1989-14 r'
RESOLUTION NO. 8 9-1:4
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING THE GRAND TERRACE CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE GP-89-01, A REVISION OF THE
CITY'S HOUSING ELEMENT.
WHEREAS, the City of Grand Terrace is required by California State Law to
update its Housing Element every five years; and
WHEREAS, the Housing Element's first revision under this law is due in 1989; and
WHEREAS, Wildan Associates, a planning & engineering firm was hired to prepare
said revision; and
WHEREAS, a Draft Housing Element has been completed; and
WHEREAS, a properly noticed negative declaration has been prepared for the Draft
Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, a properly noticed public hearing was held before this body on
September 18, 1989 for the purpose of considering the negative declaration and the Draft
Housing Element.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of Grand Terrace, California, that:
1. GP-89-01, the revision of the Housing Element attached as Exhibit A
is hereby recommended for approval to the Grand Terrace City Council.
2. The Negative Declaration for GP-89-01 attached as Exhibit B is hereby
recommended for approval to the Grand Terrace City Council.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Grand
\ Terrace, California, at a regular meeting held on the 18th day of September, 1989.
AYES: 6
NOES: p
ABSENT: . 1
ABSTAIN: 0
j JerroawlLson, Chairperson
Planning Commission
ATTEST:
Deputy City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM
John Harper, ity At omey
Housing Element Update
CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
1989
W' T
I _ �� .� IILLII.J�I1IIIIILLJJJJ��I1ILIJJ.!! , �
��6. � III li I � I Y� Y• Jed I tlll I YI I11� Y .Y II Y Y
WMAN ASSOCIuATES
ENG VEERS R RMrtNERS
. � vYmuostllo,.oy•�I,Rw�r sourw.Y,n too
Ywourwr.uurol,eu�YtM7Y1�.Qi�
/- P rovt by flannin Commission
EXHIBIT A
DRAFT
HOUSING ELEMENT-kUPDATE
CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
CALIFORNIA
NOVEMBER 1989
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I . INTRODUCTION 1
11. COMMUNITY PROFILE 3
A. Population Trends and .Projections 3
B. Household Size 3
C. Ethnicity 6
D. Age Characteristics 6
E. Income Characteristics 6
F. Historic Residential Construction Trends 6
G. Age of Residential Structures 12
H. Overcrowding 13
I. Vacancy Rates 13
J . Housing Affordability 16
Ill. HOUSING NEEDS 19
A. SCAG Regional Housing Needs Assessment 19
B. Land Inventory 22
k� 1 . Land Suitable for Residential
Development/I nfil I Development
C. Need for Replacement Housing 25
D. Special Housing Needs 25
1 . The Elderly/Handicapped 25
2. Large Families 25
3. Households Headed by Women 26
4. Farmworker Housing 26
5. Homeless Persons and Families 26
IV. CONSTRAINTS 29
t A. Physical Constraints 29
B. Market Constraints 29
C. Governmental Constraints 30
1 . Land Use Controls 30
2. Building Codes 31
3. Development Fees 31
4. Permit Processing 31
5. Development Costs 32
6. Service and Facility Infrastructure 32
7. Utilization of State and Federal 33
Assistance Programs
.8. Article 34 Referendum 33
V. THE HOUSING GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES 34
VI . THE HOUSING PROGRAM 39
l
t
Table of Contents (Cont.)
Page
VI I. PROGRESS TOWARD ACHIEVING GOALS 52
Vill. REVIEW AND UPDATE 53
IX. OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION 54
1 . Insulation- and Weatherproofing 54
2. Natural Lighting 54
3. Solar Energy 54
4. Water Conservation 55
5. Energy Audits 55
6. New Construction 56
X. APPENDICES
A. SCAG Regional Housing 'Needs Assessment
and State Department of Finance Data
r
B. Development Fees
C. Potential Funding Mechanisms for Housing Actions
D. California Department of Housing and Community
Development Comments and Responses to Comments
(to be inserted)
E. Correspondence Received During the Preparation
of this Document (to be inserted)
58714/0405/065
RP29/#0
i ,
ti
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No. Description Page
1 Population Forecast - Year 2010 4
2 Potential New Development Areas 24
3 Census Tracts 51
,r
i
t{�
s
t '
5
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Description Page
1 Summary of Population and Housing Factors 5
2 Ethnic Composition of Grand Terrace
Population: 1980 City of Grand Terrace 7
3 Simplified Age Structure of Grand Terrace, 8
City of Grand Terrace
4 Household Income in Grand Terrace: 9
1980 Census Data.
5 Residential Building Permits - 1981-1988 10
6 Dwelling Unit Types in Grand Terrace and 11
Selected Cities: 1989
7 Age of Residential Structures in Grand 12
Terrace: 1980 Census Data
r
8 Overcrowding Information: 1980 Census 14
City of Grand Terrace
9 Census Data on Vacant Units, City of 15
Grand Terrace
10 Vacancy Rates, City of Grand Terrace 15
and San Bernardino County
11 Census Data Housing Costs, City of 17
Grand Terrace
r 12 Regional Housing Needs Assessment 20
Grand Terrace - San Bernardino County
Existing Needs (6/1/88)
13 Regional Housing Needs Assessment 21
L Grand Terrace - San Bernardino County
Future Needs (7/1/89 to 6/30/94)
z , 14 Potential New Development/Infill 23
Development Sites
15 Housing Program Actions 49
16 Energy Conservation Features for New 57
Construction and Existing Units
17 Energy Conservation Measures for Residents 59
1
- INTRODUCTION
Adequate housing for families and individuals of all economic levels has
become an important issue for State and local governments. The issue has
grown in complexity due to rising costs and increasing competition for
physical and financial resources in both the public and the private sec-
tors.
In response to this concern, the California Legislature amended the Gov-
ernment Code in 1980 to require each local community to include a specific
analysis of its housing needs and a realistic set of programs designed to
meet those needs in a Housing Element of its General Plan. The require-
ments of the law are prefaced by several statements of State policy set
forth in Section 65580 of the Government Code:
" . . The availability of housing is of vital statewide importance, and
the early attainment of decent housing and a suitable living environ-
ment for every California family is a priority of the highest order."
. . . Local and State governments have.. a responsibility to use the
powers vested in them to facilitate the improvement and development
of housing to make adequate provision for the housing needs of all
economic segments of the community."
" . The legislature recognizes that in carrying out this responsibili-
ty, each local government also has the responsibility to -consider
economic, environmental, and fiscal factors and community goals set
forth in the general plan and to cooperate with other local govern-
ments and the State in addressing regional housing needs."
The law requires each locality to accomplish the following tasks:
4
-- To identify and to analyze the current.-and projected housing needs of
all economic segments of the community.
-- To evaluate current and potential constraints to meeting those needs,
constraints due both to operations of the marketplace and to opera-
tions of government.
-- To inventory and assess the availability of land suitable for
residential use and of opportunities for energy conservation in
residential development.
-- To set forth goals, objectives, policies and programs which are re-
sponsive to the identified housing needs, governmental and
non-governmental constraints, and identified housing opportunities.
h- This Housing Element Update has been prepared in accordance with appli-
cable State law. It examines Grand Terrace's housing needs as they exist
today, and projects future housing needs. It sets forth statements of
community goals, objectives and policies concerning those needs. It
-1-
includes a housing program responsive to current and future needs,
consistent with available resources. The housing program details a five-
" year schedule of actions the community is undertaking or plans to under-
take to achieve its housing goals and objectives. Upon. its adoption by the
City Council of the City of Grand Terrace, this Housing Element Update
should be taken as a comprehensive statement of the City's housing poli-
cies and as a specific guide for program actions to be taken in support of
those policies.
State law recognizes that housing needs may exceed available resources, a
recognition most critical in this day of uncertainties as to public fiscal
resources and a changing private sector investment climate. As a result,
objectives need not be identical to the identified housing needs.
This document has been prepared during a period when fiscal resources at
all governmental levels are particularly uncertain, and in which operations
of the private marketplace are undergoing substantial change. As a
result, the methods for achieving the City's objectives, as stated today,
may be less relevant tomorrow or a year from tomorrow. Indeed, the
City's ability to meet its objectives may be profoundly affected by future
programmatic and funding changes expected at• the Federal and State level.
Therefore, it is intended that this Housing Element be reviewed annually
and be updated and modified not less than every five years to remain
relevant and useful to decision makers, the private sector, and the commu-
nity. The next review and revision of the Housing Element shall be in
conformance with Government Code Section 65588.
-2-
11 - COMMUNITY PROFILE
To effectively determine the present and future housing needs for the City
of Grand Terrace, population variables, such as demographic and socio-
economic characteristics and trends must first be analyzed. The following
description of the community make up of the City of Grand Terrace is a
capsulization of available data from the U.S. Census Reports, projections
from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) , and
various other informational sources.
A. Population Trends and Projections
The City of Grand Terrace was incorporated as a general law City on
November 7, 1978. Since its incorporation in 1978, the City's
population has grown 4.9 percent, from approximately. 8,100 persons
in 1978 to 8,498 persons as reported in the 1980 Federal Census.
However, if you compare the City's population of 6,600 in 1970 to its
1980 population of 8,498, as reported by the Federal Census, the City
experienced a 28.8 percent increase or an annual growth rate of 2.9
percent over that period. More recent data obtained from the State
Department of Finance indicates that the City's current population is
10,859, which represents a 27.8 percent increase from 1980 to 1989 or
an annual growth rate of 3.1 percent (262.33 ppersons per year) .
Using this average over the next five year period, a population of
_ 1 ,312 persons can be expected. Correspondingly, over the life of the
General Plan, the City can expect a population increase of 5,509
persons. Population forecasts to the year 2010 are presented in
Figure 1 . A summary of major population and housing factors from
the 1980 Census are presented in Table 1 . As shown in Figure 1 ,
the City's total population by the year 2010 is estimated to be 16,368.
B. Household Size
The City's population of 10,859 persons resides in 3,823 dwelling
units, an average of 2.84 persons per household. Household size,
expressed as the laverage number" of persons per dwelling unit
decreased from 3.14 persons per household in 1970 to 2.59 persons
per household in 1980. More recent data indicates that the City has
experienced an upswing in the - average household size from 2.59
persons per household in 1980 to 2.8 persons per household in 1989.
1 1970 U.S. Census
2 1980 U.S. Census
3 State Department of Finance, 1989
-3-
20,000 —
15,000 — (16,368)
(13,744) 1
1
(11.121)1. 1
1
' 10,000 — ,
1
(8,498) y 1
naa 1
(6,600) 1 1
5,000 —
1
1
1
{
1970 1980 1990 .. 2000 2010
Sources: U.S. CENSUS
%I WILLDAN ASSOCIATES
Figure 1
POPULATION FORECAST
YEAR 2010
GRAND TERRACE
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
Table 1
Summary of Population and Housing Factors
City of San Bernardino State of
Grand Terrace County California
Number of Inhabitants 10,8591 895,016 23,667,902
Number of Dwelling Units 4,1281 370,155 9,279,036
Persons per Unit 2.81 2.4 2.3
Vacancy Rate 7.8% 8.3% 6.4%
Median Housing Price $73,800 $63,400 $84,700
Median Rent $254 $223 $253
Median Age 30.8 28.4 29.9
Ethnicity:
% White 81 .7% 73.0% 66.6%
% Black 1 .90 5.20 7.5%
% Hispanic 12.4% 18.5% -19.2%
% Asian and Indian 3.1% °2.40 5.70
% Other 0.8% 0.8% 1 .0%
Overcrowded Units:
% 1 .01 to 1 .50 person A
per room 1 .2% 3.7% 3.9%
1 % 1 .51 or more persons
per room 0.1% 1 .9% 3.5%
E % of Units Lacking
Plumbing 0.1% 1 .9% 1 .2%
% of Households with
Members 65+ 14.6% 20.6% 20.2%
% of Households Headed
by Women 10.2% 21 .3% 20.4%
1 Updated to 1989 Department of Finance figures.
Source: Southern California Association of Governments Processing of
1980 Census Tapes.
-5-
C. Ethnicity
The City of Grand Terrace is a predominately white community as
indicated by the ethnic breakdown of population as contained in the
1980 Federal Census. Caucasians constitute nearly 81 .7 percent of the
total population. Persons of Spanish/Hispanic heritage origin repre-
sent the largest minority group within Grand Terrace's population,
comprising 12.4 percent of the overall population. The- next largest
minority group is persons of Asian origin, who represent 3.1 percent
of the population. Black and Indian and other minority groups rep-
resent 1 .9 percent and 0.8 percent, respectively, of the overall
population.. Table 2 details City, County and State-wide ethnicity
data from the 1980 Census. Grand Terrace varies from the County
and State in having a proportionately larger white population, with
fewer blacks, Hispanics and other ethnic groups.
D. Age Characteristics
The age distribution of population by age groups is an important
factor in determining the general population make up and possible
future housing needs. A breakdown of the City of Grand Terrace,
San Bernardino County and State of California population by age for
1980 is presented in Table 3. As seen in this table, the age group
18 to 65 years represents 63.6 percent of the total population,
:a followed by the 5 to 17 year age group at 20.5 percent of the total
population. The population age groups under 5 years and 65 and
over represent 7.1 percent and 8.8 percent of the total population,
respectively. The median age of the overall population is 30.8 as
reported by the 1980 Federal Census.
E. Income Characteristics
In 1980, 2,297 (75.7 percent) of Grand Terrace households were at
the County median income or above; 631 (20.8 percent) were lower-
income households (less than 80 percent of the County median) .1
Presented in Table 4. is the income distribution for the City as re-
ported by the 1980 Federal Census.
F. Historic Residential Construction Trends
Table 5 shows residential construction activity in Grand Terrace for
the period from 1980 to 1988. During this period, 465 units were
construction. Grand Terrace's supply of both single-family and
multiple-family units are fourth highest when compared to selected
surrounding cities. As is illustrated by the State Department of
Finance figures shown in Table 6, Grand Terrace has the largest
g percentage of single-family homes and the second largest percentage
of mobile homes, 74.4 and 6.3 percent respectively, when compared to
selected cities.
1
$13,970 is 80 percent of the County median income as reported in the
1980 Census.
-6-
l
- Table 2
Ethnic Composition of Grand Terrace Population: 1980
City of Grand Terrace
City of San Bernardino State of
Grand Terrace County California
Total Population 8,498 .895,016 23,667,902
White Population
Number of Residents 6,946 653,303 15,763,992
Percent of Total 81 .7% 73.0% 66.6%
Hispanic Population
Number of Residents 1 ,053 165,863 4,544,331
Percent of Total 12.4% 18.5% 19.2%
Black Population
Number of Residents 161 46,615 1 ,783,810
Percent of Total 1 .9% 5.2% 7.5%
�T Asian & American Indian
Population
Number of Residents 266 21 ,801 1 ,349,069
Percent of Total 3.1% 2.4% 5.7%
Other Population
Number of Residents 72 7,434 226,700
Percent of Total 0.8% 0.8% 1 .0%
Source: Southern California Association of Governments Processing of
1980 Census Tapes.
-7-
l
a
Table 3
Simplified Age Structure of Grand Terrace
City of Grand Terrace
City of San Bernardino State of
Grand Terrace County California
Total Population 8,498 895,016 23,667,902
Population Under 5 Years
Number 605 76,296 1 ,708,400
Percent 7.1% 8.5% 7.2%
Population 5 - 17 Years
Number 1 ,741 193,791 4,680,558
Percent 20.5% 21 .7% 19.8%
Population 18 - 64 Years
Number 5,404 535,873 14,864,694
< Percent 63.6% 59.9% 62.8%
Population 65 and Over
Number 748 89,056 2,414,250
Percent 8.8% 10.0% 10.2%
Population .Median Age
Years 30.8 28.4 29.9
Source: Southern California Association of Governments Processing of
-- 1980 Census Tapes.
t
-8-
Table 4
Household Income in Grand Terrace
1980 Census Data
Income No. of Households % of Total
Less than $ 5,000 158. 5%
$ 5,000 - $10,000 239 8%
$10,000 - $20,000 674 22%
$20,000 - $30,000 933 31%
$30,000 - $40,000 498 16%
_ $40,000 - $50,000 320 11%
$50,000 - $75,000 154 5%
Over $75,000 57 2%
TOTAL 3,033 100%
:.J
t'^
-9-
l
5
Table 5
Residential Building Permits
1981-1988
Year Dwelling Units
1981 81
1982 112
1983 50
1984 60
1985 63
1986 40
1987 41
1988 18
TOTAL 465
Source: City of Grand Terrace, April 1989.
