PAGE 1 Show Image
HOUSING ELEMENT -
z
ADVANCE PLANNING w
PROGRAM z
0
0
C,
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY
PAGE 2 Show Image
COUNTY OF ORANGE
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY
COMPONENT II
ADVANCE PLANNING PROGRAM
HOUSING ELEMENT
MICHAEL M. RUANE
DIRECTOR
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ROGER R. STANTON DONALD J. SALTARELLI
First District Third District
JAMES W. SILVA WILLIAM G. STEINER
Second District Fourth District
MARIAN BERGESON
Fifth District
PAGE 3 Show Image
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
First District Michael Potts
Second District Shirley Commons-Long
Third District Clarice Blamer
Fourth District Chuck McBurney
Fifth District Thomas Moody
Prepared under Direction of:
Thomas B. Mathews, Director of Planning Function
Joan S. Golding, Manager of Advance Planning
Element Planning Section:
Robert Aldrich, Chief
Cindy Lomas, Project Manager, H 89-1
Mark Morgan, Project Manager, H 93-1
Brian Judd
HOUSING ELEMENT
September 14, 1993
(GENERAL PLAN MODERNIZATION)
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESOLUTION
No. 93-1006
Revised: 10/06/71 Resolution No. 71-1136/H 71-1
01/31/79 Resolution No. 79-161/H 79-1
02/06/80 Resolution No. 80-208/H 85-2
05/18/83 Resolution No. 83-759/H 83-1
04/25/84 Resolution No. 84-587/H 84-1
08/28/85 Resolution No. 85-1284/H 85-1
06/11/86 Resolution No. 86-779/H 86-1
06/21/89 Resolution No. 89-961/H 89-1
09/14/93 Resolution No. 93-1006/H 92-1
BJ:hdCOVER.WP (1/5/96)
PAGE 4 Show Image
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Chapter One: Introduction H-i-i
A. Overview H-i-i
B. Purpose and Scope of the Element H-i-i
C. Relationship to Other Elements H-i-2
1. Component I: Long-Range Planning Framework H-i-2
2. Component II: The General Plan Elements H-l-2
3. Component III: Community Profiles H-l-3
D. Related Planning Activities H-i-3
1. Orange County Projections - 1988 Demographic Forecast H-l-3
2. Federal and State Housing Programs H-l-3
3. Regional Housing Plan H-l-4
Chapter Two: Inventory of Existing Conditions and Future Trends H-2-l
A. Introduction H-2-i
B. County Growth Trends H-2-l
1. Overview H-2-l
2. Population, Housing, and Employment Growth Trends
and Projections H-2-4
C. Population Characteristics H-2-14
1. General Characteristics H-2-i4
2. Household Characteristics H-2-15
3. Special Needs H-2-17
D. Housing Stock Characteristics H-2-24
1. Structure Type and Tenure H-2-24
2. Overcrowding Status H-2-25
3. Condition of Housing Stock H-2-25
-1-
PAGE 5 Show Image
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
Page
E. Housing Cost H-2-26
1. Existing Home Prices H-2-26
2. Financing Costs H-2-26
3. Housing Costs vs. Ability to Pay H-2-29
4. Residential Energy Costs H-2-29
F. Regional Housing Needs Assessment H-2-34
1. Current Needs H-2-34
2. Future Needs H-2-34
Chapter Three: Potential Constraints on Housing
Development and Improvement H-3-l
A. Land Use Controls, Land Availability and Suitable Sites H-3-l
1. Land Use Controls: Public and Private H-3-l
2. Adequacy of Residential Land Approvals and
Inventory of Residential Sites H-3-3
3. Agricultural Preserves H-3-4
B. Site Improvement Requirements, Fees and Exactions H-3-4
1. Grading H-3-5
2. Historic Sites H-3-5
3. Regional Park and Open Space Requirements H-3-5
4. Archaeological/Paleontological Sites H-3-5
5. Landscaping Requirements H-3-6
6. Parks and Recreation Requirements H-3-6
7. Transportation Facilities Requirements H-3-6
8. Site Development Standards H-3-6
C. Building Code and Enforcement H-3-6
D. Processing Requirements H-3-7
