HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-12-14; Planning Commission; Resolution 1594b.
'7 0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1594
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COYAISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMIMENDING APPROVAL OF A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT TO TITLE 21 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE, CHAPTER 21.07,
SECTION 21.07.040 BY THE ADDITION OF SUBSECTION
(7) TO ALLOW PACKING SHEDS AND PROCESSING PLANTS
FOR FARM CROPS.
APPLICANT: CITY OF CARLSBAD
CASE NO: ZCA-120
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbz
did hold a duly noticed public hearing on January 9, 1980, 1
consider the subject amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received all testimon:
arguments, if any, of all persons who desired to be heard, i
upon hearing and considering all factors relating to Zone Cc
Amendment 120, found the following facts and reasons to exiz
1. A Zone Code Amendment is desirable:
a. To clarify the definition of what is "small";
b. To permit agricultural processing of all levels wii
the agricultural zone;
c. To relieve pressure to zone agricultural lands to
industry.
2. The Zone Code Amendment is administrative in nature anc
would not result in any significant impacts to any
environmental resources.
3. All agricultural packing/processing plants would be SUI to further environmental review through the Conditiona: Use Permit process. At that time, conditions necessar: mitigate any potential adverse environmental impacts cc be applied on a project-by-project basis.
3. Uses permitted by this amendment would be consistent w:
the underlying zoning (exclusive agriculture).
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, by the following votc
recommended approval of ZCA-120, as per attached Exhibit "A'
I////
, . e 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
dated December 14, 1980.
AYES : Larson, Rombotis, Schick, Leeds, Marcus .
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Friestedt, Jose.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that the fOregOi1
recitations are true and correct.
12
13
14
15
16
ATTEST :
CARLSBAD PLANNING C
PC RES0 #1594 -2-
,
~
c
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I
0 e
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO )
CITY OF CARLSBAD 1 ss.
I, JAMES C. HAGAMAN, Secretary to the Planning Commiss:
of the City of Carlsbad, California, do hereby certify that
foregoing resolution was duly introduced, approved and adopi
by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad at a reg1
meeting of said Comission held on the 23rd day of January,
by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Schick, Rombotis, Marcus, Larson, Leeds, Jose ar Friestedt NOES : None
ABSTAIN : None
ABSENT : None
ZCA-120
a+".? .," - "i ,..J ,,F ;,
/,CAEILSBAD PLANNX~G COMMISSION /' / i -I ./
i/ /'
RES0 #1594 -3-
I . *.
1 7 *I
1
2
3
4
.5
6
7
8
..
e e Exhibit ".
December
0RDIN.ANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF .THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFOPfiIA, MENDING TITLE 21, CHAPTER
21.07, SECTION 21.07,040 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL
CODE BY TIE ADDITION OF SUESECTION (7) TO ALLOW
PACKING SHEDS AND PROCESSING FLANTS FOR FARM
CROPS ... . . . , . . . .
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, d
ordain as follows:
I SECTION 1: That Title 21, Chapter 21.07, Section 21.07 I ' of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the addition of
lo
3.1
Subsection (7) to read as follows:
12
"(7) Packing sheds " and processing plants for farm croE
processing plant is located within 50 feet of any lot line,'' I'
similar to those being grown on the premises, provided no SI
the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be published 16
days after its adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify tc . . X5
EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thil 14
least once in the Carlsbad Journal within fifteen days afte! l7
..
x' // its adoption,
19 1 Carlsbad City Council held on the day of 2o
1 INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the
21 and thereafter
' 22
/// . .. 25
/// .. 24
/d/ 23
/P/
/// . . 27
/// 26
28 ///
# " 5 *' c . I ! e a
.1 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of said City
2 Council held on the day of ' . ' .
NOES : 5
AYES : .. . 4
following vote, to wit: '3
, .1980 by the ..
6' ABSENT : ..
7
8
9
.... .
RONALD C PACKARD , Mayor
10 ATTEST':
. 3.3.
12
13
.
34
15
17
16
18
. .... ...... - ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk
(SEAL)
1
19 ,
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
I
I, rl)
I i I '. I
4
?
< P
Housing Element
of the
Carisbad General Plan
,
Prepared By:
Margaret R. Goldstein
for
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
December, 1979
(Including Revisions of Planning Commission 2/6/80 and 3/5/80) .
L.- LA/h 6 / "A"
/c &.So/iiX;n ./fiJ>
// .dG
e a
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I
I. INTRODUCTION
Page
1
A. Intent and Theme of the Housing Element
B. State of California Law and Requirements
1
2
C. General Plan. Relationships 3
D. Local Responsibility:
Implementation, Evaluation and Review 6
I1 . GOALS, POLICIES AND ACTION PROGRAMS OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT 12
A. Goals 12
0. Policies and Action Programs 13
111. IMPLEMENTATION, PRIORITIES, UPDATE AND REVIEW OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT 25
A. Priorities 25
B. Review and Update 28
APPENDICES
A. Community Profile: Housing Characteristics, Needs and Problems
Market and Governmental 1
0. Constraints to Providing "Affordable" Housing:
C. Mobile Home Discussion D. Definitions
E. Low and Moderate Income Housing: Fair Share and Inclusionary Provisions
e 0
I. INTRODUCTION
I
This housing element of the general plan is intended to provide citizens and public
officials of Carlsbad with an understanding of the housing needs of the community
and to develop am integrated set of goals, policies and programs which can assist
the community in meeting those needs.
A. INTENT AND THEME OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT: HOUSING IN CARLSBAD
1980-1 985; DEVELOPMENT AND PRESERVATION
In the course of citizen participatibn efforts in preparing this document, two major
themes have emerged as crucial to dealing with housing issues in Carlsbad over the
next five years. The first of these themes is the continued growth and
development of the city. Carlsbad's population has more than doubled since 1970 '
and the rate of growth has accelerated since 1975. The following table illustrates
past trends and available projections of future growth in Carlsbad for the next
f ive-year period.
-1-
e e
9 Growth Trends and Proiections
Single Multi
Year - Population Households Family Family
1970 14,944 5,149 3,562 1,028
1975 19,700 7,240 3,842 2,422
1979" 32,100 13,281 8,044 4,169
1985** 39,371 - 45,932 17,268 NA NA
Mobile
Home
24 6 "
760
1,068
NA
-
1985*** 51,100 20,700 NA NA NA
* current ** projection range, Series IV - *** projection Series V; preliminary
(Sources: U.S. Census, 1970; California Census, 1975; California Department of
. Finance, 1979, Series IV Forecasts, Comprehensive Planning Organization and
Resolution No. 5237, City of Carlsbad, 1977; Series V Preliminary Regional Growth
Forecasts, Comprehensive Planning Organization, January, 1980)
The second major theme in the development of the housing element was the desire
to preserve the city's existing residential character, community scale and desirable
environment. This theme is expressed in emphasis on rehabilitation and preserva-
tion activities in older neighborhoods and in emphasis on neighborhood identity,
orderly development and compatibility with surroundings to be stressed in new
development. Both themes, response to projected growth and desire to preserve ,
community values, are addressed in the goals, and policies of. this element.
Toward a Comprehensive Housing Strategy for Carlsbad
The completed housing element, particularly its statement of goals, policies and
action programs (Section II),. ideally will serve as a blueprint for both elected
officials and staff in evaluating proposals, determining priorities and making
-2-
e Q
housing decisions of all kinds. The gcals of the element shculd provide a basis for
reviewing day to dayzissues and serve as one basis for evaluating alternatives. The
element when viewed as a comprehensive housing strategy also provides the city
with a framework to respond to regional, state and federal housing initiatives and
to evaluate state and federal programs for local use. A comprehensive housing
strategy also informs all residents of the community of the consensus goals,
policies and priorities which have been developed to ensure meeting "the housing
needs of all economic segments of the community".
B. STATE OF CALIFORNIA LAW AND REQUIREMENTS .
The requirement that housing elements be included as mandatory components of
local general plans reflects a legislative recognition that local planning and
program commitment ?re essential. to meeting the state's housing needs and goals.
The state legislature has established general standards to be followed in the
preparation of the housing element. These general standards are:
(1) "A housing element is to consist of standards and plans for the
improvement of housing and for provision of adequate sites for housing.
(2) In addition, this element of the general plan shall make adequate
provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the
community." (Title 25, California Administrative Code, Section 6504.)
In order to "implement, interpret, and make specific" this legislative direction, the
Department of Housing and Community Development has issued statewide Housing
Element Guidelines pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 50459. These
guidelines, issued in November, 1977, make specific the legislative mandate and
- -5-
a e
"also establish criteria against which local compliance can be measured". This
housing element was?developed to meet the intent of the state legislature, and be
in conformance with the state Housing Element Guidelines and the Housing
'Element Manual prepared by the State Department of Housing and Community
Development.
C. GENERAL PLAN RELATIONSHIPS
California law requires that general plans contain an integrated internally consis-
tent set of policies. 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. The goals and policies of the
housing element have been drafted to reflect consistency with the land use element
which for reasons of safety, geology, open space, noise, among others, declares
that certain areas are to be preserved or developed with non-residential uses. The
housing element does not suggest specific sites but does recommend general areas
for future housing development and general locational criteria consistent with the
land use element and existing master plans. To the extent that conflicts arise
between the housing element and the land use element, the policies of the land use
element shall prevail.
Goal Setting and the Land Use Element "
This Housing Element uses the residential guidelines of the City's adopted Land Use
Element as a policy framework for developing more specific goals and policies in
-4-
a a
the housing element. Although the Land Use Element enumerates 16 different
guidelines for residential development, they encompass five main themes. These
are:
Preservation - Preserve the neighborhood atmosphere, retain the identity of
existing neighborhoods, maximize open space and ensure slope preservation.
Choice - Ensure a variety of housing types, a choice of all economic ranges,
wide range of housing types; apartments, townhouses, etc., different styles and
price levels in a variety of locations.
Medium and High Density Compatibility with Surroundings and Services - Pro-
vide close-in living and convenient shopping in the commercial core. Limit
and encourage larae scale development of apartments in areas most appro-
priate from standpoint of convenience and access.
Housing Needs - Utilize programs to revitalize deteriorating areas or those
with high potential for deterioration, seek to provide low and moderate income
housing.
Managed Development - Ensure orderly residential development, avoid "leap
frog" subdivision; allow high density where existing or proposed public facili-
ties can accommodate increased population and particularly within the Village
area Redevelopment Project.
Now several years old these guidelines continue to be instructive and have formed
one basis for the goals developed in the revised housing element.
- 5-
e
(Section added during - Planning Commission Review
of 2/6/80) ?
D. LOCAL RESPONSIBILITY:
IMPLEMENTATION EVALUATION AND REVIEW
This Housing Element includes five general goals, ten major policy areas and some
46 recommended action programs. The implementation, evaluation and review
responsibilities of such a program present a formidable task for local officials.
Obviously, not all tasks can be given equal weight and attention. Section I11 of this
Housing Element highlights those few policies and programs which because of both
state guidelines and local needs should be given priority. This statement attempts
to assign responsibility for implementation, evaluation and review of the overall
program. It should be noted that ultimate responsibility lies, of course, with the
Carlsbad City Council, which may assign staff and resources to carry out particular
responsibilities under its own guidance or under that of appointed review bodies.
The following chart lists each of this element's 46 recommended actions with
suggested staff and review responsibilities. Those appointed bodies with review
and evaluation responsibilities will be assigned appropriate staffing as indicated in
the chart. The chart also includes suggested fund sources. All actions are subject
to final directives by the Carlsbad City Council.
-6-
* *
C .'i 5
+"
3 v)
t
I" C 2 CJ
Y u 0 "I m
I" C
U 2
Y W 0 "4 m
+" C- 2 U
Y V 0 m "4
+ C
U 2
x W 0 * m
U c
LL =r
d 2 e, C s
+" c
CJ 2
Y W 0 4 m
4 wg5
22%
C";% 2; L
C aJw
CJ ..4 - +(d YCL UOaJ
-0aJ o+"u m aw
E
a (
CI E ar E 8
.SI 1
z 3 5
8 2
E E
-5 2
g
2
*-I
9
al 3
C 0
rd 1 a
w >
-0 C (d
aJ >
.4 +"
4
3 ..4
2
1" x
-4 "l ..4 2
%
VJ C 0
2
w m rd 5;
e
x .o, .z %
EO ,? 0
L.
2 *$
vu -02 s: bo& co
v)Q, 1>
.-.I "4
26
I" x
C 3
.4
..4 q
5: 2
+" uo
-"E CCaJ
mma .5 .5 2 qwaJ ..4 =r > I324
C x .s .t= v) 2 -g
EO OV 0, UC s;
26
ma so
CnaJ =r> ..4 "4
+" x
C ..4 z E *I"
a€
.5 2
0
uc CaJ
ma
WaJ 3> 26
C x .2 .t= u-l c .2
EO ?L! b+"
.* E
ZE
-0c SaJ
hca so
v)Q, 3>
.4 4
26
-P x
C ..4
2 E *+
a€
0
-0c CaJ
boa so
UJaJ Y>
.* "4
Z6
C x ..4 0 .z rn C .Y 1E
OV
UC
EE
sg
Z6
*I"
ma co
mal 3>
..4 4
C 0
v) v)
..4
.4 E € s m C
C C (d a
..4
"4
I" x
.A -2
E
0,
z
2;
s4
0
Tic
ma
v)aJ =r>
.5 2
c.' c CQ) .2 E gs %E 5a
WM
" c c .f ZC
*.4 rd ma 34
c.' x
C ..4 z
5;
28
E
0, 0
UC
ma CO
v)Q, 1>
.-.I "4
'c.'
x .* r
E
0,
2
2;
E:
0
uc
boa co
me, =r> ..4 "4
c.' x
C .4 z
s;
&5
E
0,
0
-0c
ma co
maJ 3,
.* "4
x I"
C ..4 z
5; .z 4
2:
E
0,
0
ut:
hca
1>
v) C 0 .4
2 I"
-0 s
v) Q, u ."I .* ';I a
3 2
c Id
W
,v) h
W
+ .+
e,
v, e, 2
? aL.
u1" .aJ
S-0 2 % L
.* Gg
Q :2 a g2.2 'J E ?
> b.02 5 clll
v) 's; *; Egg
(d
as a
d
SA w .z -c c
I" 3 -2 E CE
.* +=
(dcm > m.2
aJ ..y 'r:
$8
L-P
v) 4 ..4
a -aw 2+:
P.i
I L
a 0
c
-4 mx Q, .z
w= OEv)
cc
zgs 2 W-J
aJ -g .!! zoc p" a 8P cfQ 0
rc\
x 2 .z .!2P s E- oE
aJu* uu 6 5 2.J E:.! 2: 5
1"o
.-.I
aQ 0 ZOL
s
.+ W
8 +" v) ..4 c
0
C 0
w
.4 + (d 2, %%
&2 03
rn
.4 4
I
z
2 I: rd
-0 a, + E! LI C
W e,
C oc 0 .2
l4a +"
cl+"
C 0
(d
.+ c.'
I" .+ 4 z (d I: 2
4
W c ..4 €5 E -s Em
k$
2%
Lw 25
hi
CQ .z OZ
-P 3L.
