HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-11-18; City Council; Resolution 63581
2
3
4
F
I
1:
1
2
2
2
2
E
i
L
i
c I:
RESOLUTION NO. 6358
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN BY THE ADOPTION OF A
REVISED HOUSING ELEMENT.
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad has undertaken a comprehensive
review of the housing element of the general plan,
:he participation of a number of citizens and a series of
?lanning Commission workshops: and
including
WHEREAS, as a result of such review the Planning Commission
did on September 24, 1980, after public hearings, recommend to
the City Council an amendment to the General Plan (GPA-54)
adopting a revised housing element as a part of the City of
Carlsbad General Plan; and
WHEREAS, said amendment has met the requirements of the
and City of Carlsbad Environmental Protection Ordinance of 1980
an Environmental Impact Report has been certified by the
City Council on October 1, 1980; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has held a series of duly
advertised public hearings to consider said amendments and .as
received the recommendations, objections, protests and comments
of all individuals and parties who desired to be heard;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Carlsbad as follows:
1.
2.
That the above recitations are true and correct.
That the findings of the Planning Commission constitute
the findings of the City Council.
3. That the General Plan of the City of Carlsbad is
amended by the adoption of a revised housing element as shown
+
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1c
11
12 9
l!
2(
2:
2;
2:
28
2
2
2
2
In Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof.
4. Resolution No. 1679 and Resolution No. 1785 are
rescinded as are any other resolutions adopting matters
inconsistent herewith.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
3arlsbad City Council held on the 18th day of November , 1980
by the following vote, to wit:
AYES : Council Members Packard, Casler, Lewis and Kulchin
NOES : Council Member Anear
ABSENT: None
RONALD C. PACKARD, Mayor
ATTEST:
( SEAL)
-2-
ttous i ns E 1 emen t
of the
Carlsbad General Plan
Prepared By:
Margaret R. Goldstein
for
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
October 28, 1980
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Volume 3: Housing Element
I, INTRODUCTION
Ae Intent and Theme of the Housing Element
B. State of California Law and Requirements
C. General Plan Relationships
0. Local Responsibility:
Implementation, Evaluation and Review
111,
lie
Page
-I_
'1
1
3
4
6
GOALS, POLICIES AND ACTION PROGRAMS OF THE
HOUSING ELEMEYT 17
A. Goals 11
Be Policies and Action Programs 12
IM PLEMENTATION, PRIORITIES, UPDATE AND REVIEW
OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT 26
A, Priorities 26
Be Review and Update 29
Volume 2: APPENDICES
A. Community Profile: Housing Characteristics, Needs and
Be Constraints to Providing 'affordable' Housing: Market and
C. Mobile Home Discussion
De Definitions
Ee Low and Moderate Income Housing: Fair Share and
Problems
Govern men t al
1 nc I us ion a ry P r ov i s ions
i
'I 1
.I I I
I i
. ._ I
'U. -.
. 'I
ITRGC 1. I
This housing element of the getieral 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 integrared set of goals, policies and programs
which can assist the community in meeting those needs. Wolurfie 1 ixludes
Goals, Policies, and Action Programs as well as Implementation Procedures and
Priorities.
Profile as well as discussion of constraints to housing development, definitions
Volume 2 available 2s reFerence includes an extensive Csmnmity
and special topics.
A. !WENT AND THEME OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT:
'HOUSING IN CARLSBAD 1980-1985; DEVELOPMENT AND PRESERVATlQN
In the course of citizen participation efforts in pre.paring this document,
two majpr themes have emerged as crucial to dealing with hausing issues
In Carlsbad over the next five years.
city's need to deal with the continuing growth and development of the
The first of these themes is the
I
1970 and the community. Carlsbad's population has
rate of growth has accelerated since
past trends and available projections
the next f i ve-yea r per i od .
more than doubled since
975. The following tab
of future growth in Car
e i 1 lustrates
sbad for
-1 -
Growth Trends and Projections -
- Year Popu lat ion - House holds
1970 14,944 5,149
1975 19,900 7,240
1979" 32,100 13,281
4985** 39,371 - 45,932 17,268
4985*** 51,100 20,700
3,562
3,842
8 043 L
NA
NA
Rlulti
Fam iiy-
7,028
2 422
1,169
NA
MA
I-
I-
Mobite
Home
246
760
-
-
1068
Pi A
NA
I...
I
current e
** projection range, Series IV .- -. - *** projection Series V; preliminary -
(Sources: U.S. Census, 1970; California Census, 7975; California Department of
Finance, 1979, Series IV Forecasts, Comprehensive Planning Organisat ion and Reso- hion No. 5237, City of Carlsbad, 1977; Series V Preliminary Regional Growth Fore- - casts, Comprehensive Planrring Organization, January, 1930)
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 in emphasis on rehabilitation and preservation activities in older neighbor-
- hoods and in emphasis on neighborhood identity, orderly development and compati-
bility with surroundings to be stressed in new development. Both themes, i.e.
response to projected growth and desire to preserve community values, are addressed
in the goals and policies of this element.
Toward a Comprehensive Housing Strategy for Carlsbad
- -._
Tke housing element is intended to serve as a blueprint for both elected officials and
staff in evaluating proposals, determining priorities and making housing decisions of
-2-
all kinds.
day to day issues and serve as one basis for evaluating alternatfves. The
The goals of the elelrtent shoald provide a basis for reviewing
element when viewed as a comprehensive housing strategy also provides the
city with a framework to respond to regional, state and federal housing
rlfiitlates and to evaluate state and federal programs for local use.
comprehensive housing strategy, the element also informs all residents of the
As a
community of the consensus goals, policies and priorities which have been
developed to attempt to meet "the housing needs of all economic segments of
the comunity. '' 4
B. STATE OF CALIFOR?UA L4W AND REQTJIRR4ENTS
Section 65302(c) of the Government Code requires a housing element as a
mandatory component of a city's general plan. This requirement reflects a
legislative judgment that local planning and program commitment are needed
. -
in order to meet the state's housing needs and goals. The state legislature
has established general standards to be followed in the development of a
housing element. A housing element inust consist of standards and plans for
the improvement of housing and for provision of adequate sites for housing.
The element must consider a11 aspects of current housing technology including
site built housing and nanufactured housing. In addition, the element must
make adequate provision €or the housing needs of all economic segments of
the community.
-3-
FinaTIy, the element must be developed pursuant to regulations established
undcr Health and Safety Code Section 50459 (Section 65302(c) California
Goverment code).
Eouslng Eiemenr guidel ines in Edovember, 1977. These guidel ines estsbl ish
criteria agains which local compliance with the requirements of Section 65302(c)
csa be measured2
Housing Elemene Guidelines and the Housing Element ttanua3 pscpared by the
Department of iiousing and Community Development, in an effort to met the
’
The Department of Housing and Comm:nni ty Development issued
This housing elernent was developed pursuant to the State
intent of the state leg
California law requires
consistent set of potic
merit policies contained
slative mandate.
C. GENERAL PLAN RELATIONSHIPS
that general plans contain an integrated internal?y
es. The housing element is most affected by sfevelap-
in the land use element which establishes the locatioc,
/
-
type, intensity and distribution of land uses throughout the city, The housing
element has been drafted to reflect consistency with the land use element which
for reasons of safety, geology, open space, noise, among others, declares that
certain areas are to be preserved or developed with non-residential uses. The
housing element does not suggest specific sites for particular types of housings.
- The element does recommend general areas and locational criteria for future
An effort was made to make these recommendations con- housing development.
sistent with the land use element. To the extent that conflicts arise between
the housing element and the land use element, the policies of the land use
element shall prevail provided, however, that provision of,lower income housing
shall be considered as a factor for allowing development above the “guaranteed”
densities identified in the land use element, and provided further that in
master planned or specific planned areas in which low and moderate income rental
units are provided density increases of no more than 50% of the maximum ”-.
residential density,specified in the Land Use Element may be permitted by the
City Council.
units per acre, a density increase of up toA25% may be granted to allow provision
of low and moderate income housing.
For those areas of the city with density ranges of 0-4 dwelling‘
If it becomes clear
that the goals of this housing dement cannot be met within the locations and
densities established for residential development by the land use element, the land
use element may be amended.
Goal Setting and the Land Use Element --
This Housing Element uses the residential guidelines of the City's adopted Land Use
flement as a policy framework for developing m~re specific goals and policies in the
busing element. Although the Land Use Element enumerates 16 dif ferena guidelines
for residential development, they encompass five main themes. These are:
9
1. Preservation - Preserve the neighborhood atmosphere, retain the identity of
existing neighborhoods, maximize open space and ensure slope preservation,
a. Choice - Ensure a variety of housing types, a choice of all economit ranges,
wide range of housing types; apartments, townhouses, etc., different styles
-and price levels in a variety of locations.
3. Medium and High Density Compatibility with Surroundings and Services -
Provide close-in living and convenient shopping in the commercial core. Limit
and encourage large scale development of apartments in areas most appro-
priate from standpoint of convenience and access.
4. Housing Needs b Utilize programs to revitalize deteriorating areas or those
with high potential for deterioration; seek to provide low and moderate
income housing.
-5- .
5, I M anad Development -- - Ensure orderly residential development, avoid 'leap
frog' subdivision; allow higher density where existing or proposed public
facilities can accommodate increased population and particularly within the
Village area Redevelopment Project.
Now several years old the land use element continues to be instructive and has
formed one basis for the goals of the housing element.
1 0, LOCAL RESPONSIBILITY:
IM PL EM ENTATSON, EVAL UATlON AND R EWE W I I ii
The Housing Element includes five general goals, ten major policy areas and 46
recommended action programs. The implementation, of the action programs
presents a formidable task for local officials. Obviously, not all tasks can be given
equal weight and attention. Section III of this Housing Element highlights those
policies and prcgrams which because of k.->th state guidelines and local needs should
be given priority. This Section attempts to assign responsibility for implementation
of the program. It should be noted that ultimate responsibility lies, of course, with
-
the Carlsbad City Council, which may assign staff and resources to carry out par-
ticular responsibilities under its own guidance or under that of appointed review
bodies. The following chart lists each of the element's 46 recommended action
programs with suggested staff and review responsibilities. ' Those appointed bodies
with review and evaluation responsibilities will be assigned appropriate staffing as
indicated in the chart, The chart also includes suggested fund sources. All actions
are subject to final directives by the Carlsbad City Council.
4 c
Y
S 0
CI m 3
m > w
-a S m
Q) > a E
.-
-
3 .-
U c z U
Y V 0
m -
Y +I S C m 2 L. U U
Y Y V 0 m a - 8 -
0 c I LL
Q
a c a
-
L
W
e 0 .- rA " .- E E 8 u
M e .- C S m
CL -
L
+I.- SO e ro +I .- r .o .- +IY) s .E
EO OW U4.l
-7-
C
I- - z 1 LL
8
-5 a 3 Qlc
W C z
3 t J u,
m
a C Qi
-
L
U
F
VI [ .l- a c a U
L c Q .- v1
u) .- E E 0 L'
0 m
u) .- E E C V
E 0 u
.- E
>
C I
c, -
E
>
r I
c, -
E
>
f,
C 3
.-
€ E 0
U C a
c, C E
U L
+J C a E
c, L
E
c, L
cp
Q) n
n
m P a n
L W M m C m E
>
u
+J
Y
n a n
M C .- wn CO
mQ) 3> oa
.- -
rn
Wt5 rO M C
C - Eo L= MP CO
ma 3> oa
.- -
rn
Eo C
C C m
Q
.-
-
.- - ma 3> i$
- .- r C C m
CL - C m
Q - ~. C m e -
2 1 'c) C m L
C c,
E 0. 0
Q, > a
-
n
C 0
3
.- m
E 1 0 C a
a
o) Dc
L
Y-
C 0
a >
.-
VI L W c
VI
Y- n
r V r 0 0 0 I
uuv E c C J 3 a
w E 3 LL LL LL LL
S S S C 3 .- 0 .- In VI S'E
0 .- M VI .-
0 .- In VI .- M
\E
SE 30 u
-0 .u c f
Q C Y LL LL -- mm - m L
e
U 0 C aJ U aJ0 uu
S 0 .- c 0 .- t 0 .- e: 0 .- UI v1 .- E
In v) .- E E 0 u
M v) w .- E E 0 U
In
E E 0 E 0 E Q u vvw
E 0 E 0 EEE 000 wuv
MMM ccc ess CCC
I .- .-
E 0 U V
M c
S C m e
.-
-
M S .- M C 1-
M S
C
Q e
-
;e -
M S
E
.- e
M C
S C
.- Eo r
C c m e
.-
-
08 C
S c
.- S S m
Q - S S m
P - m e
+J S E"
c, L
c, != Y U U E S aJ E
P n
c, L
E
no"
c, L m m
aJ
U U C S 0) i! E
44 C a E
c, K E
U L
Q
aJ n
n
c, S aJ E
U C E t!
0
m P aJ
s E U t! m CI L U L U L L L m
01 n
n
((I Q aJ
(G Q aJ
- m Q m P n" @ n n
M C
C C m
P
.-
-
M C
c C m
- M c
S
.- M C
c c m e
.-
-
M C
S 5 m
P
-
-
M r M C.
C C m
P
-
-
M S
S -s m
.- .- S c S m
e - m
CL. e -
w K E 0 -
$ .- Y L .- e .-
U m v-
VI aJ aJ +- - .- a m Y
Y- O
aQ 5 > .-
- -_ 'Y
L
4-4
v)
a,
m z "m PO
d v; d P e N . m
-9-
e
P e rQ
.
VI VI m ICI3 T3 E c C 3 3 =I LL LL LL
m .- E
0 0 C C a u
0
Q, ' 4 c, v)
+ u
0
Q,
m
v)
Y-
c,
CI
Q, Q, C C
Q, a3 uu uuuu
C 0 cn
E 0
v)
v)
.L .- E E 0
c 0 .- m m .- E
c 0 m Y
v) .- E E 0 u
v) *- E E 0 v
E 0 u v
M C
C C m
.- M C
E: C m
Q
.-
-
M C
C c
.- Mii cQ
mQ, 3> OQ, I13
.- -
m
e e
c, C E u 'L m
Q,
M C
C S ((I
LT
n
n
.-
-
Q,
m W
=I
'
n
>
VI Q,
Q, v)
.- L
4
' = a2 E
c, L m P CI
M C
C E: m
e
n
.-
-
Q,
m U n a
c,
m
m K Q, U
a
m
c, c E
u L. m 0. W
M c
C C m
LT
n
.-
-
C Q
>
I- VI .-
E .- 0 a z
--
4
e c C 3 3 =I C c a =I E E E E 0 0
E E E E E E 0 0 0
=I> OQ, If:
VI 2
n m
0, h
Q,
I]
- .-
E
0"
I C w
. N
-10-
8
IIe GOALS, POLICIES AND ACTION PROGRAMS OS: THE HQUSiNC ELEMENT
A. GOALS
The Housing Element has five major goals. These goass are intended to provide
general direction in meeting Carlsbad's two major housing concerns: preserving
existing community values and responding to projected growth.
housing element are:
The goals of the
1,
a.
