HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-01-06; City Council; Resolution 8912b Y
9 I'
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
12
14
15
16
17
1E
1s
2c
21
22
22
24
2E
26
23
2e
RESOLUTION NO. 8912
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING
THE 1985 REVISION OF THE CARLSBAD
HOUSING ELEMENT
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad Housing Element needed to be revised to
include new State requirements, as well as updated data and program development
information; and
WHEREAS, the City drafted a revised Housing Element which describes the
City's housing plans and activities and complies with State law; and
WHEREAS, the revised Housing Element has been reviewed and approved, with
minor changes, by the State of California, Department of Housing and Community
Development;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad
that the 1985 Revision of the Carlsbad Housing Element attached hereto is
hereby adopted.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of
day of January , 1987, by the City of Carlsbad held the
the following vote, to wit:
6th
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Pettine and Mamaux
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
ATTEST :
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk 1
( SEAL
City of Carlsbacl
CARLSBAD
HOUSING ELEMENT
(1 98 5 REVISION)
1 .
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................... ES-1
INTRODUCTION ............................................. 1
General Comments ...................................... 1
Themes: Development and Preservation ................... 1 .
Housing Element Require men ts ............................ t
Revisions .............................................. 3
General Plan Relationships ............................... 3
2 . GOALS. POLICIES AND ACTION PROGRAMS ................... 5
Introduction ............................................ 5
Goals .................................................. 5
Policies and Action Programs ............................. 6
Maximum Feasible Units .................................. 13
Summary: Recommended Housing Element Programs ........ 13
3 . IMPLEMENTATION. PRIORITIES. UPDATE AND REVIEW ......... 18
Introduction ............................................ 18
Priorities for Implementation ............................. 18
Citizen Participation .................................... 19
Review and Update ...................................... 20
APPENDICES: NEEDS ASSESSMENT ............................... 23
Historical Development Patterns .......................... 23
Housing Assessment ..................................... 29
Replacement Housing .................................... 51
Coastal Housing ........................................ 52
Site Inventory .......................................... 52
Governmental Constraints ................................ 53
Non-Governmental Constraints ........................... 55
Special Needs .......................................... 56
Energy Conservation .................................... 64
Demographic Assessment ................................ 24
Regional Housing Needs Statement ........................ 50
t
.(
I .
0
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
HOUSING ELEMENT REQUIREMENTS
The State of California requires each City to have an approved general plan to
guide development activities. The Housing Element became one of the required
Elements of the General Plan in 1969.
According to State law passed in 1980 (AB 2853-Roos Sill), the Housing Element
must contain three parts: (1) an assessment of housing needs and an inventory of
resources and constraints relevant to the meeting of these needs; (2) a statement
of the community's goals, quantified objectives, and policies relative to the main-
tenance, improvement, and development of housing; and (3) a program which sets
forth a five-year schedule of actions to implement the policies and achieve the
goals and objectives of the Housing Element.
RE VIS10 N S
The City of Carlsbad adopted its existing Element in 1981 after the current
requirements for housing elements were adopted by the State. At that time the City had an option to follow guidelines that were replaced by the State law, The
City must now revise its Housing Element and receive review and comment from
the California Department of Housing and Community Development. The
revisions were based on the current requirements in State law, more current
information, and changes in housing conditions.
The proposed revisions would bring the City's Housing Element into compliance
with the current State housing requirements. Additional sources of housing infor-
mation, most notably the 1980 Census (previous Element used 1970 and 1975
census), 1984 estimates (previous Element used 1980 estimates), the 1985-1991
Housing Needs Statement, and SANDAG's Series 6 Regional Growth Forecasts (previous Element used Series rv) are used in the revision.
The City contracted with the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG)
through the Local Technical Assistance program to assist with the revision of the
City's Housing Element. SANDAG staff worked closely with the City staff and
used the information available to it as the Regional Data Center and as the
agency responsible for the growth forecasts and fair share needs.
SUMMARY
The City's Housing Element contains three chapters: (I) Introduction, (2) Goals,
Policies, and Action Programs; (3) Implementation Priorities, Update, and Review
and an Appendix which contains the Needs Assessment. The Goals and Policies
have been revised only as necessary to reflect the status of current policies,
ES- 1
? i
i programs, and the new Needs Assessment. The Implementation Programs are the
blueprints for the housing activities from 1985-1991. These two chapters
should provide the City with a means by which it can develop, modify, and/or
revise its housing policies.
during the next five to six years.
directions or approaches for the City. The Housing Element should be used
for these purposes. The Appendix provides an up to date housing needs assess-
ment and a thorough analysis of the important aspects of the housing market in
Carlsbad.
Several policy directions may need to be revised
City Council may wish to identify other
The Needs Assessment is a response to the State requirements for certain types
of information as well as a documentation of the City's housing conditions and
market. The Needs Assessment also identifies the total number of units (11,589)
that the City will have to provide from 1985 to 1991 based upon the adopted
Regional Growth Forecasts. In order for the City to provide its fair share of
the region's need for affordable housing, the City adopted (in 1984) a goal of
assisting 680 lower income households from 1985 to 1991.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
The Housing Element identifies forty-three policies and actions to address the
entire housing needs of Carlsbad. While the programs will address the housing
needs of all the economic segments within the City's housing market, incentives
which will provide affordable housing are necessary. The policies and actions
which will address the fair share responsibilities respond to this requirement.
The City will use existing federal and state resources as well as local incentives
to provide almost 700 households with affordable housing. This effort would meet
the City's "fair share" responsibility. The City will add to, and/or build upon,
existing and previous programs in order to meet this objective. The following
table summarizes the impact of the programs which will address fair share goals:
ACTUAL AND PROPOSED
FAIR SHARE PROGRAM SUMMARY
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Pro gram
Total Units
Pro gram Within City
Number* to 7/1/1985
Section 8 111-3 280
Seniors 111-4 160
Master Plan IV- 7 31
106 Revenue Bonds
Fair Share Goal
Housing Development 111-5 0
Total Fair Share Programs 577 _I
IV- 10 -
New Units
Added
1979-1985
40
160
0
31
106
337
(408)
-
Projected
Units
198 5- 19 9 1
35
60
100
100
400
69 5
(680)
I_
*See Chapter 2 for more detailed explanation of program.
ES-2
r
T'hese programs are designed to address the housing needs of lower income house-
holds (a household of four with an income of less than $22,000).
definitions of affordability, units should be available that rent for less than
$550 per month (focus of these programs) and that sell for less than $65,000.
i
1
Using standard
Presently, these units are located in three of the four quadrants of the City.
The NW quadrant contains 280 Section 8 (existing) and 160 senior units. The
NE quadrant: does not contain any lower income assisted housing units.
quadrant contains 42 rental units for lower income households under the mortgage
revenue bond program. The SE quadrant contains 64 rental units for lower income
households under the mortgage revenue bond program. Finally, there are 31 units
required by Master Plans throughout the City.
The SW
CONCLUSION
The revised Housing Element is a response to State laws and provides a local
planning Element which will guide the City's actions on housing matters.
revisions are based on current data and information, and they outline goals,
policies, programs and actions which are designed to meet the City's housing
needs.
The
ES-3
e
SUIMMARY OF NEEDS ASSESSMENT
COMPARISON TO NORTH COUNTY CITIES
Total Units (1984)
Percent Single Family (1984:t
Percent Multi-Family (1 984)
Percent Mobile Homes (1984)
Percent Vacant Single Family (1984)
Percent Vacant Multi-Family (1984)
Percent Vacant Mobile Homes (1984)
Percent Condominiums (1980)
Owner/Renter (1 980)
Percent Lacking Plumbing (1 980)
Percent Overcrowded (1 980)
Percent Housing Built
1970-1 980 (1980)
Percent Housing Built
before 1940 (1980)
Median Value (1980)
Median Rent (1980)
Percent Overpayers (1980)
Median Household Income (1'980)
Total Units (1980)
CARLSBAD
1980-1 984
Carlsbad Oceanside
16,705
61.3
34.4
4.3
1.4
7.9
0.5
15,352
18.1
1.76
0.4
3.1
65.7
2.7
$123,400
$317
45.0
$22,354
35,416
57.5
3 5.4
7.1
2.1
2.9
1.9
32,733
10.6
1.24
0.7
6.5
55.8
3.7
$75,300
$287
52.2
$14,969
Vista
16,487
62.5
29.2
8.3
1.2
2.3
1.7
14,962
3.2
1.41
0.8
5.3
45.3
4.0
$82,600
$269
50.0
$1 5,285
- Escondido
29,504
54.7
34.1
2.0
2.2
0.9
27,153
6.5
1.20
0.6
4.6
50.7
11.2 '
3.7
$83,100
$301
50.1
$15,258
Sources: 1980 Census, 1984 Population and Housing Estimates, and 1984 Vacancy
Survey.
ES- 4
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
GENERAL COMMENTS
The Housing Element of the General Plan is intended to provide citizens and
public officials of Carlsbad with an understanding of the housing needs of the
community and to develop an integrated set of goals, policies and programs which
can assist the community in meeting those needs. The Element also includes
implementation procedures and priorities. The Appendix includes an extensive
needs assessment. This document is the result of technical revisions to the
Housing Element that the City adopted in 1981. The most significant changes are
updates to the needs assessment and additions necessary to comply with the State
requirements governing Housing Elements. The Goals/Policies/Programs section
was revised where changes in the needs assessment suggests a revision in goals, or
where evaluation of the City's progress from 1980 indicated a need for such re-
visions.
THEMES: DEVELOPMENT AND PRESERVATION
The two crucial themes that were identified in the 1981 Housing Element continue
to be emphasized by the revised Housing Element. The first theme is the City's
desire to ensure orderly growth. Carlsbad's population has exhibited a rapid rate
of growth, more than doubling from 1970 to 1980. The rate of growth is expected
to continue. The following table illustrates past trends from 1970 and the projec-
tions of growth in Carlsbad to 1990.
TABLE 1
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1970-1990
Year
1970
1975
1980
1990
-
Sources:
Population Households
14,944 5,149
19,700 7,240 3 5,490 13,352
62,700 26,100
U.S. Census, 1970; U.S. Census, 1980;
Series 6 Regional Growth Forecasts
1
The second major theme is the desire to preserve the character of the City's
existing residential areas, community scale and desirable environment. This
theme is expressed through an emphasis on rehabilitation and preservation activ-
ities in older neighborhoods and an emphasis on neighborhood identity, orderly development and compatibility with surroundings to be stressed in new develop-
ment. Both themes are addressed in the goals and policies of this element.
Toward a Comprehensive Housing Strategy for Carlsbad
--
The Housing Element is intended to serve as a guide for both elected officials and
staff in evaluating proposals, determining priorities, and making housing decisions
of all kinds. The goals of the element provide a basis for reviewing day-to-day
issues and serve as a basis for evaluating alternatives. The element, when viewed
as a comprehensive housing strategy, also provides the city with a framework to
respond to regional, state and federal housing initiatives and to evaluate state and
federal programs for local use. The element is a comprehensive housing strategy
that informs all residents of Carlsbad's goals, policies and priorities which attempt
to meet "the housing needs of all economic segments of the community."
HOUSING ELEMENT REQUIREMENTS
Each city in the State of California must have an approved general plan to guide
. its development activities. The plan must contain certain elements. The Housing
Element became one of the required elements in 1969.
State law passed in 1980 (AB 2853-Roos Bill) describes the requirements for
housing elements, the need to include an assessment of Regional Housing Needs,
the role of the California Department of Housing and Community Development
(HCD) in the review of elements, and procedures and timing for the adoption of
the Housing Element.
According to that law, the Housing Element is expected to contain three parts:
(1) a statement of the community's goals, quantified objectives, and policies
relative to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing; (2) a
program which sets forth a five-year schedule of actions to implement the policies
and achieve the goals and objectives of the Housing Element; and (3) an assess-
ment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to
the meeting of those needs.
The needs assessment must include the City's share of the regional housing needs
of persons at all income levels. The San Diego Association of Governments
(SANDAG) has developed the Regional Housing Needs Statement which responds
to the state requirements and has been approved by HCD. The City of Carlsbad
adopted the Needs Statement on April 17, 1984.
2
F
I
REVISIONS
The Housing Element must be revised as appropriate but not less than every five
years.' The state has 90 days in which to review elements or revisions to ele-
ments. The extent of the revisions depends upon the differences between the
previously adopted Housing Element and the requirements of the law and/or the
availability of more current information and changes in housing conditions.
The City of Carlsbad adopted its existing element in July 1981. The requirements
for housing elements were adopted by the state in 1980. The City's element
addressed a portion of the new requirements. This revision to the City's Housing
Element responds to all of the requirements. Additional housing information is
now available (most notably the 1980 Census, 1984 Estimates, the 1985-1991
Housing Needs Statement, and SANDAG's Series 6 Regional Growth Forecast).
The update to the needs assessment contains a thorough analysis of the important
aspects of the housing market in Carlsbad. This section also contains most of the
revisions made in the Housing Element. Other changes in the element are largely
responses to the revised needs assessment or updates based on current conditions,
policies, and programs.
GENERAL PLAN RELATIONSHIPS
California law requires that general plans contain an integrated and internally
consistent set of policies. The Housing Element is most affected by development
policies contained in the Land Use Element which establishes the location, type,
intensity and distribution of land uses throughout the city. The Housing Element has been drafted to be consistent with the Land Use Element which, for reasons of
safety, geology, open space and noise, declares that certain areas are to be pre-
served or developed with non-residential uses. The Housing Element does not
suggest specific sites for particular types of housing. The element recommends
general areas and locational criteria for future housing development. An effort
was made to make these recommendations consistent with the Land Use
Element. If it becomes clear that the goals of the Housing Element are not being
met within the locations and densities established for residential development by
the Land Use Element, the Elementh) will be amended to insure consistency.
Goal Settine and the Land Use Element
The Housing Element uses the residential guidelines of the City's adopted Land
Use Element as a policy framework for developing more specific goals and policies
in the Housing Element. Although the Land Use Element enumerates 16 different
guidelines for residential development, they encompass five main themes.
1. Preservation - The City should preserve the neighborhood atmosphere, retain
the identity of the existing neighborhoods, maximize open space, and ensure
slope preservation.
Choice - The City should ensure a variety of housing types, a choice of all
'economic ranges, a wide range of housing types (apartments, townhouses,
etc.), different styles and price levels in a variety of locations.
2.
3
>
t
I 3'. Medium and High Density Compatibility with Surroundings and
Services - The City should provide close-in
venient shopping in the commercial core but limit large-scale
development of apartments to areas that are most appropriate.
living and con-
4. Housing Needs - The City should utilize programs to revitalize
deteriorating areas or those with high potential for deteriora-
tion and seek to provide low and moderate income housing.
5. Growth Management Program - The Housing Element was reviewed
with regard to the Growth Management Program. The analysis found that the Growth Management Program would not signifi-
cantly impact the Regional Housing Needs or the Housing
Element as the City's housing needs and fair share goals will continue to be met.