-7-
@ e
0.0
3 z c,
v)
c 0
rd 3
rd
a >
U c tu
.-.I c,
-.I
3 .+ aJ > 2
U a U
-0 U D aJ U a, .aJ aJ -0 U
0 Y4
#$ aJ-2 U E5 aJc L.3 0% sz E5 0% E5 -0: -2:z c 2gL. rd -2% 7~Ea) ~EE TEE -2 U 2;: Lr, QD sgrd 55% gord 3Lrd 3
La'" LIn v) Lorn LL -cE "E2 2ord Zoa-Z;! Loa Loa Lo(6 Lo(d ;c€ ;2E ;E€ ;$E 2 -.I 2
Ino* In
c 3 L.
aJ-k gzpu IV a+& aJ-b a*& a+& a, aJ 5';:. wp5 &*Go 5.G 0 &*G 0 6';: 0 C C US& USE% u5k uai US& US&,$ s
c x .s .z v) c .Y
EO
00 0,
z:
-0s
.5 2
5g
26
ma
mal .3>
C x 2 .z v) c .Y
€0 OV *, uc caJ a€ ma co
ma .3>
E;
.-.I 4
g;
C' x .s .z 0 c .Y
Eo OV VU
z;
-0. s- 5g
26
ana co
VJaJ 3>
.+ +
C x .s .z 0-J C .Y
€0. o* ut" -Gc caJ *E ma co
InaJ s>
ZE
.+ +
26
c x .s .z In c .Y
€0 00 0, uc
Wa
COaJ 3>
E;
5;
g6
.f 2
c x .s .z In c .Y
€0
OV 0, uc
z:
5; mi% eo
WaJ .3>
.+ 4
26
c 0 ..-4
v) v) .+ E E
0 0
ho c c c rd a
.+
4
c x .o, .z v)
-
2 *;
€0
00 0, -a c 5; ma eo
In0 3>
-4 +
GI
x w .+ "I .+ s
!?
In C 0
2
w y-l tu x
c, x
c .-.I z
2;
26
E
0, 0
uc
Ma so .4 "I WaJ 3,
x CI
C .-.I z
sg
gB
E
0, 0
mc
ma
InaJ 2>
.5 I!
c, x
c .+ z
5; .s 5
ZB
€ 0
7Jc Ut"
ma
2>
, x
c .+ z E
0,
*E
0
uc caJ
ana co
CnaJ 3>
.-.I "I
gt5
U x .+ C z
s;
26
E
ut" 0
vc
hoa
InaJ 1>
.5 2
c, x
c ..-I
E'
5;
26
E
0, 0
vc
ma co
CnaJ 3>
.+ -
c, C ;
B
t" % a
e.0 C c c rd a
.+
+
aJ V .+ w w 0
-A
In
a) : +" 2
t" x .-I 0
e, 00 t" tu C
.4 q aJ % .+ 0
c1
+-I si: U
cdln 'v)
aJ 2
% a& rd
.4 c "E e D
5.
2rd
In : ..-I aJ 3 %2 2 La 3
t"
C
U
0 a I
..-4 -
Y* -4 d
00
C 0
U
VI a,
aJ
3
LL 3
.-.I c,
L
c,
4
E 3 -0 c %
a
c 3 ; 2
w
w 0 3:
G 0
-8-
c, c E
Y 6
a 0 "I
00 C .+ 9: 22
\o
4 In *2 c, c 0 V
C 0
VJ I. Q,
C >
0
.-.I
U
h
..
c ho A2
2 gfi; 2
U .-.I .+ In2 boa 3 a-22
SEOaJU $a;; aJ
g.pu o E$ c rd c .Y 2 E 5 rG rd'Z Lcm
3LO
7J aJ+wJ=
mcc,
c,
e e
5 L 5
U d
v)
I
, I
-2z z U 3 3 c
LL 3 L D- L L - 4 2 2 2 4 td
Q, a, C a, C Q, C C
4
L
8 s s s
-2: 2 33 LLLL 3 LL
4 2 aJ c s
- 2 Q, C $
"4 2! a C s
22 3 LL 1 L
"4 2 2 4
Q, C Q, c s 3
? !i - 0 t c 2
C 0
tu 7
tu > Lrl
-Q C (d
.+ cl
4
3
.w Q, > 2
C 0
In In
.-
'E" E
W 0
C 0 .-4 In In *z E u 0
C 0 .- In In .+ E E 3
C 0 14 In v) .- E E 8
c 0 .- ." 3
E E
0 .- 0
C 0 .-.I In v) 2 E
0 0
c 0 .- In In .+ E E u 0
M M M do C C hobo C c en cc
C
C c C C C c C C CC C
tu td td tu cc tutu C (d a
..-I .-.I .* .4 ." .- .-
4 a z a a zz 4 4 4
C 0 C 0 ii '2 s 3
.- In In .- E E E
M an C C
C C C (d C tu a
.-.I .-
z -.I
C c .- U U .- E E
a :
.- C
C C n:
Q -
x .- w
cl
" 2
In C 0 Q In 2
r-c r-c td 3;
c, C c, C c, C c, C c,c, CC cl C
cl 8 w i!! cl ; i!! 8E i!!
% % td %% L 1" L clcl
(d
cl L a a a a Qa (d a E 8 E 6 66 6
M bo c C M M Mbd C C M .- .- .- .- .- .-.I .- st c C
C C C C C C C cc c
td fd td td turd cc C
a td a a a aa a 4 - 4 - 44 4
c, c, c c
c, E" E"
L cl tu a a %
E 6
+ C !
2
+ L fl c
a0 M a C c C
C C c c
(d C tu C
a (i: a
.-.I ." .-
4 4 T n
In u
v) 'C 0 ."I cl 2
0 C tu
Q, u
a 0
In .- .- "4
ZI =cl
ocla
a, .-.I 0 Tjw-
(d caJ
*g 0 c
z$
2 8;
+I 0.5 a,
w u+ <2 td a .L *DL > aa
C .: 5
3g
5 x
sV 32
u.0
x .z Lln tds WQ,
>td
"4
-.I I
td
U .-.(
%$
€3 E7;1
UE
x 's;
€2
N'
0 0-
UQ, Q,v .-
c
2E 32 % '3 4-
Q,
*- x cL
.9 In
C .z
wc g .%
a2 U
pi;. rd
Pi
M ccl
-4 c sa
s-0 oE
$G
.4 rtr5 .: Q,
.9 I= C53
WE
LW
Ltd
2
ln aJ aJ +I
CH 0
M c > .A
-4 s
0
u .e ii 25 'i; -2
ca .9 :: w tdm >a, LW Q, *- z;
em
\D
E W
L aJ
(d'
z
€
h
Q,
a0 2% .r: x x zclz
T3 .s -4
5 92 LA
8 a00
td .5 E
%%C 07Tl
<*a
3L.a
4-x Vi > 'G c,
L Q, L M zg u .-.I 5:
Ex .2 .z
2-0 Q,s u*
4
6)
EC
-5 5 5 E E"
GS? a,
'0 $% 2% E
0 -- UclIn
tu a,
c\i
L
(c
-c
- - -
E
-c C &T - .- a
.c s
4
-9-
e a
q c
2
-0’ 1
vl
-0 C
LL 3
4 2 a, C aJ (3
t
U C 3 L - 2 Q, C 8
TI C 3 L - 2 Q) C Q) c1
U C
r?
2 -
Q, C s
.d (d r:
Y
L 0 - 9
w 0
$!-.” (dE xrz
.- (d
t
0 2
L
“.I s
Ln 0 E!-.”
x2 rd=
.“I rd
E 0 2 * 9
$2 xrz
w 0
v)
rd
C 0
i” (d 3
(d > trl
-0 C rd
..-I
“d
3 ..+ 0, > 2
0 C .+
v) v) *z
3 E
bo C
C C a a
.*
“.I
C 0 .-I v) v) .* E E .u 0
Bn c
C C
(d a
.4
4
C 0
v) m
..+
2 E u 0
bo C
C c rd a
.* -
C 0 .- %
E -z
6
bo C
C C
rd a
..+
+
c
X .s .z v) C .3
EO
OU Ui”
z:
2:
5%
UC
boa
mu 3>
.5 2
C
X .s .z U-J c .2
EO ou 0,
2:
uc 5;
26
boa CO
UJQ, 3>
..-I “.I
c
‘VI X .s
c .I?
€0 ou 0, UC
boa CO mu 3>
.+ z:
5;
&s
.“4 -
bo C ‘ho bo c Bn C C ‘as E ‘$5 E -z 5 + X+ Xi“ p3, za3, y3E p3E,
v) c S$Zk %$%& 552a a.4;;a 0 0 0 a(d + amw+ aa++ am++ 0, vi” vi”
0 a EXEC Lau ayLC 6, LaQ) a2kG 6525 5; 2; rdE CU 2 .-.I c3ma C3vJ6, c3mu c3v)Q, boa boa Ma eQ,at$ *+at$ *&pF ‘2Q,ruhc CO CO co
i” rd -0 5E;s s2s 5ggs zoea c E Q) 2.
v-l a9uZ LSu€ ZSm€ LSV€
.+ Q,5 x
C C C ..-I ..-I .-
x +”
2
WXOL @XOL uxor! QXOL - .- E%$$ €%q E%$? €%q z z z .-4 E@ E E E
UC UC uc 0 6,
moa€ moa€ moa€ ~0 aE
w Ln .- - I”( - .* “.I we, v)a (no 3> 3> =I> OQ, OQ, ou -00 za zt2 ZCI
C
I 2 .$
‘ci E 3
”2 0 (da u
- ..+ rd
v) C .* i”
O UQ, C> x 2
C
&g (3 V
85 $
(d Q .z mu C
>= E
f,
(d
Q,
..-I
v) L .-
4 .“I
0 a
.m . EQ, . > ‘4 -4
- .+ Q,
w e a
J2 0 b
hi
0 C
(d U
a a
(d
.* i”
.- -
d Q trl
4
v) .- .* - Q,
i” v) e ..+ bo 3
V C ox
rd Li”
V
U C
..-I
+I c= v) C+
u M --
.s 2 rd;F1 2
av) ZQ, -2 c gz %a 03
*- zz. Lu *zc .Y g 5 3u aaJ c > .- y ; 2 $a; gs
O Qu ZZ w3: bz
G SA 4 4
ma, .d
- 10 -
@ 0
C
C 5
~
2
c.'
v)
'13 c rz
(3"
-
L (d
aJ C
-0 S rz
2 4
aJ c s
t
uuuu cccc rzzzz
2222
ssss
"44
aJaJaJaJ cccc
c 0
c, (d 3
(d > Lrl
U C
.+
4
,a
3 aJ > .+
2
c x .-I 0 .z v, 2 *E
€0 OU Uc, uc 2; g%
26
.+ "I mal 3s
C 0 x .-.I .z v) ; .$
EO 90 La uc
.5 9
sg
26
ana
mo, 1>
c 0 .-.I
v) v) .-4 € E
V 0
bo C
C C (d a
.H
-.I
c 0 .+ v, v) 2 E
V 0
hc C
C S (d a
i +
4
c 0 .-.I
(0 v) .+ E E 6 an c
C c (d a
.-I
"I
C 0
v) v)
.-.I .-.I E E
0 0
an c
S C (d a
.-.I
4
x +J .-.I 4 .-.I 2
2,
VI c 0
2
W w (d x
V aJ aJ U ..4 +I W LH LH
.+
0 0
x aJ x aJ
In VI
c, $ ;
2 2 c.'
c, X+ x
.4 0 0 .+
+J f
r aJ a
v) C 0 .4 c.' 2
U C rd
v, aJ
V
0 a
.+ .+ 4
w x
c
c, 1
a a 0
(d 1 0- w.
.4
&
4
x' U
z E .-.I L
w (d
aJ > .-I c.'m a€
zg E2 .-.I bo
<a
4
i?
;
0 c
aJ
a 4 .-.I
- - C aJ a 0
c\i
U C (0
aJ
(d U e 3
c,
h 3
fz .Y aJ 2.
22
aJ >c .-.I
>
+w++ cccc E;zz
6666
c.'++Jc, LLLL (d(d(dlQ aaaa
anananan cccc cccc cccc (d(d(drd aaaa
..4 .-.I .-.I .+
44"
3 aJ > -4
2
4 (d =I C C Q
d)
U (d
a 1 >
.!2
+J
v,
L
v) aJ
aJ
U (d
a 1
v)
c,
2
8 C
C 0
>
.-.I .-.I v,
2
b
z .- (d
Ac\iviG
- 11 -
e e
11. GOALS, POLICIES AND ACTION PROGRAMS OF THE HOUSINC ELEMENT
t
A. GOALS
This Housing Element developed five major goals for its housing program. These
five goals provide general direction in meeting Carlsbad's two major housing issues:
preserving existing community values and responding to projected growth. The
goals of the housing element are:
0 To preserve Carlsbad's unique and desirable residential character as a
coastal community and to maintain high design and environmental
quality standards in all new development or redevelopment.
0 To assure that the city's future development provides an adequate
diversity of housing, with types, prices, tenures and locations consistent
with the age and economic characteristics of present and future resi-
dents.
0 To provide affordable housing opportunities in a variety of types and
locations to meet the needs of current low and moderate income
households and a fair share proportion of future low and moderate
income households.
0 To assure that the amount and type of housing development or redevel-
opment is compatible and convenient with the locations of major
facilities and services and in particular with major transportation and
transit routes, as well as major employment centers.
- 12-
0 0
0 To assure that all housing, whether market or assisted, is sold or rented
in conformance with "open" housing policies free of discriminatory prac-
tices.
t
B. POLICIES AND ACTION PROGRAMS
In order to meet these goals, specific policies and programs are suggested. Ten
major policy areas are identified; each relates to a specific set of housing issues
and problems. The first two of these policy areas relate to the preservation of
existing communities theme while the next five policy areas relate to response to
new development. The last three of the policy areas relate to both preservation
and new development.
1. Preservation of Community Values and Maintenance of High Standards (Policy
and programs directed toward preservation of existing good neighborhoods.)
Policy - Preserve the existing character of the city and protect existing residential
-communities from encroachment of incompatible uses or degeadation of
environmental quality by establishing "preservation districts" within the city. These
districts might correspond to the city's census tracts.
Action 1 - Monitor signs of early decline within "preservation districts" by
conducting frequent spot inspections of housing condition and making rehabili-
tation funds available if necessary.
Action 2 - Monitor signs of early decline within "preservation districts" by
conducting spot inspections of conditions of public and community facilities
- 13-
a a
and services. Conditions should be evaluated for possible inclusion in capital
improvement program,
Action 3 - Encourage greater involvement from community and neighborhood
organizations in the preservation of existing neighborhoods.
Action 4 - Distribute public notices of major City developments and plans to
community and neighborhood based groups.
Action 5 - Preserve where feasible the city's historic houses from demolition
or conversion to inappropriate use. (Historic properties are eligible for federal
and state funds to carry out rehabilitation; these funds are difficult to obtain
and so economic feasibility of maintenance or conversion of historic sites is of
prime importance.)
2. Concentrated Rehabilitation (Policy and programs directed toward improve-
.merit of housing stock and public facilities in the Village Area Redevelopment
Project. (See Site Map in Appendix A))
Policy - The City should utilize code enforcement and rehabilitation activities to
preserve and rehabilitate lthe housing stock within the Village Area Redevelopment
, Project.
Action I - Continue the rehabilitation of residences now proceeding in the
area with funding from the city's block grant program. (The program's use has
been limited because of income and ownership requirements.)
- 14 -
* e
Action 2 - Pursue funding through federal and state rehabilitation programs
which would ailow the city the flexibility to provide rehabilitation assistance
to investors, and moderate and middle income owners. (While there are
several government rehabilitation programs, most are as restrictive as the
CDBG program now in operation.) Those programs allowing greater flexibility
which should be pursued are: (1) Issuance of Marks-Foran Residential
Rehabilitation Bonds, and (2) application for federal Section 312 loans for the
designated area by the Carlsbad Housing and Community Development Com-
mission. (See Appendix D, Definitions for description of above programs.)
