HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-10-22; City Council; 8380; REVISED HOUSING ELEMENT FOR THE CITY OF CARLSBAD0 TITLE iB# 838
DEPT. R/AG
RF,VISED HOUSING ELEMENT FOR
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD MTG. 19/22/85
DEPT,
CITY i
CIN
4
0 w >. 0 rx a a 4
2 2 6 a
=! 0 z 3 0 0
- -4' f CIT~F CARLSBAD - AGEND~ILL
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Approve Resolution # 8a37 (Exhibit 1) indicating the City
intent to adopt the revised Housing Element as amended and aL
zing submission of the document to the State of California DE
of "Housing and Comnunity Development" for review and comment
ITEM EXPLANATION:
The revised Housing Element (Exhibit 2) has been reviewed by
Planning Commission, the Housing and Redevelopment Committee
City staff. Each of these groups is recommending that the.Cj Council forward the revised Housing Element to the State Depi
of Housing and Community Development for review and comment.
conclusion of the State's review the revised Housing Element
returned to L5e City Council for adoption.
The revised Housing Element is comprised of an executive sum
brief introduction; a goals/policy/action program section; ai
mentation, priorities, update and review process section. TI
chapters comprise the Housing Element. In addition, the appt
contains substantial data on the City of Carlsbad which was i
the development of the revised element.
The memorandum dated October 9, 1985 (Exhibit 3) from Michae
McLaughlin, our SANDAG consultant, identifies changes recommi
by the Planning Commission and recommended expansion and add
to sections of the revised Housing Element, based on his kno
of the State's review of housing elements of other cities to
date. The expansion and additions do not change the substa
the Housing Element as reviewed by the Housing and Redevelop
Committee and the Planning Commission and are, therefore, re
ded for inclusion in the revised Housing Element to be submi
the State for review and comment.
EXHIBITS:
l,, Resolution # g237 .
2 #, Revised Housing Element.
3,, Memorandum from Michael McLaughlin, SANDAG, dated 10/9/8
4, Memorandum from Redevelopment Office, dated 9/25/85.
5. Minutes of Planning Commission meeting of 9/25/85.
E XH - I) I,
City of Carlsb
housiiiu element E
1' e e
CARLSBAD
HOUSING ELEMENT
(1 9 8 5 REVISION)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................... ES-1
1 . INTRODUCTION ............................................. 1
General Comments ...................................... 1
Themes: Development and Preservation ................... 1
Housing Elem en t Requirements ............................ 2
Revisions .............................................. 3
General Plan Relationships ............................... 3
2 . GOALS. POLICIES AND ACTION PROGRAMS ................... 5
Introduction ............................................ 5
Goals .................................................. 5
Policies and Action Programs ............................. 6
Summary: Recommended Housing Element Programs ........ 13
3 . IMPLEMENTATION. PRIORITIES. UPDATE AND REVIEW ......... 18
Priorities for Implement at ion ............................. 18
Review and Update ...................................... 19
APPENDICES: NEEDS ASSESSMENT ............................... 21
Historical Development Patterns .......................... 21
Demographic Assessment ................................ 22
Housing Assessment ..................................... 32
Site Inventory .......................................... 56
Introduction ............................................ 18
Regional Housing Needs Statement ........................ 53
Governmental Constraints ................................ 57
Non-Governmental Constraints ........................... 59
SpecialNeeds .......................................... 60
Summary of Needs Assessment ............................ 70
Energy Conservation .................................... 68
+' 0 0
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
HOUSING ELEMENT REQUIREMENTS
The State of California requires each City to have an approved general plan to
guide development activities. The Housing Element became one of the required
Elements of the General Plan in 1969.
According to State law passed in 1980 (AB 2853-Roos Bill), the Housing Element
must contain three parts: (1) an assessment of housing needs and an inventory of
resources and constraints relevant to the meeting of these needs; (2) a statement
of the community's goals, quantified objectives, and policies relative to the main-
tenance, improvement, and development of housing; and (3) a program which sets
forth a fiveyear schedule of actions to implement the policies and achieve the
goals and objectives of the Housing Element.
REVISIONS
The City of Carlsbad adopted its existing Element in 1981 after the current
requirements for housing elements were adopted by the State. At that time the
City had an option to follow guidelines that were replaced by the State law. The
City must now revise its Housing Element and receive review and comment from
the California Department of Housing and Community Development. The
revisions were based on the current requirements in State law, more current
information, and changes in housing conditions.
The proposed revisions would bring the City's Housing Element into compliance
with the current State housing requirements. Additional sources of housing infor-
mation, most notably the 1980 Census (previous Element used 1970 and 1975 census), 1984 estimates (previous Element used 1980 estimates), the 1985-1991
Housing Needs Statement, and SANDAG's Series 6 Regional Growth Forecasts
(previous Element used Series IV) are used in the revision.
The City contracted with the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG)
through the Local Technical Assistance program to assist with the revision of the
City's Housing Element. SANDAG staff worked closely with the City staff and
used the information available to it as the Regional Data Center and as the
agency responsible for the growth forecasts and fair share needs.
SUMMARY
The City's Housing Element contains three chapters: (1) Introduction, (2) Goals,
Policies, and Action Programs; (3) Implementation Priorities, Update, and Review
and an Appendix which contains the Needs Assessment. The Goals and Policies
have been revised only as necessary to reflect the status of current policies,
ES- 1
> 4' a 0
programs, and the new Needs Assessment. The Implementation Programs are the
blueprints for the housing activities from 1985-1991. These two chapters should
provide the City with a means by which it can develop, modify, and/or revise its
housing policies. Several policy directions may need to be revised during the next five to six years. City Council may wish to identify other directions or ap-
proaches for the City. The Housing Element should be used for these purposes.
The Appendix provides an up to date housing needs assessment and a thorough
analysis of the important aspects of the housing market in Carlsbad.
The Needs Assessment is a response to the State requirements for certain types of
information as well as a documentation of the City's housing conditions and
market. The Needs Assessment also identifies the total number of units (11,589)
that the City will have to provide from 1985 to 1991 based upon the adopted
region's need for affordable housing, the City adopted (in 1984) a goal of assisting
680 lower income households from 1985 to 1991.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
The Housing Element identifies forty-three policies and actions to address the
entire housing needs of Carlsbad. While the programs will address the housing
needs of all the economic segments within the City's housing market, incentives which will provide affordable housing are necessary. The policies and actions
which will address the fair share responsibilities respond to this requirement.
The City will use existing federal and state resources as well as locaI incentives to
provide almost 700 households with affordable housing. This effort would meet
the City's "fair share" responsibility. The City will add to, and/or build upon,
existing and previous programs in order to meet this objective. The following
table summarizes the impact of the programs which will address fair share goals.
Regional Growth Forecasts. In order for the City to provide its fair share of the
ACTUAL AND PROPOSED
FAIR SHARE PROGRAM SUMMARY
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Actual Projected
Units Prograq Units
40 Section 8 m-3 35
160 Seniors m-4 60
0 Housing Development m-5 100
31 Master Plan N-7 . 100
106 Revenue Bonds Iv-10 40 0 695 337 Total Fair Share Programs
(408) Fair Share Goal (680)
1979-1985 Program Number 1985-1991
-
* See Chapter 2 for more detailed explanation of program.
ES- 2
I *' 8 e
These programs are designed to address the housing needs of lower income house-
holds (a household of four with an income of less than $22,000). Using standard
definitions of affordability, units should be available that rent for less than $550
per month (focus of these programs) and that sell for for less than $65,000.
CONCLUSION
The revised Housing Element is a response to State laws and provides a local
planning Element which will guide the City's actions on housing matters. The
revisions are based on current data and information, and they outline goals,
policies, programs and actions which are designed to meet the City's housing
needs.
ES- 3
,< e 0
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
GENERAL COMMENTS
The 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 an integrated set of goals, policies and programs which
can assist the community in meeting those needs. The Element also includes
implementation procedures and priorities. The Appendix includes an extensive
needs assessment. This document is the result of technical revisions to the
Housing Element that the City adopted in 1981. The most significant changes are
updates to the needs assessment and additions necessary to comply with the State
requirements governing Housing Elements. The GoaIs/Policies/Programs section
was revised where changes in the needs assessment suggests a revision in goals, or
where evaluation of the City's progress from 1980 indicated a need for such re-
visions.
THEMES: DEVELOPMENT AND PRESERVATION
The two crucial themes that were identified in the 1981 Housing Element continue
to be emphasized by the revised Housing Element. The first theme is the City's
desire to ensure orderly growth. Carlsbad's population has exhibited a rapid rate
of growth, more than doubling from 1970 to 1980. The rate of growth is expected
to continue. The following table illustrates past trends from 1970 and the projec-
tions of growth in Carlsbad to 1990.
TABLE 1
CITY OF CARLSBAD 1970-1 990
Year Population Households
1970 14,944 5,149
1975 19,700 7,240
1980 35,490 13,352
1990 62,700 26,100
Sources: U.S. Census, 1970; U.S. Census, 1980;
Series 6 Regional Growth Forecasts
1
_____ ~- I
t' 0 0
The second major theme is the desire to preserve the character of the City's
existing residential areas, community scale and desirable environment. This
theme is expressed through an emphasis on rehabilitation and preservation activ-
ities in older neighborhoods and an emphasis on neighborhood identity, orderly
development and compatibility with surroundings to be stressed in new develop-
ment. Both themes are addressed in the goals and policies of this element.
Toward a Comprehensive Housing Strategy for Carlsbad
The Housing Element is intended to serve as a guide for both elected officials and
staff in evaluating proposals, determining priorities, and making housing decision3
of all kinds. The goals of the element provide a basis for reviewing day-today
issues and serve as a 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. The element is a comprehensive housing strategy
that informs all residents of Carlsbad's goals, policies and priorities which attempt
to meet "the housing needs of all economic segments of the community."
HOUSING ELEMENT REQUIREMENTS
Each city in the State of California must have an approved general plan to guide
its development activities. The plan must contain certain elements. The Housing
Element became one of the required elements in 1969.
State law passed in 1980 (AB 2853-Roos Bill) describes the requirements for
housing elements, the need to include an assessment of Regional Housing Needs,
the role of the California Department of Housing and Community Development
(HCD) in the review of elements, and procedures and timing for the adoption of
the Housing Element.
According to that law, the Housing Element is expected to contain three parts:
(1) a statement of the community's goals, quantified objectives, and policies relative to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing; (2) a
program which sets forth a five-year schedule of actions to implement the policies
and achieve the goals and objectives of the Housing Element; and (3) an assess-
ment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to
the meeting of those needs.
The needs assessment must include the City's share of the regional housing needs
of persons at all income levels. The San Diego Association of Governments
(SANDAG) has developed the Regional Housing Needs Statement which responds
to the state requirements and has been approved by HCD. The City of Carlsbad
adopted the Needs Statement on April 17, 1984.
2
.' 0 0
REVISIONS
The Housing Element must be revised as appropriate but not less than every five
years. The state has 90 days in which to review elements or revisions to ele- ments, The extent of the revisions depends upon the differences between the
previously adopted Housing Element and the requirements of the law and/or the
availability of more current information and changes in housing conditions.
The City of Carlsbad adopted its existing element in July 1981. The requirements
for housing elements were adopted by the state in 1980. The City's element
addressed a portion of the new requirements. This revision to the City's Housing
Element responds to all of the requirements. Additional housing information is
now available (most notably the 1980 Census, 1984 Estimates, the 1985-1991
Housing Needs Statement, and SANDAG's Series 6 Regional Growth Forecast).
The update to the needs assessment contains a thorough analysis of the important
aspects of the housing market in Carlsbad. This section also contains most of the
revisions made in the Housing Element. Other changes in the element are largely
responses to the revised needs assessment or updates based on current conditions,
policies, and programs.
GENERAL PLAN RELATIONSHIPS
California law requires that general plans contain an integrated and internally
consistent 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 Housing Element has been drafted to be consistent with the Land Use Element which, for reasons of
safety, geology, open space and noise, declares that certain areas are to be pre-
served or developed with non-residential uses. The Housing Element does not
suggest specific sites for particular types of housing. The element recommends
general areas and locational criteria for future housing development. An effort
was made to make these recommendations consistent with the Land Use
Element. If it becomes clear that the goals of the Housing Element are not being
met within the locations and densities established for residential development by
the Land Use Element, the Land Use Element will be amended.
Goal Setting and the Land Use Element
The 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 the Housing Element. Although the Land Use Element enumerates 16 different
guidelines for residential development, they encompass five main themes.
1. Preservation - The City should preserve the neighborhood atmosphere, retain
the identity of the existing neighborhoods, maximize open space, and ensure
slope preservation.
Choice - The City should ensure a variety of housing types, a choice of all
economic ranges, a wide range of housing types (apartments, townhouses,
etc.), different styles and price levels in a variety of locations.
2.
3
*' 0 0
3. Medium and High Density Compatibility with Surroundings and Services - The
City should provide close-in living and convenient shopping in the commercial
core but limit large-scale development of apartments to areas that are most
appropriate.
Housing Needs - The City should utilize programs to revitalize deteriorating
areas or those with high potential for deterioration and seek to provide low
and moderate income housing.
Managed Development - The City should ensure orderly residential develop-
ment, avoid "leapfrog" subdivision, and allow higher density where existing or
proposed public facilities can accommodate increased population and par-
ticularly within the Village Area Redevelopment Project.
4.
5.
,
4
.I 0 0
1
CHAPTER 2
GOALS, POLICIES, AND ACTION PROGRAMS
INTRODUCTION
The Housing Element includes five general goals, nine major policy areas and 43
recommended action programs. Not all tasks were given equal weight and atten-
tion. Chapter 2 of this Housing Element highlights those policies and programs
which, because of both State guidelines and local need, were to be given priority.
Chapter 3 assigns responsibility for implementation of the program. Ultimate
responsibility lies, of course, with the Carlsbad City Council, which is to assign
staff and resources to carry out responsibilities under its guidance or under that of
appointed review bodies. The Summary Chart lists each of the Element's 38
action programs with corresponding 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 sources of
funds. All actions are subject to final directives by the Carlsbad City Council.
GOALS
The Housing Element has five major goals. These goals are intended to provide
general direction in meeting Carlsbad's two major housing concerns: preserving
existing community values and responding to projected growth.
1. The City should preserve Carlsbad's unique and desirable character as a
coastal community and maintain high design and environmental quality stan-
dards in all new development or redevelopment.
The City should assure that future development provides an adequate diver-
sity of housing, with types, prices, tenures and locations consistent with the
age and economic characteristics of present and future residents.
The City should provide affordable housing opportunities in a variety of types
and locations to meet the needs of current low and moderate income house-
holds and a fair share proportion of future low and moderate income house-
holds.
The City should assure that the amount and type of housing development or
redevelopment is compatible with, and convenient to, the locations of major
facilities and services and, in particular, major transportation and transit
routes as well as major employment centers.
The City should assure that all housing, whether market or assisted, is sold or
rented in conformance with open housing policies free of discriminatory
practices.
2.
3.
4.
5.
5
e 0
1
POLICIES AND ACTION PROGRAMS
In order to meet the goals outlined above, specific policies and programs are
listed. Nine major policy areas are identified; each relates to a specific set of
housing issues and problems. The first and second policy areas relate to preser-
vation of the existing community. The next four policy areas relate to response to
new development, while the final three policies involve organization, equal oppor-
tunity and update of the Housing Element. Action programs designed to carry out
the policy are identified. The City is expected to use its best efforts to
implement these action programs consistent with sound legislative judgment. In
implementing these programs? due consideration is to be given to the balance of
new and existing housing, available resoures, environmental protection and general
communi t p welfare.
POLICY I
The City should preserve its existing character and protect residential
communities, which could be susceptible to blight or deterioration,
from the encroachment of conditions or uses which would have a
negative impact or degrade the environmental quality of those
communities.
Actions
- 1-1 - The City should monitor signs of early decline within certain
communities by conducting frequent spot inspections of housing conditions
and attempting to make rehabilitation funds available as necessary.
- 1-2 - The City should monitor signs of early decline within certain
communities by conducting spot inspections of conditions of public and com-
munity facilities and services. Conditions should be evaluated for possible
inclusion in capital improvement programs.
- 1-3 - The City should encourage greater involvement from community and
ne igh borhood organizations in the preservation of existing neighborhoods.
The City will undertake an increased promotion campaign and also conduct
this effort in Spanish.
- 1-4 - The City should distribute public notices of major developments and
plans to community and neighborhood based groups. The City should continue
to distribute the City Newsletter which provides such information for all
residents of Carlsbad.
- 1-5 - The City should, where feasible, preserve historic houses from demo-
lition or conversion to inappropriate uses. Historic properties are eligible for
federal and state funds to carry out rehabilitation. These funds are difficult
to obtain, so economic feasibility of maintenance or conversion of historic
sites is of prime importance. The City has established a Historic Review
Committee which will update the existing historic housing inventory and draft
an ordinance for the development of historic sites.
6
0 (I)
POLICY II
The City should utilize code enforcement and rehabilitation activities
to preserve and rehabilitate the housing stock within the Village Area
Redevelopment Project.
Actions
- II-1 - The City should continue rehabilitation of residences with funding from
the block grant program. Almost $80,000 has been allocated to rehabilitation
and $45,000 is on deposit. The City will continue to provide funds for the
rehabiiit ation of housing.
- II-2 - The City should pursue federal aid and state rehabilitation program
funds which allow flexibility in rehabilitation assistance for investors and
moderate- and middle-income owners. Applications for federal loans for the
area designated will be made by the Carlsbad Housing and Redevelopment
Commission, depending on available funds. Rent maximums allowed on
bvestor-owned rehabilitated units should be those established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for its Section 8 Moderate
Rehabilitation Program.
- Lf-3 - City action should seek to maintain and improve public facilities and
services within the Village Area Redevelopment Project. Funds from addi-
tional Community Development Block Grant monies, tax increments, bond
issues or general city funds will be used to finance these improvements.
POLICY III
The City should develop a greater diversity of housing types and pro-
grams to meet a significant share of Carlsbad's lower income housing
needs; maintain and rehabilitate where necessary the existing stock of
lower income housing.
Carlsbad's six-year goal as presented in the 1985-1991 Housing Needs Statement is
to provide housing assistance to 567 lower income households from 1985 to 1990
(or 680 over the six-year period; 113 households per year).
Actions
- IIt-1 - The City should pursue those federal and state housing programs which
are compatible with the objectives of the City and can provide the greatest
number of housing units which would meet the City's current and projected
needs.
- III-2 - The City should continue the existing Section 8 Housing Assistance
Program (265 units) seeking revised rents from the Department of Housing
and Urban Development consistent with coastal area market prices.
- IlI-3 - The City should also apply to the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development for an additional 175 units of Section 8 assisted housing
phased over the six year time frame of the Housing Element (1985-1991). The
allocation of these units' between elderly and non-elderly households is ex-
7
1' 0 e
pected to be determined by funding priorities of the Department of Housing
and Urban Development and the City of Carlsbad Housing and Redevelopment
Commission.
- m-4 - The City should continue to implement program(s) to develop up to 250
new units of senior citizen housing on scattered sites in Carlsbad as approved
by the Article 34 referendum in November 1980. These sites should be
located in any of the City's four geographic quadrants as long as they are
consistent with site selection criteria outlined under Policy VI (Adequate
Sites) and avoid concentrations in any one of the quadrants. The City ap-
proved three projects with a total of 160 units for seniors by 1985. These
units have controls on rent and age to insure their affordability as housing for
senior citizens.
- III-5 - The City should establish a Housing Development Fund to assist in land
purchase or write-down costs for development of lower income housing. Tax
increment funds, portions of annual CDBG grant, or state or federal contri-
butions to nonprofit housing sponsors should be sought.
- IU-6 - The City should insure that the design, location, and quality of projects
be reasonably consistent and compatible with other types of ownership
housing. Condominiums and condominium conversions constitute a significant
portion of the city's stock of affordable housing. In order for the standards
for new condominium construction to be valid, the same standards should also
be applied to condominium conversions. In order to insure that all condo-
miniums offered for sale meet the City's goals, the City should consider the
need to reduce and mitigate the impact of conversions on tenants who are
forced to relocate. The policy of the City should be to reduce and mitigate
these adverse impacts by providing adequate notification procedures and
relocation assistance (including payments for relocation and moving costs). The City should provide additional counseling, referral, and other services to
aid displaced tenants to find replacement housing.
POLICY IV
The City should develop public incentives to encourage the private
market to provide broader housing opportunities for low and moderate
income households.
Actions
- IV-1 - The City should establish a density bonus program which would imple-
ment Section 65915 et seq. of the Government Code. The bonuses and incen-
tives provided pursuant to Section 65915 et seq. are alternatives, not addi-
tions, to the bonuses provided in other housing programs,
- IV-2 - The City should continue to implement ordinances encouraging the
mixed use of compatible commercial and residential uses, particularly in the
Village Redevelopment Project and in the community centers of newly
developed master plan areas. Compatible commercial uses should include
administrative and professional offices, retail uses with pedestrian orien- tation and some public uses, Com-
bination Districts (combining two or more general plan land use designations (See Village Area Redeveloment Plan.)