It is the purpose and intent of this Program to provide
quality housing opportunities for all economic segments of the community and to balance the housing needs of the
region against the public service needs of Carlsbad's residents and available fiscal and environmental resources.
4
i
CHAPTER 2
GOALS, POLICIES, AND ACTION PROGRAMS
INTRODUCTION
The Housing Element includes five general goals, nine major policy areas and 43
recommended action programs. Not all tasks were given equal weight and atten-
tion. Chapter 2 of this Housing Element highlights those policies and programs
which, because of both State guidelines and local need, were to be given priority.
Chapter 3 assigns responsibility for implementation of the program. Ultimate
responsibility lies, of course, with the Carlsbad City Council, which is to assign
staff and resources to carry out responsibilities under its guidance or under that of
appointed review bodies. The Summary Chart lists each of the Element's 38
action programs with corresponding staff and review responsibilities. Those
appointed bodies with review and evaluation responsibilities will be assigned
appropriate staffing as indicated in the chart. The chart also includes sources of funds. All actions are subject to final directives by the Carlsbad City Council.
GOALS
The Housing Element has five major goals. These goals are intended to provide
general direction in meeting Carlsbad's two major housing concerns: preserving
existing community values and responding to projected growth.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The City should preserve Carlsbad's unique and desirable character as a
coastal community and maintain high design and environmental quality stan-
dards in all new development or redevelopment.
The City should assure that future development provides an adequate diver-
sity of housing, with types, prices, tenures and locations consistent with the
age and economic characteristics of present and future residents.
The City should provide affordable housing opportunities in a variety of types
and locations to meet the needs of current low and moderate income house-
holds and a fair share proportion of future Iow and moderate income house-
holds.
The City should assure that the amount and type of housing development or
redevelopment is compatible with, and convenient to, the locations of major
facilities and services and, in particular, major transportation and transit
routes as well as major employment centers.
The City should assure that all housing, whether market or assisted, is sold or
rented in conformance with open housing policies free of discriminatory
practices.
5
POLICIES AND ACTION PROGRAMS
In order to meet the goals outlined above, specific policies and programs are
listed... Nine major policy areas are identified; each relates to a specific set of
housing issues and problems. The first and second policy areas relate to preser-
vation of the existing community. The next four policy areas relate to response to
new development, while the final three policies involve organization, equal oppor-
tunity and update of the Housing Element. Action programs designed to carry out
the policy are identified. The City is expected to use its best efforts to
implement these action programs consistent with sound legislative judgment. In
im.plementing these programs, due consideration is to be given to the balance of new and existing housing,,available resoures, environmental protection and general
community welfare.
POLICY I
The City should preserve its existing character and protect residential
communities, which could be susceptible to blight or deterioration,
from the encroachment of conditions or uses which would have a negative impact or degrade the environmental quality of those com-
muni ties.
Actions
El - The City should monitor signs of early decline within certain com-
munities by conducting frequent spot inspections of housing conditions and
attempting to make rehabilitation funds available as necessary.
-
- 1-2 - The City should monitor signs of early decline within certain com-
munities by conducting spot inspections of conditions of public and com-
munity facilities and services. Conditions should be evaluated for possible
inclusion in capital improvement programs.
- 1-3 - The City should encourage greater involvement from community and
neighborhood organizations in the preservation of existing neighborhoods.
The City will undertake an increased promotion campaign and also conduct this effort in Spanish.
- 1-4 - The City should distribute public notices of major developments and
plans to community and neighborhood based groups. The City should continue
to distribute the City Newsletter which provides such information for all
residents of Carlsbad.
- 1-5 - The City shodd, where feasible, preserve historic houses from demo-
lition or conversion to inappropriate uses. Historic properties are eligible for
federal and state funds to carry out rehabilitation. These funds are difficult
to obtain, so economic feasibility of maintenance or conversion of historic sites is of prime importance. The City has established a Historic Review
Committee which will update the existing historic housing inventory and draft
an ordinance for the development of historic sites.
6
POLICY XI
The City should utilize code enforcement and rehabilitation activities
to preserve and rehabilitate the housing stock within the Village Area
Redevelopment Project.
Act ions
XI-1 - The City should continue rehabilitation of residences with funding from
the block grant program. Almost $80,000 has been allocated to rehabilitation
and $45,000 is on deposit. The City will continue to provide funds for the
rehabilitation of housing.
-
- II-2 - The City should pursue federal aid and state rehabilitation program
. funds which allow flexibility in rehabilitation assistance for investors and
moderate- and middle-income owners. Applications for federal loans for the
area designated will be made by the Carlsbad Housing and Redevelopment
Commission, depending on available funds. Rent maximums allowed on
investor-owned rehabilitated units should be those established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for its Section 8 Moderate
Rehabilitation Program.
- I1-3 - City action should seek to maintain and improve public facilities and
services within the Village Area Redevelopment Project. Funds from addi-
tional Community Development Block Grant monies, tax increments, bond
issues or general city funds will be used to finance these improvements.
POLICY m
The City should develop a greater diversity of housing types and pro-
grams to meet a significant share of Carlsbad's lower income housing
needs; maintain and rehabilitate where necessary the existing stock of
lower income housing.
Carlsbad's six-year goal as presented in the 1985-1991 Housi'ng Needs Statement is
to provide housing assistance to 567 lower income households from 1985 to 1990
(or 680 over the six-year period; 113 households per year).
A c t ions
- III-1 - The City should pursue those federal and state housing programs which are compatible with the objectives of the City and can provide the greatest
number of housing units which would meet the City's current and projected
needs.
- XII-2 - The City should continue the existing Section 8 Housing Assistance
Program (265 units) seeking revised rents from the Department of Housing
.and Urban Development consistent with coastal area market prices.
- m-3 - The City should also apply to the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development for an additional 175 units of Section 8 assisted housing
phased over the six year time frame of the Housing Element (1985-1991). The
allocation of these units between elderly and non-elderly households is ex-
7
petted to be determined by funding priorities of the Department of Housing
and Urban Development and the City of Carlsbad Housing and Redevelopment
Commission.
- III-4 - The City should continue to implement program(s1 to develop up to 250
new units of senior citizen housing on scattered sites in Carlsbad as approved
by the Article 34 referendum in November 1980. These sites should be
located in any of the City's four geographic quadrants as long as they are
consistent with site selection criteria outlined under Policy VI (Adequate
Sites) and avoid concentrations in any one of the quadrants. The City ap-
proved three projects with a total of 160 units for seniors by 1985. These units have controls oh rent and age to insure their affordability as housing for
senior citizens.
- III-5 - The City should establish a Housing Development Fund to assist in land
purchase or write-down costs for development of lower income housing. Tax
increment funds, portions of annual CDBG grant, or state or federal contri- butions to nonprofit housing sponsors should be sought.
- El-6 - The City should insure that the design, location, and quality of projects
be reasonably consistent and compatible with other types of ownership
housing. Condominiums and condominium conversions constitute a significant
portion of the city's stock of affordable housing. In order for the standards
for new condominium construction to be valid, the same standards should also
be applied to condominium conversions. In order to insure that all condo-
miniums offered for sale meet the City's goals, the City should consider the
need to reduce and mitigate the impact of conversions on tenants who are
forced to relocate. The policy of the City should be to reduce and mitigate these adverse impacts by providing adequate notification procedures and
relocation assistance (including payments for relocation and moving costs).
The City should provide additional counseling, referral, and other services to
aid displaced tenants to find replacement housing.
POLICY IV
The City should develop public incentives to encourage the private
market to provide broader housing opportunities for low and moderate
income households.
Actions
7 IV-1 - The City should establish a density bonus program which would imple-
msnt Section 65915 et seq. of tbe Government Code, The bonuses and incen-
tives provided pursuant to Section 65915 et seq. are alternatives, not addi-
tions, to the bonuses provided in other housing programs.
- IV-2 - The City should continue to implement ordinances encouraging the
mixed use of compatible commercial and residential uses, particularly in the
Village Redevelopment Project and in the community centers of newly
developed master plan areas. Compatible commercial uses should include
administrative and professional offices, retail uses with pedestrian orien-
tation and some public uses. (See Village Area Redeveloment Plan.) Com-
bination Districts (combining two or more general plan land use designations
8
over the same piece of property) are being used in Carlsbad to provide mixed
uses.
IV-3 - The City should continue to encourage use of ordinances that extend
the provisions of the Senior Citizens Housing Development Ordinance to
zones other than the R-P zone. The City has used the CUP process in
conjunction with the RDM, PC, RW and R-3 zones.
-
- IV-4 - The City should continue to encourage the continued use of the afford-
able senior housing ordinance on a case-by-case basis.
- IV-5 - The City should continue to encourage the preparation of specific or
master plans for residential development on specified sites within the City to
avoid the need for further environmental review of individual projects within
such specific plan areas.
,
- IV-6 - Where federal and state subsidies mandate such programs, or where the
City Council deems it necessary to ensure that units which are developed
pursuant to Actions IV-1, IV-3, and IV-4 remain available to persons of low
and moderate income, the City should adopt programs for rent regulations
and resale control
- N-7 - The City should require that a portion of master or specified plan areas
be utilized for housing which helps meet Carlsbad's identified share of the
regional need. Much of the undeveloped land in Carlsbad is located in areas
where ordinances require master or specific plans for development.
- IV-8 - The City should continue participation in Local Area Certification
process HUD has certified that the City's development codes met VA/FHA
standards. This certification reduces processing time for applications for VA
and FHA assistance.
- N-9 - The City should continue to encourage "fast-tracking" of housing
projects which address Carlsbad's share of the regional need for low and
moderate income housing.
- N-10 - The City should continue to work with private developers to provide
affordable housing through the use of mortgage revenue bonds whenever feas-
ible (dependent upon continued legislative support).
POLICY v
The City should assure the availability of adequate and suitable sites
for development of a variety of housing types and especially to assure
af fordability.
Actions
- V-1 2 The City should continue to encourage zoning of suitable sites in all new
developments for medium and high density. The determination of density and location within appropriate areas should be negotiated by staff and developers
subject to council approval.
9
0
- V-2 - The City should continue to encourage the development of suitable sites
within the City for manufactured housing, including mobile home parks,
mobile home and modular unit subdivisions, and consider zoning code amend-
ments to permit these housing types. These actions should insure that
suitable sites for a variety of housing types would continue to be made
available by implementing the newly adopted amendments to the subdivision
and zoning ordinances that provide for the establishment of exclusive mobile
home zones and by establishing criteria for the location of factory built
housing on a variety of sites throughout the City. The City should provide
standards for development and design as well as special considerations for low
and moderate income and senior citizen residences or projects. The City
should reduce the impact of the conversion of mobile home parks to other
uses by providing procedures for notification to occupants and adequate assis-
tance for relocation of persons and units.
- V-3 - The City should review low and moderate income housing proposals
based on HUD site and neighborhood standards (588.21061, which included the
following criteria:
1. The site must promote greater choice of housing opportunities and avoid
undue concentration of assisted persons in areas containing a high
proportion of low-income persons.
2. The site must comply with any applicable conditions in the Urban
County Housing Assistance Plan approved by HUD, as long as that
document is required.
3. The housing must be accessible to social, recreational, educational,
commercial and health facilities and services, and to other municipal
facilities and services that are at least equivalent to those typically
found in neighborhoods consisting largely of unassisted, standard housing
of similar market rents.
4. Travel time and cost via public transportation or private automobile,
from the neighborhood to places of employment providing a range of
jobs for lower-income workers, should not be excessive. While elderly
housing should not be totally isolated from employment opportunities,
this requirement should not be rigidly applied to such projects.
POLICY M
The City should plan for the location of major new residential devel-
opment along transportation and transit lines to assure access to
commercial and industrial employment centers; and plan for resi-
dential development to accommodate anticipated growth, as approved
by City Council from available forecasts.
Actions
- VI-1 - The City should undertake a community education program within each
of the four quadrants to acquaint residents with recent growth forecasts,
availability of services and facilities, and possible impacts of growth.
10
- VI-2 - The City should seek cooperation of major employers in estimating
five-year job growth; profile of employees and estimate of housing needs.
- VI-3 - The City should continue to prepare the Public Facilities Monitoring
Reports which contain an estimate of the major services and facilities capa-
cities (housing units) on an annual basis and compare these estimates to population forecasts.
POLICY VII
The City should actively pursue organizational changes and the devel-
opment of new orgaizations to facilitate meeting the city's housing
needs.
Act ions
- VII-1 - The City should work with local nonprofit and limited profit groups to
develop applications for housing development, loan and counseling funds
available to such groups through state and federal programs.
- VII-2 - The City should consider expanding the role of the Housing and Re-
development Commission to include municipal finance and land banking
functions.
POLICY vIII
All housing in the City should be sold or rented in accordance with the
federal and state governments' equal opportunity regulations.
Actions
MI-1 - The City should continue to support affirmative fair market programs
by builders developing housing in Carlsbad.
VIII-2 - The City should encourage developers/owners of mobile home parks to
operate in conformance with "open" park laws. The City should also report
any closed park practices to the San Diego District Attorney's Office.
POLICY Ix
The City should periodically review all housing program implemen-
tation efforts and update when necessary.
Actions
7 IX-1 - The City should prepare periodic reports on implementation of the
Housing Element goals and policies for Planning Commission and City Council
review. - IX-2 - The City should conduct updates and evaluations of projections, needs
and goals in the Housing Element when the Regional Growth Forecasts are adopted by the City.
11
IX-3 - The City should conduct updates and evaluations of housing needs when
more current information that would affect the housing needs assessment
become available.
7
- XX-4 - The City should conduct a major evaluation and update of the Housing
Element in 1991, and revise where necessary.
MAXIVUM NEWLY CONSTRUCTED, REHABILITATED,
AND CONSERVED UNITS
The maximum number of housing units to be constructed is estimated to be 11,589
(see Regional Housing N,eeds Statement). The maximum number of additional housing units to be provided for lower income households which need assistance is
832, (as identified by SANDAG's fair share goals). The maximum number of units
to be rehabilitated with public assistance would be over 60 units. The private
sector also conducts rehabilitation but the proportion of private activities that
would constitute rehabilitation or conservation cannot be determined. However,
if one were to assume at least as many units are to be rehabilitated by private
funding as public funding, the maximum number would be 120 units. The conser-
vation figures are more difficult to determine since these efforts are indirect
types of activities. 'The
City's objective is to conserve most of its housing stock. Only limited demolition
and the described rehabilitation programs would influence this total. The
programs described under conservation are designed to prevent all housing from
falling from standard to substandard condition. Of course, the major efforts will
be expended in the old neighborhoods of the City where housing is more suscep-
tible to deterioration.
How many units are conserved by code enforcement?
In addition to the code enforcement and other general regulatory activities of the
City which are designed to conserve the City's housing stock, several specific
programs have been identified which would conserve affordable housing. The
maximum number of units conserved by these measures would be 80-100 units (in
Village Area Redevelopment Project through public improvements), 100-200 units
through condominium/condominium conversion development standards, and 50-60
units through efforts to protect existing mobile home occupants.
