HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007/10/17 - Agenda Packet - Special 3 pm~ r
-_-J ~' '-
i ~
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
SPECIAL MEETING
Wednesday, October 17, 2007 ~ 3 00 p m
Rancho Cucamonga Clty Hall ~ Tri Communities Room
10500 Clvlc Center Drive ~ Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730-3801
A. CALL TO ORDER
1 Pledge of Allegiance
2 Roll Call. Mayor/Chairman Kurth
Mayor Pro TemNice Chairman Williams
Councilmembers/Agencymembers Gutierrez, Michael and Spagnolo
B. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
This is the time and place for the general public to address the City Council and Redevelopment Agency on any item listed or not listed on the
agenda State law prohibits the Councd and Agency from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda The Councl and
Agency may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting
Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Chair, depending upon the number of
individuals desiring to speak All communications are to be addressed directly to the Councd and Agency, not lothe members of the audience
This is a professional business meeting and courtesy and decorum are expected Please refrain from any debate between audience and
speaker, making loud noises, or engaging in any activity which might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting
The public communications period will not exceed one hour prior to the commencement of the business portion of the agenda During this
one hour period, all those who wish to speak on a topic contained m the business portion of the agenda will be given pnonty, and no further
speaker cards for these business items (with the exception of public hearing hems) will be accepted once the business portion of the agenda
commences Any other public communications which have not concluded during this one hour period may resume after the regular business
portion of the agenda has been completed
C. ITEMS OF DISCUSSION
WORKFORCE HOUSING MARKETING STRATEGY -page 1
CONSIDERATION OF THE HOUSING SUBCOMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING A PROPOSED INCLUSIONARY WORKFORCE HOUSING ORDINANCE -
page 10
D. ADJOURNMENT
I, Debra J Adams, Clty Clerk of the Clty of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the
foregoing agenda was posted on October 11, 2007, per Government Code 54954 2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive,
Rancho Cucamonga, Caltfornla
P1
T HiFX E ~~ C I T Y O F
?.I~Yt'~wLLa~n l~C~~i z.,drwm' n~a ,'L'.,.. „„,.,,i,a ~ ,~..n6i& u„Cblw,r R: ~_,.,.Vw Y...w $v' xle( sL
RANChO CLCANONGA
Staff Report
DATE October 17. 2007
TO Mayor and Members of the City Council
Chairman and Members of the Redevelopment Agency Board
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
FROM Linda Daniels, Redevelopment Director C~
BY Tranda Drumwright, Housing Programs Manager
SUBJECT. Workforce Housing Marketing Strategy
1:7xdi7Jd~~il~.1/_~IC~7-1
It is recommended that the City Council review and approve the Workforce Housing
Marketing Strategy outlined in this report and that the Redevelopment Board
approve an appropriation of $10,000 to be transferred into account number
2622801-5300 for the production of a workforce housing video and related marketing
material
BACKGROUND
The Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency has responded to the need for
workforce housing by creating positive partnerships with a number of non-profit
housing development organizations such as National Commurnty Renaissance,
Northtown Housing Development Corporation, Habitat for Humanity, Neighborhood
Housing Services, LINC Housing Development Corporation, and Orange Housing
Development Corporation Through these partnerships a total of 1,157 workforce
housing units have been created for individuals and families living and working m the
City of Rancho Cucamonga
The City and Agency has spent a great deal of resources on the preservation and
development of workforce housing As more companies relocate to the City, the
need for workforce housing will increase Also, as the cost of housing continues to
increase additional workforce housing units will be needed for many kinds of
P2
Page 2
October 17, 2007
increase additional workforce housing units will be needed for many kinds of
employees such as service industry workers, healthcare professionals, entry level
teachers and public safety personnel More time and resources are needed to better
inform the public about the need, and the types of businesses and employees that
will benefit from workforce housing As a way of improving the public's
understanding and acceptance of workforce housing, staff has prepared the
following marketing strategy
Workforce Housing Marketing Strategy
One key to a successful marketing campaign is "repetition" The more often the
public sees the faces of indiwduals and families benefiting from workforce housing
and learns their stories, the more aware they become of the issue Highlighted
below are a number of media venues that staff recommends implementing to
increase the public's awareness on the value of workforce housing Testimonials
from individuals living and/or working in the City would be incorporated into the
marketing materials
Newspaper Articles/Human Interest Stories- The first series of human interest
stones proposed would center on the shortage of workforce housing in general for
diverse fob seekers such as teachers, healthcare workers, public safety personnel,
etc A second serves of human interest stories would highlight individuals and
families who have achieved economic stability because they were able to rent or
purchase a safe place to live News stones centered on the City's First-Time
Homebuyers Program would be used to illustrate how owning a home can positively
influence an indiwdual or family's finanaal growth
Staffs goal is to work closely with the local newspapers so that stories such as the
ones mentioned above would be published periodically Attached are several
"sample themes" (Attachment A) that staff prepared that could be developed into
articles with testimonials from local individuals, families, and business owners in
Rancho Cucamonga Additional, articles on programs like the Multi-Crime Free Unit
will also be incorporated into the strategy
Visual Presentation- To further increase the public's awareness surrounding
workforce housing, staff proposes to work with a consultant to create a video
Several of the City's workforce housing developments would be showcased
throughout the video Testimonials from current workforce housing tenants would be
included in the video along with testimonials from employers desiring workforce
housing for their employees
The video could be placed on the City's website and run monthly on the local cable
channel Also, as needed the video could be shown at community meetings and
during Council or Redevelopment Agency presentations The City of Irvine and the
City of Chino Hills have developed similar videos and are actively utilizing them as
part of their outreach efforts The video would give viewers an opportunity to see the
P3
Page 3
October 17, 2007
faces of workers needing workforce housing, to see what workforce housing looks
like in their community, and how workforce housing could make a difference in their
lives and the lives of their loved ones
Community Meetings- As needed the City's Housing Program Manager, along with
Neighborhood Housing Services (NHS) staff, and Multi-Crime Free Housing staff
would attend community meetings to address concerns or issues related to an
existing workforce housing development or a proposed development
NEXT STEPS
Again the goal of a Workforce Housing Marketing Strategy is to increase public
awareness and build support for workforce housing In order to successfully
implement the goal, staff recommends the following next steps
• Housing staff to develop a "theme" for the City's Workforce Housing
Marketing Strategy and identify a consultant to produce a video The theme
would be incorporated into the video, newspaper stones, and other marketing
materials
• Housing staff to work with local newspapers and other media venues to
generate interest in workforce housing Local news reporters could work with
staff to help disseminate helpful information to the public
• Housing staff to work with the Chamber of Commerce to create a support
base for workforce housing among local businesses Large employers and
small employers would loin together to increase public awareness on the
need for workforce housing Staff has already met with the Chamber of
Commerce President, Norm Mackenzie and has received his support
As part of the approval of the Marketing Strategy, the Redevelopment Agency would
approve an appropriation of $10,000 for FY 07/08 from Agency fund balance into
account number 2622801-5300 for the production of a video and related marketing
material
Linda D Daniels
Redevelopment Director
P4
EXAMPLE THEMES
ATTACHMENT A
P5
EXAMPLE
THEME
Workforce Housing
Children and Education
Student Test Scores Are Rising
Everything Starts At Home-Teacners at Cucamonga Middle School
have seen a big difference in their
middle school students Their test
scores have gone up and they are
better prepared and eager to participate
in the day to day lessons According to,
Ms Smith, she contributes the growth it
her 7th graders to the after school
tutoring that they receive at the Villa Del
Norte Housing Development Villa Del
Norte is an 88-Umt Multi-Family
Housing Development that was built m
partnership with Northtown Housing
Development Corporation and the City of Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency
The development offers affordable rental units, day care for working families and
support services for children Onsite tutoring is available to the kids residing in the
development as well as kids from the surrounding area
Villa Del Norte is proof that workforce housing is making a difference in the City of
Rancho Cucamonga Working families are able to afford quality housing and get the
needed day care and educational services for their children Stable home environments
and support systems are in place at Villa Del Norte Housing Development and the effect
of such an environment is being felt m the classrooms at Cucamonga Middle School
EXAMPLE
THEME
Public Safety Officer
I can protect your family and your home,
but I can not afford a home of my own- As
the cost of housing escalates in the City of Rancho
Cucamonga and throughout San Bernardino
County, the dream of homeownership has become
dust that a dream for Deputy Moore The average
cost of a three bedroom, two bath house in Rancho
Cucamonga is $400,000 Deputy Moore and other
officers are finding it hard to qualify to purchase a
home in the City Like many officers, Deputy Moore puts in long
hours protecting individuals and families living in Rancho
Cucamonga He would like to live in the City and not have to
commute home after working a long shift Note A Veteran
Theme would also be appropriate
P6
P7
EXAMPLE
THEME
Business
"I'm looking to expand"- If the lack of workforce housing
prevents my expansion- that is my business-
I'm looking to expand my business
and hire additional employees
However, the high cost of housing
in Rancho Cucamonga may
prevent me from recruiting new
employees Businesses like mine
suffer when our employees are
priced out of the housing market
Workforce housing gives my
employees an opportunity to live,
work, and play in the same city
As a business owner I also benefit
because I'm able to recruit and retain qualified employees
P8
EXAMPLE
THEME
First Year
Teacher
SHE IS A FRESH YOUNG FACE IN RANCHO CUCAMONGA
SHE TEACHES FIRST GRADE AT LIGHTFOOT ELEMENTARY
BUT SHE CAN'T AFFORD TO BE YOUR NEIGHBOR- ------
Fresh out of college and excited about
working in the Etiwanda School Distract, Ms Jones
teaches our first graders math, reading,
science and social studies Her specialty
is math and she loves stretching the minds and
imaginations of her first graders Unfortunely, her
first year teaching salary does not stretch enough
to be able to rent an apartment or
afford to purchase a home in the City of Rancho
Cucamonga As a first year school
teacher, earning $24,000 a year she is paced out
of the housing market She like a number of
young, eager professionals are forced to live
elsewhere and spend a considerable amount of
their time commuting on congested freeways When professionals are forced to
commute to work communities and companies suffer Companies can't find and
keep
qualified workers and commurnty-based volunteerism disappears So much of their
time is spent commuting- young professionals don't have time to
volunteer
For Rancho Cucamonga's continued economic success, the ability to provide
decent and safe workforce housing is critical
P9
EXAMPLE
THEME
Homebuyers/Economic Stability
Workforce Housing-
Creating
Homeownership
Opportunities and
More-
The Blevins can't stop
smiling For over a year now
they have been proud owners
of a three bedroom, two bath
home that they purchased
with the help of the City's
down payment assistance
program For many years
they persistently tried to save
for a down payment Over the years, family emergenaes depleted their savings They
thought that homeownership was out their reach, until they read an article about the
City's First-Time Homebuyers Program After working with Neighborhood Housing
Services (NHS), the Blevins received help with budgeting and started to save again
With down payment assistance, they were able to qualify for a mortgage that they could
afford Their mortgage payments turned out to be only $50 00 more than their previous
rent
The Blevins are still incorporating the budget tips that they learned through the services
of NHS and are now able to save towards a down payment on equipment needed for
Mr Blevins to start his own business
MEMORANDUM -
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Date October 17, 2007 RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
To Mayor and City Council Members
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
From Linda D Daniels, Redevelopment Dir ctor~
James Troyer, Planning Director
Subtect Draft Inclusionary Workforce Housing Ordinance
BACKGROUND
Over the past several months, the Housing Subcommittee has been meeting with staff and counsel
to discuss the feasibility of implementing an Inclusionary Workforce Housing Ordinance based on
the City Council's direction during their July 2006 workshop As we all know, the production and
preservation of affordable housing is a State regwrement imposed on California cities, but it is
unrealistic to think that cities can meet affordable housing requirements solely using local funding
sources Our research has shown that over 130 turisdictions in California currently include
inclusionary housing programs as a component of their overall affordable housing development
Rancho Cucamonga has made great strides in addressing its affordable housing obligations
primarily through the use of Redevelopment Agency Housing Setaside funds Despite these efforts
which have produced over 1700 units of affordable housing, a tremendous need still exists The
memo that was prepared for the July 2006 workshop with the City Council outlines in more detail
the accomplishments, as well as the unmet workforce housing need Briefly, the Agency is
currently required to provide 2,755 units of workforce housing The Agency is currently providing
approximately 68%, or 1,588 units, of its requirement The Southern California Assoaation of
Governments (SCAG) also assigns an allocation to the City for providing housing that is affordable
to families In June 2006, the City was meeting approximately 2% of the need as prescribed by
SCAG
The Redevelopment Agency's Housing Production Plan, which is part of the Housing Element of
the City's General Plan, recognized the need for a mechanism to engage the development
community in the production of affordable housing Many aties have chosen to adopt an
Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance that regwres developers to either provide affordable units or pay an
in-lieu fee as part of the entitlement process The Housing Subcommittee reviewed and discussed
the various policies and programs, and concluded that a limited approach to inclusionary zoning
could be considered in Rancho Cucamonga
During the July 2006 workshop, the City Council discussed with the Housing Subcommittee and
staff the concept of an Inclusionary Workforce Housing Ordinance and concurred with the
Subcommittee that an inclusionary regwrement could be used on a limited basis as a tool to assist
the City and Agency in meeting affordable housing production requrements At the conclusion of
the workshop, the City Council requested further research on the financial impacts of applying the
inclusion requirement to future protects based on the following goals
P10
P11
INCLUSION!\R]' V/ORKAORCI. t-IOL`SING WORKS! IOP PAGE 2
OC10H7 R 17, ?007
• Achieve an inclusionary workforce housing requirement within all land use categories in the
City,
• Based on the Redevelopment Agency State requrement for housing production within the
Redevelopment Agency project area, consider a minimum 15% of total number of units
within a project to be restricted to affordable incomes,
• Provide a balance of units affordable to income levels based on the Redevelopment
Agency's income restrictions of 35%, 45%, 60% and 90% of the median incomes
In order to evaluate this approach, staff was directed to obtain the consulting services of Keyser
Marston Assocates to assist the Housing Subcommittee and staff in determining the feasibility of a
proposed Inclusionary Workforce Housing Ordinance The Housing Subcommittee has met on
several occasions with Agency staff, the economic and financal consultant, and City Attorney to
discuss the inclusionary concept and has reviewed and accepted the attached draft Inclusionary
Housing Ordinance The Housing Subcommittee recommends that the Ordinance be forwarded to
the City Council for review and further direction
ANALYSIS
Ms Kathleen Head of Keyser Marston Associates was retained to conduct a Feasibility Analysis of
a potential inclusionary requirement based on the Council's previously identified goals The
Feasibility Analysis is provided as an attachment to this Memorandum Ms Kathleen Head
concluded that because of the significant gap between the County's median income, which the
Agency and City are requred to use for housing purposes, and the sales and rental prices in the
City, the impact of imposing an affordable inclusionary regwrement on residentially zoned land
developed at its approved density significantly impacts a land owner of the economic value of their
property Ms Head advised that in order to reduce the economic impact on residentially zoned land
to an acceptable level, the analysis indicates that the percentage of required affordable units would
need to be reduced from the proposed 15% to 5% of the total development and restncted to only
moderate incomes The financal modeling also indicated that to achieve an acceptable economic
value that would not constitute a taking of property without dust compensation under State and
Federal Constitutions, the ownership projects could provide units affordable only at the moderate
