots , scattered throughout the city. The Farmers
Home Program 514 makes mnoney available to public bodies (no population limi-
taticn) if there is a pressing need for farm labor housing. The City of Davis
will pay the remaining 100 of the cost of building the homes. The city will
own both the land and the home and Yolo County Housing Authority will manage
the project.
The homes will be bult by private developers as part of the city' s growth
management site allocation program and will be rented by farm workers.
Farmer's Home Administration does not have an income limitation but Davis
and Yolo County will try to rent the units to low-income people (for 3155
a month) . There will be one single-family dwelling and six duplexes.
Davis has an Article 34 Referendum (1975) .
Davis is also beginning another project of 25 low-income housing units
funded by HUD, land acquired by CDBG money, also on scattered sites but
not using solar energy.
i
D-2
. r r
HUNTINGTOP! BEACH
Contact: Steve Kohler
City Planning & Environmental resources Department
(714) 536-5541
S250,000 of COBG money has been allocated for site improvement for low-income
housing for senior citizens in Huntington Beach. instead of buying additional
land, the city decided to use the old civic center site of 5.44 acres in the
downtown area near the beach, and use the COBG money for site improvement.
Private money will build the units, the land being leas-ad to the developer.
Therefore, the land will be off of the tax rolls. Section 8 existing will
be used for rent subsidies.
Throuah SCAG, Huntington Beach has asked the Attorney General 's office in
Sacramento for an opinion in regard to both the lease-hold and the writedown
questions.
i
Mr. Kohler would be interested in a meeting for those involved in these
projects so that they could exchange ideas.
Enclosed are summaries of their three proposals.
� t
1
r - D-3
IRVINE
,I
Contact Person: Pam Sheldon
Planning Department
(714) 754-3658
The first three oears of Irvine' s six-year HUD contract, they accumulated
$269,000 CDBG money for land acquisition and/or to use for off-site
improvements, thus helping lower the cost for the private developer who
in turn would pass on the saving to the renters. The fourth year the
city surveyed the community and found that the citizens approved of off-
site improvements for low-and moderate-income housing. The sixth year, Irvine
might buy land with the HUD money.
Currently under consideration is a proposal by a private developer fcr low-
income housing. The total project will be 160 units , 100 of which will be
developed through Section 8 new construction contract. The development
cost of the remaining 60 units will be subsidized through CDBG monies , making
as many units available at fair-market rents as possible.
The accumulated CDBG money will be given to the developer to apply on the
purchase of land and/or improvements; this will be documented in a contract
obligating the developer to pass on these savings to the renters. The
contract will last for the term of the mortgage, probably 30 years . Of the
100 rental units built under Section 8, 25 units will be for the elderly 7
and 75 units will be for families. The remaining 60 units will have
adjusted rents, influenced by the contract with the city based on the
CDBG funding and be for the elderly. Because the developer holds the deed
to the property, it will be on the tax rolls. The project is located in
Town Center near the University of California at Irvine, and involves 5.3
acres.
Irvine does not have a referendum for Article 34. However, the Citizen 's
Committee working on the Housing Element has suggested that the city put
such a referendum on the next ballot. Also, because the Irvine Company
has a project approved by CHFA ready to build but cannot do so because
of the lack of the referendum, they also urge a referendum. Besides 4
working to implement these suggestions, the city is also following
legislation on the revising of Article 34.
4
D-4
r ,
MONTEREY COUNTY
Contact Person: Bruce Moore
Housing Authority
(408) 424-2892
Using its own money, the Housing Authority has bought land for low-income
r single-family dwellings. Through their counseling services the county helped
with the zoning, found private builders to whom they sold the land, and help
the family to qualify for FmHA 502 loan. The family then purchased the completed
project from the builder. There was no writedown of the land to the builder,
the incentive being not having to pay for the land until the project is completed
and the profit made on building the house. In the past three years almost 200
r sites have been developed on scattered areas throughout the county, usually in
rural areas and in' cities of below 10,000. About $133,000 of local Housing
Authority funds is currently invested in the program. County general funds
provide staff travel expenses. LHA provides funds for purchase of land.
FmHA 502 provide take out financing.
They do not need an Article 34 Referendum because the builder sells directly
to the family. However, they do have a referendum if they do need it.
r
r
r
r
0 D-5
OROV ILLE
i
Contact Person: David Jinkins
City Administrator
(916) 533-9551
4
Using a 701 Grant, Oroville found that 25'S of their citizens were over 62,
and did not have adequate housing. Therefore, using CDBG money to buy the
land and the Housing Authority to build the units , they are now in the
process of narrowing down the sites to make the actual purchases. The
units will be for the elderly, downtown, near the needed services; the
city has established an overly zone for this purpose. Sites for rental
units will also be purchased by private developers, and built using
Section 8 and Farmers Herne 515. Oroville had an Article 34 Referendum
in 1976 for 150 units; they will probably use up this referendum authority
this year.
A citizen' s group pinpointed future sites for low-income housing; the city
is currently considering the purchase of some of these sites before their
value increases. This will be in next year' s CDBG proposal .
Jinkins would like to have a meeting of those who are doing land banking
for low-income housing, and for those who are interested in doing so, so
that they all could exchange ideas.
r
D-6
Palo Alto
Contact Person: Ms. Lennie Melena , Community Development
(415) 329-2347
Palo Alto began land banking site acquisition for lca,- and moderate- income
housing in 1971. However, they do not plan to hold the land long; they
have completed building on the first sitz , are in the procees of building
on the second, and are reviewing plans for the third and fourth, plan-
ning to begin construction in January, 1978.
The first site (Litton Garden, Phase I) was purchased by City Hall
using capital improvement money ($600,000) from the general fund. It
was then sold to two churches who had formed a non-profit corporation.