- 3.
4.
To preserve Carlsbad's unique and desirable character as a coastal community
and to maintain high design and environmental quality standards in all new
development or redevelopment.
I
To assure that the city's. future development provides an adequate diversity of
housing, with types, prices, tenures and locations consistent with thu age and
economic characteristics of present and future residents.
J"
To provide affordable housing opportunities in a variety of types and locations
to meet the needs of current low and moderate income households and a fair
share proportion of future low and moderate income households.
To assure that the amount and type of housing development or redevelopment
is compatible and convenient with the locations of major facilities and ser-
vices and in particular with major transportation and transit routes, as well as
major employment centers. -----.,
5. To assure that all housing, whether market or assisted, is sold or
rented in conformance with open housing policies free of discriminatory
practices.
B. POLICIES AND ACTION PRUGWE
In order to meet the goals outlined above,.specific policies and programs are
suggested. Ten major policy areas are identified; each relates to a specific
set of housing issues arid problems. The first two of these policy areas relates
to preservation of the existing community, the next five policy areas relate
to response to new development, while the final three policies izvolve organ-
ization, equal opportunity and update. Following each of the policies are
specific action programs designed to carry out the policy. The city shall
use its best efforts to implement these action progrsms consistent with sound
legislative judgment. In implementing this program due consideration will be
given to the balance of new and existing housing, available resources,
errvironmdntal protection and general community weif are.
- Policy I
Preserve the existing character of the city and protect existing
residential communities from encroachment of incompatible uses or
degradation of environmental quality by establishing "preservation
districts" within the city.
+
These districts might correspond to the
city's census tracts.
Act ions
- 1-1 - Monitor signs of early decline within "preservation districts"
by conducting frequent spot inspections of housing condition and
attempting to make rehabilitation funds available if necessary.
. .-
-12-
.
ducting spot inspections of conditions'of public and community facilities and
services. Conditions should be evaluated fur possible inctusion in capital .
improvement program.
- 1-3 - Encourage greater invalvemerit from corn munity and .neighboihood
. organizations in the prservation of existing neighborhoods.
- 1-4 - Distribute public notices of major City developments and plans to
community and neighborhood' based groups.
\ e
- 1-5 - Preserve where feasible the city's historic houses from demolition or
conversion to inappropriate use. (Historic properties are eligible for federa!
and state funds to carry out rehabilitation; thcsc funds are difficult to obtain '
and so economic feasibility of maintenance or conversion cf historic sites is of
prime importance.. . ..
Policy 11
~h~ city sbul,-j utilize code enforcement and rehabilitation activities to
,reserve and rehabilitate the housing stock within the Village Area
Redevelopment Project.
Act ions I
- 11-1 - Continue the on-going rehabilitation of residences now proceeding in the
area with funding from the city's block grant programo
-1 3-
would allow the city the flexibility to provide rehabilitation assistance to
investors, and moderate and middle income owners. Among those programs
allowing greater flexibility which could be pursued are: (1) Issuance of ‘Marks- I
Foran Residential Rehabilitation Bonds, and (2) Application for federal Section
312 loans for the designated area by the Carlsbad Housing and Community
Development Commission. Rent maximums allowed on investor owned
rehabilitated units would be those established by the Department of Housing
*
and Urban Deveropment for its Section 3 Moderate Rehabilitation Program.
I__ 91-3 - Seek to mainta!? and improve public facilities and services within the
Village Area Redevelopment Project. (Funds to come either from additional
Community Development 8iock Grant monies, tax increments, bond issues or
general city funds.)
Policy 111
I
Develop a greater diversity of housing types and programs to meet a significant
share of Carlsbads lower income housing needs; maintain and rehabilitate
where necessary the existing stock of lower income busing.
Carlsbad’s five year target goal as estimated in the regianal fair share program
of January, 1980, is 2,845 householdso The city’s overall elderly population is
about 20 percent or one in five of all households. Using this ratio the following
proportionality for assistance goals should be observed:
-14- .
Assistance Goals 1980-8.5 -
Tot al house hol ds r eq u i r i ng hou s i ng
assistance (CPO Fair Share, jan, 1980)
Elderly households (1 in 5 of city total)
2,845
568
Non-el de rl y fa m iI y house ho 1 ds 2,277
. The city may seek referendum authority to rncet a portion of elderly goals; all
other programs elaborated in this section wiil give priority to meeting nan-
elderly goals.
-
Act ions
111-1 - Pursue those federal and state housing programs which are compatible -
with the character of the city and can provide the most housing units toward
meeting the city's current and projected needs.
- 111-2 - Continue the existing Section 8 Housing Assistance Program (240 units)
seeking revised rents from the Department of Housing and Urban
Development consistent with coastal area market prices.
- 111-3 - Apply to the Department of Housing and Urban Development for an
additional 250 units of Section 8 assisted housing to be phased over the five-
year time frame of this Housing Element (1980-1985). The allocation of these
units between elderly and non-elderly households would be determined by
Y
funding priorities of the Department of Housing and Urban Development and -_
the City of Carlsbad Housing and Community Development Commission.
-15- .
\ - 111-4 - Conduct a citywide referendum (preferably at a general election)
specifically requesting authority to develop as many as 250 new units of senior
citizen housing on scattered sites in Carlsbad.
any of the city's four geographic quadrants but they should be consistent with
Sites would be possible in
site selection criteria outlined under Policy VI (Adequate Sites) . Successful
. referendum will allow the city to explore public housing as developneat
alternative.
111-5 - Contact the California Department of Housing and Community Development
to participate through the Carlsbad Housing Authority in the Rental Construction
Assistance Program. Funds authorized by state law are now available to local
authorities to assist in the development of lower income housing through sale
9
of tax exempt bonds, purchase of rights of occupancy, write-down of land and
development costs and operating assistance for qualified units.
111-6 - Establish a Housing Development Fund to assist in land purchase or
write down costs for development of lower income housing.
funds may be state rental construction funds, portions of annual CDBG grant
not used for rehabilitation or state or federal contributions to non-profit
Sources c.f such
-
housing sponsors. In addition, any funds accruing to the city as a result
of in-lieu fees for coastal zone new construction will be added to the
Housing Deyelopment Fund to assist in the development of low and moderate
* income housing e
111-7 - Condominiums and condominium conversions will constitute a significant
part of the cityPs stock of affordable housing. It is a definite objective
--e
and policy of this plan to insure that the design and location of condominium --_
buildings aid the quality of the project be reasonably consistent and
compatible with other types of separate ownership housing. In order for the
-16-
standards for new condominium construction to be valid, it is also necessary
to apply the same standards to condominium conversions, In order to insure
that all condominiums offered for sale meet the city's goals, the city also
wishes to give consideration to the need to reduce and mitigate the impact
of conversions on tenants who are forced to relocate. It is the policy of
the city to reduce and mitigate these adverse impacts by providing adequate
notification procedures and relocation assistance, including requiring the
person converting the condominium to make payment toward relocation and moving,
costs and the city to provide additional-counseling, referral and other
services,to aid the tenants being displaced in finding replacement Irousiag.
Policy IV
Give consideration to future action on those federal and state
policies and programs designed to increase the supply of moderate
income rentals and opportunities for moderate income ownership.
The following types of general legislation in support of moderate
income housing might be considered.
.$
-17-
Actions
- IV-1 - State legislation that would increase renter credit allowable to all
households on their state incorne tax. (Current credit allows $60.00 for single
renter, $1 37.00 for married couple or unmarried head of household.)
7 IV-2 - State legislation to require the California Housing Finance Agency Po
e use the major part of its bonding power to support, moderate income rental
construction through local authorities.
- IV-3 - State legislation setting up loan construction fund for housing develop-
ment for disabled pesonj (AB 1045).
- IV-4 - Federal legislation that would increase fwds available to local
government for moderate income rental development and to raise rental limits
on existing assistance programs.
- IV-5 - Federal legislation to extend and increase interest subsidy programs for
moderate income home ownership similar to those now offered by local savings
and loans through the Federal Home Loan Bank Board.
- IV-6 - State legislation to provide mobilehome resident associations with right
of first refusal on purchase of mobilehome parks.
Policy v
--J - ._ Develop public incentives to assist the private market in providing broader
housing opporfunties for development of 3ow and moderate income housing,
Actions
-- V-1 - The city may develop s voluntary inclusionary ar;d density bonus
program which would implement Section 65915 et.seq. of the Government
Code. The bonuses and incentives provided pursuant to Section 65915
et,seq. shill be zlternative and not additicnaf to the bonus provided
in Action V-2 or required or permitted by other housing programs.
Action 2 - The city may develop a voluntary inclusionary and density
bonus program allowing a maximum of 20 percent density bonus in exchange
for 15 percent of anits reserved for low and moderate income rentals; ,
the development may be mixed sale and rental; moderate income rent limits
should be equivalent to maximum fair market rents set by Department of
Mousing 2nd Urban Development for Carlsbad.
_I V-3 - Consider amending ordinances so that the mixed use of compatible
-
commercial uses with residential units is,encouraged particulariy in the
Village Area Redevelopment Project and.in the community centers"of newTy
developed master plan areas. (Compatible commercial uses may include
administrative and professional offices, retail uses with pedestrian
orientation and some public uses.
*)
See Village Area Redevelopment Pian),
' - V-4 - Consider amending ordinances to allow development of low and
moderate income rentals with reduction of normal off-street parking
requirements, and increases in allowed density in the downtown area.
' V-5 - Consider amending
Senior Citizens Housing
_c
ordinsnces to extend the.provisions of the
Development Ordinance to additional zones
bes$des the R-P zone.
7 V-6 - Consider ainending ordinances to adopt a. formula for waiving of
facilities, services, or valuation fees or a percentage thereof on.
development of units qualifying as IGW and moderate income rentals.
- V-7 - Reserve a portion of annual public services allocation capacity
for development of units qualifying as low and moderate income rentals.
- V-8 - Prepsre a citywide Master Environmcntal Assessment to reduce the
time and detail requited for individual reviews particularly those
applicable to small parcels of land in already developed areas.
- V-9- Encourage preparation of specific plans for residential development
OR specified sites within the city to obviate need for further envlran-
mental review of individual projects within such specific plan areas.
V-90 - The city may adopt programs for rent regulations and resale control
to ensure that units developed pursuant to Actions V-I, V-3, V-lf, V-5,
and V-S remain available to persons of low and moderate income.
--
I -
- V-ll - In master planned or specffic planned areas in which low and
moderate income rental units are provided density Increases sf ‘.no more
than 50% of the maximum residential density specified in the Land Use
Element may be permitted by the City Council.
- V-32 - Participation in San Diego Local Area Certification whereby HUD
3
c
certifies city development codes to cut processing time in VA and FHA
programs e
Policy VS
Assure adequate and suitable sites for development of a variety of housing
types and especial ly to assure affordabi 1 i ty.
Act ions
- Vl-1 - Plan to include sites suitably zoned for medium and higher densities
(20 to 30 units per acre) in all new development. (Determination of density --%- .-.
and location with individual projects to be negotiated by staff and
developers subject eo counci 1 approval).
VI-2 - Encourage developers to indicate appropriate sites for low and
moderate income housing development in master plans.
_I_
- VI-3 - Encourage the development of suitable sites within the city for
manufactured housing including mobile home parks and, mobilehome and
modular unit subdivisions and consider zone code amendments for such
housing.
VI-4 - Assure suitable sites for a variety of housing itypes by amending
subdivision and zoning ordinances to provide for the establishment of
exclusive mobile home zones and to establish criteria %or the location of
factory built housing on a variety of sites throughout the city.
ordinances may provide for standards for development and design as well
Such -
as providing special considerations for low and moderate income and senior
citizen residences or projects. Such ordinances may also reduce the impact
of the conversion of mobile home parks eo other uses by providing for
procedures for notices to occupants and adequate assistance for relocation
of persons and units.
If the City Council determines it is necessary to protect low and moderate
income citizens and senior citizens from being displaced from existing
nobile home parks by unreasonable or unjustified rent increases such
ordinances may also regulate rents.
VI-5 - Review site suitability using the site selection criteria listed
below. Many of the major environmental considerations related to housing
development are covered by existing review requiremenes. The following
criteria relate specifically to the location of housing for low and
moderate income families and elderly. Evaluate:
(1) Neighborhood environment including existing land uses and impact of
additional housing.
(2) Transportation-proximity, frequency and destination.
C3) Pedestrian mobility - walkways, lighting, safety,
-21-
(4) Proximity to nedical, recreational and cultural facilities.
(5) Proximity to community and commercial services.
(6) Proximity to educational facilities.
I
Policy VI1
Plan for the location of major new residential development along
transportation and transit lines to assure access to comercial and
industrial enploymeat centers; plan for residential development to
accommodate anticipated growth, as approved by City Council from available
forecasts.
Actions
VII-I - Undertake a community education program within each of the city's
four quadrants to acquaint residents with expected growth, availability
-
of services and facilities and possible impacts
VII-2 - Seek cooperation of major employers in estinating five-year job
growth, profile of employees and estimate of housing needs.
1_1 VII-3 - Prepare grant application to the Economic Development Administration,
Department of Commerce to develop program to evaluate future Carlsbad
employment growth in light of housing trends and needs. This program
should consider volume, type and location of employment related to
housing and public facilities.
VII-4 - Prepare estimate of major service and facility capacity
(housing units) for five-year period (1980-1985) and evaluate against
agreed upon population forecasts.