income level of 110% of the area median income, which is the State definition of moderate income
afforded to the City Rental units could provide 7 5% of the units at moderate income (110% of the
median income) and 7 5% of the units at very low income levels (50% of median income) Ms
Head explained that a project could apply for financial assistance from the Redevelopment Agency
in order to further reduce the income levels to meet the Agency's requirements It is important to
note that affordable units constructed at these income levels within the Redevelopment Project
Area and without Agency assistance will qualify towards the State 15% affordable housing
production requirement in Redevelopment Project Area that must be met prior to the expiration of
the Redevelopment Plan
Ms Head analyzed and explained that applying a 15% Inclusionary Workforce Housing regwrement
on land which was not residentially zoned, but would require a zone or General Plan change to
allow residential, was economically reasonable Ms Head explained that the same analysis held
true for a project that requested a greater level of density than what it would be entitled to under the
current zoning Ms Head further explained that the analysis indicates that an imposition of the
inclusionary requirement on a proposal involving a change in land use or density on any protect of
20 units or less, regardless of density, creates a significant economic impact to the value of the
P12
INCI US70NARY WORI:I ORCE HOUSING WORKSHOP
OC ~ oBLR 17, 2007
PnGL3
property and advised the City to allow those projects to pay an in-lieu fee by right Additionally, the
consultant recommended that protects proposing five (5) or fewer residential units should be
excluded from the inclusionary regwrement
SUGGESTED PROVISIONS
Based on the analysis and presentation of the consultant, as well as input from staff and the City
Attorney, the Housing Subcommittee supported the consultant's conclusions and refined the
direction to staff to pursue the development of an Inclusionary Workforce Housing Ordinance that
incorporated the following key points
• Regwres 15% of any proposed residential development to include affordable housing units
at various income ranges if a discretionary approval is regwred to allow
o an increase in density,
o a change in zoning regulation that does not permit residential use to one that does
permit residential use,
o conversion of rental units to condominium ownership
• Income and Affordability Restrictions would be applied as follows
Income Level
Ownershi Pro ects Rental
Pro ects
Single-
Townhomes Family Apartments
Very Low (50% Median
Income) 7 5%
Moderate (110% Median
Income 15% 15% 7 5%
• Provides exemptions for
o applications deemed complete prior to the effective date of the ordinance,
o residential projects that have a Development Agreement which excludes the
inclusionary regwrements,
o projects that have an approved Regulatory Agreement with the Redevelopment
Agency,
o projects which contain 5 residential units or less
• Provides the following alternatives to producing units within the protect
o Constructing or substantially rehabilitating units on another site,
o Purchasing equivalent affordable housing covenants for units in existing multi-family
protects
o Payment of an in-heu fee for protects with 20 or fewer units, and protects of more
than 20 units upon approval of the City Counal based on findings that the cost of
P13
I'~C] CSIOT~ARY WOlthl ORCF HOUSI`~G WORhS1IOP
OCR Ot3[:R 17, ?007
P~ci. a
providing the units on-site would substantially exceed the amount of the applicable
in-lieu fee
Under advisement of the City Attorney's office, the Housing Subcommittee supported the inclusion
of an in-lieu fee calculation for small projects, or on a limited basis those protects which receive a
hardship determination from the City Council The primary intent of the Ordinance is to regwre that
the development provide the units on-site, build units at another approved location in the City, or
purchase affordability covenants in existing multi-family projects The City Attorney's office advised
that the inclusion of a methodology to calculate the fee would ensure fairness and consistency from
project to project Ms Head subsequently provided a proposed methodology to calculate an in-lieu
fee for projects proposed with 6 to 20 units, and for projects meeting certain hardship requirements
The in-lieu fee methodology is also attached for your reference
During the October 17, 2007 workshop the Housing Subcommittee also requested a discussion with
the Cdy Council regarding
• Adoption of Resolution of Intention to impose the inclusionary requirement on projects
submitted in the interim time period of the Ordinance becoming effective,
Notification process to development organizations and companies of the City's interest in
adopting an Inclusionary Workforce Housing Ordinance, and
How to address the requrement for Inclusionary Workforce Housing as part of the General
Plan process where land that is not currently zoned residential, but which may be changed
as part of the General Plan process to permit residential (including mixed use), is proposed
If you have any questions about the attached information, please feel free to contact the Housing
Subcommittee or staff prior to the City Council workshop on October 17, 2007
Attachments Draft Ordinance
Keyser Marston Feasibility Analysis
July 6, 2006 Housing Subcommittee Memo with attachments 1 to 7
P14
DRAFT
Ordinance
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ADDING TO THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER
17 42 PERTAINING TO INCLUSIONARY HOUSING
REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL
PROJECTS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DOES HEREBY
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS
Section 1. Anew Chapter 17 42, entitled Incluslonary Housing Requirements, is hereby
added to Title 17 (Development Code) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to read as
follows
"Chapter 17 42
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REQUIREMENTS
17 42 010 Purpose
17 42 020 Definitions
17 42 030 Additional Regulations
17 42 040 Apphcabihty and Inclusionary Unit Requirements
17 42 050 Exempt projects
17 42 060 Alternatives to Units within Protect
17 42 070 Housing Plan and Housing Agreement Required
17 42 080 Standards
17 42 090 Takings Determination
17 42 100 Enforcement
17 42 110 Inclusionary Housing Trust Fund
17 42 120 Admmistratrve Fees
17 42 010 Purpose
This Chapter establishes standards and procedures to encourage the development of
housing that is affordable to a range of households with varying income levels The purpose of
this Chapter is to encourage the development and availability of affordable housing by requiring
the inclusion of affordable housing units wrtlun developments that involve an increase m the
density otherwise available by City and State law, a change from a zoning regulation that does
not permit residential uses to one that does permit residential uses, or the conversion of rental
units to condominium ownership
17 42 020 Definrtions
As used m this Chapter, the following terms shall have the following meanings
"Adjusted for Household Size Appropriate for the Unit" means a household of one
person in the case of a studio unit, two persons in the case of aone-bedroom unit, three persons
11231-0001\985141v6 doc
P15
m the case of atwo-bedroom unit, four persons m the case of athree-bedroom unit, and five
persons in the case of afour-bedroom unit
"Affordable Housing Cost" means the total housing costs paid by a qualifying household,
which shall not exceed the fraction of gross income specified, as follows, m accordance with
Sections 50052 5 and 50053 of the Health & Safety Code
A Very low-income households Thirty percent of the income of a household
earning 50 percent of the San Bemardmo County median income adjusted for family size
appropriate for the unit
B Low-income households Thirty percent of the income of a household earning 70
percent of the San Bemardmo County medlan income for for-sale units, and 30 percent of the
income of a household earning 60 percent of the San Bemardmo County median income for
rental units, adjusted m either case for family size appropriate for the unit
C Moderate income households Thirty-five percent of the income of a household
earning 110 percent of the San Bemardmo County medlan income for for-sale units, and 30
percent of the income of a household earning 110 percent of the San Bemardmo County medlan
income for rental units, adjusted m either case for family size appropriate for the unit
D In the event of a conflict between the fractions speclfied m this definition and
those found m Sections 50052 5 and 50053 of the Health & Safety Code, the fractions specified
by State law shall control
"Developer" means any association, corporation, firm, ~omt venture, partnership, person,
or any entity or combination of entities, which seeks City approval for all or part of a residential
project
"Iclusionary Umt" means a dwelling unit that will be offered for sale or rent to low- or
moderate-income households, at an affordable housing cost, in compliance with this Chapter
"Low-Income Households" means "lower income households" as that term is defined by
Section 50079 5 of the Health & Safety Code
"Low-Income Units, Moderate-Income Units, and Very Low-Income Units" means
inclusionary units restricted to occupancy by low, moderate, or very low-income households,
respectively, at an affordable housing cost
"Market Rate Units" means dwelling units m a residential project that are not
inclusionary units
"Moderate-Income Households" means "persons and families of low or moderate
income" as that term is defined by Section 50093 of the Health & Safety Code
"Planning Director" means the Planning Director of the Crty of Rancho Cucamonga or
his or her designee
2
11231-0001\985141v( doc
P16
"Regulatory Agreement" means an agreement entered into between the Rancho
Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency and a developer by which the developer covenants to keep
certain housing units at an affordable housing cost for a specified period of time
"Regulations" means the regulations adopted by the Council m compliance with Section
17 42 020(A) for the implementation and enforcement of the provisions of this Chapter
"Residential project" means any of the following
A A subdivision resulting m the creation of 5 or more residential lots or residential
units, or
B The new construction of a project consisting of 5 or more multi-family unris or
single-room occupancy units, or
C The new construction of 5 or more separate houses or dwelling units
D The conversion of 5 or more rental units to condominium ownership
"Total Housing Costs" the total monthly or annual retuning expenses required of a
household to obtain shelter For a rental unit, total housing costs shall include the monthly rent
payment and utilities For an ownership unit, total housing costs shall include the mortgage
payment (principal and interest), homeowners' association dues, mortgage insurance, taxes,
utilities, and any other related assessments
"Very Low-Tncome Households" means "very low income households" as that term is
defined by Section 50105 of the Health & Safety Code
17 42 030 Additional Regulations
The Council may by resolution establish additional regulations for the implementation of
this Chapter
17 42.040. Apphcabdrty and Inclusionary Unit Requirements
A The requirements of this Chapter shall apply to any residential proTect proposed m
connection with an application to do any of the following
1 Increase the permitted residential density of the subject property above the
density allowed under City and State law at the time of the application
2 Increase the permitted percentage of residential development allowed for a
mixed-use development above the percentage under City and State law at the time of the
application
3 Convert commercial or mdustnal land to residential uses, including, but
not limited to, the conversion of a hotel to residential use
4 Convert rental units to condominium ownership
3
11231-0001\985141 v6 dot
P17
B Units for sale If the residential project consists of units for sale, then a minimum
of 15-percent of the total number of units in the project shall be sold to moderate-income
households
C Rental units If the residential project conslsts of rental units, then a minimum of
7 5-percent of the units shall be rented to low or very low-income households and 7 5-percent of
the units shall be rented to moderate-income households
D Allowable credits The mclusionary unit requirements of this Section may be
reduced as follows
1 Very low-income units m heu of low-income units If very low-income
units are provided m heu of the required low-income units, then the protect shall receive a credit
of 1 5 affordable units for each unit actually provided
2 Very low-income units m heu of moderate-income units If very low-
mcome units are provided m heu of required moderate-income units, then the project shall
receive a credit of two units for each unit actually provided
3 Low-income units m lieu of moderate-income units If low-income units
are provided m heu of required moderate-income units, then the protect shall receive a credit of
1 5 units for each unit actually provided
E Rounding of quantities m calculations In calculating the required number of
mclusionary units, fractional units of 0 75 or above shall be rounded-up to a whole unit if the
residential project consists of 5 to 20 units, and fractional units of 0 50 or above shall be
rounded-up to a whole unit if the project consists of 21 units or more
F Displacement of existing mclusionary units Notwithstanding any other provision
of this Chapter, any project subject to this Chapter that results m the displacement of very low,
low, and/or moderate income household(s) shall be required to provide on-site mclusionary units
as regmred by this Chapter
G The requirements of this Chapter shall apply to all developers and their agents,
successors-m-interest, and assigns proposing a residential protect within the scope of Paragraph
A of this Section All mclusionary units required by this Chapter shall be sold or rented m
compliance with this Chapter and the City's regulations for the implementation of this Chapter
17 42 050 Exempt projects
The following are exempt from the requirements of this Chapter
A Applications deemed complete A residential project for which a development
application has been deemed complete
B Development Agreements A residential project that is the subject of a
development agreement that expressly provides for an exclusion to this Chapter or provides for a
different amount of mcluswnary amts from that specified by this Chapter
4
1 I23I-0001\955141 v6 doc
P18
C Project with Regulatory Agreement A residential project for which the Rancho
Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency has executed a Regulatory Agreement, provided that the
Regulatory Agreement is effective at the time the residential project would otherwise be required
to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, and there is no uncured breach of the
Regulatory Agreement before issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the project
17 42.060. Alternatives to Units within Protect
The primary means of complying with the mclusionary requirements of this Chapter shall
be the provision of on-site mclusionary units m accordance with Section 17 42 040 A developer
may only satisfy the regwrements of this Chapter by means of an alternative to on-site
mclusionary units m accordance with the requirements and procedures of this Section
A Off-site units Upon apphcaUon by the developer and at the discretion of the City
Council, the developer may satisfy the mclusionary unit requirements for the protect, m whole or
m part, by any combination of the following means
1 Constructing or substantially rehabilitating the required number of units
on a site other than that of the affected residential project For purposes of providing off-site
units, substantially rehabilitating means rehabilitating a dwelling unit that has substantial
building and other code violations, and has been vacant for at least 90 days, such that the unit is
returned to the City's housing supply as decent, safe, and sanitary housing, and the cost of the
work exceeds twenty-five percent of the market value of the unit after rehabilitation
2 Purchasing equivalent affordable housing covenants for units m existing
multi-family projects All such units shall be (i) reasonably dispersed throughout the multi-
family project, (u) located m an area or areas of the Crty as approved by the Planning Director,
(in) proportional m number of bedrooms, and location, to the market rate units included m the
developer's residential protect, and (iv) comparable to the market rate units included m the
residential project m teens of design, materials, finished quality, and appearance
B In lieu fee
1 Twenty or fewer units In the case of a residential project containing
between five (5) and twenty (20) residential lots or residential units, the developer may elect to
satisfy the mclusionary unit requirements for the project, m whole or m part, by payment of a fee
m lieu of constructing some or all of the required units
2 More than twenty units In the case of a residential project comprised of
more than 20 residential lots or residential units, the developer may apply to pay a fee m lieu of
constructing some or all of the regmred units, and such application shall be subject to the review
and approval of the City Council, which may grant such the developer's request if substantial
evidence supports a finding that the cost of providing mclusionary units on-site would
substantially exceed the amount of the applicable m-lieu fee
3 Calculation of fee The amount of the fees allowed by this Section shall
be calculated m accordance with the methodology set forth m the regulations adopted for the
miplementation of this Chapter
5
11231-0001\985141 v6 doc
P19
4 Timing of payment The developer shall pay any m-lieu fees allowed by
this Section m full before issuance of a Bwldmg Permit for any portion of the residential project,
including any non-residential portions of a mixed-use development
5 Housing Trust Fund Fees collected m compliance with this Section shall
be deposited m the Inclus~onary Housing Trust Fund
17 42 070 Housing Plan and Housing Agreement Required
A Submittal and execution The developer shall comply with the following
requirements at the rimes and m compliance with the standards and procedures m the City's
regulations for the implementation of this Chapter
1 Inclus~onary Housing Plan The developer shall submit an mclus~onary
housing plan, m a form specified by the Planning Director, detailing how the provisions of this
Chapter will be implemented for the proposed residential project If the mclus~onary housing
plan includes alternatives to on-site amts that require the approval of the Crty Council, then the
mclusionary housing plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Council All
other inclus~onary housing plans shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director, subject
to appeal to the City Council Any such appeal shall be filed w~thm fifteen (15) days of the