12
.I U (d 7
(d 3 w a
c-)
9
2
B 0,
3 .I
m E 0 .... c, 8
9
2
a
m Q
U
m
."
.I
I
.I U
rd
Y &$
3 6
8
& u 0
I a 0
Q * 0)
c-)
% d a
M E
9
*3 2 s!
r;
3 5
8
Y u 0
1
;? M E .CI
xs
a 0, .L
V .1 ij a a . m
13
,
a
9 r c .C.
CI
c, E
Y 6
0: c3 0 0: a
d) 00
14
a Y c 5
0 0
c3 z 5; 3 0 3:
a c, c .CI = al
E .- U m
m * Lrl a c (d
Q,
?
a R
3 .-
2
c,
.CI CI .- 4
I d
a E
2
.- Y
a c cd 8 .CI .- V
m 0 a
a
E 1
c, .a
0 N .-.1 I 0 0
a 5 c c a cz c4
a c
.c4 a
R m CI Q, c s
R z
8
0, c
Y a E
a m a a c c 1 1 cu cu
(d .LI m c .CI
8 s CI 2 - d
Lc
d cw 0 0
Q, 0,
(d (d
v) v)
c,
Y
Y
Y
2 2 z a c
I 2
l a 0
al I g .CI Y m 1
Id > &I a
c..
9
2
s 0, * .CI
g
-i
.CI m UI
E
u 0
i a
I a 0
0, > Q,
M
1 a 0
Q, > 0,
CI
%! p:
I
M t .CI
H 9 a
M E .CI
4 9 a
M E
'E .-
9 I a
M c
(d -5 z a 9 a 9 B s 3 s 3 0 3 s 3 s 3 M E my .CI
gs xe
a
c) 9 a
4 9 a
c;) 9
& 0 Lc
ul Q, .I
c, .LI 4 .I
U Q c4
fa u 5: x
8 .CI c) m V f 2 0
V
a
.I Y
4
9
z
ul Q,
U .LI
.LI r(
cu 0 h U ." 5 E 0 .I 2 @+ W&
B s . M 4 .
c( . 0 4
16
e
E 0 ...I s €2 a E Q
0,
nl Q
Y
8
*s” €2
4 B
aJ E
&!
ES 00 uu
I z 0, E d
(u tu
Y e
v,
h Y iT
B Q,
b
u
.C
E
$
2
.L1
a .
r(
17
e
CHAPTER 3
IMPLEMENTATION, PRIORITIES, UPDATE AND REVIEW
INTRODUCTION
The preceding policies and. action programs are designed to meet a broad range of
housing .goals and needs identified in the Housing Element. The design of the program is a comprehensive attempt to meet both long-range community and the
state guidelines However, in order to implement the program, priorities are set which concentrate resources on the most immediate needs, make best use of the
resources available and, in some cases, identify the need for additional time, staff
or funds.
PRIORITIES FOR IMPLEMENTATION
The following priority areas reflect the most immediate needs as reviewed and
approved by staff and City Council for the Housing Element. This section iden- tifies those priorities and indicates the ability of the City to implement necessary
programs. These programs set the framework for immediate programs over the next few years but are not intended to reduce the importance of the entire com-
prehensive housing strategy described in Chapter 2.
Preserving Housing and Neighborhoods
Major policy and program suggestions of the Housing Element relate to this
priority. The City should use concentrated rehabilitation in and around the down-
town area. This priority is selected for several reasons: most of the deteriorating
housing is located in this area; a major downtown rehabilitation project is under-
way; and the Housing and Redevelopment Commission is empowered to direct
public and private resources to the area. The work should include the
development of more flexible sources of rehabilitation assistance to be used to
meet the goals expressed both in the Housing Element and in the Village Area
Redevelopment Program, This work should not require additional Housing and
Redevelopment staff. Responsibility: Housing and Redevelopment; time frame
1985-1987; funding $50,000,
Adequate Provision of Housing
Major policy and program suggestions of the Housing Element relate to this
priority. The City's major efforts in the provision of adequate housing should be
to address the needs of the fair share allocation for low-income households, apply
to HUD for additional Section 8 assisted units, and develop senior citizen housing
on scattered sites in the City. These priorities are selected for several reasons: a
pressing need for low-income family and elderly units exist; the programs would
help meet the City's "good faith" goals for its lower income fair share allocation; and the City would have a wide variety of options to develop housing. The work
that should be undertaken for this priority would be applications for additional
18
\
Section 8 (existing) funds and presenting to the Housing and Redevelopment Com-
mission with alternative- ways to develop senior citizen housing. This work would
require the commitment of one full-time person from the Housing and Redevel-
opment staff for a two-year period. Responsibility: Housing and Redevelopment;
time frame 1985-1987; funding $50,000.
Achieving Affordability
Major policy and program suggestions of the Housing Element relate to this
priority. The major efforts in achieving affordability should be a continuation of
public incentive programs to foster private development of affordable housing.
This priority is selected ,for several reasons: the projected growth of the City
indicates that private housing development would substantiaIIy increase from 1985
to 1991; affordable housing (above median income, but below current prices) is
needed in the City; demographic and employment projections indicate a growing
need for such moclerately priced housing in Carlsbad; and public programs,
whether federal, state or local, are unable to meet this type of need. ?he drafting
of ordinances, establishment of the program, briefing of developers, modification of ordinances, and the development of implementation techniques would involve a
major commitment of one person over a two-year period (half-time!. In addition,
the correlation of the ordinances with other suggested changes will require staff
and program commitment. Responsibility: Land Use Planning; time frame 1985- 1987; funding $25,000. A significant staff activity would involve the adminis-
tration of the resale and/or rental of units to insure 'that those units developed
pursuant to this program would remain available to low and moderate income
persons. Responsibility:
Housing and Redevelopment.
,
ne cost of this program has not been determined.
Balanced Residential Development with Access to Employment,
Community Facilities and Adequate Services
Major policy and program suggestions of the Housing Element relate to this pri-
ority. The City's major efforts in balanced development should be to obtain better coordination of employment growth and housing development to assure adequate access transportation. This priority is selected for several reasons: the City is a
major industrial center in North County; industrially zoned land is abundant; and
increasing numbers of workers need housing and services. The City should con-
tinue to develop data about job projections and its relationship to housing devel-
opment in Carlsbad. This work would require one person (half-time) from Land
Use Planning for one year. Responsibility: Land Use Planning; time frame 1985- 1987; funding $12,500.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
The original Housing Element was developed with the guidance and cooperation of
a Citizens' Review Committee appointed by the City Council, This Review Com-
mittee met in 12 sessions between May and October 1979. A final review meeting
was held in January 1980, followed by Planning Commission and City Council
hearings and workshops in the spring and summer of 1980. The revision of the
Housing Element is a technical update of that document. The 1980 Census, Series 6 Regional Growth Forecasts, and 1985-1991 Housing Needs Statement were used
in the revision.
19
The City has provided several opportunities for all economic segments of the
population to participate in the revision of the Housing Element. The Housing
Element went through an elaborate citizen participation process when it was first
drafteh in 1980.
The revisions have been reviewed by the Housing and Redevelopment Advisory
Committee (a group of residents who provide community input on matters.o€
housing and redevelopment) which held two hearings.
The draft was also reviewed by the Planning Commission which held two public
hearings to solicit comments.
The element was also reviewed by the City Council which authorized the sub-
mission of the draft element. All the comments and suggestions that were made
during this process were constructive and resulted in revisions that increased the
relevance and accuracy of the Housing Element.
REVIEW AND UPDATE
EIR Review
An Environmental Impact Report on the Housing Element has been prepared and
filed with all appropriate agencies in accordance with Title 19 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code and the California Environmental Quality Act.
In tergovemmental Coordination
Regional data on population and housing forecasts and fair share allocation from
the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) were used. SANDAG pre-
pared the revisions to the City's Housing Element.
Local Review and Update
After adoption by Planning Commission and City Council, the plan will be uprlated
as necessary. The state requires that the next revision be accomplished by July 1,
1991.
San DiePo County
A copy will be filed with San Diego County pursuant to development of future
Community Development Block Grant Program applications.
City Staff
Carlsbad's Community Development Block Grant submissions will be reviewed to
assure conformance with Housing Slement Goals and Programs.
20
,
Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census
The decennial national census was taken April 1, 1960. This information and more
current information were used as part of this revision. Review of Housing Ele-
ment projections and goals should take place if data that would require amend-
ments/revisions become available.
Program Evaluation
Local evaluation of program effectiveness and implementation of policies and
programs, with recommendations for change, should be conducted periodically
over the next five years with public hearings before the Housing and Redevelop-
ment Commission.
Major Revision
A major evaluation and revision of the Housing Element should take place in 1990.
21
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
NEEDS ASSESSMENT
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS
The City of Carlsbad was incorporated in 1952; it is the ninth oldest city in the
San Diego region. Carlsbad's population grew from 9,253 people in 1960 to 14,944
in 1970. However, during the next 10 years the City's growth increased
dramatically (35,490 in 1980). The City's portion of the region's population
climbed from 0.9 percent in 1960 to 1.9 percent by 1980.
TABLE 1
POPULATION HISTORY
CARLSBAD AND SAN DIEGO REGION
1960-1980
Carlsbad Region - Year Population Population
1960
1970
1980
9,253 1,033,011
14,944 1,3 57,s 54
35,490 1,861,846
Percent
of Region
0.9
1.1
1.9
Source: SANDAG INFO No. 4, July 1984.
The changes were caused by several factors: (1) the City initiated a series of
annexations which expanded the corporate limits; (2) the City became a more
urban oriented trade and service center for North County; (3) the development of
1-5 and SR 78 placed Carlsbad at the confluence of two of the three major free-
ways .in North County; and (4) the City was located in the North County growth
corridor. To the east, Vista and San Marcos incorporated in 1963. To the north,
the City of Oceanside's development extended to the City's northern boundary.
The housing stock has reflected this growth. The City had 5,149 units in 1970 and
15,300 units by 1980. The housing stock consisted of substantial numbers of
single-family units during the 1950's and 1960's During the late 1960's and early
1970's, the construction of multi-family units made an impact on the composition
of the City's housing stock. A comparison of the change in housing types in
Carlsbad from 1970 to 1980 illustrates the growth of multiple family units. Table
2 shows that multiple family units (5 or more units per structure) comprised 15.9
23
percent of all housing units in Carlsbad in 1970. However, by 1980 multiple family
units comprised 24.7 percent of all units. Thus, multiple family units accounted
for 2x1 percent of the increase in the entire housing stock from 1970 to 1980 in
Carlsbad. A significant portion of this shift was attributed to the increase in the
construction of condominium units. In 1970, the City had virtually no condo-
minium units; by 1980, the number of condominiums had increased to 2,768 units
(18.1 percent of the City's housing).
TABLE 2
HOUSING TYPES
CARLSBAD
1970-1 980
1970 1980
Units in Structure Number Percent Number Percent
One 3,592 69.8
Two to Four 57 1 11.1
Five or More 819 15.9
3 -2 Mobile Homes - 167 -
9,365 61.2
1,286 8.4
3,775 24.7
5.7 - 874 -
5,149 100.0 15,300 100.0 TOTAL
Sources: 1970 and 1980 Census
The mobile home is also an important aspect of the housing growth. In 1970, the
City contained 167 mobile homes (3.2 percent of the City's housing). By 1980, the
number of mobile homes in the City had increased to 874 (5.7 percent of the City's
housing). This represented 2.3 percent of all mobile homes in the region, in
comparison to the conventional housing in the City which represents 2.1 percent
of the total conventional housing in the region.
DEMOGRAPHIC ASSESSMENT
Current Population
The population of the City was 14,944 in 1970 according to the census, Based on
the census, the population of the City grew to 35,490 in 1980. Thus, the City's
population increased by 20,546 people from 1970 to 1980, an increase of 137.5
percent (the highest growth rate in the region). The region's population increased
by 37.1 percent during the same time. The City's population as a proportion of the
region's population grew from 1.1 percent in 1970 to 1.9 percent in 1980.
24
TABLE 3
POPULATION
CARLSBAD AND SAN DIEGO REGION
1970-1 980
Year
Population 1970
Population 1980
1970-1980 Increase 1970-1980 % Increase
- Carlsbad as
Carlsbad Region Percent of Region
14,944 1,3 57,8 54 1.1
3 5,4 90 1,861,846 1.9
20,546 503,992 4.1
137.5 37.1 -
Sources: 1970 and 1980 Census
Age Distribution
A more detailed analysis of the City's demographic characteristics was made from
the 1980 Census information. The first factor that was analyzed was the distri-
bution of population by age. Age distribution was an important housing element
characteristic because housing demand was influenced by the housing preferences
of the age groups seeking housing. The City of Carlsbad population paralleled the
changes in age distribution of the San Diego region from 1970 to 1980: a 39.8
percent decrease in the proportion of the 0-20 year old group; a 28.8 percent
increase in the proportion of the 20-44 year old group; and relatively stable pro-
portions in the 44-60 and 60+ year old groups. In comparison to the region, the
City had a sligbtly higher concentration (16.5 percent VS. 14.3 percent) of the
elderly (60+ years) population and a slightly smaller concentration (40.3 percent
vs. 41.5 percent) of the young adult (20-44 years) population, even though the
young adults increased from 31.3 percent of the population in 1970 to 40.3 percent
of the population in 1980.
A greater demand for housing that responds to the young adult population (espec-
ially the 20-34 year olds) was expected in the City from 1985 to 1990. Thus,
apartments, condominiums, and modest single family units were expected to be
the demanded commodities during the late 1980's. Senior (60+ years old) housing and established family (35-55 year old) housing should have been relatively stable,
but significant, demand it ems.
Household Size
The population of Carlsbad had a higher concentration of small family households
(one and two person) than the region in 1980: 61.1 percent vs. 58.2 percent.
Conversely, the City had a lower concentration of large family households (three
or more persons) than the region: 38.9 percent versus 41.8 percent. The house-
hold composition figures reinforced the age distribution profiles. The demand for
smaller units (apartments, condominiums, and small single family units) should
have been about 10 percent stronger in Carlsbad than the region.
25
TABLE BR
Household
Composition
One Person
Two Persons
Three Persons
Four Persons
Five Persons Six or More Persons
TOTAL
HOUSEHOLD CCMPOSITION
CARLSBAD AND SAE ZZIEGO REGION
198C
Carlsbad Region
Number - Percent Number
2,863 2Ll 159,098
5,43 9 aQ 231,213
* 2,224 3&4 112,288
1,864 3x7 92,374
759 %%6 43,323
43 7 - 32 31,798
13,586 ”I 670,094
7
Percent
23.7
34.5
16.8
13.8
6.5
4.7 -
100.0
Source: 1980 Census
Race -
The race-ethnicity table shows that the if22 had a substantially lower concen-
tration of minority population (not incluXl Spanish origin) than the region in
1980 .(3.5 percent vs. 11.4 percent). The g”n of the City’s population that had
Spanish origins was 13.5 percent; the regidsportion was 14.8 percent. People of
Mexican origin comprised most of the pevk Spanish origin (87.6 percent).
