The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1994/12/28 - Agenda Packet CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA WEDNESDAY DECEMBER 28, 1994 7:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA I. Pledge of Allegiance II. Roll Call Chairman Barker Commissioner Melther Vice Chairman McNiel Commissioner Tolstoy Commissioner Lumpp Ill. Announcements IV. Approval of Minutes November 9, 1994 December 14, 1994 V. Consent Calendar The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non- controversial. They will be acted on by the Commission at one time without discussion. If anyone has concern over any item, it should be removed for discussion. A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 94-21 - CALIFORNIA BOX - A request to develop a 104,390 square foot industrial building on 7 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 10) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on Toronto Avenue, north of 7th Street - APN: 209-401-05. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. VI. Public Hearings The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission by stating your name and address. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in after speaking. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 94-02A - 1994 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE - In accordance with Article 10.6, Section 65580-65589.5 of the California Government Code, a revision and update of the City's Housing Element, including the State-mandated analysis of restricted, affordable units at risk of conversion to market rate through June 30, 2004. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. VlI. Director's Reports C. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS VIII. Public Comments This is the time and place for the general public to address the Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda. IX. Commission Business X. Adjournment The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11:00 P.M. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. The Planning Commission will adjourn to a workshop at 7:45 P.M. in the Rains Room regarding Pre-Application Review 94-03, Pre-Application Review 94-04, and Conditional Use Permit 94-26. VICINITY MAP CITY HALL CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: December 28, 1994 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner SUBJECT: Beverly Luttrell, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 94-21- CALIFORNIA BOX- A request to develop a 104,390 square foot industrial building on 7 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 10) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on Toronto Avenue, north of 7th Street - APN: 209-401-05 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Issuance of a Negative Declaration. B. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Heavy Wholesale Storage and Distribution; Subarea 9 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan (Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial District) South - Light Industrial; Subarea 10 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan (General Industrial District) East Southem California Edison Substation and proposed General Dynamics golf course Subarea 18 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan (General Dynamics Rancho Cucamonga Specific Plan) West Light Industrial; Subarea 10 of the Induslxial Area Specific Plan (General Industrial District) C. General Plan Designations: Project Site - General Industrial North - Heavy Industrial South - General Industrial East General Industrial West General Industrial ITEM A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 94-21 - CALIFORNIA BOX December 28, 1994 Page 2 D. Site Characteristics: The site is currently vacant and slopes from the northeast to the southwest at approximately 2 percent. E. Parking Calculations: Number of Number of Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces of Use Footage Ratio Required Provided PHASE 1 Office/Admin 10,080 1/250 40 Warehouse/Dist. 94,310 1/1000 * 20 1/2000 ** 10 1/4000 *** 1__4 Phase 1 Total: 104,390 84 105 PHASE 2 Warehouse/Dist. 58,000 1/4000 1~5 Overall Total: 162,390 99 113 · 1st 20,000 square feet · * 2nd 20,000 square feet · ** Over 40,000 square feet ANALYSIS: A. General: The applicant is requesting an Environmental Assessment for the construction of a 104,390 square foot (Phase One) warehouse and manufacturing building. Phase Two will be constructed at some point in the future and consists of 58,000 square feet of additional warehouse and manufacturing space. Upon approval of a Negative Declaration, the City Planner will grant approval based upon recommended Conditions of Approval from the Design and Technical Review Committees. B. Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee reviewed the project on December 20, 1994. At the time this report was written, the Committee had not yet met. The action comments of the Design Review Committee meeting are attached as Exhibit "G." C. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study has been completed by the applicant. Staff has completed Part II of the Environmental Checklist and has found no significant adverse environmental impacts as a result of this project. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 94-21 - CALIFORNIA BOX December 28, 1994 Page 3 FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The project is consistent with the General Plan and the Industrial Area Specific Plan. The project will not be detrimental to the public health or safety, or cause nuisances, or significant adverse environmental impacts. In addition, the proposed use and site plan, together with the recommended conditions of approval, are in compliance with the applicable provisions of the Industrial Area Specific Plan and City standards. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends issuance of aNegative Declaration for Development Review 94-21. City Planner BB:BL:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization Map Exhibit "B" - Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Building Elevations Exhibit "D" - Lunch Area Plan Exhibit "E" - Landscape Plan Exhibit "F" Grading Plan Exhibit "G" - December 20, 1994, Design Review Committee Action Comments DEVELOPMENT/DESIGN REVIEW FOR: CALIFORNIA BOX COMPANY "" TORONTO AVENUE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT ~TE r ~:.:. . 51'T~ L~TIL-I?-~'I'ION MA~ 1 ,2TM. i, 3', (4) (5) Fq' ..............L"] n ...................................' Ln _,OOO ~ ~ ~ E~AT~N i '" . : .... ,:, ~1 h~~; .... J ' ' ' - '; :: k : ,,, ,, . ;',;; ' 'Z~ "- ~',: "*"' ' ., , lift,. ,,, ~_ ,. ,- _. ,,, ~ __ P. ~E; :, f "' ,, . .... ............ ~ ;.~:: ; s r, ..... ~.--~ ~ y_, ~ - --- ~ ~: " ' ..... , ". :> "' ..... · ..... ~..,,: ..... .... ,' .. _ PAT~ P~ S~L AT PATIO ,,. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 5:40 p.m. Beverly Luttrell December 20, 1994 ENVIRONMENTAL AS SES SMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 94-21 -CALIFORNIA BOX - A request to develop a 104,390 square foot industrial building on 7 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 10) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on Toronto Avenue, north of 7th Street - APN: 209401-05. The project site is bounded by the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad Line to the north and the proposed General Dym~cs project and an Soulhem California Edison substation to the east. A one-story concrete tilt-up warehouse building is located to the west of the project. Additionally, a 40-foot Metropolitan Water District easement occupies the southerly potion of the site. A previous project for a 159,766 square foot warehouse building (DR 90-17) was approved for the project site in March 1991. That project has since expired. The proposed project will be constructed in two phases. This first phase occupies the easterly portion of the site. At a later date, the building will be enlarged by approximately 58,000 square feet along the west side of the building. atal_Clmlmlal: The foliowing comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. ~ The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1. Phase One is located on the easterly portion of the site in order to take advantage of future views from the building to the proposed golf course to the east. Consequently, the southeast elevation has been upgraded with split face block, additional windows and more building plane undulation since this will be the main entrance to the building. However, the southwest corner of the building will face Toronto Avenue until Phase Two is constructed and should be similarly upgraded since it will be visible from the street. The applicant has provided a fluted texture in this location, but has not provided any additional building articulation. If additional articulation is not feasible, then additional landscaping should be provided at the entry to the project. 2. Enhanced paving should be rovidad at the anwance to the project to complement the enhanced paving adjacent to the main ~'°~ding entrance. ,~llolxdli:y..Ia,~a~ Once all the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting the Committee will discuss the following secondan/design issues: 1. Cut sheets should be provided which detail the type of ,,~_6n8 that will be provided in the employee lunch area. ~ The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion. 1. Screening for roof mounted equipment should be integrated into the building design (i.e., extendad parapet walls). DRC COMMENTS DR 94-21 - CALIFORNIA BOX December 20, 1994 Page 2 Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee recommend approval with the noted conditions. Desi_m~ B, eview Committee Action: Members Present: Heinz Lumpp, John Melcher, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Beverly Luttrell The Design Review Committee recommended approval as proposed by the applicant, except that the fluted treatment at the southwest comer of Phase One should be deleted. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' STAFF R! ,PORT DATE: December 28, 1994 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Miki Bratt AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 94- 02A - 1994 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE - In accordance with Article 10.6, Section 65580-65589.5 of the California Government Code, a revision and update of the City's Housing Element, including the State-mandated analysis of restricted, affordable units at risk of conversion to market rate through June 30, 2004. ~: In order to give ample opportunity for public comment, staff recommends that the public hearing be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of January 11, 1995. ~: Attached is the 1994-1999 Housing Element update and supporting Technical Appendix. Although the State legislature extended the due date of the 1994 update by two years, the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) notified the City that the 1989 update was out of compliance until the State-mandated analysis of restricted affordable units at risk of conversion to market rate was completed and amended into the City's Housing Element. The 1994-1999 Housing Element update is supported by a Technical Appendix which contains 11 sections. All sections of the Technical Appendix contain content and analysis required by the Housing Element State law. The Technical Appendix reflects the 1990 Federal Census, as well as other sources through December 30, 1993. The sections of the Technical Appendix are: I Inlxoduetion II Population Characteristics III Housing Characteristics IV Vacant Land Inventory V Non-Governmental Constraints VI Governmental Constraints VII Special Housing Assistance Needs Groups VIII Energy Conservation OppertunitiCs IX Units at Risk Analysis X Redevelopment Agency's Housing Production Plan, adopted November 16, 1994 XI Evaluation of the 1989 - 1994 Housing Element - j ITEM B PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE December 28, 1994 Page 2 Sections IX and X reflect State mandates adopted after the 1989-1994 update. Section IX of the Technical Appendix incorporates the Units At Risk Analysis and concludes that conservation of the 268 units at risk of conversion prior to June 30, 1999, is a reasonably obtainable goal. Section X incorporates the Redevelopmerit Agency's State-Mandated Affordable Housing Production Plan (HPP) which was adopted by the Agency on November 16, 1994. The HPP is included in the Technical Appendix, because it presents the City's primary efforts to meet State-mandated affordable housing goals. Section XI evaluates the goal, objectives, policies, and programs presented in the 1989-1994 update of the Housing Element and concludes that only minor changes, for clarification, need to be incorporated into the 1994-1999 update. Respectfully submitted, City Planner BB:MB/jfs Attachments: Draft Housing Element and Technical Appendix Updates (under separate cover) CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT DECEMBER 1994 HO SING ELEMENT INTRODUCTION The 1994 - 1999 update of the City's Housing Element is presented in three parts. Part One provides an overview and summarizes the technical dam. Part Two presents the goals, objectives, policies, and programs for the five-year period beginning July 1,1994, and ending June 30, 1999, including the assignment of responsibility for accomplishments, expected funding resources, and the schedule for completion. The third part of the Housing Element is the Technical Appendix which presents the technical data in detail, the state-mandated study of Units at Risk of Conversion to Market Rate, the Redevelopment Agency's Housing Production Plan for Affordable Housing, and the detailed evaluation of the goal, objectives, policies, and programs of the 1989 - 1994 Housing Element. PART ONE Purpose and Intent The Housing Element is intended to provide residents of the comxnunity and local government officials with a greater understanding of the housing needs in Rancho Cucamonga and to provide guidance to the decision-making process in all matters relating to housing. The document analyzes existing and future housing needs, develops a problem-solving strategy, and provides a course of action toward achieving the stated housing goal, objectives, policies, and programs. This document is required by State Law to update the Housing Element originally approved with the General Plan in 1981, amended in 1984, and updated April 17, 1991. This update incorporates the 1990 decennial census and other recent demographic information and housing trends. This update also includes the two aforementioned State-mandated programs which are included in their entirety in the Technical Appendix. The first is a Units at Risk Study which identifies restricted units affordable to low and moderate income households whi~ are at risk of conversion to market rate within the next ten years and provides programs to preserve those units. The second is the Redevelopment Agency's mandated Housing Production Plan, indicating quantified programs and schedules which will meet state-mandated affordability requirements for housing produced in the Redevelopment Area. Legislative Authority The State Legislature has identified the attainment of a decent home and a satisfying environment for every resident of the State as a goal of highest priority. Recognizing that local planning programs play a significant role in the pursuit of this goal, and to assure that local planning effectively implements the Statewide housing policy, the Legislature mandates that all cities and counties include a Housing Element as part of their adopted General Plan. Section 65583 of the California Government Code requires the preparation of a Housing Element and specifies that its -1- contents include a needs assessment, a statement of goals, objectives, and policies, a five-year schedule of program actions, and an assessment of past programs. Public Participation Section 65583(c) of the Califomia Govemment Code states that local jurisdictions must make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the Housing Element. To achieve this end, notices of public hearings were advertised in the local paper of general circulation, the Inland Valley Dally Bulletin, utilizing three- column ads. In addition, notices were posted in the City's Community and Neighborhood Centers as well as at City Hall. Notices were also sent to the local chapter of the Building Industry Association and the Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce. State Review of the Housing Element Consistent with State law, the State Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) has 45 days to review and comment on the draft Housing Element Update. Comments are returned to the City. The Planning Division then revises the draft to bring it into substantial compliance with HCD comments and forwards the document to the City Council for review and adoption. A copy of the final adopted Element is sent to HCD for approval. General Plan Consistency The Housing Element has been prepared to be consistent with other elements of the General Plan. The City's General Plan consists of three super elements incorporating the seven State-mandated elements and four optional elements. The super elements are: · Land Use and Development (incorporating Land Use, Cimulation, Housing, Public Facilities, and Community Design); · Environmental Resources (incorporating Conservation, Open Space, and Energy Conservation); and · Public Health and Safety (incorporating Public Safety and Noise). Goals, objectives, and policies throughout the General Plan are related to and consistent with the Housing Element. Several examples illustrate the interactive character of the General Plan as follows: the Land Use Element sets forth the amount and type of residential development permitted, thereby affecting housing oppommity in Rancho Cucamonga; the Cirenlation Element contains policies to minimize roadway traffic in residential neighborhoods; the Community Design Element contains policies dLmcted at maintaining the existing housing stock and ensuring the quality of new residential development; the Environmental Resources Element establishes policies to minimize the impact of residential development on sensitive resources, such as hillside areas, ecological habitat, and scenic viewsheds; and the Public Safety Element sets forth policies to ensure the safety of the -2- City's housing stock through mitigation of natural and man-made hazards. Further, the General Plan is updated periodically which helps to ensure consistency among the elements. The most recently completed technical update of the General Plan was adopted January 4, 1990. POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS. As of January 1, 1994 the State Department of Finance estimated the City's population at 115,010. From 1989 to 1994, the population increased a modest 15 percent. This contrasts with a one-year population increase of 17 percent during 1987 alone, and with an overall 36 percent increase for Census and 1990 Federal Census the City's population increase~l fi:om 55,250 to 101 ,409, an increase of 83.5 percent. Build-out Population Estimate Based on current zoning, the City's build-out population will range between 153,668 and 162,475 persons. The City's most likely build-out scenario would yield a population of about 158,071. Residential build-out is anticipated to occur after 2010 and probably before 2020. The availability of easily developable residential land, the housing market, and interest rates are among the variable factors which will influence future growth and residential build-out. SCAG's RHNA and Growth Management Plan Estimates: Population and Employment SCAG's Regional Housing Needs Assessment, 1988, predicted a population increase between 1989 and 1994 of 27,442 persons. The actual increase was 16,502 persons, or almost 11,000 short of the estimated increase for the period. SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan estimates a year 2000 population for the City of 136,514 individuals. Units which have received tentative tract approval and are on hold awaiting favorable economic conditions could house approximately 8,764 persons. There is no governmental impediment to processing additional units consistent with SCAG's estimated need. Based on SCAG's Growth Management Plan dated February 1989, the West San Bemardino Valley is projected to be one of the five most rapidly growing subregional employment centers within SCAG's region. According to the 1990 Federal Census, the City provided 31,638 jobs, an increase of 13,784 jobs since 1980. In the Growth Management Plan, SCAG predicts there will be 41,925 jobs in the City by the year 2000. Based on the City's General Plan, at the time of commercial and industrial build-out, the City will provide approximately 74,560 jobs. Employment and Income At the time of the 1990 Federal Census, 50.3 percent of the population, or 50,962 residents, were employed. Of these 22 percent lived and worked within the City, more than double the 10 percent who lived and worked in the City in 1980. -3- According to the 1990 Federal Census, the City's median honsehold income was $46,193. The City's median honsehold income was substantially above the $33,800 median income reported in 1990 for the Riverside-San Bemardino statistical area which is used by. the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development to determine low and moderate income housing needs. Ethnicity According to the 1990 Federal Census, 68.6 percent of the population is White, excluding persons of Hispanic origin. From 1980 to 1990, the Hispanic group increased slightly from 16.3 percent of the population to 19.6 percent and continued to be the largest ethnic minority in the City. The non- White ethnic groups, excluding persons of Hispanic origin, increased by 10 percent. The City's overall population aged slightly during the decade of the 1980's, with the median age increasing from 26.6 years to 29.7 years. The largest age cohorts continued to be school age (5-19 years) and young adults (20-34 years). HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS Housing production in the City has experienced high and low growth periods, exhibiting high growth over the long term. For example, the 1990 Federal Censns identified 36,169 dwelling units in the City compared with 17,839 units in 1980 and 5,195 units in 1970. Housing Production Overall housing production from 1989 to 1994 has been low. As of January 1, 1994, there were 38,852 total dwelling units in the City, an overall increase of 7 percent from 1989. Following the regional economic trend, new constraction reached a low point in 1992 with an increase of only 296 units. New construction is increasing gradually. An additional 442 units were completed in 1993. Historically, the regional economic trend has been the best indicator of residential construction activity. While construction has slowed dramatically, many projects have received at least tentative tract approval from the City's Planning Commission. The result is a backlog of approximately 6,000 units awaiting an improvement in the economy. SCAG's Regional Housing Needs Assessment, 1988, estimated a need for 9,568 new dwelling units in the City between 1989 and 1994. Actual production was 2,683 units. Had all units which received tentative tract approval been built, SCAG's estimate would have nearly been met. Construction of all units currently in the processing stream, pins reasonably anticipated new applications, could meet new units needed to honse the 136,5.14 persons estimated to reside in the City in the year 2000 by SCAG's draft Regional Comprehensive Plan. Between 57,038 and 58,974 dwelling units are estimated at build-out. Build-out is expected to occur sometime after the year 2015. -4- Owner and Renter Mode, Affordability, and Incidence of Crowding According to the 1990 Federal Census, about 70 percent of the housing units were owner occupied. This is a change from 1980 when 84 percent were owner occupied. Renters increased from 17 percent in 1980 to 30 percent in 1990, primarily as a result of completion of new multi-family units. The ratio of renters to owners is expected to increase slightly through build-out. Most owners and renters in the City can afford their housing costs according to the measure of affordability recognized by the Federal government. Overburdened households are those that must spend more than 30 percent of their monthly gross income for housing costs, including rent and utilities. According to the 1990 Federal Census, 18.7 percent of tenter households were paying more than the federal standard. For owner households, 10 percent were paying more. An even smaller group live in overcrowded housing by the recognized federal standard of more than one person per room, excluding bathrooms. Ten percent ofrenter households were overcrowded and 3 percent of owner households. Housing Stock Condition In general, housing conditions are very good. According to the 1990 Federal Census, only 2,250 housing units were existing in 1960, or 5 percent of the housing stock. No more than .01 percent of the housing stock in 1990 was substandard by fedemily recognized factors other than the potential for lead paint. At least 83 percent of the substandard units are assumed to be suitable for rehabilitation. According to Federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) methodology, five block groups in the City are eligible for assistance. Historically, CDBG resources have been focused on the three block groups which represent North Town and Southwest Cucamonga. VACANT LAND INVENTORY Vacant land zoned for residential use is a primary resource needed to meet housing needs. As of January 1, 1994, approximately 2,235 acres of vacant, uncommitted land were zoned for residential use and suitable for development. The range of residential land use designations will support an estimated 11,900 to 13,836 dwelling units across the range of income levels. As previously mentioned, as of June 30, 1994, approximately 6,286 residential units were in the processing stream. Of these, all but 261 had received at least tentative tract approval from the Planning Commission. Land suitable for affordable housing is generally available throughout the City, including 397 aces of land zoned for multi-family residential development. Production and conservation of affordable units will be discussed in two subsequent sections of the Housing Element, specifically the section on Units at Risk of Conversion to Market Rate and the section on the Redevelopment Agency's -5- Production Plan for Affordable Housing. NON-GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS Actual housing production depends heavily on conditions outside the framework of government, including regional economic conditions and the housing market. Regional economic recession characterized the period from 1989 to 1994. A period of economic growth is predicted for the second half of the decade. Household Formations SCAG predicts that 94 percent of the population growth through the year 2000 will result from a natural increase rather than domestic in-migration or foreign immigration. This shift may result in a larger household size and fewer new households in contrast to housing needs during the preceding three decades. Continuation of a soft housing market through the end of the decade may result. Employment The loss of high paying defense manufacturing jobs and high unemployment rates have characterized the first half of the decade. However, SCAG predicts that 10~000 new jobs will be created in the City between 1990 and the year 2000. The trend is toward lower paying retail and service sector jobs. Market Absorption The City's vacancy rate has hovered above 6 percent since 1990. This rate would be low during a period of rapid housing production. However, in the context of low new housing production rates, it represents high availability of resale houses and slow absorption of new housing units. Land Price and Construction Costs Raw land price has declined substantially since 1989 as a result of the collapse of a period of heated land speculation. Because of the stabilizing influence of large ownerships, land cost is assumed to have remained relatively stable at pre-speculation levels. In the case of lender foreclosures, land cost has fallen lower than in the early 1980's. Construction costs are assumed to have kept pace with the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The CPI has increased approximately 9 percent from 1989 through 1993. Financing Financing for raw land purchases is virtually unavailable. Construction financing is tight. Mortgage financing is available, but interest rates are rising. Consistent with Federal regulations, banks are promoting first-time buyer programs. Under low dow~ payment for first-time buyer programs, -6- monthly payments increase by the amount of mortgage insurance required. Housing Price Based on newspaper reports, housing prices in the City appear to have decreased 9 percent from 1989 through 1993, primarily reflecting a correction of land cost. Public Opinion Public opinion influences affordable housing locations and tevatre. In the City, the public supports a variety of affordable, market-rate owner projects, including small lot developments, single-family attached housing, and first-time buyer loan programs. QOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS An analysis of govemment mguiation in the City indicates that regulations in force are necessary for the health, safety, and welfare of the community and, for the most part, are not an undue constraint on development. The City's zoning and development standards encourage a wide range of housing types, including single and multi-family, rental and ownership and mobile homes. The resulting range of development scenarios increase the oppommities for residential development. Code Enforcement The City's housing stock is in generally good condition because only 13.4 percent was constructed before 1970. Building codes and their enforcement encourage conservation of sound housing stock. Permit Processing The City has implemented a series of actions to sircaroline the ~ermit application process. The goal is to shorten optimum processing time by 25 percent for all development, including residential projects. Fees and Exactions Fees and exactions on new development by the City and other agencies, including the school and water districts, have increased an estimated 41 percent during the last five years. The increase reflects the higher cost of new infrastructure. Because land costs have declined as must as 50 percent during the same period, the actual price of new housing has decreased approximately 9 percent. City fee schedules are reviewed and adopted annually. The methodologies to support fees and exactions are reviewed periodically. Fees and exactions ensure that new development will have adequate infrastructure and public services and, therefore, are a prerequisite to development. -7- Mello-Roos financing through formation of Community Facil;ties Districts provides an altemative means to finance a portion of new infTastmcture. Their use raises concems about perceived property tax burden and equity. These issues have been magnified by the low growth economy. Where bonds have been issued for required infrastructure, such as flood protection facilities, the burden of bond debt has increased to new home owners and vacant land property owners in proportion to the reduction in anticipated new home construction. In the City, Mello-Roos financing has been used to form two districts in areas planned for move-up housing. Three of the five school districts, including Chaffey Joint Union High School District which serves Rancho Cucamonga and other communities, use Mello-Roos financing. Since new schools are usually not built until after development occurs, bond repayment is generally distributed equitably among new owners. Proactive Support of Development The City proactively promotes development, emphasizing the location of new business and industry to the City. An increase in the jobs/housing ratio is a major benefit. The City, through its Redevelopment Agency, also promotes affordable housing production. The Agency's affordable housing efforts are discussed in Sections IX and X of the Technical AppendiX. SPECIAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE NEEDS GROUPS Several recognized special needs groups reside in the City, including the handicapped, elderly, large families, families with female heads of households, and fimilies and persons in need of emergency shelter. An effort has been made to identify these groups, analyze their needs, and to use the limited resources available to address their needs. Handicapped According to the 1990 Federal Census, 6,644 persons 16 years of age and older residing in the City have a disability related to a mobility limitation or to a self-care limitation. One-third are employed. Less than 3 percent are institutionalized. The remainder live with families or independently. For low-income disabled, assistance with the installation of special equipment and availability of affordable housing are primary needs. Elderly The 1990 Federal Census found 4,910 persons 65 years of ag~ or over residing in the City. Eight percent of the elderly are below poverty level. A large portion of available community resources are allocated to seniors who have incomes less than 80 percent of the median for the Riverside-San Bernardino PMSA. -8- Large Families Large families arc defined as five or more persons. The Census indicated there were 5,094 large families residing in the City in 1990. Since 1980 the percent of large family reuters has increased. The increase of large family rentcrs probably resulted because of the increase in the number and size of rental units during the decade. Forty-five percent of large families pay more than 30 percent of their income for housing. Thh'ty-six percent live in overcrowded quarters. The Housing Authority of San Bemardino County states that resources to assist large family households are extremely limited. Female-Headed Households There were 2,238 female headed-households residing in the City in 1990. Eight percent of female- headed households are below the poverty level. A total of 1,218 of all households in the City arc below poverty level, approximately divided between single-headed and two parent households. It is reasonable to assume that a high proportion of poverty level households, particularly single-parent households, arc at risk of homelessncss. Homeless The 1990 Census counted 26 homeless persons in the City. Limited assistance and a small number of emergency shelter spaces are provided by private groups in the area. Less than one percent of persons residing in the City were identified by the Census as "farmworkers." Therefore, no special need for housing has been identified for farmworkers. ENERGY CONSERVATION The City is not a water or energy provider. Cucamonga County Water District has the primary responsibility for domestic water service in the area. Southern California Edison and Southem California Gas Company provide electricity and natural gas. Nevertheless, the City proactively promotes water and energy conservation through codes and policies. In April of 1990, the City adopted a Xcriscape Ordinance and guidelines which require landscape design and irrigation methods which conserve water. In addition, the Building and Safety Division enforces State Title 24 energy requirements, including 1.6 gallon flush toilets for new construction. Optional residential development standards encourage energy conserving appliances and features, as well as the use of solar energy systems in appropriate situations. Solar access rights have been in the Development Code since 1984. Conservation efforts have resulted in an overall decrease in per capita consumption of water from 1989 to 1994. Further, water and energy conservation requirements help reduce monthly utility bills and, therefore, contribute to the affordability of housing. -9- CONSERVATION OF UNITS-AT-RISK OF CONVERSION TO MARKET RATE As of June 30, 1994, there were 314 units restricted to low income households in the City, which were identified as at risk of conversion to market rate prior to June 30, 1999. All the Units at Risk during the next five years were produced by private owner participation in multi-family bond financing. The programs were offered by the State through the County of San Bemardino. Developers of multi-family projects in the City entered into 10-year regulator7 agreements in exchange for the then lower than market interest rates. As of June 30, 1994, the City's Redevelopment Agency had executed one owner-Agency agreement to preserve the restricted affordability of 46 units for a period of 30 years. Since all the identified Units at Risk prior to June 30, 1999, are located in the Redevelopment Area, the Agency's five year goal is to preserve the affordability of these units. The State-mandated Units at Risk study is included in its entirety in Section IX of the Technical Appendix. To achieve the identified preservation goal, the following programs will be used: · Contact owners; · Assist owners with analysis of conservation options; · Assist private non-profit agencies with purchase; · Enter into agreements with owners for conservation; · Agency purchase, or assistance with purchase, of projects which include Units at Risk. AFFORDABLE HOUSING PRODUCTION STRATEGY The City's Redevelopment Agency estimates that the Housing Set Aside funds ~'om July 1, 1994 to June 30, 1999 will total approximately $23 million. Consistent with State law, these funds are scheduled to assist affordable housing projects. The use of the funds must be consistent with State affordable housing law and the more restrictive legal settlement between the Re. development Agency and the Western Center for Law and Poverty. Consistent with the State requirement that 15 percent of the housing constructed in a redevelopment area must be affordable, the Agency will leverage their funds with other public and private resources to produce or conserve 1,709 affordable units by June 30, 1999. The Agency is assisting the North Town Housing Development Corporation organized by the residents of the North Town Neighborhood. The Agency is also assisting the Southem California Housing Development Corporation, a regional non-profit agency. The groups are working independently and together on affordable projects in the City. -10- The Housing Production Plan, adopted by the Redevelopment Agency on November 16, 1994, is included in its entirety in Section X of the Technical Appendix. EVALUATION OF THE 1989 - 1994 HOUSING ELEMENT GOALS. OBJECTIVES. POLICIES. AND PROGRAMS The goal, objectives, and policies of the 1989 - 1994 Housing Element remain unchanged, with the exception of slight changes in wording for clarification. With this update, two important programs which will provide affordable housing for low and moderate income families have been completed: The Units at Risk Study has been completed and programs identified for conservation of those units; · The Redevelopment Agency's Affordable Housing Strategy has been incorporated into the Agency's Affordable Housing Production Plan, including a statement of quantified goals, resources, and production timetable. The jobs/housing balance programs have been revised to stress proactive emphasis on attracting business and industry to the City. This reflects City policies which have dramatically increased the number of persons who work and reside in the City from 10 percent in 1980 to 22 percent in 1990, indicating excellent progress toward attainment of the City's 30 percent objective. Some programs are on hold until funding resources are available. For example, completion of a residential design guidebook, revision of the Hillside Development Ordinance, and development of guidelines to enhance residential safety will be completed when funding resources become available. Some changes in the City's Development Code to achieve consistency with State laws are also on hold until funding resources are available. For example, State law mandates that manufactured homes, including mobile homes, be permitted in all residential districts. Manufactured homes except mobile homes are processed as single family homes. However, the Code has not yet been formally amended to state that mobile homes are permitred in the "Very Low" [Density] Single Family Residential District. Also, because no developer request has been received, the Code has not yet been updated to reflect the latest State-mandated density bonus provisions. Nevertheless, State-mandated density bonus provisions are available to developers and Code changes would be processed concurrently with an application. A detailed discussion of the evaluation of the 1989 - 1994 update of the Housing Element is provided in Section XI of the Technical Appendix. The results of this evalunfion have been incorporated into the revised objectives, policies, and programs which are provided in Part Two which follows. -11- PART TWO GOAL, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS FOR THE 1994 - 1999 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE GOAL: The City shall provide opportunities and incentives for the provision of a variety of housing types for economic segments wishing to reside in the community regardless of race, religion, sex, or income group. OBJECTIVE 1: Allow and create new opportunities which enable a broad range of housing types, maintain a balanced supply of ownership and rental units, and provide sufficient numbers of dwelling units to accommodate expected new household formations. POLICY 1 .A: Through land use distribution and implementation of development standards, encourage a mix of housing types, including conventional, mobile home, and apartments within a variety of price ranges, in order to ensure a range of housing alternatives and enable the City to achieve its share of the regional housing need as determined by the 1988 Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). Program 1 .A. 1: Facilitate opportunities for a variety of housing types through the implementation of the Land Use Plan, Development District Map, and Community Plans on the remaining vacant land resources of the City. Target: A total of 41,463 dwelling units, i.e., the 38,852 existing as of January 1, 1994, plus 2,611 additional units by June 30, 1999, recognizing that because of market conditions, as few as 1,445 units, or more than the 6,547 units currently approved or in the processing stream, may actually be constructed during the reporting period. ]~&~lgal~Agr~: City ofRancho Cucamonga, Planning Division. Financing: Not Applicable. Schedule: July 1, 1994 - June 30, 1999. -12- Program 1.A.2: Review and amend provisions of the Development Code pertaining to mobile homes, consistent with Section 65852.3 of the Government Code, to allow manufactured homes in all residential districts. Target: Citywide. Responsible A_eencv: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division. Financin-: General Fund, City Budget. Schedule: Continue item on the Planning Division work program and complete when funding resources become available. Program 1.A.3: Continue to discourage conversion of existing mobile home parks to other uses and enact a Mobile Home Park Conservation Ordinance consistent with the provisions contained in Government Code Section 65863.7 in order to maintain a valuable sottree of affordable housing. Taract: All existing mobile home parks. RCsuonsible Aaency: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division. Financing: General Fund, City Budget. Schedule: Add to 1995-96 Planning Division work program and complete when funding resources become available to complete. Program 1.A.4: Continue to maintain and administer a condominium conversion ordinance which establishes a maximum annual limit, defined as no more than one-half the number of multi-family rental dwellings added to the City's housing stock during the preceding year, for the number of multi- family rental units that may be converted to ownership type. Target: Citywide. Ke,~29al~j~,~3~: City ofRancho Cucamonga, Planning Division. Financing: Not Applicable. Schedule: On-going. OBJECTIVE 2: (5) Provide housing opportunities which meet the needs of all economic segments of the community including very low, low, and moderate income households and special needs groups. POLICY 2.A: Protect and expand the range of housing opportunities avallabl~ by location, price, and tenure to low and moderate income households. -13- Program 2.A. 1: Continue to offer Development Agreements in order to offer incentives for development of senior and/or family affordable multi-family rental units. Target: Low and moderate income renters. ~: City ofRancho Cucamonga, Planning Division. Financing: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Redevelopment Agency and Community Development Department. Schedule: Offer on a case-by-case basis. Program 2.A.2: When Federal or State fun& become available, develop and administer a Residential Mortgage Bond program whereby low interest loans can be issued to first-time homebuyers making at or below 120 percent of the established median income. Target: First time low and moderate income homebuyers. Ke&ll~l,~,llg~: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Redevelopment Agency. ~: Redevelopment Agency; Federal and/or State funding programs. Schedule: Initiate when funds become available. Program 2.A.3: When Federal or State funding becomes available, develop and administer new Residential Multi- Family Mortgage Revenue Bond Programs for developers of affordable multi-family projects. Target: Low and moderate income renter households. gg~l~lXl~M~dl~: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Redevelopment Agency; private lending institutions. Schedule: Initiate when funds become available. Program 2.A.4: Monitor restricted, affordable housing production assisted by the Redevelopment Agency and continue to monitor affordable housing production within the Tetra Vista Planned Community. T_.grgg!: New ownership and rental household formations in the Tetra Vista Planned Community and new ownership and rental units assisted by the Redevelopment Agency. l~;alilll~e~.e, ll~: City ofRancho Cucamonga, Redevelopment Agency and Planning Division; Private Sector. Financing: Public and Private Sector Cooperation. Schedule: On-going. - 14- Program 2.A.5: Develop an ordinance within the annual work program schedule or within 90 days of receiving a project proposal utilizing density bonus provisions, whichever comes first, in order to implement density bonus requirements contained in Government Code Section 65915. Target: To be determined at time of individual request. Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division. Financing: General Fund, City Budget. Schedule: Continue item on the annual Planning Division work program until implemented. Program 2.A.6: Continue informal discussions with private developers and multi-family apartment managers encouraging use of Federal rental assistance programs to assist lower income households residing and/or working in the City and continue to support San Bernardino County Housing Authority applications for additional Federal vouchers to meet the needs of low income households now residing in the City. Target: 138 households residing in the City had SBCHA approved applications for rental assistance as of June 30, 1993. Responsible A~encv: City ofRancho Cucamonga, Planning pivision; Private sector. Financing,: HUD Rental Assistance Programs. Schedule: Update annually. Program 2.A.7: Confmue to support the use of voluntary rent stabilization, known as the Mobile Home Park Accord, for mobile home parks past the current expiration date of December 31, 1997, as a means of keeping rents at reasonable levels to allow continued affordability of this method of housing. Target: Existing mobile home parkS. l~: City ofRancho Cucamonga, Administration; Mobile Home Park property owners. Financing: General Fund, City Budget. Schedule: Renegotiate Mobile Home Park Accord in 1997. Program 2.A.g: Develop, implement, and monitor an affordable housing strategy utilizing the Redevelopment Agency's 20 Percent Housing Set-Aside Funds that is consistent with provisions of the Western Center for Law and Poverty Agreement and the Agency's approved Housing Production Plan. -15- Target: 1,286 additional restricted, affordable renter and/or owner units, Responsible Agency: City ofRancho Cucarnonga, Redevelopmerit Agency. Financing,: 20 Percent Set-Aside Funds. Schedule: July 1, 1994- June 30, 1999. POLICY 2.B: Promote efforts to define both the size and composition of the homeless population in order to assess existing and future needs and support a multi-jurisdictional comprehensive approach toward addressing those needs. Program 2.B. 1: Conduct an annual survey of area non-profit service providers to the homeless in order to determine the level of need within the City. Target: Identi~cation ofthe homeless population and their needs. t~jl~.~: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division; Non-profit agencies. ~: General Fund, City Budget. Schedule: On-going. POLICY 2.C: Assist providers of temporary emergency shelter and transitional housing oppommities. Program 2.C. 1: Continue to assist the efforts of local organizations, and community groups to provide temporary emergency shelter, transitional housing oppommities, and services to the City's homeless population. Target: Identified homeless population. l~ll~jhl.~gtll~: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division; Local organizations and community groups. Financing: Community Development Block Grant. Schedule: On-going. Program 2.C.2: Evaluate existing Code requirements to determine those conditions and standards'where various types of shelter facilities may be located, including review and evaluation of industrial districts. Research and evaluate special requirements for location of shelters for abused women and children, specifically the need for an anonymous address. 16- Tar~,et: Identified homeless population with special emphasis on needs of abused women and children. Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division. Financing: General Fund, City Budget. Schedule: Continue item on annual work program until funding resources are available to complete. Program2.C.3: Participate with adjacent communities toward the provision of a subregional shelter program and encourage the County to develop a comprehensive homeless program. Target: Identified homeless population. Responsible Aeencv: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division; Area cities; County. Financing: Not Applicable. Schedule: On-going. POLICY 2.D: Recognize the unique characteristics of the elderly and handicapped households and address their special needs. Program2.D.l: Continue to allow for the establishment of second units on single-family residential lots to provide additional elderly housing oppommities pursuant to State law and established zoning regulations. Target: Elderly population citywide. Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning and Building and Safety Divisions. Financing: Not Applicable. Schedule: On-going. Program 2.D.2: Continue to enforce and regulate the disabled accessibility and adaptability standards contained in Title 24 of the Uniform Building Code as they apply to apartments and condominium/townhouse projects. Target: The developmentally and physically disabled citywide. Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Building & Safety Division. Financing: Not Applicable. Schedule: On-going. -17- OBJECTIVE 3: Promote equal housing oppommities for all economic segments of the community regardless of race, sex, or religion. POLICY 3 .A: The City shall pursue programs that will reduce the incidence of housing discrimination within the City. Program 3 .A. 1: Continue Community Development Block Grant funding for fair housing services, with emphasis on proactive education and voluntary compliance, as well as through legal enfomement on a case-by- case basis, including but not limited to, assistance with the resolution oftenant/landlord disputes and housing discrimination complaints. Target: Citywide. Responsible A~eney: City ofRancho Cucamonga, Planning Division; Non-profit Agencies. Financing: Community Development Block Grant. Schedule: On-going. OBJECTIVE 4: Provide quality residential environments which contribute to a well-functioning community by ensuring residential development which is not only attractive in design, but which functions to protect the public safety and welfare and provide benefits to the community. POLICY 4.A: Promote the use of development techniques which foster a continued high quality of residential design and construction and ensure the appropriat~ development of hillside areas. PROGRAM 4.A. 1: Develop a design guidebook which sets forth, through illustration and examples, design policies to guide new development. Target: Citywide, new development. l~llOjlFjhl.~gtll~: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division. Financing,: General Fund, City Budget. Schedule: Continue on the Planning Division work program until funding resources become available to complete. -18- Program 4.A.2: Continue to implement the City's Hillside Development Ordinance to ensure that residential development in hillside areas is appropriate to the carrying capacity of the land, avoids development in environmentally sensitive areas, minimizes adverse grading impacts through architectural and structural techniques, and preserves the natural landform characteristics. Target: New residential development where slopes are 8 percent or greater. Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning and Building and Safety Divisions. Financing: General Fund, City Budget. Schedule: On-going. Program 4.A.3: Continue to document suggestions for improvement of the Hillside Development Ordinance and revise the Ordinance when funding resources become available. Tar_~et: New residential development in identified hillside areas. Responsible A~encv: City ofRancho Cucamonga, Planning Division. Financing,: General Fund, City Budget. Schedule: Continue item on Planning Division work program and complete when funding resources become available. Program 4.A.4: Through the project development design and technical review process, continue to evaluate residential projects for safety concerns, including lighting, pedestrian movements, parking lot configuration and design, as well as unit design and orientation, particularly with regard to multi- family development. IaXg~: Citywide, new residential development. K~s~L~eM/~: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning, Engineering, and Building and Safety Divisions. Finanein_~,: General Fund, City Budget. Schedule: On-going. Program 4.A: When funding resources become available, use Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts to evaluate single family and multi-family residential developments and write CPTED design guidelines to improve the safety of new residential developments. -19- Target: Citywide, new residential development. ReSpOnSible Agency: City ofRancho Cucamonga, Planning Division. Financing: General Fund, City Budget. Schedule: Add to 1995-1996 Planning Division work program and complete when funding sources become available. OBJECTIVE 5: Conserve and improve the existing housing stock, including structures of historic significance, and eliminate the causes and spread of blight by encouraging the investment of public and private funds in housing rehabilitation and public improvements. Policy 5.1: Recognize the unique contribution to the City's heritage by historic structures and develop programs to encourage the preservation and maintenance of these structures. Program 5 .A. 1: Continue to encourage rehabilitation and preservation of historic residences through participation in Mills Act contracts. Target. Historic residences citywide. Responsible Agency: City ofRancho Cucamonga, Planning Division. Financing: Not Applicable. Schedule: On-going. POLICY 5.B: Continue to promote the revitalization and rehabilitation of substandard residential structures. Program 5. B. 1: Continue to evaluate and identify areas of the City with concentrations of older or deteriorating housing units which may be targeted for rehabilitation and improvement programs. Target: Citywide. Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division. Financing: Community Development Block Grant. Schedule: On-going. - 20 - Program 5.B.2: Continue to operate a repair grant program for seniors and disabled or handicapped persons for minor housing needs by providing gnmts of up to $5,000 to lower income owner occupants of single family residences including mobile homes. T~rget: +/- 15 households mmually. Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Plmming Division. Financing: Community Development Block Grant, +/- $20,000 annually. Sched~|e: On-going. Program 5.B.3: Operate a housing rehabilitation and repair loan program that offers both deferred loan payments and low interest loans to lower income households, excluding mobile homes. Tar~,et: +/- 6 households annually ~: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division. Financing: Community Development Block Grant, +/- $80,0D0 annually. Schedule: On-going POLICY 5.C: In order to improve living environments and prevent neighborhood deterioration, the City shall promote efforts to ensure that all neighborhoods of the City, including older ones, have adequate public/community facilities and services. Program 5 .C. 1: Continue to provide public improvements/community facilities such as street improvements, street lights, sidewalks, parkway landscaping, as well as park facilities in qualified target areas. Target: Identified eligible areas. RtailDll~g~l~: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Redevelopment Agency and Planning and Engineering Divisions. .Ejaa!l_c.i~: Community Development Block Grant, approximately +/- $200,000 annually plus Redevelopment Agency funds for special eligible projects. Schedule: On-going. POLICY 5.D: Promote the maintenance of existing sound quality housing. Program 5 .D . 1: Utilize concentrated Code Enforcement programs to target specific areas or problems when the need and community support warrant such activity. Target: Identified areas. Responsible A~encv: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning and Building and Safety Divisions and Code Enforcement Section; Neighborhood residents. Financinc,: General Fund, City Budget. SChedule: As need arises and funding resources become available. Program 5.D.2: Develop an outreach referral program whereby City workers encourage owners of properties which may have sU'uctural or maintenance problems to contact the CDBG coordinator for assistance under existing CDBG repair and rehabilitation grant and loan programs. Target: Citywide. Resuonsible Agency: City ofRancho Cucamonga, Planning, Engineering, Building and Safety, and Fire Safety Divisions, as well as the Police Department. Financing,. General Fund, City Budget. Schedule: On-going. OBJECTIVE 6: Provide opportunities so that 30 percent of the persons employed in the City may live in the City. POLICY 6.1: Promote efforts toward a jobs/housing ratio consistent with the goals and objectives of SCAG's 1989 Growth Management Plan (GMP) and the projected regional jobs/housing balance. Program 6.A. 1: Continue to encourage the location of new business and industry in the City through promotional activities and through removal of governmental constraints on development. Target: New jobs citywide. Responsible Aoencv: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Redevelopment Agency and Planning Division. Financing: Redevelopment Agency; General Fund, City Budget. Schedule: On-going. - 22 - Program 6.A.2: Continue to maintain and update the City's data base management system, which monitors proposed residential, commercial, and industrial projects. Target: New residential, commercial, and industrial development citywide. Resnonsible A~encv: City of R. ancho Cucamonga, Planning Division. Financing: General Fund, City Budget. Schedule: On-going. OBJECTIVE 7: Require energy efficiency in all residential developments. POLICY 7.A: Increase public awareness and encourage the utilization of.. energy and resource conservation measures through the enforcement of the State's energy code and City development regulations, as well as through the development of public information and policy statements. Program 7 .A. 1: Continue to enforce and regulate the existing State Residential Energy Design Guidelines through existing State legislation and Uniform Building Code. Target: All affected residential development. Responsible A_~ency: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning and Building and Safety Divisions. Financina: General Fund, City Budget. Schedule: On-going. Program 7.A.2: Through the Development Code continue to implement energy efficient design procedures and specification for such things as solar techniques, landscaping standards, house orientation, and sun angle exposure. TOn, et: All new residential developments. P~~.~C~: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division. Financing,: General Fund, City Budget SChedule: On-going. - 23 - Program 7.A.3: Continue to increase the public's awareness and utilization of energy saving and resource conservation techniques through the use of public information brochures, the Model Home Landscape Policy, and the Xeriscape Ordinance. Target: All new residential developments. ~: City ofRancho Cucamonga, Planning Division. Financing: General Fund, City Budget. Schedule: On-going. OBJECTIVE 8: Where possible, eliminate governmental constraints. POLICY 8.A: To promote efforts to reduce procedural delays, provide information early in the process regarding development costs, and to charge only those fees necessary to adequately carry out needed public services and improvements. Program 8.A. 1: The City shall continue periodic review and update of City fees and the methodology on which the fees are based in order to determine the necessary costs for the provision of adequate public services and improvements to ensure the continued health, safety, and welfare of the community. T~.T_~g~: Citywide for new residential development. I~411~e,d~edl~: City ofRancho Cucamonga, Community Development Department. F'n~_i.~_.C,i~: General Fund, City Budget. Schedule: On-going; Transportation, Drainage, Building and Safety, and City Beautification fees are scheduled for review and update on the 1994-1995 work program. Program 8.A.2: Continue to facilitate development processing through multiple techniques, including oral assistance and handouts at the public counter, articles in the City's newsletter, informal meetings with applicants, Preliminary Review to address technical issues, and Pre-Application Review to address policy issues. I. arg. sl: Citywide, new residential development. B,I,~I~P~!~: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Community Services and Community Development Departments. Financing: General Fund, City budget. - 24- Schedule: On-going. Program 8.A.3: Continue to evaluate processing procedures for all residential developments and whenever possible recommend streamlining procedures. Tar~,et: All new residential development, including development targeted for lower and moderate income households. Responsible Agency: City ofRancho Cucamonga, Planning Division. FinanCing: General Fund, City Budget. Schedule: On-going. OBJECTIVE 9: As required by State law, periodically update the Housing Element, including evaluation of its effectiveness in attainment of its goal, objectives, policies, and programs. POLICY 9.A: Update the Housing Element in order to incorporate new information, such as data from the decennial Federal Census, as well as to comply with new State legislation; annually monitor progress toward attainment and implementation of the goal, objectives, and policies of the Housing Element. Program 9.A. 1: Preserve restricted, affordable units which are at-risk of conversion to market rate between July 1, 1994, and June 30, 1999, as identified with the City's Units-at-Risk Study and included in the Technical Appendix of the 1994 Update of the Housing Element, consistent with the requirements of Senate Bill 1282, revising Section 65583 of the Government Code. Tar_~et: 268 restricted, affordable units at risk of conversion to market rate prior to June 30, 1999. ~: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Redevelopment Agency Financing: Redevelopment Agency funds. Schedule: Through June 30, 1999. Program 9.A.2: Implement the Redevelopment Agency's Housing Production Plan adopted by the Redevelopment Agency, November 16, 1994, and included in the Technical Appendix of the 1994 Housing Element Update. - 25 - Target: Development and/or conservation of 1,709 restricted units affordable to low and moderate income households. Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Redevelopment Agency Financing: Redevelopment Agency 20 Percent Set-Aside funds for Low and Moderate Income Housing; State and Federal low and moderate income housing funding programs; private sector funds. Schedule: Through June 30, 1999. Program 9 .A. 3: In fulfillment of the State mandate to report annually on the Housing Element, continue to provide the State-mandated Redevelopmerit Agency report on the Housing Set Aside funds and the Community Development Block Grant report on implementation of citywide low and moderate income housing programs. T~rgCt: Housing development and housing programs citywide with emphasis on development and conservation of low and moderate income housing. Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Redevelopment Agency and Planning Division. Financing: Redevelopmerit Agency and CDBG funds. Schedule: Annually. Program 9.A.4. Complete the next State-mandated 5-year update of the Housing Element consistent with the requirements and schedule adopted by the State Legislature. Target: Update of the Housing Element Responsible A~encv: City ofRancho Cucamonga, Planning Division. EjllallCX~: General Fund, City Budget. Schedule: Place item on 1999-2000 Planning Division work program, or consistent with the schedule adopted by the State Legislature. - 26 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX DECEMBER 1994 HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ............................................... I-1 II. POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS .............................. II-1 A. POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS .......................... II-4 SCAG's Regional Housing Needs Assessment ................... II-5 SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan Population Estimates ...... II-6 The City's Population Estimate at Build-Out ................... II-6 Age ...................................................... II-7 Ethnicity .................................................. II-8 B. EMPLOYMENT ............................................ II-9 Income .................................................. II-11 III. HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS ................................. III-1 A. EXISTING HOUSING AND PROJECTIONS ................... III-2 Vacancy ................................................. III-4 B. HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS ............................. III-5 Households Overburdened by Housing Costs .................. III-5 Overcrowding ............................................ III-6 C. HOUSING CONDITIONS ................................... III-7 Substandard Units ........................................ III-9 Target Areas for Assistance ................................ III-11 IV. VACANT LAND INVENTORY ................................... IV-1 A. VACANT RESIDENTIAL LAND ............................. IV-3 Annexation Potential ...................................... IV-3 Vacant Land Capacity ..................................... IV-3 Vacant Land Suitable for Affordable Housing ................. IV-5 Units in the Processing Stream ....................... ; ...... IV-5 Units Projected to Build-out ................................ IV-6 V. NON-GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS .......................... V- 1 A. REGIONAL ECONOMIC CLIMATE ........................... V-2 B. H IN DEM ....................................... V-2 C. AVAILABILITY OF JOBS ................................... V-3 D. VACANCY RATE .......................................... V-6 E. PRICE OF LAND ........................................... V-6 F. COST OF CONSTRUCTION ................................. V-7 G. AVAILABILITY OF FINANCING ............................. V-8 H. INTEREST RATES ......................................... V-9 I. PRICE OF HOUSING ...................................... V-10 J. PUBLIC OPINION ......................................... V-10 VI. GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS .............................. VI-1 A. LAND USE CONTROLS .................................... VI-2 Residential Land Use Categories ............................. VI-2 Performance Standard Criteria ............................. VI-3 Environmental Assessment Requirements ..................... VI-3 Design Criteria ........................................... VI-3 Specific Plan i)esignations .................................. VI-3 Development Standards .................................... VI-4 Annexation Potential ...................................... VI-5 B. BUILDING CODES AND THEIR ENFORCEMENT ............. VI-5 C. SITE IMPROVEMENTS .................................... VI-6 D. FEES AND OTHER EXACTIONS REOUIRED OF DEVELOPERS . VI-6 Water and Sewer Service ................................... VI-7 School Facilities ........................................... VI-9 Financing for Required Infrastructure ...................... VI-10 E. LOCAL PROCESSING AND PERMIT PROCEDURES .... ~ ..... VI-13 VII. SPECIAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE NI~EI)S GROUPS .............. VII-1 A. PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES ..... : ...................... VII-2 B. ELDERLY .............................................. VII-5 C. LARGE FAMILY ................................. VII-6 D. FEMALE-HEADED HOUSEHOLDS ......................... VII-8 E. HOMELESS ............................................. VII-8 F. FARMWORKERS ....................................... VII-13 VIII. ENERGY CONSERVATION OPPORTUNITIES ................... VIII-1 A. XERISCAPE REOUIREMENTS ............................. VIII-1 B. TITLE 24 ............................................... VIII-1 C. DIiVELOPMENT CODE ................................... VIII-2 IX. STUDY OF UNITS AVAILABLE TO LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS AT RISK OF CONVERTING TO MARKET RATE PRIOR TO JUNE 30, 2004 .................................................. IX-1 A. INVENTORY OF UNITS-AT-RISK ........................... IX-2 B. ANALYSIS OF PRESERVING OR REPLACING UNITS-AT-RISK. IX-5 Preservation Costs ........................................ IX-5 Unit Replacement Cost ..................................... IX-9 Comparison of Preservation vs. Replacement Costs ............. IX-9 C. AVAILABLE RESOURCES FOR CONSERVATION AND/OR REPLACEMENT OF UNITS-AT-RISK ...................... IX-10 County of San Bernardino Bond Program .................... IX-10 City Bond Program ....................................... IX-10 Private Non-Profit Agencies ............................... IX-11 Public Agencies ................... : ...................... IX-12 Redevelopmerit Agency Funding ............................ IX-14 D. OUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES FOR PRESERVING OR REPLACING UNITS-AT-RISK ......................................... IX-14 E. PROQRAMS FOR PRESERVING OR REPLACING ~ ......................................... IX-14 X. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY'S HOUSING PRODUCTION PLAN .... X-1 A. HOUSING PRODUCTION: OUANTITATIVE REOUIREMENTS . .. X-4 Residential Units Produced and Projected to be Developed ........ X-4 Production Units Required Within the Redevelopment Area ...... X-6 Production Units Provided .................................. X-10 B. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY RESOURCES .................. X-14 Agency Funding Resources ................................. X-14 Agency Land Bank Resources ............................... X-14 Redevelopment Area Vacant Land Resburces .................. X-14 C. HOUSING PRODUCTION PLAN PROGRAMS AND IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES. JULY 1. 1994. THROUGH JUNE 30. 1999 ............................................ X-20 D. LEGAL REOUIREMENTS .................................. X-28 State Mandates ........................................... X-28 Housing Replacement Rule ................................. X-29 Housing Replacement Required ............................. X-30 Term Length of Affordability ............................... X~31 Low Income Housing Production Rule ........................ X-32 Mandated Housing Production Plan Requirements ............. X-33 E. CONSISTENCY REOUIREMENTS ........................... X-34 Housing Element of the General Plan ......................... X-34 Units-at-Risk Study ....................................... X-34 Housing Affordability Strategy .............................. X-35 Western Center for Law and Poverty S.ettlement ............... X-36 Article XXXIV of the State Constitution ...................... X-37 XI. EVALUATION OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT'S OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS FOR THE JULY 1, 1989, THROUGH JUNE 30, 1994 REPORTING PERIOD ............................. XI-1 HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX I. INTRODUCTION The Technical Appendix contains the detailed analysis of the required components of the City's Housing Element (California Government Code, Section 65583). Demographic data is updated throughout the Technical Appendix, using annual data from the City and the State Department of Finance and 1990 Federal Census information. Many Tables compare 1990 Census data with 1980 data. The Technical Appendix includes eleven sections as follows: · Section I: Introduction; · Section II: An analysis of population and employment trends; · Section III: An analysis and documentation of household characteristics; · Section IV: An inventory of land suitable for residential development; · Section V: An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels; · Section VI: An analysis of potential and actual nongovernmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing for all income levels; · Section VII: An analysis of special housing needs; · Section VIII: An analysis of oppommities for energy conservation · Section IX: An analysis ofunits restricted and affordable to low income families that are at risk of converting to market rate; · Section X: The Redevelopment's Agency's adopted affordable Housing Production Plan; · Section XI: Evaluation of programs included in the 1989 Housing Element. These sections of the Technical Appendix provide the background and technical basis for the 1994 update of the Housing Element, Parts I and II which will be completed, circulated under separate cover, and amended into the General Plan. HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX II. POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS Consistent with Government Code Section 65583(a)(1), this section provides demographic information relative to past and future population growth trends, income, age distribution, and ethnic background. An analysis of the City's share of the Regional Housing needs is included. Employment data is also discussed. Following are the highlights: The January 1, 1994, the State Department of Finance (DOF) estimates the population at 115,010. The City's population has increased 252 percent since incorporation, from 44,600 in 1978 to 112,592 in 1993. The growth rate was slow during the first half of the 1980's, but for the decade as a whole, population almost doubled. Residential growth slowed dramatically from 1990-1994. · Based on current zoning, a vacant land study indicates the City's build-out population will be between 153,668 and 162,475. The City's most likely build-out scenario is for a population of 158,067. Build-out is anticipated to occur between 2010 and 2020. · By 1990, the City provided 31,638 jobs, reflecting an increase from 13,784 jobs in 1980. SCAG predicts there will be 41,925 jobs in the City by the year 2000. · Rancho Cucamonga's median homehold income was $46,193 in 1990. The County's median income was $33,800. The City of Rancho Cucamonga is located in the San Bernardino-Ontario Regional Housing Market area, as shown on Map II-1. The area encompasses Regional Statistical Areas (RSA) 27, 28, 29, and 45, which are used by the Southern California Association of Govemments (SCAG) to project population, housing, and employment growth in this area. The ragion is characterized by three decades of rapid growth. According to federal census, in 1970 the unincorporated area which became Rancho Cucamonga had a population of 16,043. The City incorporated in 1977. For June 1, 1978, the Department of Finance (DOF) estimated the population at 44,600. By 1980, the City's population had reached 55,250 and by 1990, 101,409. For January 1, 1994, the DOF estimated the population to be 115,010. The region's and the City's growth was directly related to residential and economic development in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. As land costs in the City and sub-region increased during the 1980's, employers and home builders continued to look at Rancho Cucamonga for less expensive land than was available in Orange and Los Angeles counties. However, the building industry also began to be attracted by much lower land costs in the east valley and high desert areas. Housing production in the exurban area, including Victorville and Adelanto, substantially exceeded SCAG Regional Housing Needs Assessment's (RHNA) projections, while cities in the West Valley area of San Bemardino County f~ll below RHNA projections. Specifically, Rancho Cucamonga's housing production during 1989-94 was 33 percent below SCAG's RHNA. From this information, it can be inferred that land costs stimulated housing production in exurban areas and depressed housing production in suburban areas, including Rancho Cucamonga. DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE II - 2 MAP II-1: REGIONAL HOUSING MARKET AREA | 8an Ga~/o/~tt~ ~ ' 28 45 o~ S,~.OATE L.,m.,. REGIONAL HOUSING , .r~.s~ MARKET AREA I Housing Market Area r" ~ ~ /~' Bounda~ ~ ~'~ /~ Scag Regional ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. Slatistical Area Bounda~ ~= ~ "~ i 27 E. San Gabriel 28 West Valley 29 Easl Valley DECE~BEB ] ~94 D~FT HOUSING ELEMENT TBC~ICAL APPENDIX 45 Ju~pa PAGE A. POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS The January 1, 1994 State Department of Finance's estimate for Rancho Cucamonga is 115,010. During the last decade, the City's peak growth year was 1988 when the population increased 17.1 percent. Residential growth slowed dramatically in 1993 to 2.3 percent (see Figure II-1 and Table II-1). The present slow growth period corresponds to a similar period between 1980 and 1984 when the growth rate averaged 2.8 percent per year. High interest rates, the post-Proposition 13 shift of new infrastructure costs from property taxes to impact fees, and general recession were listed as the causes of slow growth in the latter period. FIGURE 1-1 TABLE 1-1 POPULATION GROWTH TREND POPULATION GROWTH City of Rancho Cucamonga City of Rancho Cucamonga % POPULA~ON YEAR POPULATION INCREASE 120,000 q Federal Census, 1984 55,442 ri~ 1985 58,475 5.5 100,000 1986 65,193 11.5 1987 71289 9.5 1988 83,472 17.1 80,000 1989 90,,540 8.8 1990 98,508 8.5 1991 105,014 6.6 1992 110,008 4.8 60,000 ~ 1993 113,360 3.0 1994 115,010 1.5 40,000- 1980, 55250 1990: 101,409 83.5 20,000 - 0 ' 1980 Federal Census (April 1, 1980) '84 '85 '86 '87 '88 '89 '90 '91 '92 '93 '94 : 1990 Federal Census (April 1, 1990) YEAR All other Figures, State Department of Finance Janaury I DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE II - 4 The present slow growth period is attributed to general recession, loss of defense contracts, tight lending policies, and the uncertainty of value associated with a period of real estate market correction. Area land costs, supported by foreign investments in real estate, remained high during the early 1980's and increased sharply from 1984 through 1989. By 1991, land costs began to decrease and have continued to drop in 1994. SCAG'S Regional Housing Needs Assessment SCAG periodically updates its future population estimates. The most recent Regional Housing Needs Assessment occurred in 1988. RHNA housing need for the period 1989 to 1994 was 9,568 dwelling units. Adjusted for vacancies and demolition, an additional 9,057 households were predicted. At 3.03 persons per household, an additional 27,442 persons were projected. As of January l, 1994, 2,683 units were added to the housing supply. It is estimated that another 442 units will be constructed and ready for occupancy during 1994. Total production for the period January 1, 1990, through January 1, 1995, is estimated to be 3, 125 units, or approximately 33 percent of the RHNA. Adjusted for a vacancy rate of 7 percent and 3.01 persons per household, the additional population for the five-year period will probably be close to 8,764 persons. However, there is a backlog of approved units waiting for an improvement in the economy. According to the City's Quarterly Status Report dated March 30, 1994, there were 6,026 units in the processing stream which received a minimum of tentative tract approval from the Planning Commission. Therefore, a growth spun could occur during the July l, 1994 to June 30, 1999, Housing Element planning period. Construction of approved units and additional units already in the processing stream would meet or exceed the SCAG RCP's Year 2000 planning estimate for a population of 136, 514. TABLE II-2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT - RANCHO CUCAMONGA PROJECTIONS FROM JULY 1989 TO JULY 1994 Total Very Low Low Moderate High Percent H'hold Pop. Units Income Income Income Income VL & L Growth Growth 9,568 1,117 1,258 1,729 5,463 24.8% 9,057 27,422 DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE II - 5 SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan Population Estimates SCAG's RCP also predicts population for the year 2010, i.e, 55,697 occupied households generating a population of 182,593. This scenario depends on an occupancy factor of 3.28 persons per household and a building rate equal to the high growth periods of the late 1980's and early 1990's. The City's Population Estimate at Build-Out As vacant land decreases the rate of building is expected to decrease so that build-out will likely occur between 2015 and 2020. The City's build-out estimate is less than SCAG's RCP prediction for 2010. Based on the City's General Plan, housing units at build-out will range between 55,777 and 58,974. Using a 5 percent vacancy factor these units would generate 52,989 to 56,026 households. With an increase in the ratio of multi-family units to single family units, the City assumes a slight decrease in persons per household to 2.9. The range of population at build-out would then be between 153,668 to 162,475 with the most likely being a population of 158,071. (Sec Figure II-2.) FIGURE II-2: CITY'S HOUSING AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS 160000 140000 ~ 120000 (D z 80000- Z O 7. 60000- 20000 o Housing Units - - Population Source: City Planning Division, 1991 Estimates DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE II - 6 Age The median age for Rancho Cucamonga is increasing, but the largest age cohorts are still the school age group, 5-19 years, and the young adult group, 20-34 years. As shown in Figure II-3, the median age in 1980 was 26.6 years while in 1990 it was 29.7 years. The change was because of an overall decrease in age groups under 31 years and an overall increase in age groups 35 years and over. FIGURE II-3: CITY'S DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION BY AGE GROUP 30,000 27.41% 25.15% :::::::::::::::::::::: ::.::::::::::: ........................................... 15.19% 15,000 :':::':::':::~:::: :'::::::':::::: ................ 70,000 ::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::: :::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::|8,231!:~?~:~:~!:~!:i:!:!:~:~ .......................i~i~i~i!i~i~iii~!i!~i~!i!i! .............. 5,000 i~i!i~i~i!i~i!i~i~i:!~i~!~!:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:!:! .................. 5.01% .......... ii~i~i~i~i~i~i~i~i~ii~!i under 5 years 5-19 20-34 3544 45-64 65+ years AGE Source: Southern California Association of Governments, 1990 Federal Census Summary DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE II - 7 Ethnicity From 1980 to 1990, non-White ethnic groups (excluding persons of Hispanic origin) increased in relation to the total City population by approximately 10 percent. Hispanics form the largest ethnic group in the City with 19.6 percent. (Figure II-4). FIGURE II-4: COMPARISON OF ETHNICITY 1980 AND 1990 1980 ETHNICITY/RACE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA White*(78.9%) Black*(2.1%) American Indian, Asian, and Pacific Islander*(2.5%) 0ther*(0.2%) ,> 1990 ETHNICITY/RACE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA White*(68.6%) * Non-Hispanic Origin Source: 1980 Federal Census '~!! .... Hispanic(19.6%)z!:!~Tii~iii:?!~ ~ American Indian, Asian, Black*(5.7% * Non-Hispanic Origin Source: 1990 Federal Census DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE II - 8 B. EMPLOYMENT Based on SCAG's Growth Management Plan dated February 1989, the West San Bemardino Valley is projected to be one of the five most rapidly growing subregional employment centers within SCAG'sjurisdiction. According to SCAG data (July 1993),job growth in the City during the 1980's was dramatic, expanding from 13,784jobs in 1980 to 31,638jobs in 1990. SCAG predicts that the job base will continue to grow and forecasts 41,925 jobs for the City in the year 2000 and 60,338 jobs in 2010. Based on the General Plan, at the time of commercial and industrial build-out the City will provide 74,560 jobs. At the time of the 1990 Federal Census, 50.3 percent of the population, or 50,962 residents, were employed. Table II-2 [CHAS 1 Table 2] shows the industries these residents were associated with in 1990 and the percentage change from 1980 to 1990. The two largest sectors were retail trade (16.44 percent) and durable manufacturing (13.32 percent). However, the proportion of persons employed in both sectors declined from 1980. TABLE II-2: EMPLOYMENT CHARACTERISTICS BY INDUSTRY AND OCCUPATION Percent Bv Industry_ ~ 1980 1990 Agriculture 605 2.0 I. 19 Mining 40 0.08 Construction 4,494 7.1 8.82 Manufacturing Non-Durable 2,480 5.6 4.87 Durable 6,787 17.9 13.32 Transportation 2,608 4.2 5.12 Communication/Utilities 1,757 4.3 3.45 Wholesale Trade 2,590 4.6 5.08 Retail Trade 8,381 17.3 16.44 Finance/Insurance/Real Estate 3,946 6.4 7.74 Business/Repair 2,660 4.1 5.22 Personal 1,214 2.9 2.38 Entertainment/Recreation 574 1.13 Professional Health 3,597 6.7 7.06 Education 3,707 8.2 7.27 Other 2,697 3.6 5.29 Public Administration 2,825 5.0 5.54 TOTAL 50,962 DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT.TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE II - 9 TABLE II-2 CONTINUED: EMPLOYMENT CHARACTERISTICS Percent By Occupation No. of EmplOyees 1980 1990 Executive, Administrative & Managerial 8,775 13.7 17.2 Professional Specialty 6,467 12.8 12.6 Technical, Sales, & Administrative Support Technicians &Related Support 1,680 2.6 3.2 Sales 7,273 12.8 14.2 Administrative Support Including Clerical 8,916 16.1 17.5 Service Occupations 10.6 10.8 Private Household 132 0.3 Protective Service 1,566 3.0 Protective Service & Household 3,821 7.5 Farming, Forestry, & Fishing Occupations 357 1.5 0.7 Precision Production, Craft &Repair 6,481 15.7 12.7 Operators, Fabricators &Laborers 14.1 10.7 Machine Operators, Assemblers &Inspectors 2,048 4.0 Transportation & Material Moving 1,950 3.8 Handlers, Equipment Cleaners, Helpers & Laborers 1,496 2.9 TOTAL 50,962 Source: 1980 and 1990 Federal Census DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT 'TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE II - 10 According to the 1990 Federal Census, the majority of those employed, 38,975 persons, work outside of Rancho Cucamonga. The number of persons who live and work in the City is 10,966 persons, or 22 percent of all workers. Income According to the 1990 Federal Census, the median household income for Rancho Cucamonga was $46,193. (See Figure II-5). The median income for the County of San Bemardino was somewhat lower at $37,273. In 1990, for federal assistance programs, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) identified a much lower median income, $33,800, for the Riverside-San Bemardino PMSA. FIGURE II-5: CITY'S MEDIAN INCOME LEVELS $60,000 (96.5%) $,50,000 (87.1%) $30,000 ............................... $20,1300 (110.5%) ' ....... Per Capita Median Household Median Family AVERAGE INCOME [] 19813 [] 1989 (0.0%) pe~ctmt increase Sources: 1980 & 1990 Federal Cansus DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE II - I l As shown in Figure II-6, the number of people in the household who work can substantially affect the level of income per household. The Federal Census indicates that 65 percent had two or more workers and 4.5 percent had no workers per family. FIGURE II-6: CITY'S MEAN INCOME ' ;i~i;ii$20 243;i;i~i;i .................................