-10-
:KN
i
Table 6
Dwelling Unit Types in Grand Terrace
and Selected Cities
1989
Single-Family Multiple-Family Total
Units Units Mobile Homes Dwelling
R of Total) R of Total) (% of Total) Units
Grand Terrace 3,070 799 259 4,128
(74.4%) (19:3%) (6.3%) (100.0%)
Colton 8,273 5,162 630 14,065
(58.8%) (36.7%) (4.5%) (100.0%)
Loma Linda 3,681 2,098 435 6,214
(59.2%) (33.7%) (7.1%) (100.0%)
Redlands 15,564 6,742 830 23,136
(67.3%) (29.1%) (3.6%) (100.0%)
County Total 373,354 120,296. 34,036 527,686
(71 .0%) (22.7%) (6.3%) (100.0%)
Source: State of California Department of Finance, 1989.
h.�
-11-
YsA
i
y
G. Age of Residential Structures
The age of a structure has a significant effect on its physical condi-
tion. However, by itself, age is not a valid indicator of housing
condition, since proper care and continual maintenance will extend the
physical and economic life of a unit. On the other hand, a lack of
normal maintenance coupled with an aging housing stock can lead to
the serious deterioration of individual units and entire neighborhoods.
As indicated in Table 7, approximately 1 ,750 units (53.3 percent of
the City's housing stock) are presently more than 25 years old, and
by the year 2000, approximately 65.8 percent of the City's current
housing stock will be in excess of 25 years of age.
Table 7
Age of Residential Structures
in Grand Terrace
Number Percent of
Year Built of Units Total Units
r
1979 to March 1980 337 10.3
1975 to 1978 784 23.9
1970 to 1974 411 12.5
1960 to 1969 1 ,188 36.2
1940 to 1959 505 15.4
1939 or earlier 57 1 .7
Total "Units 3,282 100.0
Source: U.S. Census 1980
More recent data obtained by an exterior housing condition survey
` conducted several years ago and field checked for preparation of the
1983 housing element, indicated that of the 3,620 dwelling units in the
City (May 1983), only eight (0.2 percent of all units) were found to
be dilapidated (e.g. , showing signs of major structural deficiencies,
such as sagging roofline, sagging porch, or roof damage sufficient to
permit water damage to structural elements) . Only three (0.08
percent of all units) were found to be deteriorated (showing
significant evidence of deferred maintenance sufficient to require
_ correction in the near future to avoid major structural damage) . The
majority of the aforementioned substandard units predate the major
k� period- of residential construction in the City, and are generally the
residences remaining from the time when Grand Terrace was primarily
an agricultural community.
-12-
�J
While proper and continued maintenance of older housing is important
in extending the life of a home, on-going maintenance is also impor-
tant from a neighborhood appearance and stability standpoint. While
it is easy enough to discuss the life expectancy of a dwelling unit,
its deterioration and neglect frequently continues over extended
periods of time before it becomes fully deteriorated. During that time
period, its effect on the neighborhood and surrounding units can be
significant.
H. Overcrowding
The size of residential structures (number of rooms excluding bath-
rooms, halls, closets, etc.) is an important factor of assessing wheth-
er the housing stock is adequately accommodating the community's
population. An average size residential unit has five rooms (kitchen,
dining room, living room and two bedrooms) , according to the U. S.
Census, and can accommodate a family of up to five without being
considered overcrowded. According to the 1980 Census, only approx-
imately 1 .5 percent of all units in the City were identified as over-
crowded, as compared with 5.6 percent in the County and 7.4 percent
State-wide (see Table 8) . The 1980 Census data also suggests that
there is little problem with overcrowding of either owner occupied or
s -
renter occupied housing units in Grand Terrace.
I. Vacancy Rates
The residential vacancy rate, a translation of the number of unoccu-
pied housing units on the market, is a good indicator of the balance
between housing supply and demand in a community. When the
demand for housing exceeds the available supply, the vacancy rate
will be low. Concomitantly, a low vacancy rate drives the cost of
housing upward to the disadvantage of prospective buyers or renters.
In a healthy housing market, the vacancy rate would be between five
and eight percent. These vacant units should be distributed across a
variety of housing types, sizes, price ranges and locations within the
City. This allows adequate selection opportunities for households
seeking new residences.
The 1980 Census figures indicate a City-wide vacancy rate of 7.8
percent (see Table 9) . More recently, a vacancy rate survey
=1 conducted by the Federal Home Loan Bank in May 1988, reveals that
5.7 percent of all of the housing units in Grand Terrace were vacant
at that time (see Table 10) . This figure is somewhat above the
minimum desirable rate of 5 percent and indicates that the overall
supply or availability of housing in Grand Terrace is not a problem.
'} -13-
TABLE 8
OVERCROWDING INFORMATION: 1980 Census
CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
City of San Bernardino State of
Overcrowding Factor Grand Terrace County California
Owner Occupied Units
1 .01 to 1 .5 persons per room 27 6,190 140,061
1 .51 or more persons per room 2 2,422 75,314
Renter Occupied Units
1 .01 to 1 .5 persons per room 9 5,346 195,568
1 .51 or more persons per room 2 3,517 227,390
All Units
Percent of units with 1 .01 to
1 .51 persons per room 1 .40 3.70 3.9%
Percent of units with 1 .51
or more persons_ room 0.08% 1 .90 3.50
x
Source: Southern California Association of Governments Processing of 1980 Census Tapes.
Table 9
Census Data on Vacant Units,:
City of Grand Terrace
Vacant Dwelling City of San Bernardino State of
Unit Type Grand Terrace County California
Total Year-Round Units 3,278 366,136 9,220,421
All Vacant Units
Number of Units 256 30,368 590,5551
Vacancy Rate 7.80 8.30 6.40
Vacant Units for Sale
Number of Units 175 11 ,207 115,650
For Sale Vacancy Rate 5.3 0 3.1 0 2.3 0
` Vacant Units for Rent
Number of Units 32 9,933 r 203,619
.s For Rent Vacancy Rate 1 .0 0 2.7 0 5.1 s
1 Includes boarded-up units and units held for occasional use.
Source: Southern California Association of Governments Processing of
1980 Census Tapes. Y
Table 10
Vacancy Rates
City of Grand Terrace and San Bernardino County
Total Single Multiple
Units Family Family
Grand Terrace 5.7 o Attached 3.3 0 11 .0 0
Detached 3.3 0
San Bernardino
�- County 4.4 o Attached 6.6 0 8.2 0
Detached 2.9%
Source: Federal Home Loan Bank, May 1988.
-15-
J. Housing Affordability
The skyrocketing cost of housing is a national dilemma. The average
price of homes in Southern California, however, has risen at a much
faster rate than the national average since 1974. The spiralling cost
of housing in Southern California has been attributable to a variety of
factors including diminishing land resources (particularly in urban
areas) , increasing land and construction costs and increasing finance
costs (i.e. , interest rates) .
According. to the 1980 Census, the median value of owner-occupied
housing in Grand Terrace is $73,800. The median monthly cost for
rental units is $254 (see Table 11) . Table 11 also indicates that the
majority of the City's housing stock (77 percent) is within the $50,000
to $100,000 range.
More recent data obtained from a representative of Lois Lauer Realty,
a local realtor, indicates that the average sale price for a home in
Grand Terrace is substantially more than reported by the 1980 Cen-
sus. According to the sales data from the month end report dated
February 1989, the median sale price for a three bedroom home is
approximately $114,000. With typical terms of 20 percent down, a
new home buyer purchasing an average-priced home would pay off a
30-year mortgage of $91 ,200 (at 11 percent) with monthly principal
.r and interest payments of approximately $1 ,095 per month. To afford
these payments and have a reasonable income left for additional living
f expenses, a family of three should earn approximately $33;000 per
year. Based upon the 1980 census household income data, it is
estimated that approximately 34 percent of the households could afford
to purchase the theoretical average house at the price of $114,000.
However, it should be noted that due to factors mitigating the neces-
sity for a high annual income, such as equity resulting in larger
down payments and creative financing methods, �a family earning less
than $33,000 should realistically be ..,capable of owning a home in
Grand Terrace.
Additional housing information was obtained ' from the aforementioned
realtor for starting prices for single-family homes, custom homes, and
rental rates in . Grand Terrace. Cost per square foot for vacant
residentially designated property was also obtained. The findings are
as follows:
Prices for single-family housing in Grand Terrace start at $100,000
for a small, 1 ,000 to 1 ,2000 square foot house, to about $350- to
r $450,000 for a larger custom house. The majority of housing in the
City is currently in the $100,000 to $125,000 range. By comparison,
the 1980 Census stated the median housing value was $73,800.
i
" Although apartments are few in number, their prices are more moder-
ate than single-family units. Rents are $585 -per month for a two-
bedroom unit. The 1980 Census reported the median rent at $254.
-16-
TABLE 11
CENSUS DATA HOUSING COSTS
CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
City of San Bernardino State of
Housing Cost Factor Grand Terrace County California
Owner Occupied Units
Number of Units 2,457 213,783 3,837,173
Percent of All Occupied Units 78.6% 68.3% 44.5%
Median Value $73,800 $63,400 $84,700
Percent of Units by Price:
Less than $50,000 6.2$ 30.6% 15.7%
$ 50,000 - $ 79,999 55.1% 43.3$ 29.8%
$ 80,000 - $ 99,999 21 .9% 13.8% 19.0%
$100,000 - $149,999 10.8% 9.0% 21 .0%
$150,000 - $199,999 3.0% 2.0% 7.3%
$200,000 and Above 34% 1 .2% 7.2%
Renter Occupied Units
Number of Units 664 90,324 3,595,913'
Percent of All Occupied Units 21 .3% 29.7$ 48.4$
x
Median Rent $254 $223 $253
Percent of Units by Rent:
Less than $200 16.9% 40.2% 30.5%
$200 - $299 54.,6% 39.2% 36.1%
$300 - $399 14.2% 14.8% 20.5%
$400 - $499 11 .1% 4.6% 7.9%
$500 and Above 3.2% 1 .2% 5.0%
Source: Southern California Association of Governments Processing of
1980 Census Tapes.
l
The lack of larger rental units, coupled with the high cost of single-
family homes, suggest that larger families have difficulty finding
affordable housing in Grand Terrace.
The cost in the Spring of 1989 of vacant residentially designated
property in Grand Terrace ranged from approximately $4.30 to $5.25
per square foot for low-density designated property and from $3.25 to
$4.50 per square foot for medium-density designated property.
r
►.0
i
d '
t
t..�
-18-
3da
l
III - HOUSING NEEDS
The housing needs of a community revolve around: 1 ) the extent to which
housing is and will be available to those who need it; 2) the degree to
which available housing is and will be affordable by those who need it;
and 3) the extent to which the housing stock of the community is in
decent and standard condition. This section of the Housing Element sets
forth Grand Terrace's housing needs, and identifies the needs of special
population groups in the community, (i.e. , the elderly, disabled and
handicapped, large families, female-headed households, and homeless
persons) to the extent that such data is available. Specific action
programs included in this element are designed to update data and
eliminate information gaps identified in this report.
A. SCAG Regional Housing Needs Assessment
State law requires that the Housing Element of each jurisdiction
include in its estimate of local housing needs that locality's "fair
share" of regional housing needs. For Grand Terrace, regional
housing needs are det-ermined by the Southern California Association
of Governments (SCAG) .
Information generated by SCAG's 1988 Regional eHousing Needs As-
sessment (RHNA) indicates that an estimated 257 lower income house-
holds residing in the City are in need of assistance. These house-
holds whose incomes are less than' 80 percent of the County median
income, are spending more than 30 percent of their monthly gross
income for housing. This leaves a disproportionate share of their
monthly income available' to purchase other. necessities, such as food,
clothing, medical care, - and transportation. Moderate- and upper-
income households may, and often do, expend more than 30 percent of
their incomes for housing without experiencing hardships. However, .
this limitation on housing expenditures is critical to lower-income
households because of the very limited and sometimes fixed nature of
their incomes. A breakdown of existing housing assistance needs is
presented in Table 12.
As shown in Table 12, of the 257 units, 129 are for very-low-income
households (less than 50 percent of the San Bernardino County
median income) and 128 are for low-income households (50 to 80
percent of County median income) .
SCAG also estimates a need for 575 additional units by 1994 to pro-
P_s
vide for growth, to replace units eliminated from the housing stock
during this time period, and to achieve an optimal vacancy rate of
five percent (see Table 13) .
Of the- 575 housing units to be added to the City's housing stock by
the year 1994, 72 units are targeted for the "Very Low", 83 for
"Low", 100 for "Middle", and 321 for "Upper" income households.
-19-
Table 12
Regional Housing Needs Assessment
Grand Terrace - San Bernardino County
Existing Needs
1 . Total Households 3,545
2. Total Housing Units 3,779
3. Unoccupied Units 234
(Line 2 minus Line 1 )
4. Households in Need. - Lower Income Households Paying over 30 per-
cent of Income for Housing (1980 Census)
Very Low Income Low Income Total
Owners 48 45 93
Renters 81 83 164
Total 129 128. r 257
Sources: Southern California Association of Governments, June 1988 and
State Department of Finance - Population Estimates, January 1 ,
f 1988; See Appendix A for complete data.
i
-20-
l
Table 13
Regional Housing Needs Assessment
Grand Terrace - San Bernardino County
Future Needs
[July 1, 1989 to June 30, 1994
1 . 1994 Households (from SCAG 88) 4,401
2. 1988 Households 3,545
3. Projected 5-Year Growth in Households
(Line 1 Minus Line 2) x 0.769 or 10/13) 658.
4. Total Vacancy Adjustment -83
5. Additional Vacancy Need 17
6. 1989-94 Expected Units to be'Lost
from Stock 0
- r
<-, 7. Future Housing Unit Needs for All Income
_ Groups, Adjusted to Avoid Impaction
(Line 3 minus Line 4 equals line 7) 575
Very Low 72 12.50%
(0-50%1
Low 83 14.41%
i. . (50-80%)
Moderate 100 17.36%
(80-120%)
Upper 320 55.73%
(over 120%)
Total 575 100.00%
1 This number is a SCAG number and was derived for each jurisdiction
by multiplying its 1988-94 household growth (Column 3 minus Column
2) by 10/13, which is the proportion of the number of months on the
shorter period compared to the longer period.
-21-
l
The aforementioned levels are based on different percentages of the median
household income for San Bernardino County as follows:
-- San Bernardino County Median Income: $32,2001
-- Very-Low Income Is Less Than 50 Percent of the County Median:
$0-$16,099.
-- Low Income Is 50-80 Percent of the County Median: $16,100-$25,600.
-- Moderate Income Is 80-120 Percent of the County Median: $25,600-
38,640.
-- High Income Is More Than 120 Percent of the County Median:
$38,641 .
B. Land Inventory
Section 65583 (a)(B) of the Government Code requires an inventory of
land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites, and
sites having the potential for infill development, and an analysis of
the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these
sites.
r
t:.:. 1 . Land Suitable for Residential Development and Infill Development
Residential land uses occupy approximately 41 percent of the
City's land area. The preponderance of residential uses are
single-family, low density in nature. Single-family uses comprise
31 percent of the total City. Six percent of the City is devoted
to multi-family uses, more than one unit per parcel. Mobile
home usys constitute 26 acres or approximately one percent of
the City
Adequate sites for the development of low- and moderate-income
housing projects are limited to the areas zoned for multi-family
(R3) uses. It should be mentioned that some of these areas will
accommodate manufactured housing in the . R3 zone. Essentially,
no large tracts of vacant single-family land are available for
affordable housing. This is -due to the fact that most of the R1
zoned property is , presently developed or is located within a
hillside overlay zone which precludes development at affordable
densities.
4
1 Department of Housing and Urban Development, February 1989.
2 Taken from Master Environmental Assessment/Environmental Impact
Report (MEA/EI R) , January 1988.