-22-
Policy \dill
Actively pursue organizational changes and the development of new
organizations to facilitate meeting the city’s housing needs,
Act i ons
VIII-1 - Attempt to form an areawide Housing Council with other North
County cities, and representatives of San Diego County (San Dieguito area),
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the California
State Department of Housing and Community Development to:
(1) Coordinate existing and future housing assistance programs for
North County ,
Share waiting list information to di;ect eligible applicants to
nearest 1 oca t i on ,’
Develop common vacancy and counseling services to be shared by a1 1,
Seek the cooperation of all member jurisdictions of the Housrng
Council to meet individual fair share needs,
Consider the development of a public/private coalition to seek
passage of local and areawide Article 34 referenda.
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Vlll-2 - Mark with local non-profit and limited profit groups to develop
applications for housing development, loan and counseling funds available
to such groups through state and federal programs.
Vlll-3 - Evaluate expansion of the functions of the city’s Housing and
Community Development Commission to include municipal finance and land
’
-23-
banking functions. (Community Development Commissions are permited under
California law to expand their functions to allow participation in direct
development activity.)
Policy I X
All housing in the city should be sold or rented, in accordance with the federal
and state government's equal opportunity regulations,
Act ions
_II IX-1 - Continue and support affirmative fair market programs by builders
developing housing in Carlsbad.
- f X-2 - Encourage deveioper/owners of mobilehome parks to operate in confor-
mance with 'open' park laws. Report any closed park practices to the San
Oiego District Attorney's Office.
c
Policy X
Periodically review all busing program implementation efforts and update
ifhen necessary.
. Act ions
- X-1 - The Planning Department should prepare an annual report on implementa-
tion of the Housing Element Goals and Policies for Planning Commission and
City Council rev'iew.
-24-
7 X-2 - Conduct update and evaluation of projections, needs, and goals in Housing
Element when Series V Population Forecasts have been adopted by the city.
- X-3 - Conduct update and evaluation of housing needs when 1989 censusdata is
available.
I_ X-4 - Conduct major update, evaluation and necessary revisions of the Housing
Element in 1985 (five year revision).
-25-
111. IMPLEMENTATION
I
!
I
.I i The preceeding 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 comprehensive in an attempt to meet both long-range community needs
and the state guidelines. However, in order to implement the program, priorities
must be set which will concentrate resources on the most immediate needs, make
best use ob the resources available and in some cases identify the need for additional
i
i
time, staff or funds.
A, PRIORITIES FOR Ih4 PLEM ENTATION
The following priority areas reflect the city's most immediate needs as perceived by
the Housing Element Review Committee and reviewed and approved by Planning
Commission and City Council. This section identifies those priorities and indicates
the ability of the city to implement necessary programs. These priorities set the
framework for immediate programs over the next two years but are not intended to
reduce the importance of the entire comprehensive housing strategy described in
Section II.
I
1. Preserving Housing and Neighborhoods
Major policy and program suggestions of the Housing Element relate to this
priority. The City's major efforts in preservation should be commited to concen-
trated rehabilitation in and around the downtown area. This priority is selected for - --_
several reasons: most of the city's deteriorating housing is located in this area, a
-26-
major downtown rehabilitation project is already underway and the Housing and
Community Development Commission is already empowered to direct public and
private resources to the area. Major additional work to be undertaken is the
development of additional, 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. Identifying and developing such sources to be used by the
Commission should require no new staff to be added to the combined Housing and
Redevelopment staffs. Responsibility: Housing and Community Development
Department; time frame 1980-1982; funding $50,000.
2, Adequate Provision of Housf4ng
Major policy and program suggestions of the Housing Element relate to this
priority. The city's major efforts in adequate provision should be committed to
acceptin2 its fair share allocation of low-income units, applying to HUD for addi-
tional Section 8 assisted units, conducting a successful referendum for senior citizen
housing and developing senior citizen housing on scattered sites in the city. These
priorities are selected for several reasons: there is a pressing need for low-income
family and elderly units, pursuing the courses outlined above would more than meet
the city's 'good faith' 'goals for its lower income fair share allocation, article 34
referenda for senior citizen busing are usually' successful, and with a succesful
referendum the city would have a wide variety of options open to it as to how to
develop the senior citizen housing. Major additional work to be undertaken under
thio priority is a new Section 8 application, organizing a referendum, and presenting
the Housing and Community Development Commission with alternative ways to
._
develop senior citizen housing. This work would require the commitment of one full
-27-
time staff person fron? the Housing Comunity Development staff for a two-year
period. Responsibility: Housing and Community Development Department; time
frame 1980-1982, funding $50,000,
3. Achieving Affordabilitx
Major policy and program suggestions of the Housing Element relate to this
priority. The city's major efforts in achieving affordability should be
continued to developing public incentive programs to foster private develop-
ment of affordable housing.
the projected growth of the city means that private housing development will
be at high levels over the next five years, "'affordable" housing (above median
income, but below current market 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.
under this priority is the developmenr of a voluntary inclusionary zoning and
densicy bonus program which will be attractive to developers and encourage
them to provide a small percentage of below market units.
establishing the program, acquainting developers with it, tailoring it to
their specific needs and working with them to assure its smooth application
would involve a major commitment of probably one-half person staff time over
a two-year period.
suggested changes such as reservation of public facilities capacities will
require staff and program commitment. Lastly, significant staff time would
be involved in the determination and administration of rent controls.
Responsibility: Planning Department; time frame 1980-1982; funding $25,000.
A significant staff need may be necessary in the administration of a resale
control and/or rent regulation program to insure units developed pursuant to
This priority is selected for several reasons:
Major additional work to be undertaken
Drafting ordinances,
e
In addition, correlating such an ordinance with other
- ._
-28-
\ this program would remain available to low and moderate income persons.
Such a program would require an undeterminzd amount of time and money.
Responsibility: Housing and Community Development,
4. Balanced Residential Development With Access 'To Employment, Commiinity
Facilities, and Adequate Services - -
Major policy and program suggestions of the Housing Element relate to this
priority.
to obtaining better determinations of future employment growth and siting housing
development to'assure good access by road and transit. This priority is selected
for several reasons: the city is a major industrial center in North County,
industrially zoned land is abundant and increased numbers of workers will need
to be accommdated with housing and services.
The city's major efforts in balanced deve?spment should be commited
I
Major additional work to be
t i I undertaken under this priority is the development of job projection data I
i and its relationship to housing development in Carlsbad. This shol;ld require
one half time person commitment for one year from the ?lanning Department.
Responsibility: Planning Department; time frame 1980-1982; funding $12,500.
f
B. REVIEW AND UPDATE
flR Review - An Environmental impact Report on this 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.
Public Participation - The Housing Element was developed with the guidance and
cooperation of a Citizen's Review Committee appointed by the City Council.
This Review Committee met in 12' sessions between May and October, 1379. 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.
-- . -
.J
-29-
interaovernmental Coordination -
forecasts and fair share a1 locat
Regional data on population and housing
on was utilized from San Diego's Council
of Governments, the Comprehensive Planning Organization.
State of California Review - This element has been reviewed by the Department
of Rousing arid Ccimmunity Development for direction and comment. lhe Department's
comments were incorporated into this element.
Local Review and Update - After adoption by Planning Commission and City Council.
State of Cal ifornia Department of Housing and Community Development, 60 days
review time.
San Diego County, A copy wF11 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 Program.
Comprehensive Planning Organization - Series \I Population Forecasts will be
considered by Council late in 1980.
projecttons, allocations and goals when preliminary Series V is available,
City staff should review Housing Element
and when final Series V bas been adopted.
Comprehensive Planning Organization - Fair Share Allocations. City staff
should mcnitor any changes in overall allocation for possible changes in
Carisbad's goal figures, or any re-interpretations of the fair share
allocations.
. -- ~
-30-
Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census - The decennial national census
was taken April 1, 1980. Population breakdowns will soon be available.
Detailed demographic and housing data will take much longer (18 months).
Review of Housing Element projections and goals should take place when the
new data is avajlable.
Program Evaluation - Local evaluation of program effectiveness, and
implementation of policies and programs with recormendations for change
should be conducted annually over the next five years with public hearing
before the Housing and Community Development Commission.
Major Revision - A major evaluation and revision of the Housing Element
should take place in 1985.
-
HOUSING ELEMENT
VOLUME 2: APPENDICES -
Appendix A: Community Profile, Housing Characteristics,
Needs and Problems.
Appendix 8: Constraints' to Providing Affordable
Housing
Appendix C: Mobile Home Discussion
Appendix D: Definitions
I.
Appendix E: Low and Moderate Income Housing; Faird
Share and Inclusionary Provisions
..
September 18, 1980 (revised)
!
APPENDIX A
COMMUNITY PROFILE: HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS, NEEDS AND PROBLEMS
..
. COMMUNITY PROFILE: HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS,
NEEDS, AND PROBLEMS
A. BACKGROUND -- .
A primary task of the Housing Element involves an evaluation of housing problems
and needs in Carlsbad. Housing needs exist to the extent that the present or
prospective housing supply falls short of providing all economic segments of the
community with decent housing. This section presents an overview of the city's
existing housing supply, including an inventory of number and types of dwelling
units, age and condition of units, tenure, vacancy rates, and household and
population characteristics. This section also contains an assessment of unmet
housing needs, as well as a narrative description of the city's major housing
problems.
1. Geographical Area and Subareas ..
Carlsbad is a coastal city of nearly 35,000 population in north San Diego County.
..
The city incorporated in 1952; it is located 90 miles south of Los Angeles and 35
. miles. north of San Diego. The city is bounded on the north by Buena Vista Lagoon,
east-west Highway 78 and the City of (Vista) Oceanside; on the east by the City of
(Oceanside) Vista and unincorporated San Diego County; on the south by unincor-
porated San Diego County and Batiquitos Lagoon, and on the west by the Pacific
Ocean. Geography and development patterns make possible a sub-area division of
the city into quadrants. The dividing sectors are Palomar Airport Road (east and
west) and El Camino Real (north and south). Following is a geographical
description of these quadrants and census tract numbers.
throughout this report to these quadrants.
References are made
-Al-
I
,
1 \
.<
2.
a.
b.
C.
. d.
Northwest quadrant - the older, more dense section of the city,
generally west of El Camino Real and north of Agua Hedionda
Lagoon; Census Tracts: 178.01, 178.03, 179., 180.
Northeast quadrant - newer developing section east of EI Camino
Real to the city boundaries on the north and east; Census Tract
*
198. .
Southwest quadrant - some older development but still developing
area west of El Camino Real; Census Tract: 178.04, 178.05.
Southeast quadrant -developed and still developing, generally
known as La Costa; Census Tract 200.03.
The accompanying maps show Carlsbad's geographical position within the
San Diego region and the city's boundaries.
PoDulation and Household Characteristics
In early 1979, the State Department of Finance esitmated a population of 32,100
for the City of Carlsbad. Carlsbad's population has more than doubled sinde 1970
and the rate of growth has accelerated since 1975. It was the seventh fastest
growing city in California in 1978 among cities less than 50,000. The following
table summarizes current population characteristics, and current housing unit
-
,
esitmates:
- A2 -
- 1.
\
\ ,
I ,
1.
: ..
...
.. ..
Figure 2
*CENSUS TRACT EXTENDS BEYOND CITY BOUNDARY
.t
..
v, Mnn illitstrates 1975 Snccial'Ccnsus Tracts. . . ..
Table 1
Population and Housing Unit Characteristics - 1979
Total population
Household population
Non-household population
(group quarters)
32,118
31,881
229
Total number of households 12,086 (13,281)
Table 1
(added after Planning Commission and HCD Review)
PoDulation and Housine Unit Characteristics 1979
Total population 32,110 Tota! housing units 13,281 Household population 31,881 Single family 8,044
Non-hshld. population 22 9 Multifamily 4,169
Total households 12,086 Mobile homes 1,068
Vacant 1,195"
*Explanation and changes in vacancy data are addressed later in this section.
Source: State of California, Department of Finance Estimate, 1979
Carlsbad is a predominantly white, young and middle class community. The 1975
California Census indicates that 85 percent of the city's popuiation is white while
Mexican-Americans constitute the largest minority group, 9.25 percent of total
population. All other minorities represented about three percent of the city's
4
population. In 1975, 11 percent of the city's population was over 65. The city's
1975 median household income ($12,727) was the third highest in San Diego County
surpassed only by the smaller coastal communities of Del Mar and Coronado.
-A5-
i , ,
The following table summarizes. household characteristics in Carlsbad for 1975.
The accompanying commentary updates and elaborates on the data.
=,
Table 2
Household Characteristics - 1975 Census
Number, Percentage
Total households 7,071
Average household size 2.71
Ethnic household - Mexican-American 486 6.8
*Ethnic household - others
Households over 65
200 2.8
1,354 19.1
Female headed households 1,370 19.3
(Households with income below $10,000 1,564 22.2
(Household with income $10,000-19,999 1,461 . 20.7)
(Households with income over $20,000 994 14 .O)
(Households income unknown ' 3,052 43.1)
(delete, too outdated, Planning Commission and HCD Review)
a. Household Size
Number of persons per household has shown a slow but steady decline over the past
decade. Estimated 1979 average household size for Carlsbad is 2.65. This steady
decline reflects trends towards fewer children per family, more one-person
households, and the growing elderly population consisting of one and two person ,
households.
- A6 -
. I b. Ethnic Households
Carlsbad's major ethnic group is Mexican-American which comprises about ten
percent of total population and nearly seven percent of all households. These
Mexican-American households are almost exclusively concentrated in the city's
older northwest quadrant and in particular in Census Tract 179, the downtown area.
(See Figure 2, page A-4)
c. Other Ethnic Households
Other ethnic households comprise less than three percent of the city's total
households and are located throughout the city.
d. Households Over 65
Almost one in five of the city's households are elderly, over 65. Elderly households
are dispersed throughout the city with the exception of the southeast quadrant (La
Costa). (Elderly) Senior Citizen households are the largest group in the city's major
mobile home parks.
e. Female Headed Households
Nearly one-third of the female headed households are elderly (over 65) but there is
no apparent geographical concentration of such households within the city.
-A7-
L
\
f. Household Income
The utility of the 1975 census income data is extrimely limited because of the high
rate of "no response" to income questions (43 percent of all households failed to
answer this question in Carlsbad in 1975; this percentage was similar to other San
Diego County communities). (The census indicates, however? that about 22 percent
of the city's households could be classified lower income by 1975 standards; these ' .
lower income households were highly correiated with the city's minority and elderly
households and located in all quadrants of the city except the southeast, La Costa.)