Planning Director's decision m accordance with Section 17 02 080
2 Housing Agreement The developer shall execute and cause to be
recorded an Inclusionary Housing Agreement The Inclusionary Housing Agreement shall be a
legally binding agreement between the developer and the City, m a form and substance
satisfactory to the Planning Director and the Crty Attorney, and containing those provrsions
necessary to ensure that the requirements of this Chapter are satisfied, whether through the
provision of mclusionary units or through an approved alternative method
B Discretionary approvals No discretionary approval shall be issued for a
residential project subject to this Chapter until the developer has submitted an Inclusionary
Housing Plan
C Issuance of Building Permit No Building Permit shall be issued for a residential
project subject to thrs Chapter unless the Planning Drrector has approved the Inclusionary
Housing Plan, and any required Inclusionary Housing Agreement has been recorded
D Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy A Certificate of Occupancy shall not be
issued for a residential project subject to this Chapter unless the approved Inclus~onary Housing
Plan has been fully implemented
17.42 080 Standards
A Locarion within project, relationship to non-mclusionary amts All mclusionary
units shall be
Reasonably dispersed throughout the res~dent~al project,
6
11231-0001985141 v6 doc
P20
2 Proportional, in number of bedrooms, and location, to the market rate
units,
3 Comparable to the market rate units included m the residential protect m
terms of design, matenals, finished quality, and appearance, and
4 Permitted the same access to protect amenities and recreational facilities,
as are market rate units
B Timing of construction All mclusionary units m a residential protect shall be
constructed concurrent with, or before the construction of the mazket rate units If the Crty
approves a phased protect, a proportional shaze of the required mclusionary units shall be
provided within each phase of the residential protect
C Units for sale
1 Time limit for mclusionary restnctions A unit For sale shall be restncted
to the target income level group at the applicable affordable housing cost for a minimum of 55
years
2 Certification of purchasers The developer and all subsequent owners of
an mclusionary unit offered for sale shall certify, on a form provided by the Crty, the income of
the purchaser
3 Resale pnce control In order to maintain the availability of mclusionary
units required by this Chapter, the resale pnce of an owner occupied mclusionary unit shall be
limited to the lesser of the fair market value of the unit as established by a licensed real estate
agent based upon three compazable properties or the restncted resale pnce For these purposes,
the restncted resale pnce shall be the greater of either the applicable Affordable Housing Cost or
an amount equal to the sum of
a The purchase pnce,
b A percentage increase m the purchase pnce equal to three (3)
percent of any increase m the Consumer Price Index, and
c The adjusted amount of any capital improvements for which a
building permit has been issued by the Crty of Rancho Cucamonga and a certification of
completion has been filed, or other improvements which adds assessed value to the unit,
d Any applicable transaction fee charged by a real estate professional
e If the occupant has allowed the unit to detenorate due to defened
maintenance, the restncted retail pnce shall be discounted m an amount equal to the costs
necessary to bang the unit into confonnrty with Title 15 or Title 16 of this Code
4 Inhentance of mclusionary units Upon the death of an owner of an
owner-occupied mclusionary unit, title m the property may transfer to the surviving Iomt tenant
7
11231-0001\985141 v6 doc
P21
without respect to the Income-eligibility of the household Upon the death of a sole owner or of
all owners of an inclusionary unit and the inheritance of the property by one or more non-income
eligible children or step-children of the decedent, the property shall be sold to an income eligible
household within one year of the time when the decedent's estate is settled Inheritance of an
inclusionary unit by any other non-income eligible person or persons shall require the sale of the
property to an income eligible person as soon as is feasible, but not more than 180 days after the
decedent's estate is settled
5 Forfeiture If an inclusionary unit for sale is sold for an amount m excess
of the resale pnce controls required by this Section, the buyer and the seller shall be~ointly and
severally liable to the City for the entire purchase pnce of the unit Recovered funds shall be
deposited into the Inclusionary Housing Funds Notwithstanding the foregoing, rt shall be within
the discretion of the City Manager to allow the buyer and seller to cure any violation of the resale
pnce controls within 180 days
D Rental units
1 Time limit for inclusionary restrictions A rental unit shall remain
restricted to the target income level group at the applicable affordable housing cost m perpetuity
2 Certification of renters The owner of any rental inclusionary units shall
certify, on a form provided by the Crty, the income of the tenant at the time of the initial rental
and annually thereafter
3 Forfeiture Any lessor who leases an inclusionary unit m violation of this
Chapter shall be required to forfeit to the City all money so obtained Recovered funds shall be
deposited into the Inclusionary Housing Funds
E The Planning Director may require the execution and recording of whatever
documents required to ensure enforcement of this Section, including but not limited to
promissory notes, deeds of trust, resale restrictions, rights of first refusal, options to purchase,
and/or other documents, which shall be recorded against all inclusionary units
F General Prohibitions
1 No person shall sell or rent an inclusionary unit at a pnce or rent m excess
of the maximum amount allowed by any restriction placed on the unit m accordance with this
Chapter
2 No person shall sell or rent an inclusionary unit to a person or persons that
do not meet the income restrictions placed on the unit m accordance with this Chapter
3 No person shall provide false or materially incomplete mfonnaUon to the
City or to a seller or lessor of an inclusionary unit to obtain occupancy of housing for which that
person is not eligible
8
11231-0001\955141 v6 doc
P22
G Principal Residency Requirement
1 The owner or lessee of an mclusionary unit shall reside m the unit for not
less than ten out of every twelve months Notwithstanding this requirement, the owner or lessee
may live elsewhere for a period up to 6 months every five (5) years on account of hardships
including but not hmrted to medical reasons, the need to assist family member m crisis or
medical need, and relocation for employment purposes
2 No owner or lessee of an inclusionary unit shall lease or sublease, as
applicable, an mclusionary unit without the poor permission of the Planning Director
17 42 090. Takings Determination
A Determmahon of a taking of property without lust compensation In accordance
with the procedures provided by this Section, a developer may request a determination as to
whether the regmrements of this Chapter, taken together with the mclusionary incentives as
applied to the residential protect, would constitute a taking of property without lust compensation
under the California or Federal Constitutions
1 If an inclusionary housing plan is subject to the approval of the Planning
Director, the developer may request the Planning Director to make a takings determination
within fifeen (15) days of the decision by the Planning Director to approve or disapprove the
Inclusionary Housing Plan The developer may file an appeal of the Planning Director's takings
determination within fifteen (15) calendaz days after the date of the decision m compliance with
Section 17 02 080
2 If an Inclusionary Housing Plan is subject to the approval of the City
Council, the developer may request the City Council to make a takings determination at the time
it acts to approve or disapprove the inclusionary housing plan
B Presumption of facts In making the taking recommendation or determination, the
Planning Director or City Council, as appropriate, shall presume each of the following facts
1 Application of requirements Application of the mclusionary housing
requirement to the residential protect,
2 Incentives Application and utilization of all density bonuses and
incentives available under State and local law,
3 Product type Uhhzation of the most cost-efficient product type for the
inclusionary units that would meet the standards of this Chapter, and
4 External funding The reasonable availability of external funding
C Modifications to reduce obligations If rt is determined that the application of the
provisions of this Chapter would be a taking, the Inclusionary Housing Plan shall be modified to
reduce the obligations m the mclusionary housing component to the extent, and only to the extent
9
11231-0001\985141 v6 doc
P23
necessary, to avoid a taking If rt is determined no taking would occur though application of this
Chapter to the residential project, the requirements of this Chapter remain applicable
17 42 100. Enforcement
D Any violation of this Chapter constitutes a misdemeanor
E Forfeiture of funds Any mdrvidual who sells or rents an mclusionary unit m
violation of this Chapter shall be required to forfeit all money so obtained Recovered funds
shall be deposited into the Inclusionary Housing Trust Fund
F Legal actions The City may institute any appropriate legal actions or
proceedings necessary to ensure compliance with this Chapter, including actions
1 To disapprove, revoke, or suspend any permit, including a Building
Permit, Certificate of Occupancy, or discretionary approval, and
2 For m)unctive relief or damages
G Recovery of costs In any action to enforce this Chapter, or an Inclusionary
Housing Agreement recorded hereunder, the Crty shall be entitled to recover its reasonable
attorney's fees and costs
17 42 110 Inclusionary Housing Trust Fund
There is hereby established a separate fund of the City, to be known as the Inclusionary
Housing Trust Fund All monies collected m compliance with Sections 17 42 060(B) (In lieu
fee), 17 42 080(C)(5), 17 42 080(D)(3) (Forfeiture), or 17 42 100 (Enforcement), above, shall be
deposited m the Inclusionary Housing Trust Fund
17 42 120 Administrative Fees
The Council may by resolution establish reasonable fees and deposits for the
administration of this Chapter "
Section 2 On or before the second, fourth, and sixth annrversanes of the effective date
of this Ordinance, the Planning Director shall prepare and present to the Crty Council an
evaluation of the effectiveness of Chapter 17 42, or any successor provisions, during the
preceding (2) years and any recommendations for changes
Section 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, portion, or phrase of this
Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of
any competent Iunsdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections,
subsections, sentences, clauses, portions, or phrases of this Ordinance The City Council hereby
declares that rt would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection,
sentence, clause, portion, or phrase without regard to whether any other section, subsection,
sentence, clause, portion, or phrase of the Ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or
unconstitutional
10
11231-0001\985141 v6 doc
P24
Section 4 The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of thls Ordinance and cause Its
publication m accordance with applicable law
Slgned and approved this day of , 2007
Dr Donald J Kurth
Mayor of the Crty of Rancho Cucamonga
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing ordinance was adopted by the Crty Council at
rts meeting held , 2007, by the following vote
AYES
NOES
ABSENT
ABSTAIN
Published
City Clerk, City of Rancho Cucamonga
11
11231-0001\985141 v6 doc
P25
i~G~ ;~
i
~~~~~`
-- ,
u~~s~~_~55~,~_~~~r~~~~ r~~s~cr~.~~~
ADVISO0.51N PURIIC/PRIVATE RFAI ESTATE DFV FI OPMFNT
MEMORANDUM
AUVISOIl51N
REAL F$TATf
Rtoev ELOI Mf NE
AEIOR DABLE HOb$ING
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMI NT
SAN fMNCI5C0
A BERRY KEVSfR
TIMOTHTC KELLY
KniE Enuf Furvl.
DE6111f M KE0.N
R08E0.Te WFTMORE
~()S AVC fItI
CALVIN E HOLUS II
Knin L[ENH HFeD
~AMF$ A RAGE
PAULO AN OE RSON
G REC01tY D SOO HOO
KFVIM1 E ENGSTROM
iUtlE L ROMFY
SAN DIECO
GERALD M THIMBLE
PAUL C MARM
To Linda Daniels, Redevelopment Agency Manager
City of Rancho Cucamonga
From Kathleen Head
Date June 18, 2007
Subtect Incluslonary Housing Fenanceal Feasebelety Analyses
At your request, Keyser Marston Associates, Inc (KMA) prepared a financial feasibility
analyses for the proposed Clty of Rancho Cucamonga (City) Incluslonary Housing
Ordenance (Ordenance) The analyses Is comprised of the following components
1 KMA evaluated the financial impact created by the Income and affordabllety
controls recommended at the Incluslonary Zoneng Workshop conducted by the
Housing Subcommittee of the Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency
(Incluslonary Workshop)
2 KMA recommended a tiered schedule of Income and affordabllety restrections to
be imposed by the Ordenance The recommended schedule is provided for new
residential development proposed for land that is currently not zoned for
residential uses, and new residential development on residentially zoned land
BACKGROUND
Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA)
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) periodically prepares a
Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) that identefies houseng production goals
for the region In turn, the RHNA serves as the basis for the Cety's Housing Element
component of the General Plan Given that the Housing Element must be certifeed by
the California Housing and Community Development Department (HOD), it Is imperative
for the Cety to be able to demonstrate that the RHNA goals can be met
500 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE SUITE 1480 LOS ANGELES CALIFO RNin 90071 .- PHONL 2(3 622 8095 IAX 213 622 $204
0705018 doc RC KHH gbd
W W W KFVSCRMARSTON COM 18000 003/001
P26
To Linda Daniels, City of Rancho Cucamonga June 18, 2007
Subtect Inclusronary Housing Financial Feasibility Analysis Page 2
The RHNA goals to be fulfilled during the current five-year Housing Element cycle are
Number of
Units % of Total
Very-Low Income 317 25%
Low Income 216 17%
Moderate Income 245 19%
Above-Moderate Income 504 39%
Total 1,282 100%
As can be seen in the table, approximately 61% of the RHNA goals are tied to very-low,
low and moderate income units The other 39% is related to above-moderate income
housing
Affordable Housing Production
The proposed new developments in Rancho Cucamonga are focused on above-
moderate income residential development, and it is ant~apated that the RHNA goals in
this category can be met without any government intervention Comparatively, the
market is not producing units that are affordable to low or moderate income households,
and therefore government intervention will be required to fulfill the RHNA regwrements
for this type of housing The Ordinance is one tool being considered by the City to assist
in fulfilling these unmet needs
Inclusronary Housing Programs
Over 130 jurisdictions in California currently include inclusionary housing programs as a
component of their overall affordable housing strategies Generally, inclusionary
housing ordinances are designed to produce only a portion of the ~urisdretion's affordable
housing development, other programs provide for the majority of the affordable housing
development within communities
Inclusronary housing programs typically impose a speafic affordable housing
regwrement on new development, and then offer developers a range of options for
fulfilling the affordable housing requirements The most common options offered to
developers are
Construction of a defined percentage of income restricted units within new
market rate residential projects,
0705018 doc RC KHH qbd
18000 003/001
P27
To Linda Daniels, City of Rancho Cucamonga June 18, 2007
Subject Inclusionary Housing Financial Feasibility Analysis Page 3
2 Construction of a defined percentage of income restricted units in a protect
located in an off-site location, and
Payment of an in-lieu fee, which will subsequently be used to assist in the
development of affordable housing units within the community
The threshold requirements to be imposed on developers should reflect the established
unmet need for affordable housing in the community The following analysis is focused
on the impacts assoaated with providing the units within market rate protects A
separate analysis recommends an in-lieu fee structure to be included in the program
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROGRAM FOUNDATION
As the first step in the evaluation process it is necessary to identify the affordable
housing requirements that will be imposed on the various product types In establishing
the regwrements it is important to both identify the composition of the unmet need for
affordable housing within the community, and to recognize that the Ordinance should not
place an onerous finanaal burden on the developers of market rate housing Within that
context, it is clear that inclusionary housing can only be expected to fulfill a portion of the
unmet need for affordable housing
The Inclusionary Workshop recommended that the Ordinance set the inclusionary
obligations as follows
Percents a of Units in Pro ect
Income Level Ownership Rental
Very-Low 7 5%
Moderate 15% 7 5%
Total 15% 15%
To assist in determining whether the proposed thresholds are reasonable, KMA
performed a survey of over 100 California jurisdictions that currently impose /nclusionary
housing requirements The results of this survey indicate that the proposed
requirements fall within the norm of the income and affordability standards imposed by
inclusionary housing programs being implemented throughout the state
It is important to understand that the impact created by the imposition of income and
affordability restrictions varies from city-to-city For example, the market rate home
prices and rents in Rancho Cucamonga are significantly higher than the median price for
homes in San Bernardino County Nonetheless, the Rancho Cucamonga income and
affordability standards must be based on the household incomes in the County This
results in a disproportionate disparity between market rate prices and affordable prices
0705018 doc RC KHH gbd
18000 003/ODi
P28
To Linda Daniels, City of Rancho Cucamonga June 18, 2007
Subtect Inclusionary Housing Finanaal Feasibility Analysis Page 4
It also further explains why it is anticipated that government intervention will be regwred
to attract affordable housing units to Rancho Cucamonga
The courts have held that affordable housing is a "public benefit", and that locally
imposed inclusionary housing ordinances are a legitimate means of providing this public
benefit The courts have further found that the requirements cannot deprive an owner of
"all econom/cally benefic/al use" of the property However, to date, no definition of all
economically benefiaal use has been provided For reference purposes, it should be