-22-
The following potential development areas are sites which the
City feels can accommodate either new development or infill
development. The general location of these sites is shown in
Figure 2. Table 14 provides a breakdown of the total number of
units to be realized per site. The type of residential unit is
also identified as well as the net number of affordable units. As
can be seen in Table 14, a total of 1 ,069 units could be con-
structed, of which, 198 units would be affordable. It should be
mentioned that the number of affordable units is based on the 25
percent State Density . Bonus Law and is simply the existing
development standard total (shown in Column 5) multiplied by
0.25.
Table 14
Potential New Development/Infill Sites
Net Affordable****
Existing Potential Units Applying
Site* Acres Zoning No. of 'Units** No. of Units 25% Density Bonus
1 11 .45 R2 . 22 103 26
2 6.18 R2 16 56 14
3 6.77 R2 21 61 15
4 2.11 R3 2 25 -6
�= 5 5.61 R3 12 67 17
6 111 .20 RH 0 111 --
7 8.98 R1-20 0 19 --
8 11 .16 R1-20 0 45 --
9 4.79 R2 0 43 11
10 2.55 R2 0 23 6
11 1 .76 R3 0 21 5
12 4.03 R3 0 48 1-2
13 1 .79 R3 0 27 5
14 .45 R3 0 5 1
.15 3.00 R3 0 36.. 9
16 21 .41 R3 0 308 62***
17 2.90 R3 0 34 9
18 4.80 R1-7.2 0 20 --
- 19 4.60 R1-7.2 0 17 --
Total 73 1 ,069 198
* Numbers refer to locations shown on Figure 2.
** Numbers based on gross unit counts taken from a .1984 aerial index.
*** Number is based on 20 percent affordable units.
**** Pursuant to City's Zoning Ordinance, 25 percent density bonus is applicable
only to R3 zoned properties.
r.,
-23-
POTENTIAL NEW
•�.lc,Te� I I I Ir II rl li I11 IIII I
DEVELOPMENT AREAS
d 14 ;
ll �I >rc>< ?r..•:;ssS r?•:...,,Y;:
I � ;tKtr;q y24
I I �'�'�
I. �
- � CIT1
JI 10-3 I I L .I I I I I I �:•43`h''`(;.6. `{,+tt', 'y,� `SSA N
,
r
' x
. � III I � I ':II I1 11 1 1 1 /1!• ��� _ I I III ..
�I r I I I 1�•
18rlr rlr �, Ilrrlrr.r,:r, _ _ Legend
II �I � � 'S:4 I'I ri'•r l:.( _11rII I�fC
DEVELOPED AREAS SLATED FOR
INFILL DEVELOPMENT
.-
i VACANT SITES SLATED FOR NEW
I I'" �>�" ���� CONSTRUCTION
Ell
19
I<.;
I 6
•"'- �� I � I I I I I I 1:1 1 1 1 1 1 'y
// / I SaV10 r 11 I � <?s?{'•
• -mlfasa� -- - crzwrT Figure 2
C;f GRAND TERRACE
17 .1 1000 3000Fr HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
C. Need for Replacement Housing
According to the Redevelopment Implementation Strategy prepared by
Municipal Services, Inc., in November 1983, the City of Grand
Terrace contains very few substandard units. The reason for this is
that approximately 47 percent of the City's housing stock is less than
20 years old. No residential demolition permits were issued in the
City during the period of the previous housing element, although the
City did demolish 44 abandoned, substandard housing units for health
and safety reasons. Therefore, losses in the future, if they occur,
would be limited to those remaining single-family units on large lots,
where land has the potential for subdivision development. SCAG has
projected that no residential units will be lost during the next five
years.
D. Special Housing Needs
Within the housing needs estimates presented above, there are seg
ments of the population that experience special housing needs. These
groups include the elderly, the handicapped, female-headed house-
holds and the homeless. The severity- of these special needs within
the City of Grand Terrace is` discussed below.
1 . The Elderly/Handicapped
No information on the number of handicapped individuals living
in Grand Terrace is available. A program to identify the actual
number of handicapped individuals needing, assistance should be
undertaken in conjunction with the study of elderly, social secu-
rity dependent households.
The 1980 Census identified a total of 442 households (14.6 per-
cent) having members age 65 or older. There are also 472
households which listed social security as the principal source of
income. From this data, it can be inferred that there are likely
to be a number of elderly persons needing some form of housing
assistance. Assuming an 11 percent increase since 1980 and that
50 percent of the households with members over 65 are totally
dependent on social security, there would be approximately 245
households headed by persons 65 years old or over in need of
some type of assistance. If this estimate is true, it represents
- by far the largest single group needing assistance in the commu-
nity. This figure should be verified, and a program to do so
has been outlined in the Housing Program section of this
Element.
Housing needs of the elderly usually revolve around issues of
affordability, in that most elderly are on a fixed income while
housing and other costs continue to rise.
2. Large Families
Of the 3,224 households residing in the City of Grand Terrace in
1980, 11 .7 percent were comprised of 5 or more persons. Based
on this percentage, it is estimated that of the 3,545 households,
-25-
'.e:l
390 families living in Grand Terrace in 1988 have 5 or more
members. A large family household is defined as one with -five
or more members. Needs of Large families generally center on
overcrowding and affordability. While large families living within
the City are generally adequately housed, large families in need
of rental housing may have limited choices available to them.
This situation can be even more acute ' for those families with
lower incomes.
3. Households Headed by Women
Approximately eight percent of all households residing in Grand
Terrace in 1980 were female-headed households. Using this
percentage, it is estimated that there are presently 283 female-
headed households in the City of Grand Terrace. Data on the
number of these households which are lower income and require
assistance was not available. However, it is not uncommon for
up to 20 percent of such households to need some form of hous-
ing assistance. If this figure is applicable to Grand Terrace,
then approximately 57 households headed by women are in need
of assistance.
4. Farmworker Housing
r
-� The California Government Code requires that the City of Grand
_ Terrace consider local farmworker housing needs in formulating
the Housing Element of its General Plan. The most recent data
(1983 Regional Housing- Allocation Model prepared by SCAG)
estimated that 11 farmworker households reside within the City
of which 9 households were lower income (Low and Very Low)
eligible for housing assistance. It should be mentioned that this
information is based on 1980 Census data and represents the
number of persons who work in the farming; fishing or forestry
industry and reside within the City's incorporated limits. It
should also be mentioned that although the 1988 SCAG RHNA did
not breakout farmworker household needs, this need is included
in the overall housing needs assessment figure.
5. Homeless Persons and Families
Recent amendments to Housing Element Law require local govern-
ments to plan for the provision of shelters and transitional
housing for homeless persons and 'families and the identification
of adequate sites. A need is said to exist if one person in a
locality is without shelter or if the type of shelter available is
inappropriate.
It should be mentioned that there is a difference between emer-
gency shelter and transitional housing. Shelter provides an
immediate short-term solution to the homeless, whereas transi-
tional housing attempts to remove the basis for homelessness
(i.e. , lack of sufficient income for self support) . Transitional
-26-
housing can last as long as 18 months and generally includes
integration with other social services and counseling programs to
assist in the transition to self-sufficiency through the acquisition
of a permanent income and housing.
According to the San Bernardino County Comprehensive Homeless
Assistance Plan, the following known service providers, other
than voucher programs, are located within the County of San
Bernardino.
-- Frazee/Highland Community Center
-- Project Heart
-- Salvation Army
-- Fontana YMCA Temporary Emergency Shelter for Women
-- Samaritan Shelter
-- S.F. Marks Episcopal Church
-- Shelter of the Desert
-- San Bernardino County Department of Social Services
(DPSS)
-- San Bernardino County Community Services Department
(CSD)
-- San Bernardino County Department of Mental Health
Of the aforementioned service providers, only two provide shel-
ter to homeless persons originating from the City of Grand
_ Terrace. These include the Frazee Community Center and the
l
Salvation Army Hospitality House.
The Frazee/Highland Community Center currently operates three
facilities; a main office located at 1140 West Mill Street, City of
San Bernardino, senior shelter located at 913 Delaware, City of
Redlands and a single-person and families shelter located at 7178
Palm Avenue, City of Highland.
. . At present, the Frazee/Highland Community Center provides
shelter clothing and food boxes to eligible applicants. The total
bed capacity is 64 and the facility is currently operating at or
near capacity. A center representative stated that a person in
need is never turned away. A person is either served at the
center or referred to the San Bernardino County Department of
Public Social Services (DPSS) .
Currently, the Salvation Army operates out of its main office
located at 746 West Fifth Street. This facility will not provide
shelter facilities after April 2, 1989. However, the Salvation
Army is in the process of opening the Hospitality House located
at 845 West Kingman Street, City of San Bernardino. When
,opened, this facility will have a capacity of 70 beds. This new
facility is anticipated to operate at, or near, capacity. The
facility will provide 3-day shelter housing and up to 90-day
transitional housing for individuals seeking employment. Over-
flow is referred to Frazee/Highland Community Shelter and/or
the County of San Bernardino Department of Public Social
Services.
-27-
In an attempt to document the existence of homeless persons
' originating from the City of Grand Terrace, local public- and
private non-profit organizations were contacted. The recently
completed San Bernardino County Comprehensive Homeless Assis-
tance Plan, prepared by the County Department of Economic and
Community Development in September 1987, was also consulted
during the preparation of this section.
According to the aforementioned study, San Bernardino County
has an estimated homeless population of 3,000 persons. This
figure represents a proportionate share of the state wide esti-
mate due to the absence of an actual local count.
The City of Grand Terrace is estimated to have approximately
136 homeless persons originating from the City of Grand
Terrace. The 136 homeless persons included 45 children, 49
women and 42 men. This information is based on 1988 intake
application information obtained from the local Salvation Army
and the Frazee Community Center, which represent the only
homeless shelter providers which serve the City of Grand
Terrace. It should be pointed out that in the absence of a
actual survey, this number represents the City's best estimate.
Y
The 136 homeless persons reported, which ar{e estimated to origi-
. nate from Grand Terrace, represent 4.5 percent of the 3,000
homeless persons county wide and 1 .2 percent of the City's
current population of 10,859 persons.
It should be mentioned that the 136 homeless person estimate was
not adjusted for persons which may of frequented both the
Frazee Community Center and Salvation Army during the 1/1/88
to 12/31/88 time period. Therefore, this number could be re-
duced by as much as 50 percent ,or 68 persons.
Although it appears that the homeless persons originating from
Grand Terrace are currently being assisted, it is the City's
intention to conduct a survey of the actual number f of homeless persons and research into the possibility of obtaining funds from
such programs as the Emergency Shelter Program (ESP) in order
to provide homeless shelter/assistance for homeless persons.
The specific actions, responsible agency and timetable for com-
pletion of the survey and funding is identified in the Housing
Program, Section VI of this document. Also potential funding
5 mechanisms are provided in Appendix C of this document.
hDu
f"
-28-
IV - CONSTRAINTS
The ability of the private and public sectors to provide adequate housing
to meet the needs of all economic segments of the community is constrained
by various interrelated factors. For ease of discussion, these factors have
been divided into three categories: 1 ) physical constraints; 2) market
constraints; and 3) governmental constraints. The extent to which these
constraints are affecting the supply and affordability of housing in the
City of Grand Terrace is discussed below:
A. Physical Constraints
A major constraint to the development of housing within the City of
Grand Terrace is that two large portions of the remaining single-fami-
ly designated properties are located in hillside areas.- This hillside
orientation severely constrains the development of affordable low- and
moderate-income housing.
Another physical constraint, is a low lying area located adjacent to
the Santa Ana River generally bounded %by the City's incorporated
boundary line to the north and east, Vivienda Court to the south and
Terrace Avenue to the west. This area is considered unsuitable for
habitable structures because of potential flood dander.
B. Market Constraints
-' One of the major obstacles to providing housing to meet the need of
all economic segments of the community is the nature of the housing
market itself. The rate at which housing costs are accelerating has
become a serious national problem. This problem is magnified in
` California as a whole, and particularly in communities such as Grand
Terrace where the desirability of the community further inflates
costs. The individual components of housing cost that affect the final
sale or rental price of a dwelling unit include the price of raw land
improvements, land holding costs, construction costs and financing.
The price of raw land and any necessary improvement is the principal
component of total land cost. The diminishing supply of land avail-
able for residential construction has driven land and, concomitantly,
housing costs upward in Grand Terrace. Moreover, land holding
costs incurred during development have also added to the ultimate
price of a new home. The two factor's which most influence land
holding cost are the interest rate on acquisition and development
loans, and government processing times for construction permits.
Similar to land costs, construction costs have also been escalating
rapidly in recent years. The price of materials and wages have, at
times, inflated even faster than the Consumer Price Index. As a
result, delays in development can add a major expense to housing
cost.
-29-
The final, but probably most significant, component of overall housing
cost is the cost of financing. This cost is passed on to housing
consumers by developers and landlords. The cost of financing is one
of the major constraints to the construction of housing affordable to
low- and moderate-income households. In order to bring monthly
mortgage payments to within an affordable range or to qualify for
creative financing techniques, it may be necessary to pay a sizeable
down payment on a home. For first time home buyers, .procuring the
required down payment is often difficult, particularly if they have low
or moderate incomes. Since there are no apparent trends toward a
decline in land, construction or financing costs, it is unlikely that
any reduction in cost of housing will be realized in the near future or
without government intervention or assistance.
A market constraint that can affect the affordability as well as the
availability of housing types, sizes, price ranges and locations is the
housing market vacancy rate. As previously discussed in Section II ,
the City's current vacancy rate, is 5.7 percent which represents a 2.1
percent decrease from the 1980 Census figure of 7.8 percent. AI-
though the City's vacancy rate is still within the range of a healthy
housing market vacancy rate of 5 to 8 percent, housing has become
less available since 1980.
C. Governmental Constraints r
1 . Land Use Controls
The Land Use Element of the Grand Terrace General Plan sets
forth the City's policies for guiding local development. These
policies, together with existing zoning, establish the amount and
distribution of land to be allocated for various uses throughout
the City.
Residential development in the City .of Grand Terrace is permit-
ted under the following land use categories in accordance with
the Land Use Element of the General Plan:
Gross
Land Use Allowable
Category Density
Low-Density Residential 1 to 9 Units Per Net Acre
Medium-Density Residential 1 to 12 Units Per Net Acre
Housing supply and cost are greatly affected by the amount of
land designated for residential use and the density at which
development is permitted. In Grand Terrace, 53 percent of the
City's land area is designated for residential use. Forty six
percent of the City's total area is allocated for single-family uses
-30-
and 7 percent is designated for multiple-family purposes. The
emphasis on single-family units affects both housing choice -and
housing cost. Single-family units are more expensive, since the
developer must recoup the cost of the land in a smaller number
of units. In addition, future multi-family development, expected
to consist primarily of attached units and condominiums, tends to
be priced above the affordability level of most low- and moder-
ate-income families. Many of the more affordable housing choices
(which represent an increasing share of the housing market in
other cities) are excluded.
As indicated in Section III of this element, the acreage allocated
for residential use is sufficient to accommodate 1 ,069 housing
units of which 198 units would be affordable and the remaining
units would be middle- and upper-income units.
2. Building Codes
In addition to land use controls, local building codes also affect
the cost of housing. Grand Terrace has adopted the Uniform
Building Code which establishes minimum construction standards.
These minimum standards cannot be revised to be less stringent
without sacrificing basic safety considerations and amenities. No
major reductions in construction costs are Anticipated through
revisions to local building codes. However, working within the
framework of the existing codes, the City will continue to imple-
ment planning and development techniques that lower costs and
facilitate new construction to the extent possible.
3. Development Fees
As in the case of its processing requirements, the City's de-
velopment fees are still quite low when compbred with surround-
ing areas. The results of a recent survey of nearby cities are
presented in Appendix B. The fees that are charged by the
City are a reflection of the time and effort that must be
expended by City staff in order to properly review development
plans. The City will continue to conduct periodic surveys (both
formal and informal) of other cities in the Grand Terrace area to
ensure that local processing costs do not become a constraint on
housing production.