(In addition, the income estimates are now extremely dated. Estimates of 1979
income by the California Coastal Commission indicate a median household income
of $13,410 for Carlsbad. This estimate excludes non-coastal portions of the City .-
. and is probably artificihlly low. Median income in 1979 in the San Diego area is
- estirmted at $!4,8C.O.
percentage of households in the low-income category might be.
There is no indicp-of ---- these figures what the --
Such estimates
will be available after anaiysis of the 1980 census. Those households in the lower
income category in the 1975 Census were highly correlated with the City3 minority
t
and elderly households and located in all quadrants - of the City except. the
southeast, La Costa.) (delete)
- A8 -
I \
7
The following table sumrnarizes current income and .rent estimates.
Table j
(Added after Planning Commission and HCD Review)
Income and -- Rent Estimates-1 979-Carlsbad and San Diego County
Kent 25% of
Monthiy Income - --- Income Estimates
Median $16,835 $350 Low income 80% median $13 , 428 $280 Moderate income 120% median $202,202 $421-$589 *
*The generally accepted "afforability standard" for low income
households is 25 percent of monthly income. At higher incomes
l'aff ordability" may be extended beyond the 25 percent standard and here inciudes 25 to 35 percent range for moderate income.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, July, 1979.
g. Housing Unit Characteristics
In 1979 Carisbad's housing stock of approximately 13,281 units is almost uniformly
in good condition, contains a variety of types and provides the city with its
predominantly single family, small-scale residential character. The following table
summarizes the current housing inventory.
-AS;-
Table 4 (33
Housing Unit Inventory - 1979
Number - Percentage . ---
Total units 13,281
Single family 8,044 60.6
Multi-€ imily 4,169 31.4
Mobile homes 1,068 8.0
h. Development Patterns
In 1979 the predominant residential use in Carlsbad is still the single-family house.
IA 1970 about two thirds of all the city's housing units were single-family. Multi-
family development of the last decade has remained mostly small scale.. In 1979, a
third of dl multi-ifamily units in Carlsbac! were in structures of four or fewer units.
The major change in the city's pattern of development in the last decade has been
growth of the condominium unit, In 1970 the city had fewer than Ten condomln
-
iums; by 1979 about 20 percent of the city's housing stock (2,400 units) were
condominiums. Most of the city% condominiums are classified -under the multi-
.family housing totals, Geographically, the single-f amily development pattern is
predominant in all quadrants except the older northwest section where develop- *
ment is predominantly multi-family. Most of the city's mobile home development
is in the northeast and southwest quadrants with some minor mobile home
development in the northwest quadrant but none in La Costa.
,
,
i. Homeownership Patterns
Since 1970, the precentage of households owning their homes has dropped from 53
percent to 43 percent of all households. The regional total for homeownership has
dropped from 53 percent to 49 percent. All of the region's coastal communities
have had precipitous drops in homeownership rates in the last decade. (See Housing
Problems pages Al7-18 for mote complete discussion of homeownership'patterns.)
Revised after Planning Commission meeting 3/5/80
j. Occupancylvacancy
(The latest available vczcancy estimates (1 979 San Diego County estimates) show a
vacancy rate of 9.8 percent in CarIsbad, about twice the regional average 0f 4.6
percent. This high vacancy rate is misleading, however, since it includes seasonal
homes, as well as units already sold or rented but awaiting occupancy. In early
1979, the large number of .completions in the city meant the addition of many new
units to the stock, most of which were sold but unoccupied. Most of this new
cor.struction was in the La Costa area. Data from realtors. and mobile home park
managers indicates low vacancy rates (under four percent) in the remainder of the
city.)
Typical vacancy surveys are often misleading since they combine vacancies of all
types. In May 1979 the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco pablished
vacancy data by various categories for the San Diego Region and individual cities.
The following table summarizes that survey for Carlsbad.
-All -
Table 5 (4)
Vacancy by Category, 1979 -
Under
Used - New Construction Number 5% - Number 96 Number - % - Total Units
14,935 347 2.5 317 2.l 680 4.6
Single Family
9,006 111 1.2 2q 2.8 447 5.0 3
Multi-Family
4,743 254 5.4 64 . 1.3 233 4.2
r Mobile Homes
-. - - - I, 186 2 2.
Vacancy rates below five percent have typically been regarded by public and
private sources as low. Low vacancy rates may mean lack of choice and escalating .!
.rents. Carlsbad's mobile home vacancy was one of the County4 lowest. Other
rates while low were similar to other North County areas. North County vacancy
rates averaged about one percent above rates in central and southern areas of the
County.
..
- A12 -
k. Age, Condition and Overcrowding of the Housing Stock
.
, The city's. housing stock is almost uniformly of recent construction and in good
condition. The following table summarizes the city's housing stock by a.ge:
Table 6 (5)
Housing Stock by Age
% of
Units Total -
Built prior to 1940 587 4.4
Built 1940-49 . 694 5.2
Built 1950-59 1,518 11.5
Built 1960-69 2,665 20.0
58.9 - Built since 1970 7,817
TOTAL 13,281 100.0
.. Less than ten percent of the city's stock WBS constructed before 1950, almost all of
this located in the city's 'northwest quadrant, specifically census tracts 179 and
180. (See Figure 2, page A-4 for location.)
Census information from 1975 indicates 325 deteriorated or dilapidated units in the
city (about 2.4 percent of the city's stock). Most of these units (200) are found in
the area around the downtwn, census tract 179 and correlate highly with the oldest
housing in the city. The remainder of the substandard units are also found in the
city's northwest quadrant in the census tracts to the west (CT 180) and the east
(178.01) of the downtown.
- A13 -
There is no recent data on overcrowding,
room exluding bathrooms and kitchens. At
defined as more than 1.01 persons per
the time of the 1970 census, there were
392 housing units in the city which would be classified as '80vercrovJdedvr. About
two-thirds of the overcrowded units were located in the downtown area CCT 179)
while the remainder were also in the city's northwest quadrant in census tracts to
the west and east oi the downtown (CT 180, CT 178.01).
1. Potential Housing Units: Land Availability and Development -- Trends --
The city's existing general plan indicates specifically area5 of future residential I
development and possible redevelopment. More than half the city's land (13,660
acres) is zoned for residential use. About three-fourths of this acreage remains
vacant. About ten percent of available acreage is zoned for densities of ten to 30
units per acre. Available residential zoning at allowable densitites could supply the
city with an -- estimated additional 66,000 housing units from now into the future.
(Land Use Element; Carlsbad General Plan) (Estimate obtained by using projected
densities in Land Use Element.)
The city's recent development has been limited by availability of sewer capacity.
Even with a strict allocation system, more than 6,000 housing units have been
produced in the city since 1975, about 1,500 unit annual average. The major
- portion of these units were developed in the first half of the 1975-1980 period
before the imposition of sewer capacity allocations. Available projections. to 1985
indicate an increase of about 4,000 units. However, like the previous projections of
growth from 1975 to 1980, this is probably an understatement of demand and the
- A14 -
\ I
Y
..
city's ability to accommodate it. A more reaiistic estimate of short-term
development (1980 to 1985) would be about 7,500 units or 1,500 per year as
evidenced in the 1975 through 1979 period.
EL HOUSING NEEDS AND PROBLEMS -- --
In order to develop strategies and programs to ensure that a!l economic segments
ob the community are provided adequate housing opportunities, the community's
housing needs and problems must be accurately assessed. The previous section
presented an overview of the community's housifig and population characteristics
and discussed potential problem areas. This section attempts to quantify the city's
housing needs and to discuss specific problems to est:ab!ish a basis for the goals,
policies and programs of this housing element.
1. Unmet Housing Needs 1980-1 985
Unmet housing needs may be divided into two categories: existing unmet needs and
projected unmet needs. Together they form a housing needs estimate for the next
five-year period.
w
2. Immediate Housing Need
Immediate housing needs consists of the sum of those lower income households
paying more than 25 percent of income for housing, and the total of substandard
units in the community. Both those calculations are available from the - 1975
California Census and are summarized in the following table.
- A15 -
I ,
' Table 7 (6)
Immediate Lower Income Homing Needs
Low income households 569 (80 percent or less of median income
paying more than 25 percent of income for housing
'
Housing deficiencies
(includes units which need to be rehabilitated or demolished
325 -
TOTAL Immediate Unmet Need 894
Unmet housing need is about equally divided between elderly and family house-
holds, with most family households consisting of five or more members. Geogra-
phic location of families: with crnmet housing needs is the central area around the
downtown (CT 179) while elderly need households are distributed in three of the
city's four quadrants (the southeast quadrant being the exception). (The above
estimate may contain some double-countinqand thus overstate needs. However, it ---
is assumed that units with housing deficiencies carry the lowest rents and,
therefore, would not be counted in the overpayment catemy.) -
(Delete Sections numbered 3 and 4 below)
(3. Future or Projected Housing Needs 1980-1985
Future housing need is a function of Carlsbad's share of future regional growrh.
Current available regional projections (Series IV Population Forecasts, CPO)
estimate that Carlsbad will grow by about 4,000 households between now and 1985.
Of these approximately 4,000 new households the lower income portion (those
families requiring some assistance) is estimated to be about 770. Approximately
.
- A16 -
%
i ,
'1,056 of these 4,OCO households are estimated to 'be median and moderate income
households defined as those above the standards for housing assistance, but still
umbie t:, afford typical market rate housing; These. two estimates were derived
f rcm a seven factor formula which estimates popuiatim, housing and employment
growth factors for the regim and each of its cities.
It 'is assumed that the remaining 2,174 households would be middle and upper
income and able to afford most market housing. While this latter group is well
beyond the scope of government assistance programs, they constitute a large
portion of the "demand for housing" over the next five years and m;st be provided '
for in local housing programs. The following table summarizes the total demand
and need figures for Carlsbad (these estimates are based on currently available
regional projections, Series IV Population Forecasts). New estimates will need to --
be made when Series V Population Forecasts are adopted.
Table 7
Housing Demand and Housing Need 1980-1985
Market demand households
(middle and upper income) 2,174 .
Median and moderate income households (SO to 120 percent median income) 1,056
Lower income households
(less than 80 percent of median income)
. TOTAL
77 0
4,000
54.4
26.4
19.2 0 -
100.0
->
4. Fair Share Allocation
Several attempts have been made by the Comprehensive Pianning Organzation to
estimate regional housing needs and to allocate those needs to jurisdictions within
the region. The' most recent formula estimates 1980-1985 regional housing needs
to be 38,871 units. Carlsbad's share of this need based on housing and employment
factors is 825 units (that allocation plan was adopted by the Carlsbad City Council
in December, 1979). This allocation plan relates only to lower income unit need
i.e. households with incomes less than 80 percent of median. Programs directed
toward meeting this level of need would be almost entirely gove'rnment assisted.
The estimate of lower income need for Carlsbad is conslstent with census and other
data indicating the city's need for assisted housing. The allocation plan does not,
however, relate to the important issue of 'hffordable housing" (a major task of the
Housing Element) Le. housing for median and moderate income families beyond the
levels of government assistance programs, but unable to afford market rate
housing. Tabie 7 of this section provides these estimates for Carlsbad and much of
the program section of this Housing Element relates to providing affordable
housing opportunities. An alternate formula projecting much higher total and local
needs has been developed in response to directives by the California Department of
Housing and Community Development. That formula is now being discussed
locally.) *
3. ' Population Growth, Fair Share Allocation and Housing Needs 1980-1935
Future housing need is a function of Carlsbad's share of future regional growth.
Latest available regional growth projections (CPO, Preliminary Growth Forecasts,
Series U) estimate Carlsbad's 1980-1985 growth as follows:
- A18 -
Table 8
Current (1979) 32,100 12,100
Projection (I 985) 51,100 20 780
Growth Projectio:is, 198G-198.5 - Carlsbad --- .
PsDulat ion Households
Carlsbad is projected to grow by about 8,600 households by 1985.
4. Fair Share Aliocation: Lower Income Housing Needs -- -
In early 1980, a region-wide summary of "lower income households requiring
assistance" was developed and circulated hy the Comprehensive Planning Qrganiza- .
,tion. In that report lower income households are defined as those which meet
..
federal income requirements for housing assistance and pay more than 25 percent
of their income for rent. 'The report includes estimates of existing and projected
househoid needs. The following table summarizes the total regional need and
Carlsbad's "fair sharet1.
- A19 -
..
Table 9
Lower Income Household Needs - 1980-1985
Total Growth -. Current
San Diego Region 109,738 29,158 138,896
Carlsbad 2,117 728 2,845
Carlsbad need as % of
regional total 1.9 2.5 2.0 .
i.
This e$imate of 2,845 lower income households will be about 12.5 percent of the
. city's total households in 1985 according to available projections (Series V). It is
unlikely that this region or individual cities would meet 100 percent of estimated
need over the next five-year period. However, Section II of this Housing Element,
Goals, Policies and Action Programs -- outhes an overall strategy by which Carlsbad
can utilize available resources and opportunities to the fullest extent possible in ,
,addressing these needs.
. c. HOUSING PkOEjLEMS -
Following is a' discussion of housing problems and their extent and effects in
Carlsbad.
1. Inflation of Housing Prices and Rents
In October 1979, a survey by the San Diego Chamber of Commerce reported that
the average price of an existing single-family home in San Diego County was
$106,400. On an annual basis, this reflects a 16.4 percent increase over the
- A20 -
previous year. The region's nighest anwal increases were in North County.
Communities witn the highest annual increases from 1978 to 1979 were Del Mar, 41 -
percent; Rancho Santa Fe, 33 percent; (and) Carlsbad, 31 percent; Oceanside
recorded a 29 percent increase and San Marcos a 25 percent increase. While this
- -
. survey covers only a limited number of units, it is an indication of the rapid
escalation of housing prices, in many-cases three and four tines greater than the
general inflation rate. Because of its location, Carlsbad is strongly affected by the
region's two major growth and inflation pressures: northward development and
coastal location.
While costs of all housing continue to escalate, Carlsbad still contains a range of
housing prices and rents with representation below the regional averages. The
following table summarizes the range of prices and rents available in Carlsbad in
mid-1979. (Data gathered from ' real estate listings and newspaper advertising,
June through September, 1979.)