-11-
PAGE 6 Show Image
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
Pare
E. State-imposed Requirements H-3-7
1. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) H-3-7
2. Article 34 H-3-9
3. Building Energy Standards for Residential Development
(Title 24) H-3-lO
F. Cost of Land, Construction and Financing H-3-lO
1. Cost of Land H-3-lO
2. Construction Costs H-3-1O
3. Financing Costs H-3-ll
Chapter Four: Goals, Quantified Objectives and Policies H-4-1
A. Goals H-4-l
B. Quantified Objectives H-4-l
1. New Construction H-4-2
2. Existing Units Rehabilitated and Conserved H-4-4
C. Policies H-4-5
1. Housing Supply and Residential Choice Policies H-4-5
2. Equal Housing Opportunities Policies H-4-7
3. Housing Conservation and Neighborhood Preservation Policies H-4-7
4. Housing Conservation and Coordination Policies H-4-8
Chapter Five: Implementation Programs H-5-l
A. Underlying Principles H-5-1
B. Program Descriptions H-5-l
1. Aftercare Rental Assistance Program H-5-2
2. Block Grant Home Improvement Program H-5-3
3. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program H-5-4
4. Consistency Review Program H-5-5
-iii-
PAGE 7 Show Image
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
Pare
5. Countywide Homeless Family Transitional Housing Initiative H-5-6
6. Development Processing System Review H-5-7
7. Federal Housing Programs H-5-8
8. Homeless Issues Coordination H-5-9
9. Housing Development Finance Program H-S-b
10. Housing Discrimination/Affirmative Action H-S-il
11. Housing Element Periodic Review and Update H-5-12
12. Housing Opportunities Program H-5-13
13. Housing Referral Directory H-S-iS
14. Infrastructure Provision and Financing H-5-16
15. Intergovernmental Advocacy with HUD/FHA H-S-17
16. Land Acquisition for Housing H-S-i8
17. Neighborhood Development and Preservation Program H-5-19
18. Residential Energy and Water Conservation Retrofit H-S-20
19. Section 8 Existing Rental Assistance Program H-5-21
20. State of California Housing Programs H-5-23
21. Stewart McKinney Homeless Assistance Act H-S-24
22. Tax-exempt Housing Revenue Bonds H-S-25
23. Preservation of Assisted Rental Units Program H-5-26
- iv-
PAGE 8 Show Image
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
Appendices
A. List of Abbreviations H-A-i
B. Land Inventory and Site Availability H-B-i
C. Orange County Agencies Involved in Housing Development,
Improvement or Assistance H-C-i
D. Housing Opportunities Program: Policies and Guidelines H-D-i
E. Energy Conservation: Building Energy Standards (Title 24) H-E-l
F. Housing Element Review and Evaluation H-F-i
G. Preservation of Assisted Rental Units Program H-G-1
H. Board of Supervisors Resolution H-H-i
Tables
Pare
2-1 Population Growth Trends: Orange County,
California, United States, 1900-2010 H-2-2
2-2 Projected Population Growth Trends, North County
vs. South County. 1980-2010 H-2-5
2-3 Orange County Population Trends by RSA, 1980-2000 H-2-7
2-4 Projected Housing Growth Trend
North County vs. South County, 1980-2010 H-2-8
2-5 Orange County Housing Stock Trends by RSA, 1980-2000 H-2-9
2-6 Projected Employment Growth Trends
North County vs. South County, 1980-2010 H-2-10
2-7 Orange County Employment Trends by RSA 1980-2020 H-2-12
2-8 Comparison of Jobs to Housing Balance by RSA, 1983-2000 H-2-13
2-9 Orange County Median Family Income H-2-16
2-10 Price Distribution of Existing Single Family
Detached Home Sales - Orange County,
July-August 1988 H-2-27
2-li Monthly Payments and Household Income Required to Purchase
a Median-priced New Home in Orange County, Attached vs.
