The Housing Element: A Progressive Approach

 

The Progressive Housing Advocates

 

January 13, 2003

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Printed and distributed for the Progressive Housing Advocates Task-force by:

Community Action Board of Santa Cruz County, Inc.

501 Soquel Ave, Suite E

Santa Cruz, Ca 95062

831-457-1741 ext 160

www.cabinc.org

 

 

The Housing Element – A Progressive Approach

Executive Summary

 

Santa Cruz County is experiencing a critical housing crisis. 

 

The report of the Community Assessment Project Year 8, 2002, released in November, 2002 indicates that the percentage of household income spent on housing has increased for all but the wealthiest county residents.   Nearly 65% of those households earning less than $35,000 per year pay more than half their income for housing. 

 

Median home prices continued to climb out of reach for more families.  Now, industry reports say fewer than one in twelve families can reasonably buy a house here.  Overall one fifth of households say they pay 75% of income for housing.  A disturbing 45% of Latinos say they do.

 

Because of the critical nature of the housing crisis in Santa Cruz County, the following report, “The Housing Element – A Progressive Approach,” identifies what significant and dramatic steps are necessary to meet the needs of low, very low, and extremely low income people in the County.

 

The report’s overall goal is to maximize housing opportunities for those populations by removing discriminatory barriers, and by planning for housing development at increased densities, on existing transportation lines, employing green building materials and practices, incorporating child care, supportive services, and access for the mobility impaired in its design.  Specifically, report calls for the following:

 

·     re-zoning of all centrally located residentially zoned land to urban high density, allowing residential uses as part of all commercial and industrial development, identifying parking lots as central sites, and permitting second-unit development with regulations identical to those of other home additions.

 

·     removing unreasonable height restrictions and leveling discriminatory fees, currently far higher per square foot for smaller, more affordable units than they are for larger unit development.

 

·     providing incentives to employers to house some portion of their workers or to contribute to a housing trust fund to create housing opportunities for low wage workers.

 

·     adopting governmental incentives for housing development that is environmentally sound, accessible to mobility impaired people, and which provides supportive services including childcare, job development, educational opportunities, mental health support, and financial planning.  Incentives to include mandatory density bonuses, relaxed parking requirements, reduced design and setback requirements, waivers of fees, and opportunities to qualify for housing trust funds.

 

·     preserving existing affordable housing through amnesty for illegal units, targeted code enforcement tied to rehabilitation funding, the provision of emergency rental assistance for up to 60 days, and adoption of just cause eviction, rent stabilization, and rent shock ordinances to prevent existing rental housing from becoming even less affordable.

 

·     developing a housing trust fund to marshal available funds from public and private sources to for use in the rehabilitation and development of housing affordable to, and designed to meet the needs of, low wage workers, disabled persons, homeless households, farmworkers, single and teen-parent households,  and constructed employing environmentally sound building  practices.

 

·     implementing an anti-NIMBY plan for removal of the public hearing level of review for any proposed housing or mixed use development that is affordable to, and designed to meet the needs of, those portions of the population.

 

·     Designating sites for the development of a minimum of 640 emergency shelter beds for individuals, and 400 units of emergency transitional housing, sites for supportive housing for single and teen parent households, as well as sites for supportive farmworker housing 

 

This report has been prepared by the Progressive Housing Advocates Task Force (PHAT), a broad-based coalition of individuals and community groups dedicated to the development of affordable housing for low, very low income and extremely low income people throughout Santa Cruz County.   PHAT includes representatives of environmental groups, as well as advocates for the disabled, for homeless persons, for farmworkers, for children and seniors, and for low-wage workers who live and work in Santa Cruz County.

 

Additional copies of this document are available from the Community Action Board of Santa Cruz County, Inc.  Contact Paul Brindel at 831-457-1741 ext 160 or visit www.cabinc.org and click on “Resources”.