Table 1 (8)
Range of Prices and Rents: Carlsbad - 1979.
New condominiums
New single-family homes
Existing homes
1 bedroom apartment 2 bedroom apartment 3 bedroom apartment
Mobile home space rentals
Low Xigh -
$68,950 $114,900 + '
66 , 250 152,500 +
59 , 500 200,000 +
i 95 375 + 230 450 + 31 5 700 +
- A21 -
In late 1979, the County Assessor's Office reported that the median price of single
family sales in Carisbad was $llO,OOO, up from $84,000 in 1978.
2. Pressures on the Existing Rental Supply
Renter households are increasing. Major reasons for this trend are high housing
prices and the growing number of smaller households (the elderly and young single
people). At the same time actual rental construction is declining. Since 1970,
about twice as many single-family units as multi-family units were developed in
Carlsbad. Of the nearly 3,000 multi-family units completed in Carlsbad since 1970,
it is estimated that about 60 percent or 1,800 were condominiums and 40 percent
or 1,200 units built for rental. (In 1979 about 20 percent of all housing units in
Carlsbad were condominiums.) Further pressure on the existing rental supply comes
as a result of potential conversion of existing rental units to condominiums or
cooperatives.
3
The decline in rental supply and the growth in rental households has meant much of
the single-family and condominium stock is rented. The following table summar-
izes rental rates in all types of units in Carlsbad:
.
- ,422 -
Table 2 (9)
'.
Rental Rates by Type of Unit
Percent
Type of Unit Rented
Single family
Condominium
Duplex
Multiple 2-4
Multiple 5+
30.2
71.5 -
82.3
94.5
100.0
Assessor's Property Information System for Cities, San Diego County, May 1978.
3. Decline in Homeownership
* There are several explanations for the decline in homeownership, the simplest of ..
which is the escalating cost of homeownership which limits it to fewer households.
Another explanation is the. changing demographic composition of both Carlsbad and
the rest of the region, i.e., more older and younger households, more households
without children, all groups which tend to rent more than own. Homeownership
rates remain high in many sections of Carlsbad but are particularly low in and
around the downtown area. (and in the older north coast.) The following table
summarizes changes in homeownership rates in various parts of Carlsbad over the
last decade:
- A23 -
Table 3 (10)
Homeownership Rates by Area 1970-1 979
197.0 % Area
North we st
-
CT 178.01
CT 179.00
CT 180.00
Southwest
Northeast
Homeowners
77.8
down town 3i.5
(coast) 23.8
76.7
73.7
Southeast (La Costa) 41.7
1979 % Homeowners
65.6
20.0
13.4
a 64.8
65.4
53.7
Assessor's Property Information System, San Diego Couniy, October, 1978 and La Costa Special Census, City of Carlsbad,
March; 1978.
4. Problems of Mobile Home ,Development
Carlsbad has five major mobile home parks and nearly 1,200 spaces, The two major
problems with the mobile home for the consumer are
treatment as a non-permanent use. In the past, much
has provided an opportunity for moderate income
its increasing cost and its
mobile home development
housing. However, with
4
increasing costs of coaches, high financing and increases in space rentals, the
average monthly cost is over $400.00 (see Blue Ribbon Mobile Home Report, San
Diego County) well beyond lower income limits. The second problem for the
mobile home use is its treatment as non-permanent housing. Approved by
conditional use permit, mobile home parks face the problem of phase out when a
higher yield use presents itself. While such "change of use" does not seem an
- A24 -
imminent danger in Carlsbad; other parks in' the San Diego area are now
confronting that issue.
Because mobile home owners pay taxes on their vehicles to the state (Department
of Motor Vehicles), local officials and the public have often viewed mobile home
development as a drain on local revenues. In some cases, this may have been true
depending on the facilities and services which local government provided to
specific mobile home development. (Recent state legislation, however, eliminates
the potential of revenue loss because of the mobile home taxation system. SB 1004
passed in the last session of the state legislation provides that all mobile homes
. sold after July I, 1980 will be taxed as real property in the county in which they
are located.)
Added after Planning Commission Review 3/5/80
Recently passed (SB 1004) ani pending (SB 1422) state legislation provide that
mobile homes sold after July 1, 1980 will under certain circumstances be taxed as
real property by County Assessors. While the intent of SB 1004 is clear, difficult
. problems of interpretation concerning "proper installation", "permanent founda-
tion" and Yocal inspection" of mobile homes remain.
Currently, Carlsbad is developing a mobile home overlay zone for future applica-
tion. The Housing Elemen; Review Committee, in reviewing the mobile home issue
in Carlsbad, reached the following conclusions. The City should: -<
- A25 -
I. Recognize fully
many residents.
2. Indicate clearly
..
the importance of the mobile home as a source of housing for
that whatever programs are developed or incentives offered to
promote "affordable" housing will be equally applied to mobile home develop-
ment.
3. 'Indicate that any site guidelines to low or moderate income housing in general
could include mobile home development as well.
4. Any density bonuses developed or recommended could be considered to apply
to mobile home development.
5. Indicate that while "exclusivef1 mobile home designations may not be indicated,
there will be no discrimination against the use in general.
6. Indicate encouragement for development of mobile home subdivisions and/or
PRD's so as to gradually eliminate "change of use1; danger.
7. Indicate support for "open parksf1 in Carlsbad and intention of City to report
non-compliance with "open park" laws. t
The Committee's entire discussion of this topic is summarized in Appendix C of
this document.
e
- A26 -
5. Problems of Deteriorated Housing and Mixed Uses
Like most cities Carlsbad has m older stock of.housing some of which is in poor
condition. The city's housing needs related to poor condition, inappropriate uses
and deteriorating neighborhoods is confined to the area around downtown, Census
Tract 179. This is also the target area €or the City's rehabilitation and
redevelopment program. Of the approximate 350 dwelling .units classified as .
dilapidated or deteriorating in the city, about 200 are in this area; the remainder
are scattered. These 200 units constitute about ten. percent of the housing stock in
this area.
In addition to deteriorating stock, the encroachment of some non-residential uses
have caused further deterioration. While mixed use is often capatible with and
even advantageous to housing, certain types of industrial or public facility uses
fragment the neighborhood and destroy values which promote sound housing.
Certain zoning categories in the area which allow some uses not compatible with
residential values must be re-examined in light of their effect on the area's iuture
for housing. Some of these problems are currently beng examined by the.Vidlage
Area Redevelopment Committee. (A site map of the Carlsbad Village Area follows
this discussion . )
.. A27 -
. .-
I
..
(Changes added after La Costa Review and April, 1980 Survey in La Costa)
I D. COMMUNITY PROFILE - LA COSTA
The city's southeast quadrant, mainly encompassing the La Costa area (CT 200.03)
has developed largely since 1970.
exhibits many community characteristics in sharp contrast with the. rest of the '
Because of .its recent development, the area
city. The following discussion and tables summarize those characteristics (Source:
La Costa Special Census, City of Carlsbad, 1978), and a survey conducted by the La
Costa Land ComDanv in Aixil. 1980.
1. Area Boundaries
The southeast quadrant of the city, the incorporated area south of Palomar Airport
Road and east of El Camino Real is generally referred to as La Costa. Some of the
development in this area is, (however,) not and never was a part of the La Costa
Ownership. ' (Ponderosa, Chaparral and Mola projects.) The community profile
summarized here refers to the entire southeast quadrant regardless of original
ownership pattem or development.
2. Population and Household Characteristics
La Costa has developed as an affluent community with very low percentages of
elderly or minority families. In 1978 there were 1,556 households in La Costa with
a total population of 4,037, about 2.59 persons per household. Only about five
percent of the community's total population was over 65; about 5.5 percent of the
- A29-
population was minority status. Based on the April 1980 survey, there were
approximately 3,500 households in La Costa with a total population of about 9,065
persons (using the 2.59 persons per household formula of the 1978 special census.
About one-third of the area's households did not answer the income question in the
1978 Special Census. Of the approximately 1,000 households responding, however,
42 percent reported annual incomes in excess of $30,000.
3. Housing Unit Characteristics
The following table summarizes the growth pattern in La Costa in the last decade:
Table 1
Housing Unit Growth - La Costa
Year: 1970 1978 1980 (survey)
Percent Percent , Percent
Total units 271 2,901 4,366
Singie family 171 , 63.1 1,595 54 ..9 2,852 65.4
Multi-f amily 100 36.9 1,300 44.8 1,514 34.6
Mobile homes *
4. Vacancy Rates
Housing surveys have consistently shown high vacancy rates in La Costa.
following table summarizes the 1978 findings on vacancy:
The
- A30 -
Table 2
Vacancy - La Costa
1980 survey __. 1978 -
Total units 2,901 4,366
788 Vacant Units 1 , 342
% Vacant 46.3 17.8
This high 1978 vacancy rate is misleading and can be explained by the large'number '.
of units under construction, only recently completed or used as resort homes.
'Table 2 shows the change over two years. The following table summarizes vacancy
change by category:
Table 3
Categories of Vacancy - La Costa
Percent - 1978 Percent 1980survey --
1,342 778 Total vacant units ..
Under construction 220 16.5 194 24.9
For sale 466 34.7 100 (est) 12.9
65 4.8 45 (est) 5.8 For rent
Resort or seasonal home 510 38.0 439 (est) 56.4
- 6.0 - Unknown 81
While technically vacant, a large percentage of these units are not actually
available: Actual those under construction and those held as second homes.
vacancy rate (for sale and for rent'units) would be 18.3 percent of the total stock
- A31 -
9. I
of La Costa. It is worthy of note'that units available for rent constitute only about
(less than) five percent of the La Costa stock.
5. Homeowners hip
In 1970 there were fewer than 300 units in the La'Costa area; 42 percent of those
were owner occupied. By 1977 with more than 2,000 units only 28 percent of all
units were owner occupied. The low ownership rates reported by the County
Assessor's office in 1977 can be explained by the .high multi-family construction
rate and the number of units used as second homes. The 1978 Carlsbad survey in
La Costa indicates the homeownership rate to have risen to about 53 percent. This
reversal can be explained by more single-family construction after 1977 and fewer
units used as resort or second homes. The April 1980 figures for homeownership
have not been determiqed, but they appear to support the significant irxrease in
homeownership rates in the community.
- A32 -
APPENDIX B
CONSTRAWTS TO PROVXDXNG "AFFORDABLE" HQUSING
MARKET AND GOVERNMENTAL
..
'.
CONSTRAINTS TO PROVIDING "AFFORDABLE1' HOUSING:
MARKET AND GOVERNMENTAL
A. INTRODUCTION
During the last decade the San Diego area has consistently been among the top five
metropolitan areas in the nation in the annual production of housing units. While
the capacity of the local construction industry is formidable, economic, market'and
governmental trends of the 1970's have resulted in an inability to produce enough
"affordablev1 units and a reduction of housing opportunities for many sectors of the .
population. The constraints which restrict housing opportunity are both public and
private, and the two are closely related. Even the direct costs of producing
housing, such as land, construction and financing costs, cannot simply be labeled
*Iprivatel1 because of the central role government policies play in market decisions
However, for purposes of discussion and .at both the national and local level.
organization the important constraints to broader housing opportunity have been
divided into market and governmental categories.
1.
For
B. ' MARKET CONSTRAINTS TO "AFFORDABLE" HOUSING
General Inflation and Particularly Housing Inflation
the year 1978 the Consumer Price Index €0; the San Diego area rose 12.4
percent. This was the highest overall increase in the nation. The following table
illustrates the comparison with other areas:
-B1 -
' Table 1
Percent Increase in Cost of Living All Items - 1978
United States Average 9.0
Los Angeles, Long Beach,
Anaheim 8.3
San Diego 12.4
Source: Consumer Price Index, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Department of Commerce, 1978
The most striking dliference between San Diego and other areas is in housing
expenses compared as follows:
Rent
Table 2
Percent Increase in Housing Costs. 1978
us.
Aver age
,7.3
L.A. - San
Long Beach Diego
9.1 9.4 '
Home ownership 12.9 9.9 19.3
Gas & electricity 7.0 6.2 8.1
Source: Consumer Price Index, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Department of Labor, 1978
2. Land Costs for Residential Development
In the last 30 years, cost of land has risen more rapidly than any other component
of the total housing product. The following table illustrates this trend:
- 02 -
..
Table 3
..
Cost Components of the Average Single Family Home
1949 - 1977: .% Of Total
Land and Overhead
Development Construction & Profit Financing
1949 11 .o 69.0 15.0 5.0
1969 21.4 ' 54.6 17.0 7.0
1974
1977
24.6
25.0
4s .4
46.7
17.0
17.5
10.0
-10.8
Source: Professional Builder, March, 1978.
In Southern California, land costs are increasing more rapidly than the national
average. The Construction Industry Federation of San Diego County estimates that
land costs in San Diego comprise about 35 percent of total housing cost and up to
50 percent in very desirable areas.
In San Diego County there is a wide variation in cost of residentially zoned land.
These variations can be explained by several factors such as accessibility of the
area to employment, shopping, and amenities and availability and quality of
services. Statistics available from the San Diego County Assessor's Office provide
a quantification of these variations. These statistics reflect costs of undeveloped
residential land per acre. The following table summarizes these costs around the
County.
d
- B3 -
I.
Table 4
Value/Acre Undeveloped Residential Land - 1977 . .
Area
Carlsbad
-
San Dieguito
Oceanside
East Suburban San Diego
South Suburban San Diego
Coastal San Diego
Coronado
Central San Diego
Source: San Diego County Assessor's Office
Value/Acre
$ 83,000
77,000
49,000
39,000
49,000
149,000
240,000
100,000
. Cgrlsbad's vslue/acre was the highest in North County and was sixth highes+ in the
region. Those areas exceeding Carlsbad were either coastal or immediately
surrounding Central San Diego.
..
3. Construction Costs
Although construction costs represent a declining precentage of total housing cost
(see Table 2), the combination of labor and materials still usually represents the
largest cost component of housing development. In the Means Construction Cost
index of 70 cities in the United States-and Canada, San Diego ranked sixth after
Anchorage, San Francisco, Hcnolulu, New York and Los Angeles in overall
construction costs (Means Construction Cost Index, Kingston, MA, April, 1979).