~i~!~iv~i~i~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~! ............................................ No Workers 1 Worker 2 Workers 3 or more workers WORKERS/FAMILY Source: 1990 Federal Census DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE II - 12 At the time the 1990 Census was taken, 57 percent of all employed person were male and 43 percent female. To look at it another way, 81.6 percent of all males over 16 years of age were employed, and 59.7 percent of all females over 16 were employed. (See Figure II-8 ). FIGURE II-7: MALE/FEMALE LABOR FORCE 1980 AND 1990 [] FEMALE [] MALE · Person 16 years and older Source: 1990 Federal Census · 4BER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE II - 13 HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX III. HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS Consistent with Government Code Section 65583 (a)(2) this section provides an analysis and documentation of housing production and household characteristics, including level of payment compared to ability to pay, incidence of overcrowding, and housing stock conditions. The following points are the highlights of this section. · According to the Building and Safety Division, there were 38,852 residential units in the City occupied or ready for occupancy on January 1, 1994. · The City's housing stock has increased annually, from 1985 to 1990 by an average of 10.4 percent per year. Since 1990, the increase has dropped to 1.8 percent per year. · Of the existing housing stock in 1990, about 70 percent was owner occupied. This is a change from 1980 when 84 percent was owner occupied. Renters increased from 17 percent in 1980 to 30 percent in 1990. The ratio ofrenters to owners is expected to increase slightly through buildout. · In 1990, 18.7 percent of renter households in the City were paying more than the recognized Federal standard for housing affordability. For owner households, 10 percent were paying more. · In 1990, 10 percent of renter households were living in overcrowded housing by the recognized federal standard. For owner households, 3 percent were overcrowded. · In general, housing conditions are very good. According to the 1990 census only 2,250 housing units were existing in 1960, or 5 percent of the housing stock. · No more than 300 units, or .01 percent, of the housing stock in 1990 was substandard by federally recognized factors other than the potential for lead paint. At least 83 percent of substandard units are assumed to be suitable for rehabilitation. · According to Federal Community Development Block Grant methodology, five block groups in the City are eligible for assistance. Historically, the City's resources have been focused on the three block groups which represent Northtown and Southwest Cucamonga. A. EXISTING HOUSING AND PROJECTIONS The 1990 Federal Census established the total number of dwelling units in Rancho Cucumonga to be 36,169. There were 38,852 units occupied or ready for occupancy by January 1, 1994, according to the Building and Safety Division. The average increase between 1985 and 1990 was 10.4 percent-per year. The average increase from 1991 through 1993 was 1.8 percent per year, a reflection of the regional housing market conditions. (See Figure III-1 ) FIGURE III-1: CITY'S HOUSING GROWTH (1.20%)38 85 384 '91 ii:::d.!iiiiiiiii::iii::iiii:.ii::!::ii::i::!::::::i :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 497iiii::i~ii::iii::iiii::::ii::~i::i::i::~::~!i::~::~!?:~i~iiii::~::::iiii iiiii ii~ (3 67%) '90 Z::::i!!ii:.!iii!i!iiiiiiii!::iiiiii:.::i::iiii::i!::!!::!i::::!::::::g.i~:: :.::.!::!::?.:: i::i::~::!i::.:.36 ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: (4.99%) '89 ~ 44 < '87 18 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 DWELLING UNITS Source: '1980 & 1990 Federal Census All other figures, State Dept. (0.00%) Percent Increase of Finance Estimates [] Dwelling Units DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT.TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE III- 2 Historically, the regional economic trend has been the best indicator of residential construction activity. However, in the future, the decreasing availability of vacant land will also influence construction activity. (See Section IV, Vacant Land Inventory.) Most residents live in owner-occupied housing in Rancho Cucamonga. However, the ratio of owner-occupied to renter-occupied housing has decreased from 83 percent in 1980 to 70 percent in 1990. The ratio ofrenter-occupied housing to owner-occupied housing is expected to increase further as the City approaches buildout. (See Table III-1 .) TABLE III-I: ENTER AND OWNER OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS BY HOUSING TYPE, 1980 AND 1990 Owner Occupied Renter Occupied 1980 199~ 1980 1990 ~ ~umber$ ~umber.~ ~mber.~, ~mber~. Single Family 11,381 91.9 .20,219 85.5 1,364 53.0 2,928 29.3 Detached Single Family 175 1.4 1,842 7.8 350 13.6 1,429 14.3 Attached & 2-4 Units 5 or More 225 1.8 234 1.0 775 30.1 5,471 54.7 Units Mobile Homes 712 5.7 1,236 53 69 2.7 73 0.7 Other 0 0 87 0.3 0 0 96 1.0 Total 12,493 83 23,638 70 2,558 17.0 9,997 38.0 source: 1980 and 1990 ~ Cmsus DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE Ill - 3 Vacancy In comparing vacancy rates by dwelling unit type for 1980 and 1990, it appears that the overall vacancy rate increased from 4.8 percent in 1980 to 7.5 percent in 1990. The vacancy rate for buildings with five or more units was significantly higher than for other unit types. The City believes that the census overstated the 1990 vacancy rote. However, this higher rate may have been caused by a lag for the market absorption of newly constructed units. (See Table III-2.) TABLE III-2: VACANCY RATE BY UNIT TYPE, 1980 AND 1990 Unit Type ~ ~ ~ 1980 1990 1980 1990 1980 1990 SF Detached 15,175 24,527 728 1,469 4.8 5.9 SF Attached 250 2,238 58 147 23.0 6.6 2 Units 95 100 7 11 7.3 11.0 3 & 4 Units 312 1,166 33 46 10.5 3.9 5 + Units 1,113 6,810 28 1,015 2.5 14.9 Mobile Homes 894 1,346 6 26 0.6 1.9 Sotme: 1980 md 1990 Cmsma; SCAG Smmnry Tape ~ 3 In comparison, according to the U.S. Census, vacant units were 7.4 percent of the total housing inventory in the SCAG region and 14.31 percent for San Bemardino County. Ideally, the renter- occupied vacancy rate should be 5.0 percent and the owner-occupied vacancy rate should be 2.0 percent. DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE III- 4 B. HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS The overall average household size determined by the Federal Census in 1990 was 3.015 persons per household. In 1980, the average was 3.03. The City's average has been slightly higher than the County's average which ranged from 2.82 in 1980 to 2.92 in 1990. Households Overburdened by Housing Costs Employment and household income are directly related to housing affordability. Another factor in affordability is the availability of a wide range of housing types. Most owners and renters in the City can afford their housing costs according to the measure of affordability recognized by the federal govermnent. Overburdened households are those that must spend more than 30 percent of their monthly gross income for housing costs, including rent and utilities. According to the 1990 Federal Census, 18.7 percent ofrenter households were paying more than the federal standard. For owner households, 10 percent were paying more. (See Table III-3 .) TABLE III-3: PERCENT OF HOUSEHOLDS OVERBURDENED BY HOUSING COSTS 0-30 HAMFI 31-50 HAMFI 51-80 HAMFI 81-9~ HAMFI TOTAL Renter >30 >50 >30 >~0 >30 >~O >30 >~0 >2]0 :.SO Elderly 34 27 18 15,2 17,1 2.5 3.1 1,I 74,7 45.8 Small 6,4 6,1 8.8 7,9 14,5 ?-*8 4.6 0.2, 41,3 17.4 Large 5.9 3.6 8.3 8.3 24.8 5.0 33 0.0 45.3 17.0 Other 4.2 4.2 7.2 6.4 13.9 4.6 6.2 0.4 39.4 15.8 Total 7.5 6.6 8.8 7.9 15.6 3.6 4.9 0.3 43.3 18.7 Owner Elderly 7.5 6.9 10.2 5.4 6.8 2.9 1.1 0.3 32 16 Other 1.5 1.4 2.1 1.8 4.2 2.3 3.7 1.4 37.6 9.6 Total 2.1 2.0 3.0 2.2 4.4 2.4 3.4 1.3 37 10.3 so~: cuAs O-t-h.,.-k TW~ s HAMFI: HUD ADJUSTED MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE III- 5 Overcrowding The federal definition of overcrowding is more than one person per room, excluding bathrooms. Severe overcrowding is defined as more than 1.5 persons per room. Table III-3 presents an analysis of overcrowding in Rancho Cucamonga comparing data from the 1980 and 1990 Census. The proportion of overcrowded households identified by the 1990 Census shows a slight percentage increase. However, the number of units identified as overcrowded more than doubled, increasing from 591 in 1980 to 1,851 in 1990. As was the case in 1980, a greater number of renter households live in crowded conditions than owner households. The number of severely overcrowded households has increased for both renters and owners. TABLE III-4 - OVERCROWDING COMPARISON 1980 AND 1990 ~ 1990 Census Persons Per Percent of Percent of Room Number Total Number T~l Owner 1.01 to 1.50 305 2.1 610 2.6 1.50+ 91 0.6 272 1.2 Total 1.01+ 396 2.8 882 3.7 Renter 1.01 to 1.50 111 4.1 486 4.9 1.50 84 3.1 483 4.8 Total 1.01+ 195 7.3 969 9.7 Total 1.01 to 1.50 416 2.5 1,1396 3.2 1.50+ 175 1.0 755 2.2 Total 1.01+ 591 3.5 1,851 5.5 som~: ~gso ,~d t99o c~m~ DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE III- 6 C. HOUSiNG CONDITIONS In general, the City's housing stock is in good condition. According to the 1990 Federal Census, 38,410 units were available in 1990. A building spun occurred from 1970-1979 when 31.1 percent, or 11,296 units, were constructed. A larger spun occurred during the five-year period from 1985-1989 when 33.7 percent, or 12,254 units, were added to the City's housing stock. Only 2,250 units were existing in 1960. (See Figure III-1 .) Based on the 1980 Census, a map of housing stock by year built was prepared (see Map III-1). It should be noted that very few units are located within Census Tract 22 and portions of Census Tract 21 which are currently zoned for industrial use and, therefore, are no longer suitable for residential development. Historic preservation programs, Code Enforcement activity, and Community Development Block Grant programs are aimed at maintaining older housing stock in residential areas. FIGURE III-1: AGE OF HOUSiNG STOCK BY YEAR BUILT 1985-89(33.7%) 1980-84(13.1%)".."..".. Before 1940(1.3%) 1950-59(3.3%) 1960-69(7.9%) 1970-79(31.1%1 Source: 1990 Federal Census DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE III- 7 MAP lIl-I: MEDIAN AGE OF HOUSING STOCK BY YEAR BUILT ; ;..... ,..., ~ ! .................... I .-.,~. · ! ,-- ~, : : ,/ """" ' i ......... · .... ': f'<g ......... g Z0 ........ -s[ ..... I:_~/...k' MEn~GF O~ ,OUSING ST0 BY YEAR BUILT · 7 ~'' PFII{ TO 1980 ,,c LEGEND IIIli,,... ~ 194049 I !: m 1960-69 I"" 1975-78 Block Groups 0 Inlorn based on 1980 i ~! censt Substandard Units The general defirdtion of a substandard unit is a unit that does not meet the Federal Housing Quality Standards of the Section 8 Rental Assistance Program and/or the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Housing Code. While it is not possible to determine the number of units that meet this criteria, the number of units may be estimated by evaluating specific factors which indicate that a unit is substandard. When the potential presence of lead-based paint is subtracted, the number of substandard units is estimated to be less than 300 or less than .01 percent of the City's housing stock. Specifically, the 1990 Federal Census identified incidences of substandard factors, including incomplete plumbing, lack of complete kitchen, lack of heating fuels, vacant and boarded-up homes, as well as the potential presence of lead-based paint. As shown in Table III-5, of the total incidence of 1,201 substandard factors, 83 percent, or 1,701 factors, were considered suitable for rehabilitation. From January 1, 1990 to January 1, 1994, 25 units were demolished. Three units were moved and substantially rehabilitated. Substandard conditions are also addressed through the Community Development Block Grant's Home Improvement Program. DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE III- 9 TABLE III-4: INCIDENCE OF SUBSTANDARD FACTORS BY NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS, TENANCY, AND INCOME INCIDENCE OF SUBSTANDARD FACTORS BY NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS, TENANCY, AND INCOME Factor Rentef Owner Possible 195 779 339 433 Lead Paintl Lack of Complete 6 6 22 24 Plumbing2 Lack of Complete 24 25 53 60 Kitchen3 Vacant & 5 5 7 7 Boarded Up4 No Hea~ng 9 9 19 23 Fuel Used~ Total 239 824 440 547 Substandard % Substandard 198 684 365 454 But Rehabable6 Sours: 1. CHAS Dinbook Table 9 mad HUD Technical Bulletin #1. :2.19~OFedenlC~sm. pmsuVLaadLInmssbesedonCHASTablesSPmmdPm8 3.4&$ 1990FaknlCmmm. l~ofRmlesandOsnelcair'~=""'4besedonovenllcitYsfide p,,v~t~,~C30%R.~%O);PegentVLmdLinaan~basedonCHASTabbSPm~sndPan8 6 Auumpdon ~m 83 pen~m of all units ms suitable for DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE III- 10 Target Areas for Assistance According to the Federal Community Development Block Grant's Quartile Method Regulations, all census block groups with a 33.07 percent or greater concentration of low-income population are qualified target areas. Map III-2 illus~ates five such target areas for the City. As indicated on Map III-1, the housing stock is generally older in the target areas. Also, as indicated by Map III-3, minority concentrations are generally higher. Three target areas have historic community identities, Northtown, Southwest Cucamonga, and the Rochester Tract. Portions of Old Alta Loma, which was previously qualified by a special census, do not qualify for assistance by the Block Group Quartile Method. Historically, City resources, including CDBG and Redevelopment funding have been focused on Northtown and Southwest Cucamonga. Conservation and rehabilitation of housing stock has been a priority in the target areas. DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE III- 11 MAP 111-2: AREA OF LOW INCOME BY CENSUS BLOCK GROUP, 1990 20-01 a 3 ~ ~ 21 · 22.0 a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ DECE~BE~ ]994 D~T ROUSING ~LB~BNT TEC~ICAL APPENDIX PAGE IiI - 12 MAP 111-3: AREAS OF MINORITY CONCENTRATION BY CENSUS BLOCK GROUP - 1990 HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX IV. VACANT LAND INVENTORY Vacant residential land is a primary resource needed to meet housing demand. Consistent with Govcmment Code Section 65583(a)(3), this section describes this resource. The following points identify the highlights of this section: · As of January 1, 1994, approximately 2,235 acres of vacant, uncommitted residential land suitable for development remained within the City. · Uncommitted vacant land will support an estimated 11,900 - 13,836 dwelling units in a range of land use designations, providing a variety of housing opportunities through the build-out period. · As of September 30, 1993, approximately 6,286 residential units were in the processing stream. Of these, all but 261 had received at least Tentative Tract approval from the Planning Commission. · As of January 1, 1994, 38,852 units currently exist within the City. · The total number of residential units at build-out is estimated to be between 57,038 and 58,974. · Build-out is expected to occur sometime after the year 2015. MAP IV-l: VACANT UNCOMMITTED RESIDENTIAL LAND, JANUARY 1, 1994 : ~ "b=-~..... 'J J""1: VACANT UNCOMMITTED I~'Zt';' : RESIDENTIAL LAND ~ __g~ ""'1,' AS OF 111/94 ~ .... : / : ~N '~ .......... (~ HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL (NR) ,2 DUIA~ [~X] ESTATE RESIDENTIAL (ER) 0-1 DUIAC \ | ~c, -..17 g vERy LOW WL> .a DU,AC -- L r~ m Low ~L> a-4 DU/AC ' -~ / ~ ~ Low MEDIUM ~LMI 4-8 OU~AC : ; X t ~ vl ~,~ MEDIUM (M) 8-14 DUIAC ~-- ~ II I MEmUM HIGH ~Mm U-~4 DU~AC , li · Es,: ET,,ANOA S,EC,E,C r, __ ,ce4u 1vPc: TEIRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNIT VPC: VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY ~' 'h .......... "~- .... ~ f ~ ~j c,~v oF RANCliO CUCA~ONGA GENERAL PI,AN DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE IV - 2 A. VACANT RESIDENTIAL LAND As of January 1, 1994, approximately 2,235 acres of vacant, tincommitted residential land was available for development. (See Table IV-1 .) This compares to approximately 2,533 acres that were available for development on January 1, 1990. Since 1990, only minor changes in the amount of available vacant land have occurred. A few new applications have been submitted and a few tentative tract maps have expired. Further, in order to create more opportunities for single family product, both attached and detached types, rezoning occurred on several parcels. Annexation Potential Approximately 7,396 acres of unincorporated territory falls within the City's Sphere-of-Influence. No applications for annexation are pending and none are anticipated during the next five-year planning period. The area is substantially vacant with a total of 19 existing units (nine in the City's Etiwanda North Specific Plan area and ten in Section 14, the Snow Drop Road development area). Approximately 2,044 acres are suitable for residential development under the City's General Plan Open Space designation, Hillside Development. Based on the performance standards of the City's Hillside Development Ordinance, this area would support approximately 2,948 new units. Substantially more units would be allowed under the County's current entitlement standard of development. Because of hillside characteristics and distance from existing development, infrastructure costs for the area are high. Therefore, the area is not generally suitable for affordable housing, whether developed in the City or in the County. Vacant Land Capacity Uncommitted vacant land will support an estimated 10,629 to 13,836 residential units. Because the City uses a performance standard for all classifications of residential development, few projects are built at 100 percent of the density range. The exceptions would be for senior housing or other assisted affordable projects which qualify for a density bonus. Based on a survey of actual density allowances, the typical minimum is at 50 percent of the range and the maximum is at 75 percent of the range. Vacant land in the City is available for all residential land use categories except Hillside Residential. (See Table IV-1 .) DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE IV - 3 TABLE IV-1: PROJECTED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FROM VACANT UNCOMMITTED LAND: ENTIRE CITY AT BUILD-OUT VACANT UNCOMMITTED UNITS AT 50% UNITS AT 75% LAND USE ACREAGE DENSITY RANGE DENSITY RANGE HR (.1-2 du/ac) 0.00 0.00 0.00 ER (.1-1 du/ac) 80.32 40.16 60.24 VL (.1-2 du/ac) 751.21 751.21 1126.82 L ( 2-4 du/ac) 398.12 1194.36 1393.42 LM ( 4-8 du/ac) 608.31 3649.86 4258.17 M ( 8-14 du/ac) 210.47 2315.17 2630.88 MH (14-24 du/ac) 136.86 2600.34 2942.49 H (24-30 du/ac). 49.97 1349.19 1424.15 TOTAL 2235.26 11900.29 13836.16 TABLE IV-2: VACANT LAND BY PLANNING AREA: 8 OR MORE UNITS TO THE ACRE. COMMUNITY TOTAL RESIDENTIAL EIGHT OR MORE ACRES AVAILABLE UNITS PER ACRE ACRES AVAILABLE TERRAVISTA P.C. 250.04 133.99 VICTORIA P.C. 296.74 124.82 ETIWANDA S.P. 487.22 51.34 GENERAL CITY 1201.25 87.14 TOTAL 2235.25 397.29 DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE IV - 4 Vacant Land Suitable for Affordable Housing With the exception of hillside areas, land suitable for affordable housing is generally available throughout the City. (See Map IV-1 .) The two planned communities, Tetra Vista and Victoria, continue to supply vacant land suitable for a range of housing types. Additionally, these two planned communities have made a commitment whereby, upon the first sale or rental, 15 percent of the total number of traits would be affordable to low and moderate income families. Primarily due to market conditions, Terra Vista had exceeded the terms of its commitment to provide a maximum of 1,218 affordable units by 1990. These units are dispersed throughout the planned communities to avoid over-concentrations of low- and moderate- income families in any one area. In general, multi-family units are more affordable than single family units. Approximately 397 acres of land is available throughout the City in the multi-family density range of eight or more units per acres. (See Table IV-2.) Other lands located throughout the City are available and feasible for the development of affordable homing. Affordable units may be achieved through state mandated density bonuses, in conjunction with the City's Senior Housing Overlay District, and through the Redevelopment Agency's Affordable Housing Strategy. The latter is discussed in this Appendix. (See Section XI, Housing Production Plan for the City's Redevelopment Agency). Units in the Processing Stream Approximately 6,286 residential units are in the processing stream. As of March 30, 1994, 1,515 units have been issued building permits, but became of market conditions, the vast majority had not yet proceeded to the construction phase. Another 2,297 units had advanced to final map status, but had not advanced to building permit issuance. Another 2,113 units received tentative tract map approval from the Planning Commission, but had not advanced to final map stage. On January 1, 1993, Senate Bill 428 extended the expiration date for tentative tract approvals by two years in recognition that the state's residential building industry was at a virtual standstill during 1991 and 1992. Only a few applications for small projects, totaling 261 units, had not advanced to Planning Commission consideration as of March 30, 1994. DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE IV - 5 Units Projected to Build-out The total number of residential units at build-out is estimated to be between 57,038 and 58,974. (See Table IV-3.) This estimate is based on an analysis of existing units, units in the processing stream, and the Vacant Land Capacity Analysis, January 1, 1994. On January 1, 1994, there were 38,852 existing units in the City. There were another 6,286 units in the processing stream. Finally, the January 1, 1994, Vacant Land Capacity Analysis indicates that existing zoning will support an additional 11,900 and 13,836 units. Build-out is expected to occur sometime after 2015. TABLE IV-3: PROJECTION OF UNITS AVAILABLE AT BUILDOUT NUMBER OF NUMBER OF UNITS AT UNITS AT 50% OF RANGE 75% OF RANGE 1. EXISTING 4/1/90 36169 36169 2. ADDED BY 1/1/94 2683 2683 3. IN PROCESS 9/30/93 6286 6286 4. VACANT LAND CAPACITY 4/1/94 11900 13836 TOTAL 57038 58974 Notes: 1. Federal Census 2. State Department of Finance 3. City Quarterly Status Report 4. Staff Analysis DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE IV - 6 HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX V. NON-GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS Section 65583 (5) requires an "analysis of the potential and actual non-governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the availability of f'mancing, the price of land, and the cost of construction." In addition, the following topics are also discussed: Regional economic conditions, housing demand, availability of jobs, price of housing, and public opinion. Required and related topics are discussed beginning with regional economic climate and ending with local public opinion. The following highlights indicate significant potential and actual non-governmental constraints upon housing production between 1989 and 1994. · Regional economic conditions provide the overall context for housing development and availability. Regional economic recession characterized the period from 1989 to 1994. A period of economic growth is predicted for 1995-2000. · SCAG predicts that from 1994 through 2000, 94 percent of Califomia's population growth will result from natural increase rather than domestic in-migration or foreign immigration. This shift may result in larger household size and fewer new households. The result may be a continuing soft housing market to the end of the decade. · Defense cutbacks contributed to high unemployment rates and loss of high paying professional and manufacturing jobs between 1989 and 1994. SCAG predicts that 10,000 new jobs will be created in the City between 1990 and the year 2000. The trend is toward lower paying retail and service sector jobs. · The City's vacancy rate has hovered above six percent since 1990. This rate would be low during a period of rapid housing production, but indicates slow absorption during the low production period between 1990 and 1994. · Raw land price has declined substantially since 1989 as a result of the collapse of a period of heated land speculation. Due to the stabilizing influence of large ownerships, land cost is assumed to have remained relatively stable at pre-speculation levels. · Construction costs are assumed to have kept pace with the Consumer Price Ind.ex, an increase of approximately nine percent from 1989 through 1993. · Financing for raw land purchases is virtually unavailable. Consauction financing is tight. Mortgage financing is available. Banks are promoting first time buyer programs, but loans for less than a 20 percent down payment require mortgage insurance. ® Based on limited data, housing prices in the City appear to have decreased nine percent from 1989 through 1993, primarily reflecting a correction in land price. · Public opinion supports a variety of affordable market-rate owner projects, such as small lot developments, single-family attached housing, and first time buyer loan programs. The required and related topics concerning non-governmentai constraints are discussed in the following order: mgionai economic climate, housing demand, availability of jobs, vacancy rate, the price of land, cost of construction, availability of financing, interest rates, price of housing, and public opinion. A. REGIONAL ECONOMIC CLIMATE Regional economic conditions provide the overall context for housing development and availability. Regional economic recession characterizes most of the period from 1989 to 1994. An analysis of the relationship of the economy to housing production indicates that a poor economic climate results in a decrease in housing production. The American economy began to falter in 1989. During the five year reporting period from January 1, 1989 through January 1, 1994, defense cutbacks hit the Southern California economy hard. The effects of a sluggish economy and defense cutbacks combined to burst the land speculation boom which took place from January 1, 1985 through January 1, 1989. (See Figure III-1 .) Beginning in 1989, new housing construction all but stopped. Housing price and interest rates dropped dramatically. Nevertheless, housing sales remained sluggish through June 30, 1994. Vacancy rates increased. According to local realtors, some workers were relocating and leaving vacant homes behind, some "for sale" and some abandoned to foreclosure. B. ~ Another factor influencing the housing market is demand. Conventional methodology links demand directly to population increase. According to SCAG, regional population increased steadily during the period. However, housing demand has been weak. This indicates economic elasticity in the housing market, often referred to as a "soft" market. In other words, changes in population demographics indicate that them may no longer be a direct positive correlation between population increase and housing demand. Up to 1990, population increased as families moved to California to work in an expanding job market. The situation has changed dramatically. In 1994 families are leaving California to seek jobs in other market, as well as to seek lifestyle changes. Now population is increasing due primarily to natural increases, i.e. babies. DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE V - 2 SCAG predicts that from 1994 through 2000, 94 percent of Califomia's population growth will result from natural increase rather than domestic in-migration or foreign immigration. In-migration and immigration will account for only six (6) percent of the increase for the period, in contrast to 54 percent of the increase during the 1980's. The shift from migration to natural increase suggests that housing demand will be weaker during the next five years because increases in household size will absorb more of the population increase. Another factor in housing demand related to the economic downturn which began in 1989, is the likelihood that new household formations were being delayed and many existing households were doubling-up demonstrating a surprising elasticity in the housing market. Them was also a corresponding slight increase in overcrowding and in homeless families. However, in many instances there appears to have been excess capacity in existing housing units sufficient to absorb extended families and non-related housemates. Elasticity in the housing market serves as a non-governmental constraint on housing production. The following items indicate that the economy in improving. Previous economic cycles suggest that an upward swing will occur during the latter half of the decade. It is reasonable to expect that housing construction, which has been slow during the first half of the decade, will increase during the latter half. C. AVAILABILITY OF JOB~ Overall, jobs in the City have increased through 1990. SCAG predicts continued job growth within the City, increasing from 31,638 jobs in 1990 to 41,925 jobs in the year 2000. For the San Bemardino subregion, wholesale - retail trade and service sectors posted gains, while manufacturing and construction sectors posted declines. Overall jobs increased through May 1994. However, the unemployment rate remained high. According to local realtors, the loss of nigh paying manufacturing jobs has directly contributed to the depressed housing market in the City and the region. For the Riverside-San Bernardino statistical region, employment increased steadily until 1991 when there was an actual decrease in jobs. Unemployment dipped to a low of 5.7 percent in 1987 and stayed relatively low until 1991. In 1991 unemployment jumped to 9.2 percent, remaining above 9 percent through May, 1994. (See Table V-l) For April 1994, the reported jobless rate in San Bemardino County was nine (9) percent, compared to 9.9 percent in Los Angeles County and six (6) percent nationwide. In May, 1994 the reported rate jobless rate in the County improved to 7.9 percent, suggesting that more people are'working. DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE V - 3 Regionally, the loss of defense sector jobs has had a direct and indirect effect on the economy, including a reduction in purchasing power as high paying jobs were replaced by lower paying jobs and a reported overall loss of cortfidence in the economy. Funher, jobs have been relocated to other areas and states. For example, General Dynamics reached its peak employment of 5,200 jobs in 1989 and was the largest employer in the City. Subsequently General Dynamics sold the Division to Hughes. Hughes initiated substantial layoffs, then announced that production and engineering would relocate to Tucson, and that all activity in Rancho Cucamonga would cease by the end of August 1994. These actions and their effects have impacted the housing market in the City, contributing to the slowdown in market demand for existing and new housing and contributing to a continuing six percent vacancy rate. The City's Redevelopment Agency aggressively markets the City to prospective manufacturing, wholesale, and retail companies. Ten manufacturing fwrns employing between 100 and 250 workers currently operate in the City. (See Table V-2). A food producer, Mission Foods, will become the largest employer in the City providing 1200 jobs by 1996. Retail activity has increased substantially from 1989 to the present. Tetra Vista Town Center, including Target and Montgomery Wards, provided the first regional retail development. Foothill Marketplace, anchored by Price Club and Walmart followed closely thereafter. Other regional retailers, such as Circuit City, are locating in the City. DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE V - 4 TABLEV-I: RIVERSIDE-SANBERNARDINOPMSALABORFORCE Labor Unemployment year Force ~ Unemnlovment Rate 1983 705,800 635. 100 70,700 10.0% 1984 745,400 686,600 58,800 7.9% 1985 797, 100 740,300 56,800 7.1% 1986 851,600 797.000 54,600 6.4% 1987 895,100 844.200 50,900 5.7% I988 939,700 884,700 55,000 5.9% 1989 1,023,600 962,200 5&400 5.7% 1990 1,066,600 996,900 69,700 6.5% 1991 1,083,736 903,714 100,022 9.2% 1992 1,i37,234 1,012,068 125,166 11% 1993 1,245 200 I, i 14,200 131,000 10.5 % Source: State of California, Employment Development Deparm~ent TABLE V-2: RANCHO CUCAMONGA MANUFACTURING FIRMS (OVER 100 EMPLOYEES) N.~f.~P~tIBI~K~ ~ Products Ameron Steel &Wire 251-500 Rebar, coil mesh Frito Lay 251-500 Snack foods TAMCO 251-500 Steel and wire products West Coaster Liquidators 251-500 Retail Coca Cola Bottling l01-250 Beverage bottling Avery, International 101-250 Business labels Klondike Pacific 101-250 Ice cream products Tokai of America 101-250 Lighters Schlosser Forge 101-250 Airplane nar'~ Source: Ci~ of Rancho Cucurnonga Chamber of Commerce. DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE V - 5 D. VACANCY RATE The City's vacancy rate has hovered above six (6) percent since 1990. For January 1, 1994, the Department of Finance estimates the vacancy rate to be 6.64 percent as discussed in Section III, Housing Characteristics. The vacancy rate is high relative to an ideal rate. According to SCAG the ideal vacancy level should be five (5) percent for rentals and two (2) percent for homeowners. The vacancy rate in the SCAG region for January 1, 1990 was 7.4 percent. However, in periods of high production and high absorption, higher vacancy rates are typical. Only in periods of low production and slow absorption would vacancy rates in the six (6) percent range be of some concern. The current housing market reflects the latter scenario. However, according to Len Perdue, and Associates, multiple bids on properties offered at auction, provides another indicator that the housing market is improving. Regionally, a portion of the housing stock is reserved for occasional, seasonal, or recreation use rather than full time occupancy. Because such units can easily convert to full time occupancy they contribute to the elasticity of the housing market. Occasional use units comprise 44.3 percent of the vacant inventory in San Bemardino county, which is higher than the 30 percent nationally and 36 percent of the in the SCAG region. Converted occasional use homes with fleeway access are atlractive to persons who work in the City and therefore impact the local demand for housing. Lower exurban land cost combined with rural standard infrastructure costs attract development of so-called "affordable housing." Deferred costs in these exurban communities are large, including commute costs, cost to upgrade inadequate infrastructure, and cost to provide urban services. In comparison, the higher cost of housing in the City includes urban level facilities. Nevertheless, lower priced exurban housing units impact the absorption of housing units in the City. E. The price of land impacts the price of new homes and also residential resale price. The land speculation which occurred during the second hafofthe 1980's resulted in a significant infiationary trend on all home prices. The result was reduced housing affordability at all income levels. Land price peaked in 1989. Since 1989 the price of land has declined. According to Len Purdue and Associates, Real Estate Appraisers, there are too few recent transactions in the City to establish land cost. Long term ownerships help stabilize land cost in the City. Lewis Homes is the i~wner-builder of the Terra Vista Planned Community. William Lyon, Inc. is the owner-developer of the majority of the Victoria Planned Community. DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE V - 6 During the 1980's land speculation was heated in the City's Sphere-of-Influence and in some instances speculation fever spread to the City. For 1988 and 1989 raw land sales averaged $76,483 an acre. Following tentative tract approval in the County, one developer executed a development agreement and annexed to the City, then sold for $134,250 an acre in 1989. Before the end of 1989 the property sold at a price of $241,150 an acre. The property is currently held by a bank. Speculation led to many foreclosures in the City's Sphere as well as to foreclosures in the City. For example, land in the City with an approved tentative tract map which sold during the 1980's for $100,000 an acre, resold after foreclosure for $20,000 an acre in 1994. In another distress sale example, land with an approved tentative tract sold for $5,000 an acre in 1994. Lewis Homes, Inc. estimates that the land cost in the City and surrounding region has declined 50 percent since 1989. Thus it can be seen that land speculation acts as a non-govemmental constraint on housing. Among many effects, one is that deal-making may became the focus of development rather than housing production. Also, in each of the above examples capital, primarily finance capital, was diverted from housing production to land speculation. On a more positive note, each example includes some of the more than 6,000 housing units in the City with entitlements waiting to be built and absorbed into the market between 1995 and the year 2000. F. COST OF CONSTRUCTION Construction cost depends on the price of materials, quality of construction, and finish detail. According to a spokesperson for Lewis Homes, construction costs have more or less paralleled the consumer price index from 1989 to the present. In general, the consumer price index has increased an average of 3 percent per year from 1989 through 1992. For 1993 the increase was 2.7 percent. For the first five months of 1994 the increase was 2.3 percent. However, the SCAG region lagged the national increase for the 12 month period ending May 1994, posting only a .9 percent increase. This compares with an average annual increase of 5.9 percent per year for the consumer price index from 1979 to 1989. For example, according the Lewis Homes, Inc., apartment constxuction costs (including labor and building fees except park fees) averaged $40 per square foot on January 1, 1989. Assuming that construction costs have paralleled the Consumer Price Index, the average for a comparable unit on January 1, 1994 is estimated to be $43.58 per square foot. For move-up housing, Len Purdue and Associates, estimate construction cost at $50 per square foot for 1994. It can be assumed that construction cost for entry level units ranges between $43.58 per square foot and $50 per square foot. It is also assumed that construction cost will continue to parallel the Consumer Price Index through the year 2000. DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE V - 7 G. AVAILABILITY OF FINANCING Home financing comes in three parts, raw land financing, construction financing, and mortgage financing. The availability of financing has a direct impact on new housing production. Defaults on raw land ventures, discussed in the section on land price, caused financing for land deals to dry up during the last five years. Most of the reported recent land sales have been cash transactions. According to local developers, construction financing has also been difficult to obtain. In 1994, construction financing is assumed to be 2 points over prime with loan points at 2 percent of the amount borrowed. Home loans have been available. On the one hand banks are marketing loans to first time buyers under federal neighborhood reinvestment mandates. On the other hand lenders are closely watching the trend of declining home prices and default and foreclosure statistics. Foreclosures have increased annually since 1990 according to the Real Estate Research Council of Southern California. Information for the City is not available, but foreclosure activity in San Bemardino County liom 1990 to 1993 is available. (See Table V-3.) For the first quarter of 1994, the home mortgage default rate was up 22 percent over the comparable period in 1993. Job losses and declining home prices have contributed to a high foreclosure rate. In turn, a high foreclosure rate further depresses the price of housing. According to Len Purdue and Associates, foreclosed properties generally sell for between 24 to 30 percent less than their last assessed value, which is why foreclosures push the price of property down. On the positive side lower cost housing provides oppommi~es for some first time and move-up buyers, accounting for the trend in increased sales volume reported in the first half of 1994. DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE V - 8 TABLE V-3: FORECLOSURES IN SAN BERNARD1NO COUNTy ANNUAL PERCENT YEAR RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL TOTAL CHANGE 1990 174 31 205 1991 270 48 318 55 1992 600 106 706 122 1993 970 171 1141 62 Note: All foreclosures are reported combined, but officials officials estimate residential are eighty-five percent Of total Source: San Bernardino Sun, March 29, 1994 Interest rates have a direct impact of affordability of home ownership. As interest rates increase affordability decreases. Interest rates for a 30 year fixed rate mortgage hit a low point of 6.74 percent in October, 1993. The low interest rate plus reduced home prices stimulated home sales. In the first half of 1994 home sales increased, responding to rising interest rates. Buyers, waiting until prices stabilized, concluded purchases, because they believed that further declines in home price would be offset by higher interest rates. By June 1, 1994 interest rates for a 30 year fixed rate loan had increased to 8.5 percent. [Information from Bank of American forthcoming: See ** below] In June 1994, HUD stated that the median family income for San Bemardino County was $42,300. A first time home buyer is one who has never previously owned a home or who has not owned a home in the last three years. At 6.75 percent a first time buyer with 100 percent of the median income, no installment debt, and the ability to put up a 10 percem down payment, could afford a house priced at $**. At 8.50 percent, a first time buyer at the median income could afford a house priced at $**. According to Bank of America a typical first time home buyer earning $42,300 with $250 a month installment debt could afford a home priced at $***. With 10 percent down payment, the monthly DECEMBER 1994 DRAF OUSING ELE T TECHNICAL APPENDIX payment for a 30 year fixed rate loan on $** at 8.5 percent interest would be $*'1,092, plus impounds for mortgage insurance at one (1) percent of the loan value, plus taxes at a minimum of (1) percent of the total value, plus fire insurance. I. PRICE OF HOUSING Housing prices in the City and surrounding region continue to decline, but reliable data for the City and the region is not available. For example, TRW occasionally publishes "most recent month data." For the month of January, 1989, sales of new and resale of single-family detached and attached homes in the City averaged $170,927. For January, 1994, the average price was $161,356. This small sample indicates a six (6) percent price decrease for the five year period. Figures released by TRW for May 1994 set the median home price at $127,249 indicating a 34 pement price decrease for the same period. Perhaps even more important, home prices for all ZIP codes within the City are still declining. According to Len Purdue and Associates, the overall decline in price for a part of the reporting period, i.e. from 1991 through 1993, averaged nine.