8
a e
over the same piece of property) are being used in Carlsbad to provide mixed
uses.
- IV-3 - The City should encourage use of ordinances that extend the provisions
of the Senior Citizens Housing Development Ordinance to zones other than
the R-P zone.
- IV-4 - The City should continue to encourage the continued use of the afford-
able senior housing ordinance on a case-by-case basis.
- N-5 - The City should continue to encourage the preparation of specific or
master plans for residential development on specified sites within the City to
avoid the need for further environmental review of individual projects within
such specific plan areas.
IV-6 - Where federal and state subsidies mandate such programs, or where the
City Council deems it necessary to ensure that units which are developed
pursuant to Actions IV-1, IV-3, and IV-4 remain available to persons of low
and moderate income, the City should adopt programs for rent regulations
and resale control
- IV-7 - The City should require that a portion of master or specified plan areas
be utilized for housing which helps meet Carlsbad’s identified share of the
regional need. Much of the undeveloped land in Carlsbad is located in areas
where ordinances require master or specific plans for development.
- N-8 - The City should continue participation in Local Area Certification
process. HUD has certified that the City’s development codes met VA/FHA
standards. This certification reduces processing time for applications for VA
and FHA assistance.
- IV-9 - The City should continue to encourage “fast-tracking” of housing
projects which address Carlsbad’s share of the regional need for low and
moderate income housing.
N-10 - The City should continue to work with private developers to provide
affordable housing through the use of mortgage revenue bonds whenever f eas-
ible (dependent upon continued legislative support).
7
POLlCY v
The City should assure the availability of adequate and suitable sites
for development of a variety of housing types and especially to assure
affordability.
Actions
7 V-1 - The City should continue to encourage zoning of suitable sites in all new
developments for medium and high density. The determination of density and
location within appropriate areas should be negotiated by staff and developers
subject to council approval.
9
w ,' 0 0
- V-2 - The City should continue to encourage the development of suitable sites
within the City for manufactured housing, including mobile home parks,
mobile home and modular unit subdivisions, and consider zoning code amend-
ments to permit these housing types. These actions should insure that
suitable sites for a variety of housing types would continue to be made
available by implementing the newly adopted amendments to the subdivision
and zoning ordinances that provide for the establishment of exclusive mobile
home zones and by establishing criteria for the location of factory built
housing on a variety of sites throughout the City. The City should provide
standards for development and design as well as special considerations for low
and moderate income and senior citizen residences or projects. The City
should reduce the impact of the conversion of mobile home parks to other
uses by providing procedures for notification to occupants and adequate assis-
tance for relocation of persons and units.
- V-3 - The City should review low and moderate income housing proposals
based on HUD site and neighborhood standards (588.2106), which included the
following criteria:
1. The site must promote greater choice of housing opportunities and avoid
undue concentration of assisted persons in aseas containing a high
proportion of low-income persons.
2. The site must comply with any applicable conditions in the Urban
County Housing Assistance Plan approved by HUD, as long as that
document is required.
3. The housing must be accessible to social, recreational, educational,
commercial and health facilities and services, and to other municipal
facilities and services that are at least equivalent to those typically
found in neighborhoods consisting largely of unassisted, standard housing
of similar market rents.
Travel time and cost via public transportation or private automobile,
from the neighborhood to places of employment providing a range of
jobs for lower-income workers, should not be excessive. While elderly
housing should not be totally isolated from employment opportunities,
this requirement should not be rigidly applied to such projects.
4.
POLICY VI
The City should plan for the location of major new residential devel-
opment along transportation and transit lines to assure access to
commercial and industrial employment centers; and plan for resi-
dential development to accommodate anticipated growth, as approved
by City Council from available forecasts.
Actions
- VI-1 - The City should undertake a community education program within each
of the four quadrants to acquaint residents with recent growth forecasts,
availability of services and facilities, and possible impacts of growth.
10
,' e a
- VI-2 - The City should seek cooperation of major employers in estimating
five-year job growth, profile of employees and estimate of housing needs.
- VI-3 - The City should continue to prepare the Public Facilities Monitoring
Reports which contain an estimate of the major services and facilities capa-
cities (housing units) on an annual basis and compare these estimates to
population forecasts.
POLICY VIt
The City should actively pursue organizational changes and the devel-
opment of new organizations to facilitate meeting the city's housing
needs.
Act ions
VII-1 - The City should work with local nonprofit and limited profit soups to
develop applications for housing development, loan and counseling funds
available to such groups through state and federal programs.
W-2 - The City should consider expanding the role of the Housing and Re-
development Commission to include municipal finance and land banking
functions.
POLICY vm
All housing in the City should be sold or rented in accordance with the
federal and state governments' equal opportunity regulations.
Actions
VIII-1 - The City should continue to support affirmative fair market programs
by builders developing housing in Carlsbad.
Vm-2 - The City should encourage developers/owners of mobile home parks to
operate in conformance with "open" park laws. The City should also report
any closed park practices to the San Diego District Attorney's Office.
POLICY IX
The City should periodically review all housing program implemen-
tation efforts and update when necessary.
Actions
- IX-1 - The City should prepare periodic reports on implementation of the
Housing Element goals and policies for Planning Commission and City Council
review.
- IX-2 - The City should conduct updates and evaluations of projections, needs
and goals in the Housing Element when the Regional Growth Forecasts are
adopted by the City.
11
0 0
- IX-3 - The City should conduct updates and evaluations of housing needs when
more current information that would affect the housing needs assessment become available.
- 1x4 - The City should conduct a major evaluation and update of the Housing
Element in 1991, and revise where necessary.
12
p: t7 0
I&
0
cn
X
w
z
n
n s
;
E D cn
g caJ* %$fj
0 8 % 223 stdg c z z z 0 z :e z
8 " &8 d " 3 88 d 8 p:8 .r(
3 OE $E Q,E -$ .; -$ .g 53 ; .;
p: 2 p: .5? p! .I? zE s sfi 3E
M $6 96 i'l sa $E sE
ll v .Ei g$ @ gg g5 g8 35 g5 sz OQ,
XE a"
ii PI 88 d &8 c( d 3
8g t t 2 2 8 81 p: p: R 2 $ g
2 +
a a a 3z a a en 5 3 fiQ, 5
2 .PI 9 E 25 za z .B '6 F: c, '6 c, *-
gg g6 '9 9 Xfi ZdE -4- -gZ8 g8 sz OQ, gs Z.5; ~XE XE XE XE mt4
Q,
0 % % 0 0 % 0
a%;yI amur
I I I I I
al Q, Q, 3 3 3
I
8
; .; 3 p: .B E
d c( d .r( Q, Q, 0, al 3 3
QF: a Q,F: Q,F: -$ .$ ; .$ -$ .; p: .B p: .B p: .I? 2s aa -E (dt .r( cu
Q,E a W"
ww E2
85
*E afi aE
M0 M
a+
E .r( MS -36 .r( 96 ...I a' 'Bc, .r(
XE XE XE
rn+ .- D3 02 XE XE XE
* G I I I I I
0, 0) Q, Q, 3 Q,
d v-l 0 d
+I .r(
0, E$
c, --
p: 2
2
p:
.rl .z 2z 02 p:
E
& a,
.r(
M
.r( ac, *go
an
a-
4 1; 5 5j E
.r( Mho 2 $p:
M F: w
p:cu
8 .r( W rd E I
.r( V c, I 8 43 h .H c, c,
po2 p u gs.s .Y 0-$ ka tu; 8 v 8 ! al.55 $2 a*s p"fM
d 2 8 v h F$$P
B 2c.z & c, $3 2 .2 E OB cu a --.sa QE ;$a Gi g 58 WOE :8z +I
8%; 2 c, t zgc *a gus --
gas F:g$ (d 3
@=a QP >g,M SO& B : SI00 ';j PC PCna n"2 &no PCP0 n"s v
a E h .rl g -- q.2 * -E -g .g Mo .3 % p: -0 0 g -h Q .z P
e, a .r( .r( .r( c,
a
maw
.r( M
8
-i
cu
M F:
-a al .r(
W .r( d .r(
B
&Id (d fi .z c4
p"
*8 28
$5
3 (d 5% S%
.$ M .r( ow V Id
V ;; .r(
n7 hk p:
0 . &I42 hi pr) G u; hi m dr;
h
c, !3 u
z -4 p: r3 0 p: PC
iY z w
w E
cl w
v
VJ
VI g
3 0 X
w Q z
E 0 u w
n
3
p: jl p: -4 E E 3 v2
CI
a
Err Frc
'5 3: Err 3 2 a2 "E 35 rn 3 3 nFrc Ib Frcs Frcg kk 0
2a t
33
e-l m
r3 ;ij * mm 3
CI -2 -& -& 2 E 90, 90, Ea QQ Q ki 8 8 82 88 E8 ki8 0) 2 a,
0 0 0 VI 0E OE OE OE 6
I I I I I
Q Q Q al al 3 3 3
88888 E 8 8 !z
2 QE QE QE Qfi Qfi I 3 3 CI 6 3 .; -g *; % .; z .g 2 .; -3 E.51 E E p: .5? p: .B p: .51 p: .51 s 6 ii 3
l
.M m m m
.C
CI r( CI d CI
.w
.U c, 3 3 m
E aE *E 56 WE -E SE 8E BE 86 8E 6 M bD E M 5 .- EU .g* MQ .go z6 .Ec, 2s 'g- 3s .B .!3 .r( Mo
m- l a" El iz .r(
3 gg gg gg gg g5 2 XE xE XE xE XE E
I I I I I
d 4 88 4 4 88 4 & 8
P ""SF Q fi ; .r( 3
a a E$n" n"
M bo 333 3
2
-2 gg gg g5 gg 25 3
M fi
Q P Q)
.r( $ !
-8 -8
8
Q
c, 3 0 .e CI .- 3 p: -8 p: ElzEl -i3 p: p: E 2
s
B
.- 8 g 8 8 a a
M M M E fi E E E
S
a
Ll
E Q I
0 .r( m c, 'E c, -g +., 'E c, .-
XE XE XE XE XE cl g LI p: I +l w
.r( s;
c,
c, m .. 8 d
<Q 00 E c, 2 .?
c, co 8 8 2 c~ X t a,
z
0, U n .ei s .s;* $ 0 SUI VJ
$ -r( 1 D E& E 8 E -82 2
.H rJ;1"aU
Id 5 CI g al .r( c,
c, .& U c,
0, VI
m
E* a 2 .;;lg 2 v) .L ; a 8 - 8 f? XR 23 s CW 4
c, 1 Err VJ .Id &
-2 fi
fi- E
0- 2s 2- 8s; I Id
.; g 3s 2s Ufl sg, .gz 6.a E gu pz 03; v, u
-= q.2 c, g$ Eaa
$.$ z;*z
a"w; N m 4 u; 9.6; N'
h
c, 8 u Y !2 4 p: r5
PC 0 p: ff
54 w I4 w
m E
9 0 X n w n
0
z w E z
p:
s p: 4 z
9 E
w u
a
s.ss m 4k4 r(
0) 1
b 8
2 E: ;;i
c, PI
d d Q,
333
R k E
8 8
k 2 Ei
2
8 88 8 !3
H
3 a a 3F:
E Q, gg 0) Q, 2 0) 2 0, A; d
R;,7 R *- Hd (d &
bcF gpqo 0 0 00 0 0 ; m0
I 8 g g 8 2% rnrn Q,E I rn rn
*E! 'iTi -g .$ *E
w3 E E &-!! E E E 2 z .C .r( d .r( Q, 3 rn rn
$1 g g .g
"5 ss ;; s s s
t 53 ggz $2 x 5 Fs -1 E! 'I 2 'g
P, a 1 '1 2 gp
.r( .r( rnrn
d 3 3
MM M M M
F:
FF:
SF: .fi
E
.r(
'M .r( .I BF:
n" En" &PC
I I
Q, 3 8
d 8 d 8
$
0) c, 8 3
8
3 M 2 c .- *M MM 1 .E a .r(
p: a
.r( c, 2
li
8 -c
a
.r( d
V BE $ 0 bo 5% .Fl c, a g
cw9 - !rn
rnm Q,
*- a, a& st $Q .?; Q,
8 2 .s! 8 *?; *
m4 B Ea" &a E& x- 24 wn"
k Q, 1.2 2- 2 F:
O Eg &.i; i3$ 2 gg
Ma .I4 2 5s 2E $E
83 (d 2s 82 (dl DU 3
w
ds *a U
:.!3
.5 *
** c, I c(d M sc ng a
. d $4 id 4 cc 03 OI 4
Y 6
h +J E
rn E 4 p: r9 0 d PC E : w 4 w *
? 0 X n w
z
E 0 u w d
d
E 6
E ?
Ei VJ
n
2
G
VJ
(d .r( (d
'S 0 E
d2y id id c4 El RZR
2 2 a a a
u u crc
(d (d 0 0
*
CI CI 9
*2z w w
Q, Q,
(d (d
El
s *
crc i3
8
d CI CI ddd
Q, * * * 2
8
c,
k &
E 288 c, -I Q, Q, Q, c5** m m
B i $Z -i E2
7 rn
I " 3 s s d 888
ale mmm mmm Q,c oc 3 .; 3 .sJ
E .5? d .2 -E 3 .; -E *E *E
aE *E s 8Ei sss 8E 8E
*E
F6 FS c 3 a?
& 0 d 8 .- .r( ...1 Q 3 8 .r( 8
H s m m *E
a gs
O9
...I c, ...I m m
& E El d .s EEEl
rd
M
.r( m+ sg~ MQ aJz -: c,
$2 iz4E
ki
-2 ccc 2
M ki23 ? .I4 .U c
*j 1 EJ gF) gt!
$'$]I 2 2 -j 2
:ljz gt g5
9 gg E XE EPCZ XE XE
.I4
a
I I I
Q, al 0, 3- 3 0) a, a a
3 0, a
al 33 H ...I & g
FF3
8 !in"&& ;ssQ, M M 3??S
t-c M G ...I
a a
M el G
ki 0
.r( mc, *zc,
ZE XE
s s d 9 3 c .- w ccc .8 a m* 8 0 523 l-l xE!t4;1;1 4 z "4
b m * .r( a
0) 3 5 grn
5 2 Q,
g 2 8 g -- 2
.r( 7
'$ a
a -
U .PI 4
8 w m n u X
h
u
z 3
*?I
.r(
.R d .r( * c, 3 am .H c, Q,% '$
3
ic: '3-g :Y Q8 *e R 3 2 30 sm 5 ' 4 kim 3 -g 1
ahk aJp -23 8 ."SZ z2 $803 %a $8 2 3 P kZ 0)m 80, @A EaB E5 G% 2 s E mal 8 zp, w0,
'* .r(
.r( .r( h(d $2
a*; H a '6 *-
.r( 4
cu a : +I
M'"q a
a a $8 0 .r(
NPI Ba *a m -g Ei w i g$ "(d 4 g! .I
.r( '$ 3 l=4G
is:; r; 4 $;him Er; Pi
A
z
p:
0 u
E 4
0 0 p: PC
@ z
5: w
w
v
m
m s
n n
0
w
z W z E 0 u w p:
s
-4
z 9 m
E *r(
a
LE4
cd
a 35 3s
z al gg E8
E $8
dd
*c4 L iztk
dd
3Y
8
.'I
c4
d d c,
88 CJCJ 8 8 I m CJ
1
I I Dl Dl 0 0
CE alE
d 4 g .g .I4 8g .r( : :
% 3 -g .; -g .; 3 3 p: 3 c4 .2
a3 a3 $6 $6
MF $3 SE
=!3 XEI XE plpl iiP,
rnrn rnrn
8
c3w
.r(
.d mrn rnrn
c,
EE
*4 d
6 3
a EE
MM
.r( 3 .I4 $8 rn+I .r( $6 mc' jj '1 1 zg
a,
3 g8 :g
I I 8R d
; ;
32 M 32 aS 9
F E Kim 22 22 g8 g8 .r( m c, XB ZE Gis uu 8
2 3
4 al al
+I 3 3 .r( d .I4
p: p! 2
a ww ww ww ww
mm .r( mo -zc, &p:
2" w
c, .I4
.d rn 3 c, 2 2
al a 3
al Y F4
2 .$ .$ 2 1
2 +a
0, 0 d a s P
U
al c,
:
as? a cd Cda 48 '6 g E 0 .z! 'E
ra
E *G
+I
9
.d u
0 '3 j z 2; ad .- an zdpg ~~p:s~~ Pz
3Ei. &>A m d2r4 m'4
* e
CHAPTER 3
IMPLEMENTATION, PlUORITlES, UPDATE AND REVIEW
INTRODUCTION
The preceding policies and action programs are designed to meet a broad range of
housing goals and needs identified in the Housing Element. The design of the program is a comprehensive attempt to meet both long-range community and the
state guidelines. However, in order to implement the program, priorities are set
which 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.
PRIORITIES FOR IMPLEMENTATION
The following priority areas reflect the most immediate needs as reviewed and
approved by staff and City Council for the Housing Element. This section iden-
tifies those priorities and indicates the ability of the City to implement necessary
programs. These programs set the framework for immediate programs over the
next few years but are not intended to reduce the importance of the entire com-
prehensive housing strategy described in Chapter 2.
Preserving Housing and Neighborhoods
Major policy and program suggestions of the Housing Element relate to this
priority. The City should use concentrated rehabilitation in and around the down-
town area. This priority is selected for several reasons: most of the deteriorating
housing is located in this area; a major downtown rehabilitation project is under-
way; and the Housing and Redevelopment Commission is empowered to direct
public and private resources to the area. The work should include the
development of more flexible sources of rehabilitation assistance to be used to
meet the goals expressed both in the Housing Element and in the Village Area
Redevelopment Program. This work should not require additional Housing and
Redevelopment staff. Responsibility: Housing and Redevelopment; time frame
1985-1987; funding $50,000.
Adequate Provision of Housing
Major policy and program suggestions of the Housing Element relate to this
priority. The City's major efforts in the provision of adequate housing should be
to address the needs of the fair share allocation for low-income households, apply
to HUD for additional Section 8 assisted units, and develop senior citizen housing
on scattered sites in the City. These priorities are selected for several reasons: a
pressing need for low-income family and elderly units exist; the programs would
help meet the City's "good faith" goals for its lower income fair share allocation;
and the City would have a wide variety of options to develop housing. The work
that should be undertaken for this priority would be applications for
18
>' a a
Section 8 (existing) funds and presenting to the Housing and Redevelopment Com-
mission with alternative ways to develop senior citizen housing. This work would
require the commitment of one full-time person from the Housing and Redevel-
opment staff for a two-year period. Responsibility: Housing and Redevelopment
; time frame 1985-1987; funding $50,000.
Achieving Affordability
Major policy and program suggestions of the Housing Element relate to this
priority. The major efforts in achieving affordability should be a continuation of
public incentive programs to foster private development of affordable housing.
This priority is selected for several reasons: the projected growth of the City
indicates that private housing development would substantially increase from 1985
to 1991; affordable housing (above median income, but below current prices) is
needed 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. The drafting
of ordinances, establishment of the program, briefing of developers, modification
of ordinances, and the development of implementation techniques would involve a
major commitment of one person over a two-year period (half-time). In addition,
the correlation of the ordinances with other suggested changes will require staff
and program commitment. Responsibility: Land Use Planning; time frame 1985-
1987; funding $25,000. A significant staff activity would involve the adminis-
tration of the resale and/or rental of units to insure that those units developed
pursuant to this program would remain available to low and moderate income
persons. Responsibility:
Housing and Redevelopment.
Balanced Residential Development with Access to Employment,
Community Facilities and Adequate Services
Major policy and program suggestions of the Housing Element relate to this pri-
ority. The City's major efforts in balanced development should be to obtain better
coordination of employment growth and housing development to assure adequate
access transportation, This priority is selected for several reasons: the City is a
major industrial center in North County; industrially zoned land is abundant; and
increasing numbers of workers need housing and services. The City should con-
tinue to develop data about job projections and its relationship to housing devel-
opment in Carlsbad. This work would require one person (half-time) from Land
Use Planning for one year. Responsibility: Land Use Planning; time frame 1985-
1987; funding $12,500.
REVIEW AND UPDATE
EIR Review
An Environmental Impact Report on the Housing Element has been prepared and
filed with all appropriate agencies in accordance with Title 19 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code and the California Environmental Quality Act.
The cost of this program has not been determined.
19
0 0
Public Participation
The original Housing Element was developed with the guidance and cooperation of
a Citizens' Review Committee appointed by the City Council. This Review Com-
mittee met in 12 sessions between May and October 1979. A final review meeting
was held in January 1980, followed by Planning Commission and City Council
hearings and workshops in the spring and summer of 1980. The revision of the
Housing Element is a technical update of that document. The 1980 Census, Series 6 Regional Growth Forecasts, and 1985-1991 Housing Needs Statement were used
in the revision.