noted that inclusionary housing programs recently adopted in several California locations
have been protected to generate land value reductions in the 30% range In turn, the
KMA evaluation of the Ordinance is focused on identifying income and affordability
standards that would fall within that parameter
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
It is the KMA recommendation that the City establish separate income and affordability
standards for residential development occurring on residentially zoned land, and for
residential development on non-residentially zoned land Specifically, it is the KMA
opinion that the regwrements imposed on residentially zoned land should be set at
levels that fall within the 30% land value diminution range Comparatively, the City has
materially more latitude on non-residentially zoned land because, by defimtion, the
imposition of income and affordability restrictions on residential development cannot
deprive the owner of the economically beneficial use of their property
Affordability Gap Analysis
The financial impact assoaated with fulfilling the affordable housing requirements within
market rate protects is equal to the difference between the achievable market rate
prices/rents and the allowable prices/rents for the income restricted units This is known
as the affordability gap, and the calculation methodology can be described as follows
The prolected market rate sales prices and rents are estimated for prototypical
new residential protects KMA performed a field survey of recently constructed
protects to assist in
Identifying the product types currently being developed in the market
place, and
Estimating the achievable sales prices and rents
The maximum affordable home prices for the income restricted units are
calculated based on the following information
0705018 tloc RC KHH gbd
16000 003/001
P29
To Linda Daniels, City of Rancho Cucamonga June 18, 2007
Subtect Inclusionary Housing Financial Feasibility Analysis Page 5
The household income information used m the calculations is based on
San Bernardino County income statistics
The household incomes for very-low and low income households
are produced annually by the United States Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) This information is
distributed by HCD annually
The household incomes for moderate income households are
produced and distributed annually by HCD
The affordable housing cost definition is based on the regwrements
imposed by California Health and Safety Code Sections 50052 5 and
50053
These standards must be applied to allow the Rancho
Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency (Agency) to count the
affordable housing units toward the fulfillment of the California
Health and Safety Code Section 33413 inclusionary housing
production requirements'
Units produced using this standard can also be counted towards
the fulfillment of the City's RHNA affordable housing goals
The difference between the market price and the affordable price represents the
affordability gap associated with each income restricted unit required to be
included in a market rate residential protect This gap is then multiplied times the
number of units that must be income restricted to quantify the effective cost to a
developer of fulfilling the inclusionary housing regwrements on site
Ownership Protects
To evaluate the impacts of the proposed inclusionary housing regwrements, KMA tested
the following prototype development alternatroes
' Units provided within redevelopment protect areas can be counted on a 1 1 basis Units
provided outside a redevelopment protect area receive 50% credit
0705018 doc RC KHH g5d
18000 003/001
P30
To Linda Daniels, City of Rancho Cucamonga June 18, 2007
Subject Inclusionary Housing Financial Feasibility Analysis Page 6
A Townhomes 100% Market Rate Scenario and Proposed
Income and Affordability Standards Scenario
B Townhomes Feasible Affordability Mix Scenario
C Townhomes Density Bonus Scenario
D Single-Family Homes 100% Market Rate Scenaro and
Proposed Income and Affordability Standards Scenario
Homes Feasible Affordability Mix Scenario
The 100% market rate unit scenarios provide a baseline against which to measure the
impacts associated with the imposition of income and affordability restrictions The
results of the alternatives testing can be summarized as follows
Townhome Umts
1 The requirement to set-aside 15% of the units for moderate income households
acts to reduce the land value in the near-term by 69%
2 If the oblectroe is to limit the land value impact to +/- 30%, it will be necessary to
set the affordable housing requirement at 6% of the total units
3 The California State Density Bonus enacted under Senate Bill 1818 and Senate
Bill 435 (State Density Bonus), allows fora 10% density bonus to be provided to
an ownership project that allocates 15% of the base units to moderate income
households The KMA analysis indicates that if a developer took advantage of
that density bonus, the impact on land value would be reduced to approximately
25%
The results of the townhome analysis indicate that the income and affordability
restrictions proposed at the Inclusionary Workshop impose an onerous burden on
developers unless they can take advantage of the State Density Bonus To reach an
acceptable impact, without the use of the density bonus, the inclusionary requirement
would need to be set at no more than 6% of the units
Single-Family Home Umts
The proposed requirement to set-aside 15% of the units is estimated to reduce
the land value by 57%
0705018 doc, RC KHH gbd
18000 003/001
P31
To Linda Daniels, City of Rancho Cucamonga June 18, 2007
Subtect Inclusionary Housing Financial Feasibility Analysis Page 7
The developers of single-family home subdivisions do not typically perceive a value to
receiving an increase in the allowable density Within this context, it is the KMA
recommendation that the inclusionary requrement for single-family homes should be set
at 5% of the units
Rental Protects
The KMA survey indicates that new apartment development is occurring in Rancho
Cucamonga, and that premwm rents are being achieved for the units However, the
analysis also indicates that apartment development 1s occurring at very tight profit
margins To test the impacts associated with the proposed income and affordability
restrictions on apartment development, KMA prepared pro forma analyses for the
following prototype protects
100% Market Rate Scenario and Proposed Income and
Affordability Standards Scenario
G Feasible Affordability Mix Scenario
H Density Bonus Scenario
The requirement to set-aside 7 5% of the units for moderate income households
and 7 5% of the units for very-low income households is protected to wipe out the
land value entirely
To reach an impact in the range of 30%, the restriction could be limited to
moderate income units, and set at 10% of the total units in the protect
3 The State Density Bonus is based on a sliding scale related to the depth of the
affordability restrictions imposed on a protect The maximum density bonus
allowed is 35%, and it can be achieved 1f 11 % of the units aside for very-low
income households KMA estimates that the land value impact under this
alternative would equal approximately 54%
Based on the results of the feasibility analysis, KMA recommends that the Ordinance
require 10% of the units in apartment protects to be set aside for moderate income
households However, this standard does not assist the City in achieving it's RHNA
goals for very-low and low lncome households As such, 1t may be advantageous to
offer Agency financial assistance and/or City development standards relief to developers
that fulfill their inclusionary housing requirements by providing units at the very-low and
low income levels rather than at the moderate income level
070501 B doc RC KHH gbd
18000 003/001
P32
To Linda Daniels, City of Rancho Cucamonga June 18, 2007
Subtect Inclusionary Housing Financial Feasibility Analysis Page 8
CONCLUSIONSIRECOMMENDATIONS
If developers produce affordable housing units within market rate projects, the City is
relieved of the obligation to find suitable sites and qualified developers to provide the
requisite number of affordable housing units Therefore, it is the KMA recommendation
that the City focus the Ordinance on the on-site fulfillment of the income and affordability
restrictions However, the Ordinance should also provide the City Council with the
discretion to approve alternative methods for fulfilling the affordable housing obligations
that comport with the Ordinance's stated goals and objectives
Income and Affordabdity Restnctions
Based on the results of the preceding analysis, KMA recommends that Ordinance
impose the following income and affordability restrictions on residential development
_ Non-Residential) Zoned Land
Ownership
Income Level Townhomes Sin le-Famil Rental
Very-Low 7 5%
Moderate 15% 15% 7 5%
Total 15% 15% 15%
Residential) Zoned Land
Ownership
Income Level Townhomes Sin le-Famil Rental
Very-Low
Moderate 6% 5% 10%
Total 6% 5% 10%
If the City wishes to achieve a greater level of affordability within new residential
projects, developers should be encouraged to make use of the State Density Bonus In
addition, the Agency could potentially provide financial assistance to developers that will
agree to impose deeper affordability restrictions than those imposed by the Ordinance
Project Slze Thresholds
The KMA survey of inclusionary housing ordinances throughout the State indicates that
there is wide variance in the size of residential protects that trigger income and
affordability restrictions To assist the City in establishing protect size thresholds for the
Ordinance, KMA summarized the survey results in the following table
0705078 doc RC KHH gbd
18000 0031001
P33
To Linda Daniels, City of Rancho Cucamonga June 18, 2007
Subject Incluslonary Housing Financial Feasibility Analysis Page 9
Number of % of
Programs Pro rams
All Projects are Subtect to Requirements 21 20%
Protects with 5+ Units are Subtect to Requirements 42 39%
Protects with 10+ Units are Subtect to Requrements 30 28%
Other Threshold Limits 14 13%
Total 107 100%
The KMA survey indicates that the median threshold protect size is set at five units, and
that five units is also the most frequently applied threshold in the 107 turisdictions KMA
also found that approximately 40% of the turisdictions prowde different restrictions for
small protects than are regwred for mid- to large-sized protects The most typical
variations are
Small protects are allowed to pay an in-lieu fee by right, and/or to pay a lower fee
than 1s charged for larger protects The in-lieu fee amounts are typically
established in a schedule, with the fee increasing as a function of the protect
size, or
The percentage of units regwred to be made affordable is reduced
Based on the survey results, KMA recommends that the City Impose the Ordinance
requirement on protects that include five or more units KMA further recommends that
protects with up to 20 units should be allowed to pay an in-lieu fee by right ,and that any
fractional unit obligation should also be allowed to be fulfilled with the payment of an in-
lieufee
0705018 doc RC KHH gbd
18000 003/001
P34
APPENDIX A
TOWNHOME BASE CASE 90 UNITS (18 UNITS/ACRE)
Preparetl oy Keyser Marston Associates Inc
Filename Rancho_Cucamon9a_Incl_~ens_O6_18_07 x1s TH_Base
P35
APPENDIX A -TABLE 1
ESTIMATED DEVELOPMENT COSTS
TOWNHOME BASE CASE 90 UNITS (16 UNITSlACRE)
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CASE STUDIES
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ANALYSIS
RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA
I Land Cost 217,800 Sf Land Area
II Direct Costs t
Site Work Costs 217 800 Sf Land Area
Parking z
Attached Garage 171 Spaces
Podium 23 Spaces
Below Ground 0 Spaces
Building Shell Costs a 123,750 /Sf GBA
Total Drrect Costs
III Indlrect Costs
General Indlrect Costs ° 13% Dlrect Costs
Permits & Fees 90 Units
Insurance 90 Units
Developer Fee 3% Sales Revenues
Total Indvect Costs
IV Financing/Closing Costs
Interest During Construction/Absorption 6
Loan Origination Fees 6 $24,768,000 Loan Amount
Closing & Sales & Warranties'
Total FinancmglClosmg Costs
$15 /Sf Land $3,314 000
$14 00 /Sf Land $3,049,000
$0 /Space 0
$20,000 /Space 460 000
$30,000 /Space 0
$115 /Sf GBA 14 231,000
$17,740,000
$2,306,000
$20,000 /Unit 1,800,000
$15,000 !Unit 1,350,000
1 062, 000
$6,518,000
$1,951,000
2 5 Points 619,000
1 949 000
$4 519,000
V
Total Development Costs 123,750 /Sf GBA $260 /Sf GBA $32,091,000
Total Construction Costs 123 750 !Sf GBA $230 !Sf GBA $28,777 000
' Assumes that no prevailing wage requirements well be imposed on the development
z Total number of spaces equals 194, or 2 15 spaces/unit
a Average unit size equal to 1,375 square feet GBA includes a 0% allowance for non-livable area
°
Includes architecture, englneenng & consulting, taxes, legal & accounting, marketing, and soft cost contingency
6 Construction and absorption period interest set at a 7 0% blended return on debt and egwty Carrying costs are based
on an 1 B month development period Absorption rate is set at 15 units/month
6 Based on a 70% loan to value ratio
~ Based on 5% of sales revenues plus $2 000/unit for warranties costs
Prepareo by Keyser Marston Assoaates Inc
Fde name Rancho_Cucamonga_Incl_Dens_O6_t8 07 xis TH_Base
P36
APPENDIX A -TABLE 2
PROJECTED SALES REVENUES
TOWNHOME BASE CASE 90 UNITS (18 UNITSIACRE)
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CASE STUDIES
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ANALYSIS
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
MARKET RATE SCENARIO'
Two-Bedroom Units 45 Units @ $381,300 /Unit $17,158,500
Three-Bedroom Units 45 Units @ $405 000 /Unit 18,225,000
Total Sales Revenues $35 383,500
TOWNHOME BASE CASE 15% Moderate Income
Market Rate Units 1
Two-Bedroom Units
Three-Bedroom Units
Moderate Income_Units a
38 Units @ $381 300 /Unit $14,489,400
38 Units @ $405,000 /Unit $15,390,000
Two-Bedroom Units 7 Units @ $197 400 /Unit 1,381,800
Three-Bedroom Units 7 Units @ $221,400 /Unit 1,549 800
Total Sales Revenues $32,811,000
' Sales price at $305/sf of net livable area for Two-Bedroom Units, and $270/sf of net livable area for Three-Bedroom
Units
z Moderate Income is based on 110% of the County median Income 35% of income is allocated to housing related
expenses Housing related expenses include mortgage debt serwce @ 8 5% interest, property taxes @ 1 1% of
affordable puce, HOA @ $2 700 for Two-Bedroom Units & $2 700 for Three-Bedroom Units, utilities @ $1 428 for Two-
Bedroom Units & $1,704 for Three-Bedroom Units, & 5% down payment
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates Inc
FPe name Rancnc Cucamonga_Incl_Dens 06 1a 07 xis TH_Base
P37
APPENDIX A -TABLE 3
LAND VALUE IMPACT ANALYSIS
TOWNHOME BASE CASE 90 UNITS (18 UNITS/ACRE)
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CASE STUDIES
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ANALYSIS
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
MARKET RATE SCENARIO
Total Sales Revenues See APPENDIX A -TABLE 2 $35,383 500
Total Development Costs See APPENDIX A -TABLE 1 $32,091,000
Total Sales Revenues
Total Development Costs
15% Moderate Income
See APPENDIX A -TABLE 2
See APPENDIX A -TABLE 1
532,811,000
532,091,000
Net Land Value Reduction
Decrease in Land Value
$2,302,000
Prepared by Keyser Marston Assoaates Inc
File name Rancho_CuCamonga Incl_Dens 06_18_07 %IS TH_Base
P38
APPENDIX B
TOWNHOME FEASIBLE AFFORDABILITY MIX 90 UNITS (18 UNITSlACRE)
Preparetl by Keyser Marston Associates Inc
Filename Rancho_Cucamonga Incl_Dens 06_16_07 zis TH_Feasible
P39
APPENDIX B -TABLE 1
ESTIMATED DEVELOPMENT COSTS
TOWNHOME FEASIBLE AFFORDABILITY MIX 90 UNITS (18 UNITSIACRE)
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CASE STUDIES
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ANALYSIS
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
I Land Cost
II Direct Costs'
Site Work Costs
Parking ~
Attached Garage
Podium
Below Ground
Building Shell Costs'
Total Direct Costs
III Indirect Costs
General Indirect Costs `
Permits & Fees
Insurance
Developer Fee
Total Indirect Costs
IV Financmq/Closing Costs
217,800 Sf Land Area
217,800 Sf Land Area
171 Spaces
23 Spaces
0 Spaces
123,750 /Sf GBA
13% Dlrecf Costs
90 Units
90 Units
3% Sales Revenues
Interest Dunng Construction/Absorption s
Loan Origination Fees 6 $24,768,000 Loan Amount
Closing & Sales, 8 Warranties ~
Total Financing/Closing Costs
V
$4 519 ODO
Total Development Costs 123,750 /Sf GBA $260 /Sf GBA $32 091,000
Total Construction Costs 123,750 /Sf GBA $230 /Sf GBA $28,777 000
' Assumes that no prevailing wage requirements well be imposed on the development
~ Total number of spaces equals 194, or 2 15 spaces/unit
' Average unit size equal to 1,375 square feet GBA includes a 0% allowance for non-livable area
Includes architecture, engineenng & consulting, taxes, legal 8 accounting marketing, and soft cost contingency
s Construction and absorption period interest set at a 7 0% blended return on debt and equity Carrying costs are based on
an 18 month development period Absorption rate is set at 15 unitslmonth
r, Based on a 70% loan to value ratio
~ Based on 5% of sales revenues plus $2 000/unit for warranties costs
$15 /SfLand $3,314,000
$14 00 /Sf Land $3,049,000
$0 /Space 0
$20,000 /Space 460,000
$30,000 /Space 0
$115 /SfGBA 14231,000
517,740 000
$2 306 000
$20 000 /Unit 1,SOD,000
$15,000 /Unit 1,350,000
1,062,000
$6,518 000
$1,951,000
2 5 Points 619,000
1,949,000
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates Inc
File name Rancho_Cucamonga_InG_Dens 06_18_07 xis TH Feasble
P40
APPENDIX B -TABLE 2
PROJECTED SALES REVENUES
TOWNHOME FEASIBLE AFFORDABILITY MIX 90 UNITS (18 UNITS/ACRE)
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CASE STUDIES
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ANALYSIS
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
MARKET RATE SCENARIO ~
Two-Bedroom Units 45 Uniis @ $381 300 /Unit $17,158 500
Three-Bedroom Units 45 Units @ $405,000 /Unit 18 225,000
Total Sales Revenues 535 383,500
TOWNHOME FEASIBLE AFFORDABILITY MIX 6% Moderate Income
Market Rate Units ~
Two-Bedroom Units 42 Units @ $381,300 /Unit $16 014 600
Three-Bedroom Units 42 Units @ $405,000 /Unit $17,010,000
Moderate Income Units s
Two-Bedroom Units 3 Units @ $197,400 /Unit 592,200
Three-Bedroom Units 3 Units @ $221,400 /Unit 664 200
Total Sales Revenues $34,281,000
' Sales price at $305/sf of net Iivabie area for Two-Bedroom Units, and 5270/sf of net livable area for Three-Bedroom Units
z Moderate Income is based on 110% of the County median income 35% of income is allocated to housing related expenses
Housing related expenses include mortgage debt service @ 6 5% Interest, property taxes @ 1 1% of affordable price HOA
@ $2 700 for Two-Bedroom Units & $2,700 for Three-Bedroom Units utilities @ $1 428 for Two-Bedroom Units & $1,704 for
Three-Bedroom Unds, 8 5% down payment
Prepared by Keyser Marston Assoaales Inc
File name Rancho_Cucamonga_Incl_Dens_O6_78_07 xis TH_Feasible
P41
APPENDIX B -TABLE 3
LAND VALUE IMPACT ANALYSIS
TOWNHOME FEASIBLE AFFORDABILITY MIX 90 UNITS (18 UNITSlACRE)
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CASE STUDIES
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ANALYSIS