(9) pement. Figures comparing the median price for new and resale homes on an annual basis for 1989 and 1993 are unavailable. According to the Inland Empire News, the median home price in the County for the two year period ending October 1991, was $142,390. TRW reports month to month sales: for May 1994, the median price reported was $127,249, indicating an 11.9 pement decrease from 1991. It is likely that the decrease in home price in the County between 1989 and 1994 was between ten and twenty percent. Several factors explain the higher average price for houses in the City than in the County. Foremost is the perception of high quality of life in the City. For example, Money Magazine, May 1994, ranked the City as the 1 lth safest city in the nation with a population over 100,000. Amenities, including parks, trails, and recreation programs, add to the public perception of high quality of life standards. J. PUBLIC OPINION Homeowners, who perceive a generally higher quality of life and amentries in the City than in the surrounding urban region and who may have paid more to locate in the City, defend elements which they believe create quality of life. For example, they vigorously promote single-family ownership and have vocally discouraged City sponsored new affordable rental housing projects. Consistent with residents in most of California, the community supports affordable projects which appear to increase property values. For example, they support rehabilitation and replacement of deteriorating buildings. They support assistance for declining neighborhoods. They also support a variety of affordable owner projects, such as small lot developments, single-family attached housing, and first time buyer loan programs. Many homeowners in the City have benefitted from such programs. DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE V - 10 HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX VL GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS Section 65583 (a)(4) of the Government Code requires "an analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all incomes levels, including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures." Based on analysis of the aforementioned categories the following highlights indicate that government regulation is necessary for the health, safety, and welfare of the community and, for the most part, is not an undue constraint on development. The variability of the City's land use controls, including development standards, encourages a wide variety of housing types, including single and multi-family, rental and ownership, and mobile homes and is not an undue constraint on development. · The City's housing stock is in generally good condition because only 13.4 percent was constructed before 1970 and only 5.5 percent before 1960. Building codes and their enforcement encourage sound housing stock and are not an undue constraint on development. ® The City has implemented a series of actions to streamline the permit application/process, including City Planner review of routine applications, in order to facilitate housing, as well as other development. · Frontage improvements, including storm drains and street improvements, are required for all new development to protect public health and safety and are not an undue constraint on development. · Fees and exactions have increased an estimated 41 pement during the last five years, primarily reflecting the higher cost of capital expenditures for new infrastructure. Because estimated land costs have declined as much as 50 pement during the same period, the actual price of new housing has decreased approximately nine pement. Fees and exactions ensure that new development will have adequate infrastructure and public services and, therefore, are prerequisite to development. · Mello-Roos bonds provide an altemative means of financing a portion of the new infrastructure required, but raise concems about property tax burden, equity, and the potential for default due to low unit absorption rate. Three of the five school districts serving the City use Mello-Roos bond financing to provide classrooms needed to relieve overcrowding. The City has sponsored two Mello-Roos Community Facilities Districts. An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints on the maintenance and development of housing for all income levels is provided in this section. Discussed below are land use controls; building codes and their enforcement; site improvements; fees and other exactions required of developers; and local processing and permit procedures. A. LAND USE CONTROLS The following analysis of land use controls includes a discussion of residential land use categories, performance standard criteria, environmental assessment requirements, design criteria, specific plan designations, development standards, and annexation potential. The City's land use controls set forth conditions necessary to achieve the health, safety and general welfare of its residents and provide for maintenance and development for housing available to all income levels. Analysis indicates that the City's land use controls do not put an undue constraint on housing maintenance and development. Residential Land Use Categories The City's General Plan establishes six residential density categories "for purposes of providing the City with a range of building intensities that allow flexibility to deal with various site constraints and opportunities." The density ranges of these residential categories are as follows: DENSITY RANGE CATEGORY MINIMUM MAXIMUM Very Low (VL) 0.1 2 Low (L) 2 4 Low Medium (LM) 4 8 Medium (M) 8 14 Medium High (MH) 14 24 High (H) 24 30 The General Plan also allows residential development in two of its open space categories: Hillside Residential and Open Space. After environmental impacts are detemfined and mitigated, the Hillside Residential designation permits up to 2 dwelling units per acre. The Open Space designation identifies areas were land is to remain essentially open, but up to 1 dwelling unit per 10 acres may be permitted. The remaining open space category is designated as Flood Control/Utility corridor, and no residential development is permitted under this designation. Requirements for residential development are contained in the City's Development Code, three Community Plans (Term Vista, Victoria and Caryn) and two Specific Plans (Etiwanda and Etiwanda North). Residential zoning categories and densities throughout are consistent with the City's General Plan. The basic development standards contained in these plans are generally consistent, however they have been tailored to meet the specific needs identified within each of the community planning areas° DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE VI - 2 Performance Standard Criteria The Development Code for the general city, as well as the Specific Plans, utilize a performance standard of development through use of density ranges. The density achieved is based on an analysis of environmental constraints and on design criteria. Environmental Assessment Requirements An environmental assessment is required for each development project. The site specific assessment is tiered from the City's Master Environmental Assessment which was prepared for the update of the General Plan in 1989. In conjunction with the MEA, the master plan of drainage was updated and a City computer generated traffic model was created. Further, a Hillside Development Regulations (Section 17.24) was enacted to address slope issues. In most instances these instruments clearly set forth the environmental constraints on the site, including the potential maximum density, and serve to expedite development. Where additional site specific information is needed, special studies are requested. Subsequent to the adoption of the MEA, only one cnviroumental impact report has been required for a residential subdivision. Design Criteria Design criteria is set forth under the Basic Development Standards and the Optional Development Standards. A subdivision designed to meet the CityIs Basic Development Standards will bc permitted to develop at densities which are at the lower end of the density range appropriate to the zone. In order to qualify for the Optional Development Standards, a developer may provide such features as a larger percentage of open space, more than the minimum requirement for landscaping, and more than the minimum requirement for recreational facilities. Such projects will bc allowed to develop at the higher end of the density range appropriate to the zone. Further, under the Optional Standards, many of the basic development requirements such as setbacks and lot coverage, may be reduced to accommodate the higher densities. Specific Plan Designations Standards for the Tetra Vista and Victoria planned communities are more innovative than those contained in the City's Development Code. For exumplc, in general cluster development is automatically assumed in the higher density categories, but in the planned communities is also allowed in the Low Medium and Medium residential categories. In addition, both plans have been designed to allow flexibility in Wading densities among different areas within each plan without requiring a General Plan Amendment, as long as the maximum density permitted by the plan is not exceeded. Both plans permit each residential land use designation to be stepped up or down one category, except for the Medium residential category which allows two steps up, to either the Medium High or High density range. DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE VI - 3 The Etiwanda and Etiwanda North Specific Plans are designed to reflect the unique community character within each of these planning areas. The Etiwanda North Specific Plan (ENSP) primarily serves as a pre-zone for Sphere-of-Influence land in the hillside area. Rural character is a dominant feature of the historic Etiwanda community. Although low density housing is encouraged, zoning includes areas for all income levels. The rugged, natural open character of the Etiwanda North area constrains development there. Safety haTards and the high cost of extending infrastructure to the area makes it most suitable for lower density housing. No multi-family housing is proposed for the Etiwanda North area. Development Standards Throughout the City standards, such as parking and height requirements, generally do not provide a constraint to development. Typically, general heights are permitted to increase with increased density. Parking is based upon the unit type and number of bedrooms. Carports are permitted in multi-family developments when approved by the Design Review Committee. The variability of the aforementioned development standards permits a wide variety of housing types, including single and multi-family, rental and ownership, and mobile homes. Application of these development standards to the remaining vacant land resources will continue to provide a broad range of housing alternatives consistent with the City's share of the Regional Housing Need. (For vacant land analysis see Tables IV-1 and IV-2, as well as Map IV-I.) DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE VI - 4 Annexation Potential The City's Sphere-of-Influence is located north of the City between the City limits and the National Forest Boundary in environmentally haTardous and sensitive areas. The resulting constraints limit the range of potential residential development. Annexations have added "low" and "very low" single family residential development areas to the City. No new annexations have occurred since 1989. The Etiwanda North Specific plan was adopted on April 1, 1992, as a pre-zone for future annexation. Land in the City's Sphere-of-Influence lacks urban infrastructure. Much of the area is expected to remain as open space. Developable areas have slopes in excess of eight percent and are subject to the City's Hillside Development Regulation Ordinance. Therefore, residential development in the Sphere areas will be more expensive and at lower average density than residential development within the current City boundaries. Consequently annexation is expected to prove sites for move-up rather than for affordable housing. B. BUILDING CODES AND THEIR ENFORCEMENT The City of Rancho Cucamonga has adopted, by reference, the following Codes: State Uniform Administrative, Building, Mechanical, Plumbing, Housing, Building Security, Uniform Sign and Abatement for Dangerous Buildings Codes. These codes are considered to be the minimum necessary to protect the public's health, safety, and welfare. Additional standards, NFPA 13D and 13R of the National Fire Protection Association, have been adopted which require that all new residential dwellings be constructed with an installed sprinkler system. The adopted Building and Fire Codes are the minimum necessary to protect the public's health, safety, and welfare, and is not considered an unnecessary constraint to housing. The City utilizes the options available in Section 1233 of the California Administrative Code, which allow an agency to exercise "reasonable judgment in the application of requirements" regarding the continued use of existing structures. Further, in order to preserve housing stock, low income owner occupied households are eligible for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to repair, improve, and rehabilitate residences. Also, through the use of the State Historic Building Code, (Title 24, Part 8, of the California Administrative Code). the City encourages the preservation of significant historic structures. The Historic Building Code permits the use of ofiginai or archaic materials in reconstruction. The City has also enacted a Mills Act ordinance to provide tax incentives for preservation of historic homes. The City's housing stock is in generally good condition with few buildings needing repair or reconstruction, because only 5.5 percent of the City's housing stock was built before 1960, and only 13.4 percent was constructed before 1970. However, for those structures which do need repair, the City enforces those standards and regulations which ensure reasonable and adequate life safety, but allows the exercise of judgment in application of standards and regulations as permitted in the code so as to no unduly penalize older dwellings that were built under less demanding codes. (See Figure III-1, Map III-l, Table III-4.) DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE VI - 5 The City's Code Enforcement Division enforces the Municipal Code. Areas of concern include property maintenance and aesthetics, land use and zoning compliance, parking control, animal regulation, permits and development compliance, weed abatement, vector control, and graffiti removal. The Code Enforcement Division currently operate on a complaint response basis. Once a violation is reported, a code enforcement officer makes a personal contact and issues a written notice requesting correction of the violation. If progress toward compliance is not observed within 2 weeks, a multi-step process begins, which involves additional notices. As a last resort a formal nuisance abatement process is followed or a Court Appearance Citation is issued. The overall emphasis of the Code Enforcement program is to ensure that progress toward correction of violations is achieved on a voluntary basis. One focus of the Code Enforcement program has been toward ordinance improvement in order to provide a strong foundation in law to back up requests for code compliance. Overall community awareness is a goal of the Code Enforcement Division. Toward this goal proactive programs are initiated from time to time. These neighborhood conservation programs focus on specific neighborhoods, which though basically sound are beginning to show signs of deterioration. Community education, neighborhood cleanup, yard maintenance, and abandoned vehicle abatement are emphasized during such programs. Further, such neighborhoods are often also low income neighborhoods eligible for CDBG funding for capital improvements, including street resurfacing, storm drains, slxeet lights, and water and sewer upgrades. (See Map III-2.) C. SITE IMPROVEMENTS New construction in the City triggers Ordinance 58, which requires that all frontage improvements be completed as a condition of project development, primarily street and storm drain improvements. Undergrounding of utilities is also required. There is an aesthetic benefit to undergrounding utilities, but there is also a public safety concern, because the area is subject to high winds which cause hazardous conditions when wires break and utility poles snap. Therefore site improvement requirements are the minimum necessary for public safety and cannot be viewed as a constraint to development. D. FEES AND OTHER EXACTIONS REOUIRED OF DEVELOPERS The City and other public agencies charge a number of fees which affect the price of housing. However, the fees such as drainage, transportation, water, and sewer are necessary for public safety. Other fees provide public amenities, including park development and city beautification. Finally processing fees reimburse the City for a portion of the cost of development processing. Table VI-1 compares fees levied in 1989 with fees levied in 1994 for a hypothetical typical residence of 1,265 square feet located on an 8,000 square foot lot. The purchase price of $136,000 in 1989 dropped nine percent to $123,760. In 1989 the fees represented 7.7 percent of the total cost of the DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE VI - 6 new home. In 1994, fees increased to 16.4 percent of the total price. According to Lewis Homes the reduction in total price primarily reflects an estimated 50 percent deflation in land costs. Water and Sewer Service Water and sewer services are provided by Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD). According to CCWD's Water Master Plan Update (October 1993) current water supplies and delivery systems are adequate and present no immediate constraint to housing development. Rancho Cucamonga accounts for approximately 75 percent of CCWD's 50 square mile service area, but about 90 percent of the customer service area. According to CCWD, the total water usage in 1989 was approximately 39,662 acre feet per year. In 1992 the usage was 36,885 acre feet per year. Although population increased 18% during the period, usage decreased about eight percent, reflecting consumer conservation practices. The Districts ultimate annual demand is expected to be 75,600 acre feet per year. Average day demand is currently 37.76 million gallons per day (mgd) and is expected to increase to 67.50 mgd at buildout. CCWD's Master Plan addresses water supply and water delivery capability and provides a schedule for increasing capacity to keep pace with development. Water and sewer fees have increased 49 percent since 1989. New development is charged a facilities fee and connection charges. The facilities fee is based on capital improvement requirements through buildout. Since 1989 the fee has increased to reflect a need for increased capacity in the District's capital improvement requirements. The facilities fee for residential development varies with density of development. In the 2 to 4 unit per acre range the fee is $3,825 per dwelling unit. In the typical example illustrated in Table VI-I, various connection charges add $372.20 bringing the total charge to $4,152.20 per dwelling unit. Where no water supply infrastructure exists, the development is required to provide master planned facilities. Water supply is not expected to be a constraint on development. Sewers are provided by CCWD, while Chino Basin Municipal Water District provides waste water treatment facilities. According to CCWD's Master Plan Update (August 1993), planned expansion of the sewer system from 450,000 linear feet to 522,000 linear feet of sewer lines, upgrade of 191,400 linear feet of sewer line, and timely maintenance of the system will provide adequate sewer service through the buildout period. DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE VI - 7 TABLE VI-I: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FEES (1265 SQUARE FOOT HOME, 2 CAR GARAGE, 8,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT, NO DECKS OR PATIOS, IN THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.) COST COST PERCENT TYPE OF FEE IN 1989 IN 1994 INCREASE Building Permit $440 $578 24 Plan Check $330 $433 24 Drainage $900 $900 0 Transportation $704 $1,710 59 Beautification $333 $341 2 Park development $1,567 $2,757 43 Water & sewer (CCW~)) $4,190 $8,206 49 Chaffee Joint Union High School District $607 $870 30 K-8 School $1,366 $1,944 30 Total $10,436 $17,738 41 Source: 1994 City Fee Schedule Cucamonga County Water District Chaffee Joint Union High School District K-8 School Districts: See Table VI-2 and VI-3 DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE VI - 8 For the typical dwelling unit (Table VI-1), CCWD charges $704 in various connection fees. Where no sewer infrastructure exists and is required as a condition of development, the development is required to provide master planned facilities. Sewer capacity is not expected to be a constraint on development. CCWD passes along the CBMWD facilities fee of $3,350 per dwelling unit. In 1989 the fee was $950 per dwelling unit. The substantial increase reflects the need for increased waste water treatment capacity through buildout. New facilities include Treatment Plant #3 which is in the planning stage and will be located in the City on Etiwanda Avenue. At buildout, TP-3 will provide reclaimed water for irrigation and industrial use. Waste water treatment capacity is not expected to be a constraint on development. School Facilities Five school districts serve the City. As a result of the rapid growth prior to incorporation the local school districts have in the past faced severe overcrowding. The present concern among the school districts continues to be the inability to finance construction of new school facilities in the post-Proposition 13 years. Under AB 2926 (1989), the State requires written certification regarding classroom availability prior to project approval. As an absolute policy, the city requires that school facilities shall be provided. Development Code Section 17.08.050 (C)(1) states in part: "The project includes school facilities or adequate school facilities exist which are or will be capable of accommodating students generated by this project." AB 2926 also regulates the collection of developer fees by the school districts under subdivision processing. (See Table VI-2.) However, ifa legislation action is requested, such as a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan, or Development Agreement, a condition may be added to require completed school facilities or in lieu fees. Although there has been an increase, state mandated fees produce insufficient revenue to buy land and build new schools. Further, the timing of collection virtually guarantees that students will need classrooms before funding is available to build. Finally, state authorized fee increases are not indexed to inflation and lag the general inflation rate. Therefore, three of the five public school districts in the City have implemented Mello-Roos bond financing for new schools. (See Table VI-3 .) In general, schools in the City are at capacity or overcrowded. A total of 3,779 new students have been added between 1993 and 1989. (See Table IV4.) The slow growth rate during the last three years has permitted some school districts to catch up with demand. Of the four elementary school districts, only Central District reports having more classrooms available than pupils. The reason is that Lewis Homes has provided the agreed upon school capacity DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE VI - 9 for the Terra Vista Planned Community somewhat ahead of buildout. Alia Loma School District is approximately at capacity, but does not expect to build any more schools. Cucamonga School District has expanded facilities, but reports they expect to be at, or over, capacity in 1994-95. Etiwanda School District also reports being at, or over, capacity. Since most of the vacant land available for residential development is in the northeast section of the City, the Etiwanda District will be most impacted by future development. Chaffey High School District added a new high school in 1993, therefore reports exlxa capacity will be available in 1994-95. Each existing high school, including the new school, incorporates 30 percent relocatable buildings as required by the State. The District has purchased a site for an additional high school in City. If all 6000 units which have Tentative Tract approval from the Planning Commission are built by the year 2000, then an additional 1200 students would be generated and require approximately half the capacity of the projected high school in the near future. Financing for Required Infrastructure In general the cost of extension of urban infrastructure and services continues to serve as a constraint on development, including residential development. This is especially true in Rancho Cucamonga which was incorporated as a post-Proposition 13 city. The City's share of the property tax is very low compared to stirrounding cities. Other sources of funding for capital improvements and operating and maintenance costs are extremely limited. Tax increment financing for areas within the City's Redevelopment Area has provided some facilities, for example fire stations. Mello-Roos Community Facilities District financing is an alternative. Through the Mello-Roos mechanism a property owner/developer can use bonded indebtedness to finance capital improvements needed for development. The new homeowners will be obligated to repay the bonds. Two school districts are using Mello-Roos bond financing. The City has supported two developer initiated CFD's. CFD 88-1 will provide a future fire station for the north-east area of the City. CFD 88-2 financed facilities to remove flood baTards required to protect the public's safety prior to development of three subdivisions located in the north-east area. DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE VI - 10 TABLE VI-2: AB 2929 SCHOOL FEES DISTRICT COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL RESIDENTIAL 1989 1994 1989 1994 Alta Loma $0.18 $0.19 $1.08 $1.19 Central $0.18 $0.19 $1.08 $1.19 Cucamonga $0.18 $0.19 $1.08 $1.19 Etiwanda $0.18 $0.19 $1.08 $1.19 Chaffey Joint $0.08 $0.09 $0.48 $0.53 Union High School TABLE VI-3: MELLO-ROOS FEE DISTRICT RESIDENTIAL FEES Alta Loma Central Cucamonga $2,000.00/du Etiwanda $1,758.94/du Chaffey Joint $2,216 50/du Union High School ' DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE VI - 11 Table VI-4: SCHOOL ENROLLMENT PUBLIC/ GRADE FISCAL YEAR FISCAL YEAR SCHOOL PRIVATE SPAN 1989-1990 1993-1994 Alta Loma School District Public K thru 8 7,386 7,808 Central School District Public K thru 8 4,405 4,600 Cucamonga School District Public K thru 8 1,995 2,241 Etiwanda School District Public K thru 8 2,676 4,213 Educated Unlimited Private K thru 8 54 Wise Oak Elementary Private K thru 8 70 Children's Learning World Private preschl-8 260 Pacific Coast Schools Private preschl-8 45 Montessori School House Private 1 thru 8 66 Sacred Heart Elementary Private K thru 8 212 242 Little People & Co. Private preschl-6 300 Alta Loma High School Public 9 thru 12 2,464 2,458 Etiwanda High School Public 9 thru 12 3,066 1,742 Rancho Cucamoanga H.S. Public 9 thru 12 2,132 TOTAL 22,328 26,107 Source: School Districts and Schools DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE VI - 12 Based on the gorementioned experience the City has expressed several concems about Mello-Roos financing. The first is that the total burden on any individual's property tax should not exceed 1.8 percent of assessed value. The second is a potential for perceived inequity when one family in the City pays one (1) percent of assessed value and another family is obligated to pay 1.8 percent as a result of Mello-Roos obligations. The last concern is the potential for an unintended increase in tax burden on homeowners which could occur because a market absorption schedule exceeded the absorption rate. The City has supported the use of Mello-Roos financing only for more expensive, low density residential development. The Mello-Roos districts for schools impact all new housing and therefore have a potential impact on development of new affordable housing. Mello-Roos Community Facilities bonding is a potential constraint on housing. In general, lack of funding for capital improvements will remain as a potential constraint on future development. Within the last three years the uncertainties of municipal financing have also impacted housing affordability. As the state has transferred funds to balance the state budget from funds previously available to cities, local governments have had to scramble to balance budgets. Consequently budget uncertainties at the state level, and state taxing policies have the unintended effect of constraining housing development. E. LOCAL PROCESSING AND PERMIT PROCEDURES The City's standard review process, from the time of formal application submittal through review by the Planning Commission is an eleven week process. This includes review before the various recommending review committees including the Grading, Technical Review, and Design Review Committees, as well as Trails Committee when applicable. The process is designed so that all of the necessary reviewing departments, including Building and Safety, Engineering, Community Services, Sheriff, and the Fire Department are involved in project review from the earliest stages. As a result, City agencies function in a coordinated manner and the applicant is appraised of any concerns early in the review process. The review process provides a minimum of three weeks notice to the public prior to the first public hearing on the project by the Planning Commission. In addition, for infill project and large projects, neighbor.hood meetings are scheduled early in the application process in order to identify and address COITUllunlty COneelliS. DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE VI - 13 The same review format is used for all types of projects including industrial and commercial, as well as residential. The actual review process may extend beyond the eleven week period. For example, the complexity of the project, significant unresolved environmental issues, or inadequate plans would lengthen the review period. Resolution of design issues frequently extends processing time. The Planning Department encourages a pre-application conference for large projects. Also, a preliminary review procedure is in place through which an applicant can discuss a major project with the Planning Commission prior to formal project submittal. In 1994, the Planning Commission requested process streamlining policies. In the first revision of the development review process, the City Planner will consider and decide routine matters, for example tentative tract proposals for less than 10 acres sites which are not located on an arterial street and time extensions on lTact maps. The City Planner will provide public notice of meeting and conduct a heating prior to decision on such projects. For all projects, the goal of the Planning Commission is to change the minimum processing time from 11 weeks to 8 weeks. To reach this goal some technical issues will be resolved during the building plan check phase for the project. DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE VI - 14 HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX VII. SPECIAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE NEEDS GROUPS Section 65583 (a)(6) of the Caiifomia Government Code requires "an analysis of any special housing needs, such as those of the handicapped, elderly, large families, farmworkers, families with female heads of households, and families and persons in need of emergency shelter." The following are the highlights associated with this section. · According to the 1990 Census, 6,644 persons 16 years of age and older have a disability related to a mobility limitation or to a self-care limitation. One-third are employed. Less than three percent are institutionalized. The remainder live with families or independently. For low-income disabled, assistance with the installation of special equipment and availability of affordable housing are primary needs. · According to the 1990 Census, 4,910 persons 65 years of age or over reside in the City. Of the elderly residing in the City, 8.3 percent fell below poverty level. Fifty-eight percent were females. A large portion of available community resources are allocated to seniors who have incomes less than 80 percent of the median for the Riverside-San Bemardino PMSA. · According to the 1990 Census, 5,094 large families (five or more persons) resided in the City. Since 1980, the pement of large family tenters has increased. Of these 45.3 percent pay more than 30 percent of their income for housing and 36.3 percent live in overcrowded quarters. The Housing Authority of San Bernardino County states that resources to assist large family households are extremely limited. · According to the 1990 Census, 2,238 households (7 percent) are female-headed. Of these 8.3 percent fell below the poverty level. A total of 1,218 of all households in the City fell below the poverty level, approximately divided between single-headed and two parent households. It is reasonable to assume that a high proportion of poverty level households, particularly single-parent households, are at risk of homelessness. · The 1990 Census counted 26 homeless persons. Limited assistance and a small number of emergency shelter spaces are provided by private groups in the area. · The 1990 Census identified less than 1 percent of the employed as "farmworkers". Therefore, no special need for housing has been identified for farmworkers. This section discusses assistance needs for the various special needs populations in the City, including disabled, elderly, large families, female-headed households, homeless, and farmworkers. It is consistent with the Community Housing Assistance Strategy (CHAS, adopted by the City Council on December 15, 1993) which was prepared by the City for the federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. Low income is the predominate need shared by a large number of each of the special needs groups. A. PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES From a housing perspective, there are three different types of disabled persons with varying housing needs; 1) the physically disabled; 2) the developmentally disabled; and 3) the mentally disabled. The U.S. Census combines the latter two types to survey only two categories: mobility limitation and self-care limitation. Persons with disabilities often require l~ublic assistance, including housing needs. The 1990 Census indicates that 6,644 persons (10.85 percent of the population 16 years of age and older) have a disability. Most of the adult disabled population in the City are under 65 years of age. Twenty-one percent are 65 years or older. One-third of the adult disabled population is employed. Most persons with disabilities live in families or independent households. According to the Census, there were only 184 disabled persons institutionalized in nursing homes. All but 12 were 65 or older. A range of facilities and services is needed by the city's disabled populatioti. Facilities include physical access to buildings and transportation. The minimum requirement is set forth by federal legislation. Also, specially equipped housing units are needed. Special equipment includes lifts, ramps, grab bars, extra-wide doorways, special kitchen equipment, and special bathroom design. Such equipment is generally privately provided on a case-by-case basis. Handicapped renters are permitted to install special equipment, but low income disabled persons may need public assistance to achieve a livable dwelling unit. Specially equipped units may be included in senior housing designs. The range of services for the disabled include full institutional care, transitional care, and independent living. Transitional care may be provided by families or through group quarters. The latter may include on-site professional or paraprofessional suppert. See Exhibit VII- 1, List of State Licensed Residential Care Facilities for the Disabled In Rancho Cucamonga. DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE VII - 2 EXHIBIT VII-l: STATE LICENSED RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES Small Family Home The Downtan Home Non-Ambtflam'7: Licensee Prefers to Serve Developmentally 8599 Hillside Rd Disabled Children, Ages 0-17 years 909-989-7549 Jetton Small Family Home AHlb,,lattl"y: Licensec Prefers to Serve Mentally Disabled Children 8806 Holly Ages 8-15 Years 909-944-9712 Ton~s Small Family Home Non-Amb-!aW, ry: Licensee Prefe~ to Serve Developmenlally 8566 Balsa St Disabled Children Ages0.17 Yeats. 909-989-1058 Group Home The ltulsa Home Non-Amb, la~ory: Developmentally Disabled Childre. n. Ages 0-17 1684 Bulsa St Yea~. 909-987-7695 TP..s Cantines. Inc Ambulatot,/Only: Licensee Pr~fe~s to Serve Child~.n 12-17 Yeats. 7652 Marine St Adult Residential Glelldule Adtllt Home Amb.latnry: Licensee Prefers to Serve Developmentally Disabled 10017 Bristol Adult Women, Ages 18-59 Years 909-941-9t.82 M.O. Unity Amb,latery: Licensee Prefers Ages 18-59. Developmentally Disabled 9388 Valley View 909-944..0298 Mezzie Home Adults 18-59 Yeats. Develulmientully Dibbled. Ambulatory Only 9156 19th Street 909-9874965 Bass Family Home Ambulatory: Prefers Developmentally Disabled Adults. Ages 18-59 8660 Ramona Ave 909-987-5853 ROedln Adult Group Home Amb-lamty: Prefers Develul~aientally Disabled Adults. Ages 18-59 8262 Placida Ct 909-985-2128 Bctul~ldt and Itnne:z AA.h Ambuhmry: P~fers Developmentally Disabled Adults, Ages 18-59 Residential Facility 8614 Vimnat Ave 909-981-9766 DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE VII - 3 EXHIBIT VII- 1 continued Laugslon House l..iclmsee Prefers 4 Amb-ht~ry and 2 Non-Amb,lnuv.y Residents 9656 Langston St Ages 18-59, Developmentally Disabled Adults. 909-980-3348 Red ~ Al~baslnfn[7: L,icelBee Pfdei's [~ Serve A~es 18-59 Ye~i~J, 7628 AIrs CuesIn Dr Developmentally Disabled. 9(}9-982-7550 Adult Day Care ~on For 30 Non-Ambulatmy. Licensee P~fers to Serve Adults Ages 18-65 Retarded Ci~ms Of With Developmental Di~nhiliti~s 9007 A~z~v Rottte Cole Vocational Servict. s Non-Ambnhun-y Clients, Ages 18 and Over with Developmental 9550 Foothill Blvd Di~hiliries 909-980-5988 DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE VII - 4 As indicated by the ceusus figures many disabled persons work and live independently. According to social service professionals, housing assistance is often needed when disabled individuals complete rehabilitation programs. For low-income disabled, assistance with the installation of special equipment and availability of affordable housing are primary needs. B. ELDERLY According to the 1990 Census, 4,910 persons 65 years of age and over reside in the City. They represent a significant needs group. A large proportion of elderly tenter and owner households have income below 80 percent of the county median income. According to the 1990 census, 78 percent of all elderly renter households fall into lower-income categories and 53 percent of all elderly homeowners are lower income. Also, 74.7 percent of all elderly renters and 32 percent of all elderly homeowners experienced a housing cost burden greater than 30 percent of their income. Of these 45.8 percent experienced a cost burden greater than 50 percent of their income. Many senior citizens have reached their retirement years without adequate resources to meet their needs. For renters, the problem of living on fixed incomes in a housing market where costs increase faster than inflation can be difficult. Even those seniors who prepared well for their retirement may have had their savings depleted as the result of declining interest rates or as the result of one lengthy illness. Social service professionals who work with seniors stress that while the elderly do not mind living alone and often prefer it, they very much want to be pan of a neighborhood where they feel an attachment, a sense of belonging, feel reasonably safe, and have easy access to basic services. However, housing costs and living expenses may increase and threaten their ability to continue to live in neighborhoods where they may have spent substantial pans of their lives. Based on the aforementioned data, the elderly need assistance with rental housing. Local senior housing projects and federal Section 8 rental assistance programs address the elderly rental need. Those seniors who own their own homes may have difficulty when non-housing expenses increase and their income does not. In such cases, home maintenance needs are often deferred. Elderly homeowners often need housing rehabilitation services. Local repair and rehabilitation programs address the elderly homeowner need. DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE VII - 5 In Rancho Cucamonga, the allocation of public resources to assist seniors with their housing needs is higher than for any other special needs group. C. LARGE FAMILY According to the 1990 Census there were 33,569 households in.the City. Of these, 5,431 were single person households. Most, (22,990) were 2 to 4 person households. Large families are defined as five or more persons. Based on the Census, there was a total of 5,094 large family households residing in the City, an increase of 2,371 households from 1980. In 1990 large families comprised 16.8 percent of all owner occupied households. The percentage of large family owners decreased between 1980 and 1990, but the percentage of large family renters increased substantially. The increased availability of rental units may explain the increase in large family renters. (See Table VII-1 .) TABLE VII-l: NUMBER AND PERCENT OF LARGE FAMILIES BY TENURE 1980 Census 1990 CensUS Number Percent Number Percent Owner Occupied 2,639 18.4 3,971 16.8 Renter Occupied 84 3.1 1.123' 11.2 2,723 16.0 5,094 15.1 Source: 1980 md 1990 Cw.s~s According to the Census, only 9.8 percent of renters are large families. However, 45.3 percent of large family renters pay more than 30 percent of their income for housing. (See Table VII-2). Further, 36.3 percent of large family renters live in overcrowded quarters. (See Table VII-3). However, according to the Housing Authority of San Bernardino County, resources to assist large family households are extremely limited. Where feasible, resources should be directed to assist large families. DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT'TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE VII o 6 TABLE VII-2: PERCENT TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS WITHI~ EACH FAMILY CATEGORY 0-30 HAMFI 31-50 HAMFI 51-80 HAMFI 81-95 HAMFI TOTAL Renter >:30 >50 >30 >50 >34} >50 >30 >50 >30 >5~ Elderly 34 27 18 15.2 17.1 2.5 3.1 1.I 74.7 45.8 Small 6.4 6.1 8.8 7.9 14.5 2.8 4.6 0.2 41.3 17.4 Large 5.9 3.6 8.3 8.3 24.8 5.0 3.3 0.0 45.3 17.0 Other 4.2 4.2 7.2 6.4 13.9 4.6 6.2 0.4 39.4 15.8 Total 7.5 6.6 8.8 7.9 15.6 3.6 4.9 0.3 43.3 18.7 Owner Elderly 7.5 6.9 10.2 5.4 6.8 2.9 1.1 0.3 32 16 Other 1.5 1.4 2.1 1.8 4.2 2.3 3.7 1.4 37.6 9.6 Total 2.1 2.0 3.0 2.2 4.4 2.4 3.4 1.3 37 10.3 Som~e: CHAS Databook Tabt- s TABLE VII-3: PERCENT INCIDENCE OF OVERCROWDING BY INCOME GROUP Renters Total 0-30 31-50 51-80 Total 10, 1 16.2 10,8 14.5 Large 36.3 77.1 60.0 35.6 Owners Total 3.0 3.7 6.6 7.7 Other Than 3.4 5.7 11.6 11.7 Elderly Source: CHA5 Dassbook Table 8 DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE VII - 7 D. FEMALE-HEADED HOUSEHOLDS A mother with her own children constitutes a female-headed household. According to the 1990 Census 2238 households (7 percent of all households) are female-headed. Another 2.2 percent of all households are male-headed. Thus 9.2 percent of all households are single-parent families. In comparison the 1980 Census counted 5.9 percent for all single-parent households of which 4.6 percent were female-headed. In 1990, the mean income for female-headed households in the City was $27,813. Female-beaded households have substantially less income than other household categories. For comparison, the mean income for male, single-parent households was $34,781 and the mean family income for married couples with their own children was $59,366. However, approximately the same number of single parent households and two parent households fell below the poverty level. According to the Census, poverty level is based on the national average income and was at or below $12,674 for a family of four in 1990. The incomes of 384 female-headed households and 65 male-headed households, totaling 449 single-parent households with children under 18 years of age, fell below poverty level. In comparison 385 married families with children under 18 years of age fell below poverty level. In addition to housing assistance, it is masonable to assume that all households which fall below the poverty level are in need of social service assistance, including childcare and healthcare, and that many need assistance with education and job tralhing. It is also reasonable tO assume that a high proportion of poverty level households, particularly single-parent households, are at risk of homelessness. E. A homeless individual is an unaccompanied youth (17 years or younger) or an adult (18 years of older) without children. A homeless family includes at least one parent or guardian and one child under the age of 18, a homeless pregnant woman, or a homeless person in the process of securing legal custody of a person under the age of 18. The living situation of the homeless is described as either "sheltered" or "unsheltered." DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE VII - 8 TABLE VII-4: PERCENTAGE COMPARISON OF THREE HOMELESS SURVEYS FOR THE WEST END AND RANCHO CUCAMONGA West End Raneho Cucamon~a Factors Feb 92 Nov 92 May 92} Feb 92 Nov 92 May 93 # Homeless 785 413 329 156 39 25 Male 59% 53% 80% 65% 67% 96% Female 41% 47% 20% 28% 33% 4% Children 34% 443% - 26% 23% -- Ethnicity Black 13% 12% 26% 3% 3% 16% White 40% 46% 29% 21% 38% 16% Hispanic 45% 38% 27% 38% 56% 60% Native AM 1% 3% 5% 1% 0 4% Asian/Pl 0 1% 5% 0 0 0 Unk 2% 5% 37% 3% 4% Age 0-5 13% 20 0 0 0 0 5-18 22% 20% -- 26% 23% -- 18+ 65% 60% - 66% 77% - Not in School 27% 19% - - 33% - Where Slept RltvrFriends 26% 31% 18% 31% - 36% Motl/Shelter 39% :34% 18% 0 - 9% Car/Van/Etc 16% I 1% 12% 28% -- 5% Vacant BId 8% 4% 0 19% -- 0 Outside 10% 20% 36% 14% -- 36% Other 0 - 15% 8% -- 14% Reasons Nos Lost Job 213 110 70 n/a n/a n/a HIness 57 46 46 n/a n/a n/a Evicted 118 136 51 n/a n/a n/a Moved/No Work 70 40 13 n/a n/a n/a Lost Benefits 30 26 10 n/a n/a n/a Asked to Leave 78 91 12 n/a n/a n/a Alcohol/Drug 209 54 58 n/a n/a n/a Dom Violence 28 15 n/a n/a n/a n/a Rental Sold or 14 18 4 n/a n/a n/a Condemned So,.m:e: ~ 1992 and November 1992 Sm Benmdino Cmmty Homleless C. odition Surveys ~nd May 1993 California State Polyt~,hn~ Univemty Survey. DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUS1NG ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE VII - 9 In April 1990, the Census identi~ed 26 persons living on the street in the City. Subsequently, three homeless surveys have been conducted. The San Bemardino County Homeless Coalition survey in February 1992 counted 156 persons. They conducted another survey in November 1992 and counted 39 persons. In May 1993 The Center for Community Affairs from Cal Poly, Pomona, counted 25 persons. (See Table VII-4.) In comparing homeless counts in the City, the February 1992 count appears to be an anomaly. In all surveys single, male, Hispanics were the largest group represented, apparently a residual effect from the time agricultural labor camps were located in the City. In recent years, day laborers have congregated in the same general area. Hispanic males are most likely to stay overnight in extended family networks or sleep in open fields. No children were counted by the Census and none in the May 1993 survey. However, children were identified in two of the four surveys. School was an issue, because children when encountered by surveyors were not enrolled. According to school authorities, short term transient enrollment occurs and is a concern. Mothers with children are inferred to be a significant group, which would most likely seek shelter. On a case-by-case basis emergency shelter is provided by local churches and charitable organizations primarily through the use of vouchers. A limited number of spaces are provided to victims of domestic violence by the House of Ruth. Few such shelters and homeless outreach organizations serve Rancho Cucamonga and the West End of San Bernardino County. A summary of assistance giverl by the twelve organized homeless programs is listed in Table VII-5. To reiterate, the homeless slept where they could, for example, outside, with a friend or relative, in a motel or shelter, or in a car. They were on the street as a result of one or more events, including job loss, alcohol or drug problems, eviction, and domestic violence. At high risk of homelessness are families earning less than 30 pement of the San Bemardino Riverside PMSA median income who pay more than 30 percent of their income for housing and are without a safety net of assistance, such as federal Section 8 housing vouchers. According to the San Bemardino Housing Authority there are far more applicants eligible for assistance than there are available resources. DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE VII - 10 TABLE VII-5: SURVEY SUMMARY OF CLIENTS ASSISTED f'~C.