Intergovernmental Coordination
Regional data on population and housing forecasts and fair share allocation from
the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) were used. SANDAG pre-
pared the revisions to the City's Housing Element.
Local Review and Update
After adoption by Planning Commission and City Council, the plan will be updated
as necessary. The state requires that the next revision be accomplished by July 1, 1991.
San Diego County
A copy will be filed with San Diego County pursuant to development of future
Community Development Block Grant Program applications.
City Staff
Carlsbad's Community Development Block Grant submissions will be reviewed to
assure conformance with Housing Element Goals and Programs.
Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census
The decennial national census was taken April 1, 1980. This information and more
current information were used as part of this revision. Review of Housing Ele-
ment projections and goals should take place if data that would require amend-
ments/revisions become available.
Program Evaluation
Local evaluation of program effectiveness and implementation of policies and
programs, with recommendations for change, should be conducted periodically
over the next five years with public hearings before the Housing and Redevelop-
ment Commission.
Major Revision
A major evaluation and revision of the Housing Element should take place in 1990.
20
0 0
,
.. .
.-.. . .~
~.
. ..
:-ppp Eyz :x
0 e
APPENDIX
NEEDS ASSESSMENT
I-IETOXCAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS
The City of Carlsbad was incorporated in 1952; it is the ninth oldest city irl the
SRZ? Diego region. Carlsbad's population grew €Tom 9,253 people in 1960 to 14,WA
k 1970. Rowevex, daring &e zext 10 gears the City's growth Lncxased
dramazicdPy (35,490 in 1980). The City's portion of the region's pop-.ktio~
c5w'oed from 0.9 percent in 1360 t~ 1.9 percent 5y 1980.
_-
TAXA I
PC? ZLATIO N mST3 RY
Ck.F-LSSA3 AND SllN DEGO REGION :960-:?&Q
g:L :s:;ia XieK_?iG2 ?2.?c'I:T<:
I? spu:aGcicn .- . ox ::egic*;'- - 7, _I F9ECh:im -A- : i?2" ...__-_-
Y,"'.? " 9: <A 9?253 1,333 ,C i 3 t:! -9
I ??O 1 a ,9-% 1,3 57,s 54 - li-
?-(if .;Cl Li 35:493 1,8f z ,846 ? .< -1
so-G..?zf!: S4.Xi3AG m'F3 No. 4; July 1984
'%e cizmriges were caused ?q- seve:.a? kctors: (I) the City kitiaxe3 i~ szries gf
~ux?rsatioz3 which eqmded the corporate limits; (2) the City became a more
~cban nriented trade and service center for North Co-mty; 13) the develcFment of
1-5 ad S2. 78 placed Car!s5ad at the confluence oz' two of +,he three major See-
wa"~5 51 So;.tA Co.crrxty; and (4) the City was located in the North County gro-vtE
corri3.m.. To rhe easr, Vista and Sa Macos bcorpmafed &I 2363. To the north,
the Ciq of Ccemsidc's devdopment extended to :he City's northern houndar y.
TEE: hcusing s%ock has reflected this growth. The City had 5,149 ltnits in 1970 and
25,30G units by 1980. The housing stock consisted. of substantial numbers of
skg!e-faaily units Juring the Z95C's and 1960's. Durhg the !ate 1960's z,?d early
?970'::, the construction of multi-family qmits made an impact an the composition
SI the City's P1011shg stock. A compazison of the change in housing types b
Carlsbad from I970 to 1930 illustrates the growth of multiple family units. Tabiz
2 shows that multiple family units (5 or more units per structure) comprised 15.9
23
0 0
percent of all housing units in Carlsbad in 1970. However, by 1980 multiple family
units comprised 24.7 percent of all units. Thus, multiple family units accounted
for 29.1 percent of the increase in the entire housing stock from 1970 to 1980 in
Carlsbad. A significant portion of this shift was attributed to the increase in the
coostruetion of condominium units. In 1970, the City had virtually no condo-
minium units; by 1980, the number of condominiums had increased to 2,768 units
(18.1 percent of the City's housing).
TABLE 2
HO'L'SING TYPES
CARLSB-4D
19?0-i98S
1970 3980
Perce.nt Xurnber PcGezt
e_II_ Num&t -- Gsits in Structure
....
one 3,592 64.8 9,365 $le2
?'TO to Four 57 I 11"; 1,286 . 8.4 . . -.
Five or Mare 819 f5"9 3,775 24.7
5.7 .niobile Homes ---
TOTAL 5,149 103.8 25,3or: L!?'"! ,;?
s,,<,,,s: ',97:1 ?rid 19x0 Cen.*;s
v;psv ~ Lr)[;. - mobile ho3e is ;IlsrJ a1 imporzac_= ,isp+z; ;>f ::>c: l.,~.≪, yz_pL]'cl^,
ba?Lsin$j. rrn. -ims rt?~reSent& 2.3 3;z?:ex: 0;. a?.:: :r0.::'il" 3c::24T; 51
.I_ 8 74
I_y_
3 2 --- 167 'I ,"
- \r P.
12 r9Ti). -:.-..
<. . . c;j,i;, zontaiq2d l.f?'T ;nrJ't.lile hrxcs (3.2 2n;c>r,:.,f L*b,.,*-- ,;: -.-LC" %-. .. f-"-..?; .,'*)' k;....,-.. Ai.kg!. 3y -lssc, 52 z,c,m'tje: of xo:Sils t\oz\ps b ;he :zi$g ha.<! ~~<:~c~rj~.z.f i,~) $74 (5,"j ylfycc ..
.I -.. c<)~,~p~iso~: i(j tE?,e c~~oe~ti~L1~! ?iG?;SYZS :X" ':I;.? :: 'e-'-' .._._...'.. - A_ .' -..-:,:-..r:c:\t:< .,- 2,. :. '>c:-<:E:'r t
of thc total cocventkna: hcusing in "c5e ry:%k~.
DEMBTRAPHIC ASSESSMENT
(hxrent Population
The. population-of the City wss 14,944 b 1C;T:: accctr+hg to llie cmscc. 3ast.Z m
the census, the populatioc cf the City g2w io 33,4?0 in l(?r3U, .ims9 tlrc City's
population hcreasud by trJ,S40 people Icsors '1990 to I'.8?'1, z1? k~~~ase of T37.5
by 3.1 percent during the same time. T& C!ij;'s scp?a':ka 8t; 2 ~ropo~:'.ioii of the
Tegion's population grew Etcj~~ 1.1 percext k 19?'j tij 2.Q 2exent 52 !?SO.
..--.-.
V,?,
. percent {the highest growth rate h the reaion). TBC .. --r-mi?'s L.&* g~puia.i::c~c increased
b
2%
0 0
TABLE 3
POPULATION
CARLSBAD AND SAN DLEGO REGION
1970-1980
Carlsbad as Year Car lsb ad Region Percent of Region -
I Population 1970 14,944 1,357,854 1.1
8 Population 1980 35,490 1,86 1,846 1.9
1940-298G Increase 20,546 503,992 4.1 137.5 37.1 - 1470-1980 J;'o %crease
Sources: 1?70 z.d. 1980 Census
... .. A= Distribution -- -..---
A. mo::c: detailed alaljrsi.5 cf thz City's d.em,cgr~phi~ chamcferislics -a~ aade from
t6~: 1380 Census information, "hi. fkst fs.ctsr that was analyzed was the Sistri-
S~l.tlon of popuiaiioa by z~E?. Age Zktsi3~?:0~ !i?aS zzs importat kto:?s3;ng e'icm~~t,
ckrzcte-istic because ~QQS~II~ ZexzaG w2.s iiZkace6 by *;>e hausing ?re:e:oxe:;
oi the age gro~ips seekkL; horsicg. The Ciry cf Czlsbad popult.ticn y)e2!!eIe$ 5s
ch::.;np jj sge $:~.tyi'~.J:i*x& of t5Q $k? D''CMl3 .rwk)zr fym3 i870 ,:D :98r?.. 3 39.8
?o:.C.:P_r &C,.ezSC ba 'khe prlqr,rt..o.rr c.i: i'k<:? $..1Q ye''1: :>id iP t7~~~i:;~ .. & 23.: fe:.:int +;r':?w.,_. k-2 t?Je araportiofi 3' ;_re 2-'.-4..?: 'i""" c:<, gy>:q; a@. P..lz5:&j. sP.$-Jis -p~.-
nit5.,,;-.* rr-.LY $,Q.i. y@.-.rsj gcp&+.tio<), Z??. ;i .;j,.i$2::7{ araai:er ,:J>-lc??~"i;.a",i:.; (g;.,.; pe;:.co_l.ii
t.l.5 ?pycpzij 95 ti:? ?2.2Lg &?:.it {X!-&4 -ZCZf$ p~-pk?.!:;:~L?,) ?\'Si ';:-,rqn 1:ns
<;(f t2<. ... ?#. ~~,~,,-,~~.:~.~l~~~.; 1.1, I*,*. E l%C<
A greater derna.i~I for 'covsing that respntSis to the y70uag zd~ttt po-,ufa.;ion (~Y~FZ-
idly thz 2G-34 yea o!&j wa,~ expected h lhe City from 1985 to 1993, 'T'~xs,
apatmeuts, ::mwmm:ums, ad :zor?es: si.ag!e family ~c:its were ex-pxted $3 be
:He ckrnzzideE- c~mmaodities during the late 198C's, Sermic~ (SC+ yeax old) kousixg
a.zd. estz.Sished fzmily 135-55 yea 316) bousizg should Save been i*eXativd.;j- staXe,
bus sippi~icx~t, demand iteiis.
Hou.ji;hQ.Td Size
The ppvkitica of Cai-Isbad hsd 2 !righey cwcentrztion of saali family ZZor.~eE.,o~cl~
<i;nc and two p2ssmj thaz. the zegicc in IW?: 61.1 percent vs. 582 percent.
@OE*J~Pstdjyf the City bad 3 lower coi~c~~ntrztion of large family households (three
or more peson;s) ttrm tbe regiox 3&,9 percent versus 41.8 peycent. The house-
hold coppositio~ figpres rekforcex the age distribution profiles. The demand for
sin.?.;?cz units (apartments, toado=i.;.;jums, ad small single family units) should
Iaavv.. beec tlout, $0 percea-2 st~cngel- ir, C.wlsbad thn the region.
- A\-3 0
.I .,
.P~-.w*":~-vP r' .A- - bd.;AJ 2, f>e .&$j$ y& bs+. p~~,~- of? qi:3q?sm jB corn9 san ?.a +iC; 1U$L:!I. R-.'L..e
<-:,lZ-i; 236 j:, ~'~2h:'l.j. 5fg3,~r ci;;~,~ei;~~?t~~i~ {1$.5 ?cz<;cat y:?" I$;L:? .!i.~:,~c,e~t? ;>: the
,5 . .1 .. +..,< - .. y,z;.~>,i: it:; .L>.q:rea~& fr.2~~ 31,3 ?..='e ,~ ...-., LC11 .CIS L - ;?< ;:le arjFy:.!apioLl j, j,qTa i.2 A{).J ?~rc~.~~ .*. I. *,
., *"
..-.------..-.
..
23
0 TABLE 4 e
AGE/SEX PYRAMID FOR CARLSBAD 1970 TO 1980
AGE
75+
55-74
60-64
55-59
* 45-54
3544
25-34
20-24
fS-'IcJ
?Q..t.s
i? .. f.t w' -.
Q.5
,?I),
.L .-.-..L.-~!"."--L."L..-.-L~-'_-.I A----.$ ....- Jb--.A-.-LL.-L - "j ,* .-. .7 c. -;c9 3 7 j 3 ., - 3 G 3 2 1 c -j 2 3 4 :; 6 I :i-~Y ;i' -- F z ph ;?; L E .. fd.2iL.E p E 8 c f N-r 23 F ?G P ?f i,,AT f S4N
,- ..."_....--
CJQi-13tE: 1973 Ceows ?%C 1.50 4
4 '1980 C,?nsus ?:r>:ile
1 c t\ .%>.> ''5 I- L : 9 ?p'yo
L.---+
24
0 e
TABLE 5
AGE/SEX PYRAMID
SUTPORT DATA
CARLSBAD
1970-1980
1970 1980 -
X; ern zle Male Fezale Male &
J-#ess thm 5 561 (3.9) 547, (3.7) 1,397 (3-9) 1,306 (3.7)
5-9 670 (4.6) 610 (4.21 572 (2.51 832 (2.3)
10-111 801 (5.5) 766 (5.3) 1,153 (3.2) 1,151 (3.2)
15-1 9 765 (5.3) 779 (5.4) 1,413 (4.0) 3,331 (3.8)
'p,o-24 680 14.7) 665. . (4.6) 1,765 (5.0) 2,484 (4.2)
3 5--<& 811 (5.,6) 951 &5) 2,liL5 (5.9; 1,953 (5.5;
pj.-3.4 702 .I4.S) 138 45.1) 3,583 fJ0.l) -5j399 (9.5)
45-54 88'7 16.1) 911 (6.3) 1,858 cs,z\ 1,893 6.3)
53-59 256 (1.8) 334 :2.3 960 (2...7) I.i-17 (3.2)
60 (y& 258 (1.8) 306 (2.1) 833 (7,,4) 927 12.61
65-'?4 353 2.7j 51? I3.5) ; .^*.,. '29'1' '-I {5:,i: 71 1 :4& 1 (4- 1) .&?? -." ..2 I" , i - .-. 3) ; 3?$ ;\a)
iv; '23 ;.ZG, :.:\ *_ i { ,?Qj ;.rc*q:
''YtJ'? ,>*;L 7*315 (42,3'! 7,555 (51-7? 5'
"-. 3 j ,G!::J
>.% -? I---. --- --. -.-- 383 :?'.Sf 7 '-3 ?
-,-_ --.I- L3L !L6t ---I_. -- Over 74
I. .. . I
14,.52:.
SoxF;-ces: 1570 ?Jn?d :3'3g &ns-&s &:d s>--.::ja! :a-&'iatj.c.;i: ::,y ~XX2i.iG,
6
2.5
1 .' a 0
TABLE 6
AGE/SEX PYRAMID FOR
SARI DIEGO REGION
1970 to 1980
AGE
75+
65 " a4
60 - e4
sc, h" -' - 55
?$5 .. cd
3i-J - tg:
-..
..- f
a?- '5s ;iyJ - .,*
_,e.
-. 2:; . ??$
13 . ';:?
$:,.j- 'id
.,* *.
r, 9.
j.. il .J ~ _:
6-: . 5
urKc%i-L*L=.,..; E 3 +c> i '1
MALE FEhIAiE
Percent of Population
SQt,!RcE: 79-20 Census PHC 1-51)
"P80 Census Profile
26
e 0
TABLE 7
AGE/SEX PYRAMID
SUPPORT DATA
SAN DEGO REGION
1970-1980
1970 1980
Fernele .___.-- Male P* -- Male Female --
Less t5a 5 55,168 (4.1) 52,635 (3.9) 66,049 (33 62,710 (3Aj
5-9 63,553 (4.7) 61,666 (4.5) 63,687 (3,4 60,232 (3.2)
16-14 64,653 (4.8) 62,257 (4.6) 66,692 (3.6) 64,566 (3.51
15-19 S7,656 (6.5) 58,199 (4.3) 99,098 (5.3) 79,144 [4.,3)
3,g-24 180,983 -ITA) 60,642 (4.5) 132,711 (?*I) 9t96i,3 {5*1)
' 23 '",SA J- 88,708 - [6..5) 83,947 (6.2) 177,844 (9.6) 16Z?.iiS (8.71 4- I* ?* j -.#: 75,071 (5.51: 75,559 6.6) 102,256 (5,5f IOI,SiZ ::I*:>.!
,+5- 31 ?0,352 i5.2j 75,027 (5.5) rz,627 (.d*L.i'.) 8'' t7i - qc .u (4,.3
53-59 26,197 (1.9) 29,903 (2-2) 41,522 (2,~: g;,3sq {;?.hj
f: $.,& ~1,675 :*L.Oj 25,?07 (1.9) 35,Q18 {lm9j d,$,99h {2,,2;
<>13;;%-." J *A
1 'Ll ! AL
;: ;.: .-: 4 32,:3 [LA) 41,1?9 (3.3! j2,11i {2-$) _- - ^?.-I 25;33: (j&L> 'i?.1!8 (1.3) ZI.b37 e.1; - _-_- --" ...- "
.I* ..
-.--A -_I-. __- -d--- I-
>me. r-l ;'r}3,;:9,$ (5:;z) &,jtD {L% .._ ,aj 7' s~?!, j45 /3+?,9;
- * t * CI .: :, i,3 57; 9 54 !,& Led':.,
,- J,;=C,?S: 1qc; and iqsi) C:er,s=. ;zrS s?ec:a; :;r'ozr:,ati;n b.i s.;%i;a.:i;2.
r.
27
.* e 0
TABLE 8
HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION
CARLSBAD AND SAN DEGO REGION
1980
Household Carlsbad Region
Composition Number
One Person 2,863 21.1 159,098 23.7
Two Persons 5,439 40.0 231,213 34.5
Three Persom 2,224 16.4 11 2,288 10.8
1,864 13.a 92,3i4 13.8 roar Persons Five Persons 7 59 5.6 43,323 6.5
4.7 Six 0:: "More Persons 43'7 3.2 31,798
Percent Number Percent
'I
.c.
-- -
TOTAL, 23,585 lrsO.0 570,094 100,o
Souz-ce: 1980 ;=ens?As .. -
''3 . ._ ^..€LC2
--.I-.-
II he racc-ethicity .ta>lc shows that :he City %ad a schstaatiafly lower ::mrje;n,- i,rri:i~zl 31 .... ~:~~fi~~ 23~i~i~t;rz:i (:ni irx!uding Spz?is> origin) e'fim. thz reginn b
i9k2 :3.,5 Z?C?"C. t YS. 11.4 prCeE$* Tfie ?ortixi of elie City's I)OP"rl?.~itioA that h22
::p-si.:L.:. .Xy::;;:; t;72; ?.3,5 ??XEl.:: 455 reg;o3 s pcY:ion %?S 14.8 perce::t. PeC3pie or' .. *? .. .- .. . -->,~~~i~~~ c$-:z:~: cozi:ylse~. p;~st .:>f t:y:-: .:j$~.;nli -- 0% Sp=?:isi; or:++ (87.6 percent),
.-.. A 9- - i ." 5L.S:. 9
3 -.. A ~~.-~~:q~q~(-;~yy .
i980
p- .<,i-L* < ",-> ,;,srj'!.~. , i--. ;i;<g SA!{ D'XC-3 ;!Ep-JN
I Ca-lsbad Region - Per cent --- Number --- R3.c:e-X t;ii7iCi".i K'r:mbey Fercent
~ 1-1--. 21. ---_--
'White 29,4 jo 83,O 1,374,649 73,8
Black 7 L 1 -t 2 -8 0.6 202,165 5.5
Asiar! 810 2.3 92,856 5.0
4:990 1;"s 275,i7? 14.8 Spama
Other -.. 227 0.6 16,999 0.9
TOTAL 35,490 100.0 1,86 1,846 100.0
."
Swice:' 193G Census iT'kis tdok ;,lciudes all races in SpanisS origin population.:
25
0 e
Employment
Employment was another important characteristic related to housing matters that
was perused. The City had 16,320 employed residents in Carlsbad which repre-
sented 2.2 percent of the total regional employment (756,382) in 1980. Mana-
gerial/piofessional (31.2%) and famirig, forestry, and fishing (7.0%) occupations in
Carlsbad represented a larger percent of Carlsbad's total employment compared
with the proportions for the same occupation in the region (managerial: 26.0%;
hrcing: 2.7%). Service (10.9% vs. 14.0%), precision production/craft/repair
(10.8% vs. 12.8%) and operators/fabricators/laborers (7.7% vs. 11.6%) represented
+ sinalfer percentages.
TA3LE 10
EMPLOYMENT
CITY OF CARLSBAD AND SAN DEGO REGION
1980
Region "- - Calsbad .. . ._
I_ 2erce;nt -- ^. ..- P zrc cnt 5GuZabe.r -- EUEIbC3
_I-I_
Gc caoatiun
:?4I.m,zgez.ial ;z :?xJfessio-.al 5,?.@C 31.2 195,659 X6 .O
-.--L-----.