Detached H-2-28
2-12 Residential Rent Index 1978-1988
Los Angeles/Orange County MSAs H-2-30
PAGE 9 Show Image
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
Pare
2-13 Household Income by Selected Monthly Owners
Costs as Percentage of Income: Owner-occupied,
Non-condominium Housing Units, Orange County and
California, 1979 H-2-31
2-14 Household Income by Gross Rent as Percentage of Income:
Renter Occupied Housing Units: Orange County
California, 1979 H-2-32
2-15 Tenure by Average Monthly Residential Energy Costs
as Percentage of Income - Orange County, 1979 H-2-33
2-16 Regional Housing Needs Assessment for Unincorporated
Orange County, 1988 H-2-35
4-1 Quantified Objectives: July 1989-June 1994 H-4-3
B-i Residential Land Inventory: Orange County Unincorporated
Area, 1989 H-B-2
B-2 Residential Land Inventory: Orange County Unincorporated
Islands, 1988-1994 H-B-7
F-i Housing Performance Summary: Orange County Unincorporated
Area, July 1982 - June 1988 H-F-8
F-2 Progress in Implementing Housing Element Program Objectives H-F-9
F-3 Coastal Zone Housing Approvals with Affordable Housing
Requirements: Orange County Unincorporated Area, 1982-1988 H-F-iS
F-4 Coastal Zone Demolitions and Conversions: Orange County
Unincorporated Area, 1982-1988 H-F-18
G-1 Inventors of Assisted Low-Income Rental Units with Expiring
Affordability Restrictions (July 1989 - June 1994) H-G-3
G-2 Inventory of Assisted Low-Income Rental Units with Expiring
Affordability Restrictions (July 1994 - June 1999) H-G-4
-vi-
PAGE 10 Show Image
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
Maps
Page
2-1 Orange County Regional Statistical Areas H-2-3
B-l Planned Communities with Affordable Requirements H-B-9
B-2 Redevelopment Areas H-B-lO
B-3 Annexations/Incorporations 1987-1994 H-B-12
Figures
3-1 Comparative Development Processing Time Limits H-3-8
E-l Prescriptive Packages for Climate Zone 8:
Non-coastal Orange County H-E-3
BJ:hdTOC.WP (1/9/96)
-vii-
PAGE 11 Show Image
PAGE 12 Show Image
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
A. Overview
The state legislature has found that the availability of housing in a
suitable living environment is of vital statewide importance and a
priority of the highest order. The legislature also charges local
government with the responsibility to address this priority while
considering economic, environmental, and fiscal factors and community
goals set forth in the General Plan.
The fundamental goal of the Housing Element is to promote the provision of
a wide variety of housing opportunities to meet the needs of all economic
segments of the community. While this goal is a high priority, it must be
achieved while maintaining internal consistency among the other elements
of the General Plan as required by state law.
The Housing Element is divided into five chapters. The first chapter
provides an overview of the scope and purpose of the Housing Element.
Chapter Two is an inventory of existing and projected growth,
growth-related development patterns, and the regional and local housing
needs assessment. Chapter Three considers governmental and
non-governmental opportunities for and impediments to the maintenance,
improvement, and development of housing. Chapter Four focuses on the
County's goals, quantified objectives, and policies with regard to the
provision of housing. Chapter Five contains descriptions of the County1s
implementation programs. The appendices provide reference material for
the Housing Element as well as in-depth discussion of the Housing
Opportunities Program, a voluntary program for provision of affordable
housing.