4. Permit Processing
v The processing time needed to obtain development permits and
required approvals is often cited as a prime contributor to the
high cost of housing. Additional time may be necessary for
environmental review, depending on the location and nature of a
project. Unnecessary delays will add to the cost of construction
by increasing land holding costs, interest payments and infla-
tion. Although these review processes may take a substantial
amount of time, they are necessary to integrate a new
�.' development into the local urban environment. In response to
-31-
State law, California cities have been working to improve the
efficiency of permit and review processes by providing one-stop
processing, thereby eliminating duplication of effort. The
passage of Assembly Bill 884, which took effect on January 1 ,
1978, has also helped to reduce government delays by: 1)
limiting processing time in most cases to one year; and 2) elimi-
nating some "red tape" by requiring agencies to specify the
information required to complete an acceptable application. The
City of Grand Terrace has fully implemented the provisions of
AB 884, as well as more recent legislation requiring the estab-
lishment of "one-stop" permit coordination. Moreover, the City
has established a site and architectural review board which
consists of the members of the Planning Commission. This board
meets the first and third Mondays of each month to review all
new construction proposals. . It should also be mentioned that,
based on periodic surveys conducted by the City, local process-
ing times are quite comparable to those experienced in surround-
ing communities.
5. Development Costs
The individual components of overall housing cost include land,
construction (both labor and material) and finance costs. Of
these, financing is the largest individual cost factor with which
«a a developer and, ultimately the homebuyer or renter, must
contend. The degree to which these factors have constrained
local housing production is not unique to the City of Grand
Terrace, but is a condition that has been rather uniformly
experienced throughout the Southern California area. For
example, the current (1989) building costs in Grand Terrace
(including land and improvements) range from $65 to $80 per
square foot, based on building permit information compiled by
the City's building and safety consultant% These prices are
comparable to those in surrounding communities for comparable
properties with similar development opportunities.
Recognizing the constraints posed by • these cost factors, the
City intends to take actions aimed at mitigating these constraints
to the extent possible. These actions are outlined in the Hous-
ing Program section of this element (Section VI) .
6. Service and Facility Infrastructure
Before a development permit is granted, it must be determined
that public services and facility systems are adequate to accom-
modate any increased demand generated by a proposed project.
At present, all vacant residentially designated land within the
h„ 'City is in close proximity to the infrastructure systems (i.e. ,
utilities and streets necessary to provide service) . While con-
struction of local interior street and minor utility extensions
-32-
would be required in some cases, the overall extent would not be
�i great; the location of streets and utility lines is shown in -Sec-
tions E and F of the Master Environmental Assessment included
in the City's General Plan. No street extensions or major ser-
vice system improvements would be necessary for development of
multi-family designated areas directly adjacent to Mt. Vernon
Avenue or single-family designated areas in the western portion
of the City, west of the AT&SF railroad tracks. Service systems
are adequate to provide for the higher densities expected to be
associated with low- and moderate-income developments.
7. Utilization of State and Federal Assistance Programs
The degree to which the City of Grand Terrace may participate
in State and Federal housing programs is constrained by the
nature of those programs, eligibility requirements and funding
limitations. The relatively high cost of housing in the City is
somewhat of a deterrent to the use of certain programs, i.e. ,
Section 8 Existing and Moderate Rehabilitation, CHFA Direct
Lending, etc. , by private developers/property owners. This is
due to the relatively low housing costs (purchase price or rent)
permitted under these 'programs. Recent and further proposed
reductions in funding levels also represent an impediment to the
utilization of these programs. t
8. Article 34 Referendum
C In 1950, the voters of California added Article 34 to the State
Constitution which requires low-rent housing projects "devel-
oped, constructed, or acquired in any manner" by any public
agency receive voter approval prior to their development. As
such, Article 34 poses an obstacle to any community desiring to
become directly involved in providing housing for lower-income
households.
The State Supreme Court determined in 1976 that Article 34
applied to all California Housing Finance Agency (CHFA) pro-
grams. A lawsuit, CHFA v Patitucci, was..filed by the agency to
clarify the applicability of Article 34. A unanimous decision
handed down by the court 'on September 18, 1978, limits the
applicability of Article 34 referenda to those projects which are
over 50 percent financed or subsidized by the government. A
project that is privately developed, pays local taxes, and is 50
percent or more non-subsidized does not require a referendum.
The Patitucci decision thus partially removed an impediment to
the production of low- and moderate-income housing, especially
in communities where referendum authority cannot be expected.
,At present, the City of Grand Terrace does not have Article 34
referendum authority.
-33-
E
V - THE HOUSING GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES
l
This section of the housing element sets forth the City's goals, objectives
and policies relative to previously identified needs recognizing the con-
straints that limit the City in its ability to affect local housing needs.
Housing goals are statements of the aspirations of the community, and
represent ends to which housing efforts and resources are directed.
Statements of objectives are more specific and provide guidelines for
actions and later evaluation. Statements of policy are more specific still,
and provide well-defined guidelines for decision making.
The proper basis for any plan of action is a well-integrated set of goals.
Such policy statements provide guidance to local decision makers in dealing
with housing related issues and express the desires and aspirations of the
community. The following goals are intended to give direction to the
City's housing program:
-- Provide and encourage a supply of housing suitable to the needs and
sufficient in number to serve existing -and projected residents of
Grand Terrace.
-- Promote and encourage housing opportunities, accessible to employ-
ment centers and quality community services for all economic segments
of the community regardless of age, sex, ethnic background, marital
status, physical handicaps, or family size.
-- To promote and encourage the rehabilitation of deteriorated dwelling
units and the conservation of the currently-sound housing stock.
A. Housing Availability and Production
Goal No. 1 : Promote and encourage a supply of housing suitable to
the needs of and sufficient in number to serve existing and projected
residents of Grand Terrace.
-- Objective 1 .1 : Promote and encourage .. construction of new
housing units., on suitable vacant and under-utilized property at
an average rate of 50 units ,per year, or until such time as all
vacant or under-utilized land has been developed. The total
-- number of units should be carefully monitored to help prevent
vacancy rates from rising above current levels.
1 Figure is based on the average number of residential building permits
-�--.` issued in the City between 1981 and 1988.
-34-
i
-- Policy 1 .1 .1 : Promote and encourage development of hous-
ing which varies by type, design, form of ownership and
size.
-- Policy 1 .1 .2: Maximize use of remaining vacant land suit-
able for residential development.
-- Policy 1 .1 .3: Promote and encourage in-fill housing devel-
opment and more intensive use of underutilized land for
residential construction.
-- Policy 1 .1 .4: Encourage the use of innovative land use
techniques and construction methods to minimize housing
costs without compromising basic health, safety and aesthet-
ic considerations.
-- Policy 1 .1 .5: Strive to provide incentives for and other-
wise encourage the private development of new affordable
housing for low- and moderate-income households.
-- Policy 1 .1 .6: Investigate and pursue programs and funding
sources designed to expand housing opportunities for low-
and moderate-income households, including the elderly and
handicapped.
r
Policy 1 .1 .7: Facilitate construction of low- and moder-
ate-income housing to the extent possible.
Policy 1 .1 .8: Periodically reexamine local building and
zoning codes for possible amendments to reduce construction
costs without sacrificing basic health and safety considera-
tions.
B. Housing Affordability
Goal No. 2: Promote and encourage housing opportunities, accessible
to employment centers and quality community centers and quality
community services for all economic segments of the community,
t _
regardless of age, sex, ethnic background, marital status, physical
handicaps, or family size.
-- Objective 2.1 : Promote construction or availability of 281 hous-
ing units per year over the next five years affordable to those
with incomes up to 120 percent of County median income.
Policy 2.1 .1 : Continue a policy of expeditious processing
of residential development proposals and permits.
1 Represents a combination of affordable, density bonus and revenue
-_- mortgage bond-assisted units.
-35-
_, -- Policy 2.1 .2: Encourage a wide range of housing types,
prices and ownership forms in new construction.
-- Policy 2.1 .3: Emphasize and promote the role of the pri-
vate sector in the construction of low- and moderate-income
housing.
-- Policy 2.1 .4: Support the development of cost saving and
energy conserving construction techniques.
-- Policy 2.1 .5: Encourage greater development and utilization
of local, State and Federal programs to ensure adequate
funding of housing programs.
-- Policy 2.1 .6: Assist private developers in identifying and
preparing land suitable for lower-income housing devel-
opments.
-- Policy 2.1 .7: Encourage the inclusion of units for low- and
moderate-income families as part of private sponsored hous-
ing developments.
-- Policy 2.1 .8: Support efforts of private lenders to provide
alternative financing methods to make homeownership avail-
able to a greater number of households.
%" -- Policy 2.1 .9: Streamline administrative procedures for
granting approvals and' permits and establish time limits for
such approvals ' to minimize time, costs and uncertainty
associated with development.
-- Policy 2.1 .10: Provide zoning, subdivision and construction
incentives to minimize the cost of new and rehabilitated
units.
-- Policy 2.1 .11 : Discourage the conversion of existing apart-
ment units to condominiums where such conversion will
diminish the supply of low- and moderate-income housing.
-- Objective 2.2: Promote the affordability of existing housing
units for low- and moderate-income households by capturing
Federal housing assistance subsidies for the benefit of eligible
City residents.
-- Policy 2.2.1 : Actively assist the San Bernardino County
Housing Authority in placing Section 8 certificates in the
community.
- -- Policy 2.2.2: Investigate and pursue programs and funding
sources designed to maintain and/or improve the
affordability of existing housing units to low- and moder-
ate-income households.
�J
-36-
C. Housing Condition
Goal No. 3: Promote and encourage the rehabilitation of deteriorated
dwelling units and the conservation of the currently-sound housing
stock.
-- Objective 3.1 : Promote the rehabilitation of deteriorated dwell-
ings.
-- Policy 3.1 .1 :. Investigate and pursue housing rehabilitation
programs and funding sources offered by the State and
Federal governments.
-- Policy 3.1 .2: Pursue cooperation with County agencies to
provide below-market rate rehabilitation loans for both
owner-occupied and rental housing.
-- Policy 3.1 .3: Promote utilization of rehabilitation assistance
programs to alleviate overcrowded conditions.
-- Policy 3.1 .4: Encourage investment of public and private
r ..
sources to alleviate neighborhood deterioration trends.
�> -- Policy 3.1 .5: Encourage the rehabil.itation of deteriorating
_ owner-occupied and rental housing where feasible.
-- Policy 3.1 .6: Take action to promote the removal and
replacement of those substandard units which cannot be
rehabilitated.
-- Policy 3.1 .7: Upgrade community facilities and municipal
services as community needs warrant.
-- Objective 3.2: Promote maintenance of currently sound housing.
-- Policy 3.2.1 : Utilize public information and assistance
programs to encourage repair before major damage occurs.
-- Policy 3.2.2: Monitor housing conditions in Grand Terrace
annually. If evidence of deferred maintenance increases,
consider implementation of occupancy inspection program.
-- Policy 3.2.3: Promote representative citizen participation
on the formation, implementation and review of housing
programs.
-- Policy 3.2.4: Support formation of community and neigh-
borhood organizations to encourage self-monitoring and
development of community identity and quality neighbor-
hoods.
7 -- Policy 3.2.5 : Prevent the encroachment of incompatible
uses into established residential neighborhoods.
-37-
t
�. -- Policy 3.2.6: Sustain a high standard of maintenance for
all publicly owned property.
-- Policy 3.2.7: Preserve the physical character of existing
neighborhoods.
-- Policy 3.2.8: Encourage the maintenance of sound own-
er-occupied and rental housing where feasible.
r
3 "
-38-
VI - THE HOUSING PROGRAM
This Housing Program sets forth a five-year schedule of actions for Grand
Terrace to implement housing policies and to achieve the City's housing
goals and objectives. The anticipated impact, responsible agency, poten-
tial funding, and timetable for each action is discussed. The area of
impact, i.e. , City-wide or certain census tracts, has also been identified.
The anticipated accomplishments have been quantified where possible.
These estimates were generated on -the basis of past performance as well as
the resources that are available to the City for addressing local housing--
needs. In this respect, the anticipated accomplishments are realistic. A
summary of quantifiable housing goals is presented at the conclusion of
this section in Table 15.
The housing program presented herein will not eliminate all existing hous-
ing needs in the City of Grand Terrace. It would be unrealistic to expect
Grand Terrace or any other City in the State to accomplish such a goal in
a relatively short period of time (i.e., five years) with limited resources
available. I-fowever, this program does represent a continuing and mean-
ingful effort on the part of the City of Grand Terrace to expand the
affordability thereof.
• r
A. Actions in Support of Housing Availability and Production
Action 1 .a: Using General Plan policies, as well as zoning and subdi-
vision provisions, encourage the development of Planned Residential
'Developments, townhouses, and condominiums, by expediting the
processing of city conditions and approvals.
Objective: Expedite processing of all relevant
projects.
Impact Area: City-wide.
Responsibility: City of Grand Terrace, Planning and
Engineering Department.
Funding Source: Department budgets.
Timetable: Continuous, 1989-1994.
Action 1 ,b: Encourage more intensive use of underutilized land.
Projects with 20 percent low- or moderate-income should be processed
at City expense.
Objective: Consider all potential residential develop-
,, ment in light of this action.
Impact Area: City-wide.
Responsibility: City of Grand Terrace, Planning and
Engineering Department.
-39-
Funding Source: Department budgets.
- Timetable: 1989-1994.
Action 1 .c: Through subdivision and zoning ordinances, and through
the permit process, encourage use of innovative construction tech-
niques, design standards, and energy conservation methods in new
housing development.
Objective: Review all proposed residential projects
in relation to this action and implement
suggested measures for compliance with
the City's design review process.
Impact Area: City-wide.
Responsibility: City of Grand Terrace, Planning and
Engineering Department.
Funding Source: Department budgets.
Timetable:_ 'Continuous, 1989-1994.
Action 1 .d: Through the existing zoning ordinanc@ and in accordance
with the adopted Land Use Element of the General Plan, permit con-
struction of a second dwelling unit on R1 lots.
_l Objective: Allow for implementation of this action in
all instances where it is applicable.
Impact Area: Census Tract 71 .00.
Responsibility: City of Grand Terrace, Planning and
Engineering Department.
Funding Source: Department budgets.
Timetable: Continuous, 1989-1994.
Action 1 .e: The City will encourage the upgrading and improvement
of existing mobilehome parks and continue to contract with the County
- of San Bernardino Department of Environmental Health Services for
the provision of renter assistance and enforcement of mobilehome park
regulations.
Objective: Protect mobilehome tenants and preserve
existing mobilehome parks.
Impact Area: City-wide.
Responsibility: City of Grand Terrace, Planning and
County of San Bernardino Department of
Environmental Health Services.
-40-
Funding Source: Department budgets.
Timetable: Annually, 1990-1994.
Action 1 .f: The Grand Terrace Redevelopment Agency, in conjunc-
tion with the City Engineering Department, will prepare an annual
report describing the results of the past year's progress in meeting
the housing needs of the community, i.e. , low-income/moderate-income
household needs, small/large family needs, renter/owner needs.
Specific quantifiable data is to be provided showing the proportion of
units and households assisted and the maximum number of units
constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved, in relation to the needs
defined in the Housing Assistance Plan. Survey data collected as part
of the implementation of Action 1 .g. will be included, and the need
requirements adjusted as appropriate to meet the actual identified
needs rather than just estimated needs.
Objective: Preparation of specified report on an
annual basis.
Impact Area: City-wide.
Responsibility: City of Grand Terrace Redevelopment
Agency and Engineering Department.
Funding Source: Department budgets.
l
f Timetable: Annually, 1989-1994.
Action 1 .g: Conduct a City-wide survey of rental housing suitable
for families with children and handicapped occupants.
Objective: Identification of available rental housing
for families with children and handi-
capped.
Impact Area: City-wide.
Responsibility: City of Grand Terrace Community Ser-
vices- Department.
Funding Source: Department budget.
Timetable: 1990.
Action 1 .h: Continue to utilize the services at the Inland Mediation .
�..,; Board, through the existing contract with the County of San Bern-
ardino, for fair housing, landlord tenant dispute resolution and
senior shared housing. Also, request monthly statistics from the
Inland Mediation Board in order to better monitor housing problems in
the City Grand Terrace.
(� Objective: Ensure that all complaints of housing
discrimination- and other housing service
needs are being met. Also, monitor
housing problems in Grand Terrace.
-41-
l
Impact Area: City-wide.