~.aAM tit ASSISTED F'~RCB'~I' BRF_.N~)OWN ANNUAL ~ SAF ~ 2P ~ ~ ~ E AID ME & DV AIDS RC TOTAL WICH W~H AID Calholic Char 12.5 25 25 12.5 0 0 6.25 6.25 6.25 6.25 6.25 :First Baptist 3496 3 4 23 65 5 ~ 286 20 22 4 2 I 0 0 2 30 14 5 0 0 1 e8 15 0 0 0 0 12 0 4 0 29 13 44 11 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pomona Vally 6428 0 14 73 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Council of 100 Churches 19284 4 2 30 0 7 26 31 0 0 0 0 0 House of Ruth 589 1 O0 15 4~ 25 75 10 90 100 25 75 100 O~ralion Shaf 1000 ......................... ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ;=:::::::::~:~:~ ~=~;~ ~ ~::~:~::' Questwa~d 2589 20 15 60 5 Foundation · Sa~atlon Arm 102 24 58 18 DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE VII - 11 TABLE VII-5 CONT PROGRN~ Re ASSISTED PERCENT BREAKDOWN RC TOTAL W/CH W/CH AID St. Marks White Dove Shelter Habilal For Perm Hs 100 Humanity S.B. County 718 Homeless Menlaity III Pgm SAM- Single Adult Male; SAF-Single Adult Fema SPW/CH-Single Parenl with Children; 2PWICH- Two Parent Family With Children; AC-Adull Couples without Children; SMY-Stngle Male Youth Under 18; SPfSingle Female Youth Under 18 ME-Menlally III; A/D-Alcohol/Olher Drug Addicled Only; ME & A/D-Mentally III and Alcohol/Other Drug Addlcled DV-Domestic Violence; AIDA-Diagnosed wilh AIDS or Related Diseases. DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX 'PAGE VII - 12 F. L2ARMWQ.RKERS According to the 1990 Census, there were 357 persons working in farming, forestry, and fishing occupations, or less than 1 percent of the 50,963 total number of employed persons living in the City. There is no information by which to desegregate farmworkers from the category "persons working in farming, forestry, and fishing." Based on the absence of agricultural production in the City, it is assumed that there are very few such jobs. Citrus and vineyard agriculture was declining at the time of the City's incorporation. There is no agricultural zone in the City. A few orchards and vineyards remain in production during the transition years before urban buildout. As a consequence of the small population and rapidly declining agricultural production, no statistical need for housing has been identified for farmworkers. DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE VII - 13 HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX VIII. ENERGY CONSERVATION OPPORTUNITIES Section 6583 (a)(7) of the Government Code requires "an analysis of opportunities for energy conservation with respect to residential development." Following are the highlights of this section. · The City's Development Code requires that landscaping and irrigation be designed to conserve water and energy. · Enforcement of State energy requirements (Title 24), including 1.6 gallon flush toilets, is part of the building plan check process. · Optional development standards encourage energy conservation appliances and features and an alternative solar energy system in appropriate situations. · Solar access rights were incorporated into the Development Code in 1984. · Water and energy conservation requirements serve to reduce monthly utility bills and therefore, contribute to the affordability of housing. A. XERISCAPE REOUIREMENTS On April 17, 1990, the City Council adopted a Xeriscape ordinance and guidelines. The Development Code (Section 17.02.135 (1)) requires development in the City to design landscaping and irrigation to conserve water. The means to do this is primarily through use of drought tolerant plant materials and existing technology, such as drip and U'iclde irrigation. Single family homes, except model home, are exempted from the requirement, but the developer must provide educational materials about xefiscape landscaping to potential buyers. As stated in Section VI, water consumption in the City has decreased during the past five years, partly as a result of educational efforts by the City and others. Water and energy consumption should increasingly reflect results due to the Xeriscape ordinance. The City's Building and Safety and Development Codes are in compliance with Title 24. The California Energy Commission has established and adopted energy improvement specifications for both single family and multiple family structures under four stories. These specifications require both active and passive energy features for all residential developments. As of January 1, 1993, the requirement for 1.6 gallon flush toilets was added to previous Title 24 requirements, such as installation of ceiling insulation. The City of Rancho Cucamonga's Building and Safety Division enforces State adopted Energy requirements for Climate Zone 9. C. DEVELOPMENT CODE In addition to the state requirements, the City incorporated passive and active solar energy requirements into the Development Code in 1984. Under the City's optional development standards (Table 17.08-040-C) increased density may be awarded for energy conservation design above the minimum requirement. To qualify under the optional development standard the project must meet the requirements listed in Section 17.08.040 (H) as follows: 1. New residential development shall be provided with an alternative energy system to provide domestic hot water for all dwelling units and for heating any swimming pool or spa. Solar energy shall be the primary energy system unless other alternative energy systems are demonstrated to be of equivalent capacity and efficiency. 2. All appliances and fixtures shall be energy conserving (e.g., reduced consumption shower heads, water conserving toilets, etc.) In addition, a solar access requirement is included in the Development Code (SeCtion 17.08.060 (G)). For example the casting of shadows by vegetation, structures, fixtures, or any other object shall be precluded. The provisions encourage the placement of residential structures to take advantage of shade and prevailing breezes. The ideal orientation for most of the City places the long axis of the house just east of due south. Finally, tree plantings are required in all residential axeas, not only for their beauty, but also for their utility in providing shade, cooling, screening, and air filtering (Section 17.08.040 (F). The aforementioned provisions encourage energy conservation in a context of flexibility and creativity in residential building design. Because they tend to reduce the cost of monthly utility bills, they contribute to the affordability of housing. DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE VIII - 2 HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX IX. STUDY OF UNITS AVAILABLE TO LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS AT RISK OF CONVERTING TO MARKET RATE PRIOR TO. JUNE 30, 2004 Consistent with California Government Code Section 65583, the City must complete a study of the units at risk of converting to market rate. The study must include units-at-risk during the next two five-year Housing Element update periods. The first five year period extends from July 1, 1994, to June 30, 1999. The second from July 1, 1999, to June 30, 2004. This section incorporates the required study of units-at-risk with emphasis on the 1994-1999 period. Following are the highlights of the units-at-risk study: · Of a total of 314 units restricted to low income households in Rancho Cucamonga identified as at risk of conversion to market rate prior to June 30, 1999. All the units-at-risk were produced by private owner participation in multi-family lower interest bond financing programs and are under 10 year regulatory agreements. As of Jtme 30, 1994, the City of Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency (Agency) had executed an owner-Agency agreement to preserve the affordability of 46 units-at-risk for a period of 30 years. The goal of the Agency is to conserve 268 units-at-risk between July 1, 1994 and June 30, 1999. · Funding resources for conservation or replacement of units-at-risk are primarily limited to the Agency's housing set-aside fund. Approximately 623 million will be available for all affordable housing production and conservation during the period July 1, 1994 and June 30, 1999. · Five programs are recommended for conservation of identified units-at-risk: Program 1. Contact owners; Program 2. Assist owners of with analysis of conservation options; Program 3. Assist private nonprofit agencies with purchase; Program 4. Enter into agreements with owners for conservation; and Program 5. Agency purchase, or assistance with purchase, of projects which include units-at-risk. Consistent with State requirements, this study includes the following pans: A. Inventory of restricted low income residential units in tFxe City and identification of those at risk of conversion to market-rate; B. Analysis of the costs of preserving and/or replacing the units-at-risk; C. Analysis of the organizational and financial resources available for preserving and/or replacing the units-at-risk; D. Quantified objectives for the number of units-at-risk to be preserved; E. Programs for preserving the units-at-risk. A. INVENTORY OF UNITS-AT-RISK This section identifies the low income units at risk of converting to market rate for prior to June 30, 1999 (Table IX-l) and from July 1, 1999 to June 30, 2004 (Table IX-2). By law, this inventory must include all multiple-family units which are assisted under a variety of federal, state, and/or local programs, including the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) programs, State and local bond progranls, redevelopment agency programs, and local programs, including but not limited to: in-lieu fees, density bonus, or direct assistance. The inventoried units are those eligible to change to market rate housing due to termination of subsidy contract, mortgage prepayment, or expiring use restrictions. The inventory was compiled by the Planning Division through interviews with the Redevelopment Agency, the San Bemardino County Department of Economic and Community Development (Debra MacGavin), the California Housing and Community Development Department (Linda Wheaton), and review of "Inventory of Fedemily Subsidized Low-Income Rental Units at RIsk of Conversion" prepared by the California Housing Pannership Corporation. All of the units at risk of conversion to market rate prior to June 30, 1999 were restricted through regulatory agreements between owners and the County of San Bernardino Depat hnent of Economic and Community Development for participation in the County's mortgage revenue bond program. Affordable units were restricted for a period of 10 years. The level of assistance of these units is set to benefit low income families earning 80%, or less, of the median income for San Bernardino-RIverside. The rent rates must be at or below 80% of the median income for a family of four. Units at risk of converting to market rate after July 1, 1999, were assisted by the the City of Rancho Cucamonga, State bond financing, and HUD. Affordable units were restricted for 30 to 40 year periods. DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE IX - 2 TABLE IX-I: UNITS-AT-RISK PRIOR TO JUNE 30, 1999 PROJECT NAME OWNER NAME TYPE LENGTH/ EARLIEST # UNITS TOTAL TYPE BEDROOM DATE CONDITION ADDRESS ADDRESS OF TYPE OF DATE END SUBJECT # UNITS TENANT- MIX BUILT ZIP CODE PHONE GOV'T. GOV'T. CONTROL* TO IN ELDERLY ASSIST. CONTROL CONTROL PROJECT FAMILY Parkview Place Apts. Western Properties 1156 housing l0 yrs. reg. 5/95 30 152 family 32 Studio 1985 Excellent 10930 Terra Vista N. Mountain Upland CA review agreement 40 I BR Pkwy 91786 bond 80 2 BR 91730 Mt. View Apts. Western Properties housing 10 yrs. reg. 9/95 54 270 family 203 2 BR 1985 Excellent 10935 Terra Vista 1156 N. Mountain review agreement 67 3 BR Pkwy. Upland bond 91730 AIta Park Apts. Lincoln Properties housing l0 yrs. reg. 5/97 79 396 family 210 I BR 1987 Excellent 10400 Arrow Rte. : 4675 MacArthur Ct., review agreement 166 2 BR 91730 #350 bond (909) 945-5588 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Sycamore Terrace Western Rroperties I 156 housing 10 yrs. reg. 5/96 · 26 128 family 48 I BR 1986 Excellent 10855 Terra Vista N. Mountain Upland CA review agreement 80 2 BR Pkwy. 91786 bond 91730 Evergreen Apts Western Properties 1156 housing I 0 yrs. reg. 5/97 79 393 family 72 I BR 1987 Excellent 10730 Church N. Mountain Upland CA review agreement 263 2 BR 91730 91786 bond 58 3 BR TOTAL UNITS 268 1,339 DECEMBER 1994 PRELIMINARY DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE IX - 3 TABLE IX-2: UNITS-AT-RISK FROM JULY 1, 1999 AND THEREAFTER PROJECT NAME OWNER NAME TYPE OF LENGTH/ EARLIEST # UNITS TOTAL TYPE BEDROOM DATE CONDITION ADDRESS ADDRESS GOV'T. TYPE OF DATE END SUBJECT # UNITS TENANT- MIX BUILT ZIP CODE PHONE ASSIST. GOV'T. CONTROL* TO IN ELDERLY CONTROL CONTROL PROJECT FAMILY Woodhaven Manor Woodhaven Manor CHFA 40 yrs. Reg. 2003 I 17 117 family 80 2 BR 1983 Excellent Apts. 5757 Wilshire BIvd, Suite Revenue Agreement 37 3 BR 6230 Haven Ave. 670 Bonds 91701 Los Angeles, CA 90036 Don Miguel Apts. Fredticks Dev Corp 221(D) 40 yrs. Reg. 2004 40 200 family 94 I BR 1982 Excellent 9850 19th St. Don Miguel Invest. (4) Agreement 106 2 BR 91730 18 Brook Hollow Dr Santa Aria 92705 Rudolph Hendrickson Casa La Vida Assoc St. 15 yrs. Dev. 2002 168 168 elderly 78 I BR 1987 Excellent Apts 6826 Faircove Dr. housing Agreement 90 2 BR 6628 Amethyst Rancho Palos Verdes, CA overlay 91730 90274 TOTAL UNITS 395 485 NOTE: THE FOLLOWING UNITS WILL BE AT RISK IN 2005 Heritage Park Apts. Shearson/Calmark Sr. 20 yrs. 2005 163 233 elderly 176 I BR 1985 Excellent 9601 Lomita Ct. Heritage Park Ltd. Housing Dev. 57 2 BR 91730 4675 MacA~hur Ct., Overlay Agreement #350 Newport Beach, CA 92660 DECEMBER 1994 PRELIMINARY DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE IX - 4 B. ANALYSIS OF PRESERVING OR REPLACING UNITS AT RISK The following discussion exanaines the cost of preserving units at risk and the cost of producing new rental units comparable in size and rent levels as replacement f6r units which convert to market rate. The discussion also includes a comparison of the costs of replacement and new production. Preservation Costs The cost of preserving units includes purchase costs, any rehabilitation costs, and the costs of maintenance. The condition, age, and maintenance record of housing play a major role in rehabilitation and maintenance costs. The subject units are all no more than 10 years old and are well-maintained. The accepted standard for major rehabilitation is 30 years or more. Based upon this standard, and based upon the good condition of the projects, it is unlikely than any major rehabilitation would be required in the next five years. Thus, rehabilitation costs for the projects are considered negligible. Maintenance costs are likely to be low for all projects given their young age. Therefore, maintenance costs would be covered by building income. Based upon a review of assessed values and comparable sales, the average per unit market value of the existing units is estimated to be between $70,000 and $80,090. The midpoint is $75,000 per unit. There has been no recent market activity to generate current comparable sales in the City and surrounding area, therefore the market value was estimated using data from a City of Ontario study ("Inventory of Affordable Multiple-Family Units at Risk of Converting to Market Rate, June, 1992", p.3 and the Redevelopment Agency's "draft Affordable Housing Strategy, April, 1990," p. C-10.) Recent loans by the Redevelopment Agency indicate a range of values available in the current depressed real estate market. During 1993-1994 the Agency conserved 46 units-at-risk with a loan of $3,750,000, or approximately $81,522 per conserved unit and assisted the acquisition of 104 restricted, affordable units with a loan of $4,888,500, or $47,000 per unit. Therefore, in actuality the Redevelopment Agency has effectively provided 100 percent of the funding for the conservation or acquisition of restricted, affordable units at an average cost of $57,000 per unit. Table IX-3 lists the estimated market value of units-at-risk for each project with units-at-risk prior to 1999. DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE IX - 5 TABLE IX-3: ESTIMATED MARKET VALUE OF UNITS AT RISK ESTIMATED MARKET PROJECT' VALUE" Parkview Place $2,250,000 30 restricted units Mr. View Apt's. $4,050,000 54 restricted units Pepperwood Apt's. $3,450,000 46 restricted units * * * Alta Park Apt's. $5,925,000 79 restricted units Sycamore Terrace $1,950,000 26 restricted units Evergreen Apt's. $5,925,000 79 restricted units Source: Planning Division · all projects are located within the City's Redevelopment area · * estimated average market value = $75,000 per unit · ** 46 units conserved in 1993 for $3,750,000, or $47,000 per unit. DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE IX - 6 E IX-4: LAND COST MULT!-!~AI%fiLY LAND 8ALE8 SINCE 1985 IIANCHO CUCAI~IONGA AND ONTARIO 5aka Approved tinit l~a,siiy Sales P/ic~ Sales Pric~ Saks hicc Da/.: of Sit= Ackl/~s Actt~s Price ~ Jails '!~'pl: (,l)lJ'?'Acv¢~ _ .Per tJnil Pet SF , Per Ac~e Z;,ni~ Sale__ I. Arrow R~ule., W. ofllav~n 10.69 $4,650,0110 248 Cm~dos 2~.2 $18.750 $9.99 $,134,986 Mt[ Jan-88 Rallcho Cucama,lga 2. Arrow R~ult, E of Atchihld 1.18 $1,100,000 NiA N/A NiA N/A $7.94 Pdm~ho Cuc~mnuga $345,911 RM ltd. 3. "D" SI.. W. of Corona St 15.06 $4,650,000 240 Condos 159 S19,375 $7.I)9 $308,765 RZ ~:10-89 Oalafio 4. t~zmw l~mc, E. of I~akcr 0.86 $260,000 N/A NtA N,'A N/A $6 94 S302,312 M Sc1~-~9 I'~acho Cu~amonSa 5. NEC Millikcn & Bascli~ 20.20 $5,120,000 368 Condos 18.2 S1~.913 $.5.82 $253,46.5 CPC No~'-89 Raaclso ~onSa 6. Vialore Park Ln, N of Baa~!ine 7.74 $1,975,000 124 Ap~ 16.0 S15,927 $5.86 $255,168 VPC Rancho Cm~monga 7. Turner, S. of 4aa Si. 17.69 $6,979.000 297 Condos 16.8 S23.498 $9.1~5 $394,517 SP I )cc,-89 Onuno S,. 601SI. N. of I- 10 Fwy., 2.43 $940.000 40 Cornlos 16.5 S2J,500 $8.88 $386,831 P,3 Feb-90 IM ol' Vira~inla COndaS Onlano Avl:tag¢ (8 Sales) 9.71 220 17.8 $19.161 17.70 $t15,246 Av~:fo~RaachoCuc,(SS4fl~} 8.5:i 247 19.1 $16,197 S7.31 $318,371 Avo/ag~ for Onlafio (3 Salt:s) I I.Til - 192 16.4 $O..2,124 $834 $363,171 Source: COMPS Incot~oraled; David Patti Ros~n & Asaooial~s DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT'TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE IX - 7 Table IX-5: UNIT REPLACEMENT COST MULTI-FAMILY CONDOMINIUM UNITS UNIT SQ. FT. 830 1,000 1,400 BEDROOM/BATHROOM 2/2 2/2 3/2.5 LAND $ 9,000 $ 9,000 $ 9,000 OFF-SITE COSTS $17,000 $17,000 $17,000 ON-SITE COSTS $37,848 $42,750 $56,420 SOFT COSTS $20,128 $24,250 $33,950 TOTAL $83,976 $93,000 $116,370 NOTES: * Virtually all apartments are now built as condominium units. · Land cost is mid-point of estimated range from $6-12,000 an acre, assuming 14 units per acre. · On-site costs do not include building permits, fees, nor landscaping and fencing. (See Section VI, Table VI-I: Residential Development Fees which are calculated for a 1,265 square foot unit at $17,738.) · Soft Costs include indirect construction, financing, sales commissions, marketing, carry, warranty, and administrative costs. Source: Lewis Homes and City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Development Depanment DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE IX - 8 Unit Replacement Cost The cost of developing new housing depends upon a variety of factors including but not limited to density, number of bedrooms, location, land costs, and type of construction. In general, land costs in Southern Califomia are quite high. Table IX-4, Land Cost, reflects a variety of land costs comparable to sites in Rancho Cucamonga at 1988-1990 levels. Land costs have decreased during the last four years, but vary from parcel to parcel. Table IX-5, Unit Replacement Cost, provides a range of costs estimates depending on unit size for multi-family rental housing. Based on the range in Table IX-5, it would cost between $83,976 and $116,370, plus fees, to construct one new multiple-family housing unit. For the identified 268 remaining units-at-risk, new construction would range between $26 million and $36 million total cost to replace all the units at risk of conversion to market rate prior to 1999. The capital required varies from a state or federal insured mortgage of 5% of project value to a conservative private lending requirement of 30% of project value. Therefore, in theory a capital investment of between $I .3 million and $10.8 million would be required. At 100 percent of funding up to $36 million would be required. Comparison of Preservation vs. Replacement Costs Preservation of units-at-risk is more effective than new construction. In 1993 the Redevelopment Agency invested $3,750,000 or $81,521 per unit to preserve. 46 units-at-risk. Also in 1993, the Agency contributed $4,888,500 toward acquisition of an existing apartment complex which resulted in restriction of 104 affordable units at $47,000 per unit. In comparison, in 1994 the Agency entered into participation agreements for development of a $15,500,000 large family apartment complex yielding 88 restricted, affordable large family apartments at $176, 136 per unit. Other factors also make preservation of units-at-risk preferable to new development. Consistent with the General Plan, the existing units are scattered throughout market rate housing available in the community. Further, existing units have been accepted in the neighborhoods where they exist. City policy directs that affordable housing be dispersed throughout the City at a ratio not greater than 40 percent of the total units in a project. Because the 268 units-at- risk are already integrated into the community, preservation is recommended over replacement. Preservation or replacement of units-at-risk is incorporated into the Housing Production Plan of the City's Redevelopment Agency. (See Section X.) As required by State law the Agency must provide a minimum of 15% affordable units for all new housing construction in the redevelopment area. The Agency's requirement is a total of 1,709 affordable units prior to June 30, 1999, including the remaining 268 units-at-risk identified in this study. Therefore, the Agency's goal is conservation of all units-at-risk of conversion to market rate. DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE IX - 9 C. AVAILABLE RESOURCES FOR CONSERVATION AND/OR REPLACEMENT OF UNITS-AT-RISK This section examines the resources for preserving and/or replacing units-at-risk in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Resources for preserving units-at-risk include public and private agencies. Funding sources are the primary resource for conservation and are summarized below: * Owner refinancing as allowed under terms of the County's bond program; * Owner re~nancing under a City bond program; * Sale to non-profit entities with the interest and ability to purchase and/or manage affordable housing units; * Sale to public entities with the interest and ability to purchase and/or manage affordable housing units; * Redevelopment Agency funding to purchase, or assist in purchase, of existing units, or to develop replacement units; * Redevelopment Agency investment in projects which have affordable units in exchange for preservation of affordability restrictions. County of San Bernardino Bond Program On a case by case basis, the County of San Bernardino bond programs have structured their regulatory agreement to permit refmancing with an extension of the term of affordability. Current low interest rates make re~nancing a viable option. Therefore, where this option exists, it should be encouraged. City Bond Program When the City reached a population of 50,000 it exercised its option to directly receive state and federal grants, including Community Development Block Grants. By becoming an "entitlement city," Rancho Cucamonga became ineligible to participate in the County's multiple-family bond program for affordable housing. However, the City gained the right to institute a local bond financing program. Bond programs can be instituted on a project by project basis. This option is typically used as a leveraging strategy in conjunction with private fmancing. It is contingent upon the availability of state and federal funds. DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEI~IENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE IX - l0 Private non-profit agencies. Two non-profit agencies are working with the Redevelopment Agency and two others have expressed interest in future cooperation with the City to construct, purchase, and/or manage low income homing traits. Other nonprofit agencies are expected to express interest and work with the City on affordable housing development. Agencies identified at this time are discussed below. Southern California Housing Development CorpOratiOn. This organization was incorporated in 1992 for the purpose of acquiring, constructing, maintaining, and/or managing homing units for low income homeholds. An office is located at 10300 4th Street, Suite 220, Rancho Cucamonga, 91730. (Contact JeffBarum (909) 483-2444.) Southern California HDC, with assistance from the Redevelopment Agency, has acquired Rancho Verde Village, 8837 Grove Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga. This is a 240 unit multiple family development which will offer 104 restricted, affordable units. The Redevelopment Agency has committed 1.8 million a year for 30 years to Southern California HDC for the acquisition of affordable housing. Southern California HDC, with funding commitments from the Redevelopment Agency, is also working in partnership with the Northtown HCD. Northtown Housin~ Development Corporatiorl. The Redevelopment Agency assisted members of the Northtown neighborhood with the formation of a 501(c)(3) non-profit in 1993. The temporary address for the Northtown HDC is City Hall. The purpose of the organization is to establish, maintain, and operate homing units for low income households in the Northtown Neighborhood of Rancho Cucamonga. (Contact Nacho Gracia (909) 980-0465.) In 1994 the Northtown HDC began development of Villa del None, an 88 unit family complex featuring three, four, and five bedroom apartments located at 9901 Feron Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga. Greater Pomona Valley Housing Development Cornoration. The Greater Pomona Valley Housing development Corporation is a 501 (c)(3) non-profit founded in 1972. The purpose of the organization is to establish, maintain, and operate homing units for low income homeholds. (Contact Linda Church at (909) 620-7090). Greater Pomona Valley HDC established Emerson Village, located at 755 N. Palomares, Pomona, 91767. Emerson Village offers165 units for low income seniors. Greater Pomona Valley HDC established Access Village lbcated at 1730 N. Towne Avenue, Claremont, 91711. Access Village serves 24 low income handicapped households. Most units are occupied by single person households. DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE IX - 11 National Housin~ MiniStries. The aforementioned units are managed by National Housing Ministries, a 501(c)(3) non-profit, incorporated in Pennsylvania. Their local address is 415 E. Harvard, Suite 104, Glendale, 91205, (Contact Sly Morgan at (818) 246-1630). National Housing Ministries was founded in 1967 by ,~-nerican Baptist Homes. The organization manages 15 other complexes in southern California. In addition the organization participates in new project development, as well as acquisition and rehabilitation of existing market rate units. In addition, according to information distributed by the State Department of Housing and Community Development, there is one other non-profit agency operating locally which has expressed an interest in purchasing and/or managing low income senior housing units in western San Bemardino County and is discussed below. Southem Califomia Presbyterian Homes (SCPH) The SCPH was founded in 1955 as a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation by the Presbytery of Los Angeles. The primary purpose of this organization is to establish, maintain, and operate homes for the care of the aged. SCPH has developed 12 retirement communities for sehior citizens, and operates six low-income independent living facilities for senior citizens and the handicapped. One facility is Sycamore Terrace, located in Upland. Built with Department of Housing and Community Development (HUD) funds, this facility has 100 one-bedroom units, including nine units for handicapped residents. Public Agencies Due both to the high cost of purchasing and developing housing and the limitations on use of funds, financing for preserving, replacing, and/or maintaining units-at-risk will likely have to include multiple sources. The following funding sources have been identified for use in purchasing the units-at-risk in Rancho Cucamonga. It should be noted that new funding sources will become available over time and that the following discussion does not represent an exhaustive inventory of funding sources. The Redevelonment Agency: State law requires redevelopment agencies to set aside at least 20 percent of tax increment revenues for increasing and improving the commurdty's supply of low and moderate income housing, unless certain findings are made to exempt a project from the requirement. The Agency is committed to participating in preservation and/or replacement of units at risk. County of San Bemardino Department of Economic and Community Development: Because the City elected to become an "entitlement city," County sponsored bond funding is not available to development projects within the City. DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELE/vlENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE IX - 12 San Bernardino County_ Housing Authority (SBCHA): The SBCHA serves as the local Housing Authority and currently operates over 5,000 Section 8 housing units and has developed, or is in the process of developing, approximately 151 affordable units. SBCHA currently owns 16 single family homes within the City and rents them to qualified households at affordable rents. Five of these single family homes were purchased in 1994 for $600,000, or an average of $120,000 each. The SBCHA has expressed an interest in purchasing and managing multi-family units which would otherwise lose their subsidized status. However, at this time the SBCHA has no funds to purchase such units from a private developer. California Denartment of Housing and Community Development: No state sponsored bond funding is available for the construction of new multi-family rental housing as of January 28, 1993. Subject to future legislative appropriations or ballot measures, funds may become available in the future. (Contact: John Atha (916) 327 2864). U.S. Denartment of Housing and Urban Development: Subject to annual appropriations, the federal department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides financial incentives necessary for acquisition of federally subsidized, at-risk projects by non-profit organizations, tenants, and local governments. HUD incentives include the following: * Project-based Section 8 contracts, for example, Woodhaven Manor Apartments, provide subsidy for rents set at levels high enough to provide an eight percent return to owners who retain the project. * Grants to non-profit buyers that would fill any gap between fair market rent or local market rent (whichever is higher) and allowable rents. * Mortgage insurance both for equity take-out loans and acquisition loans. Insured equity take- out loans are limited to 70 percent of equity, while acquisition loans are available at 95 percent of equity. Community Develonment Block Grant: Through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG). program, HUD provides grants and loans to local govemments for funding a wide range of community development activities. CDBG resources are limited. Available funds are committed to neighborhood preservation and rehabilitation of existing single family housing stock for low income homeowners. DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE IX - 13 The City's block grant for Fiscal Year 1993-94 was $800,000. The City committed approximately 30% percent ($242,000) to existing owner-occupied rehabilitation programs. Another $10,370 was committed to homeless support service programs. The remaining funds were programed for capital improvements which benefit lower income persons, a variety of public services bene~ting lower income persons, and administrative costs. Therefore, CDBG funds are not available, or directly .applicable, at this time for the units-at-risk program. Redevelopmerit Agency funding The City of Rancho Cucamonga's Redevelopment Agency is the primary funding resource for conservation or replacement of units at risk of conversion to market rote through their 20% set-aside fund. The 268 identified units-at-risk represent approximately 20 percent of the Agency's mandated affordable housing production requirement. The Agency's affordable housing set-aside fund will total approximately $23 million for the period July 1, 1994 through June 30, 1999. Most of these funds are committed to acquisition and construction of new affordable units. As discussed above, during 1993 Agency funds were used to conserve 46 units-at-risk. On a case by case basis Agency funds will continue to be used for conservation of units-at-risk. D. OUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES FOR PRESERVING OR REPLACING UNITS- AT-RISK The goal of the City of Rancho Cucamonga is to conserve all restricted, affordable units-at-risk of conversion to market rote. Consistent with the City's go~d, the objective of this study is conservation of 268 units at risk of conversion to market rate between July 1, 1994 and June 30, 1999 and conservation of 325 units at risk of conversion to market rate between July 1, 1999 and June 30, 2004. Consistent with the Housing Production Plan, the Redevelopmerit Agency assumes the primary responsibility for conservation of units-at-risk. E. PROGRAMS FOR PRESERVING OR REPLACING UNITS-AT-RISK Programs for preservation or replacing units-at-risk for the period July 1, 1994 through June 30, 1999 and for the period July 1, 1999 through June 30, 2004, are discussed below. July 1, 1994 through June 30, 1999. Consistent with the Housing Production Plan the Redevelopment Agency shall implement the following programs in order to conserve 268 restricted, affordable units-at-risk during this reporting period: DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE IX - 14 Program 1: Contact owners ofunits-at-~sk: The agency shall keep in regular contact with the owners of the projects with units due to convert to market rate prior to June 30, 1999 to determine the status of projects with respect to expiration ofregulatory agreements. Further, the Agency shall indicate to the owners a continuing commitment to work with owners to preserve units-at-risk affordable to low income households. At the same time, Government Code section 65863.10 and 65863.11 requires owners of these affordable housing units to keep the City and tenants informed of the status of the units at least one year in advance of the conversion date. Implementation This program is underway. During 1992, the Agency contacted the owners of all projects at risk of conversion to market rate prior to 1999. Contact between the Agency and owners is ongoing and shall continue on not less than an annual basis. Program 2: Assist owners of units-at-risk with analysis of conserv~ati0n. The Agency shall discuss with owners a variety of options :to retain restricted affordable units, including but not limited to the following: * Encouraging owners who have the contractual option of extending the regulato~ agreement under the bond program to do so. * Identifying financial and organizational resources available to preserve these units; and, * Assisting interested nonprofit agencies and tenants groups in forming partnerships and gaining access to financial and technical assistance resources. Implementation This program is underway. During 1992, the Agency contacted owners of all units at risk and discussed options for retaining restricted affordable units. Contact between the Agency and owners is ongoing and shall continue on not less than an annual basis. Program 3: Assist private non-profit agencies with nurchase of units-at-risk The Agency shall maintain regular contact with private non-profit agencies interested in purchasing and/or managing units-at-risk, including but not limited to 501(c)(3) Housing Development Corporations. On a case by case basis, the Agency shall provide technical assistance to these organizations with respect to organization and financing. DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE IX - 15 Implementation This program is underway. The Agency has developed a list of interested 501(c)(3) Housing Development Corporations and entered into participation agreements with the Southern California Housing Development Corporation and with the Northtown Housing Development Corporation for the acquisition and development of affordable housing units. Program 4: Enter into a~reements with owners for conservation of~nits-~tt-risk On a case by case basis as opportunities arise, the Agency shall enter into agreements with property owners to preserve existing affordable housing units. Implementation This program is underway. In 1993 the Agency entered into an Agency-owner agreement to preserve 46 units-at-risk. As opportunities arise negotiations with additional owners shall be undertaken. Program 5: Purchase. or assist in the t~urchase. ofpro_iects which include units-at-risk. As opportunities arise, the Agency shall purchase, or assist in the purchase, of projects which include units-at-risk. Implementation This program is underway. In 1993 the Agency began to actively look for opportunities to purchase existing multiple-family projects for the purpose of preserving affordable units. The Agency shall continue to explore opportunities for purchase of projects with units-at-risk. July 1, 1999 through June 30, 2004. The goal for the City and the Redevelopment Agency will be conservation of the 325 units for which affordability restrictions will expire during this second reporting period. None of the 325 units occur within the Redevelopment area, however all may qualify for Agency assistance. Prior to July 1, 1999, the above conservation programs will be reviewed. Successful conservation programs shall be continued for the July 1, 1999 through June 30, 2004 conservation period and new programs will be considered. DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE IX - 16 HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX X. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY' S HOUSING PRODUCTION PLAN Consistent with Health and Safety Code Section 33413, as mended by AB 315 in 1991, the City's Redevelopment Agency (Agency) must adopt a Housing Production and Implementation Plan which demonstrates how the Agency will meet its state mandated affordable housing requirement. The Agency adopted the Housing Production Plan (HPP) on November 16, 1994. This section includes the HPP in its entirety. Following are highlights. · State law requires that 15 percent of the housing constructed in a redevelopment area must be affordable. · The lifetime of the City ofRancho Cucamonga's Redevelopment Agency (Agency) extends fi'om December 23, 1981, through August 6, 2027, during which 18,368 units are expected to be constructed within the redevelopment area. · The mandated 15 percent production requirement for the lifetime of the Agency would, therefore, require 2,755 restricted, affordable units. · Consistent with existing and projected units, AB 315 will require that a total of 1,709 restricted, affordable units be available by June 30, 1999. · A total of 420 restricted, affordable units have been produced through June 30, 1994. The HPP's goal is production of 1,289 new affordable units and conservation of 268 units at risk of conversion to market rate prior to June 30, 1999. · Agency assisted affordable housing production is defined by a legal settlement with the Western Center for Law and Poverty, which is more restrictive than State requirements. · Between July 1, 1994, and June 30, 1999, the Agency's projected 20 Percent Affordable Housing Set-Aside Fund is approximately $23 million. The Ageney's funds must be leveraged with other public resources, as well as private effort, in order to meet the AB 315 mandate. · The 523 acres of uncommitted vacant land zoned for residential use within the redevelopment area are expected to yield 6,408 dwelling units. To meet the AB 315 affordability requirement from all new construction, 43 percent of these new units would need to be affordable. Therefore, a combination of programs aimed at new and existing units will be needed to meet the Agency's goals. '1 : : Figure x-1 J ' PLANNING AREAS MAP ,.."\ ~ \ City of Rancho Cucemonga "' \ // Redevelopment Agency ~ / HOUSING PRODUCTION ,-,, ~ ELAN MAP .,.r [] TDt~AVb'TAPt.~It~ "%:._ ----- [] crrr LMTS The Housing Production Plan (HPP) focuses on housing production within the City's Redevelopment area. (See Figure X-l, Planning Areas Map.) The purpose of the HPP is to provide a strategy and timeframe for meeting the minimum affordability needs of the City as defined by the State. Section A presents the estimated housing production within the redevelopment area during the lifetime of the Agency. The production requirement for two time periods are emphasized: the first from the organization of the Agency in December of 1981 to June 30, 1994, and the second for the next five-year reporting period of July 1, 1994, through June 50, 1999. Section B identifies resources for meeting the Agency's affordable housing goals, including ~mding resources, vacant land resources, and existing land bank resources. Section C sets forth the policies, programs, and implementation measures needed to meet the Agency's mandated production of affordable housing. Where applicable, these programs will include quantified goals. This section will set forth numerical housing goals through June 30, 1999. Section D reviews the State's legal requirements. The HPP must meet the requirements of Health and Safety Code Sections 33000, et. seq., and 33413. In particular, Section 33413 sets forth reqnimments for affordable housing, including the requirement that a HPP be prepared. In this section, policies, programs, and implementation measures are set forth which respond to state legal mandates indirectly related to housing production. Section E reviews the consistency requirements. The HPP shall be consistent with the General Plan, SCAG's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), HUD's Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), the City's Units-at-Risk Study, the Agency's Draft Housing Affordability Strategy, the settlement between the Agency apd the Westem Center for Law and Poverty, and Article XXXIV of the State's Constitution. DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX RDA HOUSING PRODUCTION PLAN ADOPTED NOVEMBER 16, 1994 PAGE X-3 A. HOUSING PRODUCTION: OUANTITATIVE REOUIREMENTS This section addresses historical and projected housing production within the City of Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency's (Agency's) project area. It identifies units built and total number of units projected to be built. It identifies the state-mandated production requirement, which is the number of low and moderate income units which must be built. It then identifies the number of required units in place through June 30, 1994. Residential Units Produced and Projected To Be Developed The Planning Division estimates that during the lifetime of the Agency, 18,368 new housing units will be constructed within the redevelopment area. (See Table X-1 and Figure X-2.) Build out is estimated to occur between 2019 and 2029 The lifetime of the Redevelopment Agency extends through August 6, 2027. Approximately 9,606 new housing units were developed within the Redevelopment area from the incorporation of the Agency on December 23, 1981, through.June 30, 1994. The developed units equal approximately one-half of the total projected units within the redevelopment area. Between 1994 and 1999, another 1,784 units are projected to be built in the redevelopment area. DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX RDA HOUSING PRODUCTION PLAN ADOPTED NOVEMBER 16, 1994 PAGE X4 FIGURE X-2: REDEVELOPMENT AREA - UNITS EXISTING AND PROJECTED COMPARISON FOR SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTIPLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT DECEMBER 23, 1981, TO BUILD OUT 20000- 18368 total units 18000i 16000 14000 nooo 9377 9806 n390 ....................... ~304 total ~= 10000 8000 .,.-""' ... 7064 total sfr units .~ ........ _.-'-' 6s67 ..w mr= =nits 4705 ,,~-,~i 4000' 4572 4869 5354 o , ................ 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009 2014 2019 Years NOTES: 94-99 projects with final tract map or tentative map in process. 99-2019 vacant land (see Table X-5) DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX RDA HOUSING PRODUCTION PLAN ADOPTED NOVEMBER 16, 1994 PAGE Xo5 Production Units Required Within the Redevelopment Area Consistent with the State Mandate that 15 percent of new construction within a redevelopment area be affordable, a total of 2,755 low and moderate income units are projected to be required within the project area over the lifetime of the Redevelopment Agency. (See Table X-2 and Figures X-3.) Of the total 2,755 requirement, 1,102 (40 percent) shall be affordable to very low income households (below 50 percent of the median income) and 1,653 units shall be available to low and moderate income households (between 50 to 120 percent of median income). All units meeting State- Mandated Housing Production Requirements or Affordable Housing Goals shall use the latest Rjverside-San Bernardino median income published by HUD. According to the intent of AB 315, Redevelopment Agencies must meet their affordable housing mandate in a timely manner. Performance will be monitored every five years. The next performance monitoring will occur in 1999. By June 30, 1999, the Agency's goal for affordable housing should be production of 15 percent of the then constructed housing .units within the Redevelopment area. Table X-2 indicates that a total of 1,709 restricted, affordable traits should be provided. As indicated in the Agency's draft "Affordable Housing Strategy, April 30, 1990," the primary beneficiaries of affordable housing will be wage earners :residing in the City. The very low income category is defined as below 50 percent of median income. According to the Agency's "Survey of Positions Within the Low/Moderate Income Range, 1989;' persons working as a dental assistant, stock clerk, waiter/waitress, cook, nurse's aid, groundskeeper, secretary, clerk/typist, auto mechanic, and track driver would have an annual income at or below 50 percent of the median income. (See Table X-3.) While the State defines low and moderate income as at or below 120 percent of the median, as a result of the legal settlement with the Western Center ~r Law and Poverty, the Agency's target is at or below 90 percent of median. As indicated in Table X-3, the annual income of many persons employed by the City fall at, or below, the target income range. For example, Deputy City Clerk, Disaster Preparedness Technician, Assistant Park Pl:mner, Public Works Inspector, Building Inspector, Account Clerk, Police Clerk, and Senior Maintenance Worker are among City positions which fall at, or below, 90 pement of the median income. DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX RDA HOUSING PRODUCTION PLAN ADOPTED NOVEMBER 16, 1994 PAGE X-6 TABLE X-I: UNITS DEVELOPED AND PROJECTED FOR THE AGENCY SINGLE MULTI- UNITS FAMILY FAMILY TOTAL Developed 12/23/81 - 6/30/91 4,705 4,572 9,277 Developed/Proposed 7/1/91 - 6/30/94 164 165 329 Estimated* 7/1/94 - 6/30/99 485 1,299 1,784 Estimated* 7/1/99 - 6/30/09 855 2,634 3,489 . Estimated* 7/1/09- 6/30/19 855 2,634 3,489 Cumulative Total 12/23/81 - 6/30/29 7,064 11,304 18,368 *NOTE: 7/1/99 through 6/30/19 units are based on an estimated rate of construction of 349 total units per year. Build out is estimated to occur between 2019 and 2029. TABLE X-2: STATE MANDATED AFFORDABLE HOUSING PRODUCTION REQUIREMENT DECEMBER 23, 1981, TO AUGUST 6, 2027 VERY LOW . LOW/MOD. TOTAL 12/23/81 - 6/30/91 557 835 1,392 7/1/91 - 6/30/94 20 30 49 7/1/94 - 6/30/99 107 161 268 SUBTOTAL 12/23/81 - 6/30/99 683 1,025 1,709 7/1/99 - 6/30/09 209 314 523 7/1/09 - 6/30/19 209 314 523 SUBTOTAL 7/1/99 - 6/30/19 419 628 1,047 Inclusionary Requirement Agency Lifetime 12/31/81 - 8/6/27 1,102 1,653 2,755 NOTE: Due to rounding error, colunms add within +/- 1. DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX RDA HOUSING PRODUCTION PLAN ADOPTED NOVEMBER 16, 1994 PAGE X-7 FIGURE X-3: REDEVELOPMENT AREA PRODUCTION UNITS REQUIRED DECEMBER 23, 1981 TO BUILD OUT 3000- 2755 2500 2232/ J ~025 ~/"7~ ~%02 Total Unit Requirement Low/Moderate Requirement Very Low Requirement DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX RDA HOUSING PRODUCTION PLAN ADOPTED NOVEMBER 16, 1994 PAGE X-8 TABLE X-3: SURVEY OF POSITIONS IN THE LOW/MODERATE INCOME RANGE, 1989 Very Low Very Low Low Moderate 35% Median 45% Median 60% Median 90% Median $11,270 $14,490 $19,320 $28,980 $5.42/hour i$6.97/hour Dental Asst. Secretary Office Assistant* Deputy City Clerk* Retail Manager ClerWTypist Data Entry Operator* Office Supervisor* Bookkeeper I Machinist Cashier/Receptionist* Planning Comm. Scty* Teller Auto Mechanic Account Clerk* Accountant* Stock Clerk Welder Business License Clerk* Bus. Lie. Supervisor* Waiter/Waitress Track Driver Police Clerk* Personnel Tech.* Cook Admin. Analyst* Nurse Aid Disaster Prep. Tech.* Groundskeeper Computer Tech. * Assessment Tech. * Risk Mgmt. Tech.* Recreation Coord.* Purchasing Asst.* Asst. Park Planner* Asst. Planner* Jr. Civil Engineer* Comm. Srvc. Aide* Code Enf. Officer* Public Works Insp.* Engineering Tech.* Building Inspector* Sr. Maint. Worker* Fire Prev. Specialist** Admin Svcs. Asst.* · City Position · * FD Position Source: City of Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency, November 1989. DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX RDA HOUSING PRODUCTION PLAN ADOPTED NOVEMBER 16, 1994 PAGE X-9 As stated above, the Agency's affordability goal is 15 percent of the units constructed within the Redevelopment area. However, State law identifies two different housing development scenarios with differing production requirements for each. The first (Section 33413(b)(1) of the Health and Safety Code) addresses housing units built by a redevelopment agency and the second (Section 33413(b)(2)) addresses housing units built by the development community. The production requirements are slightly higher for the former. Typically a redevelopment agency does not build units. The Agency does not plan to build units; therefore, the 15 percent rule applies. The 15 percent mandate can be illustrated as follows: for every 100 dwelling units developed or rehabilitated by entities other than the agency, 15 shall be affordable, with 6 available to persons of very low income and 9 affordable to persons of low or :moderate income. Production Units Provided As of June 30, 1994, a total of 420 restricted, affordable units, 29 percent, have been provided within the redevelopment area which meet the Agency's ~Lfford~bility goals. (See Table X-4.) Figure X-4 illustrates the relationship of units provided compared to units mandated. Of the total mandated units provided, 152 were reslricted in 1994 with terms extending to 2024. An additional 268 units are restricted but are at risk of conversion to market rate prior to 1999. All the aforementioned units are at risk of conversion to market rate prior to the end of the term of the Agency in 2027. (See Units-At-Risk Study, Section IX.) The Agency's affordability targets have been refined as a result of a legal agreement between the Agency and the Center for Western Law and Poverty. State requirements are less restrictive than the settlement targets. State categories are divided into "Very Low" (below 50 percent median income), "Low" (50-80 percent of median income), "Moderate" (80-120 percent of median income), and "High" (above 120 percent of median income). State affordability targets include "very low," "low," and "moderate" income levels. Table X-4 illustrates affordable homing targets for the state mandated requirements. In comparison to Table X-4, Table X-5 illustrates the settlement agreement with the Center for Western Law and Poverty as follows: "Income I" (below 35 percent of median income), "Income 2" (36-45 percent of median income), "Income 3" (36-4'.i percent of median income), and "Income 4" (61 to 90 percent of median income). Table X-5 below analyzes affordable homing production consistent with the settlement agreement's terms. In other words if the Redevelopment Agency allocates resources to 100 units of homing, 17 must be for households with incomes below 35 percent of the median income; 34 for homeholds with income between 36 and 45 percent of median income; 34 for homeholds with income between 46 and 60 percent of median income, and 17 for households earning between 61 and 90 percent of the median income. DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX RDA HOUSING PRODUCTION PLAN ADOPTED NOVEMBER 16, 1994 PAGE X-10 TABLE X-4: PRODUCTION UNITS PRODUCED CONSISTENT WITH STATE AFFORDABLE HOUSING GUIDELINES - DECEMBER 23, 1981, THROUGH JUNE 30, 1994 Very Low Low Moderate Total Terra Vista Planned Community Restricted Rental UnitsI 0 189 0 189 Victoria Planned Community2 0 0 0 0 Etiwanda Specific Plan2 0 0 0 0 Remaining Project Area - Restricted Rental Units3 31 94 0 125 Qualified Units Outside Project Area4 70 34 0 104 Northtom Substantial Rehabilitation 0 0 2 2 TOTAL 101 317 2 420 Notes: 1. 235 units scattered in Parkview Place, Mr. View, Sycamore Terrace, Evergreen Apts. 2. No qualified affordable units 3. 79 restricted units scattered in AIm Park Apts. and 46 restricted units scattered in Pepperwood Apts. 4. 104 restricted units scattered in Rancho Verde Village DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX RDA HOUSING PRODUCTION PLAN ADOPTED NOVEMBER 16, 1994 PAGE X-11 TABLE X-5: MANDATED PRODUCTION UNITS PRODUCED CONSISTENT WITH SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT GUIDELINES - JANUARY 1, 1982 THROUGH JUNE 30, 1994 Income 1 Income 2 Income 3 Income 4 0-35% 36-45% 46-60% 61-90% TOTAL Tetra Vista 0 0 0 189 189 Victoria 0 0 0 0 0 Etiwanda 0 0 0 0 0 Remainder 52 49 49 81 229 TOTAL 52 49 49 270 420 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX RDA HOUSING PRODUCTION PLAN ADOPTED NOVEMBER 16, 1994 PAGE X-12 FIGURE X4: REDEVELOPMENT AREA - MANDATED PRODUCTION UNITS PROVIDED COMPARED WITH MANDATED, DECEMBER 23, 1981 TO BUILD OUT 3000- 2755 2500- //y~ 2000- 1500- 144 - . ....................~102 ~i~i ................ 00 _~.~.~===7.7.7ZZ il [ Total Unit Requirement -~-- -- Low/Moderate Units Provided 't"- Future LOw/Moderate Units .... 8 .... Future Very Low Units DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX RDA HOUSING PRODUCTION PLAN ADOPTED NOVEMBER 16, 1994 PAGE X-13 B. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY RESOURCES. Having examined the Agency's production requirement and actual production through Jtme 30, 1994, attention must be turned to Agency resources, including f~nding resources, land bank resources, and vacant land resources. Agency Funding Resources Between July 1, 1994, and June 30, 1999, approximately $23 million dollars will be generated by tax increment funds for affordable housing development. (See Table X-6.) These funds are available to assist in the production of restricted, affordable housing units. Consistent with the Agency's "Draft Housing Affordability Strategy, 1989," housing production programs will be funded by the Agency in combination with other public and private funding iesources. (Leveraging strategies are included in the Program Recommendations section below.) Agency Land Bank Resources As of June 30, 1994, the Agency had purchased 45.70 acres of land bank resources. Consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Ordinance, up to 366 affordable units could be located on land bank sites. (See Table X-7, Land Bank Properties and Figure X-5, Land Bank Location Map). However, because of neighborhood opposition to affordable projects, the City Council directed that 25.16 acres be traded for a more suitable site or sold. Redevelopment Area Vacant Land Resources Table X-7 lists the vacant land resources available within the redevelopment area. The City's residential land use designations set a possible range of density development for each residential category. Within the redevelopment area, there are 523 acres of vacant land zoned for residential use for which no tract approvals exist or are pending. (See Figure X-6, Rede.velopment Area Vacant Land Map.) At 62.5 percent of the range, this acreage could yield 5,815 units. Therefore, with redevelopment area vacant land resources, including Agency land bank: resources, there is sufficient land to meet the estimated Agency lifetime production requirement of 2,755 affordable units. However, if the affordability requirement is met only by new construction at 62.5 percent of the allowable density range, the ratio of restricted affordable units to market units would need to be 43 percent. In fact, density bonuses (or alternative incentives) will change this ratio somewhat. This fact suggests that the private sector will also need to contribute affordable units along with market rate units, as it has done in the past. DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX RDA HOUSING PRODUCTION PLAN ADOPTED NOVEMBER 16, 1994 PAGE X-14 TABLE X-6: AGENCY 20 PERCENT HOUSING SET-ASIDE FUND PROJECTIONS FISCAL YEAR TAX INCRE~IENT REVENUE 1994/95 $ 4,917,353 1995/96 $ 4,764,915 1996/97 $ 4,604,413 1997/98 $ 4,435,584 1998/99 $ 4,258,161 TOTAL $22,980,426 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX RDA HOUSING PRODUCTION PLAN ADOPTED NOVEMBER 16, 1994 PAGE X- 15 ', Figure x-5 J ; "1 ~N~, BANK ,ooAT,oN ~A~ ... ,, I I ,/ ,, yz HOUSlN~ PROBUOTION ...... ~" ~ .... ----. ~ / ~ND BANK SITES ~.0~. ~o~. TABLE X-7: LAND BANK PROPERTIES DECEMBER 23, 1981 THROUGH JUNE 30, 1994 LOCATION ACRES ZONE TOTAL POTENTIAL UNITS ASSISTED @125%OF UNITS@40% RANGE OF MAXIMUM Rochester @ S.P.R.R. & Day Creek 7.78 M 78 31 Three parcels on Day 8.7 MH 152 61 Creek Blvd. @ Base 4.34 MH 76 30 Line Rd. 1 4.34 MH 76 30 Feron W/o Hermosa2 (Northtown) 8.56 LM 88 35 Base Line, E/o Victoria Park Lane (Victoria) 11.98 H 449 18 TOTAL 45.7 917 366 NOTES: 1. Because of neighborhood opposition to an affordable housing project, on October 21, 1992, the Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors asked staff to dispose of these sites. 2. Density bonus agreement (October 1986) which runs with the land establishes 88 units for the property. DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX RDA HOUSING PRODUCTION PLAN ADOPTED NOVEMBER 16, 1994 PAGE X-17 TABLE X-8: RDA: RESIDENTIAL VACANT LAND RESOURCES, JULY 1, 1994 THROUGH BUILD OUT Vacan~ Pro~ec~ed Density pro3ec~ed I · 18.00 M (8-14 du/a¢ 11.75 211.5 2 · 12.40 M (8-14 du/ac 11.75 145.7 3 40.00 LM (4-8 du/ac 6.5 260.0 4 7.90 M (8-14 du/ac 11.75 92.8 5 7.90 M (8-14 du/ac 11.75 92.8 6 20.90 LM (4-8 du/ac 6.5 135.9 7 40.00 LM {4-8 du/ac 6.5 260.0 8 23.00 LM (4-8 du/ac 6.5 149.5 9 * 24.41 LM (4-8 du/ac 6.5 158.7 10 * 4.40 M (8-14 du/ac 11.75 51.7 11 19.30 M (8-14 du/ac 11.75 226.8 12 * 5.22 H (24-30 du/ac 27.75 144.9 13 41.30 M (8-14 du/ac 11.75 485.3 14 23.00 MH (14-24 du/ac 20.25 465.8 15 10.56 MH (14-24 du/ac 20.25 213.8 16 27.89 M (8-14 du/ac 11.75 327.7 17 8.95 EM (4-8 du/ac 6.5 58.2 18 · 10.00 M (8-14 du/ac 11.75 117.5 198 10.00 M (8-14 du/ac 11.75 117.5 20 12.86 M (8-14 du/ac 11.75 151.1 21 52.34 LM {4-8 du/ac 6.5 340.2 22 24.56 L~4 (4-8 du/ac 6.5 159.6 23 "'e=~3 ~-14 du/ac 11.75 89.1 24 L.81 M (8-14 du/ac 11.75 256.3 25 11.48 H (24-30 du/ac 27.75 318.6 26 30.50 MH (14-24 du/ac 20.25 617.6 27 22.27 LM (4-8 du/ac 6.5 144.8 28 11.48 H (24-30 du/ac 27.75 318.6 29 * 0.00 LM (4-8 du/ac 6.5 0.0 30 11.75 LM (4-8 du/ac 6.5 76.4 31 10.90 MH (14-24 du/ac) 20.25 220.7 Totals 572.66 6408.9 268.18 LM (4-8 du/ac) 6.5 1743.2 201.34 M (8-14 du/ac) 11.75 2365.7 74.96 M~ (14-24 du/ac) 20.25 1537.9 28.18 H (24-30 du/ac) 27.75 782.0 · - properties with applications pending - reflects resultant vacant land minus RDA pro~erties which are counted as committed ].and in Table 8 DRAFT HOUSrNG ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX RDA HOUSING PRODUCTION PLAN ADOPTED NOVE~4BER ]6, 1994 PAGE X- ] 8 gure x-6 ..] VACANT LAND RESOURCES MAP '\ City of Rancho Cucmongo '' "' \ ~ Redevelopment Agency ["~ .~. J ~ ~ v~ ~ co~ ~ ) VSTA ) ~ ~ ~TR~ ~C{~ ~ )~y ~ c~ C. HOUSiNG PRODUCTION PLAN PROGRAMS AND IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES. JULY 1.1994. THROUGH JUNE 30. 1999. Having examined the mandatory production requirement and the resources available to meet the requirement, programs and quantitative goals for the period July 1, 1994, through June 30, 1999, are set forth below. These programs shall be consistent with the General Plan, the settlement with the Western Center for Law and Poverty, and with Article 34 of the State constitution. As stated above, the projected production requirement from the formation of the Agency through June 30, 1999, is 1,709 units of which 420 have been provided. Therefore, 1,286 new or substantially rehabilitated restricted, affordable units must still be provided. The discussion of programs, including a program by program quantification and timetable for implementation is included below. The program quantification is illustrated by Tables X-9 and X- 10. Eleven programs are recommended. PrOgram 1: Neighborhood Non-Profit HDC To meet the needs of specific neighborhoods, the Agem:y shall facilitate the development of Non- Profit, 501 (c)(3), Neighborhood Housing Development Corporations. Special neighborhood needs may include areas of long-term residential overcrowding, special infrastructure needs, or historic neighborhood identification. Implementation This program is underway. During the 1992-1993 fiscal year, the Agency facilitated incorporation of the Northtown Non-Profit Housing Development Corporation which will serve the Northtown neighborhood. The Agency shall continue to work with the Northtown Neighborhood HDC through the 1999 reporting period. DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX RDA HOUSING PRODUCTION PLAN ADOPTED NOVEMBER 16, 1994 PAGE X-20 Program 2: Land Bank The Agency shall identify property suitable for single-family and multi-family housing and purchase parcels as they become available. Implementation This program is underway. As of June 30, 1994, 45.7 acres of land which could accommodate up to 366 affordable units had been purchased by the Agency. (See Table X-7, Land Bank Properties and Figure X-4, Land Bank Location Map.) It should be noted that housing production goals are counted below under multi-family project development. Program 3: Agency Assisted Multi-Family Project Develonment The Agency shall work with property owners, financial institutions, public agencies, non-profit housing development corporations, and for-profit corporations to construct new restricted, affordable rental units within the redevelopment area. The Agency shall also work with private for-profit corporations to achieve affordable housing goals. Consistent with the draet Affordable Housing Strategy (AHS), priority for project development and property management shall be given to City-based housing development corporations, then to non- profit housing development corporations with experience in the area. Also, consistent with the AHS, tax credit participation shall be encouraged as the primary, but not the only, role of for-profit corporations. Consistent with the State Density Bonus Requirement for Affordable Housing, the RDA anticipates that affordable housing will be developed at 125 pement of the maximum density for the residential zone. Consistent with the AHS, a minimum of 40 percent of the units shall be restricted, affordable units. Implementation This program is underway. The Agency is assisting the Southern California Housing Development Corporation and the Northtown Housing Development Corporation to develop 88 restricted, affordable units from land bank resources. Including the 88 units in the development phase, the goal for this program is development of a total of 400 units of restri.cted, affordable rental housing units between July 1, 1994, and June 30, 1999. DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX RDA HOUSING PRODUCTION PLAN ADOPTED NOVEMBER 16, 1994 PAGE X-21 Program 4: Agency Assisted Multi-Family Project Acquisition The agency shall identify and purchase, or facilitate purchase, of existing multi-family projects which become available for sale. On a case by case basis, the Agency shall lease, purchase, or by other means secure affordability restrictions for individtml units within existing and new construction multi-family units. The purpose will be to increase the supply of restricted, affordable units. Consistent with AHS policy, 40% of the units shall be affordable to low and moderate income renters. Implementation This program is underway. By June 30, 1994, the Agency had assisted the Southern California Housing Development Corporation with acquisition of 240 units. Consistent with AHS policy, 104 units (40 percent) are restricted, affordable units for low and moderate income families. The goal of this program is to assist in conversion of an additional 400 multi-family units to restricted, affordable status between July 1, 1994, and June 30, 1999. Program 5: A~,ency Assisted Conservation of Multi-family Units at Risk of Conversion To Market Rate As required by law, the City has completed a study of the restricted, affordable multi-family units which are at risk of conversion to market rate. The agency shall enter into discussion with property owners regarding acquisition and/or conservation of the 314 units-at-risk which are located within the redevelopment area. Implementation This program is underway. As of June 30, 1994, the Agency had entered into discussions with all owners of the 314 units-at-risk of conversion to market rate and had conserved 46 units. The goal of this program is to assist in the conservation of the 268 multi-family remaining units which are at risk of conversion from restricted, affordable units to market rate units between July 1, 1994, and June 30, 1999. DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX RDA HOUSING PRODUCTION PLAN ADOPTED NOVEMBER 16, 1994 PAGE X-22 Prom-am 6: Aeencv Assisted Existino Sinele-Familv Acauisition and Rehabilitation The Agency shall assist non-profit agencies with the purchase of existing single-family homes which may then be offered for resale with affordability restrictions on future sales. Under this program, opportunities shall be explored to acquire homes which become available through mortgage foreclosure. Toward this goal, the Agency shall open communication with FHA and the Resolution Trust Corporation, as well as with banks and mortgage companies, indicating interest in suitable purchases. In instances where rehabilitation is required as a condition of resale, acquisition and resale may be coordinated with the City's Housing Rehabilitation Program. These homes shall be incorporated into affordable owner or renter programs. Owner programs shall be combined with limited equity strategies to maintain affordability for the lifetime of the project. Implementation This program is underway. Two units have been purchased, substantially rehabilitated, and sold with restricted affordability provisions. The goal of this program is to assist with the purchase and, if necessary, substantial rehabilitation of up to 286 units between July 1, 1994, and June 30, 1999, which shall then be rented or resold with affordability restrictions. Prod,ram 7: Ac~encv Assisted Sin,,le-Familv New Construction The agency shall facilitate new construction single-family ownership programs, including but not limited to, single-family infill projects, as well as condominium and townhouse developments. These projects may be rented or sold. Owner programs shall be combined with limited equity strategies to maintain affordability for the lifetime of the project. Implementation The goal of this program is 200 units of single-family new construction between July 1, 1994, and June 30, 1999. These units may be rented or sold with restricted affordability provisions. DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX RDA HOUSING PRODUCTION PLAN ADOPTED NOVEMBER 16, 1994 PAGE X-23 Program 8: Affordable Housin~ Overlay Zone The Agency shall investigate the feasibility of establishing an Affordable Housing Overlay Zone using the Senior Housing Overlay Zone as a model as recommended by the AHS (I-D-6 ft.) The purpose of an overlay zone would be to facilitate the siting of affordable housing. Implementation Between July 1, 1994, and June 30, 1999, if adequate funding is available, or upon request by a developer, the Agency and the City's Planning Division shall investigate the feasibility of establishing an Affordable Housing Overlay Zone to facilitate the siting of affordable housing. Program 9: Mixed-Use The Agency and the City shall investigate the feasibility of a mixed use overlay zone to facilitate the development of affordable housing. The primary focus. shall be to introduce residential use into commercial and possibly industrial districts where design opportunities would allow residential units above ground level in multi-level commercial buildings or behind commercial strips. Also, part of this study would investigate the feasibility of rezoning industrial areas for mixed industrial, commercial, and residential use. The study for this program may be combined with the Affordable Housing Overlay District Study. Implementation Between July 1, 1994, and June 30, 1999, if adequate funding is available, or if requested by a developer, the Agency and the City's Planning Division shall research and develop a mixed use overlay zone, including an analysis of the benefits of a mixed use overlay zone compared with rezoning. Pro~am 10: in ' h ' The Agency shall utilize a variety of financial mechanisms to assist development of affordable housing units including, but not limited to, the following: Land bank, loan write-down, on-site improvement costs, off-site improvement costs, and City fee waiver, and as well as a school fee waiver for Senior Housing. Implementation This program is underway. Between July 1, 1994, and June 30, 1999, the Agency shall continue to use the above fmanciai mechanism to assist with the development of restricted, affordable housing units. DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TEC, HNI~AL APPENDIX RDA HOUSING PRODUCTION PLAN ADOPTED NOVEMBER 16, 1994 PAGE X-24 Program 11: Community Outreach A Community Outreach Program is desirable. An outreach program goes further than legally required public participation and notice. It can serve as an educational tool to inform the community of the Agency's legal obligation to provide affordable housing as well as to inform the community of the Agency's past actions which resulted in affordability to first time owners and first time renters. Further, a Community Outreach Program could enlist community direction on which programs and actions should be emphasized to reach mandated affordability goals. Implementation Between July 1, 1994, and June 30, 1999, if adequate funding is available, or if requested by a developer, the Agency, and the City's Planning Division shall oversee a community outreach program. DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX RDA HOUSING PRODUCTION PLAN ADOPTED NOVEMBER 16, 1994 PAGE X-25 TABLE X-9: RESTRICTED, AFFORDABLE tlOUS1NG PRODUCTION IN THE REDEVELOPMENT AREA FROM DECEMBER 23, 1981, THROUGH JUNE 30, 1994 INCOME LEVEL PROGRAM TOTAL TOTAL UNITS AFFORD- I II III IV PROJECT ABLE Below 36-45% 46-60% 61-90% 35"/0 Program 4 RDA Assisted Multi-Family Acquisition 240 104 36 34 34 0 Program 5 RDA Assisted Conservation of Units-At-Ri sk 230 46 16 15 15 0 Program 6 Substantial Rehabilitation Existing Single Family Units 2 2 0 0 0 2 SUBTOTAL 472 152 52 49 49 2 Free Market Affordability Effort* 1,239 268 0 0 0 268 TOTAL PRODUCTION AFFORDABL E UNITS 420 52 49 49 270 NOTE: Restricted, affordable units produced within the,' redevelopment area without the assistance of the Redevelopment Agency: 100 percent of these units are at risk of conversion to market rate before June 30, 1999. DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX RDA HOUSING PRODUCTION PLAN ADOPTED NOVEMBER 16, 1994 PAGE X-26 TABLE X-10: PROJECTED RESTRICTED, AFFORDABLE HOUSING PRODUCTION IN THE REDEVELOPMENT AREA FROM JULY 1, 1994, THROUGH JUNE 30, 1999. INCOME LEVEL PROGRAM TOTAL UNITS I II III IV Below 35% 36-45% 46-60% 61-90% Program 3 RDA Assisted New Multi-Family Acquisition 400 67 133 133 67 Program 4 RDA Assisted Multi-Family Acquisition 400 67 133 133 67 Program 6 RDA Assisted Single Family Acquisition and/or Rehabilitation 286 48 95 95 48 Program 7 RDA Assisted Single Family New Construction 200 33 67 67 33 TOTAL PRODUCTION AFFORDABLE UNITS 1,286 215 ~28 428 215 NOTE: CONSERVATION EFFORT: Program 5 Conservation of Units-at-Risk 268 44 90 90 44 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX RDA HOUSING PRODUCTION PLAN ADOPTED NOVEMBER 16, 1994 PAGE X-27 D. LEGAL REOUIREMENTS. INCLUDING CONSISTENCY REOUIREMENTS State Mandates The Redevelopment Agency has adopted a number of policies and programs required by State Law. Following is a review of State requirements and the Agency's programs to comply with State mandates. In most cases these are existing programs. In-a few instances new programs are recommended in this HPP. Programs A through E below are designed to comply with State mandates. The California Community Redevelopment Law and Health and Safety Code Sections 33000 et. seq., state that one of the fundamental purposes of redevelopment is to increase and improve the community's supply of low and moderate-income housing. This is accomplished in part through three different but interrelated requirements imposed on a Redevelopment Agency by California law. These three requirements provide for the production, improvement, and preservation of housing for low and moderate income households. These requirements are: * 20 Percent Set-Aside (H&S 33334.2): 20 percent of tax increment revenue must be expended to increase, improve, and preserve the supply of low and moderate income housing in the community; * Replacement Rule (H&S 33413 (a)): The Agency must replace low and moderate income housing which is removed as a result of a redevelo.l?ment project; and * Mandated Production Rule (H&S 33413 Co)): A fixed percentage of all housing constructed in a Redevelopment Project Area must be affordable to low and moderate income persons and families. Section 33413 (b)(4) of the Health and Safety Code requires that each redevelopment agency shall, by December 31, 1994, adopt a plan to comply with the requirements of the Mandated Production Rule. In addition, Sections 33413.5 and 33334.5 requires replacement housing plans for compliance with the Replacement Rule. DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX RDA HOUSING PRODUCTION PLAN ADOPTED NOVEMBER 16, 1994 PAGE X-28 Housing Replacement Rule Section 33413(a) of the Health and Safety Code requires that whenever dwelling units housing persons and families of low or moderate income are destroyed or removed from the low and moderate income housing market as part of a redevelopment project subject to a written agreement with a Redevelopment Agency, the Agency shall, within four (4) years of the removal of the dwelling units, cause to be developed an equal number of replacement dwelling units. For affordable units removed prior to September 1, 1989, replacement units must be available at an affordable housing cost to persons and families of low and moderate income, without regard to the specific income of the person or family originally occupying the removed dwelling unit. However, for units removed after September 1, 1989, California law requires that 75 percent of the replacement units be affordable to the same income groups that occupied the units removed. Pro?ram A: Replacement Policy The Redevelopment Agency shall replace housing units removed or demolished as a result of a Redevelopment Agency project as required by law. This is an existing program. Implementation No units under the definition of Section 33413(a) were removed prior to September I, 1989. Further, no affordable units under the aforementioned section have been removed prior to June 30, 1994. DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX RDA HOUSING PRODUCTION PLAN ADOPTED NOVEMBER 16, 1994 PAGE X-29 Housing Replacement Requirement Section 33413.5 of the Health and Safety Code requires each Redevelopment Agency to adopt by resolution, a replacement housing plan indicating how the agency will comply with the requirements of the replacement rule as provided for in Section 33413(a). The replacement plan shall include: (I) location of replacement housing; (2) means of finartcing replacement housing; (3) compliance with Article XXXIV; (4) number of affordable units plmmed for construction; and (5) the timetable for meeting replacement housing objective. Section 33334.5 of the Health and Safety Code requires; that every redevelopment plan adopted or amended to expand the project area after January 1, 1977, shall contain a provision regarding replacement housing requirements pursuant to Sections 33413 and 33413.5 of the Health and Safety Code. Irrespective of the January 1, 1977, implementation date expressed in Section 33334.5, Section 33413(d) imposes the Replacement and Production Rules on any Redevelopmerit Plan adopted on or after January 1, 1976. The City of Rancho Cucamonga's Redevelopment Plan was adopted on December 23, 1981. An amendment to the Agency approved August 6, 1987, did not change the area of the agency's boundary, but did extend the term of the Agency. The 40-year term of the Agency ends in 2027. Prooram B: Replacement Requirement The City of Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency shall meet the Replacement Requirement under Section 33413 of the Health and Safety Code, consistent with the agency replacement policy adopted December 23, 1981. Implementation Not less than 30 days prior to the execution of an agreement to remove or demolish any affordable housing unit, or units, the Agency shall prepare a Housing Replacement Plan. This plan shall include housing replacement guidelines to meet the requirement under Health and Safety Code Section 33413, and as stated in Section 402 of the Redevelopmerit Agency Articles of Incorporation. As further stated in Section 402, a dwelling unit whose replacement is required by Section 33413, but for which no Replacement Housing Plan has been prepared, shall not be removed from the low and moderate income housing market. As of January 1, 1993, the City of Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency has not removed any units under the Housing Replacement Requirement. DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX RDA HOUSING PRODUCTION PLAN ADOPTED NOVEMBER 16, 1994 PAGE X-30 Term Length of Affordability Health and Safety Code Section 33413(c) requires that replacement and production units shall remain available at affordable housing cost to the income levels indicated for the longest feasible time, which includes, but is not limited to, unlimited duration. Health and Safety Code Section 33334.3(f) states that when housing units are developed or assisted with money from the Agency's 20 Percent Affordable Housing Set-Aside Fund, the Agency shall require that those housing units shall remain affordable for the longest feasible time, but for not less than 15 years for rental units or 10 years for owner-occupied units. In addition, Health and Safety Code Section 33334.13 requires that very low income and lower income units developed with assistance from a Homeownership Residential Mortgage Revenue Bond Program or a California Housing Finance Agency Hotne Financing Program shall remain available at affordable housing cost for at least 30 years. Finally, Government Code Section 65915 states that lower income units provided pursuant to a density bonus shall remain affordable for 30 years. The Agency's "Draft Affordable Housing Strategy, April 1990" states that the term length for affordability should be the useful economic life of the project. (I-D-16) Proaram C: Len~h of Affordabili_ty Policy Very low income, lower income, and moderate income units developed anywhere within the City pursuant to the aforementioned affordability sections of the California Government Code shall remain affordable for the longest feasible period of time, up to and including the useful economic life of the project, with a minimum term of at least thirty (30) years. Implementation Length of affordability shall be negotiated on a project by project basis for the longest feasible period of time, up to and including the useful economic life of the project with a minimum term of at least thirty (30) years. DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX RDA HOUSING PRODUCTION PLAN ADOPTED NOVEMBER 16, 1994 PAGE X-31 Low Income Housing Production Rule Section 33413(b)(1 ) of the Health and Safety Code requires that at least 30 percent of all dwelling urdts actually developed by a redevelopment agency shall be available at affordable housing cost to persons and families of low or moderate income, and not less-than 50 percent of the units shall be available as affording housing to very low income household. Section 33413(b)(2) requires that at least 15 percent of all dwelling units developed within a project area by public or private entities or persons other than the redevelopment agency, but including those developed pursuant to a written agreement with the agency, shall be available at affordable housing costs to persons and families of low or moderate income, and not less than 40 percent of the affordable units shall be available at affordable housing cost to very low income households. Pro_~,ram D: HPP Affordability Schedule The City of Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency and the City of Rancho Cucamonga shall complete a schedule for housing production which will meet the Production Requirement of Sections 33413(b)( 1 ) and (2) of the Health and Safety Code. As required by law, tMs requirement shall be met within the legal boundaries of the Agency upon completion of this Housing Production Plan. Implementation This HPP shall set forth a five-year schedule for meeting the State-Mandated Production Requirements. (See Table X-9 and Table X-10.) DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TEC, HNICAL APPENDIX RDA HOUSING PRODUCTION PLAN ADOPTED NOVEMBER 16, 1994 PAGE X-32 Mandated Housing Production Plan Requirement Section 33413(b)(4) of the Health and Safety Code, added in 1991, requires each redevelopment agency to adopt a plan indicating how the agency will comply with the requirements of the Mandated Production Rule, and the plan shall be consistent with the Housing Element. The