J? 1 e,*-aAi,.ai? -.-F.a:r - %":2Li r:, 5,235 32.4 247 J 85 1 22 '8
;.";r2 < 3r:;-+r,*+ig.2 2,782 -- . -r !. 3 e c -$ : 95 J4 1 :4.,::
1 r'l ::4 7 .o ?.O,t;'i"8 2' !
lC.8 91,054 & L ..5
L !. >-5
~~-~~~,~.~~.~-~~~,~~~i g;? ,$ii;7~;~;:t ._ I
~.,. 2 '>&*m,.**,.' CL,,t: U:.L..liJ)
7 -'> --. 2 Lr&-:gy F:.,res;:g e?, Tj.&:k:u
3
-, - - 3 1-r ;y: 233
i 22 ?<W-);>.k
** --- 85,089 -.-- 7.7 -.-- 1 r25.i Operzters, "abrica:ors -1_1
.-p"JTAY- 16,320 100.0 756,832 ;.00.3
S3,wcs: 1468 CensGs
& Lz.koi-err;
c ., i?%tiS32.tzd a36 %Y3S€?Ceed pOpU!9ik2I? -
I-- --- -
Two m~xes of hformat.ion were .used in this section to provide mope ctu-rent
estlnates md projections of zhe City's population: SANDAG's 1984 Population
Estimates and SAr\fDAG's Series 6 Regional Growth Forecasts. Population esti-
mates for Jmuarg 1, 1984 fop the City were 40,485 people, a 14.1 percent it?--
crease since 1980 {the County's fourth highest rate). This rate was 46.9 percent
bpate~ %ha the region. The City accounted fop 2.8 percent of the ze&sn's popu-
lation growth from 1980 to 1984.
29
e e
TABLE 11
POPULATION ESTIMATES
CARLSBAD AND SAN DIEGO REGION
I 980-1 984
Carlsbad as
Year Carlsbad Region Percent of Region
Populstic~ 1980 35,490 I ,a6 1,845 1.9
Population 1984 40,435 2,040,9 05 2.0
1980-1984 Increase 4,995 179p059 2.8
1980-1984 %I Increase ’14.1 9.4 -
Sources: 1980 Census ad X984 S-\NDXG Population Estimates.
SAND AG’s Regional Srovth Fo~eczstr, p?o~~d& a- indication 0% tlie Ci‘q’Is growth
iz ?cpulation from 1,986 t~ the 7eix 29rJOV AltE~ugh the popuIation michin fh
~~srent City Ii~iitS was ?mt.Cl& % increase by 50,ICO hGTE 1980 % 2ooc (14!.?
:?erce~~t ~~.cPc?~cJ~, the highest raze p~ojetted foi the region), the p~pdarioi~ in-
crease in the Gerred p!;;rt?ing &,ea {GF’Aj was zqccietl k be su”>s:mtia!ly la~er D .- uriim =%a5 whir’=. ’Zr,i-Z e.z;lected to be 2imexe3 tc: :he c::njr: ff’J,?.33 !11A.3
~;:?,4ocf Tp.$p from :$ffJ ;4> 7,;z.I: {&Z,-G .oe:c..ne),
.I pe-ce~t) ~~CIG 1980 tc %Oi;a, 7”I.C T~~:GZ 3 p?7;til~!i33 ~3.a i~~~jecte:* to iazrcase by
_-
TA3L3 ;2
PLjr L---L: ;.IN :x,- -r~c ,LL,~US ‘.’77’- , nr- -..n., (--w-T~%xP
ch-KLSz-:A:; AN2 S-&l,? 2-02 .,.A -,<i <> ?\2; zj.<J3$ . -.- I ~~i,-22b{>
9eGjOR ---. Yeax --I Carlsba6 Czrslsbad _I_- GPA I-;2---
1980 35,530 35,900 I+% 1,809
1990 52,?00 75,300 2,335,000
1995 75,:gc $2,100 2,526,900
ZOO0 35,6CO 107,300 2,599,200
Chage 1980-2000 (Numeric) 512, : o!; ?1,4iiL1 831,400
Change 1980--2030
(Percent) 141.: 198.9 45.0
Source: SANDAG Series h Regiozd Growth Yorecasts.
30
I ,. e 0
HOUSMG ASSESSMENT
Total Housing
According to the 1980 Census, the City had 15,352 totd housing units. This
region. During the l97O's, the City added 10,203 units, or an average of 1,020
units per year. The increase from 1970 to 1980 almost equaled the entire stock in
1970 (198.2 percent). The region added 267,108 or 26,711 units per year during the same 10 years. Carlsbad accounted fop 3.8 percent of the regional growth.
represented 2.1 percent of the 720,346 year round housing units kt the San Diego
TABLE 13
EQUSING TSNRS
CARLSBXD AND SAX DZGO REGION
1970-3.986
Carlsbad as
Car!sba.d - Rea Percent of Region
I--c YE2
. . ..
--- -- - - ?yo 5,i-Jt3 450,738 1 .I
13$(-j 12,352 7 I 7 ?c? 66 2.1
1 9 7 0 -I '7' 3 0 b. crease 10 ,X? 267,108 3.8 59-3 - r,g';c-1,9so 70 b-creasc 198 2.
$,c.~y~c.s: 1519 &?:i ?,$8c, c;clr:t.s;s
.' r
y FZ>3'.C 9
.;y2e ho::s;~;g ;3t.;.ck h ti~q C.i.t.:, coataxay.. z~te o*g~?--i>ccqpiec? :?07-1siq3 (8,664 m:its)
:.\an rezte.:*-,::;t~g:c~ j:07.~.kg (~$,?~,~ y:l: <:s) i?: 1 $ST:,
ac~.-,:~~~e<~ fOT 63.8 -;Je_.;pcf, :Jf >;i: c:<<;:;>l:.2:: :...r:it.. 91 Ca;;baar! b. -1'?8Q.. The per...
centagz of o:~nf~~.-3C~.~~iea !XL;LS CS a?! >cjr;aic<: ~JZ.I~:; 7-2 the Sa Diego regioa wzs
55.1 L-I 1980. Renter-occcpicd *nits c~~~prised 36,2 percent of all occt\picd
-..---
.: .. -c, 1. _?US, ow~~r~ccl:~:itd 1ni LF
. - ._ .- . .
housing 53 ihe region 5l 1980.
Tl:.BLE 1.4
2-72 N 5 9.z IC. 3-i E RjRE N T%. R)
CAELSBA4D AND SAN D-EGG REGION
9,980
Caisbzd Zegion
Renter Owner - Renter 1980
Number 8,664 4,122 369,247 300,847
I? er cent' 63 -8 36.2 55.1 44.9
_I_-- -1_1
Bwneir ---
Source: 1980 Cenms
3:
e 0
Structure Types
bother important characteristic of housing supply that was analyzed was the
type of structures in the market: single family, duplex, multi-family, and mobile
homes. Single-family units formed the majority of housing unit5 in the City in
1980 (61.2 percent). This figure was substantially the same as the percent of
singlefamily units in the entire region (61.0). The percent of mobile hones in
Carlsbad in 1980 was 5.7. In comparison, the region's percent of mobile homes
was 5.2. Thus, the City's howing stock closely paralleled the region's stock when
a comparison of types of units was made.
+
TABLE 15
STRUCTURE TYPE
CARLSBAD AND SAN DIEGO REGION
I 980
F- e FIGi-.,
___I----.- % ------ C alsb ad
I ---__I- Percent .~- Xumbe? ----. Per c e21 t -- Number .- ~.=e Uxif- --
Sjqk "s'ami?j.-Detach:ed 7,913 51.7 3 8 7 7 3 22'. 54.e
:,:ne~le 0 ";;~~,>y-.4ttac3& 3,455 q .5 $<'? ~ <? 5 G i ..a
Lf-q&;< 45 1 3-0 ii+,5 $4 * ,.
5.4 Y?. :
&2?$ 3,??5 24*6
s,L
D9.F 1: J .+ I *liL 15,503. 1ofi.o '?l;y$ 1 'i c ir ,j 1
--. .-. 1
9; ;, :- ._I a -..
2 >>,?..I +. - L.:;: .. i) ;iT
c ;';e rJT >j$:3:"3
+f.,,.:oSile ,&me
.? ,~. . 825
874 5.7
Ci.7
_. 1 ,. , & Ut ',7 & ? .-"- q ' - 4
I .. 77.
.--I-
3 7 t .?. 3:3 ----. --~
,-, ,:: {>lJL .?? z 1 '7 8 2 c; eLasus
A.F5 of ;qD*Siqcr
1~2 age of 't.loushg :sl :he City is ar, important cI?aracteriszic sf suy$y Beczusc it L? 23 iuc?icatos of the conditioc of the City's housirig, Many fzdera!. zp.2 state
?rog~=aws izsed age of housing to determine houskg needs azx?. %%e avaiiabi!i:y af
iur:d.s for ho~~ir,g and/or comxnmity~ development. For thsse ~uqzosec, the ~;3"sC:
significant measure of the age of homing was the nuxber of wiiff: built bqiox
194;C. Table 3.6 shows that almost two-thirds (65.7%) of the mits h ihc City iri
1980 VJJ~~E! hi!t ~FGIII 1970 ts 1980 (in cornparism to 37-6 yercenf: irl. :he FegiortS.
XXxnos~ 35 percent of the units were built since 2966 cia C@i7i~E'kGP to $IS? ~xdei:
ti(? percent in the region). Conversely, only 2.9 perceat of &re City's k~~ins stock
waz built Before 1940 Ivs. 8.3 percent of the region's housing) ad 5.2 prceilz
befose 9950 (vs, 16.3 percent of the region's housing). The kousirig stock reflected
the extent of deve!opment that hzs taken place trow. 1960 to 1980 in the City.
.-.-3L--
wq
32
I e e
TABLE 16
AGE OF HOUSING
CARLSBAD AND SAN DIEGO REGION
1980
Yea Structure Carlsbad Region
Built Number Per cent Number Percent
, 1970-1980 10,053 05.7 287,108 37.6
1960-1970 2,860 18.7 167,369 21.9
1950-1960 1,432 9.4 138,926 18-2
1'340-1950 536 3.5 6 1,241 3.0
8.3 -- 2.7 63,567 -- 419 Eefore 1940 --
TOT AI, 15JOO zoo -0 764,i22 1.00 "0
So~ace: 1980 ceasus
.e- -rio-&xiF Condition
~j~~:~c~:gh We 1989 Cer,sus di.d not !ac!ude statistics on hrjils!.zg cmditims base2
____. A---
c.pcz okservation, it 6i;I kL&?tf-, :;tat;stics ths:t cg:c&.n:e .7e,y~ s]os$.y -;;itt; s:lb-.
;jtsGldki;-d >cJl,s;~ng. 323 af t1ic~e !x<ica:cr.s >as .beez ;::~c~s;<ea~, {z%zb:T ~f ~~~~C~~C?~ 3'
hoasicg ~::,.,r*~i*;ig~~ ~~jo ~?,c> i-,.sca.tsrs ?:?re J,~,:::.rz-.g ~~~:~~te yik~~?.:;~'' b ::cI?
., .
. 7. q-q..;p r.,-,3 2 ><?a1,&,,3-:>- -:..,3..m w-s QftPZ!. P'..W7*iSfyj -.-/-.- v:i3 .a ot:;<r z"a-tcy,: ?x? a;:).:.;e:"i7-J iE:e&s2.x?
%WC.93Wik?$*
a. Lac:Clhg ".doqlk:e Tlux":"g
r-< :'l& ~ . 17 i&:'l"fi.23 y?.. aumbc: ,::: ;ziI-tc k!? cz:$b&. thdt :ar_;<efj CC;T k? lggg.
.,. .,,
.. ,7 *.
TABLE 17
uxm ZAC~G CQMPLETE PLUMBIXC-
GAK%,S3AD AND SAN DIEGO REGION
1989
Carlsbaii Region Carlsba
'Jzits Total Gnits ?'uta! As i? Pert
Lacking Units Pe;.cent Zac'Jhn Vslits Per~e~t of Proit ___ __-_I_ 2.2 --- ---- .-fa-
I._
Tenure ---
O-bvner 9 8,655 0.1 1,0&2 369,24? 0.3 0 *8
Renter 43 4,879 0.9 6,076 300,847 2.0 0 .?
TiacSIlt - 9 19103 - - 335 -8- 47,812 -
TOTAL 61 15,231 0-4 8Jm 717,906 1.3 0.8
1 .o
u^ 2.0 0.5 .I-
Source: 1980 Census
33
e e
The housing stock in the City had a lower proportion of housing units that "lack
complete plumbing" than the region's housing units (0.4 percent vs. 1.1 percent.
The proportion of units "lacking complete plumbing" for owner units (0.1%) was
substantially less than the proportion for renters (0.9). However, all of the
proportions for the City were substantiaIly less than the proportions €or the
.
&OR.
b. Overcrowding
Another indicator of housing condition, overcrowding, was defined as those
homing units with more thaa one person per room. Table 18 compaxs the propor-
tion of units that were overcrovlded in the City in 1980 to the proportion of mits that were overcrowded in the San Diego region h 1980. The City had substan-
tially less overcrowding than the region as a whole (3.1 percent vs. 6.3 percent)
,
TABLE 18
OVERCROWDED UNITS
CARZSBPcD AND SAX DECO RZGION
1980
CZP ::;3 ad
As 3- 3.c.:*- x-'.
,jf ?.._.+?
- ,-i. e 5:: 02
Nlm'C?: .i3ex?X:
. -.=.LLL&'-
----_1
Cazis5aZ
I---.- - -..--,_ I---^- ..css Pe? ROO^ F:u~Bzr ?exeat . . . .. -._.--.-^- -l.--*.--l-.-ll. ___I_
."?-, .
L. .I - 3 13,170 9b.6 433,040 y4S
i -4 15,581 2.3
%- * ;*s<j 01; ;efcs
;;*t-J1 t3 :*5QG 230 1 .? 2i ,473 3.2 .:. I) 3
r :;;'y*;& i, 25,585 IfX.0 6 7 I!, 0 94 t,oc:.o .d .Y
"Over::rcwdi~,e CCC'JIS when a housing mit has more than 1.00 pers~x. p-- ...a. ''----*v-~ > UL>,*,?.
Sa.r!r-ce; 1380 cmsls
'i 3 .' ,-, J. * I.. ..-. _-...
c <+ - -- 135 _-.- ,j, ~ 2 1 ST More~~
-? F.
.- il <if.~~~. 22d
The gad conditio2 of the houshg stock .h the City was a result of a .-ornuasiff ai
?be factors disiscu:%w.3 irt the previous pages: recent construction, little overcmw~.- Liz;r aiiequate facilities, and high owner raties. The halance bctwteeii s\?pp.ly ,in6
&znxu-; in the City's Acusbg market is another iadicator of the ConZiiim .j? t>e
;ko;isi.Eg sfcck, The characteristics that are most ofte-rl w2d to ?ueaswe this
balance ae sacanc); rates. High vacancy rates usually indicate low demand. zxI/m :high supply conditims in the housing market, Conversely, low ~aua.cy
sates rasually indicate high demand and/or low supply conditions in the kzoushg
market. Eo-ever, vacancy rates ue riot the sole indicator of market conditions..
They were viewed k the context of all the characteristics of the local md
regional market. The Federal Home Losn Bank sf San Francisco conducted msrzal
..
34
T e e
vacancy surveys of the cities in the San Diego region from 1981 to 1985. This
information was gathered by zip code. Table 19 identifies the results of these
saveys for the Carlsbad zip codes and compares these results with the vacancy
Pates for the San Diego region. The City's vacancy rate fluctuated from 1981 to
1985. The most dramatic aspect of the decIine had been the lower rates for
mobile homes (3.5 percent in 1981 and 0.5 percent in 1984). In the past, vacancy
rates which indicate "market balance" (a condition where rates indicate an
acceptable level of vacancy: reflecthg remodeling, seasonal variations and
turnovers) mere 3.0 percent for single family and 5.0 percent for multi-family.
and 3.0 percent for multi-family. The vacancy rates in the City did have housing
market implcaticns:
o
The standards hoi vacancy rates vere revised to 1.0 percent for single fmily units
The value and rent oE all housing would increase during the time of the
Eolising Efemect in response to the "tight" market conditions within the
region.
The Carlsbad mzpket, especially multi-family, was not as tight as the region
due to the recent construction of rental and condonb-ium units in Carisbad.
The supply of available single farnily arid mobile home units was less relative
to the supply of mzltiple family ucits.
o
o
TXELE 19
VACANCY XATES
CARLSBAD AND SAN DIEGO -EF,GiON
1981-1984
c Ci3'0 3.3 Sax Diegc Regicn --.- i981 4,982 1983 I984 1985 ----- 198: 1382 1983 1954 I_ ---- - -- --
Singis Fz-zib 1 *1 2 .? 1.4 1.4 2.4 1.6 1.5 1.3 2 34
Multiple Bad.; 1 :7 5.5 6.5 7 -9 5.3 4.4 3.8 3.3 2.8
1.5 Mobile Ecne
TOTPL 3"5 3 -9 3.3 3 -8 3.5 2.7 2-3 2.0 1 e9
-- 1.7 - 1.9 - 2.0 - &
2.4 - 1.8 - 0.5 - 2.7
I_ 3.5 -
Source: Federal Loan Borne Bank Bomd, San Diego SMSA Vacancy Su~vcys, March 9,981
1982, April 1983, and May 1984.
AfforciaSilit77
8, 0m.ls Units
The following descri?tior, of touskg reot and valiie in Carlsbad came ,from a
mriety 'on' sources: census, multiple listing, and other housing cost indices. The
ceasus hforraation provided an indication of housing value and rent jn 1980.
Although the accuracy of the cenziis in describing vahe and rent in absolute terms
mas limited, it did provide a basis for comparative evaluations. The median
----I_
35
e e
housing value ia 1980 was $123,400 for Carlsbad according to the census. The
median value of housing €or the San Diego region was $91,000. The median value
of housbg in Carlsbad was 35.6 percent higher than the median value of housing in
the region.
The comparisons of value became more iaformative when the distribution of the
values for both the City and the San Diego region was examined, Table 20 identi-
fies the distribution of housing value accordiag to the 1980 Census. The City had
a substantially lower proportion of both low-cost (less than $50,000 h value! and
middie-cost (more than $100,000 in value) housing than the San Diego region.
Conversely, the City had a higher proportion of high cost housing (over $100,000)
than the region (12.3 percent 8s. 38.9 percent, almost twice the region
percentage).
TABLE 20
VALUE OF YOrJSIXG
CARLSBAD AND SAN DIE,G@ REGION
1980
CaplShd
As z Percszt
_I_ Region - Carisbaci --
&&7;;;nq Tjl?i? Value Number Tercent il’u~ber Percext of Reg!iot:
Less thm $lo,om 2 -.. 57 s 3.3, 0-3
$liE’?OOO to $15,L‘03 11 ‘J ‘C, 8 lL$ 0 “3 1.4
$ I5,OOO to $2C ,000 5 ool I ,2?C c A 9.5
S20,aoc *,e $25,1333 12 s -2 ?,irk4 8.7 0.6
$25,000 to $3C405 12 0.2 2,359 t: “8 c.3 15 to .L 2?5?r) 0 s9 0.6 S30,OOO to $35,300
$3S,OOr! to $40,000 51 5.8 7 .) 9 fi-1 J 3 I.?
$4Q:,OOO to $50,9r,r, 96 i A 5,225 3 2. z *I
$%,GO0 io $8O,OGO 2:’? 7 ? -7 8 I ,CE4 2X.8 c: .6
$80,000 to $IGO,OOO 1,028 26.6 69,iSO 24.5 L.3
$100,600 to $149,000 2,955 47.8 66,349 23.5 4,s -- $i50,000 to $200,000 941 : 5.2 22,733 8.1 4.1
378 9 03 211,669 7.3 $200,OCO+ -.
TOTAL 6,184 100.0 281,806 100.0 2.2
--- ..PI-
,-. 7
n..
1 .7
t *.
2.8 - --- I__
MEDL4M VALUE .!$123,4i30 $9i ,Oc)c) (+35:6)
Socce: 1980 Census
The Chamber of Commerce provided reports that identified housing market price
indices, which measured the chage k housing va1rte. Alt‘nough the absolute values
were nat available, the changes ki value offered soae indication of supply charac-
teristics. Tabie 21 shows that the City has e-xpcrienced risbng housing values over
the past ten years (X2?.$%) wit‘ii a peak dvsrinng 1978 and ’1979 fahost 60% in-
crease). ’Ms pattern is paral!eled, at the regional lcv~l but the rate is lower for
36
e e
the region. Carlsbad's houshg values increased 15.7% from 1982 to 1984 while the
housing value €or the region and many cities actually declined.
TABLE 21
HOUSING MARKET PXCX INDEX
PERCENT CHANGE IN VALUE
CARLSBXD AND SAN DIEGO REGION
197 5-1 984
Percent Change
Hocsing Market Price
San Diego Region
Percent Tercent
Yea Median Average Region C arlsb ad ---
1945 $37,000 $45,500 13.2 1006
1996 $42,300 $52,300 14.7 8.1
1974 $54,000 $65,200 24.7 '14.3
9.973 $72,200 $8493 00 29.3 38.7 1993 $83,400 9?03,,400 23.1 20.3,
1'3833 390,000 $15,O,&00 6 -7 lO*l
SiZ7,OQO 4.8 !On1
-2.0 3.2: '982, $1~6,000 c? 124.5 09 1953 $103,4r20 $1 24,433 -3.1 5.;
; 92% s 1 1 I :%?5 $;3?,200 i .6 6.8
* 7,931 $1 OG,30G
$*,Z*tjT:e: $23 Diego C?.:.~Z~..L. ~f ZO,,ETC, t'conctnic Bulktin.