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
MARKET RATE SCENARIO
Total Sales Revenues See APPENDIX B -TABLE 2 $35 383,500
Total Development Costs See APPENDIX B -TABLE 1 $32 091 000
Total Sales Revenues
Total Development Costs
6% Moderate Income
See APPENDIX B -TABLE 2
See APPENDIX B -TABLE 1
$34,281,000
$32 091 000
Net Land Value Reduction
Decrease in Land Value
$987,000
Prepared by Keyser Marston Assoaa'es Inc
Ftle name Rancho Cucamonga_Ind_Dens_~6 18 07 xls TH Feasible
P42
APPENDIX C
TOWNHOME DENSITY BONUS 99 UNITS (20 UNITSIACRE)
Preparetl by Keyser Marston Assouales Inc
File name Rancho_Cucamonga_Incl_Dens_O6 78_07 xls TH_Densily
P43
APPENDIX C -TABLE 1
ESTIMATED DEVELOPMENT COSTS
TOWNHOME DENSITY BONUS 99 UNITS (20 UNITSIACRE)
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CASE STUDIES
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ANALYSIS
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
I Land Cost 217,800 Sf Land Area $15 /Sf Land $3,314,000
II Direct Costs'
Site Work Costs 217 800 Si Land Area $14 00 /Sf Land $3 049 000
Parking ~
Attached Garage 213 Spaces $0 /Space 0
Podium 0 Spaces $20,000 /Space 0
Below Ground 0 Spaces $30 000 /Space 0
Building Shell Costs a 136,250 /Sf GBA $115 /Sf GBA 15 669,000
Total Direct Coss $18,718,000
III Indirect Costs
General Indirect Costs ° 13% Direct Costs $2,433,000
Permits & Fees 99 Units $20,000 /Unit 1,980,000
Insurance 99 Units $15,000 /Unit 1,485,000
Developer Fee 3% Sales Revenues 1 168 OOD
Total Indirect Costs $7,066,000
IV Financmq/Ciosmg Costs
Interest During Construction/Absorption s $2,084 000
Loan Origination Fees 6 $27,254 000 Loan Amount 2 5 Points 681,000
Closing & Sales & Warranties ~ 2 145,000
Total Financmg/Closing Costs $4,910,000
V
Total Development Costs 136,250 /Sf GBA $250 /Sf GBA $34 008,000
Total Construction Costs 136,250 /Sf GBA $230 /Sf GBA $30 694,000
i Assumes that no prevailing wage requirements veill be imposed on the development
~ Tolal number of spaces equals 213, or 2 15 spaces/unit
a Average unit size equal to 1,376 square feet GBA includes a 0% allowance for non-livable area
a
Includes architecture engineering & consulting, taxes, legal & accounting marketing and soft cost contingency
6 Construction and absorption period interest set at a 7 0% blended return on debt and equity Carrying costs are based
on an 18 month development penod Absorption rate is set at 15 units/month
a Based on a 70% loan to value ratio
~ Based on 5% of sales revenues plus $2 OOO/unit for warranties costs
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates Inc
Ftle name Rancho_Cucamonga_Ind_~ens_O6_ie_07 zls TH_~ensity
P44
APPENDIX C -TABLE 2
PROJECTED SALES REVENUES
TOWNHOME DENSITY BONUS 99 UNITS (20 UNITSIACRE)
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CASE STUDIES
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ANALYSIS
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
TOWNHOME DENSITY BONUS 15% Moderate Income (Base Units)
Market Rate Units'
Two-Bedroom Units 42 Units @ $381,300 /Unit $16,014,600
Three-Bedroom Umts 43 Unds @ $405 000 /Und $17,415,000
Moderate Income Units s
Two-Bedroom Units 7 Units @ $197,400 /Unit 1,381,800
Three-Bedroom Units 7 Units @ S221 400 /Unit 1,549,800
Total Sates Revenues $36,361,200
Sales price at $305/sf of net livable area for Two-Bedroom Units, and $270/51 of net livable area for Three-Bedroom
Unds
2 Moderate income Is based on 110% of the County median Income 35% of Income is allocated to housing related
expenses Housing related expenses include mortgage debt service @ 6 5% interest, property taxes @ 1 1% of
affordable price, HOA @ $2,700 for Two-Bedroom Units & $2,700 for Three-Bedroom Units, utilities @ $1,428 for Two-
Bedroom Units & $1,704 for Three-Bedroom Units, & 5% down payment
Preparetl Oy Keyser Marston Associates Inc
File name Rancho_Cucamonga_Incl Dens_06_ie_07 xis TH_Density
P45
APPENDIX C -TABLE 3
LAND VALUE IMPACT ANALYSIS
TOWNHOME DENSITY BONUS 99 UNITS (20 UNITSIACRE)
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CASE STUDIES
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ANALYSIS
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
MARKET RATE SCENARIO
Total Sales Revenues See APPENDIX A -TABLE 2 $35,383 500
Tofal Development Costs See APPENDIX A -TABLE 1 $32 091,000
7WNHOME DENSITY BONUS 15% Moderate Income (Base Unlts)
Tolal Sales Revenues See APPENDIX C -TABLE 2 $36,361,200
Total Development Costs See APPENDIX C -TABLE 1 $34,008,000
Net Land Value Redudlon $841,000
Decrease In Land Value 25%
Prepared by Keyser Marston Assot ales Inc
File name Rancho_CUCamonga Incl Dens_O6 18_07 xls TH_Density
P46
APPENDIX D
SFH BASE CASE 26 UNITS (5 UNITSIACRE)
Preparetl by Keyser Marston Assoaates Inc
File name Rancho OpGamonBa_~00I_Dens_06 18_07 xls SFR Base
P47
APPENDIX D -TABLE 1
ESTIMATED DEVELOPMENT COSTS
SFH BASE CASE 26 UNITS (5 UNITS/ACRE)
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CASE STUDIES
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ANALYSIS
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
I Land Cost 217 800 Sf Land Area $15 /Sf Land
11 Dvect Costs'
Site Work Costs 217 800 Sf Land Area $14 00 /Sf Land
Parking s
Attached Garage 65 Spaces $0 /Space
Podium 0 Spaces $20,000 /Space
Below Ground 0 Spaces $30,000 /Space
Building Shell Costs ~ 76,700 /Sf GBA $80 /Sf GBA
Total Dvect Costs
III Indirect Casts
General Indirect Costs"
Permits & Fees
Insurance
Developer Fee
Total Indirect Costs
IV FnanunglClosmg Costs
13% Direct Costs
26 Units
26 Units
3% Sales Revenues
Interest During Construction/Absorption s
Loan Origination Fees s $13,807,000 Loan Amount
Closing & Sales, & Warranties 7
Total Finanang/Closing Costs
V
$2,364,000
Total Development Costs 76,700 /Si GBA $230 /Sf GBA $17,559,000
Total Construction Costs 76,700 /Sf GBA $190 !Sf GBA $14,245 000
' Assumes that no prevailing wage requirements well be imposed on the development
s Total number of spaces equals 65, or 2 50 spaces/unit
~ Average unit size equal to 2,950 square feet GBA Includes a 0% allowance for non-livable area
4
Includes architecture, engineering & consulting taxes legal & accounting, marketing and soft cost contingency
5 Construction and absorption period interest set at a 7 0% blended return on debt and equity Carrying costs are based
on an 18 month development period Absorption rate is set at 15 units/month
e Based on a 70% loan to value ratio
7 Based on 5% of sales revenues plus $2,000/unit for warranties costs
$9 185 000
$1,194,D00
$20,000 /Unit 520 000
$15,000 /Und 390,000
592,000
$2,696 000
$981 000
2 5 Points 345 000
1,038,000
$3 049,000
$3,314,000
0
0
0
6 136,000
Preparetl by Keyser Marston Assoaates Inc
FOe name Rancho Cucamorga_Incl DenS_O6 1 B_07 xis SFR_Base
P48
APPENDIX D -TABLE 2
PROJECTED SALES REVENUES
SFH BASE CASE 26 UNITS (5 UNITSIACRE)
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CASE STUDIES
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ANALYSIS
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
MARKET RATE SCENARIO ~
Three-Bedroom Units 13 Units @ $775,700 /Unit $10,084 100
Four-Bedroom Units 13 Units @ $741,500 !Unit 9 639,500
Total Sales Revenues $19,723 60D
SFH BASE CASE 15% Moderate Income
Market Rate Units ~
Three-Bedroom Units 11 Uniis @ $775,700 /Unit $8,532,700
Four-Bedroom Units 11 Units @ $741,500 /Unit $8,156,500
Moderate Income Units z
Three-Bedroom Units 2 Units @ $221,400 /Unit 442,800
Four-Bedroom Units 2 Units @ $238,300 Nnit 476 600
Total Sales Revenues $17,608,600
' Sales price at $267/sf of net I~vable area for Three-Bedroom Units, and $247/sf of net livable area for Four-Bedroom
Unds
% Moderate income is based on 110% of the County median income 35% of income is allocated to housing related
expenses Housing related expenses include mortgage debt service @ 6 5% interest, property taxes @ 1 1% of
affordable pace, HOA @ $2,700 for Three-Bedroom Unrts & $2 700 for Four-Bedroom Unrts, uti6hes @ $1,704 for Three-
Bedroom Units & $2 112 for Four-Bedroom Units, & 5% down payment
Preparetl by Keyser Marston Associates Inc
FAe name Rancho Cucamonga_Incl Dens 09_78_07 xls SFR Base
P49
APPENDIX D -TABLE 3
LAND VALUE IMPACT ANALYSIS
SFH BASE CASE 26 UNITS (5 UNITSIACRE)
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CASE STUDIES
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ANALYSIS
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
MARKET RATE SCENARIO
Total Sales Revenues See APPENDIX D -TABLE 2 $19,723 600
Total Development Costs See APPENDIX D -TABLE 1 $17,559,000
Total Sales Revenues
Total Development Costs
Net Land Value Reduction
Decrease in Land Value
$1,893,000
15% Moderate Income
See APPENDIX D -TABLE 2 $17,608 600
See APPENDIX D -TABLE 1 $17,559,000
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates Inc
Fi,e name RanCbo_Cuwmonga_Incl_Dens_O6_78_07 x15 SFR_ease
P50
APPENDIX E
SFH FEASIBLE AFFORDABILITY MIX 26 UNITS (5 UNITS/ACRE)
Preparetl by Keyser Marston Assouales Inc
RIe name Rancho_CUCamonga Ind_Dens_O6_18 07 xls SFR_Feasible
P51
APPENDIX E -TABLE 1
ESTIMATED DEVELOPMENT COSTS
SFH FEASIBLE AFFORDABILITY MIX 26 UNITS (5 UNITS/ACRE)
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CASE STUDIES
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ANALYSIS
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
Land Cost
II Drect Costs'
Site Work Costs
Parking s
Attached Garage
Podium
Below Ground
Bwlding Shell Costs a
Total Direct Costs
III Indirect Costs
General Indirect Costs °
Permits & Fees
Insurance
Developer Fee
Total Indirect Costs
IV Financmq/Ciosma Costs
217,800 Sf Land Area
217,800 Sf Land Area
65 Spaces
0 Spaces
0 Spaces
76,700 /Sf GBA
13°/a Drect Costs
26 Units
26 Unds
3°/o Sales Revenues
Interest Dunng Construction/Absorption s
Loan Origination Fees 6 $13,807,000 Loan Amount
Closing & Sales, & Warranties 7
Total Financing/Closing Costs
V
$2,364 000
Total Development Costs 76 700 /Sf GBA $230 !Sf GBA $17 559,000
Total Construction Costs 76,700 /Sf GBA $190 /Sf GBA $14 245,OOD
' Assumes that no prevailing wage requirements wdl be imposed on the development
2 Total number of spaces equals 65, or 2 50 spaces/unit
a Average unit size equal to 2,950 square feet GBA includes a 0% allowance for non-Iwabie area
a
Includes archdecture, engineenng & consulting, taxes, legal & accounting marketing, and soft cost contingency
s Construction and absorption period interest set at a 7 0% blended return on debt and equity Carrying costs are based
on an 18 month development penod Absorption rate is set at 15 units/month
6 Based on a 70% loan to value ratio
~ Based on 5% of sales revenues plus $2,000/unit for warranties costs
$15 /Sf Land
$14 00 /Sf Land
$0 /Space
$20 000 /Space
$30,000 /Space
$80 /Sf GBA
$9,185 000
$1 194,000
$20 000 /Unit 520,000
$15 000 /Unit 390 000
592,000
$2,696,000
$981 000
2 5 Points 345 000
1 038,000
$3,049,000
$3,314 000
0
0
0
6,136,000
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates Inc
File name Rancno_Cucamonga_Incl_Dens 06_18_07 xis SFR Feasible
P52
APPENDIX E -TABLE 2
PROJECTED SALES REVENUES
SFH FEASIBLE AFFORDABILITY MIX 26 UNITS (5 UNITSIACRE)
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CASE STUDIES
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ANALYSIS
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
MARKET RATE SCENARIO'
Three-Bedroom Units 13 Units @ $775 700 /Unit $10,084,100
Four-Bedroom Units 13 Units @ $741,500 /Unit 9,639,5D0
Total Sales Revenues $19,723,600
SFH FEASIBLE AFFORDABILITY MIX 5% Moderate Income
Market Rate Units'
Three-Bedroom Units 12 Units @ $775 700 /Unit $9,306,400
Four-Bedroom Units t2 Units @ $741 500 /Unit $8,898 000
Moderate Income Units z
Three-Bedroom Units 1 Unit @ $221,400 lUnlt 221,400
Four-Bedroom Units 1 Unit @ $238,300 /Unit 238,300
Total Sales Revenues $18 666,100
' Sales price at $267/sf of net livable area for Three-Bedroom Units and $247/si of net livable area for Four-Bedroom
Units
z Moderate income Is based on 110% of the County median Income 35% of Income Is allocated to housing related
expenses Housing related expenses include mortgage debt service @ 6 5% interest, property taxes @ 1 1% of
affordable price, HOA @ $2,700 for Three-Bedroom Units & $2,700 for Four-Bedroom Units, utilities @ $1,704 for Three-
Bedroom Unils & $2 112 for Four-Bedroom Uniis, & 5% down payment
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates Inc
Rle name Rancho Cucamonga_Inci_Dens 06_18 07 xis SFR_Feas ble
P53
APPENDIX E -TABLE 3
LAND VALUE IMPACT ANALYSIS
SFH FEASIBLE AFFORDABILITY MIX 26 UNITS (5 UNITSIACRE)
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CASE STUDIES
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ANALYSIS
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
MARKET RATE SCENARIO
Total Sales Revenues See APPENDIX E -TABLE 2 $19,723,600
Total Development Costs See APPENDIX E -TABLE 1 $17 559,000
Total Sales Revenues
Total Development Costs
5% Moderate Income
See APPENDIX E -TABLE 2
See APPENDIX E -TABLE 1
$18 666,100
517,559,000
Net Land Value Reduction
Decrease in Land Value
$sas,ooo
29%
Prepared by Keyser Marston Assoaates Inc
Fie name Rancho_Cucamonga_ircl_Dens_g6_t6_07 x15 SFR Feas ble
P54
APPENDIX F
APARTMENT BASE CASE 90 APARTMENT UNITS (30 UNITS/ACRE)
Preparetl by Keyser Marston Associates Inc
Ftle name Rancho_CU;.zmorga_Incl_Dens 06_18_07 xls Apt_Base
P55
APPENDIX F -TABLE 1
ESTIMATED DEVELOPMENT COSTS
APARTMENT BASE CASE 90 APARTMENT UNITS (30 UNITS/ACRE)
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CASE STUDIES
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ANALYSIS
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
I Land Cost 130,680 Sf Land Area $15 /Sf Land $1,988,000
II Dvect Costs'
Site Work Costs 130,680 Sf Land Area $12 00 /Sf Land $1,568,000
Podium Parking Z 182 Spaces $20,000 /Space 3,640,000
Bwlding Shell Costs ~ 116,862 Sf GBA $125 /Sf GBA 14 608 000
Total Dvect Costs $19,816 000
III Indlrect Costs
General Indirect Costs" 10% Direct Costs $1,982,000
Permits & Fees 90 Umts $20,000 /Unit 1,800,000
Insurance 90 Units $5,000 /Unit 450000
Developer Fee 5% Dlrect Costs 991,000
Total Indlrect Costs $5,223,000
IV Financing Costs
Interest During Construction e
Land $1,988,000 Land Cost 7 0% Interest $209,000
Budding $27,695,000 Cost 7 0% Interest 1,890 ODO
Loan Origination Fees a $15 908,000 Loan Amount 3 5 Points 557 000
Total Financing Costs $2,656,000
V
Total Development Costs 116,862 Sf GBA $250 /Sf GBA $29 683,000
Total Construction Costs 116,862 Sf GBA $240 /Sf GBA $27 695 000
' Assumes that no prevading wage regwremenis well be Imposed on the development
Z Total number of spaces equals 182 or 2 02 spaces/unit
' Average unit size equal to 1,129 square feet GBA includes a 115% allowance for non-rentable area
Includes archdecture, engmeenng & consulting, taxes, legal 8 accounting, marketing, and soft cost contingency
e Construction interest set at 7 0% on debt and 7 0% on equity Land carrying costs are based on a 100% average outstanding
balance, and an 1 B month development period Construction costs are based on a 65% average outstanding balance and an 18
month construction period
a Based on a 70% loan to value ratio
Prepared by Keyser Marston Assoaates Inc
Fie name Rancho_Cucamonga Ind_Dens_O6 18_07 xis Apt_6ase
P56
APPENDIX F -TABLE 2A
STABILIZED NET OPERATING INCOME MARKET RATE SCENARIO
APARTMENT BASE CASE 90 APARTMENT UNITS (30 UNITS/ACRE)
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CASE STUDIES
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ANALYSIS
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
1 Income
Rent '
One-Bedroom Unts 27 Units @ $1,359 /Month $440,200
Two-Bedroom Units 36 Units @ $1,695 /Month 732,200
Three-Bedroom Units 27 Units @ $2 201 /Month 713,200
Gross Income $1,885,600
Vacancy & Collection Allowance 5% Gross Income (94,300)
Effective Gross Income $1,791 300
II Operating Expenses
General Operating Expenses 90 Units @ $4,500 /Unit $405,000
Property Taxes z 90 Units @ $2,778 /Unit 250,000
Total Operating Expenses 90 Units @ ($7,280) /Unit ($655,000)
III Net Operator Income $1,136 300
' Markel rent = $1 79/sf for One-Bedroom Units $1 52/sf for Two-Bedroom Units, and $1 45/sf for Three-Bedroom Units
Based on the prgect value at a 5 0% capdalization rate and a 1 1% tax rate
Prepared oy Keyser Marston Associates Inc
Filename Rancho_CUCamonga_Incl_Dens_O6_18_07 x1s Apl_Base
P57
APPENDIX F -TABLE 2B
STABILIZED NET OPERATING INCOME APARTMENT BASE CASE
APARTMENT BASE CASE 90 APARTMENT UNITS (30 UNITS/ACRE)
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CASE STUDIES
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ANALYSIS
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
I Income
Market Rent t
One-Bedroom Units 23 Units @ $1,359 /Month $375,000
Two-Bedroom Units 30 Units @ $1,695 /Month 610,100
Three-Bedroom Units 23 Uniis @ $2 201 /Month 607 500
Moderate Income a
One-Bedroom Units 2 Units @ $1,258 /Month 30,200
Two-Bedroom Units 3 Units @ $1 407 /Month 50,600
Three-Bedroom Units 2 Units @ $1,556 /Month 37,300
Verv-Low Income a
One-Bedroom Units 2 Units @ $547 /Month 13,100
Two-Bedroom Units 3 Unlls @ $607 /Month 21,900
Three-Bedroom Units 2 Units @ 5668 /Month 16,000
Gross Income $1 761,700
Vacancy & Collection Allowance 5% Gross Income (88 100)
Effective Gross Income $1,673,600
II Operatmg Expenses
General Operating Expenses 90 Umts @ $4,500 /Unit $405 000
Property Taxes ° 90 Units @ $2 542 /Unit 226 800
Total Operating Expenses 90 Units @ ($7 040) /Unit ($633 800)
III Net Operatln Income $1,039,800
Market rent = $1 79/sf for One-Bedroom Units, $1 52/sf for Two-Bedroom Units, and $1 45/sf for Three-Bedroom Units
~ Moderate Income Is based on 110% of the County median 30% of Income is allocated to housing related expenses Utilities @
S46 for One-Bedroom Units, $59 for Two-Bedroom Units, and $72 for Three-Bedroom Units Rents are the lesser of moderate
Income rents and market rents
a Very-low income is based on 50% of the County median 30% of income Is allocated to housing related expenses Utilities @
$46 for One-Bedroom Unds $59 for Two-Bedroom Umts, and $72 for Three-Bedroom Unrts
Preparetl by Keyser Marston Associates Inc
FAe name Rancho_Cucamonga_Incl_Dens_OB_18 07 xis Apt Base
P58
APPENDIX F -TABLE 3
LAND VALUE IMPACT ANALYSIS
APARTMENT BASE CASE 90 APARTMENT UNITS (30 UNITSIACRE)
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CASE STUDIES
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ANALYSIS
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
MARKET RATE SCENARIO
Net Operating Income See APPENDIX F -TABLE 2A $1,136,300
Total Development Costs See APPENDIX F -TABLE 1 $29,683,000
APARTMENT BASE CASE 7 5°/a Moderate Income 8 7 5% Very-Low Income
Net Operating Income See APPENDIX F -TABLE 2B $1,039,800
Total Development Costs See APPENDIX F -TABLE 1 $29,683,000
Nel Land Value Reduction $2 256,000
Decrease in Land Value 113"/°
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates Inc
Filename Rancho_Cucamonga Ircl Dens_O6_18_07 ws Apt_Base
P59
APPENDIX G
APARTMENT FEASIBLE AFFORDABILITY MIX 90 APARTMENT UNITS (30 UNITS/ACRE)
Preparetl by Keyser Marston Associates Inc
Flle name Rancho Cucamonga Incl_Dens_O6_78_07 xls Api_Feasible
P60
APPENDIX G -TABLE 1
ESTIMATED DEVELOPMENT COSTS
APARTMENT FEASIBLE AFFORDABILITY MIX 90 APARTMENT UNITS (30 UNITSIACRE)
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CASE STUDIES