Responsibility: City of Grand Terrace Planning and
Community Services Department and the
Inland Mediation Board.
Funding Source: County of San Bernardino.
Timetable: Ongoing, 1989-1994
Action 1 .i: Continue to utilize the services of the San Bernardino
County Housing Resource Board, through the existing contract with
the County of San Bernardino, to provide outreach educational infor-
mation on State and Federal fair housing laws.
Objective: Provide fair housing law information to
Grand Terrace residents.
Impact Area: City-wide.
Responsibility: County of -.San Bernardino Community
Housing Resource Board.
Funding Source: County of San Bernardino.
Timetable: Ongoing, 1989-1994
Action 1 ,j: Actively pursue participation in the San Bernardino
County Mortgage Revenue Board Financing Programs for the develop-
ment of single and multi-family residential developments (see descrip-
tions of these programs in Appendix C) .
Objective: Increase the supply of single and
f multi-family housing units in the City of
Grand Terrace.
Impact Area: City-wide.
t" Responsibility: City of Grand Terrace Community Devel-
opment Department.
�- Funding Source: Department Budget
{ Timetable: Ongoing.
Action 1 .k: Utilize the City's General Plan and zoning ordinance to
provide adequate, suitable sites for infill housing construction.
Objective: Provide adequate sites for the construc-
tion of 250 additional residential units by
the year 1994.
`r Impact Area: Census Tracts 71 .00 and 40.00.
-42-
l
Responsibility: City of Grand Terrace Planning Depart-
ment.
Funding Source: Department Budget.
Timetable: Ongoing.
Action 1 .1: Create and maintain an inventory of vacant and under-
utilized sites suitable for housing purposes.
Objective: To provide private developers with
information to facilitate housing produc
tion.
Impact Area: City-wide.
Responsibility: City of Grand Terrace Planning Depart-
ment.
Funding Source: Department budget.
Timetable: 1989-1994.
Action 1 .m: Conduct a City-wide homeless survey. , Dependant upon
the results, i.e. , identified need, research into the possibility of
locating a homeless/transitional shelter in the City of Grand Terrace.
Objective: Determine the actual number of homeless
persons originating from the City of
Grand Terrace.
Impact Area: City-wide.
Responsibility: City of Grand Terrace Planning and
Community Services Department.
f
Funding Source: Department budgets.
,. Timetable:• 1990-1991 .
B. Actions in Support of Housing Affordability
Action 2.a: Initiate an out reach campaign to solicit participation of
private developers in affordable housing programs. This will be
accomplished by compiling and subsequently maintaining a roster of
interested firms, which will be notified when opportunities arise.
Objective: Preparation of notification list to be
;- updated on an annual basis.
Impact Area: City-wide.
Responsibility: City of Grand Terrace Planning Depart-
ment.
-43-
Funding Source: Department budget.
Timetable: Annually, 1989-1994.
Action 2,b: Continue participation in the Section 8 Leased Housing
Assistance Program administered by San Bernardino County Housing
authority. This will be achieved through coordinated City and Coun-
ty community outreach.
Objective: Promote participation of eligible Grand
Terrace residents in Section 8 Leased
Housing Assistance Program. Program—
goal is 25 households assisted over the
five-year period.
Impact Area: City-wide with emphasis on Census Tract
71 .00.
Responsibility: City of Grand Terrace Planning and
Community Services Departments.
Funding Source: County of San Bernardino and Depart-
ment Budgets.
r
Timetable: Ongoing, 1989-1994.
Action 2.c: Prepare a brochure which outlines the various types of
�./ State and Federally funded housing program available through the
County of San Bernardino and the City of Grand Terrace. Distribute
brochure to Grand Terrace residents and conduct joint City/County
outreach.
Objective: Inform Grand Terrace, residents of the
various types of housing assistance
programs that are available to them.
Impact Area: City-wide.
Responsibility: City of Grand Terrace. Community Ser-
vices and Planning Departments.
Funding Source: Department budgets.
Timetable: 1990.
Action 2.d: Research the possibility of expanding Section 8, Leased
_ Housing Assistance Program to include Section 8, existing funds to
subsidize mobile home space rentals.
Objective: Increase the number of households re-
ceiving assistance in the City.
Impact Area: City-wide.
Responsibility: City of Grand Terrace Community Ser-
vices and Planning Departments.
-44-
l
Funding Source: Department budgets.
Timetable: 1990.
Action 2.e: Continue to utilize procedures for the provision of
density bonuses or other incentives for housing development incorpo-
rating low- and moderate-income units.
Objectives: Expansion of affordable housing supply.
Impact Area: City-wide with an emphasis on Census
Tract 71 .00.
Responsibility: City of Grand Terrace Planning Depart-
ment.
Funding Source: Department budget.
Timetable: Ongoing, 1989-1994.
Action 2.f: Federally-subsidized rental housing developmentE- are not
always financially feasible at current mortgage interest rates. In
such situations, use the existing authorities of the Redevelopment
Agency to issue tax-exempt mortgage revenue bonds (SB99) to pro-
vide below-market rate long-term financing for such projects. These
funds should be used exclusively for low-income households.
-� Objective: Assist in the development of an average
of 10 such units per year.
Impact Area: Census Tract 71 .00.
Responsibility: City of Grand Terrace, Redevelopment
Agency.
Funding Source: Bond proceeds.
Timetable: As needed, 1989-1.994.
Action 2.g: Non-assisted rental and sales housing developments
directed to the needs of moderate-income households also face feasibil-
ity constraints in times of high interest rates. Where necessary,
utilize the bonding authorities, if available, of the Redevelopment
Agency and of the City (AB1355) to issue tax-exempt mortgage reve-
nue bonds to provide below market interest rate financing available
for such projects.
,Objective: Assist in the development of an average
of 8 such units per year.
Impact Area: City-wide with an emphasis on Census
Tract 71 .00.
-45-
l
Responsibility: City of Grand Terrace, Redevelopment
Agency.
Funding Source: Bond proceeds.
Timetable: As needed, 1989-1994.
C. Actions in Support of Maintaining and Improving Housing Condition
Action 3.a: Initiate a program of public information and technical
assistance designed to encourage continued maintenance of currently
sound housing.
Objective: Contact all households within the City on
an annual basis in respect to this action
program.
Impact Area: City-wide.
Responsibility: City of Grand Terrace, Planning and
Community Services Department.
Funding Source: Department budgets.
Timetable: Annually, 1989-1994.
Action 3.b: Publicize and make available low interest loans and
(-1 rebates for rehabilitation of owner-occupied residents.
Objective: Rehabilitation of deterioration housing in
the City and a reduction in the number
of owner-occupied units requiring reha-
bilitation. The program goal is to
rehabilitate 15 units per year, or 75
units over--,the next five year period.
Impact Area: City-wide.
Responsibility: City of Grand Terrace Community Devel-
opment Department and Redevelopment
Agency.
Funding Source: Redevelopment funds.
Timetable: Beginning 1989 and continuing through
1994.
Action 3.c: Develop a program to help alleviate overcrowded condi-
tions.by assigning funding priority to rehabilitation cases in which
bedroom additions are planned.
Objective: Enlarge or otherwise eliminate at least 10
overcrowded units per year for five
years.
-46-
- Impact Area: City-wide with an emphasis on Census
Tract 71 .00.
Responsibility: City of Grand Terrace, Planning and
Community Development Department.
Funding Source: Department budgets.
Timetable: Continuous, 1989-1994.
Action 3.d: Promote housing accessibility for handicapped and dis-
abled persons by assigning funding priority to housing rehabilitation
cases in which accessibility improvements are planned.
Objective: Provide barrier-free housing for five
households with handicapped or disabled
persons per year for five years, subject
to revision when more substantive data
on needs is available.
Impact Area: City-wide.
Responsibility: City of Grand Terrace, Redevelopment
Agency.
Funding Source: Redevelopment Agency and CDBG funds.
Timetable: Continuous, 1989=1994.
Action 3.e: Monitor housing conditions throughout the City in order
to establish target areas for rehabilitation efforts.
Objective: Early detection and prevention of deteri-
oration in `neighborhoods.
Impact Area: City-wide.
Responsibility: City of Grand Terrace Planning and
Community Development Department.
Funding Source: Department budgets.
Timetable: Beginning 1990 and updated annually.
Action 3.f: Review all changes in planned land uses to determine the
cumulative impact on community facility and municipal services.
Objective: Assurance of adequate levels of communi-
ty facilities and services to all areas of
the City.
Impact Area: City-wide.
-47-
Responsibility: City of Grand Terrace Planning and
Engineering Departments.
Funding Source: Department budgets.
Timetable: Ongoing.
Action 3.g: Continue existing code enforcement efforts and explore
new methods for eliminating deteriorated or unsightly property condi-
tions in residential areas.
Objective: Correction of unsightly and potentially
hazardous conditions in or adjacent to
residential areas.
Impact Area: City-wide.
Responsibility: City of Grand Terrace Planning Depart-
ment and Building and Safety consultant.
Funding Source: Department budgets.
Timetable: Ongoing.
r
Priorities
As previously indicated, the ability of the City of Grand Terrace to affect
' local housing needs is limited by the resources available for this -purpose.
These resources include land, enabling legislation, political leverage or
housing expertise, and funding. Local governments in particular are
constrained by the availability of funding for housing-related activities.
In order that available resources are used most effectively, thereby maxi-
mizing the benefits derived therefrom, a prioritization of local housing
needs is essential as a guide in distributing those resources. Therefore,
where conflict may arise in the implementation of the housing program set
forth herein, the City shall allocate its limited resources on the basis of
the following priorities:
Priority 1 -- Expansion of the local housing supply in terms of both
market-rate and affordable housing.
Priority 2 -- Maintenance and improvement of the existing housing
stock.
Priority 3 -- Preservation of existing affordable housing oppor-
tunities.
r
-48-
TABLE 15
CITY OF GRAND TERRACE - HOUSING PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
No. of Units
Constructed/ No. of House-
Proqram Action Rehabilitated holds Assisted Impact Area* Responsibility Funding Source** Timetable
Action 1.h: Continue to utilize the ser- City Planning and Department bud-
vices of the Inland Mediation Board for Community Services gets and County
fair housing, land lord tenant dispute Departments and In- of San Bernar-
resolution and senior shared housing. 125 Citywide land Mediation Board dino OngoinglJ
Action 1.i: Continue to utilize the
services of the San Bernardino County
Housing Resource Board to provide out- San Bernardino
reach and educational information on County Housing County of
State and Federal Fair Housing Laws. 3,823*** Citywide Resource Board San Bernardino Ongoing
Action 1.k: Utilize the City's General Redevelopment funds,
Plan and zoning ordinance to provide mortgage revenue
i+ adequate, suitable sites for infill Citywide City Planning bonds and private
Q° housing construction. 250 Department sector investments Ongoing
Action 2.b: Continue participation in City Planning and County of
the Section 8 Leased Housing Assistance Community Services San Bernardino
Program administered by the County of Departments, and San and Department
San Bernardino Housing authority. 25 Citywide Bernardino County budgets Ongoing
Housing Authority
Action 2.e: Continue to grant density
bonuses for projects incorporating low- City Planning Private sector
and moderate-income units. 50**** Citywide Department investments Ongoing
* See Figure 3 for census tract boundaries.
** Refer to Appendix "C" for information regarding funding sources for housing actions.
*** This figure represents all existing households within the City and has not been counted
in arriving at the totals for this table.
**** The actual units involved are accounted for under Action 1.k.
j L
No. of Units
Constructed/ No. of House-
Program Action Rehabilitated holds Assisted Impact Area Responsibility Funding Source Timetable
Action 2.f: Use the existing author-
ities of the redevelopment agency to
issue tax exempt mortgage revenue
bonds (SB 99) to provide below market
rate long-term financing for low= Census Redevelopment Bond
income households. 50* Tract 71.00 Agency proceeds 1989-1994
Action 2.g: Utilize tax-exempt
mortgage revenue bonds (AB 1355) for
below market rate financing for mod- Redevelopment Bond
erate-income households. 40* Citywide Agency proceeds 1.989-1994
Action 3.b: Rehabilitation of City Planning
deteriorated housing through the use of Redevelopment Department and Redevelopment
Redevelopment tax increment funds. 75 Project Area Redevelopment Agency funds 1989-1994
c Agency
Action 3.c: Develop a program to help
alleviate overcrowded conditions by as- Department
signing funding priority to rehabilitation budgets 1989-1994
cases in which bedroom additions are plan-
ned. Enlarge or otherwise eliminate at Citywide with.
lease 10 overcrowded units per year for emphasis on City Planning Department
five years. 50** C.T. 71.00 Department budgets 1989-1994
Action 3.d: Provide barrier-free hous- Redevelopment
ing for households with handicapped or x Redevelopment Agency and
disabled persons. 25 Citywide Agency CDBG funds 1989-1994
Totals 2550 TI / 290
125
* The actual units involved are accounted for under Action 1.k.
** Half of these units would be rehabilitated under Action 3.b and, as such, have not been
counted in arriving at the totals for this table.
*** Based on actual building permit activity between 1981 and 1988.
� t l
s
r7
•I
i'' CENSUS TRACTS
W •
•1 •
•
•
40.00 0� BARTON PALM AVE
71.0 0 '
,. •De BERRY ST •
•
VAN B U REN ST '
"' Census Tract
o Boundaries
• z
w --— City Boundary
PICO > ST
x
• zz F
s �
�' c7
U
MAIN ST IL
. .
................ �,.. ..............�..........,..............* .■..
Figure 3
GRAND TERRACE
TO 1000 3000 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
i
-. V11 - PROGRESS TOWARD ACHIEVING GOALS
As part of the periodic review of the housing element, each local govern-
ment is required to evaluate its progress toward achieving the goals con-
tained in the previous five-year housing element. This evaluation should
include a discussion of the following: 1) the effectiveness of the housing
element in the attainment of the State housing goal; 2) an analysis of the
significant differences between what was projected and what was achieved;
and 3) a description of how the .goals, objectives, policies and programs of
the updated element incorporate what has been learned from the results of
the previous element.
The differences between the projected goal and what was achieved is
primarily 'measured by and based upon the existing and future housing
needs identified by SCAG's Regional Housing Allocation Model (RHAM) .
The RHAM identifies the City's existing and future housing need broken
down into four household income categories. According to the RHAM, the
City's Jair share housing goal was to construct 232 housing units broken
down as follows; 29 "very low" (less than 50 percent of the median in-
come) , 33 "low" (50 to 80 percent of the median) , 40 "moderate" (80 to 120
percent of the median) , and 129 "Upper" (more than 120 percent of the
t -
median) .
r
A comparison between the projected and actual housing goal, revealed that
the City of Grand Terrace did not meet the overall housing goal of 232
units. However, during the five-year period, a total of 222 new housing
l _ units were constructed, of which 48 units were low-income. The remaining
units consisted of upper-income single-family units and an 88-unit senior
retirement hotel. The 29 low and 40 moderate housing unit goals were not
accomplished.
In the areas of rehabilitation of existing units and household loan assist-
ance, the previous housing element projected a total of 65 units to be
} rehabilitated and 90 households to receive below market rate, long-term
financing assistance. Over the five-year period, no rehabilitation or loan
assistance was provided.
Overall, the previous housing element proposed the construction of 125
_ housing units per year or 625 housing -units over the five-year period. Of
the 625 units targeted, 225 units were to be made available to persons with
-- incomes up to 120 percent of the County median. A short fall was experi-
enced in both of the overall construction goal and- the targeted unit goal of
403 and 177 housing units, respectively.
71 However, it .should be mentioned that a unique set of circumstances existed
within the City which precluded the City from fully realizing its stated
housing program goals. The unique circumstances included a lack of
adequate City staff and more importantly the absence of . an in-house
planning department. Prior to May of 1987, the City utilized an outside
planning consultant which provided limited services. In addition, the City
_ embarked upon a two-year comprehensive General Plan revision which
{ resulted in a residential building moratorium.
Now that the City has its own in-house planning staff and a newly adopted
General Plan it is in a better position to achieve its housing element goals.
_.. -52-
t
VI11 - REVIEW AND UPDATE
t
In order to maintain the Housing Element as a viable, working document it
must be reviewed and updated periodically. Periodic review will allow the
City to evaluate the progress made toward the attainment of established
housing goals. It will also provide the City with an opportunity to adjust
programs to respond to changing needs and/or fiscal conditions within the
community. The Housing Program, which is contained in Section VI , has
been structured so as to facilitate performance evaluation.