They made a minimal down payment to the city, and signed a contract to
pay nothing until 30-40 years at which tire they would pay the balance
of the contract or allow the city to buy it back again for 31.00. The
2.2 acre site is near the downtown area ; and because it is 236 elderly
housing, the land is taxed on the basis of the income generated by the
project.
The second site (Webster Block) was also purchased using General Fund
capital improvement money ($475 ,000) . It was then sold to a private
non-profit developer with a contract similar to the above, except that
the terms of the contract are for 67 years. The family units are in an
older residential part of town on about 4 acres and will use Section 8:
existing as a rent subsidy.
The third site (Power Parcels) was also purchased using the capital
improvement money from the General Fund ($193.250) . Elderly units
will be developed by a private developer near a new multi-family
residential and commercial area using Section 8 monies.
A non-profit organization is now in the process of purchasing the
fourth site (Litton Gardens, Phase II) and the city is contributing
$200,000 in CDBG funds to help with the purchase. The multi-unit
elderly housing will be built using Section 8 money, and will be in
the downtown area, adjacent to the first site purchased in 1971.
Phase II involved 1.1 acres of land.
Palo Alto did not have a referendum for the first purchase (before
the Elliott decision) . They had an Article 34 Referendum for the
/ second purchase and probably do not need them for the other two
purchases.
Legal opinions are included in the enclosed summary of their Land
Banking Program which was written in 1974.
/
D-7
Sacramento City
Contact Person : Andy Plescia -- City Planning Department
(916) 449-5604 '
Sacramento city plans to use CDBG money through their Redevelopment Agency
to buy property, clear and prepare the land, and then seek to sell it using
Section 8 as incentives for guaranteed rent subsidies and CHFA for direct
loans. They have done or are doing this at several sites (see enclosure) .
1. Land in Alkali Flat was purchased in 1975 for low-inccme housing
for the elderly. The units will be built using tax increment
money.
2. Also in 1975, the Redevelopment Agency bought land in Oak Park,
relocated the people, demolished the structure, and now a private
developer has a CHFA-approved loan and will be building 24 large
family units on the site.
3. The Oak Park Land in the 35th Street area is now in the process
of being bought. 95% of -the two-block area is vacant former.-
business buildings . After enough sites have been bought, the
city will clear the land and use it for multi-family development.
4. In 1975 they began to buy 3/4 of a block at 6th and I for elderly
housing using tax increment money. It will be a high-rise, 10-
story building with the first 3 floors being office space and
the other 7 floors being elderly housing units. It took a long
time to complete this transaction because of the historic houses
that were on the land. The end result will be that the city will
only use 1/2 of the block for the high-rise, and the historic
homes which are located on the other 1/4 block have been bought
-arid will be relocated and rehabilitated. .
5. Stockton Blvd. and 21st Street used to be a railroad right-of-way
which the city bought in 1976, relocated the used car lot which
had been on part of the site, and are now seeking Section 8 funding
for the elderly for the vacant land.
6. The city is now in the process of buying 5-6 parcels of land in
Alkali Flat on 10th-llth/E-F Streets. They will then relocate
(or demolish) the four buildings to other sites and rehabilitate
them, using the Alkali land for market-rate multi-family housing.
The city will give incentives to the builders in the form of write-
down, density bonuses, and/or public improvements. ,
7. The city also has acquired 5-6 scattered sites in Alkali Flat in
a four block are for single-family dwellings. Structures will
be relocated onto these sites and a Homeowner Opportunity Program
will assist the tenants to own them. They will be sold for a dollar,
for example, and with the aid of local and federal low-interest
loans, the family will be able to have the home rehabilitated. The
city-owned land will be turned over to the homeowner.
D-8
SAN DIEGO
Contact Person: Elisa Locke - Housing & Community Development Department
9 (714) 236-4937
San Diego County has .5 million dollars in CDSG monies for the purpose
of buying land for low-income housing. They have begun to look for
sites to acquire, using their Growth Plan and General Plan as guides ,
but consitering all parts of the city.
They plan to use either writedown policies to the developer, thus having
the land on the tax rolls , or a lease-back program, thus having the land
not on tax rolls. The city would use the money gained in the lease
program to add more low-income housing to the community.
They do have an Article 34 Referendum (19761 which is inadequate; it
states that the county can accept subsidy from state and federal sources,
for low-income housing, but that the county cannot build or own the
low-income housing. They will seek another Article 34 Referendum which,
does not have these restrictions.
They would like to have a mix of housing built; however, HUD seems to
give preference to family housing (because there is so little of it j.
Therefore, they will probably build housing for which. the subsidies are
most readily available.
The county will not assist the developer more than the writedown or
lease-back; the private developers will not seek Section 8 monies,
They have a legal opinion saying that the county may writedown or
lease-back land for low-income housing, but not for moderate-income
housing. Enclosed is a press release and Article 34 information
which they sent us.
1
i D-9
Sacramento City 2
In the past three years , the Redevelopment Agency has used about $1.5 million
in CDBG monies to acquire the above land. All of the land has been in
Community Development areas except for the railroad right-of-way on Stockton
Blvd. and 21st Street. Although the city has not changed the purpose of
land in the past, they may do so in the future as they will probably use -
just 1/2 block for the elderly housing on 6th and I instead of the 3/4
block which was bought for that purpose. As in other cities, the units
are usually built by private contractors. Also, the city has an Article 34
Referendum for 1 ,000 units.
!
D-10
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
Contact Persons : Al Harkins , housing Authority Director C7141 884-1811
Ann Sincusa, COD. (7141 383-2945
San Bernardino is in the fourth year of CDBG. application. They are considering
land acquistion for the purpose of constructing low- and moderate-income
housing. They will keep us informed.
SBHA has just received a preliminary loan from HUD for planning and are
working on two projects ; they want to develop 49 units in San, Bernardino
and 49 units in Barstow. Each city currently owns some sites which they
will use; they will also seek an option to buy on other sites which they
will make available to the private developers. After the project has
been satisfactorily completed for one year, the -lousing Authority completes
the purchase of the project from the private developer. They plan to build
3-4 bedroom family units with no more than 4-6 units per site located
throughout the city.