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ANALYSIS
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
I Land Cast 130 680 Sf Land Area $15 /Sf Land $1,988,000
II Dvect Costs'
Site Work Costs 130 680 Sf Land Area $12 00 /Sf Land $1 568,000
Podium Parking ~ 182 Spaces $20,000 /Space 3,640,000
Bwlding Shell Costs a 116,862 Sf GBA $125 /Sf GBA 14 608,000
$19,816,000
Total Direct Costs
III Indirect Costs
General Indirect Costs ° 1D% Direct Costs $1,962,000
Permits & Fees 90 Units $20 000 !Unit 1,800,000
90 Units $5,000 /Unit 450,000
Insurance
Developer Fee 5% Dvect Costs 991 000
$5,223,000
Total Indirect Costs
IV Ponancmq Costs
Interest Dunng Construc4on 6
Land $1,988,000 Land Cost 7 0% Interest $209 000
Building $27,695,000 Cosl 70%Interest 1,890,000
Loan Origination Fees 6 $15 908,000 Loan Amount 3 5 Points 557,000
$2,656,000
Total Financing Costs
V
Total Development Costs 116,862 Sf GBA $250 1Sf GBA $29 663 000
Total Construction Costs 116 862 Sf GBA $240 /Si GBA $27 695 000
' Assumes that no prevailing wage requirements will be imposed on the development
z Total number of spaces equals 182 or 2 02 spaces/und
a Average unit size equal to 1,129 square feet GBA includes a 115% allowance for non-rentable area
° Includes architecture, engineenng & consulting, taxes, legal 8 accounting marketing, and soft cost contingency
s Construction interest set al 7 0% on debt and 7 0% on equity Land carrying costs are based on a 100% average outstanding
balance, and an 18 month development period Construction costs are based on a 65% average outstanding balance and an
18 month construction period
e Based on a 70% loan to value ratio
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates Inc
Fie name Rancho_CUwmon9a_Incl_Dens O6_t 6_07 xis Apt Feasible
P61
APPENDIX G • TABLE 2A
STABILIZED NET OPERATING INCOME MARKET RATE SCENARIO
APARTMENT FEASIBLE AFFORDABILITY MIX 90 APARTMENT UNITS (30 UNITSIACRE)
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CASE STUDIES
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ANALYSIS
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
I Income
Rent'
One-Bedroom Units 27 Umts @ $1,359 /Month $440,200
Two-Bedroom Units 36 Units @ $1,695 /Month 732,200
Three-Bedroom Units 27 Unlts @ $2,201 !Month 713 200
Gross Income $1 885,600
Vacancy & Collection Allowance 5% Gross Income (94,300)
Effective Gross Income $1,791,300
II Operating Expenses
General Operating Expenses 90 Units @ $4,500 /Unit $405,000
Property Taxes s 90 Units @ $2,778 /Unit 250 000
Total Operating Expenses 90 Units @ ($7 280) /Unit ($655,000)
III Ne[Operating Income $1,136,300
' Market rent = $1 79lsf for One-Bedroom Units $1 52/sf for Two-Bedroom Units, and S1 45/sf for Three-Bedroom Units
s Based on the protect value at a 5 0% capitalization rate and a 1 1% tax rate
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates Inc
Fde name Rancho Cucamonga_Incl_Dens_O6 18_07 xis Apt Feasible
P62
APPENDIX G -TABLE 2B
STABILIZED NET OPERATING INCOME APARTMENT FEASIBLE AFFORDABILITY MIX
APARTMENT FEASIBLE AFFORDABILITY MIX 90 APARTMENT UNITS (30 UNITS/ACRE)
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CASE STUDIES
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ANALYSIS
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
I Income
Market Rent'
One-Bedroom Units 24 Units @ $1 359 /Month $391,300
Two-Bedroom Units 32 Units @ $1,695 /Month 650,800
Three-Bedroom Units 25 Units @ $2 201 !Month 660,300
Moderate Income s
One-Bedroom Units 3 Units @ $1 258 /Month 45,300
Two-Bedroom Units 4 Units @ $1,407 /Month 67,500
Three-Bedroom Units 2 Units @ $1,556 !Month 37,300
Gross Income $1,652,500
Vacancy & Collection Allowance 5% Gross Income (92 600)
Effec4ve Gross Income $1 759 900
II Operating Expenses
General Operating Expenses 90 Units @ $4,500 /Unit $405 000
Property Taxes a 90 Units @ $2,732 /Unit 245,900
Total Operating Expenses 90 Units @ ($7,230) /Unit ($650,900)
III Net Operating Income $1 109,000
' Market rent = $1 79/sf for One-Bedroom Units, $1 52/sf for Two-Bedroom Unlts and $1 45/st for Three-Bedroom Units
s Moderate Income is based on 110% of the County median 30% of income is allocated to housing related expenses Utilities @
$46 for One-Bedroom Units $59 for Two-Bedroom Units, and $72 for Three-Bedroom Units Rents are the lesser of moderate
Income rents and market rents
' Based on the protect value at a 5 0% capitalization rate and a 1 1% tax rate
Preparetl by Keyser Marston Associates Inc
Filename Rancho_CUCamonga Inc! Hens 06_18 07 x1s Apt_Feasible
P63
APPENDIX G -TABLE 3
LAND VALUE IMPACT ANALYSIS
APARTMENT FEASIBLE AFFORDABILITY MIX 90 APARTMENT UNITS (30 UNITSIACRE)
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CASE STUDIES
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ANALYSIS
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
MARKET RATE SCENARIO
Net Operating Income See APPENDIX G -TABLE 2A $1,136,300
Total Development Costs See APPENDIX G -TABLE 1 $29,683,000
APARTMENT FEASIBLE AFFORDAE 10% Moderate Income
Net Operating Income See APPENDIX G -TABLE 2B $1,109,000
Total Development Costs See APPENDIX G -TABLE 1 $29,683,000
Net Land Value Reduction 5638 000
Decrease in land Value 32%
Prepared Dy Keyser Marston Associates Inc
File name Rancho_CUCamonga_Incl ~ens_O6_ie_07 xls Apt Feasible
P64
APPENDIX H
APARTMENT DENSITY BONUS 122 APARTMENT UNITS (41 UNITS/ACRE)
Preparetl by Keyser Marston AssoGales Inc
Filename Rancho Cucamonga_Ind Dens_O6_t8 07 x1s Apt_DensM1y
P65
APPENDIX H -TABLE 1
ESTIMATED DEVELOPMENT COSTS
APARTMENT DENSITY BONUS 122 APARTMENT UNITS (41 UNITS/ACRE)
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CASE STUDIES
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ANALYSIS
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
I Land Cost
II Direct Costs'
Site Work Costs
Podium Parking s
Building Shell Costs 6
Total Direct Costs
III Indirect Costs
General Indirect Cosfs "
Permits & Fees
Insurance
Developer Fee
Total Indirect Costs
IV Financing Costs
Interest During Construction s
Land
Bwldmg
Loan Ongination Fees s
Total Financing Costs
V
130,680 Sf Land Area
130,680 Sf Land Area
246 Spaces
158,844 Sf GBA
10% Direct Costs
122 Units
122 Units
5% Direct Costs
$1,988,000 Land Cost
$36,823,000 Cost
$21,629 000 Loan Amount
$15 /Sf Land
$1,966 000
$12 00 /Sf Land $1 568,000
520,000 /Space 4,920 000
$125 /Sf GBA 19,855 000
$26,343 000
$20,000 /Und
$5,000 /Unit
$2 634,000
2,440,000
610,000
1.317 000
7 0% Interest
7 0% Interest
3 5 Points
$7,001 000
$3,479 000
Total Development Costs 156 844 Sf GBA $240 /Sf GBA $38,811 000
Total Construction Costs 158,844 Sf GBA $230 /Sf GBA $36,823 000
' Assumes that no prevailing wage requirements will be imposed on the development
s Total number of spaces equals 246 or 2 02 spaces/unit
s Average unit size equal to 1 132 square feet GBA includes a 115% allowance for non-rentable area
^ Includes architecture, engineering & consulting, taxes, legal & accounting, marketing, and soft cost contingency
s Construction interest set at 7 0% on debt and 7 0% on equity Land carrying costs are based on a 100% average outstanding
balance and an 18 month development period Construction costs are based on a 65% average outstanding balance and an 18
month construction penod
~ Based on a 70% loan to value ratio
$209 000
2,513 000
757.000
Prepared by Keyser Marston Assooates Inc
File name Rancho_CUCamonga_Ind_Dens_06_16_07 xis Apt_Densiry
P66
APPENDIX H -TABLE 2
STABILIZED NET OPERATING INCOME APARTMENT DENSITY BONUS
APARTMENT DENSITY BONUS 122 APARTMENT UNITS (41 UNITSIACRE)
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CASE STUDIES
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ANALYSIS
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
I Income
Market Rent'
One-Bedroom Units 32 Units @ $1,359 /Month $521,700
Two-Bedroom Units 46 Units @ $1,695 /Month 935,500
Three-Bedroom Units 34 Units @ $2,201 !Month 898,000
Moderate Income ~
One-Bedroom Units - Units @ $1,258 !Month 0
Two-Bedroom Units - Units @ $1,407 /Month 0
Three-Bedroom Units - Units @ $1 556 /Month 0
Verv-Low Income 3
One-Bedroom Units 4 Units @ $547 /Month 26,200
Two-Bedroom Units 3 Units @ $607 /Month 21,900
Three-Bedroom Units 3 Units @ $668 /Month 24,000
Gross Income $2 427 300
Vacancy & Collection Allowance 5% Gross Income (121,400)
Effective Gross Income $2,305,900
II Operating Expenses
General Operating Expenses 122 Units @ $4 500 /Urnt $549,000
Property Taxes " 122 Unds @ $2,597 /Umt 316,800
Total Operating Expenses 122 Units @ ($7,100) /Unit ($865,800)
III Net Operating Income $1,440,100
' Market rent = $1 79/sf for One-Bedroom Units, $1 52/sf for Two-Bedroom Units, and $1 45/sf for Three-Bedroom Units
s Moderate Income Is based on 110% of [he County median 30% of income is allocated to housing related expenses Utllltles @
$46 for One-Bedroom Units, $59 for Two-Bedroom Units and 572 for Three-Bedroom Units Rents are the lesser of moderate
income rents and market rents
' Very-low income is based on 50% of the County median 30% of income is allocated to housing related expenses Utilities @
$46 for One-Bedroom Units $59 for Two-Bedroom Units, and $72 for Three-Bedroom Units
Preparetl by Keyser Marston Associates Inc
Fi a name Rancho Cucamonga_Incl Dens OB_t 9_07 xis Apt_Density
P67
APPENDIX H • TABLE 3
LAND VALUE IMPACT ANALYSIS
APARTMENT DENSITY BONUS 122 APARTMENT UNITS (41 UNITSIACRE)
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CASE STUDIES
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ANALYSIS
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
MARKET RATE SCENARIO
Net Operating Income See APPENDIX F -TABLE 2A $1,136,300
Total Development Costs See APPENDIX F -TABLE 1 $29,683 000
APARTMENT DENSITY BONUS 11% Very-Low Income (Base Units)
Net Operating Income See APPENDIX H -TABLE 2 $1,440,100
Total Development Costs See APPENDIX H -TABLE 1 $38,811,000
Net Land Value Reduction $1 067 000
Decrease in Land Value 64%
Preparetl by Keyser Marston ASSOCIates Inc
Filename Rancho_Cucamonga_Incl_Dens O6_78_O~xls Apt_Density
P68
MEMORANDUM ;
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
RANCxo
Date• July 6, 2006 CUCAMONGA
To: Mayor and City Council Members
Jadc Lam, AICP, Executive Directo~o~'~{ /~n/~
From• Housing Subcommittee Members Gutierrez and Mich) • Y _
SubJect. INCLUSIONARY ZONING WORKSHOP - 4.00 P.M JULY 19, 200fi
Over the past several months, the Housing Subcommittee has been meeting Hnth staff and counsel
to discuss the City and Agency's obligations and opportunities in providing affordable housing As
we all know, the production and preservation of affordable housing is a State requirement imposed
on redevelopment agencies and sties, but it is unrealistic to think that local communities can meet
affordable housmg requirements solely using local funding sources
Rancho Cucamonga has made great strides in addressing its aNordable housing obligations
pnmanly through the use of Redevelopment Agency Housing Set-aside funds Despite these
efforts, which have produced approwmately 1700 units of affordable housmg (1,320 through
Redevelopment and the balance through City/County Agreements), a tremendous need still exists
Dunng the approval of the Redevelopment Agency's Housing Production Plan {Attachment 1),
which ~ part of the Housing Element of the City's General Plan, 12 potential programs to assist in
providing affordable housing were identified Programs 9 and 10 present goals for investigating the
feasibiliiy of an affordable housmg overlay zone and a mixed use overlay zone in order to create
new opportunities for providing affordable housing Given the need to provide a balanced
community and recognizing there are iimded resources remaining to provide affordable housing
(both in terms of available land and finances) the Subcommittee is proposing the Ciry Council
discuss creating a Iirnited Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance The pollees which the Subcommittee is
proposing for discussion will also help accomplish the program goals of the Housing Production
Plan and the Housing Element
Many cities have adopted an Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance that requires developers to either
provide affordabte units (on or off-site) or pay an in-lieu fee as part of the entitlement process The
Housing Subcommittee has reviewed and discussed several InGusionary Zoning options and
concluded that a limited approach to Inclusionary Zoning could be considered in Rancho
Cucamonga The Subcommittee has requested a workshop on Wednesday, July 19`" at 4 00 p,m.
to discuss with the full City Counal the status of our affordable housing efforts and potential policies
for a limited Inc{usionary Zoning application
To faalitate the discussion, the following background material and information has been provided in
advance of the workshop
P69
INCLUSIONARY ZONII3G WORKSHOP - 4 00 P M ,JULY 19, 2006
v 6, 2006
WHAT IS AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND WHY IS IT IMPORTANT TO A COMMUNITY
PAGE 2
As the City Council is aware, aver the past 25 years the City has groom in population, lobs and
housing units In the early years of the City's growth, Rancho Cucamonga was viewed as a haven
for affordable land and housing for young families as compared to the Orange and Los Angeles
county areas Whfle paces for land and housing in Rancho Cucamonga remain lower than
unt125: - - ~
changed dramatically in recent years How many times have you heard your fnends and neighbors
say they wouldn't be able to afford the home they are in today
The Housing Subcommittee is also aware that the growth in the City has begun to expand the
employment opportunities and thus the wage eammg opportunibes in the City In the past 10 years
the City has seen signrficant growth in office and higher end fobs that are generally assoaated wish
higher wage eammg capabilities The City has also seen a significant increase in the number of
retail, sernce/restaurant and hospitality (hotel) labs The Subcommittee has frequently discussed
the value to the community in providing affordable workforce housing for the residents, and
employees of companies in Rancho Cucamonga The ability for people to live and work in the
community has far reaching social and economic benefits to the city and the families employees
needing affordable housing
Far 2006, the median income for the County of San Bernardino for a family of 4 is $57,500 While
the median income for Rancho Cucamonga is much higher, approximately $72,525, it is the County
median income figure that is used to calculate eligible incomes and affordable housing rates
Dunng the Subcommittee meetings infonnabon was discussed regarding wages and fob types that
would be considered affordable wages Attached #2 to Phis memo is a small sampling of the types
of fobs which at entry level would typically qualify as being an affordable income assuming a family
size of 4 The Subcommittee also noted that using the lowest mcome possible, minimum wage at
$6 75 an hour, a single person househdd would have to work 115 hours per week in order to
achieve the median inaxne While this is an extreme example of wage eammg, it is important to
note that even at an hourly rate of $15, a single person would have to work 52 hours a week in
order to achieve the median income
The following table illustrates the vanous eligible income limits, based on family size
Famd Slze County of S B
Median Income
35°k income
45°!° mcome
609'° income
90% income
1 $40,300 $14,105 $18,135 $24,180 $36,270
2 $46,000 $16,100 $20,700 $27,600 $41,400
3 $51,800 $18,130 $23,310 $31,080 $46,620
4 $57,500 $20,125 $25,875 $34,500 $51,750
5 $62,100 $21,735 $27,945 $37,260 $55,890
6 $66,700 $23,345 $30,015 $40,020 $60,030
7 $71,300 $24,955 $32,085 $42,780 $64,170
8 $75,900 $26,585 $34,155 545,540 $68,310
P70
INCf USIONARY ZONING WORKSHOP -4 00 P M ,JULY 19, 2006 PAGE 3
f ULY 6, 2006
These family incomes translate Into the following affordable monthly rental rates, inGuding the
amount allocated for ubhties
FAMILY SIZE 35% income 45% income 60% income 90% income
1 $353 $453 $605 $907
`v~.~°. ru° econ 21 MS
-$953 $`a$3_I $7J_7 ~ $1,166
4 $503 $647 $863 $1,294
5 $543 $699 $932 $1,397
6 $584 $750 $1,001 $1,501
7 $624 $802 $1,070 $1,604
8 $664 $854 51,139 $1,708
As a comparison, the current average rental rate for an apartment in Rancho Cucamonga is $1,166
per month Attachment #3 shows a listing of some of the rental complexes and rental rates in
Rancho Cucamonga that are advertised on www apartments coin
The average ewsting home price in the City is $533,930 At an interest rate of fi%, a 3D year
mortgage and a down payment ranging between 10% ($53,400) and 20% (108,800), a family of 4
would need an income between $102,450 and $115,245 in order to qualrfy for the mortgage
payment These inwmes are almost double the current County median income for 2006
Attachment #4 shaws a comparison of incomes to ewsting and new home prices for the past 10
year period of fame The chart shows that housing costs have increased sign~cantly more than
increases in income, which impacts home ownership affordability
BACKGROUND DATA AND INFORMATION
Attachment #5 is a summary table which the Subcommittee has reviewed with staff regarding our
achrevements in the providing affordable housing Attachment #6 is information summarizing the
Regional Housing Needs Assessment and identifes the number and distribution by income
category of affordable units that were expected to be provided in the City between 1999 and 2005
A review and explanation of this information Hnli be part of the staff presentation at the workshop
The more cnGcal data that is important for the City Council to be aware of are the following
• Based on the State Housing Production Requirements, the Agency has a responsibility of
providing approximately 2,755 units of affordable housing to meet the 15% minimum
affordable housing requirement for the Protect Area
• The Agency has duectly provided 1,025 units, and another 295 units are proposed (1,320
total units) Through multi faintly bond financing, another 268 units have been provided
which the Agency can recewe credit for The total number of units the Agency receives
credit for is 1,588 units, approximately 68% of the number of units that should be available
The Agency has an exisbng 1,167 unit shortfall In the number of affordable housing units
• Between 1999 and 2005 the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA} estimated the
need for 7,700 units to serve families who were paying more than 30% of their income on
P71
II3CLUSIONARY ZONING WORKSHOP - 4 00 P Af ,JULY ] 9, 2006
tuLY G. 2006
PAGE 4
housing Of these units, approximately 79%, or 6,110, were for families earning 60% or less
of median income During this time period the CitylAgency was able to obtain covenants for
i44 units fvr families earning 60% or less of median income - or 2% of the need
• The RHNA numbers for the City for 2006-2011 time frames are currently being developed,
but have not been distributed Staff expects the CiN's "fair share' numbers for housinc for
families earning 90% or less of the median income to be adfusted to account for the families
- a a unme nee s in e - line tame approxima e y snit es , as we as
the protected families that unit need affordable housing in the upcoming 5 years based on
the City's growth.