Action 3 - Seek to mainta'in and improve public facilities and services within
the Village Area Redevelopment Project. (Funds to come either from
additional Community Development Block Grant monies, tax increments, bond
issues or general city funds.)
3. Meeting Lower Income Housing Needs (Policy and programs directed toward
meeting current and projected (1980-1985) housing needs of lower income
households (less than 10,725 per year). Carlsbad's target goal as estimated in
the regional fair share program is currently 825 units. The following programs
are designed to provide approximately this number of units depending on
funding availability, success of program, etc.' Housing programs for lower
income households are almost always government subsidized.
Policy - Develop a greater diversity of housing types and programs to meet a
significant share of Carlsbad's lower income housing needs, maintain and
rehabilitate where necessary the existing stock of lower income housing.
-
- 15-
m e
Action 1 - Pursue those federal and state housing programs which are
' compatible with the character of the city and can provide the most housing
units toward meeting the city's current and projected needs. (Programs
elaborated in Actions 2 through 7 following.)
Action 2 - Continue the existing Section 8 Housing Assistance Program (240
units) seeking revised rents from the Department of Housing and Urban
Development consistent with coastal area market prices.
Action 3 - Apply to the Department of Housing and Urban Development for an
additional 250 units of Section 8 assisted housing to be phased over the five-
year time frame of this Housing Element (1980-1985). The allocation of these
units between elderly and non-elderly households would be determined by
funding priorities of the Department of Housing an/! Urban Development and
the City of Carlsbad Housing and Community Development Commission.
Action 4 - Conduct a citywide referendum (preferably at a general election)
specifically requesting authority to develop as many as 250 new units of senior
citizen housing on scattered sites in Carlsbad. Sites should be representative
of the Cityls four geographic quadrants and meet the site selection criteria
outlined under Policy 6 (Adequate Sites).
Action 5 - Direct city staff to contact the California Department of Housing
and Community Development concerning the write down of development costs,
rental construction assistance and purchase of "right of occupancyt1 in market
rate rental housing funds now available to local authorities. (The State of
California has appropriated 80 million dollars available January, 1980 to be
- 16 -
e e
targeted for rental construction incentive programs as a result or' the passage
of AB 333 (Hugheg) and SB 229 (Roberti).)
Action 6 - Establish a Housing Development Fund to assist in land purchase or
write down costs for development of low or moderate income housing. Sources
of such funds should be state aid as a result of passage of AB 333, portions of
annual CDBG grant not used for rehabilitation or state or federal contributions
to non-profit housing sponsors.
Action 7 - Preserve the city's stock of lower income rentals by amending
Chapter 21.47 of Municipal Code (Condominium and Condominium Conver-
sions) to add under 21.47.150 (c) an application for conversion of an existing
structure to a condominium shall include a statement of current rents,
projected sales prices and available comparable vacancy data for City rentals. '
Council may use such data to evaluate effect of possible conversion on the
City's overall housing needs and rental/ownership mix. Certain conversion
regulations may be waived if conversion provides moderate income housing
opportunities. Consideration may also be given to payment of relocation costs
in hardship cases.
4. Providing Affordable Housing: Moderate Income Housing Development (Policy
and programs directed toward maintaining and providing moderate income
housing opportunities (80 to 120 percent of median income). through political
action.)
- 17-
e e
Policy - Give consideration to future action on .those federal and state policies and
programs designed to increase the supply of moderate income rentals and
" ""-
opportunities for moderate incorrle homeownership. The following types of general
legislation in supp~rt of moderate income housing might be considered.
- "
- -
Action I - State legislation that would increase renter credit allowable, to all
households on their state income tax. (Current credit allows $60.00 for single
renter, $137.00 for married couple or unmarried head of household.)
Action 2 - State legislation to require the California Housing Finance Agency
to use the major part of its bonding power to support moderate income rental
construction through local authorities.
Action 3 - State izgislation setting up loan construction fund for housing
development for disabled persons (AB 1045).
Action 4 - Federal legislation that would increase funds available to local
government for moderate income rental development and to raise rental limits
on existing assistance programs.
Action 5 - Federal legislation to extend and increase interest subsidy programs
for moderate income homeownership similar to those now offered by local
savings and loans through the Federal Home Loan Bank Board.
Action 6 - State legislation to provide mobilehome resident associations with
right of first refusal on purchase of mobilehome parks.
- 18 -
0 e
5. Providing Affordable Housing: Moderate Income Housing Development (Policy
and programs di5ected toward providing moderate income housing opportuni-
ties (80 to 120 percent of median income) through public incentives to private
. development.)
Policy - Develop public incentives to assist the private market in providing broader
housing opportunity.
Action 1 - Develop a voluntary inclusionary and density bonus program
allowing a maximum of 20 percent density bonus in exchange for 15 percent of
units reserved for moderate income rentals; development may be sale, rental
or mixed; moderate income rent limits should be equivalent to maximum fair
market rents set by Department of Housing and Urban Development for
Carlsbad.
Action 2 - Amend ordinances so that the mixed use of compatible commercial
uses with residential units is encouraged particularly in the Village Area
Redevelopment Project and in the community centers of newly developed
master plan areas. (Compatible commercial uses may include administrative
and professional offices, retail uses with pedestrian orientation and some
public uses. See Village Area Redevelopment Plan.)
Action 3 - Amend ordinances to allow development of moderate income
rentals with reduction of normal off-street parking and density requirements.
Action 4 - Amend ordinances to extend the provisions of the Senior Citizens
Housing Development Ordinance to zones other than the currently allowed RP
Zone.
e e
Action 5 - Amend ordinances to adopt a formula for waiving of facilities,
* services, or valuAtion fees or a percentage thereof on development of units
qualifying as moderate income rentals.
Action 6 - Reserve a portion of annual public services allocation capacity for
development of units qualifying as moderate income rentals.
Action 7 - Prepare a citywide Master Environmental Impact Report to reduce
the time and detail required for individual reviews particularly those appli-
cable to small parcels of land in already developed areas.
6. Providing Adequate and Suitable Sites (Policy and programs directed toward
assuring site availability and suitability (site selection criteria) for a variety of
housing in both type and affordability.)
Policy - Assure zdequate md suitable sites for development of a variety of housing
types and especially to assure affordability. "
Action 1 - Ensure that new master planned areas contain sites suitably zoned
for medium and higher densities (20 to 30 units per acre). Determination of
density and location to be negotiated by staff and developers.
Action 2 - Encourage developers to indicate appropriate sites for moderate
income housing development in master plans.
Action 3 - Encourage the development of suitable sites within master planned
areas for mobile home parks and especially mobilehome and modular unit
subdivisions.
0 e
Action 4 - Review site suitability using the site selection criteria listed below.
Many of the majpr environmental considerations related to housing develop-
ment are covered by existing review requirements. The following criteria
relate specifically to the location of housing for low and moderate income
families and elderly. Evaluate:
(1) Neighborhood environment inclu.ding existing land uses and impact of
additional housing.
(2) Transportation - proximi'ty, frequency and destination.
(3) Pedestrian mobility - walkways, lighting, safety.
(4) Proximity to medical, recreational and cultural facilities.
(5) Proximity to community and commercial services.
(6) Proximity to educational facilities.
7. Services and Facilities Availability for New Development (Policy and programs .
directed toward assuring new development proceeds consistent with services,
and facilities to meet community needs.)
Policy - Locate major new residential development along transportation and transit
lines to assure access to commercial and industrial employment centers; plan for
residential development to accommodate anticipated growth. (Current Series IV
Forecasts estimate 1980-1985 household growth at nearly 4,000 housholds; Revised
Series V Forecasts (preliminary) estimates a 1980-1985 household growth of - -
approximately 7,400 households.)
Action 1 - Undertake a community education program within each of the city's
four quadrants to acquaint residents with expected growth, availability of
services and facilities and possible impacts.
- 21 -
e 0
I Action 2 - Seek cooperation of major employers in estimating five-year job
growth, profile 04 employees and estimate of housing needs. .
Action 3 - Prepare grant application to the Economic Development Adminis-
tration, Department of Commerce to develop program to evaluate future
Carlsbad employment growth in light of housing trends and needs. This
program should consider volume, type and location of employment related to
housing and public facilities.
Action 4 - Prepare estimate of major service and facility capacity (housing
units) for five-year period (1 980-1985) and evaluate against agreed upon
forecasts (Series IV or Series V when available.)
8. Organization (Policy and programs relating to local and regional organizational
changes to meet the city's housing needs and to participate in various housing
programs.)
Policy - Actively pursue organizational changes and the development of new
organizations to facilitate meeting the city's housing needs.
Action 1 - Form an areawide Housing Council with other North County cities,
and representatives of San Diego County (San Dieguito area), the Department
of Housing and Urban Development, and the Department of Housing and
Community Development to:
(1) Coordinate existing and future housing assistance programs for North
County,
- 22 -
e e
I (2) Share waiting list information to direct eligible applicants to nearest
location, '
(3) Develop common vacancy and counseling services to be shared by all,
(4) Seek the cooperation of all member jurisdictions of the Housing Council
to meet individual fair share needs,
(5) Consider the development of a public/private coalition to seek passage
of local and areawide Article 34 referenda.
Action 2 - Direct staff to work with local non-profit and limited profit groups
to develop applications for housing development, loan and counseling funds
available to such groups through state and federal programs.
Action 3 - Direct staff to evaluate expansion of the functions of the city's
Housing and Community De.velopment Commission to include municipal
finance and land banking functions. (Community Development Commissions
are permited under California law to expand their €unctions to allow participa-
tion in direct development activity.)
9. Equal opportunity (Policy and programs directed toward compliance with
federal and state anti discrimination laws.)
Policy - Assure that all housing in the city is sold or rented, imccordance with the
federal and state government's equal opportunity regulations.
Action 1 - Continue and support affirmative fair market programs by builders
developing housing in Carlsbad. 1
- 23 -
0 0
Action 2 - Amend city's Conditional Use Permit for mobile home park
development to 'include indication by developer/owner that park will be
operated in conformance with "open" park laws. (A "closed" park is one in
which the park operator offers for sale only mobile home units from selected
dealerships or his own dealership. Such practices are illegal and are
prosecuted upon complaint to the San Diego District Attorney's Office.)
10. Review and Update, and Revisior, of the Housing Element (Policy and
programs directed toward monitoring of the housing program.)
Policy - Pursue review activities of housing program implementation efforts and
update with the following general schedule:
"
Action 1 - The Planning Department should prepare an annual report on
implementation of the Housing Element Goals and Policies for Planning '
Commission and City Council review.
Action 2 - Conduct update and evaluation of projections, needs, and goals in
Housing Element when Series V Population Forecasts have been adopted by the
city. -
Action 3 - Conduct update and evaluation of housing needs when 1980 census
data is available, probably 1981-1982.
Action 4 - Conduct major update, evaluation and necessary revisions of the
Housing Element in 1985 (five year revision).
- 24 -
e e
IIL IMPLEMENTATION
t
The preceeding policies and programs are designed to meet a broad range of
housing goals and needs identified in this revision of the Housing Element. The
design of the program is comprehensive in order to meet both long-range
community needs and the state guidelines. However, in order to implement the
program, priorities must be set which will concentrate resources on the most
immediate needs, make best use of the resources available and in some cases
identify the need for additional time, staff or funds.
A. PRIORITIES FOR IMPLEMENTATION
The following priority areas reflect the city's most immediate needs as perceived
by the Housing Element Review Committee. This section identifies those priorities
and indicates the ability of the city to implement necessary programs.
1. Preserving Housing and Neighborhoods (6452 of state guidelines)
Major policy and program suggestions of the Housing Element relate to this
priority. The City's major efforts in preservation should be commited to
concentrated rehabilitation in and around the downtown area. This priority is
selected for several reasons: most of the city's deteriorating housing is located in
this area, a major downtown rehabilitation project is already underway, the
established Housing and Community Development Commission is already
empowered to direct city resources to the area. Major additional work to be
undertaken is the development of additional, more flexible sources of rehbilitation
assistance to be used to meet- the goals expressed both in the Housing Element and
- 25-
e a
in the Village Area Redevelopment Program. Identifying and developing such
souces to be used by :he Commission should require no new staff ^io be added to the
combined Housing and Redevelopment staffs. Responsibility: Housing and
Community Development (Commission) Department; time frame 1980-1982; fund-
ing $50,000.
2. Adequate Provision (6460 of state guidelines)
Major policy and program suggestions of the Housing Element relate to this
priority. The city's major efforts in adequate provision should be committed to
accepting its fair share allocation of low-income units, applying to HUD for
additional Section 8 assisted units, conducting a successful referendum for senior
citizen housing and developing senior citizen housing on scattered sites in the city.
These priorities are selected for several reasons: there is a pressing need for low-
income family and elderly units, pursuing the courses outlined above would more
than meet the city's "good faith" goals for its lower income fair share allocation,
article 34 referenda for senior citizen housing are usually successful, and with a
successful referendum the city would have a wide variety of options open to it as
to how to develop the senior citizen housing. Major additional work to be
undertaken under this priority is a new Section 8 application, organizing a
referendum, and presenting the Housing and Community Development Commission
with alternative ways to develop senior citizen housing. This work would require
the commitment of one full time staff person from the Housing and Community
Development staff for a two-year period. Responsibility: Housing and Community
Development (Commission) Department; time frame 1930-1982, funding $50,000.
- 26 -
0 e
3. Achieving Affordability (6454 of state guidelines)
#
Major policy and program suggestions of the Housing Element relate to this
priority. The city's major efforts in achieving afforability should be committed to
developing public incentive programs to foster private development of affordable
housing. This priority is selected for several reasons: the projected growth of the
city means that private housing development will be at high levels over the next
five years, "afforable" housing (above median income, but below current market
prices) is a pressing need in the city, demographic and employment projections
indicate a growing need for such moderately priced housing in Carlsbad, and public
. programs whether federal, state or local are unable to meet this type of need.
Major additional work to be undertaken under this priority is the development of a
voluntary inclusionary zoning and density bonus program which will be attractive to
developers and encourage them to provide a small percentage (15 percent) of below
market units. While the legal and technical basis for such an ordinance are already
established and would not entail a major commitment of staff time (Planning
Department), acquainting developers with the program, tailoring it to their specific
needs and working with them to assure smooth application of such a program would
involve a major commitment of probably one-half person staff time over a two-
year period. In addition, correlating such an ordinance with other suggested
changes such as reservation of public facilities capacities will require staff and
. program commitment. Responsibility: Planning (Commission) Department; time
frame 1980-1982; funding $25,000.
- 27-
0 e
(Struck by four to one vote of Planning Commission 3/5/80)
4. Balanced Residehtial Development With Access To Employment, Community
Facility , and Adequate Services (6458 of state guidelines)
. Major policy and program suggestions of the Housing Element relate to this
priority. The city's major efforts in balanced development should be committed to -
obtaining better determinations of future employment growth and siting housing
development to assure good access by road and transit. This priority is selected for
several reasons: the city is the major industrial center in North County,
industrially zoned land is abundant and increased numbers of workers will need to
be accommoated with housing and services. Major additional work to be under-
taken under this priority is the development of job projection data and its
relationship to housing deve!opment in Carlsbad. This should require one half time
person commitment for one year from the Planning Department. Responsibility: '
Planning Commission; time frame 1980-1982; funding $12,500.)
The above outline sets the framework for immediate priorities over the next two
years and is not intended to reduce the importance of the entire comprehensive
housing strategy for the period 1980-1985 described in Section 11.
B. REVIEW AND UPDATE
EIR Review - In accordance with Title 14, Division 6 of the California Administra-
tive Code, an environmental Impact Report on this Housing element has been
prepared and filed with all appropriate agencies.