Tt?e ab3~e f'lg1;res identify r';rc?. oailie OP existing homes. hformaticn &~t %>e
~z1;:e of iie-2 52~15~ KZS not 3.5 csadzte 'nut wrae fijgres were arailabie. Ac-
CCX-~EE t~ t:?'> Sm Diego Chanbzr of Zozimerce'c Ezonoinic 13uiZ~tic, the medim
?:ice of new singif family tyzct its sold cim*kAg 1983 mas $99,740 b the soathca
portiorz of the region, compared to $125,250 for the northern portion (k which
Carlsbad is located) of the region. The median price of the inventory of msold
&$e family units bring 1883 was $99,775 in the southern portion of the zegion,
cc;mpzrcd to $135,714 for tEe northern pixtion of the region. The medim price gf
usrrlf;-farnil~; xiits sold durlng 1983 mas $92,075 i? the southern portion of ehe
regicn, ccnpmed tu $37,777 for the northern portion of the region. The mediaii
price of the unsold inventory o€ znulti-family housing in the southern portion of
the region was $83,279, compared to $85,000 for the northern portion of :he
regifin.
<
37
I e e
TABLE 22
NEW XOVSIXG VALUES
SAN DEGO REGION
1982-1983
Single Family Mu1 t i-Family
Sold Unsold Sold Unsold.
lm- 1983 1982 5983 1982 - 1 1983 1982
South County $101,196 $99,740 $151?081 599,775 $81,105 $92,075 $94,910 $8:
North County $154,303 $126,250 $151,582 $135,714 $102,397 $87,777 $95,338 $8!
Scurca: Sa Diego Chamber or' Commerce Economic Bulletb, Voltrrne 31, No. 10, Octo
1983.
p - - I_ -
b- Rentad Units
One SGUPC~ of informatioh., for the analysis of rerr:al units was the cecsus. -rigah,
t% ceilSLL5 infozrnatlon was osed lor comparztivs ana:ysis rather :ha? fop absolute
market con3i:ions. The comparisoo of :he distribution of ~nts Setween the City
ad the Ssli Diego regiosl Pesilited m substmtialfy the same distributions k tk
rcgicn. The City had a to we^ proportion 6i 117w-cast (less thm $250 F%P month)
rerxa! mlts than tle SPA Oiego regfm. Conversely, the City h2d a higher
-;ropor;h oi ~id-ievd ($2'13 io $523 per ~0:15! rziiid its, ~!Spec;zi!g X t3~5
tk-13 C-.e region (16*4% TS. 9.5cZ;.
.- I . ,*. ,$?I30 to $400 per month rental ?32p LIx nrg2 c:os?. (TE.r-Ci0 thsn $Sr=i!! per. XTith)
i-
38
e e
TABLE 23
RENT RANGES
CARLSBAD AND SAN DIEGO WGION
I980
Carlsbad
Rent* Units Percent Units Percent of Region
Less than $60 12 0.2 905 0.3 1.3
$40 to $80 20 0.4 1,684 0.6 1.2
$80 to $300 69 1 e4 3,4 57 1.2 2 .o
$100 tc $220 51 1 .o 3,944 1.3 1.3
$120 to$lSO 92 1.5 8,164 2.s 0.9
$150 to $170 39 0-8 8,564 2.9 0.5
$170 to $200 17'6 3.5 21,336 7.2 0.8
$200 to $250 583 1201 5.5,420 18.8 1.1
$250 trj $300 1,104 22.7 65,315 22.2 1.7
163 42 2747 143 1.9
25,413 8.6 1.5
$300 tr; $350 805
$350 to $400 381 : *k?
$450 to $500 753 15-5 23,972 102 2-5
$WC+ I24 14.9 22,024 7.5 3.3
f .2 No cas3 Rent
2: GT.4 T, u,: r> I LC$*$ 234,847 IC0.0 2 -7
ys:L'TA;: 6FL,QSS FZh"iT ,$?i7 $281
Carlsbad Region As a Percent
-
n
- -/ 3 I .E. 5,992 2.0 --- _I
, rpn
- rn *G-rsss t:enk n,o~?.rast tm,: $is ?.verege -;le:ithlY costs c)f utilities ad fuels.
sozi.cr?: 1483 Cm:;us
An apr'imcnt zcntal rate survey (July 1984) h2icated a substantial increase in
rent rmges fro= the 1980 fig-uzs. Zr, the North County azea (PowaylNorth Sa11
Eiego zo e~ZsbaC/Qceansidz/FallbPook/Tau~a Yallej-), the average monthly rent
{mfwaished, tenmt paging gas and electricity) was $491 (studios, $335; 1-
bedxom, $440; 2-hedroon, $517; and 3 or more bedroom, $5'78j. E? compzison:
the region's average rent was $481 (studios, $37C; l-bedroom, $424; 2-Sed,~oozn,
$515; mc? 3 oi' more bedroom, $591). The rents for North County hcreased by 5.2
percent for 2-bedroom units ad 6.2 yercerit for 3-bedroom units over six mcnths
(Zanuary 1984 to July 1984). This sui-vey a!so identified a -~aca.ncy rate of 2.1
perceai for apa-tment tvlits in the North Cmmty aroa.
c. Overpayers
The census provided mother source of bcome data that ~elates more directly to
the homhg market: haushg costs as a percent of household income. This meas-
urement relates housebold income to b:~-a.siT;g costs for owners and renters,
Further, this information was availzible by income range. This indicator was an
important mcasuremert of local housing market conditions because it reflected
39
I e 0
the standards that federal and state housing agencies used, not only to measure
the housing needs of a community, but also to determine the level of assistance
those households should be given. Traditionally, the standard measurement of
housing costs was that n~ household should have to spend more than 25 percent of
its income to secure adequate housing. However, the standard was raised to 30
percent in 1984.
The figures h Tables 24 (Renters) and 26 (Owners) identify the percentage of
households that “overpaid” (pay more thaa 25 percent of their bcome for housing)
for housing in the City and the San Diego region in 1980. Tables 25 (Renters) and
27 (Owners) identify overpayers by income range for the City and the region in
1980. The percentages for the “rent as a percent of income” for the City and the
region were similar. The largest proportion of “overpayers’ were the low income
(less than $10,000 household income) households ir? the Ci.:y ($3.2 percent) and in
the pegion (64.1 percent).
I
TABLE 24
RENT AS A PERCENT OF ENCOME
CXRLSBAD AND SAN DIEGC REGION
1980
-
Rezt 3s CarlsbaZ
Numlnr Percent of Xeaion 3 oi bcome
I er c elit Cazlxbad Region As a Percen
Less thaz 20 Percent 1,473 31.1 76,135 26.8 1.9
ZO-ZC; Percent 715 15.1 41,410 14.6 1 .?
25-35 Texent 915 20a6 sr,,oaz 21.2 1.6
L .5 over 35 Percent 1,567 106,03 9 37.4 33.2
TOTAL 4,?30 IW*O 233,666 ICD.0 1.7
-- -- -- Number Percefit - -- 1_1_.__.
- -- --
Source: 198i: Census
C
40
e 0
TABLE 25
RENT AS A PERCENT OF INCOME BY INCOME
CARLSBAD AND SAN DEEM RFSION
1980
INCOME
Rant RE bs5,boo $S,~lO,OOO 11O,ooOjlS,oMl IlS$WS20,000 S2Q ,OOO+ W-~ZT P-mta Wvmkr Patent* Number Pcrcmt* Numb Pacent* Number Percent* ---- Pacesit oi -me
CA?USIAD
122 2.6 218 4.6 1,101 23.3 L4sthanUJPateDt - P 32 0.Y ' 20-23 Pacent 41 0.9 23 0.4 193 4.1 194 4.1 267 5.5
2535 Percent 15 0.3 169 3.6 334 7.1 248 5.2 209 4.4
39 PcrccJt 532 113 701 14.6 265 5.6 64 1A 5 0.1
SAN DIEGO REGION
44,990 15.9 Le€a tksn 24 2iscea4 134 03 2,833 1.0 9,069 2.2 18,403 6.5
2U-25 Pacat 1JW 0.5 4,031 1.4 14,186 3.0 11,990 4.2 9,901 3.5
25-35 Ptrcmt 2391 0.8 16,133 5.1 ZS,ZSB 3.9 10,472 3.7 5422 2.1
3% Yetcent @,36X 14.4 46,968 16.6 14,415 5.1 3,576 11 359 0.1
0. Yeca'l of TULZ~ Rest- ClzzkW (4,7301 ce~il R+ (%83,6663.
SWXC; icim ram
9
'he ?eresntag?s fo~ omers wb oveqaid were higher in the City (38.3 percent)
",?a ze,$.sn (32.6 p?rczult), U.dike the figures for renters, the larg2st percentages
oi 'tneqa.y~~~' icy mzic~s .ve:e *hose hwsehdds with k-comes above %ZO,OOC per
vp >LF* J-
TABLE 26
cm:3?. Ci)STS AS A PERCENT OF l[NCBME
7,580
$"' ,,,,..,.SBAD A -Q : AN2 SAN DIEGO REGION
Carlsbad
Region -4s a Pexent
I_-
Carlsbad e Bwrle;. costs 2s
Ebirnber Percent Number Percent sf Rsgion - uIp-IIPI-II- Percent of hcnrre -..
Less than 2c! Percent 3,311 43.9 155,876 55.7 1.9
20-25 Percent 783 12.7 32,639 11.7 2.4 -
25-35 Percent 1,145 18.6 42,356 15.1 2.7
Over 35 Percent 5-
TOTAL. 6, IL 53 '10G.O 2799990 100.0 2.2
2.5 - 1 214 19.7 49,119 17.5
* 6
Omet costs include zortgage, real estate taxes, insurance 2nd utilities,
Scarce: 1980 Censas
41
i I e 0
TABLE 27
OWFR CQSPS AS A PERCENT OF lNCOMH BY XNCOME
a&SBA.D AND SAN DBGO RZ-N
1950
MCOME
045,000 fS,OOOJl0,000 tIO,OOO-S15,000 fl5,OM)-StO,MX) s2g,owc 6rouscOaU ParcmtofhYorne Numb Percent” ZTumba Pucectm Numba Percat- Number Percmtm ,-, percCr
CARLSBAD
;,m 3a kr, ‘tran 20 Parcsnt 26 0.4 119 1.9 234 3.8 US 4.0 - - 2% 0.4 34 0.6 57 1.1 20-25 Pe~ccnt 25 0.4 55 0.9 44 Q.? 34 9.6 193 21 25-35 PercmOZ
660 10 $87 16
bxl 9 3% Percent 99 1J2 131 2.3 I91 3.1
SA?J DES0 REGION -
16,?59 6.6 113,901 40 3.4 14,017 5.0 r hs thzm LO PsrcrPt 1,467 0. b 9,552 2045 Przcmt 1,156 0.4 2,119 o.a 2,886 12 3,8W 1.4 22,669
t5-35 Prtczzlt ~$2.3 0-5 2&34 1.0 4,313 1.5 6,241 2.2 t7,435 c 3% Psccrnt ‘3,755 x..? a,7a2 3.1 9,253 3s - 6,555 3.5 P4,??4 I
c &&$el.’# crrt tor3Aeu rnwtgqp, red rt.,tXZC tuea, kPWCS, d :icilitfa2.
~opp=a: iwo =I=
w p~car oi Tow Oww=n; Cxrlrhrd. ib.1531 d R%pa [Zf9,9%*
men fbe 3taxXiard 0: 25 pe:ceP.* at kJsom@ for ZF:,: 7gzs %sed, ‘&e pepzest of . >. moveqapersn F;‘;?,s ere2 mr,m :ncrc~t.iv~ ai :%e lacis of affordai5:c izouskg, ~~b!~ 28
wnrnarizes +&e overpzyex. as a PCPCC-.; of di ~:IDus~-~..o~~E. for +&e City a~d the
Pegior? in !93O. Tar! >e~-te~.ia~e 04 ove:-paye:5 of a:]. kccs,oholdr, it~? Fen?.”“~ and
owners! XI the City (45-G ?ezci::.:j pas siigh.tls iower t:2a1 gate for ~~26: 2egiar
(45.7). The rcyter ~LDLE~II~~?.; :e~,ecir-.iy 23qCr incoxcf paid di:jPyoFaTciotjte
.-
. -.
amounts of theis kame io: t?~~.~ir?g; 53,1 ?exen: of the renters k the City pzid
more tBm. 25 percent of their tneome fop Pent.
C
42
s 0 0 *‘
TABLE 28
PERCENT OF OVERPAYERS*
CARLSBAD AND SAN DIEGO REGION
1980
C adsbad Region Overpayers Overpay
Overpayer Total As a Percent Overpayer Total As a Pen
Households Eouseholds of Total Households Households of Tot’
Owcers 2,359 6,153 33.3 91,475 279,990 32.7
58.t - 53 .? 156,121 283,666 Renter3 2,542 4,730 _I-
TOTAL 4,901. 10,833 45.0 257,396 563 ,€I 56 45.9
*Honsehoids paying mare than 25 percent of the income for reEt or owning a home,
So1uce: 198C c2asm
. ...
.. 4. ~xorne
The rzext it3~ d.iscusse6 -side> AI”Eo?ddsility is the ciistribiiticn of k.cois;_cs viitl5.n
tke City acco~diag h the cztz2.gorks used by the state hxsixq officials. FOUY
t~,t~-g~~ies of blccwz vex iise.5 bzs-53 on tke 19SCi Cens~s (5ased ~z1 a homehclc? oi
<G!3 ;>e:-sonsj.
r:: ‘Very j.0~ kczrue {up t.3 3 perceat of: -;he mec’;ian ~COEC (1938 - Si;’,lO?] of .. 23 hc~:s~fi:~~d~ k tho aet:o?ziitai1 area: 0 -- $8,554);
0 L0.K ktou3 {f:.ara 56 ‘:I3 x percez?: of the median income of ai: ;cl3LlSc:.lsr!2S Ir:
->:TO --*- a+~~>:3]:+z~a ;jbyca:
Moderate income (horn 8L‘ to 120 Dercent of the media ;arcme of all 56
holds in thz rcetropolitan area: $i3,685 to 520,528); and
All others [above ZiX percent of the median tlcomc of all hmseholds ir\, “Le
meimplitan area: abve $20,528).
$s,5.j+Zy io $?3,58Gj;
i4
o
.&though these definitioiis remained coasta-nt from 1930 to 1984, the rages
changed as the median income ctf all homeholds changed. For exarnTIle, the rkges
of Lacone in the preceding paragraph were based upon the 1980 Census Oefinition of tbe median incoInc sf all households in the region. By 1984, the ranges had
b.cfeaseC to $~l,COO for very low income, $17,500 for low income, an2 $26,400 for
moderate income, Using these figwes, the income distribution for the CiFj was
identified. Table 29 provides a csnparison between the distribution of income
categories for the City an0 the region in 1980. The City had a lower percentage
of koweholda ic thc 7eq low a8 low income categories than the percentzge of
households iri th? same categories H the region (29.3 percent vs. 3?.8 percent).
The City duo had a lower percentage of households in the moderate income cate-.
gory, The City had a higher percentage of upper income households than the
region (54.9 vs. 40.9 percent).
43
f e 0
TABLE 29
HOUSEHOLD INCOME DISTRIBUTION
CARLSBAD AND SAN DEGO REGION
1980
Carlsbad
* Category Number Percent Number Percent of Region
Income Carlsbad Region As a Percent
,
Very Low 2,134 15.8 150,798 22.5 1.4
Mode r a? e 2,131 15.8 129,741. 19.3 1.6
2.7 All Others 7,419 54.9 274,263 40.9
TOTAL 13,510 100.0 670,634 100.0 2.0
Sarr;-ce: 1980 Cens.s
LO% 1,826 13.5 115,832 17.3 1.5
I_
Tzhk 36 wanpares the imxme distribuTion of households for CuJtr.5~5~6 and the
regisr, Ear f 380. Although the same general coiqazisons between t3e distributicc
~f househol6 imxmes for the City and -tke region were made in 1980 as were made
i11 :?TO, “Le differences were szdk ir, 1960 and spread over a greater ra:ge GE
Fn,coiaes. ?%.e regior, ha6 rr lowe: prcerttagc thzA tlie City of househo!ds wltlz.
kcomes ~7-3;; $ZO,OOO (42.4 percsat 7s. 55.2 percext). Conversely, ”,he .Zit? h:zci a
23~1:gp ~~~ce~t~ga th~, thz T~@OII 3f E~s.Js&o’,~s =it5 ~TICOITIZS under %20.0G02 The
mediasr h;;-;~seholti iil~om3.s =ere &SO sibsixn?tiai!y higher iil 1939 for ~be City $3~;
tk? ~egir.r?, ($22,354 7s. $I?,PO?, 3P,7 pzzczzit highc-rj. .,
C
44
< e 0
TABLE 30
HOUSEHOLD INCOME DISTFUBUTION
CARLSBAD AND SAN DIEGO REGION
1980
Catls'bad
Carlsbad Region As a Percent
Household hcorne Number Percent Number Percent of Region
Less than $2,500 437 3.2 26,620 4.0 1.6
$2,500-$5,080 587 4.3 47,985 ? *2 1.2
$5 ,00 0-$7,50 0 '577 5.8 52:583 7.8 1.5
$1 O,SO0-$12,500 1,002 7.4 60,197 9 00 1.7
$ Id 9 5 00-$, I. 5,000 177 5.8 49,003 9.3 1.6
s: I. I ,500-~20,000 752 5.6 43,559 6.5 151
$23 ,Q(jO-$Z?,, 5130 908 5.7 45,363 6.8 2.0
$~2,530-~25,0@8 416 5 -3 35,641 5 03 2.0
$25 ,G33-$2? ,536 745 5.5 34,506 5.1 2.2
$27 3 5 oc -4 3 0,000 'I IO 3.3 26,036 3.9 2*T
$30 ,OOO-$Z 5,OOCj 1,073 7 -9 44,097 5.6 z ..e
535,000-"$44~008 1 $9C 8.1 29,232 4.4 3-7
$.$g $3 c --$3 c : 3.3 0 ',,%I 7.F; 32,952 4 .? .,A r L,
.., ,* ." I t.1 .. d?C 0 -s 7 5 -90 9 975 ? 2 24 9 s 7'7 3 a? <A?]
LO C>W&,~ 57c;,i;lG9
"P1-1- .t .-/ J *%'4 $ 7 13,323 10'3.c. h 7Q ?O 34 Pi90.0 L .o
3 g:>.:; 3 ; c,yj Mi.: $22,354 $17,107 13g.7
S99500-$10~000 792 5 99 54,214 8.4 1.4
$15,G00-$11,500 7'7 6 5.8 50,484 '7.6 1.5
7-
-I
342 2.5 19,381 1.7
-I_ -~----
1
St-.;D::C: l?$$ c 2l.lsc"J
e. A?fadz~i~iry Inndices
SA"ilJAG riz7e!oped indices oE affordabie housing progress in a special study f.~r
the Ciky of Chi& Vish Thc study contained a comparison to several cities.
Although CarblsSad was not on2 of the cities, information was developed for the
City rrsL2g the same methodo!oeg. Ths results are sumaarized in the follswbg
pzr agm$is.
The kcIic,er; po-Aded measwernents of fair share progress in relative terms; that
is, hmsi~g affordahility over time :e.g., 19?G PS. 1980) or between areas (e.g.,
CarZsbad 7s- the region). 'The absolute measurements (e+, the total number of
low hcome uoits) of the indices were not used.
Tne irdiees mzzsurcd affordable housing for two time frames, 1970 and 1980, bg
tenwe (owxw md renter) for the City and the region. Tables 32 through 37
fdest'ufy homhaag affordability for the City in four cases: (1) owners in 1970, (2) owners h~ ie)SO, (3) renters ia 1970, and (4) renters in 1980. These tables identify
45
, 0 e
the income categories for which housing units in 1970 and 1980 were "affordable"
(see below). very low, low, moderate, and all
others. Table 31 identifies the income limits for each category in 1970,1980, and
1984. The definitions were based upon the median income of the San Diego
Metropolitan Area in 1970,1980, and 1984.