 

The PHAT Housing Element Committee:

 

Gretchen Regenhardt, Paul Brindel, Don Burke, Linda Lemaster, Scott Beesley, Michael Bradshaw, Paul Wagner, Virginia Johnson, Nora Hochman, Sandy Brown, David Foster                    

 

For more information contact:

Scott Beesley, scottbeesley@hotmail.com, or Paul Brindel, paul@cabinc.org

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

      Progressive Housing Advocates Task Force (PHAT) is a broad-based coalition of individuals and community groups dedicated to the development of affordable housing for low and very low-income people throughout Santa Cruz County.   PHAT includes representatives of environmental groups, and advocates for the disabled, for homeless persons, for farmworkers, for children and seniors, and for low-wage workers who live and work in Santa Cruz County.

      PHAT stands for the proposition that the lack of affordable housing is the most critical issue facing our region and that it can and must be addressed by adoption of aggressive programs to encourage and require development of housing at high densities along existing transportation corridors, with provision for mobility accessible units, Childcare and supportive services, and through the use of energy-efficient and recycled materials.        Every person is entitled to live in decent, safe and sanitary conditions in a suitable living environment, regardless of race, ethnicity, age, disability, religion, familial status, income level, gender, sexual orientation, language, or occupation.  Preservation and expansion of housing opportunities for all residents of Santa Cruz County, and removal of barriers to fair housing is essential to our future.

      It is PHAT’s goal to see that existing affordable housing is preserved, that obstacles to fair housing opportunity are removed, and that at least 50% of all future housing development is affordable to low, very low, and extremely low income people.  PHAT seeks to remove existing governmental, legislative, programmatic, and political barriers to these ends.  

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

A.  PROGRESSIVE HOUSING ADVOCATES TASK FORCE ISSUES

 

I.   Efficient Use of Land

 

II. Special Needs Groups:

       a) disabled

       b) seniors

       c) farmworkers

       d) homeless households

       e) single-parent HH, including teen parent HH

       f)  low-wage workers

       g) households subject to discriminatory rental/loan or other discriminatory practices

 

III. Preservation Existing Affordable Housing

 

IV. Green Building

 

V.  Childcare

 

VI.  Funding Issues

 

B.  PROGRESSIVE HOUSING ADVOCATES TASK FORCE PROGRAMS

 

I. Programs To Mandate Efficient Land Use

II. Programs to Address the Housing Needs of Special Needs Groups

         a) disabled

        b) farmworkers

        c) homeless households

         d) single-parent and teen parent households

        e) low-wage workers/families

        f) populations subject to discriminatory treatment

 

III. Preservation existing housing stock

IV. Programs for Green Building

V.  Programs To Provide Adequate Childcare

VI. Programs to Develop Funding

 

 

 

PROGRESSIVE HOUSING ADVOCATES TASK FORCE ISSUES

 

Efficient Land Use

 

      Efficient land use policy requires consideration of two major components: a) zoning and infrastructure; and b) design, planning, permit and fee levels and processes.  Given the extremely high cost of land in the region, efficient land use demands development at the highest feasible densities and creative use and reuse of vacant and underutilized parcels to meet the  critical need for affordable housing. 

 

      Some of the current governmental barriers to efficient land use which interfere with meeting the increasing need for low, very low and extremely low income housing, are:

 

The Zoning Map:

 

      At present, the County of Santa Cruz land use element of its general plan contains only 17.6 acres of land zoned at urban high densities, in contrast to more than 953 acres zoned urban very low, 539 urban low, and 189.4 urban medium. [1]  Under current zoning guidelines, the “urban high density” designation allows only 17 units per acre, a density so low that it can only accommodate home ownership housing such as condominiums and townhouses.   An affordability[2]  map of the unbuilt portion of the County by percentage shows that the land is divided by these proportions:

 

            - Zoning designations for those above median income: 100%

            - Zoning designations for those below median income: 0%

 

      This exclusive assignment of land solely to the highest income households in the population has caused:

 