plan shall be reviewed and amended at least every five years, in conjunction with the Housing Element cycle. The Plan shall include estimates of the number of new or rehabilitated residential units to be developed within the Project Area and the number of units for very low, low, and moderate income households which will be developed in order to meet the requirements of the Mandated Production Rule, paragraph (b)(2), for units developed by entities other than the agency. The Plan shall also include estimates of the number of agency-developed residential units which will be developed during the next five years, if any, and the number of units for very low, low, and moderate income households which will be developed during the same period 'of time to meet the requirements of paragraph (b)( 1 ) for units developed by the Agency. Section 33413(b)(2) requires that at least 15 percent of all dwelling units developed within a project area by public or private entities or persons other than the Redevelopment Agency, but including those developed pursuant to a written agreement with the Agency, shall be available at affordable housing cost to persons and families of low or moderate income, and not less than 40 percent of the affordable units shall be available at affordable housing cost to very low income households. Pr_LO. gZar~E: Housin~ Production Plan Requirerrlerl~ The City of Rancho Cucamonga and it's Redevelopment Agency shall meet the requirements of Section 33413(b)(4), added in 1991. Implementation Through completion of this Housing Production Plan and any necessary amendments of the City's Housing Element, the Redevelopment Agency shall provide a plan to meet State Mandated Production Homing Requirements. DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX RDA HOUSING PRODUCTION PLAN ADOPTED NOVEMBER 16, 1994 PAGE X-33 E. CONSISTENCY REOUIREMENTS Housing Element of the General Plan The Housing Production Plan builds on the goal, objectives, policies, and programs identified in the Housing Element of the General Plan revised April 17, 1991. Objective 5 of the Housing Elements states: "Provide housing opportunities which meet the needs of all economic segments of the community including very low, low, and moderate income households and special needs groups." Programs include Residential Mortgage Revenue Bonds, Residential Multi-Family Mortgage Revenue Bonds, affordable housing requirement for Tena Vista & Victoria Planned Communities, density bonus programs, SCAG's Regional Housing Needs Assessment goals, HUD's Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy goals, Mobile Home Park voluntary rent stabilization, and the Agency's 20 Percent Tax Set-Aside Fund (consistent with provisions of the Western Center for Law & Poverty Agreement), Units-at-Risk Study The Housing Production Plan retains the programs identified in the Units-At-Risk Study, October 1994. In particular the Agency shall work with Property Owners, Financial Institutions, Public Agencies, and Non-profit Housing Development Corporations to retain the availability of units currently restricted to Low and Moderate income households, with special emphasis on those units which are within the Agency project area. (See Section C. Progrmn 5.) DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX RDA HOUSING PRODUCTION PLAN ADOPTED NOVEMBER 16, 1994 PAGE X-34 Housing Affordability Strategy The Housing Production Plan shall be consistent with the Agency's Draft Affordable Housing Strategy, April 30, 1990 (AHS). The AHS sets forth the following programs: · Granting a density bonus to leverage affordability of new units shall be considered. (AHS p. I-D-11) · The term ofaffordability shall be the useful economic life of the affordable housing units with a minimum term of at least thirty (30) years. (AHS p. I-D-16) · Units affordable to low income owners and renters shall be scattered throughout the City. Multiple family projects which include affordable units shall be located within appropriately zoned areas of the City. (AHS p. I-D-21) · All affordable units shall be of comparable quality, design, and appearance to market rate housing. (AHS p. I-D-23) · Mixed income and mixed-use projects shall be encouraged. (AHS p. I-D-25) · A variety of housing types and tenure shall be encouraged, including garden apartments, townhome apartments, and condominiums, as well as limited equity cooperative ownership. (AHS p. I-D-27) · Housing assisted by the Agency shall comply with Article XXXIV of the California Constitution (Article 34). No more than 49 percent of the units in a rental housing project developed by the Agency for households at 80 percent of the median or less shall be assisted units. (Article 34 does not apply to cooperatives, condominiums, and single family homes which may be assisted by the Agency.) (AHS p. I-D-29) · All residential development, including affordable units, shall be consistent with the General Plan. (AHS p. I-D-21) · All units meeting State-mandated housing production requirements or affordable housing goals shall utilize the latest Riverside-San Bernardino median income published by HUD. (AHS p. I-D-29.) DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX RDA HOUSING PRODUCTION PLAN ADOPTED NOVEMBER 16, 1994 PAGE X-35 Western Center for Law and Poverty Legal Settlement In compliance with the Western Center for Law and Poverty Legal Settlement, the Agency's resources shall be allocated as directed by the settlement. The income levels, adjusted for family size, arc as follows: Level I: Households earning 35 percent or less of the area median income. Level II: Households earning between 36 and 45 percent of the area median income. Level III: Households earning between 46 and 60 percent of the area median income. Level IV: Households earning between 61 and 90 percent of the area median income. The allocation for each income level is as follows: o At least one-sixth for households with incomes not more than 35 percent of the area median income. o One-third for households with income not more than 45 percent of median. o One-half for remainder (divided one-third for incomes between 46 and 60 percent of median and one-sixth for incomes between 61 and 90 percent of median). In other words if the Redevelopment Agency allocates resources to 100 units of housing, 17 must be for households with incomes below 35 percent of the median income; 34 for households with income between 36 and 45 percent of median income; 34 for households with income between 46 and 60 percent of median income, and 17 for households earning between 61 and 90 percent of the median income. DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX R_DA HOUSING PRODUCTION PLAN ADOPTED NOVEMBER 16, ! 994 PAGE X-36 Article XXXIV of the State Constitution. Consistent with Article XXXIV of the California Constitution (Article 34), no public body shall develop, construct, or acquire a "low rent housing project" unless approved by majority vote of the public jurisdiction's electorate. If the majority of the units in a multi-family development are market rate, the project is considered to be a market-rate project. The Agency's draft Affordable Housing Strategy declares that not more than 49 percent of the units in an Agency developed project shall be restricted, affordable units for persons earning 80 percent or less of the Riverside-San Bemardino area median income (p. I-D-29). Subsequently, the Agency has adopted a policy that not more than 40 percent of an Agency developed project shall be restricted, affordable units. Article 34 does not apply to cooperatives, condominiums, and single family homes which may be assisted by the Agency. However, consistent with the City's General Plan, the Agency shall observe the scattered sites policy for assisted affordable owner programs. DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX RDA HOUSING PRODUCTION PLAN ADOPTED NOVEMBER 16, 1994 PAGE X-37 HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX XI. EVALUATION OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT'S OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS FOR THE JULY 1, 1989 THROUGH JUNE 30, 1994 REPORTING PERIOD California Government Code Section 65888 (a) requires an evaluation of the following: · The appropriateness of the housing goals, objectives, and policies in contributing to the attainment of the state housing goal. · The effectiveness of the housing element in attainment of the community's housing goals and objectives. · The progress of the City...in implementation of the housing element. Consistent with the State's goal, the overall goal of the Housing Element since 1981 has been: The City shall provide opportunities and incentives for the provision of a variety of housing types for economic segments wishing to reside in the community regardless of race, religion, sex, or income group. The Housing Element identifies nine (9) objectives as well as policies and programs which contribute to the pursuit of the City's overall housing goal. The objectives, policies, and programs incorporated into the 1989 update of the Housing Element adopted February, 1991, are reviewed and evaluated below. It should be noted that the date appears in parenthesis for the year the objective or program was incorporated into the Housing Element. All policy statements were added to the 1989 update. Two state mandated programs, a Units-at-Risk Study and the Housing Production Plan for the Redevelopment Agency are incorporated into the Housing Element Update, December, 1994. Also, recommended actions for the 1994 through 1999 implementation period are stated. OBJECTIVE I (1989): Provide quality residential environments which contribute to a well fi~ctioning community by ensuring residential development which is attractive in design and also functions to protect the public safety and welfare, and provide benefit to the community. Evaluatiotl: Excellence in design and a safe community remain priorities for development in all neighborhoods and for all socio-economic levels of the City. The City has received national recognition as a safe place to live, for example Money magazine rated Rancho Cucamonga as the 1 lth safest city in the United States in 1994. Action: Continue this objective with emphasis on excellence in housing design and neighborhood safety. POLICY 1.A (1989): To promote the use of development techniques which foster a continued high quality of residential design and construction and ensure the appropriate development of hillside areas. Evaluation: Excellence in design, including residential design, remains a high priority in the City. Appropriate development on slopes exceeding eight (8) pement is addressed in the Hillside Development Ordinance, Chapter 17.24, of the Development Code, adopted March, 1990. Action: Continue to encourage excellence of housing and community design and appropriate development of hillside areas. PROGRAM 1.A. 1 (1989): Develop a design guidebook which sets forth through illustrations and examples design policies to guide new development. Evaluation: Due to budget and staff reductions associateel with economic recession during the five year reporting period, as well as the State's reallocation of City funding sources, the design guidebook program has been put on hold. Action: When staff time and funding become available, implement this program. PROGRAM 1.A.2 (1989): Continue to implement the City's Hillside Development Ordinance to ensure that residential development in hillside areas is appropriate to the carryinb capacity of the land, avoids development in environmentally sensitive areas, minimizes adverse grading impacts through architectural and structural techniques, and preserves the natural landform characteristics. DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE XI - 2 Evaluation: The Hillside Development Ordinance continues to guide development on slopes of eight (8) percent or more. As a result of three years experience with implementation of the ordinance, suggestions for changes have been made. When budget and staff become available, the Hillside Development Ordinance should be revised to better facilitate development and protect the environment. Action: Continue to document suggestions for change. When staff time and funding become available, revise the Hillside Development Ordinance to better facilitate development and protect the environment. PROGRAM 1.A.3 (1989): Through the project development design and technical review process, continue to evaluate residential projects for safety concerns, including lighting, pedestrian movements, parking lot configuration and design, as well as unit design and orientation, particularly with regard to multi- family development. Evaluation: In addition to existing development code requirements, the City began a study on Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) in 1994. CPTED provides a method for systematic measurement of public, semi-public, and semi-private areas in relation to intended and unintended uses. The City's CPTED study focused on commemial development. Since crime is not a problem for commercial development in the City now, the study emphasized that the purpose is proactive. Goals include data collection, particulary crime analysis capability,' as well as increased communication and coordination among all private and public entities engaged in crime suppression. The study was received by the City Council on October 19, 1994. Informally, CPTED methods are being incorporated into design review for all projects in the City, including residential projects. Implementation of the 1994 CPTED study will include adoption of design guidelines for commercial projects, as well as ordinance revisions. Action: Continue informal use of CPTED principles through design review phase of residential project development. When staff time and funding become available the CPTED study should be formally expanded to include residential projects, followed by adoption of CPTED design guidelines for residential projects. OBJECTIVE 2 (1984): Conserve and improve the existing housing stock, including structures of historic significance, and eliminate the causes and spread of blight by encouraging the investment of public andsprivate funds in housing rehabilitation and public improvements. DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE XI - 3 Evaluation: Protection of the historic roots of the conununity continues to be a priority, as does elimination of causes and spread of blight. Action: Continue protection of the historic fabric of the community and continue to eliminate the causes and spread of blight. POLICY 2.1 (19119): To recognize the unique contribution to the City's heritage by historic structures through the development of programs to encourage the preservation and maintenance of these structures. Evaluation: The historic preservation program was moved from Community Services to the Planning Division hi 1988. Preservation of the historic fabric of the City has been a priority of the Planning Division during the 1989 through 1994 reporting period. Budget reductions during this period resulted in excusing the seven member Historic Preservation Commission and designating the five member Planning Commission as the Historic Preservation Commission. Further, staff attrition resulted in the loss of historic preservation expertise. However, historic preservation remains a high priority and the preservation programs are continuing. Action: Preservation of the City's historic fabric through the rehabilitation and preservation of historic structures continues to be a high priority. PROGRAM 2.A. 1 (1989): Develop a loan and grant program to encourage owners of historic properties to undertake appropriate maintenance and restoration to remedy code violations. Evaluation: During the five year reporting period two City owned historic properties, the Chaffey- Garcia house and barn and the Ledig house, have been rehabilitated using Community Development Block Grant and/or Redevelopment Agency resources. No requests have been received for loans for restoration of private property. However, a low income owner-occupant could utilize the existing residential lo~m program for the purpose of maintaining historic properties, including repairs necessary to meet state requirements for seismic retrofitring. (See Table XI-I, CDBG Resources.) The City encourages owner participation in State authorized Mills Act contracts in order to facilitate rehabilitation of historic properties. Following the formal listing of a property as a local, state, and/or national landmark, a propony owner may enter into a Mills Act contract setting a timetable for property improvement and in remm ~ceive a reduction in the property tax rate. The first Mills Act contract was signed in 1990 and a total of eight have been completed. DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE XI - 4 Action: Emphasize the rehabilitation and preservation of historic residences through participation in Mills Act contracts for the 1994 through 1999 reporting period. POLICY 2.B (1989): The City shall promote the revitalization and rehabilitation of substandard residential structures. Evaluation: In order to ensure a continued supply of quality affordable housing departments cooperate to promote the revitalization and rehabilitation of substandard residential structures when feasible. Responsible departments include the Building and Safety Division, the Fire Safety Division, the Code Enforcement group, the Planning Division, and the Police Department, as well as the Redevelopment Agency. CDBG and Redevelopment Agency funds support rehabilitation efforts. However, in some cases the only altemative is demolition. Further, the Redevelopment Agency is actively assisting non-profit agency rehabilitation activities in the City. In 1993 they assisted in the formation of the North Town Neighborhood Development Corporation. The North Town HDC will undertake rehabilitation of existing homes as well as development of new affordable units. In 1993 two homes were rehabilitated and offered for sale to low income households with affordability restrictions on future sales. Action: When feasible continue to promote the revitalization and rehabilitation of substandard residential structures. PROGRAM 2.B.1 (1984): Continue to evaluate and identify areas of the City with concentrations of older or deteriorating housing units which may be targeted for rehabilitation and improvement programs. Evaluation: Redevelopment Agency funds and Community Development Block Grant funds have been targeted for North Town and Southwest Cucamonga. Public improvements continue to be directed to the North Town and Southwest Cucamonga target areas. Additional target areas, including the Rochester tract, have been identified using the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development quartile method to identify lower income neighborhoods. During the next five years CDBG funds will also be directed to neighborhoods identified by the quartile method. (See Map III-2.) Action: Continue to evaluate and identify older areas of the City in need of rehabilitation and improvement and continue to target funding for rehabilitation and improvement of identified areas. DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE XI - 5 PROGRAM 2.B.2 (1984): Continue to operate a repair grant program for seniors and disabled or handicapped persons for minor housing needs by providing grants of up to $5,000 to lower income owner occupants of single family residences including mobile homes. Evaluation: This highly successful program has met or exceeded its annual goal. A total of 95 owner occupied units have been assisted in the five year period ending June 30, 1994, which is 127 percent of the goal. (See Table XI-1 .) Action: Continue to allocate CDBG funds for the highly successfully repair grant program for owner-occupied single family homes and mobile homes of seniors and disabled or handicapped persons. PROGRAM 2.B.3 (1984): Operate a housing rehabilitation and repair loan program that offers both deferred loan payments and low interest loans to lower income households, excluding mobile homes. ~: This worthwhile program has proven difficult to market. A total of eight loans have been completed for the five year reporting period which is 27 pement of the goal. An additional four loans are in process and expected to be completed by the end of the 1994 calendar year. (See Table XI-1.) Action: Continue to allocate CDBG funds for this worthwhile rehabilitation repair and loan program for lower income owner households, excluding mobile homes. TABLE XI-I: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT RESOURCES: SELECTED PROGRAMS JULY 1, 1989 THROUGH JUNE 30, 1994. PROGRAM 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 2.A. 1. HIST. PRESERVATION 0 0 0 0 2 2.B.2. REPAIR GRANTS 21 21 12 12 29 2.B.3. REHAB LOANS 0 I 4 1 2 5.e.2. SR. SHARE 3 3 DISCONTINUED DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE XI - 6 POLICY 2.C (1989): In order to improve living environments and prevent neighborhood deterioration, the City shall promote efforts to ensure that all neighborhoods of the City, including older ones, have adequate public/community facilities and services. Evaluation: The residents of North Town and Southwest ~ucamonga continue to promote the improvement of these older neighborhoods which are pan of the historic fabric of the City. In turn, Redevelopment Agency and CDBG resources continue to be invested to bring public service and community facilities up to contemporary standards. Action: Continue to invest in older neighborhoods to ensure that all areas of the City have high quality public services and community facilities. PROGRAM 2.C.1 (1984): Continue to provide public improvements/community facilities such as street improvements, street lights, sidewalks, parkway landscaping, as well as park facilities in qualified target areas. Evaluation: Community Development Block Grant and Redevelopment Agency resources continue to be expended on this highly successful program to improve the public infrastructure of older, lower income neighborhoods. During the five year reporting period, CDBG resources have been focused on Southwest Cucamonga. In addition, RDA resources have been allocated to protect North Town from flood hazard .as a pre-requisite to construction of affordable housing units. Action: Continue to fund public improvements and community facilities for qualified target areas. POLICY 2.1) (1989): The City should promote the maintenance of existing sound quality housing. Evaluation: Residents have the primary responsibility for maintenance of existing sound quality housing. They are assisted by the Building and Safety Division and the Code Enforcement group which investigate complaints and pursue compliance with City Building Codes and Ordinances. Action: Continue to promote the maintenance of existing sound quality housing. PROGRAM 2.D.1 (1989): Utilize concentrated Code Enforcement programs to target specific areas or problems when the need and community support warrant such activity. DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE XI - 7 Evaluation: During the five year reporting period, two successful neighborhood clean-up programs have been sponsored by the City, the first for Southwest Cucamonga and the second for the Rochester Tract. The programs were focused around a one day educational event which included free pick-up of large items such as appliances, water heaters, and beds. Action: Implement this program when need arises and when residents support neighborhood clean- up efforts, provided funding and staff are available. PROGRAM 2.D.2 (1989): Develop an outreach referral program whereby owners of properties identified through Code Enforcement activities which may have structural or maintenance problems shall be directed to contact the CDBG coordinator. Evaluation: This program has been implemented informally by both Code Enforcement and the Building and Safety Division. Action: Encourage all City workers including the Police Department, the Fire Safety Division, the Maintenance Division, the Building and Safety Division, and the Code Enforcement group to refer qualified owners to apply for CDBG repair and rehabilitation program assistance. OBJECTIVE 3 (1984): Allow and create new opportunities which enable a broad range of housing types, maintain a balanced supply of ownership and rental units, and provide sufficient numbers of dwelling units to accommodate expected new household formations. Evaluation: This objective addresses the range of housing types clause of the housing goal: The City ~hall provide opportunities and incentives for the provision of a variew of housin~ Wnes for economic segments wishing to reside in the community regardless of race, religion, sex, or income group (emphasis added). Although housing production has slowed dramatically sitlee 1989, a range of housing types is being produced. For example, of the 1689 building permits issued between January 1, 1990 and December 31, 1993, 515 (30.5 percent) were for multi-family units. (See Section X: Housing Production Plan.) Action: Continue to provide opportunities and incentives for housing for all economic segments. DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE XI - 8 POLICY 3.A (1989): The City shall continue efforts, through land use distribution and implementation of development standards, which encourage a mix of housing types, including conventional, mobile home, and apartments within a variety of price ranges, which will ensure a range of housing alternatives and enable the City to achieve its share of the regional housing need as determined by the 1988 Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). EvaluatiOn: Affordable housing is defined as housing affordable to households earning 120 percent of less than the Riverside-San Bernardino PMSA median income. Households earning 80 percent or less have the greatest housing affordability problem. According to RHNA, the goal for households earning 80 percent or less of the Riverside-San Bernardino PMSA median income was 24.8 percent of new housing production, or 665 units of actual production. An estimated 2,683 new dwelling units were produced between July 1, 1989 and June 30, 1994 which is approximately 33 percent of the RHNA production goal of 9,568 dwelling units projected by SCAG. Another 6,026 units received a minimum of tentative tract map approval by the Planning Commission. If the approved units had been built, the RHNA production goal would nearly have been reached. With one exception the City does not track housing price. To comply with a Development Agreement Lewis Homes reports on unit production which is affordable to first time owners and renters. Between July 1, 1989 and June 30, 1994 Lewis Homes produced 128 'new units affordable to first time renter households earning 80 percent or less of the medium income. These units comprise five (5) percent of the RHNA low income housing goal for the reporting period. The mix of housing types is important to the City. In 1989 tlie City Council began a study of the relationship of multi-family to single-family housing in the City at buildout and concluded that planned land uses would yield a higher ratio of multi-family to single-family than planned for by surrounding cities. In February, 1991, the Council adopted the goal that at buildout the ideal ratio of multi-family development to single family development would be 32:68. The resolution recognizes that 35:65 might be a more realistic objective. A number of zoning adjustments followed. As indicated in the vacant land analysis (Section IV) current zoning provides ample vacant land to meet the objectives of SCAG's 1988 Regional Housing Needs Assessment. Action: The City shall continue efforts which facilitate a variety of housing types to meet the housing needs for all income groups who wish to work and reside in the community. Further, the City's goal for multi-family housing in relationship to single-family housing shall be a 32:68 ratio. DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE XI - 9 PROGRAM 3.A. 1 (1984): Facilitate opportunities for a variety of housing types through the implementation of the Land Use Plan, Development Dislrict Map, and Commtmity Plans on the remaining vacant land resources of the City. Evaluation: As demonstrated by the vacant land analysis in Section IV, zoning is in place to support a variety of housing types. However, as a result of economic recession new housing starts dropped dramatically after 1989. In 1993 only 296 new units were completed. Completed units include single-family and multi-family in a range of prices. Action: Continue to implement the Land Use Plan, Development District Map, and Specific Plans to provide a variety of housing types. PROGRAM 3.A.2 (1989): The City shall review and amend provisions of the Developmeht Code pertaining to mobile homes, consistent with Section 65852.3 of the Government Code, to allow manufactured homes in all residential districts. Evaluation: The Development Code states that mobile homes are permitted on individual lots in all residential districts, except very low density single family residential districts, subject to requirements of the Uniform Building Code. The City's Code has been superseded by Section 65852.3 of the Government Code. Actiorl: As soon as staff resources are available, the Development Code will be amended to conform Section 65852.3. PROGRAM 3.A.3 (1989): Discourage the conversion of existing mobile home parks to other uses in order to maintain a valuable source of affordable housing by requiting the submission of a report detailing the impacts of any proposed conversion consistent with the provisions contained in Government Code Section 65863.7. Evaluation: Consistent with State law, mobile home parks are permitted in all residential districts in the City with a Conditional Use Permit. Eight (8) mobile home parks are located in the City providing 1,280 mobile home units. Although the City has not enacted a Mobile Home Conversion Ordinance, the City promotes the conservation of Mobile Home Parks, No mobile home park conversions have occurred in the City, including none ~:om July 1, 1989 through June 30, 1994. DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE XI - 10 Action: Continue to discourage conversion of existing mobile home parks to other uses. As soon as staff resources become available enact a Mobile Home Park conservation ordinance to implement Government Code section 65863.7. POLICY 3.B (1989): To regulate the conversion of existing rental apartment housing to community apartments, stock cooperatives or condominiums in order to maintain residential stability, prevent a decline in the supply of rental housing, and discourage displacement of residents. EvaluatioI~: Consistent with Govermnent Code Sections 66452.8 through 66452.51, the City has adopted a Condominium Conversion Ordinance in 1980 and updated the Ordinance in 1983. Action: Continue to discourage conversion of existing rental stock to owner type housing. PROGRAM 3.B.I (1984): Continue to maintain and administer a condominium conversion ordinance which establishes a maximum annual limit, defined as no more than one-half the number of multi-family rental dwellings added to the City's housing stock during the preceding year, for the number of multi- family rental units that may be converted to ownership type. Evaluation: As of June 30, 1994, there were 33 apartment complexes in the City with a total of 6,823 rental units. (See Table XI-3.) The City supports conservation of rental units through a Condominium Conversion Ordinance (Development Code S~ction 17.22) which was adopted in 1980 with revisions in 1983. Market conditions discourage conversion of existing rental apartments to condominiums, thus it is not surprising that no condominium conversions have occurred during the five year reporting period. However, since Condominium Conversion legislation was enacted by the State most multi-family projects have been recorded as condominium maps. Eighteen (18) apartment complexes with a total of 3,606 rental units are recorded as condominiam maps. In other words, 52 percent of all apartment complex units in the City are managed as rentals, but could convert to owner units in the future. Action: Continue to discourage the conversion of apartment complex rental units to owner units. DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE XI - 11 TABLE XI-3. RENTAL COMPLEXES IN THE CITY AS OF JUNE 30, 1994. COMPLEX NAME/ COMPLEX NAME/ ADDRESS/ NO. OF UNIT ADDRESS/ NO. OF UNIT PHONE NO. UNITS TYPES PHONE NO. UNITS TYPES Alta Park 376 Bachelor Mission Village 64 Bachelor 10400 Arrow Route 1 Bd 1 Ba 7781 Archibald Ave. 1 Bd 1 Ba 945-5588 2 Bd I Ba 987-7335 2 Bd 2 Ba 2Bd2Ba Monterey Village 224 I Bd 1 Ba Creekside Apartments 92 2 Bd 1 Ba 10244 Arrow Route 2 Bd 1 Ba Carnelian Street 2 Bd 2 Ba 980-7235 2 Bd 2 Ba 3Bd2Ba Mountain View 270 1 Bd 1 Ba Don Miquel(Secion 8) 200 1 Bd 1 Ba 10935 Terra Vista Parkway 2 Bd 1 Ba 9850 19th Street 2 Bd 1 Ba 989-0110 2 Bd 2 Ba 989-1350 2 Bd 2 Ba 3 Bd 2 Ba 3Bd2Ba Mountain Vista 248 Bachelor Eastwood Garden 88 2 Bd 1 Ba 10300 Arrow Route 1 Bd 1 Ba 8796 Lomita 2 Bd 2 Ba 941-9868 2 Bd 1 Ba 980-5377 3 Bd 2 Ba Mountainside 384 1 Bd 1 Ba Evergreen 393 1 Bd 1 Ba 9181 Foothill Boulevard 2 Bd I Ba 10730 Church Steer 2 BdI Ba 989-9363 2 Bd 2 Ba 945-2562 2 Bd 2 Ba Parkview Place 152 Bachelor Heritage Park (Sr. Apts.) 232 I likl 1 Ba 10935 Tetra Vista Parkway 1 Bd 1 Ba 9601Lomita 2Bd2Ba 989-Ol10 2BdlBa 945-5055 2 Bd 2 Ba Loma Vista Woods 120 1 Bd 1 Ba Pepperwood 230 Bachelor 9600 19th Street 2 Bd 2 Ba 9055 Foothill Boulevard 1 Bd 1 Ba 989-2925 3 Bd 2 Ba 980-2447 2 Bd 2 Ba Lomita Court Apartments 72 1 Bd 1 Ba Rancho Verde Village 248 1 Bd 1 Ba 9600 Lomita Court 2 Bd 1 Ba 8837 Grove 2 Bd 1 Ba 980-5008 2 Bd 2 Ba 981-8121 2 Bd 2 Ba Lynnehaven 292 1 Bd 1 Ba Rancho Villa 68 1 Bd 1 Ba 10655 Lemon Avenue 2 Bd 2 Ba 8033 Ramona 2 Bd 1 Ba 945-2092 3 Bd 2 Ba 989,~3119 2 Bd 2 Ba DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE XI - 12 TABLE XI-3, CONTINUED. COMPLEX Nk.ME/ COMPLEX NAME/ ADDRESS/ NO. OF UNITS ADDRESS/ NO. OF UNIT PHONE NO. UNITS TYPES PHONE NO. UNITS TYPES Rudolph Hendrickson (Sr. Apts) 168 1 Bd 1 Ba Terrace Apartments 536 1 Bd 1 Ba 6628 Amethyst 2 Bd 1 Ba 8383 Fir 980-4875 2 Bd 2 Ba 987-8232 Arrow Gardens 150 1 Bd 1 Ba Victoria Woods 328 1 Bd 1 Ba 10151 Arrow Route 2 Bd 1 Ba 8493 Etiwanda Ave 2 Bd 1 Ba 945-5580 2 Bd 2 Ba 899-2631 2 Bd 2 Ba 3Bd2Ba Sunridge Pines 247 1 Bd 1 Ba 6653 Canary Pine 2 Bd 2 Ba Woodbend Apartments 120 1 Bd 1 Ba 987-7746 3 Bd 2 Ba 7040 Archibald Avenue 2 Bd 1 Ba 980-7118 Sunscape 207 Bachelor 8840 19th Street 1 Bd 1 Ba Woodhaven (Section 8) 117 2 Bd 1 Ba 989-3032t 2 Ikl 1 Ba 6230 Haven Avenue 2 Bd 2 Ba 980-3106 Sycamore Spring 240 1 Bd 1 Ba 7127 Archibald Avenue 2 Bd 1 Ba Woodsong Village 262 1 Bd 1 Ba 989-7866 8255 Vineyard Avenue 2 Bd 1 Ba 989-6363 Sycamore Terrace 128 1 Bd 1 Ba 10855 Terra Vista Parkway 2 Bd 1 Ba Arrow Meadows 114 1 Bd 1 Ba 989-0110 8701 Arrow Rt. 2 Bd 1 Ba 931-5777 2Bd2Ba Orangewood 24 2Bd 2.5 Ba Sierra Heights 265 1 Bd 1 Ba 8320 Vineyard 10801 Lemon Avenue 2 Bd 1 Ba 944-3750 466-5500 2 Bd 2 Ba 3Bd2Ba Vineyard Village 164 1 Bd 1 Ba Source: City of Rancho Cucamonga 8950 Arrow Route 2 Bd 1 Ba 980-5835 2 Bd 2 Ba DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE XI - 13 OBJECTIVE 4 (1984): Provide sufficient opportunities so that it is desirable for 30 percent of the projected commercial and industrial employed households in the City to live and work in the City. Evaluation: The intent of this objective is twofold. The first is to provide employment and adequate housing for persons who wish to work and live in the City. The second is to provide employment and housing in proximity to shorten the commute to work. This objective is responsive to SCAG's regional housing need assessment and to jobs/housing balance goals as stated in SCAG's Growth Management Plan, 1989. During the 1980's excellent progress was made toward meeting this objective. According to the 1990 census 22 percent of those living in the City also work in the City which is more than double the 10 percent who lived and worked in the City in 1980. This improvement in the jobs/housing balance occurred in spite of economic recession and in spite of the fact that because budget reductions none of the programs under this objective have been activated. Instead the City has focused on attracting business and industry to provide jobs and on implementation of Objective 3, promoting a wide range of housing types. Action: Continue to promote the location of business and indusU'y to the City, promote a wide range of housing types under Objective 3, and when opportunities arise promote living in the City for people who work in the City. POLICY 4.1 (1989): To promote efforts which ensure that an adequate jobs/housing balance ratio is achieved in the City and subregion consistent with the goals and objectives of SCAG's 1989 Growth Management Plan (GMP) and the projected regional jobs/housing balance ratio. The City's response has been to encourage new business and industry to locate in the City. For example, since 1989 a number of large retail businesses have located in the City, including Target, Montgomery Ward, Price Club, Walmart, Circuit City, and Best Buy. Also, the City has been supportive of the efforts of General Dynamics to enhanc~ the marketability of their 380 acre industrial property through approval of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan offering a mix of recreation, retail, office, and research and development uses. Action: Promote a favorable jobs/housing balance ratio by implementation of Object 3 and by encouraging the location of new business and industry in the City. Add a new program to the 1994 Housing Element which proactively encourages the location of new business and industry in the City. DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE XI - 14 PROGRAM 4.A. 1 (1989): Implement a development monitoring system to determine the income levels of future commercial and industrial employed households in the City in order to determine the affordable housing ranges for all household groups. The monitoring program will require commercial and industrial employers to provide the City with information on number of future employees, rate of hiring, job classifications, wage and salary ranges, and the estimated number of workers to be hired that currently reside in the City. Information should be provided at the earliest possible stage in the review process or prior to occupancy. Evaluation: Because of the City's emphasis on attracting jobs and providing a range of housing types, the jobs/housing balance has improved significantly as'indicated above in the evaluation of this objective. Also, due to budget reductions associated with economic recession during the five year reporting period, as well as the State's reallocation of the City's funding sources, implementation of a monitoring program has been infeasible. Finally, such a program could be perceived as a governmental constraint on the private sector. For these reasons this program is not recommended for future implementation. Action: Because of the improvement in thejobs/housing balance through positive City actions, this program is unnecessary and will be discontinued. PROGRAM 4.A.2 (1989): The City will make an economic study of Rancho Cucamonga's existing major employers on an annual basis. The study will evaluate commercial and industrial employee salary ranges and place of residence. From this, employee incomes will be determined and compared to housing costs for the City. Evaluation: Because of the City's emphasis on attracting jobs and providing a range of housing types, the jobs/housing balance has improved significantly as indicated in the evaluation of this objective. Further, due to budget reductions associated with economic recession during the five year reporting period, as well as the State's reallocation of the City's funding sources, an annual study of commercial and industrial employee salary ranges has been infeasible. Finally, such a program could be perceived as a governmental constraint on the private sector. For these reasons this program is not recommended for future implementation. Action: Because of the improvement in thejobs/housing balance through positive City actions, this program is unnecessary and will be discontinued. DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE XI - 15 PROGRAM 4.A.3 (1984): Based upon determination during the development review process, companies which generate a large number of low to moderate income employees shall be required to investigate the possibility of development of an equity share program to assist employees in obtaining local housing opportunities. Evaluation: Because of the City's emphasis on attracting jobs and providing a range of housing types, the jobs/housing balance has improved significantly as indicated above in the evaluation of this objective. Due to budget and staff reductions associated with economic recession during the five year reporting period, as well as the State's reallocation of City funding sources, implementation of an employer-employee equity share program has been infeasible. Finally, such a program could be perceived to be governmental constraint on the private sector. For these reasons this program is not recommended for future implementation. Action: Because of the improvement in thejobs/housing balance through positive City actions, this program is unnecessary and will be discontinued. PROGRAM 4.A.4 (1989): Develop a housing information program that will require, as a condition of approval, that local developers provide announcements to local employers of housing units for sale or rent 30 days prior to offering the units to the general public. Evaluation: Because of the City's emphasis on attracting jobs and providing a range of housing types, the jobs/housing has improved significantly as indicated above in the evaluation of this objective. Due to budget reductions associated with economic recession during the five year reporting period, as well as the State's reallocation of the City's funding sources, implementation of a 30 day preview of new for sale or rent units by local employers has been infeasible. Further, such a program could be perceived as a governmental conswaint on the private sector. For these reasons this program is not recommended for future implementation. Action: Because of the improvement in thejobs/housing balance through positive City actions, this program is unnecessary and will be discontinued. PROGRAM 4.A.5 (1984): Continue to maintain and update the City's data base management system, which monitors proposed residential, commercial, and industrial projects. DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE XI - 16 Evaluation: This monitoring system is in place and the data base continues to be updated frequently. Because of the reduction of budget and staff, the goal of a weekly update for staff purposes and a quarterly update for public use has not been met. Action: Continue this program. Update the reports for staff and public use as frequently as possible, retaining the goal of weekly and quarterly updates. OBJECTIVE 5 (1984): Provide housing opportunities which meet the needs of all economic segments of the community including very low, low, and moderate income households and special needs groups. Evaluation: This objective addresses the affordability clause of the housing element goal: The City shall provide opportunities and incentives for the provision of a variety of housing types for all economic segments wishing to reside in the community regardless of race, religion, sex, or income group (emphasis added). Normally the market provides an adequate supply of housing for moderate and upper income groups. From 1990 to the present new housing production for all groups has been slow. However there has been a steady supply or resale homes for a variety of income ranges. Further, the Redevelopment Agency is using Housing Set-Aside funds to assist in conservation and development of rental housing for the very low and low income groups. In addition to the needs of low income households in general, this objective also addresses special needs of the elderly, handicapped, and homeless. Together these groups typically have the most difficult time acquiring adequate housing. Action: Continue to promote housing opportunities which meet the needs