The four income categories are:
TABLE 31
INCOME CATEGORIES
SAN DIEGO METROPOLITAN AREA
1970r 1980 & 1984
Very A 1: 6 A* Low Median Moderate Lner5 - Low - wear
1970 $3,298 $5,276 $6,595 $7,954 $7,914+
1980 $8,554 $13,686 $17,107 $20,528 $28,528;
1984 $13,730 $2Z,OOO $27,500 $33,000 $3 3 ,OC3 JC
Sowces: 1970 and 1980 Census and SANDAG Files,
I
Ti3e 32 identifies the value of owilei hsusing in Carlsbad Ln 1970 as ueportd Sy
the C~ZXSUS. Monthly ho-asbg costs of each value rage were esthatd 3ase.l ?z?oii
fre 2olo:viag conditions.
o Tk burits were behg borrght witl; a cocven"Lionai 1cm zki& TV~%P xcnicC wi21
z 2C p?rcer,t down-pqment and fkmce2 met SO yszs.
ih~ lorn WJS financed at b*25 percent interest rate (23.x?. Z::SG~-?ZC~S, >-cej r"x
1970.
Monthiy costs b?.ciucied tke principal ad hterest r.2 the is:n2 ;Z..YSS aid
hsupance, and utilities.
o
a?
These monthly figures were used to calculate the mxua!. kcoae that czidd
"affor2!," the cost of such housing b7 using the st;Lrdard that 30 pi-cezit sf z hor:.jc-
5oWs income sholrld be used for housing costs.
The income category to which the units would 5e affordablc in 1970 was eqtab-
iished. Carlsbad had 5.2 percent of its owner units affordable to very low inccmr
households; 20.4 percent to low income households; 40.1 percent to moderate hcomi: ho-asehclds; ad 34.3 percent to all other househdds. Gazlsbad's &.f4~?r3-
a5ility rates in 1970 for owners weie similar to &e regicn's xtes except that the
City- had a lower percent of units affordable to lower income hol;seEolds (25.6
percent os. 31.3 perceat) and a higher percent for upper income households (34.3
percent vs. 25.7 percent).
46
0 e
TABLE 32
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
OWNER UNITS
CARLSBAD
1970
Monthly Annual Income
Rousing Unit Value Number Percent Costs** -- Income** Category
* Less than $5,000 8 0.3 $3 3 $1,320 Very Low
$5,000 to $7,500 18 0.8 $50 $2,000 Very Low
$7,500 to $10,000 20 0.9 $66 $2,540 Very Low
$IO,OC?td to $15,000 149 6.5 $99 $3,960 Very Low/Lo~s
$15,000 to $20,000 392 17.1 $132 $5,280 Low
$20,000 to $2S,SOO 555 24.2 5165 $6,600 Moderate
$25,000 to $35,000 734 32.0 $231 $9,240 Moderste/
All Others s35,coo to S5C,O@r3 306 13.3 $331 $13,240 All Others
$7 5 id >goo .P 111 - 4.9 -.--- Q331+ --- $13 240-1- All Others
-. - -Y -- 2,293 xoo.0 ."n,---. - i L2 2. AL
x< 6r3.r~~~ Tracts 173.01, 178-02, 17'9, a6 139
*:.e. = .'rinclpal, jX&$l&, y:r;rX@S: .i;rsYL:ance, a35 utEf:;ties u?ing conventional 20 >eT.zzc?
~c):~~.~ -pyrnene m lo=.i 2.: 8,Z.s pe-cezt ovey 3C y.-a~s mcl assumirsg 3C ;>erccn?-
3f ~:~C:JYZ.I EGP bi>.sing c~F~s-. ....
Sov;-=e.: ;yo C2nsx.s ay.6 S.+$>::S.-4G File. ,
Tzkj..:? :?3 S::.~:XS ?.>.e &st$Joxtign of OFIZET ~:cri:pied -&Tits 37 value a26 .t>e ificorze
qz<2g:c;q 43 wkj.& ~j-~r: .iii7_it~ woii1.d be ;ifo?drb:e in 1980. CaxisbxT had 0.3 prrcszt
r;f its omer miits afioydabk io very low income househoids; 0.5 percent to ~O-FI
hcczi-,e hotz.se3olds; "2.3 percent to moderate icccrne households; and 96.9 peroxlt
tc &I stkr bouseho1d.s. Tnese rates were very similar to >he rate for oi~riers ii? 19SG for ':& yegh e,-.cept the City had a lower percent of units affc;rdsSk to
nodeate income ho~~,..eh~?d~ (O,$ ?exert vs. 4.3 percent) and z higher Fercsnt for
qpar incmne h-to-mzholds {36,9 percent os. 92.7 perceEt).
C-
47
e 0
TABLE 33
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
OWNER UNITS
CARLSSAD
1980
Monthly -4nnual Income
Ipousing Uiit Value Number Percent Costs* Income* Category
I LSSS tha $10,000 2 $106 $4,240 Very Low $zo,ooo to $15,000 11 0.2 $1 60 $6,400 Very Low
$15,000 ta $ZO,OOO 6 0.1 $212 $8,480 Very Low
$20,000 to $25,000 '12 0.2 $265 $10,600 Very Low/Low
$2S,OCO to $30,000 i2 0.2 $318 $12,720 Low
$3ii,OOO to $.t§,OQQ 15 0.2 $372 $14,880 Low/Moderate
$3SyOO0 tG $40,000 51 0.8 $42 5 $17,000 Moderate
$40,000 to 55o:ooo 96 1.6 $530 $21,200 Modetatel
AD. ot:K?rs Q50,m $0 $80,006 4?7 7.7 $850 ' $34,000 A?! @th..rs
-
$B9,0OS ta $'kI)O,OQO 1,028 26.6 $1,062 $42,480 A13 C?o,lleys
$'l!JQ,OQC ts $1 5(?,000 2,955 47.8 $1,592 $63,680 Ali Others
$I SO,c'jrj(; ;CQ $L3f),OQO $41 15.2 $2,124 $84,969 ,421 OQ3nrs
$2,124+ $84,960+ AZI Others *L * " ,, f 088c - --__--- 578 9.3 - Q :; t-; :*,
- .- - 6,184 109.0 T.,,'. r-. 1 .,
i ;J L.AL
e. a. IJr*71 ,c..,c~~=%:, ht$rzst, tz~xes, ixa-mce, 31id utiiities usiig conveational 2@ ~~:::::xt
;~C-.~TS: 9;.e::y?~: .I o:a lozq at 13,M percer,t o~e:= 30 ~~XCS m& ths..;uming 30 pexe3: OT
-b. - -1
:~jcgE.~ f;!r ?;o;s:ag CQS*,S.
.<. &-i.~''cs~ (1 C.~r?z~s zwi SANDAG Files.
ASEmda'biZiCy 83ta were then developed for renter units in the City i:-. 1979 xd
2980, MontXy housing cbsts of each rent range mere estimated by usizz gmss
wnts w5ch iirclude ERS~I~ allowaxes for utility costs. The znnue! 'tncone cairn-
Izti~ns 'xere ~~~r,ade.ir, the same may as they were for owner uits.
Tabla 34 s;Zl-.ws the distribution of renter-occispied units by rent ad the ixzme
category to which :be units were affordable in 1970. Carlsbad hac! 9.: pexe:pLlt 0.E
its renter itni,cs affordable to very low income households; 42.1 pei-cent to hw
km~~e Bolxseholdi:;; 42.0 percent to moderate income households; and 5.3 -9ercect
all tsfl~r hcmseholds. Tse rate for very low income households was slig3:b- iower
til= tile rate for the region (13.9%). The rate for low ixome i*oaseho!=ts was
sligktly higher than the rate for the region (40.1%). The rate for mcxierate bcone
kouseholds was slightly higher than the rate for the region (36.3%). The rata Po?
d1 stEq t!omeholds was less than the rate in the region f9-8%).
48
e 0
TABLE 34
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
RENTER UNIZS
CARLSBAD
1970
Annual Income
Gross Rent** Number 'Percent Income*** Category
, Less than $40 6 0.3 $1,600 Very Low
$40 to $6Q 50 2.5 $2,400 Very Low
$60 to $80 129 6.3 $3,200 Very Low $80 to $loo 2 68 13.2 $4,000 Low
$100 tG $rso 926 45.4 $6,000 Low/Moderate
$150 to $200 521 25.6 $8,000 Moderate
$200 to $250 67 3.3 $1 0,000 AH Others
$250+ 71 3.5 $lO,Or,O-c All Others
-- - TOTAL 2,038 t_oo.o
* Cei:sus Trz~ts 178.01, 178.02, 179, aTd 180. ** **+ iLsc.ming 30 perceat C€ ixome for ?ous~?~ COS%
SwA-ces: 1972 Cei~sus zd. 5 %E'EAC- Files.
Gross rent hcludes dlomances for utilities.
C? la%!? 35 shows the distribit33n 02 renter-cccrtpied mits 57 rent ad. rh,? iixorz~c
categoq to whtch 'r5e ittlits weye aflsrdable in 1933, Cx-lsbzd had 1.2.1; ~ercen? sf
its renter units aiforda3lP to ~ery !OF iricone housd-dds..;; 46.1 pcr.cen5 t=. low
to dl c,tkei* hous&~id~. t3 ~e-2~: IUW iiirgme
5lo;isehoids was lower thw the re$m (22.5 prsext); io ir~w Sr?comc ho~~~&t,lr?s,
lower tfian the region (48.5 percent); to moderate income househo~ds, iower thxi
the region (21.4 percent); ai16 to ali other households, higher tizazl the region (7.6
gexent),
-1 L.LSU~L .. -. Ty "a 3oueholds; 19.9 3srce;lt :.c m&?i*rte ~;;co:E.; Sc~~~ehol&; arid ?,6.3 ~:CE~;ZX
Tkt: ae~ie~t sf imi*,s affoPdab!a
G
4.3
e *
TABLE 35
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY RENTER UNITS
CARLSBAD
1980
Annual Income Gross Rent* Number Percent Incone** Category
3 Less than $60 12 0.3 $2,400 Very Low
b $60 to $80 20 0.4 $3,200 Very Low
$80 to $100 69 I .4 $4,000 Very Low
$100 to $120 51 3.1 $4,800 Very Low
$120 to $150 12 1.5 $6,000 Very Low
$170 to $200 176 3.7 $8,000 Very Low
--
$150 to $170 39 0.8 $S,SOD very Low
$200 to $250 588 12.3 $10,000 verg Low f Low
$250 to $300 1,104 23 .O $12,000 Low
$300 to $350 805 16.8 $7,4,03G Low /Mo derate
$350 to $400 381 7*9 $l6,000 Moderate
54GO to $500 4 53 15.7 $20,000 Moderate f
-211 Crthets
All Others $500.9- 7 24 15.1 $zc,oco~ -
TOTAL, 4,994 +** ?OO.O - -
a ** *** Does not: kclude 73 bnseho!ds with 'no ca.& re:?;' (see Tajk 23: ao: wii's io
Gzos rent includes aIlomances for ntiilities.
Assuming 50 percent of income for honshg costs.
total ir, Tabla 24 due to sampling .rwiulces fo;. ikzz SO'QZC~S.
Soieces: 1380 Censzs and SANDAG Files.
Table 36 siirnmarizes the housing affozdability ir,dices fsr Cs:?2~zd :G:: i)ir~e~s ad
renters Li I970 and 1980.
TA3LE 36
HOUSING AFFORDABLXTY SUMMARY
PERCENT RENTER. AND OWNER UNITS
CARLSBAD
1970 & 1980
owners Re11 t ?YS ----- --.- 1986 - x970 -- income Cakgory 1 970 1980
Very Low 5.2 0.3 9.1 12.6
Low 20.4 005 42.1 46.1
Mdei.ate 40.1 2.3 42.0 24.4
All Others 34*3 96.9 6-8 26.5
-
Sowces: Tables 29-32 and SANDAG Worksheets.
50
e *
Finally, Table 37 summarizes the housing affordability indices for four juris-
dictions (Carlsbad, Escondido, Chula Vista, and National City) and the region. The
affordability rates for owners in 1970 and 1980 and the affordability rates for
renters in 1970 and 1980 are contained in this table.
TABLE 37
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY SUMMARY
RENTER AND OWNER UNITS
CARLSBAD, ESCONDIDO, CHULA VISTA, NATIONAL CITY, & REGION
1970-1 980
Income Category
Low Moderate Ali Others - Very Low
CARLSBAD
Owners 1910 5.2 20.4 -- 4o.i 34.3
Owners 1980 0.3 022 2.3 96.9
. Recters '1970 9.1 42.1 42.0 6-8
Renters I980 22.6 46.1 14.9 26.5
ESCONDlDO
Qw~ers 1970 7.1 37.9 38.4 16.6
CLwners 2980 0.8 1,s 4.0. 53.6
R.enters P 980 16.1 50.8 27.5 5.5
Rmters 1970 11.5 40.2 41.0 - 7.3
CEULA VISTA
Gwners 1970 J"5 31.6 45-3 19.7
€?enters 14'70 6-0 36.6 &.a 12.6
Renters 1980 20.3 54.5 19.4 5.0
Cwners 1980 0.6 1.6 3.6 94.2
NATIONAL CITY
Ownex 1970 17.3 54.7 22.3 5.6
Owneps 1980 3.2 7.3 13.3 76.2
Renters I970 14.7 52.9 30.6 1.9
Renters 1980 39.8 50.9 8.5 0.8
REGION
Owners 1970 7.6 31.3 35.5 25.7
Chvners 1980 0.9 3.9 4.3 92.7
Renters 1970 13.9 40.1 36.3 9.8
Renters I980 22.5 48.6 21.4 7.6
c
Source:' A Rousing Study for the City of Chula Vista; Tables 31-36.
51
0 0
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS STATEMENT
The Regional Housing Needs Statement provides information that meets the state
requirements €or the revision of local housing elements. The information in this
section updates the Regional Eousing Needs Statement adopted by the City in
1981.
According to the state law, local governments have to identify their total housing
needs and develop goals and programs to address them. Each jurisdiction is to
include its share of the regional housing needs for all income levels in its housing
element. The distribution of regional housing needs has to avoid further concen-
tration in those jurisdictions with relatively high proportions of lower income households. Tke purposes of the SANDAG Rousing Needs Statement are to: (1)
recornmmd an equitable basis by which each jurisdiction can assume its "fair
sharen of foww income housing responsi5ilities, and (2) identi€y the need for
housing for dl income levels in the regicn. "Fair share" referred to the number of
lower income households that each jurisdiction has to assist in order to meet its
fair share of the current and projected housing needs of lower income house-
holds. Fair share requirements are identified for the region by the housing
allocation formula which was adopted by SANDAG in 1979.
?%e following three tables identify: {a! :%e "fair share" formula and the hocsing
needs for lower hcome house'nolds fr,r each jurisdiction (Table 38); (b) the income
distributim of all househalds added to t3e region from 1986 to 1990 by juisdiction
(Table 39); ad (c) the housing mit prajections by jzrisdlction by year to 1991
(Tab12 40).
?%e fair share formula consists of two factors: existixg rr'aip. shz?,ren (Columns 1, &
2: Table 38) and growtj "%air ~3a-e~ (Coi:_;z:?r?-s 3 8: 4: Tahle 3g)A These factox
ape derived from the population, honsing, md e;3p!oy-se:it ckwacteristica :)E each
jwisdiction. The ~egio~'s nee& arz then distributed according go ea&
jwisdictim's "fair sElare' factors. "he zztd need IColi:.-.nr; 5 8 6: Tabk 38? for
each juriscliciion is then sranslate2 in,?.= a fire-yez goal ::,OLCITZT? ?: Tabk 32).
The five-yea? goal reprerats a "good fziCi' effort hat a&daessPs 2.5 peszent of
the tot&! housing lieed iz ezcli yea of the fi-Je--year yeyiod in the ?musing el?-
rnects. "Gwd faith" effort is the concept that recogrizes that a juzisdieiica
cannot be reasonably expected to meet all of its housing needs within five years.
'Thus, a standard was developed tfiat defined the Ievel of effort 3y E? local agency
that ~ould be accepted as reasonable progress towards meeting its kousirg needs,
The City of Carlsbad adopted the Eollsing Needs Statement (as did all cities and
the County) bg individual council action on .%yril 19, 1984. The City adopte.d its
fair share formula and the Eke-year goals contained in Table.38. The City has set
a goal to pro7ide 567 lower income huusehdds with housing assistance from 1985
to 2990.
Table 31) identifies the increase in the num5er d homeholds for each jurisdiction
from 2980-1991) based upon the adcpted Series 4 Regional Growth Forecasts
(Column 1: Table 39). This household growth was allocated to fc-ur bcome cate-
gories (Columns 2-5: Tabie 33) in order to pavide a guideline for local housing
element purposes. It is not a :air s5a-e dllocariorn, ??ne revised housing elements
must identify housing needs of ail i:reoizc ranges. SANDAG "fair shared" only
lower income households requiring assistance {Tzble 38).
9
_- -_ . I
IN 'L
52
d p22 .CI k+g ald h
FOCONm*-mmmo-m 9d'mm*~-+Q~OmCNe~a~- v)fiw LqmwmHNGmQ-Nm~m~t
c@ a%
@SO
k .2 m
.-.I zz
ps
c F4 .I
m
ge$
U ZOE
d -me a - QI
I
D -Iu Nr-*--m-N*crnamawao* ~-~emNcmoa*mo~Nm~~" 0 0:
$2 =E Y
N N,: -Gm
CI t; .,d 2 m wm- *v F-HInNCHmNaN a- Nm v- 9
2z "@F; dCb, s 4
E
- E ?4 2; i @ -m *; ,IC oE "CGu 9
fy??y\qc?.$yqyqvyQ G 3 d yc b, co
73eSz >-e Q,
5: - E?
&, C' c fl q E:.: E2
"-e -2 nWU x d)
.C x.2:
FO acb V
???qTy\~cynyq*rnrn*a 2 5% z5.23 t2 naocmmo~~~~,&&~~~ - I..*, .z B fi ad 0 "s 9 N
0 0
TABLE 39
HOUSING NEEDS STATEMENT
REGIONAL INCOME DISTRBUTION
(GROWTH ONLY)
SAN DIEGO FtEGION
1980-1990
1980-1990 Income Distribution (Growth Onlv) -
Household Lower AI
0th - LOW Moderate _I
Cmlsbad 12,494 2,811 2,161 2,4T 1 §,I
C%da Vista 7,361 1,656 1,273 1,451 3Y(
Coronado 1,507 339 26 1 29 1 (
Dei Mar 449 101 38 87 1
E:! cajos, 2,036 458 352 393 l
ESCOZ,d.idO 6,777 1,525 1,112 1,308 j?
'Imperial Beach 986 222 - 1'71 190 r:
La Mesa 844 190 146 Y 63
Lernon G.L.ove 1,341 302 23 2 25 9
X2tikXiZd city 1,277 2 87 221 246 I
('Cpp -I .-.&A e;. .e 11,209 2,522 1,939 2,163 4?!
?o:? 2.y 2,726 613 472 526 1,'
$:tj2 j&p 64,573 14,529 1 1 ,I 7 3. i-3 I G,4G &.
$;:,c ,".;.,k;:s 3,982 878 695 7 E3 A. ..
6,370 I ,43 3 1 J 32 i;2zc ir +
2,8 34 638 499 547 i:
-i .= f.";, -,.....I( r$n 13ta: 194,190 43,693 33,.594 3 ? ,4? B 4 'f, ill (2) (3; k)
Growth Very Low
4'
4,
'i 1
:, T..? d I$:?.
-7 :;ni:,!--p,.-orate(j -J 6?,505 15,189 3 '7 .A:.
-'c ---i 1:; 328 _-.. 3 __I-. 11,678
PI 7- " - .j. -..
NOTE: Shce the Rousing Elements address a five year time frame, the incsme distr
for ar,y five year period (1980-1990) would be half of the number 'in th fa3ies.
So~wce.:
Needs Staterrtent Tables
SANDAG Final Series 6 Regional Growth Forecast and SANDkG X-legiosd c
I.
54
J! 2 mQ'00~~m-Ymmar-000000*0d 00 *I e + "0 00 H 00 -9 00 Q- NO rr + N N m
~PlONo'V?v)NNO 900
%"OaO,m,-Y *,Nmm* ",",m,*mc*a0,c9,9,-m
49rr -9 dm E- d
d g - , a Q- 0' 4
O~c-mccSNNmdmm-YN00O*O 09*9mP*No'00-*0940Na
algm N Q' - 4 r'l d *,m m-u? 0' * P-,Q-, dm a-.* hl dd
a g
~ , N9mNmFlm6a9m68m99Nm da3**m~mm+OOmONN*~F
0-d-N m 0,- r, e3 N 00-e *,a Om* a,cJ,
s 0 0, m 8 nt Q, a u 0 3 9 g.2 E Q,
0 0
Table 40 identifies the increase in the number of housing units projected for each
jurisdiction by year from 1985 to 1991. This step was accomplished by converting
the Series 6 household estimates to housing units (by adjusting for vacancies).
This step was requested by HCD as information that local governments were to
include in their housing elements, The time frame was extended to 1991 because
the state law was revised and the next revisions will be due on July 1, 1991.