·     higher rent levels

·     gentrification with concurrent loss of affordable units

·     increased isolation of racial, ethnic, and other minority groups in discrete

neighborhoods

·     population aging as younger families leave the area

·     worker displacement into outlying areas and distant locations

·     traffic congestion as more workers must commute from outside the area

·     underutilization of public transit due to distances between residences and routes

·     sprawl

 

Overspecificity:

 

      The zoning map is over specific.  Sites are zoned for particular specific uses for which they may not be suited, never engaged in or long since abandoned, rather than for residential or mixed-use development.  This has effectively eliminated them from use for low, very low and extremely low-income housing. 

 

      The potential for residential development can be greatly increased by rezoning available vacant, underdeveloped, and underutilized land currently zoned commercial or industrial for residential uses alone, or for concurrent commercial, industrial and residential uses where compatible. 

 

      The County should conduct an inventory of all such available sites, and include all vacant or underdeveloped infill sites and underutilized sites such as large parking lots which could continue to provide parking services while developed overhead as housing.  All sites currently planned as parking lots should be redesigned to permit concurrent residential development.    

 

      To summarize, both economic and environmental considerations point toward development at higher densities along transportation corridors within urbanized areas, as opposed to current zoning regulations, which encourage sporadic development of individual units in rural areas while leaving less than 1% of the land in the urban areas zoned for high density under the County’s current land use plan.

 

Height Restrictions:     

 

      The current zoning ordinance prohibits residential development at heights greater than three stories in rural zones and two stories in urban.  This has two negative effects on providing needed affordable housing in the contest of a sustainable community: a) increased costs as more land is needed to provide the same number of dwelling units; b) increased rent, sale, and equity prices as significantly higher land costs are passed on to renters and homebuyers.

 

Fee Structure:

 

      Fees as currently assessed and collected by local jurisdictions and service providers reward the construction of large single units,  and discourage the construction of smaller ones.   The fees for an average size single family home, which is now 2600 square feet (National Association of Homebuilders 2001) total  approximately $22, 000,  or $8.46 per square foot; the  fees for converting a 400 square foot garage to living space can rise as high as  $17,000 or $42.50 per square foot -- a fivefold differential. 

 

      This significant differential especially affects the production of small second units, which in already-developed areas can make a valuable contribution to meeting the need for affordable housing for smaller households, as well as for senior, disabled, convalescent and other vulnerable populations.  A fee structure that results in exorbitant costs per square foot, however, operates as a major disincentive to their construction, and its  removal is a critical step in increasing the supply of affordable units. 

 

      There are also a number of other governmental barriers to the construction of second units, including a review process which includes public hearings which allow neighborhood opposition to defeat a proposed project,[3] setback and height rules which limit placement and construction of second units on lots, unreasonably costly requirements such as sprinkler ordinances applied to the main home when a garage is remodeled as an ADU, occupancy restrictions requiring that units be occupied either by their owners, family members, or low-income households, and rent overviews which make minimal difference in cost to tenants but cut production dramatically. 

 

      To increase their production and the efficient use of land they occupy, ADUs should be permitted as of right, and be free of unreasonable design, occupancy, economic and review requirements which discourage their construction.

 

Other Barriers:    

 

      Rigid requirements for parking spaces, setbacks, and lot coverage ratios further erode even the lower densities allowed in the land use element and result in a diminution of development potential.

     

      Current planning and approval processes operate as barriers to the development of affordable housing, by setting development fees and standards excessively high, and imposing lot coverage, parking and design requirements that are obstructive.

 

      Public hearing requirements which demand a higher level of review than that imposed for  single family homes, and which allow multi-family housing developments to be defeated by neighborhood groups because of biases, stated or unstated, against lower income housing.