- 28 -
0 e
Public Participation - This Housing Element was developed with the guidance and
cooperation of a Citiken's Review Committee appointed by the City Council. This
Review Committee met in 12 sessions between May and October, 1979. A final
review meeting was held in January, 1980.
Intergovernmental Coordination - Regional data on population' and housing fore-
casts and fair share allocation was utilized from San Diego's Council of Govern-
ments, the Comprehensive Planning Organization.
State of California Review - This element has been reviewed by the Department of
Housing and Community Development for direction and comment. Major
comments were incorDorated into this document.
Local Review and UDdate
After adoption by Planning Commission and City Council.
State of California Department of Housing and Community Development, 60 days
review time.
San Diego County, a copy has been filed with San Diego County pursuant to
development of sixth year Community Development Block Grant Program.
City staff should review Carlsbad's Community Development Block Grant submis-
sion (Spring, 1980) to assure conformance with Housing Element Goals and
Program.
- 29-
e e
Comprehensive Planning Organizaiton - Series V Popcllation Forecasts will be
available soon (Januqy, 1980). City staff should review Housing Element projec-
tions, allocations and goals when preliminary Series V is available, and when final
Series V has been adopted.
Comprehensive Planning Organization - Fair Share Allocations. City staff should
monitor any changes in overall allocation for possible changes in Carlsbad's goal
figures, or any re-interpretations of the fair share allocations.
Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. The decennial national census
will be taken April 1, 1980. Population data should be available within a few
months. Detailed demographic and housing data will take much longer (18 months).
Review of Housing Element projections and goals should take place at that time
(Fall, 198 1).
Program Evaluation - Local evaluation of program effectiveness, and implementa-
tion of policies and programs with recommendations for change should be con-
ducted annually over the next five years with public hearing before the Housing and
Community Development Commission.
Major Revision - A major evaluation and revision of the Housing Element should
take place in 1985.
- 30 -
e
i)
a
APPENDIX A
COMMUNITY PROFILE: HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS, NEEDS AND PROBLEMS
e a
COMMUNITY PROFILE: EOUSING CHARACTERISTICS,
NEEDS. AND PRQBLE24S
I A. BACKGROUND
A primary task of the Housing Element involves an evaluation of housing problems
and needs in Carlsbad. Housing needs exist to the extent that the present or
prospective housing supply falls short of providing a11 economic segments of the
community with decent housing. .This section presents an overview of the city's
existing housing supply, including an inventory of number and types of dwelling
units, age and condition of units, tenure, vacancy rates, and household and
population characteristics. , This :;ection also contains an assessment of unmet
housing needs, as well as a narriitive description of the city's major housing
problems.
1. GeoEraDhical Area and Subareas L, 1 -
Carlsbad is a coastal city of nearly 35,000 population in north San Diego County.
The city incorporated in 1952; it k; located 90 miles south of Los Angeles and 35
miles north of San Diego. The city is bounded on the north by Buena Vista Lagoon,
east-west Highway 78 and the City of (Vista) Oceanside; on the east by the City of
(Oceanside) Vista and unincorporaled San Diego County; on' the south by unincor-
porated San Diego County and Bat iquitos Lagoon, and on the west by the Pacific
Ocean. Geography and deve1opme:It patterns make possible a sub-area division of
the city into quadrants. The dividi,Ig sectors are Palomar Airport Road (east and
west) and El Camino Real (north and south). Following is a geographical
description of these quadrants anc census tract numbers. References are made
throughout this report to these quackants.
- A1 -
@ e
a. Northwest quadrant - the older, more dense section of the city,
generally west of El Camino Real and north of Agua Hedionda
Lagoon; Census Tracts: 178.01, 178.03, 179., 180.
b. Northeast quadrant - newer developing section east of El Camino
Real to the city boundaries on the north and east; Census Tract
198.
c. Southwest quadrant - some older development but still developing
area west of El Camino Real; Census Tract: 178.04, 178.05.
d. Southeast quadrant -developed and still developing, generally
known as La Costa; Census Tract 200.03.
The accompanying maps .show Carlsbad's geographical position within the
San Diego region and the city's boundaries.
2. PoDulation and Household Characteristics
In early 1979, the State Department of Finance esitmated a population of 32,100
for the City of Carlsbad. Carlsbad's population has more than doubled since 1970
and the rate of growth has accelerated since 1975. It was the seventh fastest
growing city in California in 1978 among cities less than 50,000. The following
table summarizes current population characteristics:
- A2 -
e e
9
, ..
a 1pJ F F
KFB =;,[-+A
&#?ae?!m&s- '
._
Figure 2
*CENSUS TRACT EXTENDS BEYOND CITY BOUNDARY
. ..
Map illustrates 1975 Special Census Tracts. %' .-
e @
Table 1
I Population Characteristics - 1979
'Total population
!Household population
Non-household population
((group quarters)
'Total number of households
32,110
31,881
229 '
13,281
Source: State of California, Department of Finance Estimate, 1979
Carlsbad is a predominantly white, young and middle class community. The 1975
California Census indicates that 85 percent of the city's population is white while
Mexican-Americans constitute the largest minority group, 9.25 percent of total
population. All. other minorities represented about three percent of the city's '
population. In li975, 11 percent of the city's population was over 65. The city's
1975 median household income ($12,727) was the third highest in San Diego County
surpassed only by the smaller coastal communities of Del Mar and Coronado.
The following table summarizes household characteristics in Carlsbad for 1975.
The accompanying commentary updates and elaborates on the data.
- A5-
e e
Table 2
Household Characteristics - 1975 Census
Total households
Number Percentage
7,071
Average household size 2.71
Ethnic household - Mexican-American 486 6.8
Ethnic household - others 200 2.8
Households over 65 1,354 19.1
Female headed households 1 , 370 19.3
Households with income below $10,000 1,564 22.2
Household with income $10,000-19,999 1,461 20.7
Households with income over $20,000 994 14.0
Households income unknown . 3,052 43.1
a. Household Size
Number of persons per household has shown a slow but steady decline over the past
decade. Estimated 1979 average household size for Carlsbad is 2.65. This steady
decline reflects trends towards fewer children per family, more one-person
households, and the growing elderly population consisting of one and two person
households.
b. Ethnic Households
Carlsbad's major ethnic group is Mexican-American which comprises about ten
percent of total population and nearly seven percent- of all households. These
- A6 -
a e
Mexican-American households are almost exclusively concentrated in the city's
older northwest quadrant and in particular in Census Tract 179, the downtown area.
(See Figure 2, page A-4)
c. Other Ethnic Households
Other ethnic households comprise less than three percent of the city's total
households and are located throughout the city.
d. Households Over 65
Almost one in five of the city's households are elderly, over 65. Elderly households
are dispersed throughout the city with the exception of the southeast quadrant (La
Costa). (Elderly) Senior Citizen households are the largest group in the city's major .
mobile home parks.
e. Female Headed Households
Nearly one-third of the female headed households are elderly (over 65) but there is
no apparent geographical concentration of such households within the city.
f. Household Income
The utility of the 1975 census income data is extremely limited because of the high
rate of "no response" to income questions (43 percent of all households failed to
answer this question in Carlsbad in 1975; this percentage was similar to other San
Diego County communities). (The census indicates, however, that about 22 percent
- A7-
e e
of the city's households could be classified lower income by 1975 standards; these
lower income househofds were highly correlated with the city's minority and elderly
households and located in all quadrants of the city except the southeast, La Costa.)
In addition, the income estimates are now extremely dated. Estimates of 1979
income by the California Coastal Commission indicate a median household income
of $13,410 for Carlsbad. This estimate excludes non-coastal portions of the City
and is probably artificially low. Median income in 1979 in the San Diego area is
estimated at $16.800. There is no indication in anv of these figures what the .I J
percentage of households in the low-income categorv might be. Such estimates \I VI "
will be available after analysis of the 1980 census. Those households in the lower
income category in the 1975 Census were highly correlated with the City's minority
and elderly households and located in all quadrants of the City except the
southeast, La Costa.
g. Housing Unit Characteristics
In 1979 Carlsbad's housing stock of approximately 13,281 units is almost uniformly
in good condition, contains a variety of types and provides the city with its
predominantly single family, small-scale residential character. The following table
summarizes the current housing inventory.
- A8 -
e e
Table 3
f Housing Unit Inventory - 1979
Total units
Single family
Multi-family
Mobile homes
Number Percentage
13,281
8,044 60.6
4,169 31.4
1,068 3.0
h. Development Patterns
In 1979 the predominant residential use in Carlsbad is still the single-family house.
In 1970 about two thirds of all the city's housing units were single-family. Multi-
family development of the last decade has remained moctly small scale. In 1979, a
third of all multi-family units in Carlsbad were in structures of four or fewer units.
The major change in the city's pattern of development in the last decade has been
growth of the condominium unit. In 1970 the city had fewer than ten condomin
iums; by 1979 about 20 percent of the city's housing stock (2,600 units) were
condominiums. Most of the city's condominiums are classified under the multi-
family housing totals. Geographically, the single-family development pattern is
predominant in all quadrants except the older northwest section where develop-
ment is predominantly multi-family. Most of the city's mobile home development
is in the northeast and southwest quadrants with some minor mobile home
development in the northwest quadrant but none in La Costa.
- A9 -
e e
i. Homeownership Patterns
I
Since 1970, the precentage of households owning their homes has dropped from 53
percent to 43 percent of all households. The regional total for homeownership has
dropped from 53 percent to 49 percent. All of the region's coastal communities
have had precipitous drops in homeownership rates in the last decade. (See Housinq
Problems pages A17-18 for more complete discussion of homeownership patterns.)
Revised after Planning Commission meeting 3/5/80
j. Occupancyfvacancy
(The latest available vacancy estimates (1979 San Diego County estimates) show a
vacancy rate of 9.8 pe-cent in Carlsbad, about twice the regional average of 4.6
percent. This high vacancy rate is misleading, however, since it includes seasonal
homes, as well as units already sold or rented but awaiting occupancy. In early
1979, the large number of completions in the city meant the addition of many new
units to the stock, most of which were sold but unoccupied. Most of this new
construction was in the La Costa area. Data from realtors and mobile home park
managers indicates low vacancy rates (under four percent) in the remainder of the
city.)
Typical vacancy surveys are often misleading since they combine vacancies of all
types. In May 1979 the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco published
vacancy data by various categories for the San Diego Region and individual cities.
The following table summarizes that survey for Carlsbad.
- A10 -
e
Table 4
? Vacancy by Category, 1979
Under Used - New Construction
Total Units Number 96 Number % Number % - - -
14,935 367 2.5 317 2.1 680 4.6
Single Family
9,006 111 I .2 251 2.8 447 5.0
Multi-Family
4,743 254 5.4 64 1.3 233 4.2
Mobile Homes
1,186 2 .2 - - - -
Vacancy rates below five percent have typically been regarded by .public and
private sources as low. Low vacancy rates may mean lack of choice and escalating '
rents. Carlsbad's mobile home vacancy was one of the County's lowest. Other
rates while low were similar to other North County areas. North County vacancy
rates averaged about one percent above rates in central and southern areas of the
County.
- All -
e 0
, k. Age, Condition and Overcrowding of the Housing Stock
t
The city's housing stock is almost uniformly of recent construction and in good
condition. The following table summarizes the city's housing stock by age:
Table 5
Housing Stock by Age
Built prior to 1940
% of
Units Tot a1
587 4.4
Built 1940-49 694 5.2
Built 1950-59 1,518 11.5
Built 1960-69 2,665 20.0
Built since 1570
' TOTAL
7,817 58.9
13,281 100.0
Less than ten percent of the city's stock was constructed before 1950, almost all of
this located in the city's northwest quadrant, specifically census tracts 179 and
180. (See Figure 2, page A-4 for location.)
Census information from 1975 indicates 325 deteriorated or dilapidated units in the
city (about 2.4 percent of the city's stock). Most of these units (200) are found in
the area around the downtwn, census tract 179 and correlate highly with the oldest
housing in the city. The remainder of the substandard units are also found in the
city's northwest quadrant in the census tracts to the west (CT 180) and the east
(178.01) of the downtown.
- A12 -
e *
There is no recent data on overcrowding, defined as more than 1.01 persons per
room exluding bathrooms and kitchens. At the time- of the 1970 census, there were
392 housing units in the city which would be classified as "overcrowded". About
two-thirds of the overcrowded units were located in the downtown area (CT 179) .
while the remainder were also in the city's northwest quadrant in census tracts to
the west and east of the downtown (CT 180, CT 178.01).
1. Potential Housing Units: Land Availability and DeveloDment Trends .2
The city's existing general plan indicates specifically areas of future residential
development and possible redeveiopment. More than half the city's land (13,660
acres) is zoned for residential use. About three-fourths of this acreage remains
vacant. About ten percent of available acreage is zoned for densities of ten to 30
units per acre. Available residential zoning at allowable densitites could supply the .
city with an estimated additional 66,000 housing units from now into the future.
(Land Use Element; Carlsbad General Plan) (Estimate obtained by using projected
densities in Land Use Element.)
The city's recent development has been limited by availability of sewer capacity.
Even with a strict allocation system, more than 6,000 housing units have been
produced in the city since 1975, about 1,500 unit annual average. The major
portion of these units were developed in the first half of the 1975-1980 period
before the imposition of sewer capacity allocations. Available projections to 1985
indicate an increase of about 4,000 units. However, like the previous projections of
growth from 1975 to 1980, this is probably an understatement of demand and the
.
- A13 -
(li 0
city's ability to accommodate it. A more realistic estimate of short-term
development (1980 to 1985) would be about 7,500 units or 1,500 per year as
evidenced in the 1975 through 1979 period.
B. HOUSING NEEDS AND PROBLEMS ~~ -
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
presented an overview of the community's housing and population characteristics
and discussed potential problem areas. This section attempts to quantify the city's
housing needs and to discuss specific problems to establish a basis for the goals,
policies and programs of this housing element.
1. Unmet Housing Needs 1980-1985
Unmet housing needs may be divided into two categories: existing unmet needs and
projected unmet needs. Together they form a housing needs estimate for the next
f ive-year period.
2. Immediate Housing Need
Immediate housing needs consists of the sum of those lower income households
paying more than 25 percent of income for housing, and the total of substandard
units in the cornmunity. Both those calculations are available from the 1975
California Census and are summarized in the following table.
- A14 -
0 0
Table 6
Immediate Lower Income Housing Needs ..
Low income households 569
(80 percent or less of median income paying more than 25 percent of income
for housing
Housing deficiencies
(includes units which need to be rehabilitated or demolished
32 5 -
TOTAL Immediate Unmet Need 894
Unmet housing need is about equally divided between elderly and family house-
holds, with most family households consisting of five or more members. Geogra-
phic location of families with unmet housing needs is the central area around the
downtown (CT 179) while elderly need households are distributed in three of the
city's four quadrants (the southeast quadrant being the exception). .The above
estimate may contain some double-counting and thus overstate needs. However, it
is assumed that units with housing deficiencies carry the lowest rents and,
therefore, would not be counted in the overpayment category.
3. Future or Projected Housing Needs 1980-1985
Future housing need is a function of Carlsbad's share of future regional growth.
Current available regional projections (Series IV Population Forecasts, CPO)
estimate that Carlsbad will grow by about 4,000 households between now and 1985.
Of these approximately 4,000 new households the lower income portion (those
families requiring some assistance) is estimated to be about 770. Approximately
1,056 of these 4,000 households are estimated to be median and moderate income
I
households defined as those above the standards for housing assistance, but still
- A15 -
* e
unable to afford typical market rate housing. These two estimates were derived
from a seven factor formula which estimates population, housing and employment
growth factors for the region and each of its cities.