Thus, Table 40 indicates that the City of Carlsbad would need 11,589 housing units
from July 1, 1985 to July 1, 1991 to accommodate the expected growth in house-
holds during those six years,
I SITE INVENTORY
Vacant land for new housing was expected to be available throughout the City
from 1985 to 1991. While much of this land was expected to be available at the
periphery of the City, sizable tracts of land were still available throughout the
City. This resuIted in the availability of sites with a full range of zoning den-
sities. A significant number of large parcels were substantially underutilized.
The following table summarizes the average density approved by General Plan
designation from 1975 to 1983.
TABLE 41
APPROVED AVERAGE DENSITY
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1975 to 1983
Plan Category Average Density
RL (0-1.5) .5 du/acre RLM (0-4) 3.23 du/acre
RM (4-10) 5.85 du/acre
RMH (10-20) 15.08 du/acre
RH (20-30) 21.25 du/acre
Source: City of Carlsbad
Most of the available sites were provided with full public facilities and services.
Police and fire protection were considered adequate with a maximum three to five
minute response time to virtually all areas of the City. Water and sewer facilities
were also adequate. Isolated surcharging of sewage and deteriorated sewer lines
was scheduled for improvement m the five-year Capital Improvement Program I
(CIP). Other improvements and expansions of both sewer and water facilities
were also programmed from 1985 to 1991.
Major improvements to drainage systems were needed in several areas before full
development could have been adequately accommodated. Assessment districts
were established to help finance these projects as development occurs. All im-
provements on-site are to be provided by the developer.
,
r
56
0 0
Parks were considered adequate for the City as a whole, especially regional and
citywide parks. The acquisition and development of additional neighborhood and
community parks were scheduled in the CIP.
Overcrowding of schools has become a problem at certain levels and m various
areas of the City. To alleviate overcrowding, a fee for all new housing units
constructed was established. The City contains portions of five different school
districts. Each of these districts have different fee schedules. This fee, ranging
up to a maximum of about $1,995 per unit, depending on the type of dwelling unit
and school district, is to apply as long as school facilities are overcrowded,
8
L Several objectives are considered by the City m recommending a site €or sub-
sidized housing. Accessibility to community facilities, particularly public trans-
portation and shopping, is an important consideration. Senior citizen projects
require even more accessible housing due to limited mobility. Dwelling unit
density and development costs are considered in conjunction with land cost.
Another consideration is the need to maintain balance m the neighborhoods.
Subsidized housing is not to concentrate low income households m one area.
Projects are not be be limited to low income areas, but to the extent possible,
distributed throughout the City. The distribution of assisted housing among the
City's four quadrants is a major goal of the subsidized housing programs. In
addition, consideration is to be given to publicly owned sites which were available
for use.
GOVERN MENTAL C: ONSTRAINTS
The supply of affordable housing is influenced by government constraints. These
actions take place at local, state, and federal levels. This section will briefly
summarize these constraints with an emphasis on conditions in Carlsbad.
a. Land Use Controls
The land use policies of the City have a direct impact on the provision of afford-
able housing. The General Plan establishes the framework for all development
within the City. Two elements of the General Plan are most important: Housing
and Land Use. The Land Use Plan identifies the location and intensity of devel-
opment. These factors are implemented through a number of codes and de-
velopment processes. The Zoning Code identifies the types of residential use and
certain characteristics to which a proposal must comply. The Zoning Code in the
City allows a wider range of housing types and densities which can respond to
affordable housing needs. For example, the RH zone allows densities up to 30
dwelling units per acre. The code also permits mobile home development, a
significant housing type in the City.
The City has to re,spond to federal and state regulations which mandate environ-
mental protection. These regulations cause significant impacts upon affordable '
housing, The cost of performing the analysis of the environmental impacts of a
development and the time for review of the analysis are significant governmental
constraints.
-
-
57
a e
b. Building Code
The City of Carlsbad adopted and enforced the Uniform Building Code which
ensures that all housing units are built to specified standards. The code was sub-
stantially determined by the International Conference of Building Officials and
the State of California. The City adopted the Code with few administrative
amendments. The City did not set standards which were less demanding than the
code. Thus, the City cannot reduce the cost of housing through the revision of the
Building Code.
c. Processing Costs
The City of Carlsbad, as many jurisdictions in the post-Proposition 13 era, has
sought to recover local planning and processing costs through a fee structure. The
following fees are (December, 1984) costs associated with development m the
City. These figures are compared to high and low ranges of fees in the region in
Table 40. However, different services are included in certain fees in some
jurisdictions and the impact of the number of units in the proposed development
often vary. The City's fee schedule appears to fall within the regional norm and in
six cases it was the region's low.
.
- - --
TABLE 42
DEVELOPMENT FEES
CARLSBAI)
1984
Carlsbad Region Region
Activitx Fee High Low
Plan Check $283 $316 $229
Building Permit $435 $483 $353
School $6304,995 $5,532 $250
Flood Control 0 - $4,500 $1,440-$9,954 b
Sewer Connection $1,000 $2,900 $350 PUD $255 $2,830 $50
General Plan Amendment $265 + $5/lot $3,000-$25,000 $250
Tentative Parcel Map $300 $550 Carlsbad
Final Parcel Map $100 $550 Carlsbad
Carlsbad Grading Inspection* $695 $1 5,710
Engineering* $1,200 $39,750 Carlsbad
Tentative Map* $765 $3,500 Carlsbad
Final Map $200 $3,000 Carlsbad
Environmental Study $175 $1,300 $50
EIR Processing $300 + cost $3,400 $5
*Based,on 50 units
Source: BIA Builder, December, 1984.
,
58
e e
d, Article XXXN
Article XXXN of the California Constitution requires voter approval of low rent
housing when they are developed, constructed, or acquired in any manner by a
state agency Although the City of Carlsbad passed an Article XXXIV
referendum in 1980, a significant number of court cases have increased the
opportunity to develop low rent housing developments without an approved refer-
endum, Approval of the referendum, which authorized 250 units for elderly/
more easily meet its Housing Element goals. The City has not approved a
referendum for family housing.
NON-GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Non-governmental constraints to affordable housing consisted of three major
factors: land costs, construction costs, and financing. The City has a limited
ability to influence these factors. Land costs could have been impacted by the
number of adequate sites that were made available. However, the City provides
large amounts of land for such purposes and the cost of land is largely determined
by regional demand and costs. Construction and financing costs are also deter-
mined at the regional, state, and national levels by a variety of private and public
actions which are not controlled by the City.
a. Land Costs
Land is a significant component of housing costs, especially in Southern Cali-
fornia. The cost of land for housing in the State has risen from 20 percent in 1970
to 30 percent in 1980. More specifically, the Building Industry Association of San
Diego County estimated the ccst components for a single family unit (1,202 square feet with three bedrooms and two baths) in the northern portion of San Diego
County for summer, 1984. Land constituted 40.3 percent of total development
costs ($47,500 of $117,950). The City has an available supply of land for housing.
The cost of such land varies depending upon its size, location, and deveiopment
status. Land costs in Carlsbad were above the region's norm in 1984. The cost of
a raw acre of land for residential development varied by density and location but
the average cost appeared to be $90,000 per acre in 1985.
b. Construction Costs
The cost of constructing residential units is determined in the market by the
building industry and buyers. Construction ranged from 30 percent to 40 percent
of the cost of housing in 1984. The estimate of building costs for the unit
described in the above paragraph was $41,046 or 34.8 percent of the total costs.
The average cost per square foot for construction was $34.15. Construction costs
had substantially increased from 1974 to 1984 (22.4 percent per year). Fen
increases in construction costs and land costs are added, the impact becomes an
even greater deterrent to affordable housing,
handicapped households, provided additional options which will enable the City to
,
c. Financing costs
The greatest impact upon affordable housing from 1980 to 1985 was the increase
in financing costs. Interest rates on mortgages for housing rose to unprecedented
heights in the early 1980's. Although the rates receded, they still averaged 14.00
59
,. I * @
percent in San Diego County in October, 1984 {fixed rate, 30 years with 20
percent down). In addition, points/closing costs were substantial "add-ons" asso-
ciated with financing.
These costs are not only associated with the purchase of single family homes.
Construction loans for development of single family and multiple family units are
even higher (about 16 percent). The Building Industry identified the financing
costs associated with the typical unit in the preceding paragraphs. Sales and
financing fees added $10,000 to that unit (about 8.5 percent of the total cost).
Thus, the financing costs impacted affordable housing at two levels: (1) during
construction (temporary), and (2j after construction (permanent).
SPECIAL NEEDS
This section briefly identifies the conditions of the housing market for segments
of the population that generate special needs or that have a special impact on the
housing market. The major groups of these households are military, students,
handicapped, single parent, elderly, large family, farmworkers, and homeless.
This study does not intend to analyze these groups in any detail but to identify
their impact on the competition for affordable housing. These households are
more likely to have been lower income than all other households. The previous
malysis has shown the tight housing market conditions for all housing, especially
,
' for lower income housing units.
a. Military
The military population's influence on the demand for housing takes two forms:
(I; the active military household tr34ag to fbd houskg, and (2) ?be former (eitl?er
retirement or non-retirement separation) service housekoki tryi~g tu 5ccl
housing.
The Department of Defense Housing Suoey was compiled iC order to determine
military family housing needs, especially in the context of new construction
goals. The following information is a sumnary of the f+hdings fcr 1985.
t
60
e e
TABLE: 43
MILITARY HOUSING SURVEY
MCB CAMP PENDLETON
1985
1985 -
1. Gross military strength 35,611
3. Voluntary separated 899
4. Effective requirements 9,684 5. Program limit 8,739 6. Military housing 3,819 '1. Non-military housing 3 ,3 98 8. Net deficit 2,467 9. Program deficit 1,522
Source: FY83 Housing Survey
2. Housing requirements 10,583
The Qxisti3.g military family ho-sing is scattered throughout t3e regkn, but
S~eral eomnmities have srrbstantial portions of their total housing stock
eccupled h-c rzilitary families. The City os^ Carlsbad does not have military
boqsing ~fth5i its Ihits.
ih,o regiocwide avepage of military falnily izousing as i?, gercant of all hc,';;.,kg was :A percent S, 1934. '&'hen the an-base family Zoxsking wzs exclcded, the pprcent
&oppe3. tc (3.9 prcent. However, t5e existing off-base mifitaxy family h2ujing is
concentrated isl just 7 of the 40 subregiona1 areas (SRA). In these SeveE SRk's,
military family housing as a percent of all homing ?ose to 3.1 percezt dth ranges
of 1.2 prceui to 8.5 percent.
Tko 1080 census identiffed members of the Armed Fopczs as pct"t of its ;&or force
statisiics. This information was also presented by inale and female 5y race, The
data in Table 44 presents the City's data on armed fcrces by sex and lac? from
1980.
R
TABLE 44
ARMED FORCES
EMPLOYMENT STATUS
CARLSBAD
1980
Total Male Female White Black Indim Asian 3 -- - ---
L
Labor Force: - - Armed Forces 403 373 30 383 9
Source: 1980 Census
61
, 0 0
Thus, the 403 military personnel formed 2.4 percent of the labor force in Carlsbad
and 1.1 percent of the total population in 1980.
Although increases k? housing allowances for military households provides some
relief for local military housing expenses, substantia1 portions of the military
families require low-cost housing, a scarce commodity in an expensive housing
market.
b. Student
Student housing is also a cause for concern. Although eac5 student may have
produced only an individual temporary housing need, the impact upon housing
demand -was critical.
The same market forces that impacted the lower income housing population
influence student houshg. The high cost of housing, condominium conversions, axxi occupant restricti0n.s make it difficult for students to find affordable
hnrlshg. This iopact is extended beyond graduation and has a detrbental impact
upon the region's econorcy. The graduates provide a specialized pool of skilled
-1abor that is vital to the regio.9. However, the lack of zffordable housking causes mmy students to lezve the region.
The foliowirg enrollment figures €or the City identify the exton:. of student
population by pade level and race in 1980.
TABLE 45
TOTAL SCHOOL ENROLLMENT
CARLSB AD
1980
Prirax
Sclloo'l
Total White Black Iridian Asian Spanish Errrollme
----__I
Nursery School 530 48 5 - - 38 31 485
Kindergarten & 4,025 3,537 44 32 113 6 52 499
Xigh School 2,109 1,807 6 - 78 46 1 109
Ele men taPy
College 2,503 2,200 33 17 128 2?3 284
Source: 9980 Census
Although these figures do not cross-tabulate school enrollment with income or
need, ,they do provide a quick profile of the student population. College student!
comprised 27.3 percent of the student population and 7.1 percent of the entirt
population of the City H 1980.
62
I 0 0
c. Eandicapped
The information on handicapped housing needs is difficult to obtain. The census
information was limited to data on work and transportation disabilities. More-
over, the definition of handicapped/disabZed varies from one service agency to
another.
Proportions of work disabilities among the total work population of the city and
the total work population of the region were very similar in 1980. Table 46 shows
that 6.9 percent of the population in the City had a work disability (vs. 7.6 percent
in the region), and almost half of the people with work disabilities were prevented ,
, from working.
TABLE 46
WORK DISABILITY
CARLSBAD AND SAN QIEGO REGION
1980 .
CalS3
Number Percent Number Percect of Xeg
Region -4s 2 Per
A. With Work Disability 1,472 6.9 95,152 7.6 1 :
1, k. Ezbm Force 57 1 2.4 47,997 3 .O 1 .i
2, No: i?2 Labor Fcrce 1J01 4.6 51,755 4.6 I .‘
a. PPever,te:? from mopking 835 3.5 45,279 3 .G ^.
5. Not. Freverrted from Working 265 I. *I 12,476 1 .o 2.
TOTP,L :!Work Population) 24,164 100.0 1,253,325 1OG.D 1,
- _I_
Carlsbad
3. - ?2.4 Be 30 ‘80x8 Dissrbiiity 22,492 II_ 93.1 1,157,573 --
Somcc: 198s C2nsus
PPO~CV~~G~S of transportatim disabilities among the population (over 16) of the
City and the ?opulztion (over 16) of the region were almost identical in 1980.
Table 47 shows that 3.0 percent of the population (over l6j had a prrbllc
bansportation disability and more than 65.3 percent of that populzition was mer
65 yeas of age in 1980.
I
63
m 0
TABLE 47
TRANSPORTATION DISABILITY
CARLSBAD AND SAN DIEGO REGION
1980
Carls
Carlsbad Region As ape
Number Percent Number Percent of Re
4. 16-64 Years of Age 24,164 85.7 1,253,325 87.5 1,
1. With Public Transp. Disability 286 I .O 18,634 1.3 1
2. No Public Transp. Disability 23,878 84.7 1,234,691 86.2 1
B. Over 65 Years of Age 4,022 14.3 179,530 12.5 2
1. With Public Tramp. Disability 563 2.0 26,468 1.8 2
TOTAL (Over 16) 28,186 100.0 1,432,855 100.0 2
2 - 155,062 10.8 - 2. No Public Transp. Disability 3,459 12.3
Source: 1980 Census -
Although no cross-tabulations of income, household size, or race with disability
are available, the element assumes that a substantial portion of the handicapped
fall within the lower income limits, especially those households not in the labor
force. The element also assumes that a substantial portion of the lower income
handicapped require housing assistance. The needs of the handicapped household
are further compounded by requirements for special design and locations which are limited in supply and more expensive.
d. Single Parent Households
Single parent households are another group with a need for housing that compete
for the affordable housing in the City. Table 48 identifies the proportions of single
parent households in the City and the region in 1980. The City had a lower
proportion of single parent households than the region although the proportion of
male single parent households was larger than the regional proportion. The
housing needs of this group generate special concern because the single parent
household tends to have a lower income and a higher need for social services.
E ;
64
I ” 0 0
TABLE 48
SINGLE PARENT HOUSEHOLDS
CARLSBAD AND SAN DlEGO REGION
1980
Carlsbad
Household Type Number Percent Number Percent of Region Region As a Percent C arlsbad
, Male, Single Parent 204 1.5 7,691 1.1 2-7
Female, Single Parent 63 5 4.7 45,212 6.7 1.4
Total, Single Parent (839) (6.2) (52,903) (7 09) (1.6)
2.1 All Other Households 12,671 - 93.8 617,731 -
TOTAL 13,510 100.0 670,634 100.0 2.0
- 92.1
Source: 1980 Census
e, Elderly
The elderly (over 60 years of age) population in Carlsbad was 16.6 percent of the
total population in 1980. The elderly population in the region was 14.4 percent of
the total population in 1980. Thus, the City had a larger percentage of elderly
than the region. The difference was even more significant for the 65-74 age
group: 7.8 percent of the City’s population versus 5.0 percent of the region‘s
population, almost double the proportion.
The elderly households generate special housing needs. Since elderly tend to have
higher owner-renter ratios and lower income levels, their needs are for
rehabilitation assistance and for ownership opportunities for smaller, low
maintenance units.
-
_.
6 ,
65
7 0 e
TABLE 49
POPULATION DISTRIBUTION
CARLSBAD AND SAN DIEGO REGION
1980
Carlsbad
Number Percent Number Percent of Region
Carlsbad Region As a Percent
&
Less than 5 2,703 7.6 128,959 6 -9 2.1
5-9 1,703 4.8 123,919 6.7 1.4
10-14 2,304 6.5 131,258 7 .O 1.8
15-19 2,748 7 .7 178,292 9.6 1.5
20-24 3,249 9 -2 227,3 24 12.2 1.4
25-34 6,987 19.7 340,262 18.3 2.1
35-44 4,063 11.4 203,768 10.9 2.0
45-54 3,751 10.6 169,825 9.1 2.2
55-59 2,107 5.9 89,48 1 4.8 2.4
60-64 1,810 5.1 77 ,O 14 4.1 2.4
65-74 2,768 7.8 118,075 6.3 2.3
1.8
35,490 100.0 1,86 1,846 100 .o 1 -9
- 4.0 - . Over 74 1,297 3.7 73,669 -
Source: 1980 Census
More than one-quarter of the households in Carlsbad that paid more than 25
percent of their income for rent and more than one-third of the households that
paid more than half of their income for rent were elderly households.
The income distribution of the elderly (62 and over) households was more concen-
trated in the lower income ranges than the income distribution of the non-elderly
households in 1980.
f. Large Households
Another category of special housing need is large households (units with five
persons or more). According to Table 50, the percentage of large households in
the City was 8.8 percent m 1980. This percentage was substantially lower than
the percentage of large households in the region (11.2). In addition, the City's
large households were predominantIy (70.3 percent) owners. In the region, the
large households were also predominantly owners.
*
66
I 0 0
TABLE 50
SIZE OF HOUSEHOLDS
CARLSBAD AND SAN DIEGO REGION
1980
Carlsbad
8 Household Number Percent Number Percent of Region
Person Per Carlsbad Region As a Percent
b 1 Person 2,863 21.1 159,098 23 .7 1.8
2 Persons 5,43 9 40 .O 231,213 34.5 2.4
3 Persons 2,224 16.4 112,288 16.8 2.0
4 Persons 1,864 13.7 92,374 13.8 2.0
5 Persons ? 59 5.6 43,323 6.5 1 .a
6 or More Persons -
TOTAL '13,586 100.0 670,094 100.0 2.0
1 -4 - 4.7 - 3 .2 31,798 - 437
Source: 1980 Census
g. Farmworkers
The housing needs of the farmworker are difficult to quantify. The 1980 Census
provided indirect measurements of the extent of farmworkers. The illegal immi-
grant and migrant worker are thought to form a substantial portion of the farm-
worker population. The ability to gather information about the farmworker is
limited because they are so mobile and relucant to participate in any survey. The
1980 Census provided a few indicators of the potential farmworker population.
All of the population and housing in Carlsbad was located inside the urbanized
area. By comparison, the region had 6.8 percent of its population and 6.1 percent
of its housing in a rural area. Second, 99.6 percent of the City's housing stock
consisted of year round housing units in 1980 (99.7 percent for the region). Third,
the City had 1,267 people employed in agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and mining
industries in 1980,7.8 percent of the total population in the City (vs. 22,046 m the
region, or 2.9 percent of the region).
While these indicators did not directly measure farmworker population (nor the
housing needs of farmworkers), they did suggest that the farmworker was z
portion of the City's population that generated of a special housing need.
h.
The Housing Element law was amended m 1984 and added persons H need o
emergency shelter to the list of those groups which might have had a specia
housing need. Although special studies are to be conducted in 1985, no data wa available at the time the housing element was revised. Based upon an informi
survey of various City staff and agencies, the homeless population did not appe:
to be a significant housing need m the City.
-
Persons in Need of Emergency Shelter
67
/' 1 0 II)
ENERGY CONSERVATION
Energy impacts housing in several ways. In addition to the energy requirements
related to the use of the home, the energy used to travel from one's residence to
work, to construct the housing, and to support housing services (for example,
water) reveal a close relationship between energy to housing.
New standards €or energy Conservation have been adopted by the State. New
housing units have to comply with these standards. The State laws provide several
alternatives which would satisfy the requirements: passive solar, insulation, or
active solar.