B. Purpose and Score of the Element
The Housing Element is the comprehensive statement by Orange County
government to the public of its broad and specific commitments to
facilitate the development of housing in the unincorporated area. These
commitments are expressed within an integrated framework of goals,
policies, and programs. The goals of the element are primarily based on
state law, assessment of shelter needs, and identified opportunities for
and constraints on the development and improvement of housing. The
policies and programs of the element, taken together, form an
implementation strategy to meet the goals established. As such, the
element serves to guide and direct local government decision-making in all
shelter-related matters.
It should be noted that the General Plan (each of its nine elements) is a
land use policy document and does not address social service issues. The
line between these two areas is not always distinct, however, and it is
the County's policy to avoid conflicts between land use and social service
programs whenever possible in order to maximize the overall effectiveness
of these efforts.
H-i-i
PAGE 13 Show Image
State Government Code Section 65588(a) provides that each local government
shall review its housing element as frequently as appropriate to evaluate
the following:
o the appropriateness of the housing goals, objectives, and policies in
contributing to the attainment of the state housing goal.
o the effectiveness of the housing element in attainment of the
community's housing goals and objectives.
o the progress of the local agency in implementation of the housing
element.
It is also the purpose of this element to outline the findings of this
evaluation and any revisions to existing policies and programs that are
adopted in response to these findings.
C. Relationship to Other Elements
The Advance Planning Program is composed of three components each with a
focused tilne frame and geographic area.
1. Component I: Long-Range Planning Framework
Component I provides the long-range planning framework and general
goals for the Advance Planning Program. Included within this document
are broad housing goals that provide a basis for the more specific
goals and policies contained in the Housing Element.
2. Component II: The General Plan Elements
The General Plan addresses a 15- to 20- year time frame. Component II
consists of the nine elements of the General Plan, including the
Housing Element.
The Housing Element is implemented by developing various coordinated
programs that support and carry out its goals, quantified objectives,
and policies. At the time of its adoption, the Housing Element is the
most current expression of County housing policies and achieves
internal consistency with other General Plan elements by:
a. Utilization of the same socioeconomic projections and assumptions
as in other County planning documents.
b. The pursuit of major goals such as balanced land use. This goal
is intended to encourage a balance within each regional
statistical area (RSA) of housing, employment, shopping,
recreation, and civic uses to serve the needs of residents. Thus,
in balanced communities, land use and transportation policies are
integrated through this common goal.
c. Identifying contradictory goals or policies within different
elements of the General Plan. For example, an Open Space Element
H-1-2
PAGE 14 Show Image
may strive to preserve maximum acreage for open space or
recreational uses while the Housing Element may strive to maximize
acreage available for housing production.
3. Component III: Community Profiles
The Community Profiles are the most detailed portions of the Advance
Planning Program. They are short-range in scope and focus on
community-level policies and programs. The Community Profiles provide
general information on housing density which can be used as a
reference point for identifying areas of possible affordable units.
D. Related Planning Activities
1. Orange County Projections-1988 Demographic Forecast
Orange County Projections-1988 (OCP-88) contains projections for
population, housing, and employment. The projections, which are
adopted by the Board of Supervisors, provide a single data reference
for policy-making and program planning as directed by the Board of
Supervisors (Minute Order of August 9 1988).
OCP-88 is used throughout the General Plan (e.g., Land Use, Housing1
and Transportation elements). Moreover, the projections are used by
the Orange County Transportation Commission, Orange County Transit
District, and other County agencies for all long-range planning and
budgeting activities.
Regional statistical areas (RSAs) are the geographic units used for
the development of these policy projections. The projections are then
dissaggregated to community analysis areas (CAAs) for the purpose of
performing Development Monitoring Program (DMP) analyses. The DMP
analysis is conducted by the County Administrative Office in order to
determine the impact of existing and projected development on
infrastructure facilities and fiscal resources. The CAA projections
are then disaggregated by EMA to the traffic analysis zone level for
transportation planning efforts.