• The Agency has expended or pledged more than $232 million from its housing set aside
fund in order to provide the 1,320 units The Agency's resources are nearing capaGty as
the Protect Area and tax increment reach the limits of the Redevelopment Plan
• Unlike the early 1980's when the City was seeing tremendous moderately priced housing
growth, the ma]ority of the units that are being constructed today are not considered to be
affordable to low or moderate income families
• The Agency can provide affordable housing by either obtaining covenants on either existing
units or through new construction of units At a minimum, 50% of the units provided must be
through new construction methods, and no more than 50% of the units can be acquired
through covenants on existing protects
• The Agency is required to spend housing set aside monies on family/senior protects in
proportion to the City's population Based on the 2000 census, the City's senior population
(65 and older as defined by State law) is 5 5% and its faintly age population (64 and under}
~S 94 5%
At the workshop, staff will present maps that identity properties that could be affected by an
inclusionary requirement and a vacant land summary that clearly identifies the limited opportunities
for construction of new housing units Attachment #7 is a listing of sties in the State of California
that have some form of Inclusionary Zoning Requirement, Attachment #13 is a sampling of ar4Ges
that discuss the issue of affordable housing in the local communities
PURPOSE
The purpose of an Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance is to require private development pro]ects to
provide a share of housing that is affordable to low and moderate income households These
housing units are to be provided without finanaal assistance from bcal sources Some aUes
regwre inclusionary units as part of any residential development, and other cities have regwred
Inclusionary Zoning be accomplished on a more limited practice After many meetings of
discussion and review of affordable housing material, the Subcommittee is suggesting the City
Council consider devebping a limited fnclusionary Zoning regwrement which would only apply to
protects that request the following types of discretionary approvals
• Land Use change from aNon-Residential land use (Open Space, Flood Control, Industrial,
or Commercial) to a Residential or Mixed Use land use,
P72
IIQCLUSIONARY ZONING WORKSHOP-4 DO P Ivf ,JULY 19, 2006 PnGE 5
juLY 6, 2006 __
• Land Use change from Residential to Commercial,
• An increased density on Residential land,
• A Map revision to allow a conversion from apartments to condominiums
Ttw S~~hr~,mm~ttQP.c rPa~~t~Ettind this_apyfoaS.h_LS_th;t? a_prooosed re-zoning could add value
to the property, and the community could also add value through the provision of affordable
housing Additionally, property owners that convert apartments to for-sale condominiums are
removing rental units from the market and potentially dnvmg up the rents of the remaining rental
housing in the City The Inclusionary Zoning requrrement could compensate the community for the
loss of affordable housmg rental stock when this occurs Requfnng affordable units as part of an
mcreased residential density application ensures that the increase in housing units is in proportion
with the overall affordable housing need The requirement for providing affordable housing when a
land use change Is proposed to convert a residential site to commercial is also sound because you
are removing potential housing opportunities for residents When this type of zone change is
requested, the opportunity to provde housing on-site would be limited to those instances where a
mixed use designation is granted Othervnse, the developer would have to provide the required
affordable housing off-site, or pay In-lieu fees since a commercial zoning does not permit residential
land uses Through a hmded Inclusionary Zoning practice, the city could gain workforce housmg for
the empbyees of the proposed commercial development and the city as a whole
The Subcommittee felt it was important that any Inclusionary Zoning requirement not be applied to
property that is currently allowed to be developed for residential uses If a developer must receive
an approval to a proposed development that they would not otherwise be entitled to, then the City
should be able to share in the benefits of that development through the provision of affordable
housing
RECOMMENDED STANDARDS
The Subcommittee and staff have compiled the following standards that could be considered as
part of an Inclusionary requirement The Subcommittee Is suggesting these standards as a starting
point for discussion only, and could be mod~ed or enhanced dunng the workshop, and any
subsequent public workshops
1 When a land use or density change application is made, as part of the entitlement process
the developer would be allowed to meet the Inclusionary Zoning requirement in one of four
ways, subject to Gty approval:
• construct the affordable units as part of the proposed protect
• donate land and/or construct the required affordable units on another residentially zoned site
• acquire units or covenants in another property
• pay an In-lieu fee
2 The minimum percentage of Inclusionary units should be 15% of the total residential units
proposed as part of the zone or density change The Subcommittee has proposed that 50%
P73
INCLUSIONARY ZONING WORKSHOP - 4 00 P M ,JULY 19, 2006
IULY 6, 2000
PAGE 6
of the Indusionary units provided be affordable to families earning 5l}% or less of median
income
Through recorded covenants, indusionary units produa~ could be legally restnded to
occupancy by affordable income households for a minimum of 55-years for rental units and
45-years for owner-occupied units
in usionary um s s ou a cons ruc ed air d oc~te;tJ-L$ncanerttly-wtttr-
construction and occupancy of proposed protect In phased developments, incluswnary
urnts could be constructed and occupied in proportion to the number of residential or
commercial units in each phase of the development
Developer would be required to enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement with
City/Agency to ensure on-going maintenance and preservation of urnts
6 Within a proposed rental protect, the number of bedrooms of the restncted units should be m
the same proportion to the non-restricted urnts
In the case of a for sale single family affordable unit, the resale regwrements of the
Agency's first tnr~ home buyer program vnll apply When an affordable single family unlt is
sold at a profit and not to an income qualified family, the seller will be requred to share a
percentage of the egwty for reinvestment back into the affordable housing program for
future single family home purchases
Rental and Home Ownership Inclusronary units should be indisttngwshable from market-rate
units, they should be of similar construction and contain similar amenfies The minimum
bedroom unit size for any rental Inclusronary unit should be T bedroom and there will be a
need for a percentage of the units to be 2 and 3 bedrooms as detenrnned by RHfJA goa{s at
the time a protect is proposed The bedroom mix for an Incusronary home ownership unit
will be based on the ratio of bedrooms in the protect that is being proposed
9 A Development Agreement will be required as part of the land use or density change
entdlement process which approves the location and method for meeting the Inclusronary
Zoning requirement
POLICY QUESTIONS
The Housing Subcommittee has ident~ed the fallowing as the 2 initial policy questions for
discussion by the Cdy Council
• Is there CounGl support for continued discussions on possible implementation of a limited
Inclusronary Zoning Ordmance~
• Should the Ordinance apply only to applications for zone or density changes
Following the discussion by the City Councl of these two policy questions, the Subcommittee
would recommend that the CounGl discuss the recommended standards in order to provide staff
the needed direction to work wdh legal counsel on the framework of a limited Inclusronary
Zoning Ordinance
P74
INCLUSIONARY ZONII3G WORKSHOP -4 00 P M., JULY 19, 2006
Tui.r 6, 2006
PAGE 7
CONCLUSION
At the conclusion of the workshop, should the Council recommend moving forward with the limded
Inclusionary Zoning concept, the Housing Subcommittee would suggest that staff be directed to
begin a senes of meetings with the Bwiding Industry Assoaation (BIA), non-profit housing
nmarnzatinns Chamher of Commerce local developers, and bn~{cers to gather input on polices and
recommendat3onsfnr Council's consideration at a future meeting
P75
a
TW
r
666N
~_
O
fq
a
C
J
c
tC
U
lQ
X
w
C3
~+~-a.chment ~l
9
T ^'
r ~..
Qz
~y a
R m ;_
a ~ E;
0 0 ~ u E c
A N ~ oa
e. _ _ ~ r ~
3 ~ k_°m cm~
O ~ v~
~ b 9 J~ d A
C ~ rye r°d mEv
~ V UY¢~H~S
0
~ c
o
~
m
d
"' w
~ ~ ~
T
0
.fit( ~ L
v ~' Q
m
><
` m
~
;<
~'
~ ro
~ ~ F
.~ T O
f
l ~
1J w
W
r
i
1
b
1
S
N
a
m
r
X
P76
RedevelopmentAgency's Housing Production Plan
G HPP PROGRAMS AND IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES, JULY 1, 2000, THROUGH
JUNE 30, 2005
Having examined the mandatory production requirement and the resources available to meet the
regwrement, programs and quantdatrve goals for the perad July 1, 2000, through June 30,
2DD5, are set forth below These programs shall be consistent with the General Plan, the
cattlorr,anr warn rha wE+¢ram Center for Law and Poverty and with Article 34 of the State
As stated above, the protected production requirement from the formation of the RDA through
June 30, 2005, is 1,024 units As of January 1, 2000, a total of fi75 unds have been provded
In addition the RDA has a current unmet obl~gai[on of 911 new or substantralty rehabilitated
restncted, affordable units
The discussion of programs, includuig aerogram-by-program quantification and timetable for
implementation is induded below Tables X-9 and X-70 illustrate the program quantification
Eleven programs are recommended.
Pro4ram 1: Nelghbofiood Non-Profit HDC
To meat the needs of specific neighborhoods, the RDA shall faalitate the development of Non-
Profrt, 501(c)(3), Neighborhood Housing Development Corporations Speaal neighborhood
needs may include areas of bng-term residential overcrowding, special infrastructure needs, or
histonc neighborhood identdicaUOn.
lmplementatron
This program is underway Dunng the 1992-1993 fiscal year, the RDA facilRated incorporation
of the NHDC to serve the Northtown neighborhood The RDA shall conbnue to work with the
NHDC through the 2005 reporting pencil.
Prooram 2: Land Bank
The RDA continue to seek Non-Profit Housing Development Corporations to assist in the
development of affordable housing on property that the agency has banked to date for
affordable housing. No new land bank purchases are planned since the program has not meet
planned e~ectatrons
Imp/ementatron
This program is underway As of June 30, 2000 a total of 38 9 acres of land capable of
accommodating up to 359 affordable units had been purchased by the RDA (see Table X-7 and
Figure X-4) Of the 38 9 acres, 4 acres are curentfy being devebped by NHDC The RDA is
seeking Non-profd Devebpment Corporations to assist in the development of the remaining 34
acres
X - 14 (June ?001)
P77
Redevelopment Agency's Housing Production Plan
Program 3: RDA Assisted Muttl-Family Protect Development
The RDA shall work with property owners, financial instdiitlons, public agencies, non-profit
housing development corporations, and for-profit corporations to construct new restricted,
affordable rental units within the redevelopment area The RDA shall also work with private for-
prof+t corporetions to achieve affordable housing goals
Consistent with the HAS, priority for
gnren to City-based housing development corporatOns, then to non-profd housing developmenl
corporations with experience in the area Also, consistent with the HAS, tax credit participation
shall be encouraged as the primary, but not the only, role of for-prof! corporations
Consistent with the State Densely Bonus Requirement for Affordable Housing, the RDA
anticipates that affordable housing will be developed at 125% of the maximum density for the
residentlal zone Consistent with the HAS, a minimum of 40% of the units shall be restricted,
affordable units.
Implementation
This program is underway. The RDA is ass+st+ng the SCHDC and the NHDC has developed 88
restricted, affordable units from land bank resources The goal for this program is development
of a total of 400 units of restricted, affordable rental housing units between Juty 1,2000 and
June 30, 2005
Program 4: RDA Assisted Mufti-Family Pro}ect Acquisition
The RDA shall tdenttty and purchase, or facilitate purchase, of existing multi-family projects that
become available for sate On a case-by-case basis, the RDA shall lease, purchase, or by oii,er
means secure affordability restnctioris for individual units within existing and new construction
multi-family units The purpose will be to increase the supply of restricted, affordable units.
Consistent with HAS policy, 40% of the units shall be affordable to low and moderate income
renters
implementation
This program is underway By June 30, 2000, the RDA had assisted the SCHDC with
acquisition of 1,096 units- Consistent with HAS policy, 504 units (45%} are restricted, affordable
units for low- and moderate-Income families The RDA also assisted in the development of Ylla
del Norte, an lib-unit apartment complex, where all units are held as affordable
The goal of this program as to assist in conversion of one adddional multi-family protect to 40%
restricted, affordable status between July 1, 2000 and June 30, 2005
Prooram 5: RDA Assisted Conservation of Multi-family Units at Risk of Conversion To
Market Rate
As required by taw, the City has completed a study of the restricted, affordable multi-famity units
that are at risk of conversion to market rate The RDA shall enter into discussion with property
X -15 tnnre 2oori
P78
Redevelopment Agency's Housing Production Plan
owners regarding acquisWon and/or conservation of the 79 units-at-nsk that are k>cated wrthrn
the redevelopment area
/mplementaLon
This program +s undenwway As of June 30, 2000, the RDA has conserved 592 units-at-nsk. The
RDA shall enter +nto d+scussron w+th property owners regardrg acquis+tion and/or conservation
of units at nsk during the next reporting period Of the 404 units-at-nsk of conversion, 79 are
Program 6: RDA Assisted Existing Single-Family Acquisition and Rehabilitation
The RDA shall ass+st non-profd agencres with the purchase of ex+st+ng single-family homes that
may then be offered for resale w+th affordability restrictions on future sales. Under this program,
opportuntt+es shall be explored to aoqurre homes that become ava+lable through mortgage
foreclosure. Toward this goal, the RDA shall open commun+cabon with FHA, as well as w+th
banks and mortgage companies, mdicat+ng +nterest in su+tabfe purchases In instances where
rehabilitation +s required as a condition of resale, acqu+s+bon and resale may be coordinated with
the City's Housing Rehab+l+tation Program
These homes shall be +ncorporated into affordable owner or renter programs Owner programs
shalt be combined wdh I+mRed equity strategies to maintain affordability for the lifebme of the
protect.
r
Implementation
This program is underway Three units have been purchased, substantially rehabilitated, and
sold with restncted affordability provisions
The goal of th+s program +s to ass+st with the purchase and, N necessary, substantial
rehabilitation of up to 20 units between July 1, 2000 and June 30, 2005, which shall then be
rented or resold with affordab+lity restrictions
Program 7: RDA Assisted Single-Family New Construction
The RDA shall facrl+tate new constructwn single-fam+ly ownership programs, including but not
limited to, single-family Inf+ll projects, as well as condominium and townhouse developments
These projects may be rented or sold. Owner programs shall be combined with Eimded equity
strateg+es to maintain affordability for the Irfedme of the proect.
Imp/ementation
The goal of this program +s 65 units of single-fam+ly new construct+on between July 1, 2000 and
June 30, 2005 These unds may be rented or sold with restricted affordability prov+sfons
X-16 (.xnezaor/ ,_-
P79
Redevelopment Agency's Housing Production Plan
Program 8• RDA Assisted Single-Famlty Home Ownership
The RDA shall continue to provide down payment assistance to qualrfied households through
several programs, first-tune homebuyer programs including the program administered by the
Neighborhood Housing Services and NHDC The NHDC operates a first nine homebuyer
program where homes are offered to buyers earning up to 90% of the area median income
The goal of this program is to assist 75 qualified single-family homebuyers July t, 2000, and
June 30, 2005
Program 9: Affordable Housing Overlay Zone
The RDA shall investigate the feasibiliiy of establishing an Affordable Housing Overlay Zone
using the Senior Housing Overlay Zone as a model as recommended by the HAS {I-D-6) The
purpose of an overlay zone would be to taal'itate the ssng of affordable housing
Imp/ementabon
Between July 1, 2000, and June 30, 2005, rf adequate funding is available, or upon request by a
developer, the RDA and the City's Planning Division shall investigate the feasibility of
/~, establishing an Affordable Housing Overlay Zone to facilrtate the siling of affordable housng
~_ J Program 10: Mixed-Use
The RDA and the City shall investigate the feasibility of a mixed-use overlay zone to faalitate the
development of affordable housing. The primary focus shall be to introduce residential use Into
commercial and possibly industrial dlstncts where design opportunities would allow residential
units above ground level nmulti-level commercial buildings or behind commercial stops Also,
part of this study would investigate the feasibility of rezoning industnai areas for mixed rndustnal,
commercial, and residential use The study for this program maybe combined with the
Affordable Housing Overlay Distnct Study
Implementaf+on
Between July 1, 2000, and June 30, 2005, rf adequate funding is available, or rf requested by a
developer, the RDA and the City's Planning Division shall research and develop a mixed use
overlay zone, including an analysis of the benetAS of a muted use overlay zone compared with
rezoning.