TABLE: 41,
RACE-EXYmY
CARLSBAD AND SAN !EXEGO REGION
19M
Race-E thnicity
White
Black
Asian .
Spanish
Other
Carlsbd
Number ;.;Yasent
Region
Number Percent
29,450 aQQ 1,374,649 73.8
810 z3 92,856 5.0
4,790 275,177 14.8
0.9 227 - D.6 16,999
213 @.6 102,165 5.5
7 -
TOTAL 3 5,490 IamQ 1,861,846 100.0
Source: 1980 Census (This table includer, d¶l races in Spanish origin population.)
E6
Employment
Employment was another important characteristic related to housing matters that
was perused. The City had 16,320 employed residents in Carlsbad which repre-
sented 2.2 percent of the total regional employment (756,382) in 1980. Mana- gerial/professional (31.2%) and farming, forestry, and fishing (7.0%) occupations in
Carlsbad represented a larger percent of Carlsbad's total employment compared
with the proportions for the same occupation in the region (managerial: 26.0%;
farming: 2.7%)- Service (10.9% vs. 14.0%), precision production/craft/repair
(10.8% vs. 12.8%) and operators/fabricators/laborers (7.7% vs. 11.6%) represented
smaller percentages.
TABLE 10
EMPLOYMENT
CITY OF CARLSBAD AND SAN DIEGO REGION
1980
Occupation
Carlsbad Region
Number Percent Number Percent
Managerial & Professional 5,100 31.2 196,659 26.0
Technical, Sales & 5,285 32.4 247,861 32.8 Administrative Support
Service (Private, Protective 1,782 10.9 106,041 . 14.0 and Others)
Farming, Forestry & Fishing 1,144 7.0 20,678 2.7
Precision Production, 1,755 10.8 97,054 12.8
Craft & Repair
Operators, Fabricators
& Laborers
1,254 7.7 - 88,089 11.6
TOTAL 16,320 100.0 756,832 100.0
Source: 1980 Census
Estimated and Projected Population
Two sources of information were used in this section to provide more current
estimates and projections of the City's population: SANDAG's 1984 Population
Estimates and SANDAG's Series 6 Regional Growth Forecasts. Population esti-
mates for January 1, 1984 for the City were 40,485 people, a 14.1 percent in-
crease since 1980 (the County's fourth highest rate). This rate was 46.9 percent
greater than the region. The City accounted for 2.8 percent of the region's popu- lation growth from 1980 to 1984.
21
TABLE 11
POPULATION ESTIMATES
CARLSBAD AND SAN DIEGO REGION
1980-1 984
Carlsbad as
Year Carlsbad Region Percent of Region
Population 1980 3 5,490 1,86 1,846 1.9
Population 1984 40,485 2,040,905 2.0
1980-1984 Increase 4,995 179,059 2.8
1980-1 984 % Increase 14.1 9.6 -
Sources: 1980 Census and 1984 SANDAG Population Estimates.
SANDAG's Regional Growth Forecasts provided an indication of the City's growth
in population from 1980 to the year 2000. Although the population within the
current City limits was expected to increase by 50,100 from 1980 to 2000 (141.1
percent increase, the highest rate projected for the region), the population in- crease in the General Planning Area (GPA) was expected to be substantially larger
within areas which were expected to be annexed to the City: 71,400 (198.9
percent) from 1980 to 2000. The region's population was projected to increase by
837,400 people from 1980 to 2000 (45.0 percent).
TABLE 12
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
CARLSBAD AND SAN DIEGO REGION
1980-2000
Year - Carlsbad Carlsbad GPA Region
1980 35,500 35,900 1,861,800
1990 62,700 75,300 2,33 5,000
1995 75,100 92,100 2,526,900
2000 85,600 107,300 2,699,200 Change 1980-2000
(Numeric) 50,100 71,400 837,400
Change 1980-2000
(Percent) 141.1 198.9 45.0
Source: SANDAG Series 6 Regional Growth Forecasts.
28
HOUSING ASSESSMENT
Total Housing
According to the 1980 Census, the City had 15,352 total housing units. This
represented 2.1 percent of the 720,346 year round housing units in the San Diego
region. During the 1970's, the City added 10,203 units, or an average of 1,020
units per year. The increase from 1970 to 1980 almost equaled the entire stock in
1970 (196.2 percent). The region added 267,108 or 26,711 units per year during the same 10 years. Carlsbad accounted for 3.8 percent of the regionalgrowth.
TABLE 13
ROUSING UmS
CARLSBAD AND SAN DIEGO REGION
1970-1 980
Year -
1970
1980
1970-1980 Increase
1970-1980 % Increase
Carlsbad as
C arlsb ad Region Percent of Region
5,149 4 50,79 8 1.1
15,3 52 717,906 2.1
10,203 267,108 3.8
198.2 193 -
Sources: 1970 and 1980 Census
Tenure
The housing stock in the City contained more owner-occupied houxiimg (8,664 units)
than renter-occupied housing (4,922 units) in 1980. Thus, owner-occupied units
accounted for 63.8 percent of all occupied units in Carlsbad in 1980. The per-
centage of owner-occupied units of all occupied units in the San Diego region was
55.1 in 1960. Renter-occupied units comprised 36-2 percent af all occupied
housing in the region in 1980.
TABLE 14
TENURE IOWNER-ER)
CARLSBAD AlIl SAN DIEGO REGION
1980
1980 -
Number
Percent
Carlsbad Region
Owner Renter Owner Renter
8,664 4,922 369,247 300,847
63.8 36.2 55.1 44.9
Source: 1980 Census
29
Structure Types
Another important characteristic of housing supply that was analyzed was the
type of structures in the market: single family, duplex, multi-family, and mobile
homes. Single-family units formed the majority of housing units in the City in
1980 (61.2 percent). This figure was substantially the same as the percent of
single-family units in the entire region (61.0). The percent of mobile homes in
Carlsbad in 1980 was 5.7. In comparison, the region's percent of mobile homes
was 5.2. Thus, the City's housing stock closely paralleled the region's stock when
a comparison of types of units was made.
Type Unit
TABLE 15
STRUCTURE TYPE
CARLSBAD AND SAN DIEGO REGION
1980
Carlsbad Region
Number Percent Number Percent
Single Family-Detached 7,910 51.7 387,822
Single Family-Attached 1,455 9.5 49,950
Duplex 46 1 3.0 24,554
Three-Four 825 5.4 34,864
Five or More 3,775 24.6 183,763
5.7 37,258 874 Mobile Home - -
TOTAL 15,300 100.0 718,211
54.0
7.0
3.4
4.9 25.6
5.2
100.1
Source: 1980 Census
Age of Housing
The age of housing in the City is an important characteristic of supply because it
is an indicator of the condition of the City's housing. Many federal and state
programs used age of housing to determine housing needs and the availability of
funds for housing and/or community development. For thase purposes, the most
significant measure of the age of bousing was the number of units built before
1940. Table 16 shows that almost two-thirds (65.7%) of the units in the City in
1980 were built from 1970 to 1980 (in comparison to 37.6 percent in the region).
Almost 85 percent of the units were built since 1960 (in comparison to just under
60 percent in the region). Conversely, only 2.7 percent of the City's housing stock
was built before 1940 (vs. 8.3 percent of the region's housing) and 6.2 percent
before 1950 (VS. 16.3 percent of the region's housing). The housing stock reflected
the extent of development that has taken place from 1960 to 1980 in the City.
30
TABLE 16
Year
Struc ture
Built -
AGE OF HOUSING
CARLSBAD AND SAN DIEGO REGION
1980
Carlsbad Region
Number Percent Number Percent
1970-1980 10,053 65.7 287,108 37.6
1960-1970 2,860 18.7 167,369 21.9
1950-1 960 1,432 9.4 138,926 18.2 1940-1950 53 6 3.5 61,241 8.0
8.3 Before 1940 - 2.7 63 , 567 - 41 9 -
TOTAL 15,300 100.0 764,122 100.0 '
Source: 1980 Census
Housing Condition
Although the 1980 Census did not include statistics on housing conditions based
upon observation, it did include statistics that correlate very closely with sub-
standard housing. One of these indicators has been discussed (age of housing).
This indicator was often combined with other factors to indirectly measure
housing condition. Two such indicators were "lacking complete plumbing" and
"overcrowding".
a. Lacking Complete Plumbing
Table 17 identifies the number of units in Carlsbad that lacked complete plumbing
in 1980.
TABLE 17
UNITS LACKING COMPLETE PLUMBING
CARLSBAD AND SAN DIEGO REGION
1980
Carlsbad Region Carlsbad
Tenure Lacking Units Percent Lacking Units Percent of Region
Owner 9 8,655 0.1 1,062 369,247 0.3 0.8
Renter 43 4,879 0.9 6,076 300,847 2.0 0.7 1 .o Vacant - 9 1,703 - 0.5 935 47,812
units Total units Total As a Percent -
- 2.0 -
TOTAL 61 15,237 0.4 8,073 717,906 1.1 0.8
Source: 1980 Census
31
The holising stock in the City had a lower proportion of housing units that "lack
complete plumbing" than the region's housing units (0.4 percent vs. 1.1 percent.
The proportion of units "lacking complete plumbing" for owner units (0.1%) was
substantially less than the proportion for renters (0.9). However, all of the proportions for the City were substantially less than the proportions for the
region.
b. Overcrowding
Another. indicator of housing condition, overcrowding, was defined as those
housing units with more than one person per room. Table 18 compares the propor-
tion of units that were overcrowded in the City in 1980 to the proportion of units
that were overcrowded in the San Diego region in 1980. The City had substan- tially less overcrowding than the region as a whole (3.1 percent vs. 6.3 percent)
TABLE 18
OVERCROWDED UNITS CARLSBAD AND SAN DIEGO REGION
1980
Car lsbad
Carlsbad Region As a Percent
Persons Per Room Number Percent Number Percent of Region
1.00 or less 13,170 96.6 633,040 94.5 2.1
1.01 to 1.50* . 23 0 1.7 21,473 3.2 1.1
1.2
TOTAL 13,586 100.0 670,094 100.0 2.0
- 2.3 - 1.51 or More* 186 1.4 15,581 -
*Overcrowding occurs when a housing unit has more than 1.00 persons per room.
Source: 1980 Census
Vacancy
The good condition of the housing stock in the City was a result of a composite of
the factors discussed in the previous pages: recent construction, little overcrowd-
ing, adequate facilities, and high owner ratios. The balance between supply and
demand in the City's housing market is another indicator of the condition of the
housing stock. The characteristics that are most often used to measure this
balance are vacancy rates. High vacancy rates usually indicate low demand
and/or high supply conditions in the housing market. Conversely, low vacancy
rates usually indicate high demand and/or low supply conditions in the housing
market. However, vacancy rates are not the sole indicator of market conditions.
They were viewed in the context of all the characteristics of the local and
regional market. The Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco conducted annual
32
vacancy surveys of the cities in the San Diego region from 1981 to 1985. This
information was gathered by zip code. Table 19 identifies the results of these
surveys'for the Carlsbad zip codes and compares these results with the vacancy
rates for the San Diego region. The City's vacancy rate fluctuated from 1981 to
1985. The most dramatic aspect of the decline had been the lower rates for
mobile homes (3.5 percent in 1981 and 0.5 percent in 1984). In the past, vacancy
rates which indicate "market balance" (a condition where rates indicate an
acceptable level of vacancy: reflecting remodeling, seasonal variations and
turnovers) were 3.0 percent for single family and 5.0 percent for multi-family.
The standards for vacancy rates were revised to 1.0 percent for single family units
and 3.0 percent for multi-family. The vacancy rates in the City did have housing mark et implications:
o The value and rent o€ all housing would increase during the time of the
Housing Element in response to the "tight" market conditions within the
region.
The Carlsbad market, especially multi-family, was not as tight as the region due to the recent construction of rental and condominium units in Carlsbad. o
o The supply of available single family and mobile home units was less relative
to the supply of multiple family units.
TABLE 19
VACANCY RATES
CARLSBAD AND SAN DIEGO REGION 198 1-1 984
Carlsbad San Diego Region
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 ----- -----
Single Family 1.7 2.9 1.4 1.4 2.4 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.4 1.5
Multiple Family 1.7 5.5 6.5 1.9 5.3 4.4 3.8 3.3 2.8 2.5 2.0 Mobile Home - 1.5 - 1.9 - 1.7 - 2.0 - 2.4 - 0.5 - 1.8 - 2.7 - 3.5 -
TOTAL 3.5 3.9 3.3 3.8 3.5 2.7 2.3 2.0 . 1.9 1.9
Source: Federal Loan Home Bank Board, San Diego SMSA Vacancy Surveys, March 1981, hlay
1982, April 1983, and May 1984.
Affordability
a. Owner Units
The following description of housing rent and value in Carlsbad came from a
variety of sources: census, multiple listing, and other housing cost indices. The
census information provided an indication of housing value and rent in 1980.
Although the accuracy of the census in describing value and rent in absolute terms
was limited, it did provide a basis for comparative evaluations. The median
33
housing value in 1980 was $123,400 for Carlsbad according to the census. The
median value of housing €or the San Diego region was $91,000. The median value
of housing in Carlsbad was 35.6 percent higher than the median value of housing in
the region.
The comparisons of value became more informative when the distribution of the
values for both the City and the San Diego region was examined. Table 20 identi-
fies the distribution of housing value according to the 1980 Census. The City had
a substantially lower proportion of both low-cost (less than $50,000 in value) and
middle-cost (more than $100,000 in value) housing than the San Diego region.
Conversely, the City had a higher proportion of high cost housing (over $100,000)
than the region (72.3 percent vs. 38.9 percent, almost twice the region
percent age).
Housing Unit Value
Less than $10,000
$10,000 to $15,000
$20,000 to $25,000
$25,000 to $30,000
$30,000 to $35,000
$35,000 to $40,000
$40,000 to $50,000
$50,000 to $80,000
$80,000 to $100,000
$100,000 to $149,000
$15,000 to $20,000
$150,000 to $200,000
$200,000+
TOTAL
TABLE 20
VALUE OF HOUSING
CARLSBAD AND SAN DIEGO REGION
1980
C arlsb ad
Number Percent
2
11 6
12
12
15
51
96 477
1,028
2,955
941 57 8 -
-
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.8
1.6
7.7
16.6
47.8
15.2
9.3 -
6,184 100.0
Region
Number Percent
57 8
8 14
1,210
2,104
2,3 59
2,599 3,03 1
9,126
8 1,084
69,150
66,349
22,733
20,669
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.1
3.2
28.8
24.5
23.5
8.1
7.3 -
281,806 100.0
Carlsbad As a Percent
of Region
0.3
1.4
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.6
1.7
1.1
0.6
1.5
4.5
4.1 2.8 7
2.2
MEDIAN VALUE $1 23,400 $91,000 (+35.6)
Source: 1980 Census
The Chamber of Commerce provided reports that identified housing market price
indices which measured the change in housing value. Although the absolute values were not available, the changes in value offered some indication of supply charac-
teristics. Table 21 shows that the City has experienced rising housing values over
the past ten years (127.8%) with a peak during 1978 and 1979 (almost 60% in-
crease). This pattern is paralleled at the regional level but the rate is lower for
34
,
the region. Carlsbad's housing values increased 15.7% from 1982 to 1984 while the
housing value for the region and many cities actually declined.