Several incentives exist at both the State and federal level to encourage energy
conservation: income tax credits, low-cost loans, grants, and energy audits. The
major consideration involves cost. First, the cost of many energy saving devices
are prohibitive to most households (especially low income). Second, the cost of
the energy saving device has to provide a cost savings over time; the reduction in
energy costs has to offset the cost of the improvements.
Energy issues are complex and addressed in a variety of manners. Buildding codes
could be upgraded, solar energy could be required, and/or insulation standarb
could be upgraded. A more unique concern could be access to solar energy
* through setbacks, side yard, and height requirements. These protections could be
similar to the more established regulations which govern view and open space.
The following excerpts from the Regional Energy Plan highlight the recom-
mendations related to energy conservation for the residential buildings.
T. CONSERVATION AND SOLAR
1981 Revised State Building Code for New Housing
a.
,
Local governments should ensure that local building officials are adequately
trained through existing state and professional association sponsored seminars
to assist builders in meeting the new codes, and ensure that adequate staffing
exists to carry out an effective inspection and enforcement program.
Local governments should support and participate in existing efforts by state
(California Energy Commission) and local (County of San Diego) government:
to provide flexible and simple designs and requirements through which the
energy saving standards of the state code can be met. SANDAG may assis
the state and county in communicating these improvements to local juris
dictions and the development community.
Local governments should consider removing unreasonable restrictions t
solar water and space heating systems from zoning codes and other develol
ment regulations. SANDAG may provide technical assistance to local staf.
based on the energy "implementation packages" developed by the Region;
Energy Task Force in 1980-81.
Local governments should incorporate site and building designj criteria
standards into subdivision and planned development regulations which w
allow the opportunity for solar water and passive space heating in DF
b.
c.
I
d.
68
9. 8 a
homes. Local planners should be adequately trained SO they can assist de-
velopers in meeting solar site design requirements and so they can enforce the requirements. SANDAG may provide technical assistance to local staffs
based on the energy "implementation packages" developed by the Regional
Energy Task Force in 1980-81.
Local governments should require or encourage legal guarantees to solar
access in new development. SANDAG may provide technical assistance to
local staffs based on the energy "implementation packages" developed by the
Regional Energy Task Force in 1980-81.
Local governments should adopt minimum design standards for active solar
water heaters. SANDAG may provide technical assistance to local staffs
based on the energy "implementation packages" developed by the Regional
Energy Task Force in 1980-81,
e.
b f.
Resources: California Energy Commission and California Building Officials build-
ing code design manuals and training programs. County of San Diego passive solar
design project. SANDAG implementation packages on Removing Barriers to Solar
Energy Use from Zoning Ordinances, Solar Water and Pool Heating, Solar Energy
Site Plan Review and Solar Access.
Conservation in Existing Housing
a. Local governments should adopt local weatherization ordinances, which
require installation of cost-effective weatherization devices at time of sale.
Resources: SANDAG Implementation Package on Model Weatherization Ordi-
nance. --SANDAG Review of 1981 State Low Income Home Energy Assistance Plan.
Water Conservation and Reclamation
a. Responsible state and local agencies should implement the water conservation
programs recommended m the Water Conservation Plan for the San Diego
Region adopted by the SANDAG Board in June, 1981, and the water reclama-
tion projects listed in the "Areawide Water Quality Management Plan, Water
Resources Element," also adopted by the SANDAG Board in June, 1981.
Resources:
tion. Water Conservation Plan for the San Diego Region."
County Water Authority Information Program for water conserva-
c ,
69
1
c 0' 0 0
SUMMARY OF NEEDS ASSESSMENT
COMPARISON TO NORTH COUNTY CITIES
CARLSB AD
1980-1 984
Catlsbad Oceanside - Vista Escondido
, Total Units (1984) 16,705 35,476 16,487 29,504
3 Percent Single Family (1984) 61.3 57.5 62.5 54.7
Percent Mobile Homes (1984) 4.3 7.1 8.3 11.2
Percent Vacant Single Family (1984) 1.4 2.1 102 2 .o
Percent Vacant Mult i-F amily (1984) 7 99 2.9 2.3 2.2
Percent Mul ti-F amily (1 9 84) 34.4 35.4 29.2 34.1
Percent Vacant Mobile Homes (I 984) OS 1-9 1.7 0.9
Total Units (1980) 15,352 32,733 14,962 27,153
Percent Condominiums (1 980) 18.1 10.6 3-2 6.5
Ownermenter (1980) 1.76 1.24 1.41 1.20
Percent Lacking Plumbing (1980) 0 -4 0 -7 0.8 0.6
Percent Overcrowded (1 980) 3.1 6.5 5.3 4.6
Percent Housing Built 65.7 55.8 45.3 50.7
1970-1980 (1980)
before 1940 (1980)
Percent Housing Built 2 -7 3 07 4.0 3.7
Median Value (1980) $123,400 $75,300 $82,600 $83,100
Median Rent (1980) $317 $287 $269 $301
Percent Overpayers (1980) 45.0 52.2 50 *O 50.1
q Median Household Income (1980) $22,354 $14,969 $15,285 $15,258
Sources: 1980 Census, 1984 Population and Housing Estimates, and 1984 Vacancy
Survey.
.*
1
?O
, 1 0 0
' Sa4 Diego
ASSOCLATION OF
GOVERNMENTS
Suite 524, Security Pacific Plaza
1200 Third Avenue
San Diego, California 92101
October 9, 1985 (619) 236-5300
Mr. James Hagaman
Policy and Analysis Group
City of Carlsbad
2945 Harding Street
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Mr.&&fan:
The following changes are suggested to be made in the draft of the Carlsbad
Housing Element which was approved by the Carlsbad Planning Commission on
September 25, 1985. The changes were the result of suggestions by the Planning
Commission or reactions to recent State review comments on other housing
elements in the region. In either case the changes are minor and, in the case of
the State comments, a clarification or emphasis of information already contained
in the draft.
1, Addition: Add column to the table in the Summary which would also identify
total units assisted under the fair share. The present table only shows 1979-
1985 (page ES-2).
"Total Units to July 1, 1985
Section 8 .............. 280
Seniors ................ 160 Housing Development.. , . -0
Master Plan ............ 31
Revenue Bonds ......... 106
Total ................ 577"
. -
(Planning Commission recommendation)
Addition: Identify distribution of assisted housing by quadrant in the City in
the Executive Summary (page ES-3).
"Presently, these units are located in three of the four quadrants of the
City. The NW quadrant contains 280 Section 8 (existing) and 160 senior
units, The NE quadrant does not contain any lower income assisted housing
units. The SW quadrant contains 42 rental units for lower income households
under the mortgage revenue bond program. Finally, the SE quadrant contains
64 rental units for lower income households under the mortgage revenue bond
program."
(City council request; information made available at the Planning Commission
meeting and distributed to the Commissioners)
2.
0
MEMBER AGENCIES: Cities of Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajon, Escondido, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lt
ADVISORY/LIAISON MEMBERS: California Department of Transportation, U.S.Department of Defense and TijuanalBaia
National City, Oceanside, Poway, San Diego, San Marcos, Santee, Vista and Counw of San Diego.
7 a a
3. Change: Revise the last sentence of General Plan Relationships (page 3).
"If it becomes clear that the goals of the Housing Element are not being met
within the locations and densities established for residential development by
the Land Use Element, the band 83e Element(s) will be amended to insure
consistency."
(Planning Commission recommendation)
Change: Revise Policy N-3 (page 9).
"W-3 - The City should continue to encourage use of ordinances that extend
the provisions of the Senior Citizens Housing Development Ordinance to
zones other than the R-P zone. The City has used the CUP process in con-
junction with the RDM, PC, RW and R-3 zones."
(Planning Commission recommendation)
4.
-
5. Addition: Information has been added to the Needs Assessment which
supplies additional details on fair share, replacement housing, and coastal
housing (page 56).
"If the income distribution that existed in 1980 in the City were applied to
this total, the number of units needed by income level of household would be:
VeryLow .............. 1,831
Low .................. 1,565
Moderate .............. 1,831
AllOthers ............. 6,362
If the income distribution that existed in 1980 in the region were applied to
this total, the number of units needed by income level of household would be:
VeryLow .............. 2,608
Low .................. 2,005
Moderate .............. 2,237
All Others ............. 4,740
Within these ranges, the very low and low income households who not only
need housing but housing with assistance is 4,532 (existing and growth). The
City currently (July 1, 1985) assists 577 lower income households. In order to
meet the adopted fair share the City must provide assistance to 680 addi-
tional lower income households who need assistance by July 1, 1991. This
figure is based upon the San Diego Association of Governments Fair Share and
Housing Needs Statement.
The housing needed will be satisfied by both multiple and single family
housing at varying densities and types. The projected needs for the six-year
period of the Housing Element assume 6,212 single family units (53.6%) and
5,377 multiple family units (46.4%).
0 0
REPLACEMENT HOUSING
Due to the City's low rate of substandard housing and the City's aggressive
housing rehabilitation program, the number of Units that will need to be
replaced will be minimal. Further, several programs are underway which will
provide replacement housing. Based on proportion in the Areawide Housing
Opportunity PIan (AHOP), 86 dilapidated units are estimated to be unsuitabIe
for rehabilitation. These units will be replaced as they are removed from the
market during the Housing Element time frame. Obviously, not all of these
units will be removed during the next 5-6 years.
The redevelopment activities will not require any replacement units within
the City.
COASTAL ROUSING
As part of the Coastal Zone process, the following information regarding
replacement housing is included in the element.
a. Number of new units approved for construction in the Coastal Zone
after January I, 1982: 1347
Number of units for low and moderate income households provided
either within the Coastal Zone or within 3 miles of it: 160
b. -
c Number of units occupied by Iow and moderate income households and
authorized to be demofished or converted in Coastal Zone since January I, 1982: 0
d. Nub- of Units for IOW ad moderate mcome ho~eholds within
the Coastal Zone or within 3 miles, replacing those being
demolished or converted: - NIA"
(State review comments on other aties' housing elements)
Addition: Summarize information in the draft Housing Element and identify
the maximum number of units to be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved
in one section of the element (page 13).
"MAXIMUM NEWLY CONSTRUCTED, REHABILITATED,
AND CONSERVED UNITS
The maximum number of housing units to be constructed is estimated to be 11,589 (see Regional Housing Needs Statement). The maximum number of
additional housing units to be provided for lower income households which
need assistance is 832 (as identified by SANDAG's fair share goals). The
maximum number of units to be rehabilitated with public assistance would be
over 60 units. The private sector aIso conducts rehabilitation but the prOpO*
tion of private activities that would constitute rehabilitation or consemation
cannot be determined. However, if one were to assume at least as many units
are to be rehabilitated by private fimding as public funding the maximum
number would be 120 units. The conservation figures are more diffidt to
6.
I 0 9
determine since these efforts are indirect types of activities. How many
units are conserved by code enforcement? The City's objective is to conserve
most of its housing stock. Only limited demolition and the described rehabili-
tation programs would influence this total. The programs described under
conservation are designed to prevent all housing from falling from standard to
substandard condition. Of course, the major efforts will be expended in the
old neighborhoods of the City where housing is more susceptible to deterio-
ration."
(State review comments on cities' housing elements)
Addition:
Element (page 4).
"The City has provided several opportunities for all economic segments of the
population for participation in the Housing Element revisions. The Housing
Element went through an elaborate citizen participation process when it was
first drafted in 1980.
The revisions have been reviewed by the Housing and Redevelopment
Advisory Committee (a group of residents who provide community input on
matters of housing and redevelopment) which held two hearings.
The draft was also reviewed by the Planning Commission which held two
public hearings to solicit comments.
The element was also reviewed by the City Council which authorized the
submission of the draft element. All the comments and suggestions that were
made during this process were constructive and resulted in revisions that
increased the relevance and accuracy of the Housing Element."
(State review comments on other cities' housing elements)
7. Describe public participation in the development of the Housing
-
Sincerely, Ad
MICHAEL McLAUGHLIN
Senior Regional Planner
MM/ce
e 0
SEPTEMBER 25, 1985
TO : PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: $a RED EV EL0 PM EN T 0 F F 1 C E
SUBJECT: AFFORDABLE HOUSING - DISTRIBUTION OF SECTION 8
AND SENIOR HOUSING
At their meeting of August 28, 1985, the Planning Commission requested a breakdown by quadrant of Section 8 and Seniors affordable housing. This memo indicates those locations and provides additional information on Mortgage Revenue Bonds.
SECTION 8 - FEDERALLY SUBSIDIZED HOUSING
UNITS- 280 Units
Approximately - 700 Tenants Housed
TYPE- Rental 1, 2, 3 and 4 bedroom units
LOCATlON - 100% in Northwest Quadrant in numerous participati
rental projects.
HUD has informed the Housing Department that 30 additional units
are being made available to the Carlsbad Housing Authority.
of these are the new vouchers which could encourage tenants to
seek housing in the other quadrants.
25
SENIOR HOUSING
Housing units reserved for seniors only as a result of developer agreement with City.
UNITS- 160 units
Approximately 250 Tenants Housed
I a 0
, TYPE - Rental 1 bedroom
LOCATION - 100% in Northwest Quadrant in three designed project
A 48 unit, a 37 unit and a 75 unit complex.
An additional 59 unit senior complex is in preliminary review. 1:
is located in Northwest Quadrant. Rents are maintained at affori
levels and age requirements are enforced on these units.
MULTI-FAMILY MORTGAGE REVENUE
UNITS - 106 Affordable Units
TYPE - Rental
LOCATION - Southeast Quadrant 64 units, Southwest Quadrant
42 units.
20% of the total 528 units in these projects are set aside for
rental at affordable rates for 10 years. Tenant income cannot
exceed 80% of median income. Rents cannot exceed Fair Market
Rents, Staff will monitor compliance. Neither project has been
built.
SINGLE FAMILY MORTGAGE REVENUE BONDS
$ 34,654,000
UNITS - Approximately 340 (Determined by loan amounts)
TYPE - New construction single family residences for sale
LOCATION - Northeast and Southeast Quadrants - 6 developments
These units are not strictly affordable.. However, restrictions imposed on the sale of the units. The sale price cannot exceed
of average area purchase price. 90% of the units must be sold t
first time homebuyers. Restrictions apply to resales. Income
restrictions are imposed. Units must be owner-occupied. The in
of the program is to open a portion of the new housing market to
first time homebuyers at sales prices less than the normal marke
the area. As such it counts toward the City's "good-faith" effo to create housing.
280 Section 8
160 Seniors only
sw
42 Rental Units
MRB
SE
64 Rental Units
MRB
I
6:oo z? TIME OF MEETIS:
PLACE OF MEETING: City &xi1 Chambers
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS
1) HOUSING ELEMENT REVISION - Request for approval of revised Housing Element. Revisions include new state laws, text clarification and removal of outdated text and policies.
Conmissioner Holmes stated that he would be abstaining on this item,
James Hagaman, Research/Analysis Group Manager, gave the
presentation on this item as contained in the staff
report, and explained that this item was continued to obtain information requested by the Planning Commission.
Conmissioner Smith comnented that he urderstood that judgments could be made at a later date, particularly in projection of population growth, and Mr. Hagaman confirmed that Commissioner hith was correct.
Commissioner McFadden indicated that she understood that the Housing Element would go with the old Lard Use Plan
and Mr. Hagaman replied that the Element was consistent
with the current Land Use Plan.
Commissioner McFadden questioned the nunbers for existing
housing, and Mr. Hagaman explained that the numbers in the
Housing Element were additional Section 8 housing since the last report.
Mr. Michael McLaughlin, San Diego Association of
Governments, discus.5ed.th.e difference in the nunbers.
Conmissioner McFadden stat& that she felt the total'
nunbers should be included,
Comnissioner L'Heureux asked how the anticipated changes
to the Land Use Review would impact the Housing Element, and wndered if it would require revising the Housing Element. Mr. Hagaman responded that it wuld require revision .
Conmissioner McFadden wanted to know where the RP zoning was located in the City, and Mike Howes, Associate Planner, confirmed where it was located.
Commissioner McFadden asked about the change in the General Plan relationship ard suggested changing the mrd %ayW to "will"
.*
COMMISSIONERS
h ,,
Dan Hentschke, Assistant City Attorney, explained that all of the elements of the General Plan had to be consistent. Since some policies in the Housing Element were state
mandated, he stated that in this case they would have to
change the Land Use Element to comply with the Housing Element. He added that until the inconsistencies were noted, they did not know what had to be changed.
Chairman Schlehuber opened the public hearing at 6:20 p.m.
and issued the invitation b speak,
to speak on this item, public testimony was closed.
Chairman Schlehuber suggested that they clarify the Housing Element to state that if the elements were to be consistent, the Council muld change one of the elements
to make them consistent if they were inconsistent.
Conmissioner L'Heureux described an observation he made in
Washington and Oregon regarding the posting of signs on
vacant property which described the project that muld be
built on that property.
Since no one wished
A motion was pssed approving the Housing Element, and
forwarding it to the City Council for further
consideration and approval. Smith
Schlehuber McFadden
Holmes Marcus L'Heureux -
X
X
X
X
x x
2
9
~ *Carls)bad Journa
Decreed a Legal Newspaper by the Superior Court of Sun Diego County
3 138 ROOSEVELT ST e P o BOX 248 0 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 e 729-2345
Proof of Pub licat ion
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ss.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid;
I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled m
I am principal clerk of the printer of the Carlsbad Journal a newspaper of general circt
published twice weekly in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, anc
newspaper is published for the dissemination of local news and intelligence of a general charact
which newspaper at all times herein mentioned had and still has a bona fide subscription list of
subscribers, and which newspaper has been established and published at regular intervals in t
City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, for a period exceeding on
next preceding the date of publication
notice hereinafter referred to; and that the
of which the annexed is a printed copy, hc
published in each regular and entire issue
newspaper and not in any supplement the
_... the following dates, to-wit: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING HOUSING ELEMENT GENERAL PLAN October 12 ................................. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that thecity CounciloftheCityofCarls bad will hold a public hearing at thecity CouncilChamber. 1200Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California, at 6 00 P M on Tuesday, October 22, 1985, to consider a number of revis- ions to the Housing Element of the General Plan Proposed revisions would eliminate programs, modify other programs, and make the ele- 1 ment more understandable I If you challenge the revision to the Housing Element in court, you may be limited to raisingonlythose issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written corres- pondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the publlc hearing Applicant City of Carlsbad
CJ 4599 October 12,1985
.................................
.................................
.................................
.................................
CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoir
and correct. Executed at C rlsba C unty of Sa State of California on Oc.t,oher. 1985
t%e Pat%
[A
#202-2M-9185 Clerk of th
> v OTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 2
4 HOUSING ELEMENT - GENERAL PLAN
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad
hold a public hearing at the City Council Chamber, 1200 Elm Avenue,
Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO P.M., on Tuesday, October 22, 1985, to
consider a number of revisions to the Housing Element of the General Proposed revisions would eliminate programs, modify other programs, E make the element more understandable.
If you challenge the revision to the Housing Element in court, you me
limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at tk
public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence
delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing,
APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad
PUBLISH: October 12, 1985 CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
I
I
, J” @ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING v
4
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Cmission of the City of Carlsbad wj
hold a public hearing at the City Council Chmnbers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO p.m. on Wednesday, August 14, 1985, to consider approval c a number of revisions to the Housing Element of the General Plan.
revisions wuld eliminate programs, modify other prcqrams an3 &e the element more understandable .
Those persons wishing to speak on this praposal are cordially invited to atter
the public hearing. If you have any questions please call the Land Use Planni
Office at 438-5591 .
If you challenge the revision to the Housing Element in murt, you may be
limited to raising only those issues you or =meone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written mrrespondence delivered to tl City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing.
Proposed
APPLICANT: CITY OF cAI7LsBAD
PUBLISH: Auwt 3, 1985
CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNIX 03MMISSION
i 4
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
rJ ann IBl'l e 8 P
RESOLUTION NO. 8237
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING
SUBMISSION OF DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TO THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING
AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the State of California requires the revision
-
Housing Elements in 1985; and
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad Housing Element needs to
revised so that it will include the new requirements of the
and also more current data and program development informat
and
WHEREAS, the City has drafted a revised Housing Elemen
describes the City's housing plans and activities and compl
with the State law; and
WHEREAS, the revised Housing Element has been reviewed
approved by the Housing and Redevelopment Advisory Committe
the Planning Commission;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
City of Carlsbad as follows:
1. That the City Council authorize the submission of
draft of the City's Housing Element to the State of Califor
review and comment.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of t
day c Council of the City of Carlsbad held the 22nd
October , 1985, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Casler, Lewis, Kulchin, Chick and Pettin
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
...........................................................
I
44 t - !I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1'7
18
19
i e m
-'i 8( & 41-7 -LA
- SLER, Mayor
ATTEST:
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Alerk
(SEAL)
I
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28