X - 17 (dvn° 2000
P80
Redevelopment Agency's Housing Production Plan
Program 11: Financial Mechanisms
The RDA shall utilize a vanety of financial mechanisms to assist deveopment of affordable
housing units including, but not limned to, the following
Loan wnte-down, mortgage revenue bonds, state tax credits, on-site improvement
rests off-site improvement costs and City fee waiver and as well as a school tPa
waiver for Senior Housing
Imp/ementabon
This program is underway Between July 1, 2000, and June 30, 2005, the RDA shall continue to
use the above financial mechanisms to assist with the development of restncted, affordable
housing units
Program i2: Community Outreach
A Community Outreach Program is desirable An outreach program goes further tfian legally
required public participation and notice Ii can serve as an educabonal tool to inform the
community of the RDA's legal obligation to provide affordable housing as well as to inform the
community of the RDA's past actions which resulted m affordability to first time owners and first
Ume renters Further, a Community Outreach Program could enlist community direction on
which programs and actans should be emphas¢ed to reach mandated affordability goals
/^
lmp/emenfaGOn `~
Between July 7, 2000, and June 30, 2005, H adequate funding is available, or if requested by a
developer, the RDA, and the City's Planning Division shall oversee a community outreach
program
TABLE X-7: Restricted, Affordable Housing Production in the Redevelopment Area from
December 23. 1981. through June 30, 2000
Program Total T4tat income Laver
ltnka Afford- t p ~ tit
Projected abk 9elow 3696 36-4596 4s-b096 6•t-901C
Program 4 RDA Assisted 1,326 548 140 146 142 116
MultfFamily Acquisition
Program 5 RDA Assisted 592 592 126 170 170 126
Conservation Urob-At-
Risk
Program 6• Substantial 3 3 1 0 0 2
Rehebiiita4on Existing
Single Family Units
Program 7 RDA Assisted 65 65 4 11 21 29
Single Family New
Construction
Total 1,986 1,208 271 329 333 274
X -18 (rune zoo rl
P81
~4i+ach meat ~2.
The following is a partial list of common fob titles whose entry level salaries
(national/state averages) are considered to be wages that qualify as a low or
moderate income This information was obtained from a variety of sources
including a survey by USA Today, the Clty of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan
and the California Emolovment Development Department
Accommodations (hotel) Machinist
Administrative and support Miscellaneous manufacturing
seances Miscellaneous store retailers
Amusements, gambimg, and Museums, historical sites, zoos,
recreation and parks
Apparel manufacturing
Auto Mechanic
Bank Tellers
Bookkeeper)
Bulldvig material and garden
supply stores
ClerklTypist
Clothing and Clothing
accessories stores
Cook
Credit Intermediation and related
activities
Dental Assistant
Dental Hygienist
Electrical equipment and
appliances mfg
Electronics and appliance stores
Fabncaled metal products
manufacturing
Firemen
Food and beverege scores
Food manufacturing
Food services and drinking
places
fumdure and home furnishings
stores
Furniture and related products
rnfg
Gasoline stations
General merchandise stores
Groundskeeper
Health and personal care stores
Nurse Aid
Nursing and residential care
facdihes
Personal and laundry services
Plastics and rubber products
manufacturing
Police Officers
Primary metals manufacturing
Printing and related support
activities
Reaf estate
Rental and leasing services
Repair and maintenance
Retail Manager
Scenic and sightseeing
transporiatron
Secretary
Social assistance, incl daygre
Sporting goods, hobby, book,
music stores
Stock Clerk
Teachers
Teller
Transit and ground passenger
transportation
Truck Driver
Wader/Wadress
Warehousing and storage
Weider
Wholesale trade, nondurable
goods
P82
~i-l-ac.~l n~n-f' ~3
The following is a sampling of apartment complexes and their rents as shown on
www apartments coin This is not a complete Ilsting of apartment units that are available
in the City of Rancho Cucamonga
Apartment Complex Rental Un+t Range
The Reserve at Empire Lakes $1180- $2030
11210 41h Street Rancho tucamonga.
Verano at Rancho Cucamonga $1100 - $2536
Town Square
8200 Haven Ava
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Chambra at V~ctona Arbors 51105 - $2025
7828 Day Creek Blvd
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739
Heritage at Victoria Arbors $1140 - $2040
7922 Day Creek Blvd
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Sierra Heights $1050 - $1845
10801 Lemon Ave
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91737
Heritage Park Alta Loma Senior $750 - $995
Community
9601 Lomita Ct
Alta Loma, CA 91701
The Terrace Apartments $875 - $900
8383 Fir Dr
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Miramonte $968 - $1773
10757 Lemon Ave
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91737
Ironwood At Empire Lakes $1185 - $1985
11100 4th Street
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
AMLI at Empire Lakes $1060 - $1920
9200 Milliken Ave
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
P83
Barrington Place $1215-$2035
7650 Etiwanda Ave
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739
Camino Real $1210 - $2160
7951 Ehwanda Ave
Rancho Cucamonga CA 91739
0o s ng -
8255 Vineyard Ave
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
Waterbrook Apartments $1045 - $1520
10400 Arrow Rte
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Village art the Green $905 - $2025
9400 Fairway View PI
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Vlctorla Woods $1000 - $1530
8496 Etrvoanda Ave
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739
P84
y+
d
Z
V
W
Q
C~
Z
a
U
~~.
U
S
~..~
Z
O
V
Z
•~
W
_U
'Q^.
V
Z_
O
~~
N
~
~ \
H
\ \
_
t
~ $
~
1
\ _
vi
N
w
sl
i1C I ~
I
I
O1 ~
` m
N
~ ~
r
o
} ~
O
~'yy p
aD LI
N ~
I ~
~I w Q
'
9' ~
N
w ~ 1n
Y
SS
~
~ gm
d
M
S g g S S o o g f.4
°o o $ °o °o °o °0 4u
~ u
W Q '
H M
en N eA w h
~ a°
N N
C
~
N _
y
w 'O ~ N
m y E t?
X L ~ ~
O
n ~ 3
R ~ m ~'
N II !' ? c
y G ~
a E ~ e
W n n
o,
N m ~
l0 P C
E
2 = T N ~
d m = L
s~g~,
~
g q W~ c 3
N ~ 0
~ (p ~ ~O
C1 n
c E ~ r
~ ~ U o
N
O O p
y d V ~
1
]1
N y 7
L L ~ N
a A ~ ~ °'
U
~ n ~
O
S = m W ,~ o C
N
m t~ ~ y N p.
Z E ~ v Q1
z N N ~ ~
A~ ~ ~ y ~~1111W~011 y
~
O T
o .}7 C
7
Q
L•
N I ,
m
U N~ d C
E
O ~ v.Q ~ v
4i $ y
L`
O
=
(n 1 C
N ~j ~ N
~
I UU
~ ~1 O ~ N
1 ll~
Q E a ~ E
~
~, n c ~n o
N
t
W E
W
L Ip T C
_
C C
.-.
~
n N ~
~
~ ~ ~ ~ C
S' d ~
~
~ 3
A
C ~ c
m
l0 T N
_T ~ w
a
Of d
~
'Egv ~
~
-
0
of c ~, a
P85
>~c~merrt' ~ 5
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 15%
HOUSING PRODUCTION REQUIRMENT*
Very Low Low Moderate
Pro ect Tenure Less than 50% 50-79°!0 80-120% IIait Total
Villa del Norte Rental 47 41 88
Las Casttas Rental 14 0 14
Rancho Verde Village" Rental 26 10 16 52
Mountatnstde Rental 96 48 44 188
Monterey Village Rental 56 28 26 1 i0
Sycamore Spnngs" Rental 30 15 3 48
Pepperwood Rental 100 130 230
Villa Pactfica "' Rental 0 79 0 79
Hentage Potnte" Rental 12 12 24
OIen Jones Sr Apartrnents" Rental 22 26 48
Woodhaven Manor ** Rental 30 28 58
Pazkvrew Place -Terra Vtsta Rental 30 30
Mountain View -Terra Vista Rental 54 54
Sycamore Terrace - Terra V Rental 26 26
Evergreen -Terra Vista Rental 79 79
Waterbrook Rental 79 79
First Tune Homebuyers Owner 2 9 75 86
Total 435 426 432 1293
Percentage of Total Umts 34% 33% 33°!°
*Based on 2001 General Plan prolcctron of 18,368 res~denttal units m the protect azea at buildout 2,755
affordable amts will be regwred to meet Redevelopment Protect Area requirements
*" These amts aze outside the Pro ect Area and have been calculated as 1 amt er 2 amts roduced
Proposed Protects Tenure Very Low Low Moderate Total
NHDC Foothill/East" Rental 55 27 28 110
SCHDC Rancho Verde F,c Rental 6 13 19
Foothill Vistas Rental 83 83 166
Pro osed Pro ed Total 144 123 28
Cumulative Total 579 549 460 1588
Cumulative Percenta a 36% 35% 29%
unit numbers are estimates
State Mandate
Acencv Totals
2001 GP Protect Area Unds
2005 Ex~shng Units
Unbudt Residential Units
Very Low 50-120% Total
1,102 1653 2,755
579 1009 1,588 58%
18,368
17,791 96°k Bwlt Out
577
6!26/2006
P86
A~chmerrt' ~`~
J T
w AI
N ~ ~G Z
~+N2 D
~ ~ 3 O
c°nZm
z
C
~ N ~
~D D ~
00
~~
N P N y
O N 3 m
°m~
°m-
n
C
O ~ D_
~,ds
m
~g~m
W ~
zm ~
~ ~ N
a o c
m
a
a ~ n Z ~ a ~
o ~^F m a 2
o-
~ ~
~ a a
m rtt
a
c
~ ~
O
a
c
n m
- c 5
c ~ w 2
.n» `D 3
~ g ~
c ~ ~~
A 9 ~ ~ ~ ~ o
V ~ ? n ~ V V~ r- A
~
u C
~ o
~ e
a° 3 e
~ ~ ~ ~ A
~ ~
O 2
~ ~
O
~ '"'~
O
d 41
C 3 C
'
V
V
pW v
O
~
ONO V
V
(fN
0f ~
p 0
N O) Z r ~
A F p
O
~ lO
~ ~
a° ~ ~
o
m ~' ~
~
o
m ~
-I
~ ~ ~ ~_
~
o
n ~
C
v w
C
~v
CJ r>
f1i
A G ~ ~
~ Ci
~ n O
O
~ ~ t
D p~
~ ~ ~°
~ ~
o o ~ ~ °,
~ Z
.. m O ~ of
m D1
n
m
G7
Z
r
C
I/~
W Z
CO ~
om
o m
~" v
N
m
m
z
~Cf-hz~mcnt ~7
} .,.
f
a
r
~_...
Research Methodology
CCRH and NPH rnttrated the 2002/03 survey to reassess the use of inclturonar
housutg pncuces across California The survey quationna~re used in CCRH's 1994 stud
was modified, updated and expanded to mdude detail on housing production and oche
program fcaturrs Local advocates, planrung officals and academics were consulted u
these revisions and a final questiotmaie was drstnbuted by mail in early Aprll 2002 Al
planning agenaes listed in the Califorrna Planners' Information Network were contacted
mdudmg 5S counties and 467 cruel CSan F:ancssco rs counted as both a my and county)
.~,.-
... „~„ _
c, V., ~-
~„`,~.
~: T~
nm.. ~ .m
Y•~
:,.. y
_ ~ City with inclttsiortary
housing program
~4^' County with inctusionary
_„ ~ l horsing program
•• V 1 NI:..A~ y
~ "~ y~ c
'" ~- ~ y
~ Lame iac..•
, :is ' , ~rM,~
si.. ' t r,...,
~'^vf ~ j
l~.a. ~r
~ ; ,-
•
.W, ,..~, ~`~--J
. Z -
,~ ~•"
-~, r
'~4 MM+s
y :~~' ' r" ' Imo`
~~nr ! + I. yT
FTI • I~ ~ flq, '
_~_~
~.lw.
~ bum '~`
fi. ~`- 4
~~~
7
Map provided by fr'ceniefo Nelworlr.
rr
Sr Swad K
41evu V: i' l~ -
~`` • • • • - - `_J
•-4~ • v..n~t.
~~"° •
~{ Tn~ ~ IYW~uI
1 I _
'~~~ O4'r~ r t I
P87
P88
To increase the r+csponse rate, two rounds of follow-up surveys were condudcd
June 2002, the quesnonnaire was again waded and telephone contact was made a
nontespondutg lurlsdictions reported to have local programs In January 2003. a sh
followrrp survey was prepared and forwarded to respondutg j»tisdicdons seek
additional information on methodology for determination of tn4lcu fees, total h
colkctcd, Income targeting goals and produaron numbers *n total, 98 lunsdictit
returned completed qucsnonnaires acrnunting for 92 percent oP known programs
Califomta Based on pmlous studies and Internet searches of jttnsdtctton Web sit
another mne lurisdicuons that did not return mmpltted questionnaires arc lodged
have some form of indusIonary housing t
Findings
A. Number of Inctusionary Jurisdictions
As of Match 2003. 107 California lttrlsdicdons are known to use loal indusion
practices to provide affordable housutg oumde of the **r+~~Mments of State redevdopm
law These ntdude cl[frs and countlcs that require affordable construction through
ordurancc, general plan or petmtt approval process.ZThis Est cotrsrsts of 12 counties
percrnt of all counties) and 95 dries (20 percent of all dtles)
The spread of mdturartary programs is most dramatic among does, which reprrs
41 of the 43 new progntns As the map (see p. 11) darty demonstrates, indusron
housing s most prcvalrnt m hrghtost housing markets In the coastal cotmua The m
sigrtrfiant dusters are in the Sera Ftanrs4co Bay Area, metropolitan Satramrnto, and !
Drego County At last two dozen other Califomta lunsdrenotss are presently mnsrda
adopmg mdustonary housing, inchtdurg the loges[ dry, Los Angeles
Figure 1 shows the increasing popularity of lndusonary housing in the 1990s Na
half (48 percent) of aB progruns were adopted doting that decade compared to obi
one•thud (37 pacrnq tit the 1970s and 1980s The trend is continuing in the 2000s
iz
Figure 1: Year of Adoption
Jurisdtctions that have an Inclusionary Housing Program
Inclusionary housing programs re4Wre developers to subsidize affordable housing as a Condit
approval This may include malang a percentage of the project available to low and moderate
residents or payment of an m-lieu fee. The following crhes and wunttes report that they have
an mclusionary housing program
Agoura Hills
Amencan Canyon
Arroyo Grande
Bakersfield
Beaumont
Bell
Belmont
Bentcia
Berkeley
Biythe
Brawley
Brea
Buellton
Califomma City
Calistoga
Carlsbad
Chula Vista
Clayton
Clovis
Coalinga
Colusa County
Corcoran
Coronado
Corte Madera
Cupertino
Daly City
Davis
Del Mar
Del Norte County
Del Rey Oaks
Desert Hot Springs
East Palo Alto
Encinitas
Escondido
Farmersville
Fort Bragg
Gonzales
Grover Beach
Half Moon Bay
Hawthorne
Healdsburg
Hemet
Hidden Hills
Hollnster
Huntington Park
Indio
Ione
of project
form of
P89
t..._, u_.,_..,. __ __. ~-'---•--^-~ti_.._...., i.....,.:.... i..».i ~ cis-~~~..,..
lurISQ1GLlUI1J 13161 uuvc naa aaaw..~...••~--~ -------o - --c---
Irvtne
La Habra
La Quints
La Verne
Lakewood
Larkspur
Lathrop
Livermore
Los Altos
Los Angeles
Los Gatos
Mammoth Lakes
Mann County
Mendota
Menlo Park
M~II Valley
Mono County
Monterey
Napa County
Newport Beach
Novato
Oceanside
Palo Alto
Paramount
Patterson
Perris
Petaluma
Pico Rivera
Placer County
Pleasant Hlll
Port Hueneme ,
Portola Valley
Poway
Rancho Palos Verdes
Redwood City
Ripon
Rolling Htlls Estates
Sahnas
San Anselmo
San Bernardino County
San Carlos
San Clemente
San Franclsco
San Gabnel
San Jacinto
San Juan Caplstrano
San Leandro
San Luis Oblspo
San Marcos
San Mateo County
San Rafael
Santa Barbara County
Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz County
~i~-3nnn~
P90
Santa Monica
Sebastopol
Shasta County .
Signal Hill
Solana Beach
Sonoma
South Gate
Sutter County
Vtsta
Waterford
Watsonville
West Hollywood
West Sacramento
Willits
Wtnters
Woodland
Yolo County
Yorba Linda
Yountvtlic
~ Wgb Search ~ Comment ~ ~ UPIN Home ~ CERES Homy ~
P91
r_~. _ u _ r ~_ _ _ n ~r _ L La~1 I nM~rn nni