TABLE 21
HOUSING MARKET PFUCE INDEX
PERCENT CHANGE IN VALUE
CARLSBAD AND SAN DIEGO REGION
1975-1984
Percent Change Housing Market Price
San Diego Region
Percent Percent - Year Median Average Region Carlsbad
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
$37,000
$42,300
$54,000
$72,300
$83,400
$90,000
$1 04,3 00
$106,000
$103,400
$111,500
$45,600
$52,300
$6 5,200
$84,300
$1 03,800
$110,800
$127,000
$124,500
$1 24,400
$ 13 1 , 200
13.2
14.7
24.7
29.3
23.1
6.7
4.8
-2.0
-0.1
1.8
10.6
8.1
14.3
3 8.7
20.2
10.1
10.1
3.2
5.7
6.8
Source: San Diego Chamber of Commerce Economic Bulletin.
The above figures identify the value of existing homes. Information about the
value of new homes was not as complete but some figures were available. Ac-
cording to the San Diego Chamber of Commerce's Economic Bulletin, the median
price of new single family tract units sold during 1983 was $99,740 in the southern
portion of the region, compared to $126,250 for the northern portion (in which
Carlsbad is located) of the region. The median price of the inventory of unsold
single family units during 1983 was $99,775 in the southem portion of the region,
compared to $135,714 for the northern portion of the region. The median price of
multi-family units sold during 1983 was $92,075 in the southern portion of the
region, compared to $87,777 for the northern portion of the region. The median
price of the unsold inventory of multi-family bousing in the southern portion of
the region was $83,279, compared to $85,000 for the northern portion of the
region.
35
,
TABLE 22
NEW HOUSING VALUES
SAN DIEGO REGION
1982-1 983
Single Family
1983
Mu1 t i-Fam ily
- 1982 - 1983 - 1982 - 1983
Sold Unsold Sold Unsold 1983 - 1982 - - 1982 -
South County $101,196 $99;740 $151,081 $99,775 $81,105 $92,075 $94,910 $83,279 North County' $154,303 $126,250 $1 51,682 $135,714 $102,397 $87,777 $95,338 $85,000
Source:
b.
San Diego Chamber of Commerce Economic Bulletin, Volume 31, No. 10, October
1983.
Rental Units
On- source of information for the analysis of ren-ll units was the census. Again, the census information was used for comparative analysis rather than for absolute
market conditions. The comparison of the distribution of rents between the City
and the San Diego region resulted in substantially the same distributions in the
region. The City had a lower proportion of low-cost (less than $250 per month)
rental units than the San Diego region. Conversely, the City had a higher
proportion of mid-level ($200 to $500 per month) rental units, especially in the
$300 to $400 per month rental range and high cost (more than $500 per month)
than the region (16.4% vs. 9.5%).
36
TABLE 23
Rent *
Less than $60 $60 to $80
$80 to $100
.$loo to $120
$120 to $150
$150 to $170
$170 to $200 $200 to $250
$250 to $300
$300 to $350
$350 to $400
$400 to $500
$500+
No Cash Rent
-
RENT RANGES
CARLSBAD AND SAN DIEGO REGION
1980
Carlsbad
Units Percent -
192
20
69
51
72
39
176
588
1,104
80 5
381
753 7 24
73 -
0.2
0.4 1.4
1.0
1.5
0.8
3.6
12.1
22.7
16.5
7.8
15.5 14.9
1.5 -
TOTAL 4,867 100.0
MEDIAN GROSS RENT $317
Region
Units Percent -
905
1,684
3,4 57
3,944
8,164
8,564
21,336
55,420
65,315
42,747
25,413
29,972 22,024
5,902
0.3
0.6
1.2
1.3 2.8
2.9
7.2 18.8
22.2
14.5
8.6
10.2
7.5
2.0 -
294,847 100.0
$28 1
Carlsbad
As a Percent
of Region
1.3
1.2
2.0
1.3
0.9 0.5
0.8 '
1.1
1.7
1.9
1.5
2.5
3.3
1.2 -
1.7
*Gross Rent: Contract rent plus average monthly costs of utilities and fuels.
Source: 1980 Census
An apartment rental rate survey (July 1984) indicated a substantial increase in
rent ranges from the 1980 figures. In the North County area (Poway/Notth San
Diego to Carlsbad/Oceanside/Fallbrook/Pauma Valley), the average monthly rent
(unfurnished, tenant paying gas and electricity) was $491 (studios, $395; 1-
bedroom, $440; 2-bedroom, $517; and 3 or more bedroom, $578). In comparison,
the region's average rent was $481 (studios, $370; 1-bedroom, $424; 2-bedroom,
$515; and 3 or more bedroom, $591). The rents for North County increased by 5.2
percent .for 2-bedroom units and 6.2 percent for 3-bedroom units over six months
(January 1984 to July 1984). This survey also identified a vacancy rate of 2.1
percent for apartment units in the North County area.
C. Overpayers
The census provided another source of income data that relates more directly to
the housing market: housing costs as a percent of household income. This meas- urement relates household income to housing costs for owners and renters.
Further, this information was available by income range. This indicator was an
important measurement of local housing market conditions because it reflected
37
the standards that federal and state housing agencies used, not only to measure
the housing needs of a community, but also to determine the level of assistance
those households should be given. Traditionally, the standard measurement of
housing costs was that no household should have to spend more than 25 percent of
its income to secure adequate housing. However, the standard was raised to 30
percent in 1984.
The figures in Tables 24 (Renters) and 26 (Owners) identify the percentage of
households that "overpaid" (pay more than 25 percent of their income for housing)
for housing in the City and the San Diego region in 1980. Tables 25 (Renters) and
27 (Owners) identify overpayers by income range for the City and the region in
1980. The percentages fm the "rent as a percent of income" for the City and the
region were similar. The largest proportion of "overpayers" were the low income
(less than $10,000 household income) households in the City (83.2 percent) and in
the region (64.1 percent).
,
TABLE 24
RENT AS A PERCENT OF INCOME
CARLSBAD AND SAN DIEGO REGION
1980
Rent as
Percent
of Income
Carlsb ad
Number Percent
Less than 20 Percent 1,473 31.1
20-25' Percent 715 15.1
25-3 5 Percent 97 5 20.6
33.1 Over 35 Percent 1,567 -
TOTAL 4,730 100.0
Carlsbad
Number Percent of Region
Region As a Percent
76,135 26.8 1.9
41,410 14.6 1.7
60,082 21.2 1.6
1.5
283,666 100.0 1.7
- 106,039 37.4
Source: 1980 Census
38
I
TABLE 25
RENT AS A PERCENT OF "COME BY MCOMf CAUSEAD AND SAN DUX0 REGION i9ao
mcom
Rent u 0-~5,000 $5,000-s10,000 $10,000-sl5,000 $15,000-$20,000 S20,000. Number Perceat. Number Percent. Numbcr Percent. Number Percent. Number Percat* --------- Percent of Income
CARLSBAD
Leu tJmn 20 Pacent - - 32 0.7 122
20-25 Percent 41 0.9 20 0.4 193 25-35 Percent 1s 0.3 169 3.6 334
35* Percent 532 11.2 701 14.a 265
SAN DIEGO REGION
Leu thrn 20 Percent 634 0.3 2,839 1.0 9,069 20-25 Percent 1,302 0.5 4,031 1.4 14,186
25-35 Percent 2,397 0.a 16,133 5.7 25,258 3% Percent 40.961 14.4 46,968 16.6 14,475
2.6 218 4.6 1,101 23.3 4.1 194 4.1 267 5.6 7.1 248 5.2 209 4.4 5.6 64 1.4 5 0.1
3.2 18,403 6.5 U,990 15.9 5.0 11,990 4.2 9,901 3.5 (1.9 10,472 3.7 5,822 2.1 5.1 3,276 1.2 359 0.1
Percent of Total Renterr: Culrbd (4,730) ad Region (283,666).
Source: 1980 C-
The percentages for owners who overpaid were higher in the City (38.3 percent)
than region (32.6 percent). Unlike the figures for renters, the largest percentages
of "overpayers" for owners were those households with incomes above $20,000 per
year.
TABLE 26
OWNER COSTS AS A PERCENT OF INCOME
CARLSBAD AND SAN DIEGO REGION
1980
Carlsbad
Owner Costs as Carlsbad Region As a Percent
Percent of Income Number Percent Number Percent of Redon
Less than 20 Percent 3,011 48.9 155,876 55.7 1.9
20-25 Percent 783 12.7 32,639 11.7 2.4
25-3 5 Percent 1,145 18.6 42,356 15.1 2.7
2.5 Over 35 Percent 1,214 19.7 49,119 17.5 - -
TOTAL 6,153 100.0 279,990 100.0 2.2
* Owner costs include mortgage, real estate taxes, insurance and utilities.
Source: 1980 Census
39
TABLE 27
OWNER COSTS AS A PERCENT OF INCOME
BY INCOME
CAWBAD AND SAN DIZGO REGION 1980
INCOME
Owners Cost as 0-$5,000 $5,000-$10,000 $10,000-$15,000 SI 5,000-~20,000 ~20,000.
Percent of Income. Number Percent- Number Percent.. Number Percent" Number Percent" Number Percent**
CARLSBAD
Less than 20 Percent 26 0.4 119 1.9 234 3.8 US 4.0 5387 38.8
22 0.4 34 0.6 67 1.1 660 10.7 20-25 Percent - - 25-35 Percent 34 0.6 25 0.4 55 0.9 44 0.7 987 16.0 3% Percent 99 1.6 111 15 191 3.1 173 2.8 bo0 . 9.8
SAN DEGO REGION
Leu than 20 Percent 1&7 0.6 9,552 3.4 14,017 5.0 16,759 6.0 113,901 40.9
20-25 Percent 1.156 0.4 2,119 0.8 5886 1.0 3,809 1.4 22,669 a. 1
25-35 Percent i,~ 0.5 2,m 1.0 4313 1.5 6,241 2.2 27,43 5 9.8
35 Percent 7,755 2.8 1,762 3.1 9,253 3.3 1,555 3.1 14,774 5.3
Omer'a cwt krduder mortgage, red utatt tun, inwmce, and utilities.
0 Percent of Total Ownerr: Cukbd (6,153) and Region (279,990).
Source: 1980 C~ntr
When the standard of 25 percent of income for rent was used, the percent of
"overpayers" was even more indicative of the lack of affordable housing. Table 28
summarizes the overpayers as a percent of all households for the City and the
region in 1980. The ercentage of overpayers of all households (for renters and
owners) in the City P 45.0 percent) was slightly lower than rate for the region
(45.7). The renter households (especially lower income) paid disproportionate
amounts of their income for housing; 53.7 percent of tbe renters in the City paid
more than 25 percent of their income for rent.
TABLE 28
PERCENT OF OVERPAYERS*
CARLSBAD AND SAN DIEGO REGION
1980
Carlsbad Region
Overpayers Overpayer s Overpayer Total As a Percent Overpayer Total As a Percent Households Households of Total Households Households of Total
Owners 2,359 6,153 3 8.3 91,475 279,990 3 2.7
58.6 Renters 2,542 4,730 - 53.7 166,121 283,666 -
TOTAL 4,901 10,833 4 5.0 257,596 563,656 45.7
*Households paying more than 25 percent of the income for rent or owning a home.
Source: I980 Census
d. Income
The next item discussed under Affordability is the distribution of incomes within
the City according to the categories used by the state housing officials. Four
categories of income were used based on the 1980 Census (based on a household of
four persons).
o Very low income (up to 50 percent of the median income (1980 - $17,107) of
all households in the metropolitan area: 0 - $8,554);
o Low income (from 50 to 80 percent of the median income of all households in
the metropolitan area: $8,554 to $13,686);
o Moderate income (from 80 to 120 percent of the median income of all house-
holds in the metropolitan area: $13,686 to $20,528); and
o All others (above 120 percent of the median income of all households in the
metropolitan area: above $20,528).
Although these definitions remained constant from 1980 to 1984, the ranges
changed as the median income of all households changed. For example, the ranges
of income in the preceding paragraph were based upon the 1980 Census definition
of the median income of all households in the region. By 1984, the ranges had
increased to $11,000 for very low income, $17,600 for low income, and $26,400 for
moderate income. Using these figures, the income distribution for the City was
identified. Table 29 provides a comparison between the distribution of income
categories for the City and the region in 1980. The City had a lower percentage
of households in the very low and low income categories than the percentage of
households in the same categories in the region (29.3 percent vs. 39.8 percent).
The City also had a lower percentage of households in the moderate income cate-
gory. The City had a higher percentage of upper income households than the region (54.9 VS. 40.9 percent).
41
TABLE 29
HOUSEHOLD INCOME DISTRIBUTION
CARLSBAD AND SAN DIEGO REGION
1980
C arlsb ad Income C arlsb ad Region As a Percent Category Number Percent Number Percent of Region
Very Low 2,134 15.8 . 150,798 22.5 1.4
Low 1,826 13.5 11 5,832 17.3 1.6
Moderate 2,131 15.8 129,141 19.3 1.6
2.7 All Others 7,419 54.9 - 40.9 274,263 -
TOTAL 13,510 100.0 670,634 100.0 2.0
Source: 1980 Census
Table 30 compares the income distribution of households for Carlsbad and the
region for 1980. Although the same general comparisons between the distribution
of household incomes for the City and the region were made in 1980 as were made
in 1910, the differences were smaller in 1980 and spread over a greater range of
incom.es. The region had a lower percentage than the City of households with
incomes over $20,000 (42.4 percent VS. 56.2 percent). Conversely, the City had a
lower percentage than the region of households with incomes under $20,000. The
median household incomes were also substantially higher in 1980 for the City than
the region ($22,354 vs. $17,107, 30.7 percent higher).