On June 20, 1984, Governor Dukmejian signed into law legislation spon-
sored by the Department of Housing and Community Development. AB 3618
(ROOS) , Chapter 208, Statutes of 1984. The bill divides the state into
four groups along regional Council of Government (COG) boundaries, and
sets current and future housing element update schedules.
The City of Grand Terrace is under the jurisdiction of the Southern
California Association of Governments (SCAG) . According to housing
element law, the City of Grand Terrace is required to update its housing
element by July 1 , 1989. Thereafter, the Housing Element will be updated
as need dictates, but no less than once every five years.
In addition to this periodic updating, the City will annually review and
.� evaluate the effectiveness of its housing programs in accomplishing estab-
lished goals and policies. Opportunities for local residents to participate
in the periodic review and updating of the Housing Element will continue to
be provided through advertised meetings and/or hearings before the
Planning Commission and the City Council.
In preparing this updated element, the City did re-examine the goals and
policies that give direction to the City's housing programs as well as the
progress that has been made toward their attainment-t The housing goals
that were adopted by City Council in 1984 are responsive to the State
housing goals and continue to reflect the desires and aspirations of the
community. Hence, through the adoption of this updated element, the City
of Grand Terrace has reaffirmed its commitment to these goals.
While various housing needs and/or problems continue to persist within the
community, the City has made progress toward the attainment of these
goals since the City's last Housing Element was pr pared in 1984. The
actions that have been taken by the City during the intervening years
have expanded the supply and improved the quality and affordability of
housing within the community. Over the past eight years, approximately
465 new residential units were constructed within the City and approx-
imately five households have received Section 8 Rental Assistance per
year.
-53-
l
�- IX - OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION
As non-renewable energy resources have been progressively depleted and
energy costs continue to rise, homeowners have become increasingly aware
of energy conserving measures primarily as a means to offset and control
the rising costs of fuel. While the use of alternative energy sources is
most advantageous in developing new housing, there are numerous energy
conserving measures which can be retrofitted onto existing and older
housing which conserve the use of non-renewable fuels and save money.
Some of the most readily available and feasible measures are briefly de-
scribed below. In addition, energy conserving fixtures for new and
existing units and energy conservation measures for residents are present-
ed in Tables 16 and 17, at the end of this section.
1 . Insulation and Weatherproofing
Most older homes were built during times when there was little con-
cern for the use of oil and natural gas for heating purposes. Addi-
tionally, the window and door opening fixtures were intended primari-
ly for passage of light into the home. While many of these fixtures
were designed to meet these basic requirements, minimal effort was
expended to assure air-tight closures when both exterior doors and
windows were closed. To conserve the heat generated by gas or oil
fired heating units and minimize the heat loss ratio, older homes can
be insulated in the attic space and exterior walls. Windows and
exterior doors can also be fitted with air-tight devices, caulking, or
other means to maximize heating and cooling efforts.
2. Natural Lighting
Daytime interior lighting costs can be significantly reduced or elim-
inated with the use of properly designed and located skylights.
Skylights can be easily installed at :reasonable expense in existing
houses, thereby substantially reducing electricity costs and energy
consumption.
3. Solar Energy
Solar energy is a practical, cost effective, and environmentally sound
way to heat and cool a home. In California, with its plentiful
- year-round sunshine, the potential uses of solar energy are numer-
ous. With proper building designs, this resource provides for cooling
in the summer and heating in the winter; it can also heat water for
domestic use and swimming pools and generate electricity.
Unlike oil or natural gas, solar energy is an unlimited resource which
i ? will always be available. Once a solar system is installed, the only
additional costs are for the maintenance or replacement of the system
itself. The user is not subject to unpredictable fuel price increases.
Moreover, solar energy can be utilized without any serious safety or
- environmental concerns.
-54-
te
Solar heating and cooling systems are of three general types: pas-
sive, active, or a combination thereof. In passive solar systems, the
building structure itself is designed to collect the sun's energy, then
store and circulate the resulting heat similar to a green house.
Passive buildings are typically designed with a southerly orientation
to maximize solar exposure, and constructed with dense materials such
as concrete or adobe to better absorb the heat. Properly placed
windows and overhanging eaves also contribute to keeping a house
Cool.
Active systems collect and' store solar energy in panels attached to
the exterior of a house. This type of system utilizes mechanical fans
or pumps to circulate the warm/cool air, while heated water can flow
directly into a home's hot water system.
Although passive systems generally maximize use of the sun's energy
and are less costly to install, active systems have greater potential
application to both cool and heat the house and provide hot water.
This may mean lower energy costs for Grand Terrace residents pres-
ently dependent on conventional fuels. The City should also encour-
age the use of passive solar systems in. new residential construction
to improve energy efficiency for its citizens.
4. Water Conservation t
Simple water conservation techniques can save a family thousands of
gallons of water per year, plus many dollars in water and associated
energy consumption costs. Many plumbing products are- now available
which eliminate unnecessary water waste by restricting the volume of
water flow from faucets, shower heads, and toilets. The use of plant
materials in residential landscaping. that are well adapted to the
climate in the Grand Terrace area can also measurably contribute to
water' conservation by reducing the need fors irrigation, much of
which is often lost through evaporation.
A family can also save water by simply fixing dripping faucets and
using water more conservatively. In addition, such conservation
practices save on gas and electricity needed to heat water and the
sewage system facilities needed to treat it. By encouraging residents
to conserve water and retrofit existing plumbing fixtures with water
saving devices, the City can greatly reduce its water consumption
needs and expenses.
5. Energy Audits
The Southern California Edison Company provides energy audits to
local . residents on request. Many citizens are not aware of this
program. The City can aid in expanding this program by supplying
L the public with pertinent information regarding the process including
the appropriate contacts. Energy audits are extremely valuable in
pinpointing specific areas in residences which are responsible for
energy losses. The inspections also result in specific recommenda-
�� tions to remedy energy inefficiency.
-55-
6. New Construction
The City of Grand Terrace will continue to require the incorporation
of energy conserving appliances, fixtures, and other devices into the
design of new residential units. The City will also continue to review
new subdivisions to ensure that each lot optimizes proper solar access
and orientation to the extent possible. Additionally, the City should
consider enacting an ordinance that prohibits property owners from
obstructing the solar access of their neighbors. Two State laws
enacted in 1978 (the Solar Rights Act and the Solar Shade Control
Act) offer a variety of methods to preserve solar access. However,
to date there has been no local enactment of this State enabling
legislation.
r
{
-56-
Table 16
Energy Conservation Features
for New Construction and Existing Units
A. Energy-efficient Equipment
1 . Energy-efficient gas ranges with pilotless ignitions.
2. Energy-efficient gas built-in surface units with pilotless igni-
tions.
3. Energy-efficient gas built-in oven units with pilotless ignitions.
4. Energy-efficient gas water heaters.
5. Energy-efficient gas forced air furnaces with pilotless ignitions.
6. Energy-efficient gas wall furnaces with automatic thermostats.
7. Energy-efficient gas clothes dryers with pilotless ignitions.
` 8. Gas outlets for energy-efficient gas clothes dryers.
B. Energy-Efficient Support Measures
1 . Gas heating thermostats with setback capability.
2. Clogged-filter indicators for gas heating systems.
3. Fireplace dampers with exposed handles.
4. Heat exchangers in fireplace or free-standing solid fuel units.
5. Humidifiers added to gas heating system.
€ 6. Flue dampers as integral part of forced air unit heating systems.
C. Energy-Efficient Construction
1 . Double glazed windows and doors.
2. Glass area less than 12 percent of heated space.
3. Foam-filled (or equivalent) insulated exterior doors (per door) .
4. Insulation in attic increased to R22 or R30.
5. Insulation in walls increased to R19.
:r
-57-
i
Table 16 (Cont.)
6. Slab perimeter insulation R7 or greater.
7. Hot water pipe insulation of one-half inch or more in unheated
areas.
8. R7 or greater insulation installed under wood floors.
D. Energy-Efficient Solar/Gas Installations
1-. Energy-efficient solar/gas water heating.
2. Energy-efficient solar/gas space heating.
3. Energy-efficient solar/gas pool heating - (per rental or condo) .
4. Energy-efficient solar/gas pool heating (single-dwelling) .
E. Energy-Efficient Electrical Equipment
1 . Air economizers in conjunction with cooling system.
2. Dishwashers with power saving drying cycles.
' 3. Air conditioning (central) or room units with Energy Efficiency
i Rating of 9 or more.
4. Fluorescent lighting fixtures in kitchen area.
5. Fluorescent lighting fixtures in all baths.
6. Fluorescent lighting fixtures in recreation room.
Source: Southern California Gas Company, June 1981 .
-5 8-
Table 17
_ Energy Conservation Measures for Residents
A. Heating
1 . Keep room temperature at 65 degrees or lower. Turn heating
control down at night or when away from home. Install a ther-
mostat with a night setback features which does this automatical-
ly.
2. Draw draperies at night to limit heat loss, open them on sunny
days to let the heat in.
3. Close damper when fireplace is not in use.
4. Check the furnace filter monthly, and replace it when dirty. To
check filter, hold it to the light; if light does not pass through
readily, replace filter. Cleaning is not recommended (unless
equipped with a permanent filter) .
5. Turn off furnace pilot at end of heating season.
r
r._ 6. Weatherstrip windows and doors.
T 7. Caulk cracks around windows and doors.
B. Water Heating
1 . Take fast showers.
2: Repair leaky faucets.
3. Install water-saving showerheads which restrict water flow.
4. Operate dishwashers only for full loads.
5. Set water heater thermostat below "normal". Turn to "pilot"
position when away for extended periods of time (one week or
longer) .
6. Use cold water for operating food waste disposer and for
pre-rinsing dishes.
7. When handwashing dishes, avoid rinsing under continuous hot
running water.
8. Insulate water heater with an insulation blanket.
-59-
Table 17 (Cont.)
C. Laundry
1 . Wash and dry full loads of clothes, or adjust water level for the
size of the load.
2. Wash clothes in warm or cold water.
3. Do not over-dry clothes, follow manufacturer's instructions for
drying time.
D. Cooking
1 . Reduce burner flame to simmer after cooking starts.
2. Cook by time and temperature, avoid opening oven door while
food is cooking.
3. Use one-place cooking when possible, prepare meals using only
the oven, broiler, or top burner.
4. Check to make sure all burners are off whew not in use.
Source: Southern California Gas Company, June 1981 .
r'
i
s
l.y
6++
J
-60-
X - APPENDICES
�I
I
I .
I
i
I
I
• I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
- I
i
I
it
i -
APPENDIX A
SCAG Regional Housing Needs
Assessment and State Department
of Finance Data
r
4 .
x�
' I
.,. _......« �,--'� r . ._ /-^ .. .. ,.. ,...w... . .. ..�•.e,,.:u�,v¢ado�j.;.:.�iv;rr�:.!�,-- ..` ..A.,,.t �.y4-.;.'.'t:Y:;r`l-
9 '
TABLE 4: REGIONAL HOUSING NERDS ASSESSMENT - 2XISTING NERD
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTT - LOVER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS PAYING MORE THAN 30% OF INCOME FOR SHELTER (OVERPAYMENT) _
1988 LIHHs OVERPAYING FOR SHELTER LIHH OVERPAYMENT HT TENURE AND INCOME
JURISDICTION HOUSEHOLDS LIHHs TOTAL VERY LOW LOW TOT-OVNRRS VL-OVNERS L09-OVNERS TOT-RANTERS VL-RENTERS LOV-RENTRRS
ADELA.NTO 1,978 1,359 735 433 302 124 41 83 611 392 219
BARSTOW 7,530 2,831 1,164 .742 422 337 185 151 827 556 271
BIG BEAR LAKE 2,370 1,168 553 343 208 176 102 75 375 241 134
CHINO 14,376 3,393 1,717 970 747 566 267 300 1,,150 702 447
COLTON 11,956 5,906 2,062 1,319 743 467 255 212 1,595 1,062 533
FONTANA 23,183 8,972 4,014 2,549 1,465 1,486 851 • 634 2,528 1,697 831
GRAND TERRACE 3,545 .798 257 129 128 91 • 47 45 164 81 83
LOMA LINDA 5,061 2,444 1,102 641 460 128 62 66 974 580 394
MONTCLAIR 8,233 2,989 1,574 844 730 384 215 169 1,191 630 561
NEEDLES 1,989 879 259 180 79 55 45 10 203 134 69
ONTARIO 39,479 14,015 6,523 3,643 2,880 1,664 904 759 4,860 2,739 2,121
RANC8O CUCAMONGA 29,844 5,879 3,069 1,380 1,689 1,723 736 986 1,346 643 703
REDLANDS 20,870 7,513 3,218 1,960 1,258 804 493 311 2,414 1,467 947
RIALTO 19,665 6,411 2,774 1,517 1,259 1,126 585 541 1,648 930 718
SAN BERNARDINO 54,473 27,345 11,775 6,942 4,834 2,782 1,602 1,180 8;993 5,340 3,653
UPLAND 22,783 6,767 3,308 1,824 1,484 631 332 298 2,679 1,493 1,186
VICTORVILLB 10,118 4,735 2,064 1,062 1,001 464 184 279 1,598 878 720
V UNINCORP. AREA 122 150,348 68 559 24 573 13 847 10 726 10 229 S 625 4 604 14 344 8 222 6
r r r r r r r r r , ,
COUNTY TOTAL 427,801 171,963 70,741 40,324 30,416 23,236 12,532 10,704 47,501 27,789 19,712
X
TABLE 17
RHNA FUTURE NEEDS FACTORS `' SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
FIVE YEAR HOUSEHOLD TOTAL
` 7/89-7/94 GROWTH VACANCY DEMOLITION
JURISDICTION FUTURE NEED 7/89-7/94 ADJUSTMENT ADJUSTMENT
ADELANTO 680 653 26 2
BARSTOW 877 772 96 8
BIG BEAR LAKE 785 722 18 45
CHINO 2,447 2,462 —126 112
COLTON 3,326 3,421 —125 30
FONTANA 6,640 6,509 33 98
GRAND TERRACE 575 658 —83 0
LOMA LINDA 882 853 27 2
MONTCLAIR 655 581 68 7
NEEDLES 297 268 21 8
ONTARIO 6,385 6,647 —359 97
RANCHO CUCAMONGA 9,568 9,057 496 15
REDLANDS 3,981 4,027 —109 63
RIALTO 5,260 5,377 —151 33
SAN BERNARDINO 8,021 8,838 —1,210 393
UPLAND 3,641 3,467 154 20
VICTORVILLE 3,542 3,602 —85; 25
UNINC. & NEW C. 35,703 34,778 926 0
COUNTY TOTAL 93,267 92,691 —382 P58
IV-14
ati i
TABLE 25
RENA HOUSEHOLD GROWTH
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS HOUSEHOLD
JAN 1988 JULY 1994 GROWTH
JURISDICTION (DOF) (GMA-4M) 7/89-7/94
ADELANTO 1,978 2,827 653
BARSTOW 7,530 8,534 772
BIG BEAR LAKE 2,370 3,309 722
CHINO 14,376 17,576 2,462
COLTON 11,956 16,403 3,421
FONTANA _ 23,183 3.11645 6,509
GRAND TERRACE 3,545 . 41401 .. 58
8
LOMA LINDA 52061 6,170 53
MONTCLAIR 8,233 8,988 581
NEEDLES 1,989 2,337 268
ONTARIO 39,479 48,120 6,647
RANCHO CUCAMONGA 29,844 41,618 9,057
REDLANDS 20,870 26,105 4,027
RIALTO 19,665 26,655 5,377
SAN BERNARDINO 54,473 65,962 8,838
UPLAND 22,783 27,290 39467
VICTORVILLE 10,118 14,800 3,602
UNINC. & NEW C. 150,348 195,559 34,778
r
� COUNTY TOTAL 427,801 548,299 . 92,691
1
t
B-8
TABLE 32
RHNA VACANCY ADJUSTMENT
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
TOTAL 1/88 UNITS 1988 1987 EXISTING ADDTL TOTAL
HOUSING SNGL. FAM. IDEAL ACTUAL VACANCY VACANCY VACANCY
JURISDICTION UNITS 1/88 PROPORTION VAC. R VAC. R. NEED 1988 NEED 89-94 ADJUSTMENT
ADELANTO-V 2,391 0.356 3.93 9.40 0 26 26
BARSTOW 8,020 0.633 3.10 2.20 72 24 96
18
BIG BEAR LAKE-V 8,062 0.837 2.49 3.00 . 0 18
CHINO 15,213 0.728, 2.82 4.10 -195 69 -126
COLTON 13,127 0.570 3.29 5.10 -238 113
FONTANA 25,132 0.706 2.88 3.50 -155 188 33
GRAND TERRACE 3,779 0.786 2.64 5.31 -101 17 �:-83::
LOMA LINDA-V 5,883 0.593 3.22 4.40 0 27 27
MONTCLAIR 8,841 0.645 3.07 2.50 50 18 28
NEEDLES 2,175 0.634 3.10 2.50 13 8
ONTARIO 40,.315 0.633 3.10 4.50 -565 206 -359
RANCHO CUCAMONGA 31,665 0.742 2.77 2.00 245 251 496
REDLANDS 22,347 0.674 2.98 4.00 -229 120 -109
RIALTO 20,959_ 0.770 2.69 4.10 -295 145 -151
SAN BERNARDINO 58,571 0.614 3.16 5.70 -1,489 279 -1,210
UPLAND 24,455 0.636 3.09 2.90 47 107 154
VICTORVILLE 10,661 0.594 3.22 5.10 -201 116 -85
UNINC & NEW C.-V 202,387 0.780 2..66 4.40 0 926 926
COUNTY TOTAL 503,983 0.711 2.87 4.30 -3,040 2,658 -382
V = "Second Home Community" Adjustment of Existing Vacancy Need.