Both San Bernardino and Barstow have had successful Article 34 Referendums .
1
1
1
D-11
San Francisco City
Contact Person : Dave Cintotta - Community Development Department
(415) 558-4566
More than S2 ,300,000 of CDBG money has been set aside for site acquisition.
The land is/Gill be purchased by the Redevelopment Agency in (Chinatown) , ,
the Housing Authority , and the Housing Development Corporation in other
areas of the city. The sites are chosen for two reasons : (1) if the
land cost is high, and therefore in need of writedown for the developer,
and/or (2) if the area does not now have subsidized housing. The
agency holds title to the land and contracts with the developer who
will use Section 8 for the housing. Therefore, it is not on the tax
rolls ; the city has also waved the in lieu taxes for the past five years.
The city is in the process of exploring the possibility of declaring
unused land to be surplus and, therefore , available for low-income housing.
This land might now be in the Recreation or 'dater Departments , for example,
or received because of defaulted tax payments. The city would then sell 4
this land to private developers . They hope to begin this in the next
two months, developing various low-income units appropriate to each site.
They are now answering the questions of writedown and/or if they must
put the land out for bid. They will send us any resulting legal opinions.
1
1
1
D- 12
r VISALIA
Contact Person: Vern Bitney, Redevelopment Agency Director
(209) 734-2011 ext. 352
A form of site acquisition for low-income housing has been done in redevelop-
ment areas in Visalia. The Redevelopment Agency has bought the substandard
house from the owner, torn it down and replaced the 'rouse, and sold it back
to the owner. About $400,000 of CDBG monies have been used each of the past
three years for the replacing of about 60 acres of housing. HUD appraises
the substandard home which the RA then buys , replacing it by following HUD
guidelines. If the family wishes to improve their home above this standard,
they may do so by acquiring an additional private loan from a bank, etc.
The RA only buys the house if it needs to be replaced; if it is just
substandard and can be rehabilitated, they use their rehab program for
the project. Also, if the owner does not live in the house which needs
to be replaced, RA buys the substandard house and tears it down, but
does not replace it. (RA relocates the tenants in these cases.) This
type of- low-income housing replacement is usually done in a geographic
area.
Secondly, the Redevelopment Agency is currently in the process of acquiring
14.7 acres with 3364,175 CDBG money which includes S239,500 in relocation
costs for 28 occupants. It is interior, inaccessible land which is in an
urban renewal plan. They will sell the land to a private developer at
the appraised market value of $75,000--$100,000, thus underwriting some
of the cost of cleaning up the land and making it suitable for housing.
They plan to build single-family, single-unit dwellings, one unit per
site. - ----- - - -- _
Visalia has an Article 34 Referendum for 200 units.
1 '
D-l3
r
Appendix E
►
r
APPENDI:{ E
INCLUSIONARY ZONING
INTRODUCTION
The term "inclusionary zoning" is used to denote a technique whereby com-
munities either require or encourage the private development of low- and/
or moderate-income housing by adding to the development approval process
a check point at which such units are mandated or subject to a negotiated
alternative. Generally, either Zoning or Subdivision Ordinances are used
as the device to require or encourage development of a stated percentage
of a new project as low- and/or moderate-income housing. In some cases,
inclusionary programs have been mandated by requirements of the Housing
Element of the General Plan.
The following discussion is based upon an examination of inclusionary or-
dinances and programs in several California cities and counties, and tale
model generated by Montgomery County, Maryland. In order to establish a
6 framework for analysis and decision-making, a brief review of those pro-
grams is first presented; an evaluation is then made of the impact upon
housing cost of inclusionary requirements, a discussion of major issues
involved in inclusionary programs is set forth, and a recommended outline
of an inclusionary program for San Mateo County is presented.
f INCLUSIONARY ORDINANCES
Orange County, California
Under provisions of the Housing Element of the General Plan adopted by
the County on January 31, 1979, it is now required that 25% of the units
in all new developments within. _the .County unincorporated area, be for low-
and moderate-income persons. The Housing Element further outlines the
low- and moderate-income mix required as follows : ten percent of the
units are to be for low-income persons, defined as those with incomes of
80% or less of the County median income (these units are required only if
Federal subsidies are available) ; ten percent of the units are to be for
low/moderate-income households, defined as those with incomes between 80%
and 100% of the median; and five percent of the units are to be afforda-
ble by moderate-income persons, defined as those having incomes between
100% and 120% of the median.
r' The requirements apply to rental developments, new sales housing of all
types, and condominium conversions. In order to assist developers in
meeting the requirements, the County will permit greater densities than
ordinarily would be the case, and will relax parking requirements. In
addition, the County intends to utilize a portion of its Community Devel-
opment Block Grant allocation to off-set some development costs, through
Source: Affordable Housing: A Cm prehensive Strategy for Meeting San Mateo
County's Housing Needs, Division of Housing and Community Development,
and Human Services Coordinating Council, San Mateo, California,
June, 1979
r
E-1
infrastructure improvements, purchase of the land and resale to the devel-
oper at a written-down cost, and so forth.
Orange County' s requirements are flexible, in the sense that alternatives
to the inclusion of the prescribed units are possible; such alternatives
include County acceptance of land dedications, shifting of the requirement
to other projects, and any other proposal deemed reasonable by the County.
The inclusionary requirement is inapplicable in geographic locations in
which 25% or more of the housing stock is currently at low- and moderate-
income levels.
For sales units, an anti-speculation device, initiated and controlled by
the developer, is required with respect to first buyers. The Board of Su-
pervisors has determined that resale prices should not be controlled unless
governmental funds have been used to reduce the price of the units, in
which case measures to ensure long-term continued affordability will be re-
quired.