of very low, low, and moderate income households and special needs groups. POLICY 5.A (1989): Protect and expand the range of housing opportunities available by location, price, and tentare to lower and moderate income households. Development agreements shall be used as a procedure with projects providing multiple affordable housing units which utilize incentives offered by the City. Evaluation: City resources, primarily the Redevelopment Agency's twenty percent set-aside funds, are being used to expand the range of housing opportunities for lower and moderate income households. DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE X/- 17 Action: Continue to protect and expand the range of hotming oppommities for lower and moderate income households wishing to reside in the City. PROGRAM 5.A. 1 (1984): Continue to administer and develop Residential Mortgage Bond programs whereby low interest loans can be issued to first time home buyers making at or below 120 percent of the established median income. Evaluation: In the previous reporting period this was a very successful program. In this reporting period public Residential Mortgage Bond programs have not been competitive with lower interest private mortgage programs. Further, private mortgage programs have become available for families within the 80 to 120 percent of median income range. For example, the federal government requires banks to implement neighborhood reinvestment strategies, including mortgage loan availability to low and moderate income households. Action: Develop and administer Mortgage Bond or alternative programs as funds become available at competitive interest rates. PROGRAM 5.A.2 (1984): The City, in conjunction with the County of San Bemardino, shall continue to administer and develop new Residential Multi-Family Mortgage Revenue Bond Programs to developers of affordable multi-family projects. Evaluation: When the population exceeded 50,000 in 1980, Rancho Cucamonga was designated an "entitlement City" and subsequently became ineligible to participate in the County's Residential Multi-Family Mortgage Revenue Bond Program. Further, state funds for this program have run out. It should be noted that the affordability restrictions for this State financed program were required for only a ten year term. These terms will end during the 1994 to 1999 reporting period cansing 314 affordable units to be at risk of converting to market rate. New public funding will be required to conserve these affordable units. The City is committed to conserving these affordable units. In 1993 the Redevelopment Agency entered into an Agency-Owner agreement to conserve 46 of these units- at-risk. Action: Facilitate participation in Residential Multi-Family Revenue Bond, or comparable, programs as state and/or federal funds become available. Encourage State and/or Federal programs to adopt long term affordability restrictions for future Multi-Family bond programs and to offer oppommities for below-market rate refmancing during a period of declining interest rates. Further, encourage state and/or federal affordable housing bond programs to offer below-market rate DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE XI - 18 refinancing to existing market rate multi-family developments in order to capture new restricted, affordable units. This could be an attractive option to owners during periods of increasing interest rates. PROGRAM 5.A.3 (1984): Through the requirements of the Tetra Vista and Victoria Community Plans, a maximum 15 percent density bonus may be provided for the development of low and moderate income housing for first time buyers and first time renters. It is the intent of the Development Agreements that in order to qualify for the density bonus provision, 15 percent of the units built shall be affordable to low and moderate income households. Of the 15 percent, one-third shall be for households earning 100 to 120 percent of the median income, one-third of those making 80 percent to 100 percent of the median income, and one-third earning 50 percent to 80 percent of the median income. The City shall develop a review and monitoring program in order to determine the number of affordable units provided on an annual basis and the utilization of the density provisions. Evaluation: Affordability is tied to federal Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HLID) median income analysis. As indicated in Table XI-3 and Table XI-4, affordability goals change annually in response to HUD's published figures. Socio-economic factors influence an area median income. For example, inflation, as well as increased average earning capacity, pushes the median level upward. Also, as increasing numbers of households have two or more wage earners, individual average incomes may decrease while median household income moves upward. The relationship of these factors is not evaluated when affordability goals are set by the State. A monitoring program is in place for Term Vista. Under the terms of the Tetra Vista Development Agreement, Lewis Homes met their affordability goals prior to the 1989 revision of the Housing Element and has continued to exceed their goals to market units affordable to first time owners and first time renters. (See Table XI-5.) In addition Lewis Homes has placed short term affordability restrictions on 189 units as a condition of participating in state lower interest multi-family bond financing. The restricted rental units represent 5.47 percent of the total housing production for Term Vista. These restricted units are at risk of conversion to market rote. (See Chapter IX, Units-at-Risk.) The Redevelopment Agency has entered into discussions with Western Properties, the rental division of Lewis Homes, to find the means to preserve these restricted units for lower income households. The experience in the Victoria Planned Community has been quite different. In contrast to the range of housing types offered in Term Vista by Lewis Homes, the William Lyon Company has followed marketing strategies emphasizing merchant-builder sales and single-family housing product in the Victoria Planned Community. They have elected not to pursue the density bonus option. For the aforementioned reasous, as well as lack of City budget and staff, no affordability monitoring program has been implemented for Victoria. DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE XI - 19 As indicated above, the affordability provisions of the Planned Communities have been implemented by Lewis Homes. In the Terra Vista Planned Community the affordability provisions have benefited 57 percent of the first time home buyers and renters locating there. However, the long term need for affordable housing for lower income households has been marginally met for only 5.5 percent of the units which are restricted by contracts expiring between 1995 and 1997. The Redevelopment Agency will monitor all restricted affordable housing within the Redevelopment Area, including any future units built in the Victoria Planned Community, as well as in Terra Vista. The Redevelopment Agency's monitoring program will be incorporated into their Housing Production and Implementation Plan which is scheduled to be adopted by December 31, 1994. The Planning Division will continue to monitor Development Agreements for the Terra Vista and Victoria Planned Communities as required by State Law. Action: The Redevelopment Agency will continue to develop and implement an affordable housing strategy focusing on long term restricted contracts of not less than 30 years to preserve affordability. The Agency will develop and monitor an affordable housing unit tracking system for all restricted units which fulfill the Agency's affordable housing requirement. The Planning Division will continue to monitor Development Agreements for the Terra Vista and Victoria Planned Communities as required by State Law. DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEM:ENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE XI - 20 TABLE XI-3: MEDIAN INCOMES AND AFFORDABLE RENTS 1986-1993 S.B. CO. MONTHLY GROSS MEDIAN INCOME MEDIAN &affordable rent at 30% of income INCOME YEAR PER HUD X80% RENT X100% RENT X120% RENT 1986 $26,800 $1,787 $536 $2,233 $670 $2,680 $804 1987 $28,800 $1,920 $576 $2,400 $720 $2,880 $864 1988 $30,300 $2,020 $606 $2,525 $758 $3,030 $909 1989 $32,200 $2,147 $644 $2,683 $805 $3,220 $966 1990 $33,800 $2,253 $676 $2,817 $845 $3,380 $1,014 1991 $36,000 $2,400 $720 $3,000 $900 $3,600 $1,080 1992 $36,000 $2,400 $720 $3,000 $900 $3,600 $1,080 1993 $41,000 $2,733 $820 $3,417 $1,025 $4,100 $1,230 SOURCE: Lewis Homes DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE X[ - 21 TABLE XI-4: MEDIAN INCOMES AND AFFORDABLE SALES PRICE, 1986-1993 S.B. CO. MAXIMUM SALES PRICE AFFORDABLE MEDIAN based on gross monthly payment at 28% of income INCOME PER X80% X100% X120% YEAR HUD 1986 $26,800 -- $80,500 $97,000 1987 $28,800 $69,000 $87,000 $104,000 1988 $30,300 $74,000 $90,000 $107,500 1989 $32,200 .... $115,000 1990 $33,800 .... $120,000 1991 $36,000 $ 88,000 $110,000 $132,000 1992 $36,000 $92,000 $115,000 $138,000 1993 $41,000 $94,400 $118,000 $141,600 Source: Lewis Homes DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE XI - 22 TABLE XI-5: TERRA VISTA AFFORDABLE HOUSING ACCOMPLISHMENTS THROUGH JULY 1994 < 80% 80-100% 100-120% Total Units Total Units Median Median Median Affordable Offered Income Income Income Rentals 1990-93 128 208 -- 336 336 Sales 1990-93 0 21 92 113 245 TOTAL 128 229 92 449 581 Totals 1984-90 (Prior reports) 270 868 381 1,519 2,875 , GRAND TOTAL 398 1,097 473 1,968 3,456 Percent Affordable 11.52% 31.74% 13.69% 56.94% NOTE: Analysis based on unit affordability to first time buyer and first time renter. A total of 189 units are restricted to occupants who earn less than 80 percent of the median income for San Bemardino County and are discussed in the Units-At-Risk analysis in Chapter IX. Restricted units = 5.47 percent of the total units. Source: Lewis Homes DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE XI - 23 PROGRAM 5.A.4 (1989): The City shall undertake measures to further impletnent State Density Bonus Requirements contained in Government Code Section 65915 for development of lower income housing. The City will proceed with the development of an ordinance within the annual work program schedule or within 90 days of receiving a project proposal utilizing density bonus provisions, whichever comes first. Evaluation: During the five year reporting period no developer has approached the City to express interest in the State's Density Bonus provision for affordable housing. Action: In accordance with Government Code Section 65915, within 90 days of receipt of a written proposal, the City shall notify the housing developer in writing of the manner in which it will comply and the City Council shall establish procedures tbr implementing the State's density bonus requirement. PROGRAM 5.A.5 (1984): In conjunction with the development review process, encourage private developers to utilize Federal rental assistance programs to assist those groups in need as identified by the City's Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy. Information will be provided to the development community regarding Section 8 through the use of informational documents provided to applicants of multi- family projects in the early stages of the review process. Evaluation: This program has been implemented irttbrmally. A high ratio of lower income households residing in units developed under the City's Seuior Housing Overlay District benefit ~'om owner participation in the federal Section 8 program administered by the San Bernardino County Housing Authority (SBCHA). As of June 30, 1993, 182 households residing in the City utilized certificates or vouchers dis~ibuted by SBCHA. Of certificate or voucher holders, 99 were elderly. DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE XI - 24 For the 1989 to 1994 period, the SBCHA reports need for Section 8 assistance far exceeds the resources of this important federal program. Specifically, 138 households residing in the City had SBCHA approved applications and were waiting for certificates or vouchers to become available. The City supports the armual applications by SBCHA for additional federal vouchers which is consistent with the City's policy that assisted, affordable housing units be scattered throughout the community and indistinguishable from market rate housing.. Action: Continue informal discussion with private developers and multi-family apartment managers regarding Section 8 participation. Continue to support SBCHA requests for additional federal vouchers to meet the needs of low income households now living in the City. PROGRAM 5.A.6 (1989): Continue to support the use of a voluntary rent stabilization program, known as the Mobile Home Park Accord, for mobile home parks past the current expiration date of December 31, 1991, as a means of keeping rents at reasonable levels to allow continued affordability of this method of housing. Evaluation: The Mobile Home Park Accord has been extended until 1997. Action: In 1997, renegotiate this contract between the City and the Mobile Home Park owners. PROGRAM 5.A.7 (1989): Develop and implemem an affordable housing strategy utilizing the Redevelopment 20 percent tax increment fund that is consistent with provisions of the Western Center for Law and Poverty Agreement. Evaluation. A draft "Affordable Housing Strategy" was completed in April, 1990, for the Redevelopment Agency. The draft Strategy will provide baseline information for the Housing Production and Implementation Plan required by Section 33413 (b) of the Health and Safety Code. A draft Housing Production and Implementation Plan is in preparation and will be considered by the Redevelopment before December 31, 1994. Action: The Redevelopment Agency shall complete and adopt a Housing Production and Implementation Plan in accord with State law. Further, the Redevelopment Agency shall establish an affordable housing monitoring program and prepare an annual report on affordable housing production. POLICY 5 .B ( 1989): ,~ Promote efforts to better define both the size and composition of the homeless population in order to more accurately assess existing and future needs. DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE XI - 25 Evaluation: In addition to the 1990 census, non-profit organizations have undertaken census surveys with widely differing results in the City. Action: Continue to support efforts to better define both the size and composition of the City's homeless population. PROGRAM 5.B.1 (1989): The City shall monitor on an annual basis the number of persons in need of shelter in Rancho Cucamonga on an average daily basis as well as the number and type of shelter services available at that time. Evaluation: The most reliable indication of homeless need in the City comes from providers of assistance to the homeless. The level of assistance appears to be highly correlated to the level of need in the City. Change this program to emphasize reportinl~ by non-profit agencies to establish homeless need in the City. Action: As pan of the Comprehensive Affordable Housing Strategy (CHAS) required by the federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program continue to conduct an annual survey of non-profit providers to the homeless in order to determine the level of need within the City. POLICY 5.C (1989): Provide for and facilitate the provision of temporary emergency shelter and transitional housing opportunities. Evaluation: CDBG funds have been allocated to non-profit agencies which provide temporary emergency shelter and transitional housing opportunities. Action: Continue CDBG funding to non-profit agencies which provide shelter and support for homeless persons in the City. PROGRAM 5.C.1 (1989): Provide financial support toward development of a transitional housing program. At a minimum, this program should involve direct subsidies in the form of grants and/or loans to be used toward housing entry costs, including first and last months rent and security deposit. An expanded program would involve the longer term provision of shelter in combination with job training, money management, and medical/mental health/substance abuse counselling. DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE XI - 26 Evaluation: This program is implemented through allocation of Community Development Block Grant funds to support non-profit agencies which provide shelter and support for homeless persons in the City under Program 5.C.2, homeless services offered by local non-profit agencies. Action: During the 1994 to 1999 reporting period, this program should be discontinued since it duplicates private effort assisted by CDBG funding under Program 5.C.2. PROGRAM 5.C.2 (1989): Encourage the continued provision of emergency shelter assistance to persons lacking shelter by local organizations, community groups, and churches. The City shall provide assistance to these groups if requested. Evaluation: Community Development Block Grant resources have been directed to funding local providers of assistance to homeless. During 1992-93 and 1993-94 funds have been allocated to Homeless Outreach, which provides vouchers and social services for the homeless, and to the House of Ruth, which provides shelter and social services to battered women and their children. In 1993-94 funds were also allocated to the West End Hunger Program, which provides food and referrals to homeless persons. Funding allocations are tied to assistance to persons from Rancho Cucamonga. Action: Continue to allocate Community Development Block Grant funds to providers of assistance to homeless persons. PROGRAM 5.C.3 (1989): Evaluate existing code requirements to determine those conditions and standards where various types of shelter facilities may be located, including review and evaluation of industrial districts. Evaluation: State law permits group care facilities for six or less persons in any residential district. Due to budget and staff reductions associated with economic recession during the five year reporting period, no fiather evaluation of the existing code requirements has occurred. Action: When budget and staff arc available, implement this program. In addition, research and evaluate special requirements for location of shelters for abused women and children, specifically the need for an anonymous address. POLICY 5.D (1989): Actively support a multi-jurisdictional comprehensive approach in addressing the needs of the homeless. DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT ~rECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE XI - 27 Evaluation: Many homeless people, including those who may live in cars or vans, travel across boundaries of local jurisdictions. Other are migrants, moving from region to region looking for work. Therefore, the needs of the homeless is clearly a multi-jurisdictional problem. Action: Continue to support a multi-jurisdictional approach to the needs of the homeless. PROGRAM 5.D.I (1989): Participate with adjacent communities toward the provision of a subregional shelter program and encourage the County to develop a comprehensive homeless program. Evaluation: The goals of the County of San Bernardino Homeless Coalition are to identify needs, develop policies, and implement programs for the homeless. Most of the work of the coalition is accomplished by volunteers. The coalition has applied for non-profit status. Most of the homeless programs in the County and neighboring cities are offered by. private and/or non-profit providers. Action: Continue this program and participate with neighboring cities and the County as opportunities arise. POLICY 5.E (1989): To recognize the unique characteristics of the elderly mad handicapped households by promoting efforts in furtherance of their special needs. Evaluation: This policy is supported by the public and programs bene~ting seniors and handicapped have been implemented. Action: Continue to promote programs to meet the special needs of elderly and handicapped households. PROGRAM 5.E.1 (1989): Continue to allow for the establishment of second units on single-family residential lots to provide additional elderly housing opportunities pursuant to state law.and established zoning regulations. Evaluation: Section 17.08.030(6) of the Development Code provides for second units in all single family residential zones consistent with Sections 65852.1 and 65852.2 of the Government Code. Action: Continue to allow for the establishment of second units on single-family reldential lots. DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE XI - 28 PROGRAM 5.E.2 (1989): Continue to provide financial support toward provision of a senior shared housini program which is conducted by Inland Mediation. Evaluation: Only three matches were made in 1989-90 and three in 1990-91. The service provider and the City agreed that the program was not cost effegtive and should be discontinued. (See Table XI-1 .) Action: Discontinue the Senior-Shared housing program. PROGRAM 5.E.3 (1989): Continue to enforce and regulate the disabled accessibility and adaptability standards contained in Title 24 of the California and Uniform Building Code as they apply to apartments and condominium/ townhouse projects. Evaluation: Title 24 applies to new construction. The Building and Safety Division continues to enforce all American Disabilities Act regulations. Action: The Building and Safety Division shall continue to enforce Title 24 of the California and Uniform Building Code. OBJECTIVE 6 (1984): Promote equal housing opportunities for all economic ~egments of the community regardless of race, sex, or religion. Evaluation: This objective addresses the non-discrimination clause of the City's housing goal: The City shall provide opportunities and incentives for the .provision of a variety of housing types for economic segments wishing to reside in the community re~,ardless of race. religion. sex. or 'mlllgg..~Lg[.O3~ (emphasis added). The purpose of this objective is to affirmatively support the fair homing laws of the State and Federal governments to ensure that all residents have access to a decent home in a suitable living environment. Community Development Block Grant funds are allocated to a noraprofit agency'for proactive community education to further fair housing, as well as for case by case investigation of alieged violations of fair housing. DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE XI - 29 Action: Continue to promote fair housing opportunities. POLICY 6.A (1989): The City shall pursue programs that will reduce the incidence of housing discrimination within the City. Evaluation: The programs developed under this policy, especially proactive educational programs, promote efforts to eliminate discrimination in the sale and rental of housing and to ensure that the rights of all parties are protected. In/and Mediation Board, a non-profit agency, delivers fair housing services under the Community Development Block program. Between 1980 and 1990, non-White ethnic groups (excluding persons ofhispanic origin) increased 10 percent in relation to the total population, which suggests that equal housing opportunities exist in the City. Action: Continue Community Development Block funding for fair housing services, with emphasis on proactive education programs, for the purpose of eliminating discrimination in the rental or sale of housing. PROGRAM 6.A.1 (1984): Provide financial support for In/and Mediation Board, or a similar non-profit organization, which assists in the resolution of tenant/landlord disputes and housing discrimination complaints. Evaluation: Inland Mediation Board receives in excess of 400 inquiries a year regarding landlord tenant and housing discrimination. The service provider has pursued approximately nine (9) discrimination cases a year. In addition, on a complaint basis, the service provider conducts on-site testing, with appropriate follow-up. Finally, the service provider conducts community education programs regarding fair housing and landlord/tenant rights. Action: Continue Community Development Block Grant funding for landlord/tenant and fair housing services. Emphasize education and voluntary compliance with fair housing practices, but support on-site testing if discriminatory practices are suspected. OBJECTIVE 7 (1984): Require energy efficiency in all residential developments. ~: Expenses for energy and resources consumed in the home are major factors added to mortgage or rental costs contributing to overall housing cost. Costs for water and for disposal of DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE XI - 30 municipal solid waste have increased substantially during the last five years. Therefore, efforts to reduce water consumption and landfill dumping of municipal solid waste not only conserve energy, conserve resources, but also help reduce the overall cost of housing. Although savings of electrical energy have not been quantified, solid waste reduction programs and water conservation programs have demonstrated success. Action: Continue to require energy efficiency. POLICY 7.A (1989): Increase public awareness of and encourage the utilization of energy and resource conservation measures through the continued enforcement of the State energy code and City development regulations, as well as through the development of public information and policy statements. Evaluation: Code enforcement, education, and voluntary effort have proven successful in conserving energy resources. Action: Continue the policy of code requirements, education, and voluntary effort. PROGRAM 7.A.1 (1984): Continue to enforce and regulate the existing State residential energy design guidelines through existing California State and Uniform Building Code. vF,~J.l!alig~: All development, including residential development, is required to comply with California State and Uniform Building Codes. The energy conservation requirements were added to Title 24 of the State Administrative Code in 1983, amended in 1988, and updated in 1993. Action: The Building and Safety and Planning Divisions shall continue to enforce energy efficiency requirements of California State and Uniform Building Codes. PROGRAM 7.A.2 (1984): Continue to implement through the Development Code energy efficient design procedures and specification for such things as solar techniques, landscaping standards, house orientation, and sun angle exposure. Evaluation: Sections 17.08.040 (H) and 17.08.060(G) of the Development Code addresses efficient energy design guidelines and requirements. Action: Continue to implement efficient energy design guidelines and requirements. DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE XI - 31 PROGRAM 7.A.3 (1989): Continue to increase the public's awareness and utilization of energy saving and resource conservation techniques through the use of public information brochures and by example, through the continued implementation of the Model Home Landscape Policy and Xeriscape Ordinance. Evaluation: The City adopted the Xeriscape Ordinanc. e on January 17, 1990. The purpose is to promote conservation. All new residential, commercial, and industrial projects must comply except single family yards. Where there are two or more model homes for new single family residential development, one-half the models must demonstrate the use of water saving landscaping material and irrigation techniques. Through the Xeriscape Ordinance and educational efforts by the City and Cucamonga County Water District, per capita water consumption has declined 23 percent between 1989 and 1992. In 1989 consumption was .4 acre foot per person. In 1992 consamption decreased to .33 acre foot per person. Action: Continue water and energy conservation education and regulation efforts, including brochures and implementation of the Xeriscape Ordinance. OBJECTIVE 8 (1984): Where possible, eliminate governmental constraints. Evaluation: State Government Code Section 65583 requires that local jurisdictions provide an analysis of "...potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels..." and where possible to remove those constraints. Between 1989 and 1994 the City has adopted process streamlining measures and enacted changes in the Development Code to reduce governmental constraints on all development. However, the economy has dampened all development activity, and severely'dampened new housing construction activity. Action: Continue to review and evaluate processing procedures and the Development Code to eliminate governmental constraints on housing development. POLICY 8.A (1989): To promote efforts to reduce procedural delays, provide information early in the pro6ess regarding development costs, and to charge only those fees necessary to adequately carry out needed public services and improvements. DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE XI - 32 l~v01uation: Fees are necessary to adequately carry out needed public services and improvements necessary for urban development. In 1985 the City detemained .that specific fees would be necessary to promote the general welfare of the Community. Further, a portion, but not all, of the cost of processing new development is incorporated into project application and processing fees. A comprehensive list of fees is maintained and available to the public. Action: Continue to review and evaluate fees and charge only those fees necessary to adequately carry out needed public services. PROGRAM 8.A. 1 (1989): The City shall conduct a fee assessment study to determine the necessary costs for the provision of adequate public services and improvements to ensure the continued health, safety, and welfare of the community. Evaluation: A four year study on City processing fees, including application review and plan check, was completed and fees updated in 1991. Development fees, including Building and Safety, Transportation, Drainage, Park Development, Building and Safety, and Beautification, are reviewed annually. Fee ordinances, which establish methodology, are reviewed periodically. Fee ordinances for Transportation and Parks Development were updated in 1991. The Building and Safety fee update is scheduled for 1995. The Transportation Fee update is scheduled for update by December, 1994. The Drainage Fee ordinance is scheduled for revision and update by December, 1994, for compliance with state legislation (AB 1600). The City Beauti~cation Fee review is on the 1994-95 work program. Actiorl: Continue periodic review and update of City fees and the methodology on which the fees are based. DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE XI - 33 PROGRAM 8.A.2 (1989): Continue to foster open communication with respect to City standards and procedures through preliminary project review, the provision of information handouts, and articles in the City's newsletter, "The Grapevine." Evaluation: Articles in the City's newsletter and handouts continue to provide information about City standards and procedures. Information is also provided at the public counter in City Hall. Further, informal meetings with proponents are encouraged at the early stages of project development. In addition, the Planning Division has instituted two formal procedures to facilitate project review, Preliminary Review and Pre-application Review. Preliminary Review focuses on technical issues at the staff level. Pre-application review takes the application to the Planning Commission for non- binding comments and usually focuses on potential policy issues. These less formal preliminary review procedures are indented to save time and money for an applicant with a complex proposal. Action: Continue to facilitate development processing through multiple techniques, including oral assistance and handouts at the public counter, articles in the City's newsletter, informal meetings with applicants, Preliminary Review to address technical issues, and Pre-Application review to address policy issues. PROGRAM 8.A.3 (1989): Evaluate established City processing procedures to determine whether expedited processing is possible for housing developments using the Redevelopment 20 percent set aside funds or for projects proposing a proportion of units affordable to lower income households. Evaluation: The Planning Division has responsibility to evaluite processing procedures. In August, 1994, the City adopted a project slxearnlining ordinance which reduces the optimum processing time from eleven weeks to eight weeks for applications which require Planning Commission review. Also, under the streamlining ordinance projects which require public notice but are substantially routine in character may now be approved by City Planner heating in as short a period of time as six weeks, such as a time extension for an approved tentative tract map. These proceedms are available for all applicants, including but not limited to applications for low income housing. The focus of the Redevelopment Agency's 20 percent set-aside fund is production of affordable housing units. Goals and fund allocations are discussed in Chapter IX, Housing PrOduction Plan, which is scheduled for adoption by December, 1994. DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE XI - 34 Action: Change this program. Delete the reference to the Re~levelopment Agency. The Planning Division will continue to evaluate processing for all residential developments and whenever possible recommend streamlining procedures. OBJECTIVE 9: Periodically update and monitor the Housing Element and evaluate its effectiveness in attainment of its goal, objectives, policies, and programs. Evaluation: Update of the Housing Element is a Planning Division work program priority. Action: Continue periodic update of the Housing Element. POLICY 9.A (1989): To evaluate and update the Housing Element on a periodic basis in order to incorporate provisions of the Redevelopment Agency's Affordable Housing and Implementation Program, to monitor progress toward attainment and implementation of the states goal, objectives, and policies of the Element, and to ensure consistency with State Law. Evaluation: Technical update of a Housing Element is an important but staff intensive task. The update following the decennial census incorporates new data and is crucial to review of housing production efforts. Since an Amendment to the Housing Element triggers the state review and certification process, a less than five year update of the Housing Element causes funding hardship. For example, the State certified the City's 1989 Housing Element update in 1991 ending a three year update process. In 1989 the Legislature added a Units-at-Risk requirement with a January, 1992, implementation deadline. For most local communities funding was not available to meet that deadline. The legislature then extended the deadline to July, 1992. City funding was still not available for an interim amendment, including HCD review of the Housing Element. Just two years after HCD certified the City's 1989 Housing Element update, the State issued a notice of non-compliance in August, 1993. Cities were thus penalized for not complying with an unfunded, state mandated, amendment to the Housing Element, i.e., to amend a Units-at-Risk study into the Housing Element between mandated update cycles. In the meantime the Legislature reallocated local funding to the State and did not fund the 1994 update of local Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) projections. Therefore, SCAG stopped work on the 1994 RHNA projections. Adding to the confusiop, the Legislature extended the 1994 Housing Element Update two years, to 1996. Nevertheless, since Housing Element compliance is important to the City and 1990 Census data is available, the City has prepared a 1994 update of the Housing Element. DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE XI - 35 Action: Continue to comply with the State Mandated five year update of the Housing Element in a timely manner. Support legislative to limit State review of Housing Element Amendments to the mandated periodic update following the decennial federal census. Support State legislation which accepts as a City's "annual report" as either, or both, the Community Development Block Grant Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy annual report (or its successor report) and the Redevelopment Agency's annual report consistent with the adopted Housing Production Plan. PROGRAM 9.A.I (1989): Upon adoption of the Redevelopment Agency's Affordable Hi~using Strategy and Implementation Program, the Housing Element shall be revised as necessary to ensure consistency with the affordable housing program. Evaluation: The Redevelopment Agency's draft Affordable Housing Strategy and Implementation Program, 1991, has been incorporated into the state mandated Housing Production Plan, scheduled for adoption prior to December 31, 1994. This update of the Housing Element shall be consistent with the Housing Production Plan. Action: With the adoption of the state mandated Housing Production Plan, programs are in place to implement the draft Affordable Housing Strategy and this program is complete. PROGRAM 9.A.2 (1989): Prepare an annual report to the City Council to evaluate the City's progress toward implementation and attainment of the stated goals, objectives, and policies of the Housing Element. Evaluation: Due to budget reductions associated with economic recession during the five year reporting period, as well as the State's reallocation of City funding sources, reports to the City Council have been program driven rather than combined into a comprehensive annual report. The Redevelopment Agency prepares an annual report, including 20 percent set-aside achievements, which is forwarded to the Council. The Community Development Block Grant Program prepares three reports which are reviewed and adopted by the Council: Program Application; Grantee Performance Report; and the Community Housing Affordability Strategy. The Council adopts an annual budget and annually reviews and adopts the City f~e schedule. All ordinances are approved by the Council. Action: Revise this program to specify that CDBG annual affordable housing reporting requirements along with the Redevelopment Agency's annual affordable housing reporting requirements fulfill the City's annual affordable housing reporting requirements. The Planning Division shall forward copies of these reports to the State HCD as required by law. DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE XI - 36 PROGRAM 9.A.3 (1989): Prepare an analysis of existing assisted housing developments that are eligible to change to non-low- income housing uses during the next 10 years consistent with the requirements of Senate Bill 1282, 1989, pertaining to Section 65583 of the Government Code. Evaluation: A Units-at-Pdsk study has been prepared and incorporated into the Housing Element. (See Section X, Units-at-Risk.) The Redevelopment Agency has entered into negotiations with each project owner to discuss options to retain affordable restrictions on all units at risk of conversion to market rate prior to Jane 30, 1999. As of June 30, 1994, 46 of the 314 anits at risk of conversion to market rate prior to June 30, 1999 have been preserved. Also, the Redevelopment Agency has entered into an agreement with the Southern California Housing Development Corporation, a non-profit agency, to purchase or enter into contracts for the preservation of restricted affordable units. Action: This program now enters an implementation phase. The Redevelopment Agency shall continue discussions with owners of units at risk of conversi6n to market rate. On a case by case basis, the Agency will purchase, assist purchase by a non-profit agency, or enter into contracts to preserve restricted affordable units. SUMMARY: Based on the above analysis, the existing 9 objectives will be continued. Existing programs will be continued, modified, or eliminated as discussed. New programs will be added as necessary to further assist in obtaining the goals and objectives of the Housing Element. No new objective statements will be added. However, objective statements shall be ranumbered to emphasize the objectives which address the City's housing goals, as follows. Objective 1 shall become Objective 4. Provide quality residential environments which contribute to a well functioning community by ensuring residential development which is attractive in design and also functions to protect the public safety and welfare, and provide benefit to the community. Objective 2 shall become Objective 5. Conserve and improve the existing housing stock, including structures of historic significance, and eliminate the causes and spread of blight by encouraging the investment of public and private funds in housing rehabilitation and public improvements. Objective 3 shall become Objective 1. Allow and create new opportunities which enable a broad range of housing types, maintain a balanced supply of ownership and rental units, and provide sufficient numbers of dwelling units to accommodate expected new household formations. DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE XI - 37 Objective 4 shall become Objective 6. Provide sufficient opportunities so that it is desirable for 30 percent of the projected commercial and industrial employed households in the City to live and work in the City. Objective 5 shall become Objective 2. Provide housing opportunities which meet the needs of all economic segments of the community including vet-3, low, low, and moderate income households and special needs groups. Objective 6 shall become Objective 3. Promote equal housing opportunities for all economic segments of the community regardless of race, sex, or religion. Objective 7 shall remain Objective 7. Require energy e:fficiency in all residential developments. Objective 8 shall remain Objective 8. Where possible, eliminate governmental constraints. Objective 9 as amended below shall remain Objective 9. As required by State law, periodically update the Housing Element, including evaluation of its effectiveness in attainment of its goal, objectives, policies, and programs; and through annual reports required by law for the Community Development Block Grant program and the Redevelopment Agency Housing Set- Aside fund monitor annual citywide affordable housing accomplishments. DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE XI - 38 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAlvIONGA ' ~ STAFF REPORT DATE: December 28, 1994 TO~ Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Gall Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT~ ~: When appointments were made to the Design Review Committee in June 1994, the Commission indicated membership should be reviewed in six months. The current membership is as follows: C_Q.M]~X.TF~ ALTERNATES (in order) Heinz Lumpp Peter Tolstoy John Melcher Larry McNiel Dave Barker A history of Design Review Committee membership since February 1990 is attached as Exhibit ]~?,D~ia~g,~AXjD~: The Planning Commission should determine appropriate membership for the Design Review Committee. City Planner BB:GS/gs Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Design Review Committee Membership History ITEM C DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP February 1990 to present CO~LMERCIAL/INDUSTRI~L ~ February 1990 - APril 1990: Suzanne Chitiea Larry McNiel Peter Tolstoy Betsy Weinberger Alternate: David Blakesley May 1990 - Septsadder 1990: Suzanne Chitlea Larry McNiel Peter Tolstoy Betsy Weinberger Alternate: John Melther SeDte~er 1990 - Nove~er 1990: Suzanne chitlea Larry McNiel Peter Tolstoy John Melcher Noven~er 1990 - February 1991: Suzanne Chitlea Larry McNiel Peter Tolstoy Wendy Yellerrs Alternate: John Melcher February 1991 - July 1991: Suzanne Chitiea Larry McNiel Wendy Vallette Peter Tolstoy Alternate: John Melcher ~ulv 1991 - July 1992: Suzanne Chitlea Peter Tolstoy Larry McNiel Wendy Vallette Alternate: John Melcher ~ITTEE ~TERNAT~S tin order~ July 1992 - October 1992: Larry McNiel Peter Tolstoy Wendy Vallette suzanne chitlea John Melcher October 1992 - JanuaTv 1993: Larry McNlel Peter Tolstoy -John Melcher Wendy Vailotto Suzanne Chitlea Janua~-v 1993 - Octo~r 1993: John Melcher Peter Tolstoy Wendy Vallette Suz~e Chitlea Lar~ McNlel Qctober 199~ - De-~- 1993~ Lar~ McNlel Peter Tolstoy John Melcher Suzanne chitlea Wendy Vailotto DecOr 1993 - June 1994: Lar~ McNlel Peter Tolstoy John Melcher Heinz Dave Barker Heinz L~ Peter Tolstoy Jo~ Melcher L~ MeNlo1 Dave Barker Bxhibit A