- B4 -
The following discussion and tables summarizes local and comparative construction
cost increases since 1975 (wage and materials costs are generally uniform
throughout the San Diego Market Area). *
4. Materials Cost
In general, materials costs in continental U.S. cities vary only slightly from each
other and from the national average. Construction materials in general have
increased about 24 percent in the last four years. . Staggering increases in certain
materials like wood products have been offset by actual decreases in certain types
of materials; tile and paint are examples. The following table summarizes the
percent increase in materials costs since 1975 for low and high cost areas.
Table 5
Percent Increase in Construction Materials . Since 1975, San Diego a,;d Comparative Cities
Percent
Increase
U.S. Average 23.9 (30 major cities)
San Diego 22.5
Charlotte, NC 21.6
San Francisco 28.5
Los Angeles
-Dallas
New York City 27.0
- B5 -
5. Labor Costs
The major, difference in construction'costs between high cost and low cost cities is
found in labor rate differentials. While construction wage rates have increased
' about 30 percent since 1975 as a U.S. average, high co.st cities have had much
higher increases. The following table summarizes these increases.
Table 6
Percent Increase in Construction Wage Rates
Since 1975, San Diego Market Area and Comparative Cities
City
U.S. Average
(30 major cities)
Wage Rate Increase ' .
29.7
San Diego 50,7
Charlotte, NC -7.5 (lowest)
San Francisco 68.0 ..
Los Angeles * 52.1
- Dallas 9.5
New York City 49.5
6. Site and Off-site Improvements
Site improvements include earthwork, pilings and fillings, utilities, roads and walks,
and landscaping. Cost of site improvements -- does not include the actual cost of
land.
- B6 -
San Diego is the only otherwise "high cost" city to have site improvement costs
well below the national average for such improvements. This may be partly
explained .by the availability of bcildable land, minimal geological protection
needed and perhaps prevalence of lower density housing requiring less site work.
7. Financing Costs
The impact of interest rates on housing is substantial both for renters and buyers.
The percentage increase of financing as a component of total housing cost has
doubled in the last 30 years (see Table 2). Interest rates are determined by national
policies and economic conditions and in 1979 have reached an unprecedented level
(13% percent). Rates to develop rental units and interim and construction loans are
higher. For purchasers, each one percent increase in interest rates translates into
75 cents per thousand dollars per month of payment on a 30 year loan. The
following table summarizes monthly payments required to amortize a $65,000 loan
over a 30 years period .at several different interest rates.
Table 7
$65,000 Loan (30 years) Monthly Payment at Different Interest Rates
7.5 % $454.49
8.5 % 499.80
9.5 %' 546.56
* 10.5 % 594.59
13.5 % . 744.52
16.5 % 900.35 --
-B7-
While several different types of interest subsidy programs exist with the intent of
expanding homeownership opportunities, they provide lower interest rates to only a
small portion of those seeking and using .housing finance loans. Down payment
requirements of most conventional loans (ten to 20 percent of purchase price) also
, restrict housing opportunity. Programs like the VA and FHA government loans
which provide easier down payment- terms are limited to a small percentage of
buyers, enforce restrictive upper loan amounts and may require certain additional
payments (points) to make use of the loans.
7. Market Constraints And Their Effect On Carlsbad
The market constraints described here reflect prevailing conditions in the San
Diego area. Inflation, construction and finance rates are similar throughout the
local market area including Carlsbad. The most striking constraint differentials
throughout the region are land costs. Because of its desireable coastal location and
position directly in the path of major development, Carlsbad land costs are the
highest in North County and among the highest in the San Diego area.
C. GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS TO "AFFORDABLE" HOUSING
*
Local governments affect the supply, distribution and cost of housing through land
use controls, building codes, permits and fees for provision of services and
facilities. Compliance with environmental procedures, public review processes and
the delay inherent in meeting these varying requirements also influence the cost
-
and nature of residential development.
- B8 -
'I b
1. Land Use Controls
The location and types of housing are determined to a great extent by development
policies contained in the Land Use Element which, establishes the amount and
. distribution of various land uses throughout the city. Residential development is
allowed in the following General Plan land use categories:
Table 8
Residential Land Use Categories - General Plan
Land Use Allowable . Category Density D.U./ac.
Low density 0 - 1.5
Low-medium density 0 - 4.0
Medium density 4 .- 10.0
Medium-high density 10 - 20.0
High Density 20 - 30.0
Only the latter two categories comprising about ten
. can accommodate a range of multi-family uses such
apartment development. Only about 250 acres are
category which might accommodate medium-rise
Total Percent
Acreage of Total
Designated Acreage
1,777 7.5
6,487 27.4
3,072 13.0
2,073 8.8
25 1 1.1
percent .of the city's acreage
as low-rise condominiums and
zoned in the highest density
condominium and apartment
development. About half the acreage in this highest density category is in existing
use and not readily available for development. The use of the density ranges and
such special designations as Planned Community (PC) zones provide the opportunity
-
to depart from the concept of minimum lot size and allow for clustering and mixing
of densities. While this approach encourages good design and planning, it has
-89-
almost no effect on housing cost since there is no increase in the number of units
allowed per acre. The more units per
improvements and developer's overhead.
* The city's coastal location and extremely
acre, the .less cost per unit for fees,
high land prices per acre (See Table 4)
makes sufficient higher density designations (20 units plus per acre) essential to
produce affordable housing.
2. Building Regulations
Building codes insure minimum quality standards to the housing consumer. Carls-
bad has adopted the Uniform Building Code, one of several model codes and the one
prescribed by the State of California. While localities may adopt standards higher
than the State Uniform Building Code, they have no discretion to employ lower
standards.
The effects of building codes on housing costs is not a local but a national problem.
The content, scientific bases and methods of development of building codes have
been severely 'criticized for sometime. These criticisms have resulted in legisla-
tion such as the Voluntary Standards and Certification Act of 1976 and the
establishment of the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) created'by the
Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. The purpose of these efforts is
to establish "uniform prcedures aimed at ensuring the fair and adequate represen-
tation of all interested parties in the standard setting process'I.
- 810 -
3. Site Preparation: Subdivision Regulations
Recent trends in subdivision regulations indicate that an increased burden for
provision of public facilities is being placed on the housing developer. In addition
to requiring installation of public improvements prior to development, subdivision
laws often require land dedications- for parks and schools. In North San Diego
County, compliance with all subdivision regulations may cost anywhere from. a
minimum of $9,000 per lot to $20,000 per lot depending on terrain and' special
problems. (Building Contractors Association of San Diego.) For more specific
estimates on Carlsbad, see Table 10 at the end of this section.
4. Environmental Review: California Environmental Quality Act and the Coastal
Act of 1976
Two separate studies have attempted to quantify the cost per housing unit of
compliance with the CEQA requirements for preparation of an Environmental
Impact Report.
In a study done by the Urban Institute in San Diego, it was determined that the
environmental review process added about $165.00 to the cost of each housing unit
in the year of the study, 1974-1975 (the Urbah Institute, Washington, DC,+ 1975).
This was considered a fairly insigniPicant cost element particularly in comparison
with Florida where similar regulations contributed $386.00 to the price of a housing
unit. In a similar study done by the California AssemblyS Committee on Local
-
Government (Sacramento, 19751, it was estimated that the cost per unit was
$150.00, The main reason for the cost was given as document preparation and
- B11 -
delay and not implementation of mitigation measures. The main recommendation
made by both studies was the preparation of Master EIR's by localities to cut the
costs of document preparation and delay.
Permit regulation by the California Coastal Commission began on February 1,
1973. While studies have indicated about 90 percent of all applications are
eventually approved, this figure does not take into account the time, uncertainties
and modifications involved in obtaining approval. A survey of coastal zone building
activity indicates that the percentage of home building in coastal zone cities fell
from 24 percent of the state's total to 17 percent while apartment construction fell
County, compliance with all subdivision regulations may cost anywhere from a
minimum of $9,000 per lot to $20,000 per lot depending on terrain and special
problems. (Building Contractors Association of San Diego.) For more specific
estimates on Carlsbad, see Table 10 at the -end of this seciion.
4. Environmental Review: California Environmental Quality Act and the Coastal
Act of 1976
Two separate studies have attempted to quantify the cost per housing unit of
compliance with the CEQA requirements for preparation of an Environmental
Impact Report.
In a study done by the Urban Institute in San Diego, it was determined that the
environmental review process added about $165.00 to the cost of each housing unit
in the year of the study, 1974-1975 (the Urban Institute, Washington, DC, 1975).
This was considered a fairly insignificant cost element particularly in comparison
- B12 -
with Florida where similar regulations contributed $356.00 to the price of a housing
unit. In a similar study done by the California Assembly's Committee on Local
Government (Sacramento, 19751, it' w;1s estimated that the cost per unit was
$150.00. The main reason for the cost was given as document preparation and
delay and not imp1ementa:ion of mitigation measilres. Tbe main recommendation
made by both studies was the preparation of Master EIR% by localities to cut the
costs of doccment preparaticn and delay.
i.
Permit regulation by the California Coastal Commission began on February 1,
' . 1973. While studies have indicated about 90 .percent of all applications are
eventually approved, this figure does not take into account the time, uncertainties
and modifications involved in obtaining approval. A survey of coastal zone building
activity indicates that the percentage of home building in coastal zone cities fell
from 24 percent of the state's total to 17 percent while anartment construction fell ,
from 30 percent to 21 percent (the California Coastal Plan: A critique, San
Francisco, Institute for Contemporary Studies, 1976). The same study indicated
that existing housing prices'for the period'January, 1973 to April, 1975 rose an
average of 41 percent in the permit zone and 27 percent in coastal counties but
outside the permit zone. It is difficult to ascribe these increases solely to the
presence of a permit zone since coastal property would undoubtedly become
continually more valuable even without any coastal management. However, those
costs associated with delay and/or modifications may be ascribed to the existence
of a special permit zone. Unlike costs related to EIR review, there is no available
data which quantifies the cost of delays or modifications in the coastal' permit
zone.
- B13 -
5. The ,Approval Process: Costs of Delay
' Delay is frequently the most significant factor in the overall cost impact of
govenimental review and regulation. The time lag from filing of the tentative map
' to the issuance of building permits is critical because of expensive carrying costs
and loan costs. Some attempt to quantify the cost of delay in connection with the
CEQA process was attempted in 1974 by the Construction Industry Research Board
of California.
Table 9
Costs of Delavs
Annual Cost of Delay
Low - High Range Cost Component .-
Land holding costs 1.2 %to 2.2 %
Building cost inflation 3.0 %to 13.0 %
Overhead costs 4.0 %to 10.0 %
Fore gone re venues. 1.2 .%tQ 11.4 %
TOTAL 9.4 % 36.6 %
'Delay sometimes means large enough market changes that plans may have to be
significantly amended and the entire review process started over again. Normal
processing time was not considered a serious constraint to the production of
--
housing in the city. However, changes in the EIR process on small parcels in -
developed areas was suggested as helpful (see Action 5-7).
.- 814 -
6. -. Fees and Fee Structure
Fees charged by the city help cover the costs of permit processing, inspections,
environmental impact determinations and contribute toward the provision of
various facilities and services. Tables 10 and 11 following this section provides an
outline of various fees and their estimated cost in the development of (a) single-
family and multi-family housing (house).
Fees relating to standard subdivision, zoning and building regulations (map filings,
zone changes, general plan amendments, etc.) are usually accepted by the
- construction industry as part of the cost of doing business.
Fees related to the provision of various community facilities and services both
because of their. cost and their recent vintage are seen as more onerous by the
building industry and as a constraint to providing affordable housing. In California,
major fee increases for provision of facilities and services have evolved as a
response to rapid growth, high standards in public facilities often mandated by
federal or state government and shrinking revenues as a result of the property tax
limitation initiative (Proposition 13) effective June, 1978.
Since the passage of Proposition 13, California cities and counties, as well as
school and special districts have been developing new and increasing existing fees
and service charges.
In Fall, 1979 Carlsbad adopted a Public Facilities Fee of two percent of assessed
value per unit to cover costs of providing services and facilities to new develop-
- 013 -
ment or redevelopment in the city. This fee now being imposed covers the
following services and facilities: parks, major streets, traffic signals, storm drains,
bridges, public buildings, such as fire "stations, police facilities, maintenance yards,
libraries and general offices. While the fee will provide essential facilities and
services, it will constitute an added cost as deveiopers set housing prices and rents.
The use of the Public Facilities Fee (PFF) will, however, consolidate fees in certain
cases so that the two percent (will) can cover fees such as the park dkdication or
in-lieu payment formerly charged by the city. Lastly, the PFF provides' that'the
city may exempt low-income housing development from the fee. The PFF also
exempts construction by non-profit corporations or state or federal government,
The latter agencies are those mos; usually involved in developing lower income
housing.
-
7. Provision of Facilities and Services
For the past two and one-half years, the most severe public service problem in
Carlsbad has been obtaining 'necessary sewage treatment capacity to meet housing
and growth demand in the city.
Ira late 1979, the city was allocating permits for 'approximately 850 units in the
city. Additional allocations of approximately 1,850 units were being made by other
districts. There is no precise indication of: when additional needed capacity will be
available.
Severai recent developments, however, indicate that major treatment facilities
will be available in the next two-year period. These developments include planned
- B16 -
enlargements (Encina) reactivatidns (Et Camino Real) at existing treatment plants
and new plant development to serve the La Costa area. Another possiblity for
increased capacity is the use of Satellite Wastewater Treatment Faciltiies which
would be provided by developers in Master Plan areas and provide capacity
potential beyond immediate development.
8. Intergovernmental Structure -
'5pecial districts" provide many of the important public facilities and services
necessary for housing development. These "special districts" are often (as in the
case- of sewer) the decisive factor in whether a development will go forward or not.
The development process requires a multitude of permits, approvals and fees from
various governmental agencies.
several water, sewer a.nd school districts.
Caslsbad, like many California cities includes
Reorganization of special districts along municipal lines would, of course, be a
drastic procedure involving restructuring of state and iocal regulations and finance.
An alternative to such reorganization, often suggested by the building industry is
the trone-stop processingvt system, where the jurisdiction granting building permits
is also empowered to give all other information, approvals and collect fees.
Proposals which would facilitate this simplified kind of pro.cessing are now being
considered by the State Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee.
- B17 -
i.