It is assumed that the remaining 2,174 households would be middle and upper
income and able to afford most market housing. While this latter group is well
beyond the scope of government assistance programs, they constitute a large
portion of the "demand for housing" over the next five years and must be provided
for in local housing programs. The following table summarizes the total demand
and need figures for Carlsbad (these estimates are based on currently available
regional projections, Series IV Population Forecasts). New estimates will need to
be made when Series V PoDulation Forecasts are adoDted.
. Table 7
Housing Demand and Housing Need 1980-1985
Market demand households
(middle and upper income)
2,174 54.4
Median and moderate income households 1,056 26.4
(80 to 120 percent median income)
Lower income households
(less than 80 percent of median income)
TOTAL
770 19.2
4,000 100.0
4. Fair Share Allocation
Several attempts have been made by the Comprehensive Planning Organzation to
estimate regional housing needs and to allocate those needs to jurisdictions within
the region. The most recent. formula estimates 1980-1985 regional housing needs
to be 38,871 units. Carlsbad's share of this need based on housing and employment
- A16 -
0 e
factors is 825 units (that allocation plan was adopted by the Carlsbad City Council
in December, 1979). I This allocation plan relates only to lower income unit need
i.e. households with incomes less than 80 percent of median. Programs directed
toward meeting this level of need would be almost entirely government assisted.
The estimate of lower income need for Carlsbad is consistent with census and other
data indicating the city's need for assisted housing. The allocation plan does not,
however, relate to the important issue of !!affordable housing" (a major task of the
Housing Element) i.e. housing for median and moderate income families beyond the
levels of government assistance programs, but unable to afford market rate
housing. Table 7 of this section provides these estimates for Carlsbad and much of
the program section of this Housing Element relates to providing affordable
housing opportunities. An alternate formula projecting much higher total and local
needs has been developed in response to directives by the California Department of
Housing and Community Development. That formula is now being discussed
locally.
C. HOUSING PROBLEMS
Following is a discussion of housing problems and their extent and effects irr
Carlsbad.
1. Inflation of Housing Prices and Rents I,
In October 1979, a survey by the San Diego Chamber of Commerce reported that
the average price of an existing single-family home in San Diego County was
$106,400. On an annual basis, this reflects a 16.4 percent increase over the
previous year. The region's highest annual increases were in North County.
.. A17 -
0 e
Communities with the highest annual increases from 1978 to 1979 were Del Mar, - 41
percent; Rancho Sama Fe, - 33 percent; (and) Carlsbad, - 31 percent; Oceanside
recorded a 29 percent increase and San Marcos a 25 percent increase. While this
survey covers only a limited number of units, it is an indication of the rapid
escalation of housing prices, in many cases three and four times greater than the
general inflation rate. Because of its location, Carlsbad is strongly affected by the
region's two major growth and inflation pressures: northward development and
coastal location.
While costs of all housing continue to escalate, Carlsbad still contains a range of
housing prices and rents with representation below the regional averages. The
following table summarizes the range of prices and rents available in Carlsbad in
mid-1979. (Data gathered from real estate listings and newspaper advertising,
June through September, 1979.)
Table 8
Range of Prices and Rents: Carlsbad - 1979
New condominiums
Low
$68,950
- High -
$114,900 +
New single-family homes 66,250 152,500 +
Existing homes
1 bedroom apartment
2 bedroom apartment 3 bedroom apartment
Mobile home space rentals
59,500 200,000 +
195
230
31 5
185 -
375 + 450 + 700 +
400 + -
- A18 -
a’ e
hlate 1979, the County Assessor’s Office reported that the median price of single
family sales in Carlsbad was $110,000, up from $84,000 in 1978.
2. Pressures on the Existing Rental Supply
Renter households are increasing. Major reasons for this trend are high housing
prices and the growing number of smaller households (the elderly and young single
people). At the same time actual rental construction is declining. Since 1970,
about twice as many single-family units as multi-family units were developed in
Carlsbad. Of the nearly 3,000 multi-family units completed in Carlsbad since 1970,
it is estimated that about 60 percent or 1,800 were condominiums and 40 percent
or 1,200 units built for rental. (In 1979 about 20 percent of all housing units in
Carlsbad were condominiums.) Further pressure on the existing rental supply comes
as a result of potenti4 conversion of existing rental units to condominiums or
cooperatives.
The decline in rental supply and the growth in rental households has meant much of
the single-family and condominium stock is rented. The following table summar-
izes rental rates in all types of units in Carlsbad:
\
- A19 -
e e
Table 9
Rental Rates by Type of Unit
t Percent Type of Unit Rented
Single family 30.2
Condominium 71.5
Duplex .-82.3
Multiple 2-4 94.5
#
Multiple 5+
4
109.0
Assessor's Property Information System for Cities,
San Diego County, May 1978.
3. Decline in Homeownership
There are several explanations for the decline in homeownership, the simplest of
which is the escalating cost of homeownership which limits it to fewer households.
Another explanation is the changing demographic composition of both Carlsbad and
the rest of the region, i.e., more older and younger households, more households
-without children, all groups which tend to rent more than own. Homeownership
rates remain high in many sections of Carlsbad but are particularly low in and
around the downtown area. (and in the older north coast.) The following table
summarizes changes in homeownership rates in various parts of Carlsbad over the
last decade:
- A20 -
e 0
Table 10
Homeownership Rates by Area '1970-1979
Area
Northwest
CT 178.01
CT 179.00 downtown
CT 180.00 (coast)
Southwest
Northeast
Southeast (La Costa)
1970 %
Homeowners
77.8
31.5
23.8
76.7
73.7
41.7
1979 96 .
Homeowners
65.6
20.0
13.4
64.8
65.4
53.7
Assessor's Property Information System, San Diego County, October, 1978 and La Costa Special Census, City of Carlsbad,
March, 1978.
4. Problems of Mobile Home Development
Carlsbad has five major mobile home parks and nearly 1,200 spaces. The two major
problems with the mobile home for the consumer are its increasing cost and its
treatment as a non-permanent use. . In the past, much mobile home development
has provided an opportunity for moderate income housing. However, with
increasing costs of coaches, high financing and increases. in space rentals, the
average monthly cost is over $400.00 (see Blue Ribbon Mobile Home Report, San
Diego County) well beyond lower income limits. The second -problem for the
mobile home use is its treatment as non-permanent housing. Approved by
conditional use permit, mobile home parks face the problem of phase out when a
higher yield use presents itself. While such "change of use" does not seem an
- A21 -
e 0
imminent danger in Carlsbad, other parks in the San Diego area are now
confronting that issuer
Because mobile home owners pay taxes on their vehicles to the state (Department
of Motor Vehicles), local officials and the public have often viewed mobile home
developmmt as a drain OR local revenues, In some cases, this may have been true
depending on the facilities and services which local government provided to
specific mobile home development. (Recent state legislation, however, eliminates
the potential of revenue loss because of the mobile home taxation system. SB 1004
passed in the last session of the state legislation provides that all mobile homes
sold after July 1, 1980 will be taxed as real property in the county in which they
are located.)
Added after Planning Commission Review 3/5/80
Recently passed (SB 1004) and pending (SA 1422) state legislation provide that
mobile homes sold after July 1, 1980 will under certain circumstances be taxed as
real property by County Assessors. While the intent of SB 1004 is clear, difficult
problems of interpretation concerning "proper installation", "permanent founda-
tion" and "local inspection" of mobile homes remain.
Currently, Carlsbad is developing a +mobile home overlay zone for future applica-
tion. The Housing Element Review Committee, in reviewing the mobile home issue
in Carlsbad, reached the following conclusions. The City should:
1. Recognize fully the importance of the mobile home as a source of housing for
many residents.
- A22 -
e a
2. Indicate clearly %hat whatever programs are developed or incentives offered to
promote "affordablef1 housing will be equally applied to mobile home develop-
ment.
3. Indicate that any site guidelines to low or moderate income housing in general
could include mobile home development as well.
4. Any density bonuses developed or recommended could be considered to apply
to mobile home development.
5. Indicate that while "exclusive" mobile home designations may not be indicated,
there will be no discrimination against the use in general.
6. Indicate encouragement for development of mobile home subdivisions and/or
PRD's so as to gradually eliminate "change of use" danger.
7. Indicate support for "open parks" in Carlsbad and intention of City to report
non-compliance with "open park" laws.
The Committee's entire discussion of this topic is' summarized in Appendix C of
this docum ent .
5. Problems of Deteriorated Housing and Mixed Uses - "
Like most cities Carlsbad has an older stock of housing some of which is in poor
condition. The city's housing needs related to poor condition, inappropriate uses
- A23 -
e e
and deteriorating neighborhoods is confined to the area aromd downtown, Census
Tract 179. This is also the target area for the City's rehabilitation and
redevelopment program. Of the approximate 350 dwelling units classified as
dilapidated or deteriorating in the city, about 200 are in this area; the remainder
are scattered. These 200 units constitute about ten percent of the housing stock in
this area.
In addition to deteriorating stock, the encroachment of some non-residential uses
have caused further deterioration. While mixed use is often capatible with and
even advantageous to housing, certain types of industrial or public facility uses
fragment the neighborhood and destroy values which promote sound housing.
Certain zoning categories in the area which allow some uses not compatible with
residential values must be re-examined in light of their effect on the area's future
for housing. Some of these problems are currently benp, examined by the Village
Area Redevelopment Committee. (A site map of the Carlsbad Village Area follows
this discussion.)
- A24 -
..
I. -1
CARLSGAD VILLAGE AitEA 23QtdNBAKV MAP . ..
' "" __
0 0
D. COMMUNITY PROFILE - LA COSTA
t
The city's southeast quadrant, mainly encompassing the La Costa area (CT 200.03)
has developed largely since 1970. Because of its recent development, the area
exhibits many comnwnity characteristics in sharp contrast' with the rest of the
city. The following discussion and tables summarize those characteristics (Source:
La Costa Special Census, City of Carlsbad, 1978).
I. Area Boundaries
The southeast quadrant of the city, the incorporated area south of Palomar Airport
Road and east of El Camino Real is generally referred to as La Costa. Some of the
development in this area is, however, not a part of the La Costa ownership. The
community profile summarized here refers to the entire southeast quadrant .
regardless of original ownership pattern or development.
2. Population and Household Characteristics
La Costa has developed as an affluent community with very low percentages of
elderly or minority families. In 1978 there were 1,556 households in La Costa with
a total population of 4,037, about 2.59 persons per household. Only about five
percent of the community's total population was over 65; about 5.5 percent of the
population was minority status.
About one-third .of the area's households did not answer the income question. Of
the approximately 1,000 households responding, however, 42 percent reported
annual incomes in excess of $30,000.
- A26 -
e e
3.. Housing Unit Characteristics
#
The following table summarizes the growth pattern in La Costa in the last decade:
Table 1
Housing Unit Growth - La Costa
Year: 1970 1978 -
Percent Percent
Total units 271 2,901
Single family 171 63.1 . 1,595 54.9
Multi-family 100 36.9 1,300 44.8
Mobile homes
4. Vacancy Rates
Housing surveys have consistently shown high vacancy rates in La Costa. The
following table summarizes the 1978 findings on vacancy:
Table 2
Vacancy - La Costa. - 1978
Total units 2,901
Vacant Units 1,342
% Vacant 46.3 -
- A27 -
e 0
This high vacancy rate is misleading and can be explained by the large number of
units under construct?on, only recently completed or used as resort homes. The
following table summarizes vacancy by category:
Table 3
Categories of Vacancy - La Costa - 1978
Percent
Total vacant units 1,342
Under construction 22 0 16.5
For sale 466 34.7
For rent 65 4.8
Resort or seasonal home 510 38 .O
Unknown 81 6.0
While technically vacant, a large percentage of these units are not actually
available: those under construction and those held as second homes. Actual
vacancy rate (for sale and for rent units) would be 18.3 percent of the total stock
of La Costa. It is worthy of note that units available for rent constitute less than
five percent of the La Costa stock. .
5. HomeownershiD
In 1970 there were fewer than 300 units in the La Costa area; 42 percent of those
were owner occupied. By 1977 with more than 2,000 units only 28 percent of all
units were owner occupied. The low ownership rates reported by the County
Assessor’s office in 1977 can be explained by the high multi-family construction
rate and the number of units used as second homes. The 1978 Carlsbad survey in
- A28 -
e e
La Costa indicates the homeownership rate to have risen to about 53 percent. This
reversal can be explafned by more single-family construction after 1977 and fewer
units used as resort or second homes.
- A29 -
0 e
t
APPENDIX B
CONSTRAINTS TO PROVIDING l'AFFQRDABLF' HOUSING
MARKET AND GOVERNMENTAL
e e
CONSTRAINTS TO PROVIDING ltAFFORDABLE't HOUSING:
I MARKET AND GOVERNMENTAL
A. INTRODUCTION
During the last decade the San Diego area has consistently been'among the top five
metropolitan areas in the nation in the annual production of housing units. While
the capacity of the local construction industry is formidable, economic, market and
governmental trends of the 1970's have resulted in an inability to produce enough
"affordable1I units and a reduction of housing opportunities for many sectors of the
population. The constraints which restrict housing opportunity are both public and
private, and the two are closely related. Even the direct costs of producing
housing, such as land, construction and financing costs, cannot simply be labeled
"private" because of the central role government policies play in market decisions '
at both the national and local level. However, for purposes of discussion and
organization the important constraints to broader housing opportunity have been
divided into market and governmental categories.
B. MARKET CONSTRAINTS TO "AFFORDABLE" HOUSING
1. General Inflation and Particularlv Housing Inflation .I
For the year 1978 the Consumer Price Index for the San Diego area rose 12.4
percent. This was the highest overall increase in the nation. The following table
illustrates the comparison with other areas:
- B1 -
e e
Table 1
, Percent Increase in Cost of Living
All Items - 1978
United States Average 9.0
Los Angeles, Long Beach, Anaheim 8.3
San Diego 12.4
Source: Consumer Price Index, Bureau of Labor Statistics;
Department of Commerce, 1978
The most striking difference between San Diego and other areas is in housing
expenses compared as follows:
Table 2
- Percent Increase in Housing Costs, 1978
U.S. L.A. - San
Average Long Beach Diego
Rent 7.3 9.1 9.4
Home ownership 12.9 9.9 19.3
Gas & electricity 7.0 6.2 8.1
Source: Consumer Price Index, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Department of Labor, 1978
2. Land Costs for Residential Development
In the last 30 years, cost of land has risen more rapidly than any other component
of the total housing product. .The following table illustrates this trend:
- B2 -
a *
Table 3
Cost Oomponents of the Average Single Family Home
1949 - 1977: % of Total
Land and Overhead Development Construction & Profit Financing
1949 11 .o 69 .O 1'5.0 5.0
1969 21.4 54.6 17.0 7.0
1974 24.6 48.4 17.0 10.0
1977 25.0 46.7 17.5 10.8
Source: Professional Builder, March, 1978.
In Southern California, land costs are increasing more rapidly than the national
average. The Construction Industry Federation of San Diego County estimates that
land costs in San Diego comprise about 35 percent of total housing cost and up to
50 percent in very desirable areas.
In San Diego County there is a wide variation in cost of residentially zoned land.
These variations can be explained by several factors such as accessibility of the
-area to employment, shopping, and amenities and availability and quality of
services. Statistics available from the San Diego County Assessor's Office provide
a quantification of these variations. These statistics reflect costs of undeveloped
residential land per acre. The following table summarizes these costs around the
County.