Palo Alto, California
Palo Alto's inclusionary requirements also are found in the Housing Element
of its General Plan. They are less comprehensive in scope than Orange
County's, and apply only to multi-family ownership developments of ten
units or more. Rental housing of all types is excluded, as is single fami-
ly sales housing.
In the Paso Alto situation, the requirement is that 10% of the units being
developed be set aside for sale at prices below the prevailing market rates;
the price targeted as "below market" for each development is equal to the
actual cost of construction on a per-unit basis for that development, ex-
clusive of the cost of land, marketing costs and profit. The Palo Alto pro-
gram has a large element of negotiation relative to the actual prices of the
below-market rate units, the number of such units to be included in each
development, and their design. The trade-offs which render the requirement
financially feasible to the developer generally revolve around the scaling-
down of design, amenities and size of the below-market rate units, and a
slight raising of the prices of the rest of the units in a development.
In cases involving the development of luxury units, where pure construction
costs are above those which would result in a unit affordable by low- or
moderate-income buyers and in which scaled-down design is not feasible, the
City will accept a cash payment in lieu of unit production. That payment
is calculated as the difference between construction cost and the sales
price.
Units produced as result of the program are deed restricted to owner-
occupants; and to provide the City a first right of refusal upon resale at
a mandatory price equaling the lesser of appraised value at time of sale or ori-
ginal purchase price., plus appreciation at the rate of increase fn the cost of
living index for the period between original purchase and resale, plus the
E-2
i
value of major improvements. The non-profit Palo Alto Housing Corporation
administers buyer selection and unit resale elements of the program. The
terms of program compliance for new devel opments are handled by the City
Planning Department.
City of Cupertino
The City of Cupertino, via provisions of the Housing Element of its General
Plan, requires developers of ownership projects of ten or more units with
densities of six units to the acre or more to set aside 10% of the develop-
ment for purchase by households earning between 80% and 120% of the Santa
Clara County median income. The program is structured so as to provide the
developer with a density bonus of up to 20% in return for the below-market
rate units. In addition, developers are permitted to cut costs by scaling-
down the amenity packages applicable to the below-market rate units, and to
reduce their size; it is required, however, that the exterior of the units
be identical to all others in the development. The City also will eliminate
inspection fees, park dedication and similar fees to assist in the lowering
of unit prices.
Cupertino's program is designed so as to create a mix of below-market prices,
b scaled to the 80%, 100% and 120% of median income levels. To encourage pro-
duction of units at the lower prices, the City will utilize Community Devel-
opment Block Grant funds to off-set land, site improvement costs, and the
like.
The below-market rate units are deed restricted to assure continued owner-
occupancy and to prohibit windfall profits at resale. Resale prices are
controlled by the deed restriction; permitted resale price is the original
purchase price, plus increases as per the Cost-of-Living Index, plus market
value of substantial improvements made by the owner. The Santa Clara County
Housing Authority has a first right of refusal for all resales of below-
market rate units.
The County Housing Authority administers buyer selection and resale provi-
sions of the program. Developer negotiations are handled by the City.
City of Los Angeles
The City of Los Angeles requires by ordinance that a total of 15% of the
units in all new developments of five dwellings or more, and all condomi-
nium conversions, be set aside for occupancy by persons of low- and moderate-
income. The 15% requirement is further defined as consisting of 6% afford-
able by low-income persons and 9% affordable by moderate-income persons.
1 The Los Angeles ordinance is structured so as to require developers ' "every
reasonable effort" to bring the units in at prices within the ceilings of
existing housing subsidy programs. If either it is determined that the
units cannot be produced at such rental or sales prices , or that applicable
subsidies are not available, then the City Housing Authority has a continu-
ing right of first refusal , upon availability of units in the developments
1
E-3
r
to which the ordinance applies, to secure up to 15% of the units at the
then current fair market prices for occupancy by low- and moderate-income
households.
The Los Angeles ordinance, in reality, is effective only when subsidy
funds are available and only when HUD's Fair Market Rents and/or Section
235 mortgage ceilings are realistic to the actual market in new construc-
tion. This combination of favorable circumstances is not often the case;
it generally is thought that the Los Angeles ordinance is too weak to be
effective in the generation of below-market rate units either for rent or
for sale.
Montgomery County, Maryland
Montgomery County's inclusionary program is contained in a special County
ordinance entitled the "Moderately Priced Dwelling Unit" ordinance. It 4
is more restrictive and mandating than ordinances found in California.
In Montgomery County it is absolutely required in all developments of fifty
units or more that 15% of the dwellings be priced as moderate income units;
five percent must be offered to the Montgomery County Housing Opportunities
Commission, which administers the County's Section 8 Programs , for inclu- 4
sion in its rental housing programs, and ten percent must be marketed to
income-eligible households.
The prices of the moderately-priced units are set by the County periodical-
ly, and are based upon construction costs exclusive of land. These price
ceilings are mandatory. Density bonuses are given if desired by the devel- 4
oper; they do not tend to be used in developments of the high-end, large
lot subdivision type. In the latter type of development, the developers
will more likely raise the price of the market rate homes rather than see-
ing a portion of the development be more densely developed. The one ex-
ception to the program is that a land dedication is possible in lieu of
development of 15% of the units as low- and moderate-income housing. 4
The income group to which this program is directed is that group with in-
comes somewhat higher than those permitted under the Section 8 program;
however, to be eligible, income cannot exceed 200% of HUD's standard for
"very low" income.
i
Units produced under the ordinance are deed restricted for a period of five
.years. During that five year period, the prices of units resold or re-
rented are controlled by the County on the basis of a formula which re-
flects increases in the Cost-of-Living-Index plus the value of major im-
provements made to the units.
BASIC ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED
An evaluation of the potential use of inclusionary programs in San Mateo
County must first address several issues inherent in the technique. These
4
E-4
4
• W • W W
s • .