9. Federal-s -- and Article 34 of the State Constitution
A serious government constraint in planning for or obtaining future funding is the
lack of clear guidelines or allocation allowances f roIn either the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (federal) or the California Housing Finance
Agency (slate). The funding ability of both agencies is constantly subject to
change by federal and state legislation. Most important, there is no definitive
statement from either agency concerning target allocations for the future for the
San Diego area, or Carlsbad in particular.
Article 34 of the California Constitution requires voter referendum approval of all
low-rent housing projects' "developed, constructed or acquired in any manner" by
any state public bcdy. In November, 1978, an Article 34 referendum failed in
Carlsbad. This makes it impossible for Carisbad to develop certain categories of
housing (public housing, CHFA financed 100 percent subsidy) without a successful
referendum.
..
Recent state and federal (pending) legislation may make it easier for cities like
Carlsbad to participate in the development of lower income housing. AB 1092
(Moore) passed in the last session of the California legislature significantly narrows
the scope of Article 34 and permits agencies lile housing authorities to participate
in lower income development without a successful referendum under certain
specific circumstances. For instance, under the .new legislation, a city without
referendum authority may assist in the production of low-income units intended for
ownership, develop low-income rentals of one to four units not on adjacent parcels,
lease low-rent units from a private party, acquire land for eventual low-rent
.. - B18 -
development if completed units are transferred to private ownership, assist in
financing the development of low-rent housing by a private owner, and assist in
rehabilitation for eventual lower income ho&eh,olds. AB 1092 is a legislative
interpretation of Article 34 and it is expected that its legality will be tested in the
courts. This legislation does not obviate the. need fbr a successful referendum,
however, since the direct development of lower income housing of 100 or 150 units
as suggested in this element still requires referendum approval.
I
Deleted 3/5/80, action still pending.
(The Ullman Bill (HR 3712) still pending in the U.S. Congress, would eliminate the
tax free status on the interest of certzin mortgage subsidy bonds. The current
federal income tax exemption would be eliminated on the proceeds of bonds "used
directly or indirectly for mortgages on most owner occupied residences." The tax
free exemption wouid be retained for bonds directed toward the development of
low or moderzte income rental housing. The bill's intent is to encourage issuance
of bonds for such projects by eiiminating the tax exemption on competing uses.
Suggestions made in this element concerning bond issuance by the city are all
directed toward rentals or rehabilitation.)
- B19-
Table 10
i.
Estimated Cost Breakdown; Construction of Single-Family Unit
Ca’rlsbad, 1979
Fees
Sewer fee
School fee and/or agreement Permits: building, grading, pluhbing,
Map fees, plan checks, deposits
Environment a1 ass esimen t
electric
TOTAL
Site Preparation
Excavation, grading, landscaping Streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks Water systems, main hydrants Underground utilities
Sewers
Engineer in g
Soils testing
TOTAL
Amount mm % of
Total
$ 1,000 1,480 -x
909 618
50
4 , 057 3.1
4,777 3,306 1 , 101
522
813
750 193 --
11,462 9.0
Bonds 51 Taxes (during construction) . 133 Finan r i ng 6,000
TOTAL
Land
6,184 4.9
.27,666 21.7
Administrative/profit 15,000 11.7
Const c uc tion 63,000 49.5
TOTAL HOUSE COST ‘$127,369 100 .o
PUDLIC FACILITIES FEE $ 2,546 2.0
(1,800 sq.ft. $35.00 per sq.ft,)
*Fees vary dependipp, upon school district from no fees to over $2,000 per house.
- B20 -
Table 11
Estimated Cost Breakdown; Construction of Multi-Family Unit
15 Units/Acre, Carisbad, 1980
Fees .__
Sewer fee School fee and/or agreement Permits: building, grading, plumbing,
Map fees, plan checks, deposits Environmental assessment
electric
' TOTAL
Site Pre Dara tion
Amount --
'$ 1,000
1,000
440
170 50
$ 2,660
% Of
Total
5.7
Excavation, grading, landscaping 1,070 Streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks 990 Water 'systems, main hydrants SO0 Underground utili ties ' 350 Sewers 400 Engineering 250 Soils testing 40
TOTAL $ 4,QOO' 8.7
Bonds . 10
Financing 1,000
Taxes (during constructionj 40
TOTAL
Land
$ 1,050 2-3
$ 5,333 11.5
Administrative/profit
Construction 33,250 71.8 (1,800 sq.ft. $35.00 per sq.ft.)
TOTAL HOUSE COST $46,293 100.0
' Public Facilities Fee 2% $ 924 2.0
Added as per comments of State Department of Housing and Community Development (4/ 1 1 180).
-B21 -
,
.
APPENDIX C
MOBILE HOME DISCUSSION
..
..
MOi3EE HOME DISCUSSION
The following attachment includes the Summary of Recommendations made by the'
County?s Blue Ribbon Mobile Home Park Committee, February, 1979 and the
Summary of Discussions held by the Carlsbad Citizen's Housing Element Review
Committee. The position of the committee is summarized by the seven statements
on pages 14 and 15 of Appendix C. These statements are reflected in the '
treatment of the mobile home use in Section I1 (Goals, Policies, Programs) of this
Housing Element.
- Cl-
I TECHNICAL APPENDIX - Mobile Home Discuss.ion
' EXECUTIVE SUl4MARY
The Blue Ribbon Nobilehone Park Committee was formed by .
the Board of Supervisors on Hay 16, 1978 (#63) to thoroughly
review the current issues facing the mobilehome industry
and to report back to the Board of Supervisors on their
f4ndi.ng.s including appropriate recorriiendations. In
addition, the Board specifically directed that the Cornriittee
address the question of mobilehome parks in iiciividual
cs,lununity ?lam and the Rzgional Grovth Xanagement Plan.
The 2lue Ribbon Mobilehome FPrk Committee h- US devotzd
over 2,400 person hours meeting on a regular basis to
review the problems and solutions relating to mobilehomes
in San Diego County.
The final report from the Blue Ribbon Mobilehome Park
Committee contains specific recommendations to the Board of
Supervisors which the Committee recommends for implementa-
tion to relieve the .housing shorkage while provid.Lng hwsing
choices in the county, particularly for lower income .
\
.-
persons.
-1-
SUMMA~Y OF RECOMMENDATIONS,
I.. That the Board of Supervisors direct the County's Legis-
-')
lative Advocate to pursue a change in the state law that
will automatically provide that new mobiiehomes be subject
to ad valorern taxation and used. mbbilehomes, when sold,
should be changed to ad valorem taxa.tion. Sales tax should
be eliminated on all mobilehome sales.
In the event that 41 fails, the Board of Supervisors direct
the County's Legislative Advocate to pursue a change in the
. 2.
. State DMV 2ee structure to provide for a redistribution of
a.portion of the fees collected to those special districts
which do not. now receive such tax distribution.
3. Direct staff of the Integrated Planning Office and Holxsing
and Community Development to identify available suitable
pGblic and private lanis in the County for Comunigy Block
Grant Assistance in meeting the needs of low and moderate
I
r
1
i -1 i
a income housing.
4', Direct IPO in the current revisions of the Countywide
Housing Element to identify available sites for low and
moderate income housing.
Direct IPO as a part of the Countywide Housing Element 5:'
study 'to prepare additional incentives for developers
of affordable housing for persons of low and moderate
incomes.
6. Refer to IPO for consideration in the Countywide Housing
. . Element study, the adoption cf an amendment to the Policy
Section of the Hdusing Element and amend the Zoning
-2-
,'
Ordinance which will eliminate the, Special Use Permit (SUP),
and substitute an administrative procedure for mobilehomes
and mobilehome parks, provided .the following two conditions
are met. *
A.
B.
-.
Declaration that said mobilehousing and/or mobilehone
park spaces shall be committed as affordable housing
for persons of very low, low and moderate income, as
determined by HUR the San Diego area, with the
following ratios:
Q t7ery Low Incone Households = 20% Miri. of-the Project
ea Low Incclme Households = 30% Min. of the Project
Q &oderate Income Households = Balance to Total of the
Project
Mobile housing and/or mobilehome parks to be located
in those areas as,determined by staff (IPO and Eousing
and Community Development) as required by Article 2.
"Fair Share Allocation Plans" of 65302(c) of the
Government Code and Paragraph 6456 "Standards and
Plans for Adequate Sites" - and 6460 "Adequate Pro-
vision. ''
7. That the Board of Supervisors direct staff to explore the
possibility of providing a land bank system that willq
provide available land to private developers who could
develop mobilehome parks for displaced persons forced to
move because of change of use of existing mobileheme-'parks
and/or low cost mobilehome housing for low and moderate
incomes .
Direct IPQ to include consideration of mobilehome park. use 8.
9.
10.
11.
12:
13.
14.
\
as'a-n alternative land use in the Edgemoor Master Plan
Study.
Direct the CAO and the County's Legislative Advocate in *
Washington, D.C. to support efforts to develop a mbile-
home park on Ream Field, U.S. Navy Land, Imperial Beach.
Direct the CAU to support efforts to develop a mobilehome
park on County-owned.land in Campo (Old Camp Lockett).
Direct IPO to prepare and for your Board to adopt, an
ordinance which allows developers of affordable hoiising
for persons of mediwn income 100% density bows for projects
located in a density of from 4.3 Du/Ac to a maximum density
of 7.3'Du/Ac.
low income a.lLow 200% density bonus for projects located in
areas permitting a maximum density of 4.3 Du/Ac or less.
For development of housing €or persons of
:j
Direct IPO to prepare amendments to rcrnove all the resi- '. dential policies of a11 ccrmnunity plans which contain
language which prahibits mobilehomes from locating within
their community.
Direct IPO to amend all community plans to includie a housing
element which is consistent with the Countywide Housing
Element of the General Plan and meets the State G,uidelines
653C2 (c) with particular emphasis on Paragraph 6456 and
6460.
That the Board of Supervisors direct staff to set for-public
hearing, four revisions to the Zoning Ordinance to achieve
the following:
'j A,. Revise the standard Mobilehome hental Park
-4-
.. .
15.
16,
17.
1% *
19.
* 20.
0-
21. " * .
B.
C.
D.
Regulations (Section 6500 of the Zoning Ordinance).
Adopt a "No-Frills" Mini-mobilehome Park Regulation.
Adopt a permanent Mobilehome Single-Lot Regulation,
Revise the Planned Mobilehome Park Development .
Regulations (Section 6600 o'f the Zoning Ordinance)
That the Board of Supervisors direct staff to circulate
this report to all interested citizens so that maximum
public input will be assured for the public hearhgs to
amend the Zoning Ordinance as set forth herein.
That the Eoard of Supervisors direct staff to report back
on the staff needed to process the ,. anticipated increase in
applications that approval is expected to generate.
That the Board of Supervisors apply exclusive mobilehome
designations i:; applying zoning to new mobilehome parks ,
Thzt the Board of Supervisors apply to each new mobilehome .,
-.
park except for a mini-mobilehome park of 8 units or less, ..
a permanent zone which includes a building type Designator
("A1*) that permits mobilehome building types only.
That the Eoard of Supervisors direct that each applicant be
required to sign a statement that declares that the proposed
mobilehome park will be operated as an "open park,"
That the Board of Supervisors direct their Legislative
Advocate to seek modification to Title 25 Mobilehome Regu-
lations which will make it applicable to single-lot mobile-
hoine sitings, as defined in the San Diego County Zoning
Ordinance
That; the Board of Supervisors recognize that Title 25 oE
-5-
) the California Administrative Code and the National. Mobile-
home Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 ensures
safe construction of all mobilehomes manufactured after
Septembsr 15, 1971 and July 1, 1976 respectively.
That the Board of Superviscrs direct staff to prepare a
resolution finding that mobilehomes built pursuant to the
22.
National Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 or
after September 15, 1971 pursuant to Title 25 OE the
California Administrative Code which covers performance
standards not included in the federal act, meet the perfor-
mance standards mandated by the State Housing Code for
conventional dwellings; and authorizing the building
official. to issue construction permits for mobilehomes
-.
converted.to dwellings pursuant to an approved Minor Use i '9
Permit; and exempting the building of f'iciai from personal
liability.
23. That the Board of Supervisors direct the building official
to apply the provisions of the San Diego County Building
Code for structural alterations and/or modifications of
permanent single-lot dwellings which were formerly mobile-
homes =
24. That the Board of Supervisors recocjnize that the use permit
process reccmmended for futuresingle-lot mobilehome siting is
necessary to ensure that such sites are designed to 'be coxn-
patible with .- and will blend into the neighborhoods into
which they are to be located.
25, That the Board of Supervisors direct the County's Legis- I 7)
lativc Advocate to seek a requirement in State Code that
-6-
obligates the mobilehome park owner to mme explicitly
indicate the nature of the limited tenancy to each
prospective! park tenarst.
26.- That the Board of Supervisors approve Ii? principle, expan-
sion of the County's contract with Neighborhood House
Association to expand the role 05 the LaiTdlurd/Tenant
Advisory Mediation Council to include medj-ation of mobile-
home related complaints.
..
27. Direct the CAO to identify appropriate funds for accomplish-
ment of such expansion and return to the Board of Super-
visors with necessary contractual documents to imp~-ement
the expanded role.
That the Board of Supervisors encourage a11 mobilehome
developers and park owners to accept coaches, according to
performance stacdards rather than ''New" or ''Used" to pro-
28.
e
vide Some relief to displaced nobilehsnc owners,
29. That the Board of .. Supervisars encourage representatives
of CNHA, WMA, WMHI, and GSMOL to make presentations
. concerning the mobilehome community to all community
planning citizens' comittees, and to other interested
citizen organizations.
That the Board of Supervisors direct their Legislative
v
30.
Advocate to work with the mobilehome industry to seck a
change in banking laws to allow mobilehome financing to be
treated as housing loans, not as commercial loans.
t
* 31. That the Board of Supervisors appoint a five-member
.' committee to continue after the Blue Ribbon Conmittee
terminates, on a quarterly basis, to monitor the progress
on implementation of the final report of the Blue Ribbon
* Committee on mobilehome parks.
..
..
-8-
._
% TO: Members of the Citizens Advisory Cormittee for the Carlsbad Housing Element
Re: Background information on the.Mobile Hone issue particularly as it relates to the Carlsbad Housing Element,
fntroductioa
In Kay, 1971 San Diego Coyty organized the "Blue Ribbon
Mobilehome Park C~mmittee," That committee produced a final
report. in February, 1979. The eight page Summary of Recommendations -I
from that report is attached here. In a memo dated May 14, 1979
local groups listed seven basic recommendations for consideration
by the Carlsbad City Council.
additional recommendations are made.
cate the current status of each of these kecomtendations and what
the role of this Committee might be.