OCP-88 served as the County's official input to the SCAG Regional
Growth Forecast Policy. The Growth Forecast Policy is implemented
through SCAG's regional planning activities, project review, and
coordination with city, county, state, and federal governments. The
adopted growth forecast is utilized in the development of the Air
Quality Management Program and the Regional Transportation Plan, which
are mandated by federal and state law.
2. Federal and State Housing Programs
In recent years, the federal government has eliminated or
substantially reduced a number of Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) programs. The future role of the federal government
in housing and community development activities is expected to
decrease or remain constant at best in the near term due to federal
budget constraints.
H-l-3
PAGE 15 Show Image
The County's efforts to provide and maintain housing for low-income
households is heavily dependent upon federal and state grants since
direct financial subsidies are generally required to serve this need.
Federal programs which the County participates in include Section 8
Existing Rental Assistance (including Section 8 Certificate and
Section 8 Voucher) and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
State programs include the CDBG Nonentitlement Program, California
Housing Finance Agency (CHFA) tax-exempt mortgage revenue bonds,
California Housing Assistance Service Grants, the redevelopment Loan
Program, and the Aftercare Rental Assistance Program. These programs
are discussed in Chapter 5.
3. Regional Housing Plan
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) determines
regional housing need and the share of the regional need to be
addressed by Orange County. A key element in SCAG's housing role is
the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). The RHNA identifies
current and projected five-year housing needs within the SCAG region.
Factors considered in determining the regional housing need are market
demand, employment opportunities, the availability of suitable sites
and public facilities, commuting patterns, and the needs of
farmworkers. The regional need, once determined is then distributed
to each jurisdiction in the SCAG region, each of which receives its
"fair share allocation" of the overall regional need. The RHNA must
be considered and incorporated into the Housing Element's assessment
of housing need.
As the regional planning and coordinating agency, SCAG prepares the
Regional Housing Element, which is a plan and strategy for meeting
housing needs in the region as a whole. The Los Angeles/Orange
County/Riverside/San Bernardino urbanized area constitutes a single
housing market and a regional approach such as provided by SCAG is
essential if the housing elements of local jurisdictions are to be
realistically related to regional housing market forces.
BJ:hdCHAPl .WP (12/28/95)
H-l-4
PAGE 16 Show Image
CHAPTER TWO: INVENTORY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS AND FUTURE TRENDS
A. Introduction
The purpose of this section of the Housing Element is to examine the
current conditions and the manner in which future growth is expected to be
influenced by the policies of the Housing Element and other General Plan
elements. This review is divided into several sections. The first
presents a synopsis of county growth trends and projections of future
levels of population, housing, and employment. The following sections
identify current characteristics of the county's population, housing
stock, and the local housing market. The final section brief ly touches
upon current and future needs as presented in the Regional Housing Needs
Assessment (RHNA).
B. County Growth Trends
1. Overview
One of the most noteworthy attributes of Orange County has been its
dramatic growth. From its beginnings as an agricultural region, the
county's economic emphasis has steadily shifted to high-technology and
financial operations, first as a suburb of Los Angeles and later as an
important urban center.
The County's population growth can best be put into perspective by
comparing it to California and the nation as a whole (see Table 2-1).
Between 1900 and 1980, the United States as a whole grew at an average
compound rate of 1.4 percent per year while the State of California
increased an average of 3.5 percent each year. In Orange County,
however, the population gained an average of 5.9 percent annually,
more than four times the national average. The post-war decades
between 1950 and 1970 were years of spectacular growth for the county.
In 1950, just over 216,000 persons lived here; by 1970, the population
had grown to over 1.4 million.
Since 1970, Orange County's growth rate has dropped off substantially,
although it still has exceeded state and national growth rates.
Population projections for the county anticipate this decline in the
rate of increase to continue through 2010. After the turn of the
century, Orange County's growth rate should parallel the state as a
whole.