- B3 -
0 0
Table 4
Valde/Acre Undeveloped Residential Land - 1977
Area Value/Acre
Carlsbad $ 83,000
San Dieguito 77 ? 000
Oceanside 49,000
East Suburban San.Diego 39,000
South Suburban San Diego 49,000
Coastal San Diego 14 9,000
Coronado . .,, - 240 9 000
Central San Diego 100 7 000
Source: San Diego County Assessor's Office
Carlsbad's value/acre was the highest in North County and was sixth highest in the
region. Those areas exceeding Carlsbad were either coastal or immediately
surrounding Central San Diego.
3. Construction Costs
Although construction costs represent a declining precentage of total housing cost
(see Table 2), the combination of labor and materials still usually represents the
largest cost component of housing development. In the Means Construction Cost
Index of 70 cities in the United States and Canada, San Diego ranked sixth after
Anchorage, San, Francisco, Honolulu, New York and Los Angeles in overall
construction costs (Means Construction Cost Index, Kingston, MA, April, 1979).
The following discussion and tables summarizes local and comparative construction
- B4 -
e e
cost increases since 1975 (wage and materials costs are generally Uniform
throughout the San Diego Market Area).
4. Materials Cost
In general, materials costs in continental U.S. cities vary only slightly from each
other and from the national average. Construction materials in general have
increased about 24 percent in the last four years. Staggering increases in certain
materials like wood products have been offset by actual decreases in certain types
of materials; tile and paint are examples. The following table summarizes the
percent increase in materials costs since 1975 for low and high cost areas.
Table 5
Percent Increase in Construction Materials
Since 1975, San Diego and Comparative Cities
Percent
Increase
U.S. Average 23.9
(30 major cities)
San Diego 22.5
Charlotte, NC 21.6
San Francisco 28.5
Los Angeles 23.8
Dallas 23.1
New York City 27.0
- 05 -
e e
5. Labor Costs
t
The major difference in construction costs between high cost and low cost cities is
found in labor rate differentials. While construction wage rates have increased
about 30 percent since 1975 as a U.S. average, high cost cities have had much
higher increases. The following table summarizes these increases.
Table 6
Percent Increase in Construction Wage Rates
Since 1975, San Diego h4arket Area and Comparative Cities
City -
U. S. Aver age
(30 major cities)
Wage Rate
Increase
29.7
San Diego 50.7
Charlotte, NC (lowest)
San Francisco
-7.5
68 .O
Los Angeles 52.1
Dallas
New York City
9.5
49.5
6. Site and Off-site Improvements
Site improvements include earthwork, pilings and fillings, utilities, roads and walks,
and landscaping. Cost of site improvements " does not include the actual cost of
land.
- B6 -
e a
San Diego is the only otherwise "high cost" city to have site improvement costs
well below the natipnal average for such improvements. This may be partly
explained by the availability of buildable land, minimal geological protection
needed and perhaps prevalence of lower density housing requiring less site work.
7. Financing Costs
The impact of interest rates on housing is substantial both for renters and buyers.
The percentage increase of financing as a component of total housing cost has
doubled in the last 30 years (see Table 2). Interest rates are determined by national
policies and economic conditions and in 1979 have reached an unprecedented level
(13fi percent). Rates to develop rental units and interim and construction loans are
higher. For purchasers, each one percent increase'in interest rates translates into
75 cents per thousand dollars .per month of payment on a 30 year loan. The .
following table summarizes monthly payments required to amortize a $65,000 loan
over a 30 years period at several different interest rates.
Table 7
$65,000 Loan (30 years) Monthly Payment
at Different Interest Rates
7.5 % $454.49
8.5 96 499.80
9.5 % 546.56
10.5 % 594.59
13.5 % 744.52
16.5 % 900.35 "
- 07 -
e e
While several different types of interest subsidy programs exist with the intent of
expanding homeownePship opportunities, they provide lower interest rates to only a
small portion of those seeking and using housing finance loans. Down payment
requirements of most conventional loans (ten to 20 percent of purchase price) also
restrict housing opportunity. Programs like the VA and FHA government loans
which provide easier down payment terms are limited to a small percentage of
buyers, enforce restrictive upper loan amounts and may require certain additional
payments (points) to make use of the loans.
7. Market Constraints And Their Effect On Carlsbad
The market constraints described here reflect prevailing conditions in the San
Diego area. Inflation, construction and finance rates are similar throughout the
local market area inchrding Carlshad. The most striking constraint differentials
throughout the region are land costs. Because of its desireable coastal location and
position directly in the path of major development, Carlsbad land costs are the
highest in North County and among the highest in the San Diego area.
C. GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS TO "AFFORDABLE" HOUSING
Local governments affect the supply, distribution and cost of housing through land
use controls, building codes, permits and fees for provision of services and
facilities. Compliance with environmental procedures, public review processes and
the delay inherent in meeting these varying requirements also influence the cost
and nature of residential development.
- B8 -
e e
1. Land Use Controls
t
The location and types of housing 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:
Table 8
Residential Land Use Categories - General Plan
Tot a1 Percent
Land Use Allowable Acreage of Total
Category Density D.U./ac. Designated Acreage
Low density 0 - 1.5 1,777 7.5
Low-medium density 0 - 4.0 6,487 27.4
Medium density 4 - 10.0 3,072 13.0
Medium-high density 10 -. 20.0
High Density 20 - 30.0
2,073 8.8
25 1 1.1
- Only the latter two categories comprising about ten percent of the city's acreage
can accommodate a range of multi-family uses such as low-rise condominiums and
apartment development. Only about 250 acres are zoned in the highest density
category which might accommodate medium-rise condominium and apartment
development. About half the acreage in this highest density category is in existing
use and not readily available for development. The use of the density ranges and
such special designations as Planned Community (PC) zones provide the opportunity
to depart from the concept of minimum lot size and allow for clustering and mixing
of densities. While this approach encourages good design and planning, it has
almost no effect on housing cost since there is no increase in the number of units
- A9 -
e
allowed per acre. The more units per acre, the less cost per unit for fees,
improvements and developer's overhead.
The city's coastal location and extremely high land prices per acre (See Table 4)
makes sufficient higher density designations (20 units plus per acre) essential to
produce affordable housing.
2. Building Regulations
Building codes insure minimum quality standards to the housing consumer. Carls-
bad has adopted the Uniform Building Code, one of several model codes and the one
prescribed by the State of California. While localities may adopt standards higher
than the State Uniform Building Code, they have no discretion to employ lower
standards.
The effects of building codes on housing costs is not a local but a national problem.
The content, scientific bases and methods of development of building codes have
been severely criticized for sometime. These criticisms have resulted in legisla-
tion such as the Voluntary Standards and Certification Act of 1976 and the
establishment of the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) created by the
Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. ' The purpose of these efforts is
to establish "uniform prcedures aimed at ensuring the fair and adequate represen-
tation of all interested parties in the standard setting processll.
- B10 -
@ 8
3. Site Preparation: Subdivision Regulations
t
Recent trends in subdivision regulations indicate that an increased burden for
provision of public facilities is being placed on the housinF; developer. In addition
to requiring installation of public improvements prior to development, subdivision
laws often require land dedications for parks and schools. In North San Diego
County, compliance with all subdivision regulations may cost anywhere from a
minimum of $9,000 per lot to $20,000 per lot depending on terrain and special
problems. (Building Contractors Association of San Diego.) For more specific
estimates on Carlsbad, see Table 10 at the end of this section.
4. Environmental Review: California Environmental Quality Act and the Coastal
Act of 1976
Two separate studies have attempted to quantify the cost per housing unit of
compiiance with the CEQA requirements for preparation of an Environmental
Impact Report.
In a study done by the Urban Institute in San Diego, it was determined that the
environmental review process added about $165.00 to the cost of each housing unit
in the year of the study, 1974-1975 (the Urban Institute, Washington, DC, 1975).
This was considered a fairly insignificant cost element particularly in comparison
with Florida where similar regulations contributed $386.00 to the price of a housing
unit. In a similar study done by the California Assembly's Committee on Local
Government (Sacramento, 1975), it was estimated that the cost per unit was
$150.00. The main reason for the cost was given as document preparation and
delay and not implementation of mitigation measures. The main recommendation
- B11 -
0 0
made by both studies was the preparation of Master EIR's by localities to cut the
costs of document preparation and delay.
Permit regulation by the California Coastal Commission began on February 1,
1973. While studies have indicated about 90 percent of all applications are
eventually approved, this figure does not take into account the time, uncertainties
and modifications involved in obtaining approval. A survey of coastal zone building
activity indicates that the percentage of home building in coastal zone cities fell
from 24 percent of the state's total to 17 percent while apartment construction fell
from 30 percent to 21 percent (the California Coastal Plan: A critique, San
Francisco, Institute for Contemporary Studies, 1976). The same study indicated
that existing housing prices for the period January, 1973 to April, 1975 rose an
average of 41 percent in the permit zone and 27 percent in coastal counties but
outside the permit zone. It is difficult to ascribe these increases solely to the
presence of a permit zone since coastal property would undoubtedly become
continually more valuable even without any coastal management. However, those
costs associated with delay and/or modifications may be ascribed to the existence
of a special permit zone. Unlike costs related to EIR review, there is no available
data which quantifies the cost of delays or modifications in the coastal permit
zone.
, 5. The Approval Process: Costs of Delay
Delay is frequently the most significant factor in the overall cost impact of
governmental review and regulation. The time lag from filing of the tentative map
to the issuance of building permits is critical because of expensive.carrying costs
and loan costs. Some attempt to quantify the cost of delay in connection with the
- B12 -
e- o
CEQA process was attempted in 1974 by the Construction Industry Research Board
of California. t
Table 9
Costs of Delays
I Annual Cost of Delay
Cost Component Low - High Range
Land holding costs 1.2 %to 2.2 %
Building cost inflation 3.0 %to 13.0 %
Overhead costs 4.0 %to 10.0 %
Foregone revenues 1.2 %to 11.4 %
TOTAL 9.4 % 36.6 %
Delay sometimes means large enough market changes that plans may have to be
significantly amended and the entire review process started over again.
6. Fees and Fee Structure
Fees charged by the city help cover the costs of permit processing, inspections,
environmental impact determinations and contribute toward the provision of
various facilities and services. Table 10 following this section provides an outline
of various fees and their estimated cost in the development of a single-family '
house.
Fees relating to standard subdivision, zoning and building regulations (map filings,
zone changes, general plan amendments, etc.) are usually accepted by the
construction industry as part of the cost of doing business.
- B13 -
e e
Fees related to the provision of various community facilities and services both
because of their cost and their recent vintage are seen as more onerous by the
building industry and as a constraint to providing affordable housing. In California,
major fee increases for provision of facilities and services have evolved as a
response to rapid growth, high standards in public facilities often mandated by
federal or state government and shrinking revenues as a result of the property tax
'limitation initiative (Proposition 13) effective June, 1978.
Since the passage of Proposition 13, California cities and counties, as well as
school and special districts have been developing new and increasing existing fees
and service charges.
In Fall, 1979 Carlsbad adopted a Public Facilities Fee of two percent of assessed
value per unit to cover costs of providing services and facilities to new develop-
ment or redevelopment in the city. This fee now being imposed covers the
following services and facilities: parks, major streets, traffic signals, storm drains,
bridges, public buildings, such as fire stations, police facilities, maintenance yards,
libraries and general offices. While the fee will provide essential facilities and
services, it will constitute an added cost as developers set housing prices and rents.
The use of the Public Facilities Fee (PFF) will, however, consolidate fees in certain
cases so that the two percent (will) - can cover fees such as the park dedication or
. in-lieu payment formerly charged by the city. Lastly, the PFF provides that the
city may exempt low-income housing development from the fee. The PFF also
exempts construction by non-profit corporations or state or federal government.
The latter agencies are those most usually involved in developing lower income
housing.
- B14 -
* e
7. Provision of Facilities and Services
I
For the past two and one-half years, the most severe public service problem in
Carlsbad has been obtaining necessary sewage treatment capacity to meet housing
and growth demand in the city,
In late 1979, the city was allocating permits for approximately 850 units in the
city. Additional allocations were being made by other districts. There is no
precise indication of when additional needed capacity will be available.
Several recent developments, however, indicate that major treatment facilities
will be available in the next two-year period. These developments include planned
enlargements (Encina) reactivations (El Camino Real) at existing treatment plants
and new plant development to serve the La Costa arca. Another possiblity for
increased capacity is the use of Satellite Wastewater Treatment Faciltiies which
would be provided by developers in Master Plan areas and provide capacity
potential beyond immediate development.
8. Interrrovernmental Structure 2
"Special districts" provide many of the important public facilities and services
necessary for housing development. These "special districts" are often (as in the
case of sewer) the decisive factor in whether a development will go forward or not.
The development process requires a multitude of permits, approvals and fees from
various governmental agencies. Carlsbad, like many California cities includes
several water, sewer and school districts.
- B15 -
\ e e
Reorganization of special districts along municipal lines would, of course, be a
drastic procedure involving restructuring of state and local regulations and finance.
An alternative to such reorganization, often suggested by the building industry is
the "one-stop processing" system, where the jurisdiction granting building permits
is also empowered to give all other information, approvals and collect fees.
Proposals which would facilitate this simplified kind of processing are now being
considered by the State Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee.
9. Federal and State Programs and Article 34 of the State Constitution LI
A serious government constraint in planning for or obtaining future funding is the
lack of clear guidelines or allocation allowances from either the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (federal) or the California Housing Finance
Agency (state). The funding ability of both agencies is constantly subject to .
change by federal and state legislation. Most important, there is no definitive
statement from either agency concerning target allocations for the future for the
San Diego area, or Carlsbad in particular.
Article 34 of the California Constitution requires voter referendum approval of all
low-rent housing projects "developed, constructed or acquired in any manner" by
any state public body. In November, 1978, an Article 34 referendum failed in
, Carlsbad. This makes it impossible for Carlsbad to develop certain categories of
housing (public housing, CHFA financed 100 percent subsidy) without a successful
referendum.
Recent state and federal (pending) legislation may make it easier for cities like
Carlsbad to participate in the development of lower income housing. A0 1092
- B16 -
e e
(Moore) passed in the last session of the California legislature significantly narrows
ttie scope of Article $4 and permits agencies like housing authorities to participate
in lower income development without a successful referendum under certain
specific circumstances. For instance, under the new legislation, a city without
referendum authority may assist in the production of low-income units intended for
ownership, develop low-income rentals of one to four units not on adjacent parcels,
lease low-rent units from a private party, acquire land for eventual low-rent
development if completed units are transferred to private ownership, assist in
financing the development of low-rent housing by a private owner, and assist in
rehabilitation for eventual lower income households. AB 1092 is a legislative
interpretation of Article 34 and it is expected that its legality will be tested in the
courts. This legislation does not obviate the need for a successful referendum,
however, since the direct development of lower income housing of 100 or 150 units
as suggested in this element still requires referendum apFroval.
Deleted 3/5/80, action still pending.
(The Ullman Bill (HR 3712) still pending in the U.S. Congress, would eliminate the
tax free status on the interest of certain mortgage subsidy bonds. The current
federal income tax exemption would be eliminated on the proceeds of bonds "used
directly or indirectly for mortgages on most owner occupied residences." The tax
free exemption would be retained for bonds directed toward the development of
low or moderate income rental housing. The bill's intent is to encourage issuance
of bonds for such projects by eliminating the tax exemption on competing uses.
Suggestions made in this element concerning bond issuance by the city are all
directed toward rentals or rehabilitation.)
- B17 -
e. e
Table 10
?