TABLE 1
ILLIISTRAT10.'i OF DEVELOPMENT COSTS AND PURCHASER INCOME
UNDER ALTERNATIVE INCLUSIOUARY ZONING - DENSITY CONUS CONFIGURATIONS
TYPICAL TOWNHOUSE OVIERSHIP PROJECT
Base Case Alternative A: ' Alternative B: Alternative C: ' Alternative 0: '
14 Units/Acre 2V Density Bonus As Alternative A As Alternative 8 As Alternative C
50 d1r @ 1,300sq.ft. 15':U0t Inclusion But Without Profit But Units@1.2Msq.fW, But showing effect
Costs of All Units Costs of "157" Costs of "15%" Costs of "15:" Of Tax-E.scmpt Loan(3)
Units 0lly_ Units Only Units Only
Land @ S4.00/sq.ft.
(155,571 sq.ft.) 622.300 -0- -0- -0- -0-
Construction Costs
Site preparation @ $1.00/sq.ft. 155,600 -0- -0- -0- -0-
Off-site Improvements. estimated 15,000 -0- -0- -0- -0-
Unit Construction @ S35/sq.ft. 2,275,000 409 L500 409,500 3_78,000 378L000
Subtotal Construction Costs 2,445,600 409,500 409,500 378,000 378,000
Indirect Costs @ 251; Constr. 611.400 102,400 102,400 94,500 94L500
Subtotal Development Cost 3,679,300 511.900 511.900 472,500 472.500
(including Land)
Average Per Unit 73,600 56,900 56.900 52,500 52,500
Profit @ 10% Retail Price 8,200 6,300 -0- -0- -0-
Total Unit Sales Price 81,800 63,200 56,900 52,500 52,500
Per Square Foot 62.92 48.62 43.77 43.75 43.75
Percent Change to Unit -22.747 -9.97 - 7.73
Sale: Prices
Total Percent Change -35.82
Required Buyer Income(2)
10 Percent Down-Payment 36,600 29,200 26,400 24,500 20,200
15 Percent Down-Payment 34.800 27,800 25,200 23,300 19,800
20 Percent Down-Payment 33.000- 26,400 23,900 22,200 18,900
Below market units at 1.200 square feet.
(2) Assumes 101 percent, 30-year mortgage; principal, interest, taxes and insurance equal 25 percent gross income; allowance made for homeowner
exemption.
(3) Tax-exempt mortgage financing assumed at 8.25 percent to buyer; all other terns constant to (2).
• Assumes that of the total number of units permitted by virtue of the bonus (i.e., 90 units), 15T. must be reserved for low- and moderate-
income households (i.e., 14 units).
m
issues are as follows:
• Should density bonuses be granted?
• Should such a program apply to all types of units, and what number
of units should trigger the program?
® Should variation in unit design be permitted?
• How should affordability be defined? !
® Should measures be taken to assure continued affordability?
s Should monetary subsidies be included in the program?
Density Bonuses !
Most inclusionary programs include a provision for an increase in the den-
sity of projects subject to a set-aside requirement. What is recognized
by the density bonus technique is that trade-offs are required if less-
than-market-rate housing is to be developed without public subsidies . In !
financial terms, this is a practical approach.
Table 1 on the facing page illustrates the effect upon development costs
and purchaser income of a basic density bonus inclusionary program for a
typical townhouse condominium development. The first column (Base Case)
depicts costs of a 50 unit development with density at 14 units to the
acre and units averaging 1300 square feet each . In the base case, the units
typically would sell for about $81,000 and would be affordable to households
with incomes of $33,000-$36,000.
Alternative A is a basic density bonus situation in which 15% of the units
built are to be sold at below market prices ; a 20% density bonus is permit-
ted. In Alternative A, land, site preparation and off-site improvements
costs are eliminated by virtue of the increase in density. The cost of the
below-market rate units drops by almost 23%; these units now are affordable
by households in the $25,400-$29,200 range, which is about 126% of median.
Alternative B takes the process a step further, and eliminates developer
profit from the below-market rate dwellings . It should be noted that most
of the inclusionary programs examined earlier premise the price of below-
market units upon elimination of profit therefrom. . The theory here is that
the developer remains "whole" or improves his profit picture by virtue of
having gained extra market priced units from the density bonus , which units
when sold will include profit over and above that which would have accrued
in the base case. Removal of profit on the below market rate units brings
costs down another 10% (approximate) ; the resultant price ($56 ,900) is about
30% under the prices of the base case. Required buyer incomes drop to $23,000
-$26,400, which is approximately 120% of median income for the area.
E-6
r •
TABLE 2
EFFECT ON DEVELOPERS PROFIT OF
10 INCLUSIONARY ZONING: DENSITY BONUS ALTERNATIVES
Base Case Alternative A Alternative B
Market Below-Market Market Below-Market Market Below-Market
r Number of Units 50 -- 51 9 51 9
Per Unit Factors
Land Cost $ 12,500 -- $ 12,200 $ -- $ 12,200 $ --
Development Costs 48,900 -- 48,800 45,500 48,800 45,500
Indirect Costs 12,200 -- 12,200 11,400 12,200 11 ,400
r
Subtotal Costs $ 73,600 -- $ 73,200 $56,900 $ 73,200 $56,900
Selling Price $ 81,800 . -- $ 81,800 $63,200 $ 81,800 $56,900
r Developer Profit $ 8,200 -- $ 8,600 $ 6,300 $ 8,600 $ -0-
Total Project Profit
Market Rate Units $410,000 -- $438,600 $438,600 --
r Below-Market Units -- $56,700 --
Total $410,000 $495,300 $438,600
r
r
r
Note: All land cost, site preparation and off-site costs allocated to market rate
units.
Source: Table 1.