For analytical purposes, the Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG) has divided its six-county region into geographic
units called regional statistical areas (RSAs). Orange County's ten
RSAs are shown on Map 2-1. Most of the demographic and economic
analyses presented in the following sections refer to data at the RSA
level.
H-2-1
PAGE 17 Show Image
TABLE 2-1
Population Growth Trends
Orange County, California and United States
1900-2010
Population Annual Growth Rate
Year Orange Co. California U. S. Orange Co. California U. S.
1900 19,696 1,485,053 75,994,575 - - -
1910 34,436 2,377,549 91,972,266 5.7 4.8 1.9
1920 61,375 3,426,861 105,710,620 5.9 3.7 1.4
1930 118,674 5,677,251 122,775,046 6.8 5.2 1.5
1940 130,760 6,907,387 131,669,275 1.0 2.0 0.7
1950 216,224 10,586,223 151,325,798 5.2 4.4 1.4
1960 703,925 15,717,204 179,323,175 12.5 4.0 1.7
1970 1,420,386 19,971,069 203,302,031 7.3 2.4 1.3
1976 1,772,094 N.A. N.A. 3.8 N.A. N.A.
1980 1,932,709 23,667,902 226,504,825 2.2 1.7 1.1
1985 2,130,000 26,365,000 239,279,000 2.0 2.3 1.1
1990 2,302,100 28,771,000 250,410,000 1.6 1.8 0.9
1995 2,463,800 30,956,000 260,138,000 1.4 1.5 0.8
2000 2,599,200 32,853,000 268,266,000 1.1 1.2 0.6
2005 2,718,800 34,546,000 275,604,000 0.9 1.0 0.5
2010 2,833,800 36,277,000 282,575,000 0.8 1.0 0.5
Note: Growth rates represent average annual compound rates of increase.
Sources: U.S. Census
California Department of finance
Orange County Preferred-88 Forecast
EMA/Advance Planning Division
H-2-2
PAGE 18 Show Image
REGIONAL STATISTICAL AREAS MAP 2~1
NOPR(CSE ALIGMEl
V----------------------------------------------------
7 j I
I
- -
---7
(
\
E- -
- ~--~-` \~~- --
-- I I ~
\\
I I
I I, ~ ~ ` I ~
, I
1~ `
1' I j ~--
I ~ \ I
I ~
PAGE 19 Show Image
There are several advantages to using RSA data in planning studies:
consistent geographic areas are maintained, allowing comparisons
between different time periods; the RSAs are small enough to ensure
relative homogeneity within areas and to identify major sub-regional
differences; and data coordination is possible with other agencies and
studies such as SCAG, the County Administrative Office's Development
Monitoring Program (DMP) and Areawide Fiscal Impact System (AFIS), and
the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). This type of
intergovernmental coordination helps to improve the effectiveness of
the planning process.
Most of the demographic projections used in the County General Plan,
including the Housing Element, are based upon the Orange County
Preferred-88 (OCP-88) forecast. These projections were adopted by the
Board of Supervisors on August 9, 1988. The OCP forecast can be
amended in several ways: concurrent with the processing of a project
that is inconsistent with the projections; through annual review as
part of the Development Monitoring Program; or as part of the SCAG
Regional Development Guide update process.
2. Population. Housing. and EmDloyment Growth Trends and Projections
a. Population Distribution Patterns
During the past 20 years, the focal point of Orange County's
growth has shifted gradually southward. In the 1950s and `60s,
the majority of new development occurred in the northern areas of
the County such as Anaheim, Fullerton, Orange, Westminster, and
Fountain Valley. During the 1970s, as vacant land became more
scarce in these northern areas, the center of growth shifted to
the south with the rise of new communities like Irvine, Mission
Viejo, and Laguna Niguel. For analytical purposes, North County
is generally considered to be the area north and west of the Costa
Mesa Freeway (State Highway 55) and contains RSAs 35-J, 36-A,
37-H, 38-I, 41-B, and 42-G (see Map 2-1 cn previous page). South
County is represented by RSAs 39-F, 40-D, 43-C and 44-E.