Estimated Cost Breakdown; Construction of Single-Family Unit
Carlsbad, 1979
Fees
Sewer fee School fee and/or agreement Permits: building, grading, plumbing,
Map fees, plan checks, deposits
Environmental assessment
electric
Cash
$ 1,000
1,480 *
909
61 8
50
TOTAL
Site Preparation
96 of Total
4,057 3.1
Excavation, grading, landscaping
Streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks
Water systems, main hydrants
Underground utilities
Sewers
Engineering
Soils testing
4,777
3,306
1,101
522
813
750
193
TOTAL 11,462 9.0
Bonds
Taxes (during construction)
Financing
51
133
6,000
TOTAL 6,184 4.9
Land
Administrative/profit
Construction
(1,800 sq.ft. $35.00 per sq.ft.1
27,666 21.7
15,000 11.7
63,000 49.5,
TOTAL HOUSE COST $127,369 100.0
PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE $ 2,546 2.0
*Fees vary depending upon school district from no fees to over, $2,000 per house.
- R1Q
e e
?
APPENDIX C * *
MOBILE HOME DISCUSSION
..
W' e ..
..
,.
t MODILE HOME DISCUSSION
-
The following attachment includes the Summary of Recommendations made by the
County's Blue Ribbon Mobile Home Park Committee, February, 1979 and the
Summary of Discussims held by the Carlsbad Citizen's Housing Element Review
Committee. The position of the committee is summarized by the seven statements
on pages 14 and iS of Appendix C. These statements are reflected. in the
treatment of the mobile home use in Section I1 (Goals, Policies, Programs) of this
Housing Element.
-.
~. ~ .~.~~
e .@ . .. .a. *.
.I
'./ ' . '.
' .. . ..
*I
.. .
.'
EXECUTIVE S17!41.IARY
: .
..
RW39CUCI?ICN
I "
.. ..
. .. .
- The. Eluc Ribbon Pfc;hilcho;-ne ?ark Conunittee was fcrmcd by
the Board of Su.pervisors on Hay 16, '1970 ($63) to thoroughly
revi?pl the current issues facing the mobi]-ehor,e ir,duslry
..
. . and to report back to the Eoard of Supervisors on their
findings including appropriate rcco~rmendations. In .
.. addition, the? Board spcifically directed that the Cmmittc:e
address the question of nobilehome parks in i.lclividual
. camnunity plms md the Regional Growth Xanqement ?la:i.
,,
The Blue. Ribbon 1-lobilehome Fark Committee has devoted
over 2,400 person hours meeting on a regular basis to
' .. review the problems and solutions relating to mobilehoms
- in Sail D.iego County. .. . .
Tlle final report from the Blue khbon I\lobilehome Park e.
8 Committee contains specific recomilelldations to the noarc1 of
Supervisors which the Cormnittee reco~~mznds for irnpl-ementa-
ti011 to ielic~? the .housing sI>ori;.agc tQj!iLa, p,rovid.i~l,g llousing
cho.ices .. in ~IIC Cou11ty, particularly for lower income
persons. .. .. .'
.. . .
- c2 -
' ..- *' * ..
4. i. .. ..
.. ,.
L" S~lt.lf4l!TIY ._."."" GT" "2 I~~~~~~~~~lI~~~~l~~T~:~~ "" '. . .' ..' ,. ..
.. .. ,.
.. .. ..
.' I.. . That the Board o! Supcj:v.isors clikect the County's kegis-
,.l.a.;;j.vc Advocate to pursue a change in the state law that
.'
a.
e ' will ' autornntj.ca.l.ly Froviclc tjlat new rnobj-lelrornes .be subject' , I'
. . to ad val.orcm taxation and C:.;GC mobilehomes, when sold, ..
should he chnged to ad valorcm taxnLi.on. Sales tax should . .'
be eliminateZ on all. mobilchome sales.
.. ..
2. In the event that #l fails, t1.1.e Board of Supervisms ciirect '
..
the County's Legislative Advocate to pursue a change' in the
. ' * State' DMV fee structure. to provide fpr a redistribution of
' . . 'a por'tion of the fec's collected, to 'those special districts .. . ..
which do no,t now' receive such ta?:. 'distribution. ..
* 3. Direct staff of the Zniegratcd Planning Office and I-lousing
, .. . . and Community Development. to identify available suitable
' ... .. a' ' public and private land5 in the County for Cormnunity Dlocl: . 0.
,. ..
.. ' Grant Assistance in meeting the n,eeds of low and 'moderate
.. ..
s - .income housing. ..
. . ., ..
4.b. Djxcct IPO in the current revisions of the Countyvide
.. - ..
Houshg Element to identify available sites for 1.077 and
Inoderate incolne housing.
. .. .
* .* . . ,. . .. e. a.
..
5.'" ~i~cl; 1130 as a part of t11~. Countpide 11ousinh ~l-ernent .. . 'study 'to prepare adclitiohal inccnti.vcs for dev-elopers ..
of affordab1.c I~cusi~~g for pcrsons of low and modcrate
*. . incomcs . .. .. .. I. .
' 6. ReEcr to IPO for consiclc:rati~n in the Countywi.dc Iiousing
Elclncnt st:ucIy, thc acloption of an, Qmc1icimcnt to tllc policy .. . Scctiol; of thc Ilausing' I2lc.mc111: and W~CJK~ the. Zoning ,.
8 (1 * , - c3 - 8
'W .@ ''
OFdinance which will cliininatc the Special Use Permit (SUP) ,
and substitute an administrative procedure for mob.ilehomes ..
.. ? .. :
* ' ,. . and rhobiLe~one parks, provided the following two conditions
are met. a:
A, .. Declaration that said mobilel~ousing and/or mobilehone
..
park spaces shdll be comitted as affordable housing
. .for persons of \wry 3014, low ar,d. moderate income, as.
, :
.. . 'determined by HUD for the San Diego area, with the
.. following ratios:
.. 8 Very Low Income Households = 20% Min. of the Project
- ' e Low Income Households = 3.08 Kin. of the Project
,. ' o ljoderate Income Households = Balance. to Total of the
'Project
. '. B. ,240hile housing and/or mobiiehonle parks to be located ..
in thos'e areas as determined by staf'f (IPO and Housing
.. 'and Coakunity Development) as required by Artic1.e 2. .. 0.
' . "Fair Share Allocation Plans" 'of 65302(c) of the '. . -. Governnlcnt Code and Paragraph 6456 "Standards and a _. .- ~ . . Plans for Adequate Sites" - and '64GO "Adequate Pro- . *. ..
vis ion. '' .. .. ..
' 7. That the 'Board of Supervisors direct 'staff to 'explore the .. .
., possibility of providing a land bank system that: will
.. provide available land to privatc'developers who could
*.
develop mobilchome I parks for displaced persons forced to ,
' move bccause of change of usc of existing mobilc~mme .parks
and/or low cost .mobj.lchome housing €or low and moderate
incomes. *.
8. Dircct 11'0 tb' includc considcrati.on of 'mobilchome park
.. - c4 - ~-
use
*e ' .e /
'. ..
a's 'an a.tternati.ve InncI use in, the Edgernoor lniastcr Plan
Study.
t .. .'
9.. Direct the CAO and tk,e C6u.nty's Leyislntive Advocate. in .
1
.. Washj.ngt.ojn, D. C. to support: cf forts to cleveJop a mchi2.e-
home park on Rcarn Field, U. S. Navy Land, Irnpzrial 13each.
'. .
10. Direct the CliO to supi3ort ~E'rorts to develop a nobilzhorne
park on County-owned lam2 in Campo (Old Camp Lockett). '
\
1L. Direct IPO to prepbrc and for your Board to adopt, an
. ordinance which allows developers 05 affordable 1loasin.g
;for persons of mediurn 'income 100% density bonus for projects ..
.. located in a der.sity of from 4.3 Du/Ac tc a maxinun density
of 7.3 'Du/Ac. For development of housing for perssns of
law income a.llow 2008 d.ensity bonus for projects I-ocatec! in.
".
..
areas permitting a lmsirnunl dcnsity of 4.3 Du/Ac or less.
12. Direct I1?0 to prepare amendments to rernOve all the resi- '. den.ti.al policies of all. community. plans which contain ..
..
. language which prohibits rrohil.ei-romes. from locating within
their conmur~ity. . .. .. .. ..
13, Direct IPO to amend all community plans to includct a housing
elcnmnt which is ' consistent with the Countywide IJousing
' Elenlent of the General Plan and meets the State Guidelines
65302 (c) 'with particular emphasis on Paragraph. 645G and
6460. *
14, That the b&-d of Supcrvisors direct staff to set for .public
.
hearing, four revisions to thc Zoning 0riIi.nance to achieve
thc fol. lowing :
A, Ilcvisc the stand;1rd Mobil.c?ho~nc Rc!ntal Park
.' .
* .'
- c5 - ..
# .
.i -! 1 'e' - .;, * ,@ . ' *
-. .
! !' %,
. .. . i' '. .. .
I . ..
8: Regulatiohs (Section 6500 of .the Zoning Ordinance).
e. t
'B. Adopt a "No-Prills" Mini-mobileljomc Paik Regulation.
. C. Adopt a permanent MoEilehomc, SiilglC~-Lost Regulation.
I). Revise the Planned L5obilehome Park Dcvelopmgnt -
; *
* Regulations (Scction GGCO of thz Zoning Ordinancc) .
. 15. Thak the Board oi Supervisors dire& staff to circulate
-this report to all .interested citizens So that mmirnurn.
publicj input will be assured %or tile public hearings to
amend the Zoning Ordinance as ret forth herein,
3.6. That the Boc~ril of Supervisors direct staff to report back . .. .. .. .. .- 011 the staff needed to proccss.the anticipated increase in .. .. .. .* .. applications that appFoval is expected to generate. '.
' . 17. That the goad of Supervisors apply exclusive mobilehome
. designations in appLyirlg zoning to new mobilehome parks.
18. That the Board of SLI~CXV~SGES apply to each new -mdhilchome
pa.rlr except for a mini-mobilehome pi'-rlc of 8 units or less,
. a permanent zone which includs .a building. type Designator
.. .- . -. *.
*. ("A" ) that permits mohilehorne building types onl-y,
.19. That the Bcard of Supervisors direct that each applicant 1)
.i * required tb sign a sbtcment that declams that the props
. mobilehome park will be .operated as an "open park. 'I
..
I.
'. 20. That the Eoard of Supervisors direct their Legislative . . '. Advocate to seek modification to Title 25 Mobilcho~ne Rc~u-
lati.012~ which will nmkc it applicatblc to single-l.ot mobile
home niting~, as defined in the Snn Dicgo County Zorrinrj
* Ordin~?ncc . ,.
e,
)?. . ' 22. That thc Doard of. Supcrvisor,s recognize that Tj.tl.c 25 of . - C6 -
*. w -. 0 .' ..
'.
*. the Ca3.ifoJ:nj.a Administrative Cod; .and the National Mobile- t
' borne Construction and Safety.Scand$rds Act of 1974 ensures
. safe construction of ali rnobilef.mncs manufactured after
.. September '15, 1971,and July 1, 19-1G rcspectiveiy.
22. . That the Board of Supervisors direct staff to prepare. n ..
resolution finding that nobilehomes built pursuant to the
National Construction and Safety Standard? Act of 1974 or ..
.after September 15, 1971 pursuant to Title 25 of the'
California Administrative Code whicl~ covers perforjnance
, standards not included in the federal. act, meet the pcrfor-
.. 'mance standards mandated by the State Housing CGde for
conventional dweIJ-ings; and authorizihg the building
. official to. issue construction permits for mobilehones
*.
. converted ,to dwellings. pursumt to an approved IGinor Use
Permit; and exempting the buil.ding Gfficial from 'personal
.. liability. ..
..
..
, ' 23.- Th-at the Board of Supervisors direct the building official
to apply the provisions of the San Die40 County .Building
y Code for structural alterations and/or modifications ~f
~ permanent' single-lot dwellings tihich were formerly mobile-
' homes. ..
24, That .tlic Doard of Supervisors recoqnizc that the usc permit
process recommcl1c~t~~ for future singlc-lot mobilcl~on~c. siting is .
neccssary'to cnsurc' that such sitcs arc dcsigned to be com-
patiblc with _I_ and will l>lcnd into thc ~~~eic~hborhoods into
* wlliciz. t~wy arc to be . located. . .. .I
**
25, That thc 13oard of Supcrvisocs dircct the! County's Legis-
1atj.vc Aclvoc;tt:c to scclc a rcquircmcnt in Stntc Code that
"
~ .. .. * 1 a .. .@ :
obligates thc mobilehome park OiKlcr to more explicitly
indicate the nature,of the limited tenancy to each
..
f
pros+cti-~z park tenat. ..
..
26. That the Board of Supervisors a.ppxove iq principle, exban- -.
si& oi the County's contract with Nclghborhood House
-.
Association to expand the role of 'the LandlOrd/Tenant
A&iscry Mediation Council to include mediation of mobile- ..
.. home related complaints.
27* Direct the CAO to identify apprqpriate funds for accomplish-
'merit of such expansion .and return to the Board. of Super- . ..
.. visors with necessart-y contractual- ,dccumcnts to i.mpl.ernent
the expanded role. *.
28. That .the Eoard of Supervisors encouyage all mobilehcmc
developers and park owners to accept coaches, according to
. performance Standards rather than "New" or "Used!' to pro-
' vide some relief to displaced mobilehome owners.
29. That the'Board of Supervisors encourage representatives
of CMHA, WA, WlHI, and GSMOL to make presentations
concerning the mobilehorne community tc> all. community
planning citizens' comittees, and to other interested
..
1)
. 3 citizen organizations.
#
' 30. That the I3onr-d of Supervisors direct their Legislative
Advocate to work with the mobilchonw ind!stry to seek a
change in ba'nking laws to allow mobilehome financing to be
treated as housing loans, not as cormercial loans.
* 31. That the Doard of Supervisors appoint a five-member
. .colnmit;tcc to continue after the nluc .Ribbon Commi.tttee . .. - C8 - .'
,. ..
.e ,e. ..
. - ..,
' termi11atc.s~ on a, quarterly basis, 'to' monitor the .progress
on implcmentation of the final report of the ~Lue kibbon
.. Committee on mobilehome parks.
. .,
..
. I. ..
. .* ..
..
.( .
.. .. ~.
.%* .- ,
.,
.I .. ..
.. . .- .. . . .*. .. ..
..
1. .. .. .. . .. . ._. .. . ..
.. .. ,. . . . ..
.. .,
. .. ..
... ..
' ' ... .
.. .. . . . .. .. ..
w ..
.I .. ..
..
.. .. .I
"* ..
..
'.
** .
0
... 5
*. .
. .. .. .
4
no
.. a 4, .e 0:
.. .. ..
TO: 'Membcrs of the Citizens Advisory Conhittee. for the Carl.sbad Housing El'crnent
?
Re: 133ackgro;md information on the Mob'iie Hone issue particularly. as it relates to the Carlsbac :lousing Eleaect. . ..
Introduction - -
In May, 1971 San Diego County cryanized the "Glue Ribbon
. Mobilehome Park Committee," That committee produced a final.
.. report in Februaxy, 1979. The eight page Summary of Recomnendatio
. from that report is attached here. In a memo date6 May 14, 1979
. local groups listed seven.basj.c recomnendations for consideration
. ~ by the Carlsbad City Council. In a- July 14 memo to this Committee
.. *. 'additional recolnmendations are made. Thiq paper attempts to indi-
. cate <he cwrent' sthtus of each of these ;ecommendations and what
_. "
0. ..
the role of this Connittee might be. ..
., . .. .. - ._. ~ecqmnendation 1 (May 14, 1973 letter)
..
-.
- - 11 Adopt a policy of favoring .use of mobile homes consistent
-.
with applicable rules and regulations'.of State and Federal
entities pertaining to development of permanent housing
. . suitable to persons of low and moderate incomes.