     

Summary  

 

      Overall, the current zoning ordinance and current planning and permit approval processes operate as barriers to the development of affordable housing in that zoning designations are inadequate to affordable housing production and overly rigid and development fees are both high and discriminatory.  Standards for lot coverage, parking requirements, and design criteria are excessive, and review periods are impractically lengthy. The public hearing level of review ultimately creates a bias against lower income housing.  These issues need to be reviewed, and the barriers eliminated, if the cities and the County wish to address the needs of lower income residents.

 

II. Special Needs Populations

 

The Disabled:

 

      While it is difficult to say how many residents of the county have disabilities, national statistics show that nearly one of every five Americans will become disabled at some point in their lives. Planning for housing development must include sites for supportive and assisted housing close to transportation lines and must expand mobility accessibility features in all types of housing planned and constructed in the county. 

Seniors:

      There are approximately 45,000 seniors living in Santa Cruz County today.  This population is particularly affected by high housing costs because many live on fixed incomes.   Future housing plans must include sites for affordable units for the elderly close to amenities and on existing transportation lines.

 

Farmworkers:

 

      The average household income for farmworkers is dramatically below 30% of the median income for the County of Santa Cruz (approximately $14,309 per year).[4]  At that wage, virtually all the housing stock, ownership and rental, is out of reach.  The failure of the agricultural industry to provide housing for its workforce contributes to severe overcrowding, occupancy of seriously substandard or illegal housing units, and predatory rental practices.  Farmworkers face severe housing discrimination and lack access to health, childcare, and education services, and projects designed to meet their needs are subject to strong neighborhood opposition. Housing is needed for migrant workers and their families, migrant unaccompanied workers, and for very low-wage farmworker families who are year-round residents.

 

Homeless households:

 

      It is estimated that 8,500 people experience homelessness in Santa Cruz County in any given year.  Approximately half the homeless people counted in the homeless census were not sheltered: living outdoors or in vehicles.

 

       At the present time, there are 219 emergency shelter beds open year-round, and an additional 122 open during the winter months.  Countywide, there are 400 units of transitional housing in which residents can live for up to 24 months with a range of supportive services. Shelter for disabled homeless persons is in extremely short supply.   There is a need for an additional 641 beds for individuals and 405 units for families with children. Transitional, and temporary assistive and supportive housing for the disabled homeless population must be provided.[5]  

 

      Homelessness can be prevented.  More than half the households that experience homelessness are homeless for less than five months.  Rent or mortgage payment programs, which keep families housed on a temporary basis, can prevent those households from becoming homeless at all.

 

Single Parent/Teen Parent Households:

 

Households with single teenage parents require housing, which provides support for continued education, development of life skills, and adequate childcare.

 

Low-Wage Workers:

 

      There are approximately 5,672 extremely low-income renter families in need of housing in the County.  These families earn less than 30% of the area median income and pay as much as 80% of their income for shelter.  The County’s primary economic industries are tourism and agriculture – industries that rely on low wage workers.

 

Households Subject To Discrimination:

 

      Members of racial, ethnic and language minorities, disabled persons, farmworkers, those subject to sexual harassment or domestic violence, and families with children are often subject to discriminatory rental, sale, loan, or other discriminatory housing practices, including neighborhood opposition (NIMBY).  These groups require programs to ensure equal housing opportunities.

     

III. Preservation of Existing Affordable Housing

 

      The Santa Cruz/Watsonville metro area is the 2nd least affordable owner housing market of the 190 metro areas in the country [6].  The Santa Cruz/Watsonville metro area is the 6th least affordable rental housing market in the nation.[7]  The data in both studies suggest that the County is part of a regional housing market that is forcing low and moderate-income households out of not only the County but also the region. 