Table 2-2 highlights the projected population growth trends in the
north and south portions of the county. The source of these
figures is the OCP-88 forecast. During the 30-year study period,
about 56 percent of the county's net population growth is
projected to occur in the southern RSAs. Although the rate of
growth in North County is declining, this area will still contain
the tnajority of the county's population throughout the study
period. In 1980, 77 percent of the county's 1,932,709 people
lived in the north. By 2010, it is expected that this figure will
fall to 66 percent.
The difference in growth between north and south is made more
apparent when the growth rates of the two areas are compared.
Between 1980 and 2010, the population of the northern portion of
the county is expected to increase by 393,949, a gain of 27
percent. South County will add 507,142 persons during the same
period representing a growth of 112 percent.
H-2-4
PAGE 20 Show Image
TABLE 2-2
PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH TRENDS
NORTH COUNTY vs. SOUTH COUNTY
1980-2010
North Count~1 South Countyb~ County Total
1980 2010 Change 1980 2010 Change 1980 2010 Change
Total Population 1,478,851 1,872,500 +27% 453,858 961,000 +112% 1,932,709 2,833,800 +47%
Pat. of Total 77% 66% -11% 23% 34% +11% 100% 100% --
Population
Growth -- -- 393,949 -- -- 507,142 -- -- 901,091
I Pat. of Growth -- -- 44% -- -- 56% -- -- 100%
Average 2.79 2.70 -0.09 2.37 2.34 -0.03 2.68 2.52 -0.16
Household Size
Notes: a! Includes RSAs 35-J, 36-A, 37-H, 38-I, 41-B and 42-G
bI Includes RSAs 39-F, 40-D, 43-C and 44-E
Sources: 1980 Census
County of Orange: OCP-85 Projections
Orange County EMA/Advance Planning Division
BJ:hdTABLE22 .WP (1/2/96)
PAGE 21 Show Image
b. Population Trends by RSA
Table 2-3 identifies recent and projected growth trends in
population for each of Orange County1s ten RSAs. Subtotals are
also provided for the incorporated and unincorporated portions of
the county. As can be seen from the table, RSAs 37-H (Anaheim),
38-I (North Coast), and 42-G (Santa Aria) are the most heavily
populated areas of the county. The eastern and southern areas
(RSAs 40-D, 41-B, 43-C, and 44-E) are expected to register the
largest gains, however, both in percentage terms and raw numbers
between 1980 and 2010. Even with their larger growth increments,
these rapidly developing areas are still expected to contain fewer
people in 2010 than most of the northern and central RSAs.
c. Housing Distribution Patterns
The projected increase in the housing stock reflects the
population trend identified above (see Tables 2-4 and 2-5). Due
to a decline in average household size from 2.68 to 2.52 persons
per dwelling unit countywide, the number of new units expected to
be'built between 1980 and 2010 represents a slightly higher
percentage increase than for the population itself. Consequently,
while the county's population is projected to rise by 47 percent
(901,091 persons) during this period, the housing stock will
increase by 53 percent (381,986 units) over the same interval.
The spatial distribution of new residential construction is
expected to be skewed toward South County. About 57 percent of
the new units built in the county between 1980 and 2010 are
expected to be located in the southern area. Although the
northern portion of the county is growing much less rapidly than
the south on a percentage basis, nearly two-thirds (63 percent) of
housing units will still be found in the northern RSAs by 2010.
d. Countywide Employment Trends and Distribution Patterns
Employment trends are extremely important in determining the
county's overall growth pattern and, therefore, play an important
role in developing county policies for housing.
Orange County has enjoyed a strong economy during the past several
decades due to its advantageous location and climate. Total jobs
are projected to increase by 103 percent between 1980 and 2010
(see Table 2-6).