P
E-7
;;
The remainder of the Table, Alternatives C and D , illustrates cost reduceions
achieved through reducing the size of the below-market units , and the differ-
ence made to buyer income by availability of tax-exempt long-term mortgage
financing. Both of these matters will be addressed in subsequent material .
Both approaches can also be combined under the other alternatives , A and B,
to reduce buyer costs.
The impact of the density bonus-inclusionary combination on the price of ren-
tal housing is discussed in the next section of this presentation.
In order for the program to work effectively, homebuilder profits must at
minimum be maintained. Table 2 shows the profit implications of the inclu-
sionary zoning/density bonus situation described in the prior discussion.
Under the first alternative whereby a twenty percent density bonus is offered
in exchange for a 15 percent below market unit commitment, and development pro-
fits are allowed on both market and below market rate units , total project
profitability increases substantially from $410 ,000 in the base case to
$495,000 under Alternative A. The profit improvement assumes that selling
prices can be maintained on the market rate units and that increased density
lowers per unit costs for land , site development and off-sites. Finally ,
the example assumes that the builder is allowed to earn a 10 percent profit
on the selling price of the subsidized units.
In the second case, Alternative B , the developer still realizes improved pro-
fitability on the market rate units , but is not permitted to earn profits on
the below market component of the project. Nevertheless , the increased den-
sity improves his total profit on the project by almost 10 percent or close
to $40,000. The other alternatives , C and D, shown in Table 1 do not effect
builder profitability.
In all cases then, there would appear to be adequate incentive for the private
sector to participate in the program.
This incentive is critically important. If the profit benefit, and resultant
incentive, produced by the density bonus did not exist (as , for example, in
an inclusionary program structured without a bonus) , the net effect of the
inclusionary program would be to drive up the prices of all non-inclusionary
market-rate units (in the case of a 15 percent inclusionary requirement, 85
percent of all new residential construction would be artificially inflated) .
Developers would be forced into the position of raising the prices of their
market rate units in order to compensate for losses on the required below-
market rate dwellings. In the overall view, such a market action would ne-
gatively impact upon the entire housing market of the area and would unfairly
penalize all buyers not income-qualified to participate in the inclusionary
program.
In summary, the case for density bonuses is two-fold : (1) they allow a de-
velopment to effectuate substantial cost savings which can be passed on to
moderate-income consumers; and (2) they work to maintain sufficient profit
motivation to encourage private sector participation in the program.
E-8
i
TABLE 3
REQUIRED PENT LEVFLS UNDER ALTERNATIVE
PROJECT DE14SITY ASSUMPTIONS
-TTypical Low—Rise Apartment
Bonus Density
1t20:L_ Bonus Denser b Tax-Exempt FinancingJ5�
Market Rate low/1oderate Narket Rate
Base Base Case Units (1) intone Units (11 Units (1) income Units
Total Units 75(2) 76(2) 14(2) 76(2) 14(2)
Density (Units /Acre) 30du/ac - - - - - -36du/ac - - - - - - - - - - -36du/ac - - - - - -
Land Requirement
Acres 2.5ac 2.5ac 2.5ac
Square Feet 108,900SF 108,900SF 108,900SF
Land C,st @ S4.00/SF S 435.000 S 435.000 $ -0- S 435,000 S -0-
Construction Costs
Direct Costs
Site Preparation
(108.900 SF @ $1.00/SF 110.000 110,000 -0- 110,000 -0-
Unit Construction
(No, units x 950SF x S30/SF) 2,138.000 2,166,000 399,000 ,2�j�b,000 399,OCO
Subtotal Direct Costs T1;fd8,000 GO 3 9,000 fZ,l/b T-799,000
indirect Costs S 14,FG0
Financing(3) S 221.300 $ 223.700 S 39;200 S 83,500
Other @ 15% 337,000 341.400 59,900 341,400 59.909
Subtotal Indirect Costs I-36�.I00 99 Hu �'J,UO
�806,300. O(1 91N1 3—_4T3.5(i
Total Construction Costs $2,806,300 3'f.��,lUO 4)il I00 � r
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS INCLUDING LAND T3,241,300 $3,276.100 S 496.100 T3, .�16 T.SCO
Developer Cash Equity S 435,000 S 435.000 S -0- S 435,000 $ -0-
Developer Return on Equity S 22,000 $ 22,000 S -0- S 22,000 S -0-
(Before equity buildup b taxes)
Percent 5.0A 5.0. -0- 5.Oz -0-
Required Gross Rental Income(4) S 508.000 $ 513,000 S 84,100 S 403,000 S 65,700
Average Pent Per Unit Per Month S. 564 S 563 $ 501 $ 447 $ 391
Required Annual income
Rent Equals 25% of Income S 27.100 S 21,000 S 24,000 S 21,500 S 18.6no
Pent Equals 30: of income 22,600 22,500 20,000 171909 15,6�0
Rent Equals 351 of income 19,300 19,300
17,200 15.300 13,4u0
1 ssurnes t at o t e additional permitted bonus units (i.e. *20' x 75 = 15 units) approximately 15% (i.e. 11 units) must be reserved for low/moderate
Income families.
(2) Average unit assumed at 950SF.
(3) Interim and permanent loans equal total development costs excluding land; interim loan @ 13t and 2 pts. - permanent loan @ 10.51. 30 years, 1 pt.
4 Assumes gross rental Income (1001) is equal to sum of operating expenses (35') and net operating income (65%),where the latter is equal to sum of
developer return on equity at 5: and debt service payment.
(5) interim and permanent financing at 8.25 , no loan fees.
m
i
It is important to recognize, however, that in many instances existing
zoning may already reflect the maximum capacity of a given parcel for
development; density bonuses in such situations obviously will be inap-
plicable. Additionally, in environmentally sensitive areas , such as the
coastal area and hillside regions, increased densities may prove either
impractical or simply undesirable. Alternatives to density bonuses may be
necessary in such instances.