Reccmxiendation 1 (May 14, 1979 letter)
In a July 14 memo to this Cormittee
This paper attempts to indj--
Adopt a policy of favoring use of mobile homes consistent
with applicable rules and regulations.of State and Federal
. entities pertaining to development of permanent. housing
suitable'to persons of low and moderate incomes.
This reconmendation brings up two separate issues and they
should not be confused.
of the increzsing cost of the coach itself and the increases in
space rental does not qualify as "low or noderate income" housing.
The average monthly cost of financing a new mobile home and paying
space rental for it is in excess of $460 per month (page 17 of
Most new mobile home development because
-1
Blue Ribbon Committee Report). Whatever suggestions are finally
agreed upori by this Committee to encourage more moderate cost
housing should be applied equally to mobile home development. These
suggestions will probably range-from use of available subsidies to
bonuses and assistance to private developers of all! types of housing.
.- The second issue raised by this recommendation is the current
treatment of the mobile hoxe use as non-permanent housing. Currently
mobile home parks are approved by issuance of condctional use permits.
The County Blue Ribbon Conunittee is seeking a special area designater ..
(M) - in the zoning ordinance entitled Mobilehome Development. Specific
designation of the M - zoning has a11 the advantages and disadvantages
- of any other specific zoning: definite locations are indicated but
Pan6 prices may increase rapidly because of this.
also recommends that M - zoning be given only if steps to provide a
mix of low ad moderate income units .are being pursued.
The county report
2) Establish a separate zone for mobile parks inclu'ding "no frill
mini-parks. " ..
Cortmen t
Separate zone discussed above. The Blue Ribbon Committee
recommended the use of a "mini.-mobfle home park zone" which could
be developed on as little as one acre. Compared with a standard
mobile home park of minhm"5 acres.
has taken a position against the "mini" designation, principally
The County Planning Commission
because of difficulty of supplying adequate facilities and services
to 8, 10, or 12 mobile homes which might be allowed on one acre.
2
I
3) Identify and designate public and private lands within the city
limits suitable to mobilehome zGning .
Comment
The cited recommendations (3 & 4) from the Blue Ribbon Report
actually only relate to the availabiLity Of sites for low and
moderate income housing in general. Some general indication of
such availability i?, of course, one of the goals of the housing.
' element and will be fully discussed by this Committee.
4) Explore and establish all suitable incentives to mobile home
'.) park development and suitable restraints to prevent unreason-
able "change of use" of any mobilehome zone. Emphasis of
this Committee has been toward "incentives and encouragement
of any and ail types of affordable housing. Whatever incen-
tives and encouragements are fixally agreed to may apply- equally
to inobifc hone developnent. The "zhange of use" danger is inheren? I
in the current system, however, even the possible M - zoning does
not completely eliminate the danger. The long-term protection
against change of use problems would be mobile home subdivisions
or pRd's in which the underlying land is owned individually by
each resident or jointly by an association.
5) Authorize use of single lot mobile homes in Carlsbad subject
to conformity with neighborhood esthetic values, permanent
dwelling rules .and ad-valorem -taxation.
' Comment
. The Blue Ribbon Committee has recommended the adoption of a
3
. pesmanent single lot mobilehome regulation; no action on the issue
has been taken thus far. The single lot mobile home is used as a
housing choice? in rural &%erica and under temporary and emergency
conditions. It is raxeiy used in major urban areas, Technically,
the legal framwork already exists for allowing mobile hames on
single lots. The mobile home must be placed on a permanent foun-
dition and "totally converted from the entity of a mobilehome to
the.entity of a residential building which meets all applicable
building code requirements before it may be occupied and taxed a3
a permanent residential building" (Opinion of County Counsel,
November 1978). In the final analysis any unit which met all
applicable building code requirements and conformed to neighborhood
. . esthc&ic values "would probab3.y bear 1itt.k ,similarity to a stan-
dard xobile home.
. 6) Change existing rules and regulations as necessary tu accept
mobilehonks constructed under California codes as permissible
permanent housing for persons of low and moderate income,
The construction of mobile homes is regulated by the State of
California and by the National Nobilehome Construction and
.% Safety Standards Act. While these state and federal codes
control the production of units, local codes control the$r
placement, location and regulation whether in OH out of mobile
. home parks.
-\
Comment
This recommendation refers to number 22 in the Blue Ribbon
Summary. County Counsel recommended against any such action by
4 ..
.the Board of
criteria for
Supervisors which would have the Board prescribing
conversion of a mobile home into a permanent residential
unit. Counsel also states ''a determination by the building official 1
I
i
i i
i
that a structure complies with all applicable building regulations
is necessary for conversion from mobilehome to permanent residential I
I ! . building. In making such determination the building official has
latitude to accept alternate materials."
73
i.
.. ..
. this
1)
E
1 Prohibit any "closed park" practice by any perk owner or i
mobilehome dealer which would deny a prospective tenant free
choice of lot rental or home purchase. A "closed park" is
2
one in which the park operator selectively offers for sale
only designated mobilehome units from selected dealerships
or hia own Zealership, Such practices are illegal in the
opinion of the San Diego District Attorney's office. In an
f
"open park" any new or used unLt may be located. but require- '.
ments Gn its size, qGality and str-ibck-are are er,t.i-rcly .'.egal,
Prosecution of the closed park situations are handled by the
District Attorney's office. Complaints and follow through
by complaining parties is necessary to assure vigorous
prosecution,
..
The folkowi.ng statements briefly smmarize the approach which
Committee might take in dealing with the mobile home issue:
Recogni.ze fully the inportance of the mobilehome as a source
of housing for many residents,
Indicate clearly that whatever programs are developed or
incentives offered to promote "affordab2e" housing will be
5
equally applied to mobile home development.
Indicate that any site guidelines to low or mcderate income
housing in general could include mobile home development
3)
as well.
Any density bonuses developed or recommended could 4)
' be considered .to apply -to mobile home development.
5) Indicate that while "exclusivef1 mobile home designations
may not be indicated, there will be no discrimination
against the use in general
6) Indicate encourayement for development of mobile home
subdivisions and/or prd's so as to gradually eliminate
"change of use" danger.
7) Indicate support for "open parks" in Carlsbad and
intentiosl of city to report non-compliance with "open
park" laws.
6
/
APPENDIX D
California Housing Finance Agency (CHFA) -
CHFA was created in 1975 with enactment of the Hpusing and Home Finance Act
by the California legislature. The primary purpose of the agency is "to meet the
housing needs of persons and families of low or moderate income" (Wealth and
Safety Code 50950). The agency's funds accrue from the sale of'State of California
general obligation bonds, and federal housing subsidies. With funds from bond
sales, the agency pursues the following programs: long-term financing of new
rental construction, neighborhood preservation and rehabilitation, and purchase of
single-family moderate income mortgages from private lenders. The CMFA Board
of Directors Is appointed by the governor and the legislature.
Code Enf orcernent Program
A literal definition of code enforcement would simply mean enforcement of all
zoning and housing codes. A Code Enforcement Prograrn used in the context of
tfiis Housing Element refers to the systematic review of housing conditions in areas
where the initial signs of blight and 'deterioration have been detected and where
public monies either from the federal or state government or from municipal
bonding are made available to assist in re.habilitation, and any possible relocations.
- D1-
. . -1
Commercial Core
In Carlsbad, this refers to that part of the .Village Area Redevelopment known as
the Village Center (Sub-Area No. 1). This Village Center is generally bounded by
. Grand and Oak (north and south) and the railroad and Interstate 5 (west and'east).
Community Development Block Grant Program
The federal government's major urban'grant program to cities established by Title I
of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974; amended in 1977 (42
USC). Funds are acnially subventioned to Local government based on a popula-
tion/poverty/housing formula. The major federal requirement is that funds be used
primarily to assist low and moderate income households. In FY 1978-79 Carlsbad
received about $140,000.
Department of Eousing and Community Development (HCD)
The state agency with responsibility for developing statewide. housing data, plans
. and programs for determining (with legislative approval) the guidelines for housing
plans of local government. Health and Safety Code Section 41134 authorizes this
department to review local housing elements for conformity with the requirqments
of Section 65302 of the Government Code, and for conformity with the Depart-
ment's guidelines. With the passage of recent legislation (AB 333) this department
* will also have major funding ability in the near future.
- D2 -
P-- De artment 01 Housing ana' Urban Development (HUD)
The federal agency with responsibility for determining national housing policy,
developing housing programs, and guidelines for local government and for funding
' most federal housing programs.
Growth Macagement
Growth management is a process by which the City determines the amount (what),
location (where) and rate (when) of growth to match local government's ability to
provide adequate public facilities *and services. This process indirectly affects
environmental quality and community identity and character. (Carlsbad City
Council 'suoskshop, November 26, 1979).
' Non-Profit Housing Corporation --
A non-profit housing corporation may be established according to Section 9200 of
the Corporations Code of the State of California, "indicate lawful purpose and - not
contemplate the distribution of gains, profits or dividends". Such corporations may
be set up by churches, civic groups, community based organizations, and cities and
counties. Federal and state funds available to such organizations for housing
programs cover all costs including administration. Frofits realized by such
corporations cannot accrue to the benefit of the corporation but must be used to
'defray costs, lower rents or provide additional services.
.- D3 -
\
Preservation Districts b
Clearly identified community areas where the condition of public facilities and
' housing is evaluated using base data such as the 1980 census. Comniunity goals for
preservation of housing, comrnunity facilities and character are set, Changes over
time in land USP patterns are monitored and evaluated to assure that community
goals are maintained.
Public Housing
The f cderal government's oldest, most conventional housing program established by
the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 and directed toward the lowest income households.
Local housing authorities issue bonds on which the federal government pays debt
service. The federal government also pays operating costs not covered by rents.
.Such a program requires a successful referendum. No actual public housing has
been developed in San Diego County under this program.
Section 202 Housing for the Elderly (Section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959 as
-amended, 12 U.S.C.)
Federal government program which provides direct long-term low interest loans to
non-profit sponsors to finance rental or cooperative housing for elderly and
handicapped persons. The eventual tenants are also allowed rent supplements so
that their rent does not exceed 25 percent of income.
- D4 - ..
4 Section 8 Housing Assistance (Section 8, Title I1 of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974, amended 1977, 42 U.S.C.]
This program is the main source of federal housing assistance for low-income
persons or families. The housing assistance payment makes up the difference
between "fair market rent" established by HUD and 25 percent o€ the occupants
income. If "fair market rent" is $300 and tenant income is $1,@00'per month,
i. tenant will be required to pay $250 while the federal subsidy of $50 per month is
paid by the federal government through the Housing Authority.
Added after Planning Commission Review of 2/6/80
Marks Foran Rehabilitation Loans
. Enacted in I. 973 by the California legislature, this program authorizes local
governments or authorities created by them, to sell tax exempt revenue bonds and
use the proceeds to make long-term below. market interest loans to rehabilitate
residences arid in limited circumstances, commercial properties.
Section 312 Rehabilitation Loans
Since 1964, the major federal low interest loan program available for residential
rehabilitation. Participation is permitted by own& occupants, as well as absentee
owners of rental property in specified community improvement area.
- D5 -
4
APPENDIX E
LOW AND MODERATE WCBME HOUSING:
FAEX SHARE AND 3NCLUSliONARY PROVISIONS
L
I'
LOW AND MODERATE lNCQME HOUSING:
FA= SHARE AND 3NCLUSHQNARY PROVISIONS
The gods and policies of this Housing Element have been develcped .to reflect
overall housing needs for Carlsbad in the next five-year period (1980-1985).
Section I1 of this element attempts-to provide a framework for maintaining the
City's existing residential character, as well as providing for the inevirsble growth
of housing demand in middle and upper income categories. Special attention has
been given, however, to policies which might increase low and moderate income
housing opportunities in the City. This speciai attention is h response to both
demonstrated need (see Appendix A) in the City and the region and the Housing
Element' Guidelines of the State of California. ..
Low and Moderate Income - Housing Opportunities: Definitions
"Low and moderate income?' are imprecise terms and in the absence of reliable
annual surveying, the data available are merely estimates. They should be used as
guidelines in determining housing policies and programs and not as absolute
standards of income or need. Estimates of 1979 low and moderate income and
corresponding rer?tal ranges for Carlsbad are summarized in the following table.
Low and Moderate Income Rent Ranges -
1979 Estimates Carlsbad
Low Income Rent ' ModGrate Income Rent Low Income 25% to 35% Moderate Income 25% to 35% 80%of Median Monthly Income 120% of Median Monthly Income -
$10 j725 $223-3 12 $16,087 $335-469
Source: San Diego Demographic and Economic Forecasts: 1977-1 984 developed
by San Diego County, CPO and San Diego Gas and Electric.
The above estimates should be referred to in discussions'of programs which provide
either low or moderate income housing:
Fair Share Allocations: Meeting Lower Income Housing Needs _I_
The purpose of "fair share allocations" is to distribute lower incorrie housing units
throughout a comnimity or region on a cooperative basis. The distribution means
that lower income households retain choice of location, that no one community
. accepts a disproportionate share of low income housing, and that individual
communities accept such units consistent with need and resources. The distribu-
tion formula devised for this region by the Comprehensive Planning Organization
distributes units on the basis of existing need, and population and employment
growth to 1985.
lnclusionary Systems: Meeting Moderate Income Housing Needs
..
An inclusionary housing program or ordinance offers localities a tool which can be
used to expand the supply of low or more usually moderate income housing. Such
inclusionary programs suggest 'or require that all new 'developments above a certain
size, contain a specilied proportion of moderate income housing units. Inclusionary
programs may be voluntary or mandatory and be for sales or rental units. The one
recommended in this Housing Element is voluntary and directed at provision of
moderate income rental units in rettxn for a density bonus. Inclusionary provisions
are usually acconipanied by concessions to the developer like density bonuses, fee
waivers, parking allowances, land writedowns or regulation waivers. Recent state
i
I
legislation (AB1 151, Roos) requires that cities provide developers with one of the
above types of concessions if the developer offers to supply 25 percent low/moder-
ate incornc units. Which concession is offered the developer is entirely at local
discre tion.
i