 

      The conclusion that households are moving out of the area because of the loss of affordable rental housing is also suggested in the findings two other sources. First, the County Office of Education reports an over-all loss of families with children in the county schools. Second, the Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project (CAP), Year 8 [8] report provides a comprehensive view of the quality of life in Santa Cruz County. Each year for 8 years this scientific assessment of significant quality of life indicators has included questions that allow researchers to follow trends, among other indicators, in housing affordability and homelessness.   The project report for 2000 indicated that 50% of households in Santa Cruz County paid more than 50% of their income for housing.  The 2001 report saw a decrease in that percentage to a little over 40%.  While some of this shift may be due to an increase in the wages of people living in Santa Cruz County, it is not inconsistent with the data to conclude that a significant number of lower income households moved out of the County and were replaced with higher income households.  The 2002 CAP report, released in November 2002, found that of those households earning less than $35,000, nearly 65% still paid more than 50% of their income for housing and of those 30% paid 75% or more of their income for housing. 

 

      It is difficult not to conclude that the critical nature of the Santa Cruz County housing crisis has resulted in significant numbers of low-income households moving out of the county because of dramatic rental cost increases in market rate rental units.  

 

      This increase in housing prices, while driving the poor out of the area, has also resulted in an underground affordable housing market in which only substandard or illegal housing remains affordable to low and very low-income households. 

 

      The very limited amount of publicly subsidized housing is at risk as large projects approach the dates when an opt-out of federal programs guaranteeing low rents is permitted.  Rent subsidies in the form of Section 8 vouchers are limited and often unappealing to property owners unwilling to submit to paperwork, inspection, and rent limits by the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Cruz.

 

 

IV. Green Building and Transportation for a Sustainable Future

 

            In times of shrinking resources, both financial and natural, sustainable development, through green building practices and transportation is critical to long-term local and regional planning.  Incorporating green building practices and sustainable transportation incentives saves money and resources for the residents of the building and the local government entity in charge of maintaining the services used by the residents, (i.e., garbage collection, sewers, power lines, water).  The savings to the residents are immediate in the form of lower utility bills, (garbage, electricity, gas, water).  The savings to the local government public works department are realized over many years.  The savings to the community are permanent and lasting.

 

       Government agencies are responsible by law to ensure the health, safety and well being of the community’s environment, which green building and transportation programs help fulfill.  Green Building” incorporates sustainable environmental concepts into each segment of a building project.  Likewise, “sustainable transportation” refers to any type of transportation that decreases single occupied automobile trips and/or the use of gasoline-powered vehicles toward the goals of mitigating congestion, improving access to community services, and preventing air and watershed pollution. Green programs work because all of the community stakeholders that are affected by the program, businesses, government, residents and non- profits work in partnership.  The programs make financial sense to the businesses and residents because these measures save everyone money in the long term.

 

V.  Childcare Facilities Development

 

      Childcare is a major industry in Santa Cruz County contributing over $35.5 million to the local economy and creating more than 2,469 local jobs. Childcare is every employer’s concern and good, reliable Childcare is crucial to the productivity of the business workforce. The provision of affordable and conveniently located Childcare facilities has been proven to help reduce cross-town commute traffic and help build neighborhood interaction. Childcare programs located in residential areas often contribute to building and neighborhood safety by their presence. Above all else, planning for quality Childcare programs is critical to the development and safety of our precious children.

 

      As the population in Santa Cruz County has grown, so has the need for licensed childcare. According to the 1999 Childcare Needs Assessment, about half of all families in Santa Cruz County (or about 24,945 children ages 0-13) need some form of Childcare.  However, there are just 5,992 Full Time Equivalent licensed Childcare spaces in the County, enough to accommodate only 24% of all of the children needing care. Significant barriers to Childcare facilities development include the high cost of land, restrictive zoning, complex permitting processes and an extremely limited pool of investment capital. Adding Childcare language to the Housing Element will ensure that Childcare is recognized as being as important as other services when long range planning is done.

 

V.  Funding Issues

 

      There is a shortage of funding for the development and preservation of housing affordable to low, very low, and extremely low-income people.  This problem is especially severe because the cost of land and low-density zoning preclude the economy of scale of large multifamily developments.  In the County of Santa Cruz, the problem is exacerbated by years of noncompliance with the housing element law, w