42
TABLE 30
HOUSEHOLD INCOME DISTFUBUTION
CARLSBAD AND SAN DIEGO REGION
1980
Household Income
Less than $2,500
$2,500-$5,000
$5,000-$7 , 500
$7,500-$10,000
$10,000-$12,500
$12,500-$15,000
$1 5,000-$17, 500
$17, 500-$20,000
$20,000-$22,500
$2 2,500-$2 5,0 00
$25,000-$27,500
$27,500-$30,000
$30,000-$35,000
$3 5,000-$40,000
$40,000-$50,000
$50,000-$7 5,000
Over $75,000
TOTAL
MEDIAN INCOME
Car lsbad
Number Percent
’ 437
587
777
792
777
776
7 52
90 8
716
74 5
710
1,073
1,090
1,051
975
342
13,510
$22,354
1,002
-
3.2
4.3
5.8
5.9
7.4
5.8
5.8
5.6
6.7
5.3
5.5
5.3
7.9
8.1
7.8
7.2
2.5
100.0
-
Region Number Percent
26,620
47,985
52,583
56,214
60,197
49,003
50,684
43,559
45,363
35,641
34,500
26,036
44,097 29,232
32,962
24,577
11,381
670,634
$17,107
4.0
7.2
7.8
8.4
9.0
7.3
7.6
6.5
6.8
5.3
5.1
3.9
6.6
4.4
4.9
3.7
1.7
100.0
-
Catlsbad
As a Percent
of Region
1.6
1.2
1.5
1.4
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.7
2.0
2.0
2.2
2.7
2.4
3.7
3.2
4.0
3.0
2.0
-
130.7
Source: 1980 Census
e. Affordability Indices
SANDAG developed indices of affordable housing progress in a special study for
the City of Chula Vista. The study contained a comparison to several cities.
Although Carlsbad was not one of the cities, information was developed for the
City using the same methodology. The results are summarized in the following paragraphs.
The indices provided measurements of fair share progress in relative terms; that
is, housing affordability over time (e.g., 1970 VS. 1980) or between areas (e.g.,
Carlsbad vs. the region). The absolute measurements (e.g., the total number of
low income units) of the indices were not used.
The indices measured affordable housing for two time frames, 1970 and 1980, by
tenure (owner and renter) for the City and the region. Tables 32 through 37
identify housing affordability for the City in four cases: (1) owners in 1970, (2)
owners in 1980, (3) renters in 1970, and (4) renters in 1980. These tables identify
43
the income categories for which housing units in 1970 and 1980 were "affordable"
(see below). The four income categories are: very low, low, moderate, and all others. Table 31 identifies the income limits for each category in 1970, 1980, and
1984. The definitions were based upon the median income of the San Diego
Metropolitan Area in 1970, 1980, and 1984.
TABLE 31
INCOME CATEGORIES
SAN DIEGO METROPOLITAN AREA
1970, 1980 & 1984
Year - Very All - Low - Low Median Moderate Others
1970 $3,298 $5,276 $6,595 $7,9 14 $7,9 14+ 1980 $8,554 $13,686 $1 7,107 $20,528 $20,528+
1984 $13,730 $22,000 $27,500 $33,000 $33,000+
Sources: 1970 and 1980 Census and SANDAG Files.
Table 32 identifies the value of owner housing in Carlsbad in 1970 as reported by
the census. Monthly housing costs of each value range were estimated based upon the following conditions.
o The units were being bought with a conventional loan which was secured with
a 20 percent down-payment and financed over 30 years.
o The loan was financed at 8.25 percent interest rate (Data Resources, Inc.) for
1970.
o Monthly costs included the principal and interest on the loan, taxes and
insurance, and utilities.
These monthly figures were used to calculate the annual income that could
"afford" the cost of such housing by using the standard that 30 percent of a house-
hold's income should be used for housing costs.
The income category to which the units would be affordable in 1970 was estab-
lished. Carlsbad had 5.2 percent of its owner units affordable to very low income
households; 20.4 percent to low income households; 40.1 percent to moderate income households; and 34.3 percent to all other households. Carlsbad's afford-
ability rates in 1970 for owners were similar to the region's rates except that the
City had a lower percent of units affordable to lower income households (25.6
percent vs. 31.3 percent) and a higher percent for upper income households (34.3
percent vs. 25.7 percent).
44
TABLE 32
Housing Unit Value
Less than $5,000
$5,000 to $7,500
$7,500 to $10,000
$10,000 to $15,000
$15,000 to $20,000
$20,000 to $25,000
$25,000 to $35,000
$35,000 to $50,000
$50,000+
TOTAL
HOUSING AFFORDABILJTY
OWNER UNITS
CARLSBAD
1970
Number
8
18
20
149
392
555
734
3 06
111
2,293
Monthly
Percent Costs**
0.3 $3 3
0.8 $50
0.9 $66
6.5 $99
17.1 $132
24.2 $165
32.0 $23 1
13.3 $331
$33 1 + - 4.9 -
100.0 -
Annual
Income**
$1,320
$2,000
$2,640
$3,960 $5,280
$6,600
$9,240
$13,240
$13,240 +
-
Income
Category
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low/Low
Low
Moderate
Moderatel '
All Others All Others
All Others
* Census Tracts 178.01, 178.02, 179, and 180
** Principal, interest, taxes, insurance, and utilities using conventional 20 percent
down payment on loan at 8.25 percent over 30 years and assuming 30 percent
of income for housing costs.
Sources: 1970 Census and SANDAG Files.
Table 33 shows the distribution of owner occupied units by value and the income
category to which the units would be affordable in 1980. Carlsbad had 0.3 percent
of its owner units affordable to very low income households; 0.5 percent to low
income households; 2.3 percent to moderate income households; and 96.9 percent
to all other households. These rates were very similar to the rate for owners in
1980 for the region except the City had a lower percent of units affordable to
moderate income households (0.8 percent vs. 4.3 percent) and a higher percent for
upper income households (96.9 percent vs. 92.7 percent).
45
Housing Unit Value
Less than $10,000 $10,000 'to $15,000
$15,000 to $20,000
$20,000 to $25,000
$25,000 to $30,000
$30,000 to $35,000
$35,000 to $40,000
$40,000 to $50,000
$50,000 to $80,000
$80,000 to $100,000 $100,000 to $150,000
$1 50,000 to $200,000
$200,000+
TOTAL
TABLE 33
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
OWNER UNITS
Number
'2
11 6
12
12
15
51
96
477
1,028
2,955
94 1
578
6,184
-
CARLSBAD
1980
Percent
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2 0.2
0.8 1.6
7.7
16.6
47.8
15.2
9.3
100.0
-
Monthly
costs*
$106 $1 60
$212
$265
$318
$372
$42 5 $530
$850
$1,062
$1,592
$2,124
$2,124+
-
-
Annual
Income*
$4,240
$6,400
$8,480
$10,600
$12,720
$14,880
$17,000
$2 1,200
$34,000
$42,480
$63,680
$84,960
$84,960+ -
Income
Category
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very LOWLOW
Low
Low /Moderat e
Moderate
Moderate/
All Others
All Others
All Others
All Others
All Others
All Others
-
*Principal, interest, taxes, insurance, and utilities using conventional 20 percent
down'payment on loan at 13.00 percent over 30 years and assuming 30 percent of
income for housing costs.
Sources: 1980 Census and SANDAG Files.
Affordability data were then developed for renter units in the City in 1970 and
1980. Monthly housing costs of each rent range were estimated by using gross
rents which include census allowances for utility costs. The annual income calcu- lations were made in the same way as they were for owner units.
Table 34 shows the distribution of renter-occupied units by rent and the income
category to which the units were affordable in 1970. Carlsbad had 9.1 percent of
its renter units affordable to very low income households; 42.1 percent to low
income households; 42.0 percent to moderate income households; and 6.8 percent
all other households. The rate for very low income households was slightly lower
than the rate for the region (13.9%). The rate for low income households was slightly higher than the rate for the region (40.1%). The rate for moderate income
households was slightly higher than the rate for the region (36.3%). The rate for
all other households was less than the rate in the region (9.8%).
46
TABLE 34
Gross Rent**
Less than $40
$40 to $60
$60 to $80
$80 to $100
$100 to $150 $150 to $200
$200 to $250
$250+
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
RENTER UNITS CARLSBAD
1970
Number
6
50
129
268
926
521
67
71 -
Percent
0.3
2.5
6.3
13.2
45.4
25.6
3.3
3.5 -
Annual
Income***
$1,600
$2,400
$3,200
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$10,000+
TOTAL 2,038 100.0 -
* Census Tracts 178.01, 178.02, 179, and 180. ** Gross rent includes allowances for utilities. *** Assuming 30 percent of income for housing costs.
Income
Category
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Low
Low /Moder a t e
Moderate
All Others
All Others
Sources: 1970 Census and SANDAG Files.
Table 35 shows the distribution of renter-occupied units by rent and the income
category to which the units were affordable in 1980. Carlsbad had 12.6 percent of
its renter units affordable to very low income households; 46.1 percent to low
income households; 14.9 percent to moderate income households; and 26.5 percent
to all other households. The percent of units affordable to very low income households was lower than the region (22.5 percent); to low income households,
lower than the region (48.6 percent); to moderate income households, lower than
the region (21.4 percent); and to all other households, higher than the region (7.6
percent),
47
TABLE 35
SOUSING AFFORDABILITY
RENTER UNITS
CARLSBAD
1980
Annual Income
Gross Rent* Number Percent Income** Category
Less than $60
$60 to $80
$80 to $100
$100 to $120
$120 to $150
$150 to $170
$170 to $200
$200 to $250
$250 to $300
$300 to $350
$350 to $400
$400 to $500
$500+
d 12
20
69
51
72
39 176
588
1,104
805
38 1
7 53
7 24 -
0.3
0.4 1 i4
1.1
1.5
0.8
3.7 12.3
23.0
16.8
7.9
15.7
15.1 -
$2,400
$3,200
$4,800
$6,000
$6,800
$8,000
$4,000
$10,000
$12,000
$20,000
$14,000
$16,000
$20,000+
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low .
Very LOWLOW
Low
LowjModerate
Moderate
Moderate/
All Others
All Others
TOTAL 4,794 *** 100.0 - -
* Gross rent includes allowances for utilities. ** Assuming 30 percent of income for housing costs. *** Does not include 73 households with 'no cash rent' (see Table 23) nor will total equal
total in Table 24 due to sampling variances for data sources.
Sources: 1980 Census and SANDAG Files.
Table 36 summarizes the housing affordability indices for Carlsbad for owners and
renters in 1970 and 1980.
TABLE 36
€3 OUSIN G AFFORD ABILITY SUMMARY PERCENT RENTER AND OWNER UNITS
CARLSBAD
1910 & 1980
Income Category
Very Low
Low
Moderate
All Others
Owners
1980 - 1970 -
5.2 0.3
20.4 0.5
40.1 2.3
34.3 96.9
Rent et s
1980 - 1970 -
9.1 12.6
42.1 46.1
42.0 14.9
6.8 26.5
Sources: Tables 29-32 and SANDAG Worksheets.
Finally, Table 37 summarizes Le housing affordah ity indices .ar four juris-
dictions (Carlsbad, Escondido, Chula Vista, and National City) and the region. The
affordability rates for owners in 1970 and 1980 and the affordability rates for
renters in 1970 and 1980 are contained in this table.
TABLE 37
HOUSING AFFORDABILlTY SUMMARY
'RENTER AND OWNER UNITS
CARLSBAD, ESCONDIDO, CHULA VISTA, NATIONAL CITY, & REGION
1970-1980
Income Category
Very Low - Low Moderate AI1 Others
CARLSBAD
Owners 1970
Owners 1980
Renters 1970
Renters 1980
ESCONDIDO
Owners 1970
Owners 1980
Renters 1970
Renters 1980
CHULA VISTA
Owners 1970
Owners 1980
Renters 1970
Renters 1980
NATIONAL CITY
Owners 1970
Owners 1980
Renters 1970
Renters 1980
REGION
Owners 1970
Owners 1980
Renters 1970
Renters 1980
5.2
0.3
9.1
12.6
7.1
0.8
11.6 16.1
3.5
0.6
6.0
20.3
17.3
3.2
14.7
39.8
7.6
0.9
13.9
22.5
20.4
0.5
42.1
46.1
37.9 1.6
40.2
50.8
31.6
1.6
36.6
54.5
54.7
7.3
52.9
50.9
31.3
1.9
40.1
48.6
40.1
2.3
42.0
14.9
38.4
4.0
41.0
27.5
45.3
3.6
44.8
19.4
22.3
13.3
30.6
8.5
35.5
4.3
36.3
21.4
34.3
96.9
6.8
26.5
16.6
93.6
7.3
5.5
19.7
94.2
12.6
6.0
5.6
76.2
1.9
0.8
25.7
92.7
9.8
7.6
Source: A Housing Study for the City of Chula Vista; Tables 31-36.
49
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS STATEMENT
The Regional Housing Needs Statement provides information that meets the state
requirements for the revision of local housing elements. The information in this
section updates the Regional Housing Needs Statement adopted by the City in
1981.
According to the state law, local governments have to identify their total housing
needs and develop goals and programs to address them. Each jurisdiction is to include its share of the regional housing needs for all income levels in its housing
element. The distribution of regional housing needs has to avoid further concen-
tration in those jurisdictions with relatively high proportions of lower income
households. The purposes of the SANDAG Housing Needs Statement are to: (1)
recommend an equitable basis by which each jurisdiction can assume its "fair
share" of lower income housing responsibilities, and (2) identify the need for
housing for all income levels in the region. "Fair share" referred to the number of
lower income households that each jurisdiction has to assist in order to meet its
fair share of the current and projected housing needs of lower income house-
holds. Fair share requirements are identified for the region by the housing
allocation formula which was adopted by SANDAG in 1979,
The following three tables identify: (a) the "fair share" formula and the housing
needs for lower income households for each jurisdiction (Table 38); (b) the income
distribution of all households added to the region from 1980 to 1990 by jurisdiction (Table 39); and (c) the housing unit projections by jurisdiction by year to 1991
(Table 40).
The fair share formula consists of two factors: existing "fair share" (Columns 1 &
2: Table 38) and growth "fair share" (Columns 3 & 4: Table 38). These.factors
are derived from the population, housing, and employment characteristics of each
jurisdiction. The region's needs are then distributed according to each
jurisdiction's "fair share" factors. The total need (Columns 5 & 6: Table 38) for
each jurisdiction is then translated into a five-year goal (Column 7: Table 38).
The five-year goal represents a 'good faith" effort that addresses 2.5 percent of
the total housing need in each year of the five-year period in the housing ele-
ments. "Good faith" effort is the concept that recognizes that a jurisdiction
cannot be reasonably expected to meet all of its housing needs within five years.
Thus, a standard was developed that defined the level of effort by a local agency
that would be accepted as reasonable progress towards meeting its housing needs.
The City of Carlsbad adopted the Housing Needs Statement (as did all cities and
the County) by individual council action on April 17, 1984. The City adopted its
fair share formula and the five-year goals contained in Table 38. The City has set
a goal to provide 567 lower income households with housing assistance from 1985
to 1990.
Table 39 identifies the increase in the number of households for each jurisdiction
from 1980-1990 based upon the adopted Series 6 Regional Growth Forecasts
(Column 1: Table 39). This household growth was allocated to four income cate- gories (Columns 2-5: Table 39) in order to provide a guideline for local housing
element purposes. It is not a fair share allocation. The revised housing elements
must identify housing needs of all income ranges. SANDAG "fair shared" only
lower income households requiring assistance (Table 38).