• i
i
1
t
t
t
i
t -
i
B-16
a
n
TABLE 39
RHNA DEMOLITION ADJUSTMENT
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
1984-86
ACTUAL DEMOLITION
JURISDICTION DEMOLITIONS ADJUSTMENT
ADELANTO 1 2
BARSTOV 5 8
BIG BEAR LAKE 27 45
CHINO 67 112
COLTON 18 30
FONTANA 59 98
GRAND TERRACE _0 0
LOMA LINDA 2
t MONTCLAIR 4 7
NEEDLES 5 8
ONTARIO 58 97
RANCHO CUCAMONGA 9 15
REDLANDS 38 63
RIALTO 20 33
SAN BERNARDINO 236 393
UPLAND 12 20 r
VICTORVILLE 15 25
UNINC. & NEV C. 0 0
,j COUNTY TOTAL 575 958
i
I -
l�o
B-24
i'..A
REPORT E-5 1 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY POPULATION\_.___II HOUSING ESTIMATES CA. DEPARTMENT OF FIN,.
PAGE 41 JANUARY 1, 1989 DEMOGRAPHIC RESEARCH UNIT
PRINTED 04/25/89
,.,- CONTROLLED ------- POPULATION ------- ----------------------------- HOUSING UNITS ----------------------------- PERSON
PER
HOUSE- GROUP - SINGLE FAMILY - - MULTI-FAMILY - MOBILE OCCU- % HOUSE-
CITY TOTAL HOLD QUARTER TOTAL DETACHED ATTACHED 2 TO 4 5 PLUS HOMES PIED VACANT HOLD
ADELANTO 5846 5834 12 2778 935 26 604 881 330 2281 17.83 2.558
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------=--------------------
BARSTOW 21104 21026 78 8101 4701 401 849 1379 771 7612 6.04 2.762
----------------------------7------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BIG BEAR LAKE 6368 6368 0 8388 6763 43 353 761 468 2589 69. 13 2.460
----------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHINO •56755 48548 8207 15430 ' 10913 377 777 2890 473 14380 6.80 3.376
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLTON 37705 37590 115 14065 7973 300 651 4511 630 13360 5.01 2.814
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FONTANA 77971 77520 451 27177 18492 365 1579 6109 632 257SS 5.23 3.010
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GRAND TERRACE 10859 10706 153 4128 2843 227 142 657 259 3823 7.39 2.800
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HIGHLANDS 26828 26644 184 10238 6980 200 665 1614 779 9431 7.88 2.825
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOMA LINDA 13939 13038 901 1 6214 3013 668 975 1123 435 5339 14.08 2.442
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MONTCLAIR 25802 25610 192 8904 5135 628 1005 Isis 521 8276 7.05 3.094
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEEDLES 5475 5473 2 2324 1340 70 244 237 433 2086 10.24 2.624
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I-------------------------------------------------
ONTARIO 124260 123570 690 41833 25018 958 4347 9459 2051 40788 2.50 3.030
--------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RANCHO CUCAMONGA 104727 104397 , 330 34449 24475 822 968 7223 983 32391 5.97 3.223
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REDLANDS 59833 57863 1970 23136 14763 801 1865 4877 830 21431 7.37 2.700
-------------------------------------------------------7-----------------------=----------------------------------------------------
RIALTO 64313 64026 287 21613 16414 332 1729 1899 1239 20426 5.49 3.135
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAN BERNARDINO 153660 147281 6379 59295 34372 1792 4720 14871 3540 55440 6.49 2'.858
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------=-------------------------------
TWENTYNINE PALMS 11145 11145 0 5152 3938 129 368 338 381 ' 4277 18.98 2.608
---------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPLAND 63948 63497 451 25128 14439 1551 2655. 5835 648 23502 6.47 2.702
x
---------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
VICTORVILLE 31714 31530 184 12129 6781 243 830 2707 1568 11850 2.30 2.661
TOTAL INCORPORATED 902252 881666 20585 330480 209288 9933 25324 68984 16951 305042 7.70 2.890
UNINCORPORATED 422359 408690 13669 197206 149732 4401 8821 17187 17085 145462 26.24 2.810
#a}}#stsistttts#♦ttsf#titi#;i;t##;tffitii####i#i######;it#iii#i;#i};i;###i######;#ii#i#iii###;#;##;#######ii'###t#i##iii###i##i#i####
COUNTY TOTAL 1324611 1290356 34255 527686 359020 14334 34145 86151 34036 450504 14.63 2.884
APPENDIX B
Development Fees
r
Y:.1
DEVELOPMENT FEE SURVEY -OCTOBER 1989
GRAND
TERRACE RIALTO COLTON LOMA LINDA FONTANA
STREET CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT AND
MAINTENANCE FEE
Residential -each $600 None No set fee, analyzed For all new construction or For $0 to $25,000 valuation:
single family unit on a case-by-case addition in excess 50$ of the $40 plus 58 of const. costs.
basis and reviewed value or square footage of the
by City Traffic original building, the applicant For $25,001 to $50,000:
Engineer. shall dedicate to the City any $1.290 plus 4.50%of const.
required right-of-way and shall costs over $25,000.
install at his own expense all
required street improvements For $50,0001 to $75,000
(i.e., sidewalks, curb and valuation: $2,415 plus 48
gutter, etc.) in accordance with of const. costs over $50,000.
City standards.
For $75,001 to $100,000
valuation: $3,415 + 3.50% of
const. costs over $75,000.
I - For $100,000 and over
valuation $4,290 plus 38 of
const. costs over $100.000.
Apartment or multiple $413 None
family unit
Mobilehomes - each unit $413
Industrial - Commercial $600
per acre or fractional
part thereof
t
PARK CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT FEE
Residential - each single $414 $1,640, $1,242 if $200 per unit SFRs: $571.14/per unit S FRs: $1,102
family unit in N.W. Specific Duplexes: $918
Plan Area. Two to four dwelling Triplexes, Fourplexes: $804
units: $443.12/per unit
Apartment - each apt. or $303 $815-S845/unit Five dwelling units-or Fire dwelling units
multiple family unit more: $433/unit or more: $784
Mobilehomes -each unit $303 Mobilehomes $412.54/per unit Mobilehomes: $732
Industrial - Commercial $110
per acre or fractional
Part thereof or dedicate
an area of land for park
purposes having a fair
market value equivalent
to the fees which would
be payable in accordance
with schedule of fees
STORM DRAIN CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT FEE
Residential - each single $500 $4,312 to $8,694 No set fee $5,350 per acre $4.500 per acre
family unit per acre, depending
on location.
Apartments - each unit $450
Mobilehomes- each unit $450
Industrial and Commercial $500
per acre
SCHOOL IMPACT FEE
School Impaction Fee $1,678 per $1.56/sf. of res. $1.56/sf, of $1.56/sf. for residential and Same as Loma Linda
unit space res. space $0.26/sf. for commercial/industrial
l
FEDERAL PROGRAMS
�- Section 8 Existing
Under this program the Federal government assists lower-income house-
holds so that they expend no more than 30 percent of their monthly income
on decent, sanitary housing. Rental assistance payments that constitute
the difference between 30 percent of the household's monthly income and
the fair market rent for the unit under contract are made monthly to the
property owner by local housing agencies. In order to be eligible for
such assistance a household's annual income must not exceed 80 percent of
the median family income for the Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area
(SMSA) in which it resides. In order for a rental unit to qualify it must
rent within fair market rents (FMRs) established by the Federal Depart-
ment of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) .
Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation
Under this program housing assistance payment (HAP) contracts can be
executed between local governments and participating property owners for
units that have undergone moderate rehabilitation. Contracts can be
executed for a five-year term, renewable for up to 15 years. Landlords
are required to make a minimum investment of $2,000 per unit for upgrad-
ing in structures containing 12 of fewer units, or 1$1 ,000 per unit in
structures having more than 12 units. Contract rents may be approved up
to 120 percent of the fair market rents for the Section 8 Existing Program.
,{ The Moderate Rehabilitation program, like other Section 8 programs, has
no predesigned financing mechanism for owners. The local government
would be expected to market the program to private lenders, as well as to
owners. However, a city could provide financing through its Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, if it so desired. In this manner,
a city could "piggy-back" long-term Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation HAP
contracts with CDBG-funded rehabilitation loans.
Section 8 New Construction
This program is designed to develop new affordable .,housing for the elder-
ly, the handicapped or lower-income families. Sponsors of assisted hous-
ing under this program may be individuals, profit or nonprofit organi-
zations or public housing agencies. Proposals are submitted directly to
HUD by interested sponsors. When a proposal is accepted by HUD, a
rental assistance contract is executed between HUD and the owner under
which HUD agrees to make payments equivalent to the difference between
30 percent of an eligible household's monthly income and the fair market
rent for the unit under contract. Such payments can be made for a
specified term of up to 20 years, or up to 40 years for projects assisted
by a loan or loan guarantee from a State or local agency. The Section 8
New Construction program does not provide construction financing, but the
rental assistance contract can be pledged as security for financing.
Section 202
This program provides for long-term direct loans from HUD to private
nonprofit sponsors to finance rental or cooperative housing facilities for
elderly and handicapped persons. Households of one or more persons, the
head of which is at least 62 years old or is handicapped, are eligible
tenants. In tandem with construction financing, tenants may receive
rental assistance from a national set-aside of Section 8 funds.
Section 106(b) - Seed Money Loans
Section 106(b) provides for interest-free seed money loans to non-profit
sponsors to cover 80 percent of the preconstruction expenses in planning
low- and moderate-income housing projects. At present the loans are
being made only in connection with Section 202 loans for housing for the
elderly and handicapped. The seed money is repaid from the permanent
mortgage loan proceeds.
Eligible expenses include organization costs, legal, consultant, architectur-
al, preliminary site engineering, application, and construction loan fees
and site options.
Community Development Block Grant
Through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, HUD
provides grants and loans to local governments for funding a wide range
of community development activities. No local match is required.
A city can help to facilitate the construction of low- and moderate-income
housing through the use of its Community Development Block Grant. For
example, CDBG funds can be used to upgrade public works such as sewers
needed to serve new residential construction. These funds could also be
used for: 1•) acquisition and disposition of real property, 2) public facili-
ties and improvements, 3) slum clearance activities, 4) public services, 5)
interim assistance, 6) payment of non-Federal share of a grant-in-aid
program, 7) relocation, 8) removal of architectural barriers to the physi-
cally handicapped, and 9) privately-owned utilities.
CDBG assistance may also be used for the following rehabilitation and
preservation activities: 1 ) rehabilitation -of public residential structures, 2)
modernization of public housing, 3) rehabilitation of private properties, 4)
temporary relocation assistance, 5) code enforcement, and 6) historic
preservation.
Except in limited circumstances, Community Development Block Grants may
not be used for new construction of housing.
STATE PROGRAMS
California Housing Financing Agency (CHFA) - Direct Lending
Under this program, CHFA provides mortgage loans to profit-oriented
developers, nonprofit sponsors and local housing agencies for the con-
struction or rehabilitation of housing developments containing five or more
i
units. The agency lends directly to the sponsor through its loan
underwriting process. A project usually receives a loan from the agency
accompanied by a commitment of rental assistance for all or a portion of
the units. The rental assistance allocations are made by HUD under the
Section 8 program but are administered by CHFA. The agency sells
Fong-term tax exempt bonds to provide up to 40-year mortgage financing.
California Housing Finance Agency - Home Ownership and Home Improve-
ment Loan (HOH I) Program
Under this program, local governments designate areas that are in need of
rehabilitation and request CHFA financing for the purchase and/or reha-
bilitation of housing by low- and moderate-income persons therein. Local
lenders, in turn, purchase commitments from CHFA to originate and ser-
vice loans in the' designated areas. Loans are made by private lenders to
owner occupants and, in some circumstances, to non-occupant investors.
These below market rate loans are insured and may be used for: 1 ) reha-
bilitation only, 2) purchase only, 3) purchase with rehabilitation; and 4)
refinancing with rehabilitation. In order to qualify for a loan under this
program, a household's annual income must not exceed 120 percent of the
County median income.
California Self-Help Housing Program
r
=s The California Self-Help Housing Program (CSHHP) , formerly the California
Housing Advisory Service, provides grants and loans to local government
agencies and nonprofit corporations that assist low- and moderate-income
families to build or rehabilitate their homes with their -own labor. Mort-
gage and technical assistance funds are available. CSHHP technical assis-
tance grants are used to cover the various 'administrative and training
costs associated with the provision of technical assistance to self-help
households.. These services include: training and supervision of self-help
builders; project planning; loan packaging and coungeling services; and
workshops. Mortgage assistance funds are used to reduce the cost of the
self-help units.
Mobilehome Park Assistance Program
The Mobilehome Park Assistance Program (MPAP) provides financial and
technical assistance to low-income mobilehome park residents or to organ-
izations formed by park residents who wish to own and/or operate their
-- mobilehome parks. The technical assistance component of the program was
established in 1983 by AB 1008 (McClintock) In 1984, SB 2240 (Seymour)
established a revolving loan fund which added the financial assistance
component to the program. MPAP loans bear a 7 percent interest rate per
annum. Conversion loans must be repaid within three years. The repay-
ment of blanket and individual loans may be scheduled for up to 30 years.
Farm Labor Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program
The Farm Labor Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program (FLHRLP) was estab-
lished in 1986 to help meet the housing needs of agricultural employees in
California through the rehabilitation of existing farm labor housing that is
l
not in compliance with the Employee Housing Act. The Program, which
will become operational in 1987, will provide up to 50 percent matching -loan
funds to owners of farm labor housing as defined in the Employee Housing
Act. The maximum interest rate under the Program is 7% and payments
may be deferred. The initial loan term is five years, and there is an
option to extend for up to five years. Eligible expenses include site
preparation, demolition and off-site work; architectural, engineering and
other fee-related services in connection with the planning, execution or
financing of the project; materials and labor.
Emergency Shelter Program
The Emergency Shelter Program (ESP) provides direct grants to local
government agencies and nonprofit corporations that shelter the homeless
on an emergency basis. Eligible grant activities include: rehabilitation;
expansion of existing facilities; site acquisition (lease/purchase of site
and/or facility); equipment purchase; one-time rent to prevent eviction;
vouchers; and administration costs (no more than 5% of any single grantee
award) . New construction is not an eligible program activity.