It is our conclusion that density bonuses go far to render inclusionary
programs workable and should be a part of such a program. Los Angeles '
"Fifteen Percent Ordinance", for example, does not contain a density trade-
off; rather, it essentially ties production of below market rate units to
existing subsidy programs. Given current costs of land, construction and
finance, it frequently is not possible to produce new housing at costs
within the limits of subsidy programs as they currently are structured.
Therefore, the cost reduction results of bonuses become critical to effec- d
tiveness of an inclusionary program.
In those situations in which, for reasons of physical or environmental
constraint, increased densities are inappropriate, either alternatives for
cost reduction would need to be applied, or inclusion deemed inapplicable.
4
Program Applicability
Most inclusionary ordinances and programs exempt projects with fewer than
a specified number of units and/or developments at less than a given base
density. The most effective "floor" , if density bonuses are to be granted, ,
is' that combination of base density and units which, when a density bonus
and inclusionary requirement are applied, yields one or more market rate
units over and above the number which otherwise would have been produced;
this ensures a measure of incentive for developer cooperation.
It is unlikely that a inclusionary ordinance or program will be applied to 4
any single development without relatively time-consuming negotiations rela-
tive to terms . Therefore, it does not seem practical to structure this
kind of program for very small developments, where only one or possibly two
below-market units would result. It is largely for this reason that many
such programs are designed to apply only to relatively large projects , of
20-40 units and up, in medium densities and higher. In such projects there 4
frequently are economies of scale in construction, which produce higher re-
turn to the developer. For this reason, it is easier to successfully apply
a density bonus inclusionary requirement, as it is more likely that devel-
oper return will remain acceptable.
Table 3 on the facing page illustrates effect on cost of rental units of d
the density bonus inclusionary zoning technique. The first column presents
a development proforma for a typical 75-unit apartment development initially
to be built at a density of 30 units to the acre; the units average 950
square feet. In this example, with a modest pre-tax return to the developer
of 5 percent, required monthly rents would be approximately $565, or $.59
per square foot. Such rents necessitate tenant incomes from about $20,000
E-10
to $27,000, which is slightly above 120 percent of the median income for
the San Francisco Bay Area.
The second set of columns depicts the project as it might be after appli-
cation of a 20 percent density bonus and a requirement that 15 percent of
the resultant units be marketed at prices reflecting exclusion of land _
site preparation costs , and profit. Here, the prices of the "bonus" units
are over $60 per month less than those in the original project, and now
are at about $500 per month, a price affordable by households with incomes
in the $17,000-$24,000 range, which is approximately the median income
level .
The final set of columns illustrates the further effect on housing cost of
application of tax-exempt construction and long-term financing to the 20
percent bonus project; the result is a dramatic drop in unit rental rates.
The rental rates of the "bonus" units are now at $391 per month , which is
affordable by households earning between $13,400 and $18,800 per year,
roughly 80 percent of the median income for the area. The rents are now
well within the range of HUD' s Fair Market Rents for new construction.
In this last case, the combination of the inclusionary program, together
with density bonuses and tax-exempt financing, has produced units which
are affordable by lower-income families without public subsidy.
Once again, the combination of the bonus and the inclusion result in extra
market rate units , and the developer remains "whole".
From the preceding demonstration of effect upon cost, it is reasonable to
draw an inclusionary program for San Mateo County which would be applicable
to rental units as well as sales units. Ignoring the possible benefits of
tax exempt financing, inclusionary programs with density bonuses have the
effect of bringing sales housing prices within range of families at the
120 percent of median level , and of bringing rental rates within the range
of families at the 100 percent of median level .
Our conclusion is that inclusionary programming in San Mateo County should
be applicable to both sales and rental projects , that the program should be
triggered at the 20 to 40 unit scale, in medium density and above zones.
r Variation in Unit Design
Variation in unit size and amenities included in below market rate units
is common to most inclusionary programs . As was illustrated in Table 1 ,
Page 5 , a single reduction to unit size of 100 square feet in the sales
housing example resulted in a reduction in sales price of $4 ,400 (a 7 per-
cent plus reduction in minimum buyer income, but still in the 120 percent
of median range) . Deletion of non-essential amenities would increase the
reduction.
Caution should prevail with respect to exterior appearance, however, as
too visible a difference between the market and below-market units would
1
E-11
r
tend to produce buyer resistance and marketing problems for the developer,
which would work against acceptance of the program.
Definition of Affordability
Homebuyer income required to carry typical loans on the below-market rate
units illustrated in Table 1 (Page5 ) , approach 120 percent of the County
median income, even in the most favorable example (without tax-exempt fi-
nancing) . It is doubtful that units produced by an inclusionary program 41
will be able to reach households with substantially lower incomes , unless
such households have the capacity to make very high downpayments. In the
rental housing example (Table 2, Page7 ) , tenant income required to sup-
port rental rates produced by the inclusionary program, approach 100 per-
cent of median. Lower household incomes are realistic only if public
subsidy and/or tax-exempt financing is available. Without detailed re-
finement of development proformae, it appears that a realistic definition
of "affordability" in San Mateo County is housing which households of 130
percent of median to 100 percent of median can afford , unless subsidies
are available.
Continued Affordability
Several issues are involved with the question of whether measures should
be taken to ensure the continued "affordability" of dwellings produced by
inclusionary programs:
1 .- Should government control , for extended periods , the disposition of 4
housing produced without governmental assistance?
2. Do measures which control resale prices unfairly penalize sellers vis-
a-vis others in the merketplace?
3. Is the retention of a stock of affordable , privately-owned housing
sufficiently important to mitigate the first two issues?
With respect to the first question , most of the cities and counties utiliz-
ing inclusionary programs have determined that a public purpose is served
by control of inclusionary units where public subsidies were not involved 4
in initial production. A rationale to this approach is that while subsi-
dies have not been applied , non-monetary assistance has been granted in the
form of increased densities. Most of the resale controls which are in effect
are cognizant of escalation of values , and take a middle-of-the-road stance
vis-a-vis seller profit. That is , they permit escalation to the extent it
is reflected in the Cost-of-Living Index, but do not permit windfall profits.