50
c,
P
.. d
50- 1
Carlsbad
Chula Vista
Coronado
Del Mar
El Cajon
Escondido
Imperial Beach
La Mesa
Lemon Grove
National City
Oceanside
Poway
San Diego
San Marcos
Santee
Vista
Unincorporated
Region Total
TABLE 39
HOUSING NEEDS STATEMENT
REGIONAL INCOME DISTRIBUTION
(GROWTH ONLY)
SAN DIEGO REGION
1980-1 990
1980-1990
Household
Growth
12,494
7,36 1
1,507
449
2,036
6,777
986
844
1,341
1,277
11,209
2,726
3,901 6,370
2,834
67,505
194,190
(1)
64,573
Income Distribution (Growth Only)
Lower All
Very Low - Low Moderate 0 t her
2,811
1,656
339
101
458
1,525
222
190
302
287
2,522
6 13
14,529
878
1,43 3
63 8
15,189
43,693
(2)
2,161
1,273
26 1
78
352
1,172
171
146
23 2
221
1,939
472
11,171
675
1,102
490 11,678
33,594
(3)
2,411
1,421
291
87
393
1,308
190
163
259
246
2,163
526
12,463
7 53
1,229 547
13,028
37,478
(4)
5,111
3,011
616
183
833
2,772
40 3
345
548
523
4,585
1,115
26,410
1,595 2,606
1,159
27,610
79,425
(5)
NOTE: Since the Housing Elements address a five year time frame, the income distribution
for any five year period (1980-1990) would be half of the number in the tables.
Source:
Needs Statement Tables
SANDAG Final Series 6 Regiond Growth Forecast and SANDAG Regional Housing
50- 2
"I VI n
9 m d)
& Q, m
.C
50- 3
Table 40 identifies the increase in the number of housing units projected for each
jurisdiction by year from 1985 to 1991. This step was accomplished by converting
the Series 6 household estimates to housing units (by adjusting for vacancies).
This step was requested by HCD as information that local governments were to
include in their housing elements. The time frame was extended to 1991 because
the state law was revised and the next revisions will be due on July 1, 1991.
Thus, Table 40 indicates that the City of Carlsbad would need 11,589 housing units
from July 1, 1985 to July 1, 1991 to accommodate the expected growth in house-
holds during those six years.
If the income distributioh that existed in 1980 in the City was applied to this
total, the number of units needed by income level of household would be:
Very Low
Low
Moderate
All Others
1,83 1
1,565
1,83 1
6,362
If the income distribution that existed in 1980 in the Region was applied to this
total, the number of units by income level of household would be:
Very Low 2,608
Low 2,005
Moderate 2,23 7
All Others 4,740
Within these ranges, the very low and low income households who not only need
housing but housing with assistance, is 4,532 (existing and growth). The City
currently (July 1, 1985) assists 577 lower income households. In order to meet the
adopted fair share the City must provide assistance to 680 additional lower
income households who need assistance by July 1, 1991. This figure is based upon
the San Diego Association of Governments fair share and Housing Needs
Statement.
The housing needed will be satisfied by both multiple and single family housing at
varying densities and types. The projected needs for the six year period of the
Housing Element assume 6,212 single family units (53.6%) and 5,377 multiple
family units (46.4%).
REPLACEMENT HOUSING
Due to the City's low rate of substandard housing and the City's aggressive housing
rehabilitation program, the number of units that will need to be replaced will be
minimal. Further, several programs are underway which will provide replacement
housing. Based on proportions in the Areawide Housing Opportunity Plan (AHOP),
86 dilapidated units are estimated to be unsuitable for rehabilitation. These units
will be replaced as they are removed from the market during the Housing Element
timeframe. Obviously, not all of these units will be removed during the next 5-6
years.
The redevelopment activities will not require any replacement units within the
City.
51
COASTAL HOUSING
As part of the Coastal Zone process, the following information regarding replacement housing is included in the element:
a) Number of new units approved for construction in the Coastal Tone after
January 1, 1982: 1,347.
b) Number of units for low and moderate income households provided either
within the Coastal Zone or within 3 miles of it: 160.
c) Number of units occupied by low and moderate income households an3
authorized to be demolished or converted in Coastal ?one since January 1,
1982: 0.
d) Number of units for low and moderate income households provided either within the coastal zone or within 3 miles, which replaced those units being
demolished or converted: NOT APPLICABLE.
SITE INVENTORY
Vacant land for new housing was expected to be available throughout the City
from 1985 to 1991. mile much of this land was expected to be available at the
periphery of the City, sizable tracts of land were still available throughout the
City. This resulted in the availability of sites with a full range of zoning den- sities. A significant number of large parcels were substantially underutilized.
The following table summarizes the land available (January 1986) available for
residential development (net unconstrained acres) by plan category, average
potential density, and potential units if all land uses developed at average density.
TABLE 41
SITE INVENTORY
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1986
MAXIMUM POTENTIAL UNITS *
Plan Category
RL (0-1.5)
RLM (0-4)
RM (4-10)
RMH (10-20)
RH (20-30)
Approximate Net Maximum Yet
Average Unconstrained Potential Units - Potential Density Acres
.5 du/acre 1,500 7 50
3 du/acre 7,200 21,600
6 du/acre 2,400 14,400
15 du/acre 1,100 16,500
21 du/acre 230 4,830
Source: City of Carlsbad
52
Most of the available sites were provided with full public facilities and services.
Police and fire protection were considered adequate with a maximum three to five
minute response time to virtually all areas of the City. Water and sewer facilities
were also adequate. Isolated surcharging of sewage and deteriorated sewer lines
was scheduled for improvement in the five-year Capital Improvement Program
(CIP). Other improvements and expansions of both sewer and water facilities were also programmed from 1985 to 1991.
Major improvements to drainage systems were needed in several areas before full
development could have been adequately accommodated. Assessment districts
were established to help finance these projects as development occurs. All im-
provements on-site are to be provided by the developer.
Parks were. considered adequate for the City as a whole, especially regional and
citywide parks. The acquisition and development of additional neighborhood and
community parks were scheduled in the CIP.
Overcrowding of schools has become a problem at certain levels and in various areas of the City. To alleviate overcrowding, a fee for all new housing units
constructed was established. The City contains portions of five different school
districts. Each of these districts have different fee schedules. This fee, ranging
up to a maximum of about $1,995 per unit, depending on the type of dwelling unit
and school district, is to apply as long as school facilities are overcrowded.
Several objectives are considered by the City in recommending a site for sub-
sidized housing. Accessibility to community facilities, particularly public trans-
portation and shopping, is an important consideration. Senior citizen projects
require even more accessible housing due to limited mobility. Dwelling unit
density and development costs are considered in conjunction with land cost. Another consideration is the need to maintain balance in the neighborhoods.
Subsidized housing is not to concentrate low income households in one area.
Projects are not be be limited to low income areas, but to the extent possible,
distributed throughout the City, The distribution of assisted housing among the City's four quadrants is a major goal of the subsidized housing programs. In
addition, consideration is to be given to publicly owned sites which were available
for use.
GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
?he supply of affordable housing is influenced by government constraints. These
actions take place at local, state, and federal levels. This section will briefly
summarize these constraints with an emphasis on conditions in Carlsbad.
a. Land Use Controls
?he land use policies of the City have a direct impact on tbe provision of afford-
able housing. The General Plan establishes the framework for all development
within the City. Two elements of the General Plan are most important: Housing
and Land Use. The Land Use Plan identifies the location and intensity of devel-
opment. These factors are implemented through a number of codes and de-
velopment processes. The Zoning Code identifies the types of residential use and
53
certain chazacteristits to which apruposal must comply. The 'Zoning Code in the
City allows a wide range of housing types and densities which can respond to
affordable housing needs. For uample, the RY zone allows densities up to 30
dwelling units per acre. The code also permits mobile home development, a
significant housing type in the City-
The City has to respond to federal and state regulations which mandate environ-
mental protection. These regulatbns cause significant impacts upon affordable
housing. The cost of performing the analysis of the environmental impacts of a
development and the time for review of t5e analysis are significant governmental
constraints.
b. Building cork
The City of Carlsbad adopted ,ad enforced the Uniform Building Code which
ensures that all housing units are .built to specified standards. The code was sub-
stantially determined by the Jntemational Conference of Building Officials and
the State of California. The City adopted the Code with few administrative
amendments. The City did not set standards which were less demanding tha the
code. Thus, the City cannot reduce the cost of housing through the revision of the
Building Code.
c. Processing Costs
The City of Carlsbad, as m%ny jmisdictions in the post-Proposition 13 era, has
sought to recover local planning and processing costs through a fee structure. ?he
following fees are (December, 1W) costs associated with development in the
City. These figures are compared 3.0 high ad low ranges of fees in the region in
Table 40. However, different scB3pjtes are included in certain fees in some
jurisdictions and the impact of the u"%er of units in the proposed development
often vary. The City's fee schedule appears to fall within the regional norm and in
six cases it was the region's low.
54
TABLE 42
DEVELOPMENT FEES
CARLSBAD
1984
Activity
Plan Check
Building Permit
School
Flood Control
Sewer Connection
PUD General Plan Amendment
Tentative Parcel Map
Final Parcel Map
Grading Inspection*
Engineering*
Tentative Map*
Final Map
Environment a1 Study
EIR Processing
Carlsbad
Fee
$283
$43 5
$630-1,995
0 - $4,500
$1,000
$255
$265 + $5/lot
$300
$100
$695
$1,200
$765
$200
$175
$300 + cost
Region
High
$316
$483 $5,532
$1,44049,954
$2,900
$2,830
$3,000-$25,000
$550
$550
$1 5,7 10
$39,750
$3,500
$3,000
$1,300
$3,400
Region
Low
$22 9
$3 53
$250
9 $3 50
$50
$250 .
Carlsbad
Carlsbad
Carlsbad
Carlsbad
Carlsbad
Carlsbad
$50
$5
-
*Based on 50 units
Source: BIA Builder, December, 1984.
d. Article XXXN
Article XXXN of the California Constitution requires voter approval of low rent
housing when they are developed, constructed, or acquired in any manner by a
state agency Although the City of Carlsbad passed an Article XXXN
referendum in 1980, a significant number of court cases have increased the
opportunity to develop low rent housing developments without an approved refer-
endum. Approval of the referendum, which authorized 250 units for elderly/
handicapped households, provided additional options which will enable the City to
more easily meet its Housing Element goals. The City has not approved a
referendum for family housing.
NON-GOVERN MENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Non-governmental constraints to affordable housing consisted of three major
factors: land costs, construction costs, and financing. The City has a limited
ability to influence these factors. Land costs could have been impacted by the
number of adequate sites that were made available. However, the City provides
large amounts of land for such purposes and the cost of land is largely determined
by regional demand and costs. Construction and financing costs are also deter-
55
mined at the regional, state, and national levels by a variety of private and public
actions which are not controlled by the City.
a. Land Costs
Land is a significant component of housing costs, especially in Southern Cali-
fornia. The cost of land for housing in the State has risen from 20 percent in 1970
to 30 percent in 1980. More specifically, the Building Industry Association of San
Diego County estimated the cost components for a single family unit (1,202 square
feet with three bedrooms and two baths) in the northern portion of San Diego
County for summer, 1984. Land constituted 40.3 percent of total development
costs ($47,500 of $117,950). The City has an available supply of land for housing.
The cost of such land varies depending upon its size, location, and development
status. Land costs in Carlsbad were above the region's norm in 1984. The cost of
a raw acre of land for residential development varied by density and location but
the average cost appeared to be $90,000 per acre in 1985.
b. Construction Costs
The cost of constructing residential units is determined in the market by the
building industry and buyers. Construction ranged from 30 percent to 40 percent
of the cost of housing in 1984. The estimate of building costs for the unit
described in the above paragraph was $41,046 or 34.8 percent of the total costs.
The average cost per square foot for construction was $34.15. Construction costs
had substantially increased from 1974 to 1984 (22.4 percent per year). When
increases in construction costs and land costs are added, the impact becomes an
even greater deterrent to affordable housing.
C. Financing Costs
The greatest impact upon affordable housing from 1980 to 1985 was the increase
in financing costs. Interest rates on mortgages for housing rose to unprecedented heights in the early 1980's. Although the rates receded, they still averaged 14.00
percent in San Diego County in October, 1984 (fixed rate, 30 years with 20
percent down). In addition, points/closing costs were substantial "add-ons" asso- ciated with financing.
These costs are not only associated with tbe purchase of single family homes.
Construction loans for development of single family and multiple family units are
even higher (about 16 percent). The Building Industry identified the financing
costs associated with the typical unit in the preceding paragraphs. Sales and
financing fees added $10,000 to that unit (about 8.5 percent of the total cost).
Thus, the financing costs impacted affordable housing at two levels: (1) during
construction (temporary), and (2) after construction (permanent).
SPECIAL NEEDS
This section briefly identifies the conditions of the housing market for segments
of the population that generate special needs or that have a special impact on the
housing market. The major groups of these households are military, students,
handicapped, single parent, elderly, large family, ' farmworkers, and homeless.
This study does not intend to analyze these groups in any detail but to identify
56
,
their impact on the competition for affordable housing. These households me
more likely to have been lower income than all otSer households. The previous
analysis has shown the tight housing market conditions for all housing, especially
for lower income housing units.
a. Military
The military population's influence on the demand for housing takes two forms:
(1) the active military household trying to find housing, and (2) the former (either
retirement or non-retirement separation) service household trying to find housing,
The Department of Defense Housing Survey was compiled in order to determine
military family housing needs, especially in the context of new construction
goals. The following information is a summary of the findings for 1985.
TABLE 43
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8. 9.
MILITARY HOUSING SURVEY
MCB CAMP PENDLETON
1985
Gross military strength
Housing requirements
Voluntary separated
Effective requirements
Program limit
Military housing
Noo-military housing
Net deficit Program deficit
1985
35,611
10,583
8 99 9,684
8,739
3,819
3,3 98 2,467
1,522
-
Source: FY83 Housing Survey
The existing military family housing is scattered throughout the region, but
several communities have substantial portions of their total housing stock
occupied by military families. The City of Carlsbad does not have military
housing within its limits.
The regionwide average of military family housing as a percent of all housing was
1.4 percent in 1984. When the on-base family housing was excluded, the percent
dropped to 0.9 percent. However, the existing off-base military family housing is
concentrated in just 7 of the 40 subregional areas (SRA). In these seven SRA's,
military family housing as a percent of all housing rose to 3.1 percent with ranges
of 1.2 percent to 8.5 percent.
57
The 1980 census identified members of the Armed Forces as part of its labor force
statistics. This information was also presented by male and female by race. The data in Table 44 presents the City's data on armed forces by sex and race from
1980.