Special User Housing Rehabilitation Program
The Special User Housing Rehabilitation Program (SUHRP) was enacted in
1983 by SB 26 (Petris) as an outgrowth of the Demonstration Housing
Rehabilitation Program for the Elderly and Handicapped, which was estab-
lished in 1979. The program utilizes a 3 percent, 30-year deferred pay-
ment loan, which provides up-front subsidies for the rehabilitation- and/or
acquisition of substandard housing. SUHRP funds may be used for acqui-
sition and/or rehabilitation of: substandard apartments which will be
occupied by the elderly; group residences and apartments which will be
occupied by the physically, developmentally or mentally disabled; and
residential :hotels, which will be occupied by low- or very-low-income
persons.
Predevelopment Loan Program
The Predevelopment Loan Program (PLP) provides 7 percent loans to local
government agencies and nonprofit corporations. The loans can be used
E.� for a variety of predevelopment expenses incurred in securing the long
term financing for the production or rehabilitation of subsidized low-income
housing in both rural and urban areas. Loan terms range from one to
three years. Loan funds may be used to purchase land or land options;
pay advance fees for architectural, engineering, consultant, and legal
services or permits; pay bonding and applications fees; cover site prepa-
ration expenses (including water and sewer development) and other related
costs. Loans are also made to eligible borrowers for land purchase to land
bank sites for future development of low-income housing.
Senior Citizens Shared Housing Program
.' The Senior Citizens Shared Housing Program (SCSH) provides grants to
� - local government agencies and nonprofit corporations to assist seniors in
finding others with whom they can share housing. Services funded by the
,ml
grants include: outreach, information and referral, client counseling,
placement and follow-up. The program results in reduced housing costs,
prevention of premature institutionalization, efficient use of existing hous-
ing stock, and increased security and companionship for seniors.
Rental Housing Construction Program
A Rental Housing Construction Incentive Fund was established via the
passage of AB 333 in October 1979. Under this program, the State De-
partment of Housing and Community Development may make cash grants to
CHFA or local governments to pay for all or a portion of the development
costs associated with the construction of rental housing. In exchange for
such assistance, a regulatory agreement would be executed with the prop-
erty owner restricting a portion of the units for occupancy by lower-
income persons. The agreement would be in effect for 40 years.
As defined in the State Health and Safety Code, "development costs" means
the aggregate of all costs incurred in connection with the construction of a
rental housing development including: 1 ) the cost of land acquisition,
whether by purchase or lease; 2) the cost of construction; 3) the cost of
associated architectural, legal and accounting• fees; and 4) the cost of
related off-site improvements such as sewers, utilities and streets. These
costs may be defrayed as they are incurred or an annuity trust fund my
be established to reduce monthly debit service payments over the life of
s : the regulatory agreement. In this respect, the program could operate
similarly to the Federal Section 8 program. In order to be eligible for
assistance, a rental housing development must contain at least five units
and not less than 30 percent of the units shall be reserved for lower-in-
come households.
Deferred Payment Rehabilitation Loans
Established by the passage of SB 966 (Marks) , Chapter 884 of 1978, and
authorized in Health and Safety Code Section 50660, the Deferred-Payment
Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program was designed to assist cities and
counties with the rehabilitation of housing for low- and moderate-income
households. With the passage of AB 333 (Hughes), Chapter 1043 of 1979,
and SB 229 (Roberti) , Chapter 1042 of 1979 (in September 1979) , the
program was expanded to include local public entities other than cities and
counties and nonprofit corporations that operate housing rehabilitation
programs with Federal rehabilitation funds. Loans are made to public
_ entities and nonprofit corporations that will, in turn, lend the funds to
eligible property owners in the form of 3, percent interest, deferred-
payment loans.
In order for a local public entity or nonprofit corporation to be eligible for
loan funds from this program, it must have an operating rehabilitation
program. ,Acceptable rehabilitation programs are outlined in the program
regulations.
Generally, eligible borrowers are low- or moderate-income owner-occupants
of one- to four-unit properties and nonowner-occu pants of rental proper-
ties.
Loans are made to _borrowers at 3 percent interest and must be repaid at
the end of five years or upon the sale or transfer of the property, which-
ever comes first. Loans may be extended for additional five-year periods
if owner-occupants are unable to repay the loans or, in the case of rental
properties, if low-income tenants continue to benefit. There is no five-
year repayment requirement on loans made to elderly owner-occupants.
Local public entities/nonprofits repay the State at 3 percent interest upon
collection from property owners.
Redevelopment - Tax Increment Financing
The City of Grand Terrace established a Redevelopment Project area on
September 27, 1979, with subsequent adoption of a revised Redevelopment
Project in July 1981 . As a result, the City is required by law to set-a-
side 20 percent of its tax increment funds for the purposes of increasing
and improving the community's supply of affordable housing to low- and
moderate-income persons (up to 1200 of the County median income) . To
date, the Redevelopment Agency has accumulated approximately $400,000
and is projected to accumulate an estimated $1 ,269,248 by 1994.
LOCAL PROGRAMS
Marks-Foran Residential Rehabilitation Act
The Marks-Foran Act authorizes cities, counties, housing authorities and
redevelopment agencies to issue tax-exempt revenue bonds to finance
residential rehabilitation. Under Marks-Foran, loans are made in areas
designated for residential rehabilitation through a formal public -hearing
} process. The community must make -a commitment to enforce rehabilitation
standards on 95 percent of the structures in the rehabilitation area- and to
provide the public improvements necessary to support rehabilitation.
Marks-Foran rehabilitation loans can be made for terms much longer than
conventional "loans (up to 40 years) , bringing the cost within the reach of
low- and moderate-income residents., The.., loans may be made in any
amount up to a maximum of $35,000 per unit, or 95 percent of the antici-
pated value of the property after rehabilitation.
Marks-Foran loans are made through qualified lenders and must be in-
sured. Loans and insurance may be by private mortgage insurers as well
as the California Housing Finance Agency (FHA) , or a local agency using
Community Development Block Grant Funds.
SB 170 (Marks) , 1979, expanded the activities eligible for financing under
the Marks-Foran Residential Rehabilitation Act to include the construction
of new infill housing for low- and moderate-income persons where it has
been included in the adopted rehabilitation program plan, and acquisition
of real property for rehabilitation, or property which has recently been
rehabilitated. No more than 35 percent of the aggregate principal amount
of all loans` made in a rehabilitation area can be used for these purposes.
AB 1151 - Density Bonuses and Other Incentives
_- This legislation, which was enacted in October 1979, added Chapter 4.3 to
the California Government Code requiring local governments to offer either
density bonuses or other incentives to developers, who agree to construct
either: 1 ) 25 percent of the total units in a housing development for low-
and moderate-income persons; or 2) 10 percent of the total units of a
housing development for lower-income households; or 3) 50 percent of the
total dwelling units of a housing development for qualifying residents.
This density bonus shall apply to housing developments consisting of five
or more dwelling units. If a density bonus is granted it must be at least
25 percent above the present allowable zoning. In lieu of a density bo-
nus, a local government must provide at least two other incentives, limited
only by the creativity of local officials. Incentives suggested in the
legislation include: 1 ) exemption form. park dedication requirements and
the payment of fees in lieu thereof; 2) City construction- of public im-
provements appurtenant to the proposed housing development; 3) local
write-down of land costs; and 4) exemption from any provision of local
ordinances which may cause an indirect increase in the cost of the units to
be developed.
If the local government offers a direct financial contribution to a housing
development through subsidization of infrastructure, land, or construction
costs, steps must be taken to assure the availability of the low- and
moderate-income units for 30 years.
Home Improvement Loans
The County of San Bernardino Department of Economic and Community
Development has implemented a home improvement program which makes
available loans from $1 ,000 to $15,000 for a term of up to 15 years, at 6
percent interest rate. To be eligible, persons must be owner occupants of
an eight-year or older single-family residences. Eligible owner-occupants
must also have lived in San Bernardino County for at least 12 months and
meet certain maximum gross income requirements based upon the individual
household size.
Repair Service Program for Senior Homeowners
The County of San Bernardino Department of Economic and Community
Development has implemented a one time grant of up to $1 ,500 (but can be
increased dependent on the individual need) for labor and materials for the
purpose of making minor repairs, weatherization and insulation. These
grants are available throughout the County of San Bernardino including
the City of Grand Terrace residents. To be eligible, the individual must
be 60 years of age or more, or disabled 'or handicapped, be an owner
occupant of a single-family dwelling or mobile home for 12 months or more
and meet certain annual gross income requirements based on the number of
persons per household.
i
1,
The program encourages development of quality single-family homes, con-
dominiums or townhouses, at affordable prices. By working closely with
interested developers and spot lenders, the County has assembled a team
of underwriters, lenders and a bond counsel, who structure mortgage
revenue bond issues. The proceeds from bond sales provide mortgage
loans for new and resale homes within the unincorporated areas of the
County and cooperating cities. As with the multi-family revenue bond
program, the City of Grand Terrace is cooperating City.
The mortgages offer lower than . market interest rates on homes that are
competitively priced. The housing is made available to first-time home
buyers who meet certain income requirements. Mortgage rates offered are
generally 2 points below conventional market rates. Currently, the rate
would be approximately 8.25 percent.
r
i
1
Planning
Nn TER Department
NOTICE OF FILING NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, a Negative Declaration is hereby
filed on the below referenced project, on the basis that said project will not have a
significant effect on the environment.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT:
GP-89-01, is a revision of the City'.s Housing Element of the General Plan. This revision
is a five year update pf the City's housing characteristics and housing programs.
APPLICANT:
City of Grand Terrace, California
LOCATION:
Entire City of Grand Terrace
Copies of the Negative Declaration- and Initial Study for this project are available for
review at the City of Grand Terrace Planning Department, 22795 Barton Road, Grand
Terrace (714-824-6621). Anyone wishing to comment on this project may do so prior
to October 12, 1989. All comments should be directed to David Sawyer, Community
Development Director, City of Grand Terrace.
David Sawyer, Date
Community Deve opment Director
City of Grand Terrace
EXHIBIT B.'
22795 Barton Road 9 Grand Terrace, California 92324-5295 (714) 824-6621
A f• _ f
Planning
W TERR. 0
Department
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, a Negative Declaration is hereby
filed on' the below referenced project, on the basis that said project will not have a
significant effect on the environment.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT:
GP-89-01, is a revision of the City's Housing Element of the General Plan. This revision
is a five year update of the City's housing characteristics and housing programs.
k
APPLICANT:
City of Grand Terrace, California
LOCATION:
Entire City of Grand Terrace.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT:
Based upon the attached Initial Study, there is no substantial evidence that the project
will have a significant effect on the environment.
David Sawyer, Date
Community Development Director
City of Grand Terrace
22795 Barton Road • Grand Terrace; California 92324-5295 (714) 824-6621
CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
I.... -Background _.._._....
1 . Name of Proponent: City of Grand Terrace
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: City of Grand Terrace
22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, CA 92324-5295
Attention: David Sawyer, Planning Director
3. Date of Environmental Assessment: [ ��
4. Agency Requiring Assessment City of Grand Terrace
5. Name of Proposal, if applicable 1�oUSW6,
6. Location of Proposal: Gj,_
-
II Environmental Impacts _
(Explanations of; all "yes" and "maybe" answers are provided on
attached sheets. )
Yes Maybe No
1 . Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions- or in
changes in geologic substructures?
b. Disruptions, .displacements, compac-
tion or overcovering of the soil?
C. Substantial change in topography or
ground surface relief features?
d. The destruction, covering or modi-
fication of any unique geologic or
physical features?
e. Any substantial increase in wind or
water erosion of soils, either on or
or off site?
,t
------ Yes Maybe No
f. Changes in deposition or erosion of
beach sands, or changes in silta-6on ,
deposition or erosion which may modify
the channel of a river or stream or
the bed of the ocean or any .bay,
inlet or lake?
g.---Exposure of people. or property
to geologic hazards such as earth
quakes, landslides, mudslides, ground
failure, or similar hazards?
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or deterior-
ation of ambient air quality? — , /
b. The creation of objectionable odors? �V/
c. Alteration of air. movement, moisture,
or temperature, or any change in
climate, whether locally or regionally?
3. Water. Will the .proposal result in:
- a. Substantial changes in currents, or the
course or direction of .water movements,
in either marine or fresh waters?
b. Subs#antial changes in absorption rates,
drainage patterns, or the rate and ✓'
amount of surface runoff? -
c. Alterations to the course or flow
of flood waters?
d. Change in the amount of surface water
in any water body?
e. Discharge into surface waters, or in
any alteration of surface water qual-
ity, including, but not limited to,
temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity? ✓
f. Alteration of the direction or rate
Of flow. of ground waters?
- -— —-- -----. ----- Y P s U:) lay---�10
g. Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct addi-
tions or withdrawals , or through inter-
ception of an aquifer by cuts or /
excavations? t/
h. Substantial reduction in the amount
of water otherwise available for
public water supplies? —
i. Exposure of people or property to
water related hazards such as flood-
ing or tidal waves?
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species,
or number of any native species of plants
(including trees, shrubs, grass,
crops, and aquatic plants)?
k
b. Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare, or endangered species
of plants?
c. Introduction of new species of plants
into an area of native vegetation, or
in a barrier to the normal replenish-
ment of existing species?
d. Substantial reduction in acreage of
any agricultural crop?
5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or
numbers of any species of animals
(birds, land animals including rep-
tiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms or insects) ?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of animals? V/
c. Deterioration to existing 'fish or /
wildlife habitat? ti/
I
---- -- -------- --- _------ ------ —--- Yes Maybe No
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise
levels?
_._. _.. .7... . ..L.ight .and Glare. Will the proposal produce
substantial new light or glare?
8. Land Use. . Will the proposal result in a
substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
9. Natural. Resources. Will the proposal
result in :
a. Substantial increase in the rate of use
of any natural resources? V/
b. Substantial depletion of any non-
renewtble natural resource?
10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: .
a. A risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances (including,
but not limited to, oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation) in the event
of an' accident or upset conditions?
b. Possible interference. with an emerg-
ency response. plan or an emergency
evacuation plan?
11 . Population. Will the proposal alter the
location, distribution, density, or growth
rate of the -human population of -an area?
12. Housing. Will the. proposal affect existing
housing or create a demand for additional
housing?
13. Transportation/Circulation . Will the pro-
proposal result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
_ Yes Maybe _110
b. Effects on existing parking facili-
ties, or demand for new parking?
c. Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement ofpeo le
and/or goods?
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or
air traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have
substantial effect upon , or result in a need
for new or altered governmental services in
any of the following areas:
k
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
- c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational faci-
lities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads?
f. Other governmental services?
15 . Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel
or energy?
b. Substantial increase in demand upon
existing sources of energy, or re-
quire the development of new sources
of energy? Vol
16. Utilities . Will the proposal result in a
need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas? V/
I
l
Yes Maybe No
d. Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses with.in the
potential impact area?
21 . Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a. Does the project have the potential
to degrade the quality of the environ-
ment, substantially reduce the habitat
of a fish or wildlife species, cause
a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self sustaining levels, threaten
to eliminate a plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history
or prehistory?
b, Does the project have .the potential
to achieve short-term, to the dis-
advantage of long-term, environ-
mental goals? (A- short-term impact
on the-environment is one which oc-
curs in a relatively brief, definitive
period of time while long-term impacts
will endure well into the future. )
c. Does the project have impacts which
are individually limited, but cumu-
latively considerable? (A project's
impact on two or more separate
resources may be relatively small , but
where the effect of the total of
those impacts on the environment
is significant. )
d. Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substan-
tial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant
effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared. _
-I -find- th-at--although the -proposed project _could have a signi-
ficant effect on the environment, there will not be a signi-
ficant effect in this case because the mitigation measures
described on attached sheets have been added to the
project. ' A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed .project MAY have a significant effect on'
the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required.
David Sawyer
Planning Dera for
Date
ignatur e /
For City -of-Grand Terrace
i
III. DISCUSSION OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
12. The project is the revision of the City's Housing Element of the General
Plan. It will update and revise the various housing assistance programs
contained iherein resulting in the improved availability of housing units to
persons of all income levels and will provide for the improvement of the
existing housing stock. The revised Housing Element is consist with the
General Plan's Community Development Element and its Land Use Map
and therefor falls within the parameters of the General Plan's Master
Environmental Analysis Report approved December 4, 1988.