In addition to the provision for escalation , most also recognize the market
value of substantial improvements. Comparable controls to rental rates are
possible. Clearly, the judgement which has been made by those localities
which use these techniques for ensuring continued affordability is that
retention of the stock of "affordable" housing produced by their inclusion-
ary programs is an overriding consideration. Also, it is clear that this
must be a local decision.
E"- 1 2
Monetary Subsidies
When available, monetary subsidies to the types of inclusionary developments
discussed in this presentation will serve to further reduce housing costs.
R Such subsidies may be in the form of land write-downs , public contribution
to the costs of site preparation and off-site improvements , and rental assis-
tance through the Section 8 Program. To tie an inclusionary program to such -
monetary assistance, however, would tend to negate the program itself, as
such subsidies are not always available, and particularly with rental pro-
jects , may be inapplicable due to inadequate Fair Market Rents. It is this
kind of problem which has so seriously inhibited success of Los Angeles '
"Fifteen Percent Ordinance", which is predicated upon the availability of
subsidy and the ability of the developer to bring unit costs in within the
range of Fair Market Rents.
0 As was shown in Tables 1 and 2 on Pages 5 and 7 , non-monetary assistance
in the form of tax-exempt financing alone can reduce housing costs substan-
tially. In the sales housing case, prices are reduced from the levels
affordable by households at the 120 percent of median level to those afford-
able by families at the 100 percent of median level . In the rental housing
case, rents can be reduced from those which families earning 100 percent of
median can afford to those affordable by households earning about 80 percent
of median.
Additional non-monetary assistance can bring housing costs down as well .
Such tactics as "fast track" processing, waiver of selected fees , reduction
of parking requirements , and so forth, can be used to further reduce hous-
ing cost.
OUTLINE OF RECOMMENDED INCLUSIONARY PROGRAM
The following very briefly outlines the structure of an inclusionary program
for San Mateo County:
1. Applicability: Sales and rental projects of 30 units or more, at medium
density or above.
2. Density Bonus: Up to 20 percent.
3. Amount of Inclusion: 15 percent.
4. Price: For sales housing, that affordable by households earning not
more than 130 percent of median income; for rental housing that price
affordable by households earning not more than 100 percent of median
for the area.
5. Restrictions : Public agency (or non-profit housing corporation) right
of first refusal to purchase sales units upon proposed resale at a price
reflecting increase in the Cost of Living Index plus the value of sub-
stantial improvements; for rental housing, comparable right of first
refusal to re-rent to eligible tenants.
E-13
6. Other: When and if public subsidies and/or tax-exempt financing are
available, units to be produced at lower prices and rental rates, and
with respect to rental units , to be made available for inclusion in
the Section 8 Program. d
1 � ,
4
E-14
,•... .. , .EN�'1RC. ,..,•T�+L. AtA,•.�,GE. - ,
HOLS/t:G AAN", CO?2,^d,'.ii uGk'7iOF`:E:;T D1'..LSLO.� TSB: Ec:
New .residential projects will be consistent with the affordati ._ty c;_.er_n of _..e Co ...
Housing Element if 25ft' of the units of similar type and mi:: are pried' as
' I
(10%/pro4ect) ,,. . .i ,. I (.0;, of pro3ect) Of project, i
B ED R00 iM
hUMI3ER I"NT}I:,Y DEBT PL'RCiIASE 'OP:7i-Y DEBT PURC SC
I
OR RENT PRICE Oi\ RE:vT PRICE G; r.E I p= ` "
i
0 $227 .50 $19,550 $341. 25 $ 32,050 S;•Q) . 50 $33, , 55C
1 260.00 23,100 390.CO 37 ,400 468.00 46, C„3
2 325.00 30,250 487. 50 48, 150 585.00 58,83o
3 366.00 34,800 54°. 50 54,850 65P,,.CC 66, 9�:
4 406.00 39,2C0 609. 50 61, 550 731 . 25 74 „5C
-A
J�
ASSL^2D COST FACTORS
Housing dent includes: rent cr princi;:al + i ,te:est ta::es + fees
Downpayment: 101/1
Interest Rate: 10. 5 - _--�
Tar. Rate: 1 o
Mortgage Term: 30 years
Association and other fees : $50 per month
t ' `,o,V r Lam- +•��
NOTE: Incentives for and alternatives to dire--,,- performance are a�.�i ,.:31e any 3;� be applicab_e to
M project. Creativity and flexibility are encouraged. 4'.,ssumed cost factors may vary with each project and
adjustments will be made accordingly. For further information please cor,tac.t the Housing and Co,;.,munity
_. 4
�, Development Office at 334-7971 .
1
1
1
1
1
1 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
PROJECT TEAM
JUNE W.CATALANO,Senior Planner
WILLIAM D.HOLMAN,Assistant Planner
JEANINE FRANK,Research Assistant
SPECIAL ASSISTANCE
STEPHEN V.KOHLER,Senior Community
Development Specialist
PATRICK W.TESSIER,Housing and Community
Development Assistant
GRAPHICS
I ROBERT SIGMON,Planning Draftsman
WORD PROCESSING
PATTI SCHWARTZ,Word Processing Coordinator
SHARON HOJO,Word Processing Specialist
CAREN WINANT,Word Processing,Senior
DEBBIE PLEDGER,Word Processing,Senior
SANDY EDINGTON,Word Processor
I The Department of Development Services would
like to acknowledge the cooperation of and direc-
tion provided by the Planning Commission Housing
Subcommittee:
RUTH FINLEY,City Council
BOB BAZIL,Planning Commission
JOHN STERN,Planning Commission
1
DR.HENRY KAUFMAN,At Large