TABLE 44
ARMED FORCES EMPLOYMENT STATUS
CARLSBAD
1980
Total Male Female White Black Indian Asian S ankh -- ----P
Labor Force:
45 - - Armed Forces 403 373 30 383 9
Source: 1980 Census
Thus, the 403 military personnel formed 2.4 percent of the labor force in Carlsbad
and 1.1 percent of the total population in 1980.
Although increases in housing allowances for military households provides some
relief for local military housing expenses, substantial portions of the military
families require low-cost housing, a scarce commodity in an expensive housing
market.
b. Student
Student housing is also a cause for concern. Although each student may have
produced only an individual temporary housing need, the impact upon housing
demand was critical.
The same market forces that impacted the lower income housing population
influence student housing. The high cost of housing, condominium conversions, and occupant restrictions make it difficult for students to find affordable
housing. This impact is extended beyond graduation and has a detrimental impact
upon the region's economy. The graduates provide a specialized pool of skilled
labor that is vital to the region. However, the lack of affordable housing causes
many students to leave the region.
The following enrollment figures for the City identify the extent of student
population by grade level and race in 1980.
58
TABLE 45
Total -
Nursery School 53 0
Kindergarten & 4,025
High School 2,109
College 2,503
E lem en t ary
TOTAL SCHOOL ENROL.LMENT
CARLSBAD
1980
White
48 5
3,537
2,200
1,807
Black Indian -- - -
44 32 - 6
33 17
Asian Spanish
38 31
113 6S2
78 46 1
128 273
hibit e
School
Enrollment
48 s
499
109
2 84
Source: 1980 Census
Although these figures do not cross-tabuIate school enrollment with income or
need, they do provide a quick profile of the student population. College students
comprised 27.3 percent of the student population and 7.1 percent of the entire
population of the City in 1980.
c. Handicapped
The information on handicapped housing needs is difficult to obtain. The census
information was limited to data on work and transportation disabilities. More-
over, the definition of handicapped/disabled varies from one service agency to
an0 t her.
Proportions of work disabilities among the total work population of the City and
the total work population of the region were very similar in 1980. Table 46 shows
that 6.9 percent of the population in the City had a work disability (vs. 7.6 percent
in the region), and almost half of the people with work disabilities were prevented
from working.
59
TABLE 46
WORK DISABILITY
CARLSBAD AND SAN DIEGO REGION
1980
Carlsbad
Carlsbad Region As a Percent Number Percent Number Percent of Region
A. With Work Disability
1. In Labor Force
2. Not in Labor Force
a. Prevented from Working
b. Not Prevented from Working B. No Work Disability
TOTAL (Work Population)
Source: 1980 Census
1,672 6.9 95,752 7.6 1.7 571. 2.4 37,997 3.0 1.5
1,101 4.6 57,755 4.6 1.9 836 3.5 45,279 3.6 1.8
1.9
265 1.1 12,476 1.0 2.1 - 92.4 - 93.1 1,157,573 - 22,492
24,164 100.0 1,253,325 100.0 1.9
Proportions of transportation disabilities among the population (over 16) of the
City and the population (over 16) of the region were almost identical in 1980.
Table 47 shows that 3.0 percent of the population (over 16) had a public transportation disability and more than 66.3 percent of that population was over
65 years of age in 1980.
TABLE 47
TRANSPORTATION DISABILITY
CARLSBAD AND SAN DIEGO REGION
1980
Carlsbad
C arlsb ad Region As a Percent Number Percent Number Percent of ReRion
A. 16-64 Years of Age 24, I64 85.7 1,253,325 87.5 1.9
1. With Public Transp. Disability 286 1.0 18,634 1.3 1.5
2. No Public Transp. Disability 23,878 84.7 1,234,691 86.2 1.9 B. Over 65 Years of Age 4,022 14.3 179,530 12.5 2.2
1. With Public Transp. Disability 563 2.0 26,468 1.8 2.1
2.2 - 155,062 10.8 - 2. No Public Transp. Disability 3,459 12.3
TOTAL (Over 16) 28,186 100.0 1,432,855 100.0 2.0
Source: 1980 Census
60
Although no cross-tabulations of income, household size, or race with disability
are available, the element assumes that a substantial portion of the handicapped
fall within the lower income limits, especially those households not in the labor
force. The element also assumes that a substantial portion of the lower income
handicapped require housing assistance. The needs of the handicapped household are further compounded by requirements for special design and locations which
are limited in supply and more expensive.
d. Single Parent Households
Single parent households are another group with a need for housing that compete
for the affordable housing in the City. Table 48 identifies the proportions of single
parent households in the City and the region in 1980. The City had a lower
proportion of single parent households than the region although the proportion of
male single parent households was larger than the regional proportion. The
housing needs of this group generate special concern because the single parent
household tends to have a lower income and a higher need for social services.
TABLE 48
SINGLE PARENT HOUSEHOLDS
CARLSBAD AND SAN DIEGO REGION
1980
Carlsbad
Household Type Number Percent Number Percent of Region
Carlsbad Region As a Percent
Male, Single Parent 204 1.5 7,691 1.1 2.7
.Female, Single Parent 635 4.7 45,212 6.7 1.4
Total, Single Parent (839) (6.2) (52,903) (7.9) (1.6)
2.1 All Other Households 12,671 93.8 617,731 - 92.1 -
TOTAL 13,510 100.0 670,634 100.0 2.0
Source: 1980 Census
e. Elderly
The elderly (over 60 years of age) population in Carlsbad was 16.6 percent of the
total population in 1980. Tbe elderly population in the region was 14.4 percent of
the total population in 1980. Thus, the City had a larger percentage of elderly
than the region. The difference was even more significant for the 65-74 age
group: 7.8 percent of the City's population versus 5.0 percent of the region's population, almost double the proportion.
The elderly households generate special housing needs. Since elderly tend to have
higher owner-renter ratios and lower income levels, their needs are for
rehabilitation assistance and for ownership opportunities for smaller, low
maintenance units.
61
TABLE 49
POPULATION DISTRIBUTION
CARLSBAD AND SAN DIEGO REGION
1980
Car lsb ad
Number Percent Number Percent of Region
Carlsbad Region As a Percent
Less than 5
5-9
10-14
15-19
20-24
25-34
3 5-44
45-54
55-59
60-64
65-74
Over 74
2,703
1,703
2,304
2,748
3,249
6,987
4,063
3,751
2,107
1,810
2,768
1,297
7.6
4.8
6.5
7.7
9.2
19.7
11.4 10.6
5.9
5.1
7.8
3.7 -
128,959
123,919
131,258 178,292
227,324
340,262
203,768
169,825
89,481
77,014
118,075
73,669
6.9
6.7
7 .O
9.6
12.2
18.3
10.9
9.1
4.8
4.1
6.3
4.0 -
2.1
1.4
1.8
1.5
1.4
2.1
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.4
2.3
1.8 -
3 5,490 100.0 1,861,846 100.0 1.9
Source: 1980 Census
More than one-quarter of the households in Carlsbad that paid more than 25
percent of their income for rent and more than one-third of the households that
paid more than half of their income for rent were elderly households.
The income distribution of the elderly (62 and over) households was more concen-
trated in the lower income ranges than the income distribution of the non-elderly
households in 1980.
f. Large Households
Another category of special housing need is large households (units with five
persons or more). According to Table 50, the percentage of large households in
the City was 8.8 percent in 1980. This percentage was substantially lower than
the percentage of large households in the region (11.2). In addition, the City's
large households were predominantly (70.3 percent) owners. In the region, the
large households were also predominantly owners.
62
0
TABLE 50
Person Per
Household
1 Person
2 Persons
3 Persons
4 Persons
5 Persons
6 or More Persons
TOTAL
SIZE OF HOUSEHOLDS
CARLSBAD AND SAN DIEGO REGION
1980
Carlsbad
Number Percent
2,863 21.1
-
5,43 9 40.0
2,224 16.4
1,864 13.7
759 5.6
3.2 43 7 - -
13,586 100.0
Region
Number Percent
159,098 23.7
231,213 34.5
112,288 16.8
92,374 13.8
43,323 6.5
4.7 31,798 -
670,094 100.0
Carlsbad
As a Percent
of Region
1.8
2.4
2.0
2.0
1.8
114
2.0
-
Source: 1980 Census
g. Farmworkers
The housing needs of the farmworker are difficult to quantify. The 1980 Census
provided indirect measurements of the extent of farmworkers. The illegal immi-
grant and migrant worker are thought to form a substantial portion of the farm-
worker population. The ability to gather information about the farmworker is
limited because they are so mobile and relucant to participate in any survey. The
1980 Census provided a few indicators of the potential farmworker population.
All of the population and housing in Carlsbad was located inside the urbanized
area. By comparison, the region had 6.8 percent of its population and 6.1 percent
of its housing in a rural area. Second, 99.6 percent of the City's housing stock
consisted of year round housing units in 1980 (99.7 percent for the region). Third,
the City had 1,267 people employed in agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and mining
industries in 1980, 7.8 percent of the total population in the City (vs. 22,046 in the
region, or 2.9 percent of the region).
While these indicators did not directly measure farmworker population (nor the housing needs of farmworkers), they did suggest that the farmworker was a
portion of the City's population that generated of a special housing need.
h. Persons in Need of Emergency Shelter
The Housing Element law was amended in 1984 and added persons in need of
emergency shelter to the list of those groups which might have had a special
housing need. Although special studies are to be conducted in 1985, no data was
available at the time the housing element was revised. Based upon an informal
survey of various City staff and agencies, the homeless population did not appear
to be a significant housing need in the City.
63
ENERGY CONSERVATION
Energy impacts housing in several ways. In addition to the energy requirements
related to the use of the home, the energy used to travel from one's residence to work, to construct the housing, and to support housing services (for example,
water) reveal a close relationship between energy to housing.
New standards for energy conservation have been adopted by the State. New
housing units have to comply with these standards. The State laws provide several
alternatives which would, satisfy the requirements: passive solar, insulation, or
active solar.
Several incentives exist at both the State and federal level to encourage energy
conservation: income tax credits, low-cost loans, grants, and energy audits. The
major consideration involves cost. First, the cost of many energy saving devices
are prohibitive to most households (especially low income). Second, the cost of
the energy saving device has to provide a cost savings over time; the reduction in
energy costs has to offset the cost of the improvements.
Energy issues are complex and addressed in a variety of manners. Building codes
could be upgraded, solar energy could be required, and/or insulation standards
could be upgraded. A more unique concern could be access to solar energy
through setbacks, side yard, and height requirements. These protections could be
similar to the more established regulations which govern view and open space.
The following excerpts from the Regional Energy Plan highlight the recom-
mendations related to energy conservation for the residential buildings.
"L CONSERVATION AND SOLAR
1981 Revised State Building Code for New Housing
a. Local governments should ensure that local building officials are adequately
trained through existing state and professional association sponsored seminars
to assist builders in meeting the new codes, and ensure that adequate staffing
exists to carry out an effective inspection and enforcement program.
b. Local governments should support and participate in existing efforts by state
(California Energy Commission) and local (County of San Diego) govemments
to provide flexible and simple designs and requirements through which the energy saving standards of the state code can be met. SANDAG may assist
the state and county in communicating these improvements to local juris-
dictions and the development community.
c. Local governments should consider removing unreasonable restrictions to
solar water and space heating systems from zoning codes and other develop-
ment regulations. SANDAG may provide technical assistance to local staffs
based on the energy "implementation packages" developed by the Regional
Energy Task Force in 1980-81.
64
d. Local governments should incorporate site and building design criteria or
standards into subdivision and planned development regulations which will
allow the opportunity for solar water and passive space heating in new
homes. Local planners should be adequately trained so they can assist de-
velopers in meeting solar site design requirements and so they can enforce
the requirements. SANDAG may provide technical assistance to local staffs
based on the energy "implementation packages" developed by the Regiondl
Energy Task Force in 1980-81.
e. Local governments should require or encourage legal guarantees to solar
access in new development. SANDAG may provide technical assistance to
local staffs based OD. the energy "implementation packages" developed by the
Regional Energy Task Force in 1980-81.
f. Local governments should adopt minimum design standards for active solar
water heaters. SANDAG may provide technical assistance to local staffs based on the energy "implementation packages" developed by the Regional
Energy Task Force in 1980-8 1.
Resources: California Energy Commission and California Building Officials build-
ing code design manuals and training programs. County of San Diego passive solar
design project. SANDAG implementation packages on Removing Barriers to Solar
Energy Use from Zoning Ordinances, Solar Water and Pool Heating, Solar Energy
Site Plan Review and Solar Access.
Conservation in Existing Housinq
a. Local governments should adopt local weatherization ordinances, which
require installation of cost-effective weatherization devices at time, of sale.
Resources: SANDAG Implementation Package on Model Weatherization Ordi-
nance. SANDAG Review of 1981 State Low Income Home Energy Assistance Plan.
Water Conservation and Reclamation
a. Responsible state and local agencies should implement the water conservation
programs recommended in the Water Conservation Plan for the San Diego
Region adopted by the SANDAG Board in June, 1981, d the water reclama-
tion projects listed in the "Areawide Water Quality Management Plan, Water
Resources Element," also adopted by the SANDAG Board in June, 1981.
Resources:
tion. Water Conservation Plan for the San Diego Region."
County Water Authority Information Program for water conserva-
65
Solar Space Heating and Cooling and Water and Pool Heating
a. Local governments should ensure that building officials have adequate train-
ing and staffing to-assist builders and to carry out an effective inspection and
enforcement program.
b. Local governments should evaluate incorporating site and building design
criteria into commercial and industrial development regulations which will
allow solar space and water heating (particularly passive solar heating and
day lighting) in new Commercial and industrial development. In addition,
local governments should evaluate requiring or encouraging legal guarantees
to solar access in new commercial and industrial development. SANDAG should seek funding to develop an "implementation package" containing the
issues related to commercial and industrial solar site design and access and well as detailed guidelines, procedures and requirements. The implementa-
tion package should be developed with the assistance of an advisory commit-
tee including the San Diego Chamber of Commerce Energy Task Force,
SDG&E, local jurisdiction staffs and businesses and industries with experience
in solar applications.
c, Local governments should assist residents and businesses in providing for and
preserving reasonable solar access in existing developments when solar space
and water heaters are installed in existing residential and non-residential
development. SANDAG should seek funding to develop an "implementation
package" including issues, and procedures and guidelines. The development of
the implementation package should be assisted by local government staffs,
and the solar industry.
Resources: Califiornia Energy Commission and California Building officials non-
residential building standard manuals and training programs.
Land Use and Transportation Planning for EnerRy Efficiency
a Local governments should periodically evaluate their land use and transpor-
tation planning program to ensure that policies, plans and plan implementa-
tion procedures encourage development to take advantage of opportunities
for increased energy efficiency. For example, location of energy intensive uses adjacent to new or existing electricity generation facilities to create
opportunities for cogeneration. SANDAG should seek funding for an evalu-
ation of energy efficiency opportunities in land use and transportation plan-
ning and implementation for the region. The evaluation should result in policies and guidelines for local governments."
66