, ' Coln?uent ".
a - This rccommcndation brings up two separate issuks and they
I .. .
' should not bc confused. Most new mobi1.c hone devclopmcnt because
' of thc incrczsing. cost of the coach itself and the increases in _.
. spacc? rental docs not qualify as ttlow or modcrate income" housing.
*- . Tlle avcxngc monthly cost of financing a' new mobile homc and paying
cpacc ~dlltal for it is in exccss of $400 pcr month (pnyc 17 of
'- Cl.0 - ..
e , , , ;' -0' ' *.
t3J.ue Ribbon Commit"& Report) , Nhateirel: ,suggestions zrc filially
agreed upon by this Comnittee to encourngc more Ilioderate cost
,housing should be ap;?lied equally .. to mobile ,home development. Thesc
t
e. suggestions will probzbly range fton use of available subsidies to
.. hon.uses .and assistance to privzte developcrs of all types of housinc
., , . The second issue raised by this recommendation is the current
. - treatment of the mobile horcz use as non--permanent !lousing. Current:
inobile home parks are zpproved' by issuance .of conditional use permil
: The County Blue Ribbon Committee is seeking 3 special area designat.(
. ($1) - in the zoning ordinance entitled 3"lohilehorne Development, Speci.:
. designation of the 14 zoning has all the advantages and disadvantage:
. ... of any other specific zoning: definite locaticns are indicate.d bc-k
. . land prices may increase rapidly beciuse of this. The coun'cy repor-
also recommends that 14 - zoning he giver? only if steps to provide a
.. -
miq of low and noderate income units are being .pursued,
.. -. ..
_. . 2) Establish a separate zone for mobile parks including "no frill
.' rniniyparl~s. 'I
.. .
" %ortuncn t
. Separate zone discussed above. The B1u.e Ribbon Committee
recommendcd the, use of a "mini-mobile home park zone" which could
..
.. ..
*. ..
..
' . be dcvclopzd on .as little as onc acre. Comparcd with a standard
- mobile homc park of ~ninim~zlll 5 acres. The Cour,ty Planning Commissio
has. taken (i position against the "mini" designation, principally
because of diffic.ul.ty of. supplying adcquate facil.itics and scrviccs
to 8, 10, or 12 mobilc. llomcs which rnight be allowed on onc acre.
I *.
a, ' .' . - c11 - :
..
0 .. *: ,m
. 3) j:deIltiJ$T and desicjrlatz public and private laniis.'witilin the cit
limits suitable? to mobilcholnc zoning.
I .. .. ..
Cornnlent
~1~~' cited r-concncndations (3 & 43 from the Blue Ribbon .Report actually onll' relate to fihe avail-ability Of sites for low and '
.. . . moderate income llousilig in gcncza.1. some general ~ndication of
. such availability is; of course, one of the goals of the housing
. element and iqill be fully discussed by +is Com'it'ee* ..
a) , . E>:plore and establish all suitable incentives to mobi1e home
-. .. . park developzent and. suitable restraints to prevent unreascn-
. able "change of use'' of any mobilehoxe zone.' Emphasis of ._
. . .this Conmittee has been toward "incentives +nd encouragement ..
'. .. f .': of any and all' types of affordable -housing, Whatever incen-
" . .
t.j-ves. and encouragem~l~ts are finally agreSd to may apply 2qua''y
'to lnobile hone developnent. The "change of use** danger is inhere' .. ..
. in the current system, however, even the possible M zolling does -
" not completely eliminate the danger, The long-tel-m protection
' against change of use problems would be mobile home suhdivisions
or pRd's in,which the underlying land is owned individually by
each residcnt or jointly by an association.
. ..
-.
.. sj , * Autllorizc UEC of single lot mobile homcs in CarJ-sSad subgecf: ..
to &nfornlity with neighborhood csthctic Values , Permanent
* dweilirlg rul.es 'and ad-valorcnl taxation-
.. e ., Comment
The 13111~ Rib),o13 Colnrnittcc has recomnicndcd the adoption of a
" ..
- c12 - .'
9 I
** .. e:
. permanent single lot mohilchomc regulation; no action on the issue
. has Ixcn taken 'thus far. The single lot nobile home is used as a
housing choice in rural kmrica an2 un,del; temporary and emergency
conditions. It is rarely used in majoz urban areas.. Techni.cally,
+
the legal. . francwo~:lc already exists fcr allowing mobile homes on
. single ,l,ots'. The mobile home must be placsd on a permanent faun-
' dation and "totally converted from the entity of a mobilehome to
. the .eniitr.y of a residential buildificj which meets all applicable
, '.building code requifcrnents before it may be occupied and texed as
a permanent residential building" (Opinion of County Counsel r.
November 1978). In the final. analysis any unit which met all
. "S. . appi'icablc building code reqxirements ahd' conformed to neighborhooc
- . esthe6ic vaiues "would probably bear litele ,similarity to a stan-
. dard nobile hme. ..
.. . -.
6) Change existing rules and regulations as necessary to .accept
.. .. '. mobilehones constructed under Calif'ornia codes as permissible
permanent housing for persons of low and moderate income.
The construction of mobile homes is regula& by the State of
.. - -. ..
Califarnia and by the National Mobilehome Cons'truction and
. ' s.. * ... Safety Standards ~ct. While these state and federal codes '
.. control the production of units, local .codes control- their
.4 placement, location and regulation whethcr in or out of mobilc
.' . . . . home parks.
4 .. Co~n~ucnt -.
' * This recon~mcndation refers to number 22 in the Blue Ribbon
*- Summary. County Counsel rccolnmcndcd against any such action by
- C13 -
'.
.i 0 .':. *
the Proard of Supervisors which would have the Boar-.3 prescribing
criteria for conversion of a xobi.1-e hose into a permarLent residentic
unit. Counsel' also states "a determination by the building official #
- ellat a structure complies with all appl.!Lcahle building regulations
. is necessary for conversion ~K~III mobilehome to permancndc rcsidentia:
. building; I-.. makillg Sucll determination i:hz builcX-ncj official has ..
. ._
* latitude to acccpt alternate materials. I'
7)' Prohibit any "~losed park" practice by any pxk' owner or
mobilelzon~c dealer which would deny a prospective tenant free
dioice of lot rental or home pu-rclmse. A "closed park." is
.. -. one in which the park operator selectively offers for sale
.. ._ . only designated mobilehone units from selected .. dealerships
1. or hiw own dealership. Such practices are illegal in the
opinion of the Sar. Diego District littorne-.7 I s office. In ac
..
ItOpen parkts any ilep7 or used unit may be Located but reV~r~- -. ..
. . nents on its size, quality and structurz are entirely legal.
.. .Prosecution oil the closed park situations .are handled by the
.. '. ' .- -District Attorney's office. Complaints and follow through
by ' complaining parties is II~C~SS~~L~ to assure vigorous
' : * prosecution.
..
The following statements briefly sunmsrize the approzch which .. ... . .. . . . .',
.. . this Committee might take in dczling with the mobile home issue:
' 1) Recognize fully ,the irnportance of the mobilchcme as a source
of housi.ng for many rcsidcnts.
.. 2) . Indicate clcar-ly that. whntcvcr programs arc ilcvclopcd or
inccntivcs offcrcd to promot6. t'clffc.~rdal.)lc" housing will. be *.
.e
- C14 7
0 e
cqua1l.y appliFc3 to mobile hojnc development. .
3) . Indicate'that any site guidclincs to low or moderate incomc
housing in general could include mobile home dcvelopmcnt
* as well.
4) Any density bonuses developed or recommended could : .,
be considered to apply' to mobile home development.
5) Indicate that while "exclusive" mobile. home designations
.. .. may not be indicated, there will be no discrimination
against the use in general. .. .
. 6) .Indicate encouragement ,for development of mobile home -.
subdivisions and/or prd's so as to gradually eliminate
.. "change of use" danger,
1 7) Indicate suppc.rt for "open parks" in Carlsbad and
intention -05 city to report non-compliance with "open
. .park" laws. -~
..
*. ..
.* - C15 -
e e
t
.I -
APPENDIX D
DEFINITIONS
e e
r
DEFINITIONS
California Housing Finance Agency (CHFA)
CHFA was created in 1975 with enactment of the Housing and Home Finance Act
by the California legislature. The primary purpose of the agency is "to meet the
housing needs of persons and families of low or moderate income" (Health and
Safety Code 50950). The agency's funds accrue from the sale of State of California
general obligation bonds, and federal housing subsidies. With funds from bond
sales, the agency pursues the following programs: long-term financing of new
rental construction, neighborhood preservatim and rehabilitation, and purchase of
single-family moderate income mortgages from private lenders. The CHFA Board
of Directors is appointed by the governor and the legislature.
Code Enforcement Program
A literal definition of code enforcement would simply mean enforcement of all
zoning and housing codes. A Code Enforcement Program used in the context of
this Housing Element refers to the systematic review of housing conditions in areas
where the initial signs of blight and deterioration have been detected and where
public monies either from the federal or state government or from municipal
bonding are made available to assist in rehabilitation and any possible relocations.
I
- Dl -
e e
Commercial Core
t
In Carlsbad, this refers to that part of the Village Area Redevelopment known as .
the Village Center (Sub-Area No. 1). This Village Center is generally bounded by
Grand and Oak (north and south) and the railroad and Interstate 5 (west and east).
Community Development Block Grant Program
The federal government's major urban grant program to cities established by Title I
of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974; amended in 1977 (42
USC). Funds are annually subventioned to local government based on a popula-
tion/poverty/housing formula. The major federal requirement is that funds be used
primarily to assist low and moderate income households. In FY 1978-79 Carlsbad
received about $140,000.
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)
The state agency with responsibility for developing statewide housing data, plans
and programs for determining (with legislative approval) the guidelines for housing
plans of local government. Health and Safety Code Section 41134 authorizes this
department to review local housing elements for conformity with the requirements
. of Section 65302 of the Government Code, and for conformity with the Depart-
ment's guidelines. With the passage of recent legislation (AB 333) this department
will also have major funding ability in the near future.
..
- D2 -
e a
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
t
The federal agency with responsibility for determining national housing policy,
developing housing programs, and guidelines for local government and for funding
most federal housing programs.
Growth Management
Growth management is a process by which the City determines the amount (what),
location (where) and rate (when) of growth to match local government's ability to
provide adequate public facilities and services. This process indirectly affects
environmental quality and community identity and character. (Carlsbad City
Council Workshop, November 26, 1979).
Non-Profit Housing Corporation
\
A non-profit housing corporation may be established according to Section 9200 of
the Corporations Code of the State of California, "indicate lawful purpose and - not
contemplate the distribution of gains, profits or dividends". Such corporations may
be set up by churches, civic groups, community based organizations, and cities and
counties. Federal and state funds available to such organizations for housing
. programs cover all costs including administration. Profits realized by such
corporations cannot accrue to the benefit of the corporation but must be used to
defray costs, lower rents or provide additional services.
- D3 -
0 e
Preservation Districts
t
Clearly identified community areas where the condition of public facilities and
housing is evaluated using base data such as the 1980 census. Community goals for
preservation of housing, community facilities and character are set. Changes over
time in land use patterns are monitored and evaluated to assure that community
goals are maintained.
Public Housing 8,
The federal government's oldest, most conventional housing program established by
the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 and directed toward the lowest income households.
Local housing authorities issue bonds on which the federal government pays debt
service. The federal government dso pays operating costs not covered by rents.
Such a program requires a successful referendum. No actual public housing has
been developed in San Diego County under this program.
Section 202 Housing for the Elderly (Section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959 as
amended, 12 U.S.C.)
' Federal government program which provides direct long-term low interest loans to
non-profit sponsors to finance rental or cooperative housing for elderly and
handicapped persons. The eventual tenants are also allowed rent supplements so
that their rent does not exceed 25 percent of income.
- D4 -
e e
Section 8 Housing Assistance (Section 8, Title I1 of the Housing and Community
- - Development !kt of 1974, amended 1977, 42 U.S.C.)
This program is the main source of federal housing assistance for low-income
persons or families. The housing assistance payment makes up the difference
between "fair market rent" established by HUD and 25 percent of the occupants
income. If "fair market rent" is $300 and tenant income is $1,000 per month,
tenant will be required to pay $250 while the federal subsidy of $50 per month is
paid by the federal government through the Housing Authority.
Added after Planning Commission Review of 2/6/80
Marks Foran Rehabilitation Loans
Enacted in 1973 by the California legislature, this program authorizes local
governments or authorities created by them, to sell tax exempt revenue bonds and
use the proceeds to make long-term below market interest loans to rehabilitate
residences and in limited circumstances, commercial properties.
Section 312 Rehabilitation Loans
Since 1964, the major federal low interest loan program available for residential
rehabilitation. Participation is permitted by owner occupants, as well as absentee
owners of rental property in specified community improvement area.
- D5-
e e
t
9
APPENDIX E
LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING:
FAIR SHARE AND WCLUSTONARY PRO?rISIQNS
* m
LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING:
? FAR SHARE AND INCLUSIONARY PROVISIONS
The goals and policies of this Housing Element have been developed to refiect
overall housing needs for Carlsbad in the next five-year period (1980-1985).
Section I1 of this element attempts to provide a framework for maintaining the
City’s existing residential character,, as well as providing for the inevitable growth
of housing demand in middle and upper income caiegories. Special attention has
been given, however, to policies which might increase low and moderate income
housing opportunities in the City. This special attention is in response to both
demonstrated need (see Appendix A) in the City and the region and the Housing
Element Guidelines of the State of California.
Low and Moderate Income Housing Opportunities: Definitions
“Low and moderate income” are imprecise terms and in the absence of reliable
annual surveying, the data available are merely estimates. They should be used as
guidelines in determining housing policies and programs and not as absolute
standards of income or need. Estimates of 1979 low and moderate income and
corresponding rental ranges for Carlsbad are summarized in the following table.
Low and Moderate Income Rent Ranges -
1979 Estimates Carlsbad
Low Income Rent Moderate Income Re1
Low Income 25% to 35% Moderate Income 25% to 35%
80% of Median Monthly Income 120% of Median Monthly Income
$10,725 $223-3 12 $16,087 $335-469
Source: San Diego Demographic and Economic Forecasts: 1977-1984 developed
by San Diego County, CPO and San Diego Gas and Electric.
* a
The above estimates should be referred to in discussions of programs which provide
either low or moderate income housing.
Fair Share Allocations: Meeting Lower Income Housing Needs
The purpose of "fair share allocations" is to distribute lower income housing units
throughout a community or region on a cooperative basis. The distribution means
that lower income households retain choice of location, that no one community
accepts a disproportionate share of low income housing, and that individual
communities accept such units consistent with need and resources. The distribu-
tion formula devised for this region by the Comprehensive Planning Organization
distributes units on the basis of existing need, and population and employment
growth to 1985. Carlsbac!'s share to 1.985 is estimated to be 825 such units.
Inclusionary Systems: Meeting Moderate Income Housing Needs
An inclusionary housing program or ordinance offers localities a tool which can be
used to expand the supply of low or more usually moderate income housing. Such
inclusionary programs suggest or require that all new developments above a certain
size, contain a specified proportion of moderate income housing units. Inclusionary
programs may be voluntary or mandatory and be for sales or rental units. The one
recommended in this Housing Element is voluntary and directed at provision of
moderate income rental units in return for a density bonus. Inclusionary provisions
are usually accompanied by concessions to the developer like density bonuses, fee
waivers, parking allowances, land writedowns or regulation waivers. Recent state
legislation (AB1 151, Roos) requires that cities provide developers with one of the
B a,
above types of concessions if the developer offers to supply 25 percent low/moder-
ate income units. WhiEh concession is offered the developer is entirely at local
discretion.