As of 1980, 72 percent of the county's 915,400 jobs were located
in North County. This is very similar to the population pattern
identified in Table 2-2. By 2010, a modest southward shift in the
employment distribution is projected to occur. However, the
magnitude of this shift will be somewhat less than the shift in
population and housing distributions. Whereas South County is
projected to receive 56 percent of the county's population growth
H-2-6
PAGE 22 Show Image
TABLE 2-3
Orange County Population Trends by RSA
1980-2000
1980-83 1983-88 1988-95 1995-2000
RSA 19801/ 19832/ Growth (%)* 1988w' Growth (%)* 1995w' Growth (%)* 2000w' Growth (%)*
35-J 156,248 161,005 4,757 (0.1%) 161,983 978 (0.1%) 167,800 5,817 (0.5%) 168,600 800 (0.10%)
36-A 168,782 176,918 8,136 (1.6%) 183,494 6,576 (0.7%) 186,100 2,606 (0.2%) 188,900 2,800 (0.30%)
37-H 338,682 355,132 16,450 (1.6%) 367,761 12,629 (0.7%) 373,200 5,439 (0.2%) 379,100 5,900 (0.32%)
38-I 321,137 334,726 13,589 (1.4%) 343,148 8,422 (0.5%) 355,000 11,852 (0.5%) 363,100 8,100 (0.46%)
39-F 170,644 182,257 11,613 (2.2%) 195,570 13,313 (1.5%) 223,400 27,830 (2.0%) 235,600 12,200 (1.09%)
40-D 134,696 151,545 16,849 (4.0%) 188,775 37,230 (4.9%) 225,300 36,525 (2.8%) 247,200 21,900 (1.94%)
41-B 116,686 128,839 12,153 (3.3%) 150,381 21,542 (3.3%) 186,000 35,619 (3.4%) 210,800 24,800 (2.67%)
42-G 377,316 400,931 23,615 (2.0%) 415,765 14,834 (0.7%) 439,200 23,435 (0.8%) 449,300 10,100 (0.46%)
43-C 95,954 109,325 13,371 (4.4%) 145,964 36,639 (6.7%) 190,700 44,736 (4.4%) 212,700 22,000 (2.31%)
44-E 52,564 63,422 10,858 (6.4%) 85,936 22,514 (7.1%) 117,100 31,164 (5.2%) 143,900 26,800 (4.58%)
1
I~ In
corp 1,665,384 1,777,656 112,272 (2.2%) 1,975,703 198,047 (2.2%) 2,095,033 119,330 (0.9%) 2,146,604 51,571 (0.49%)
Unincorp 267,325 286,444 19,119 (2.3%) 263,074 -23,370 (-1.6%) 368,767 105,693 (5.7%) 452,596 83,829 (4.55%)
County
Total 1,932,709 2,064,100 131,391 2,238,777 174,677 (1.7%) 2,463,800 225,023 (1.4%) 2,599,200 135,400 (1.10%)
*Growth rates represent average annual compound rates of increase.
Sources:
1/ Census data as of April 1, 1980
2/ Estimates bases on adopted OCP-85 Proje&tions
EMA/Advance Planning Division
3/ Orange County Progress Report 1988-89, Vol. 25; Estimates reflect the March 31, 1988 incorporation of the City of
Mission Viejo
4/ Estimates based on adopted OCP-88 Projections and include City of Dana Point
BJ:hdTABLE23 .wP (1/2/96)
PAGE 23 Show Image
TABLE 2-4
PROJECTED HOUSING GROWTH TRENDS
NORTH COUNTY vs. SOUTH COUNTY
1980-2010
North Count~1 South County~b/ County Total
1980 2010 Change 1980 2010 Change 1980 2010 Change
Total Units 530,324 692,900 +31% 191,190 410,600 +114% 721,514 1,103,500 +53%
Pat. of Total 74% 63% -11% 26% 37% +11% 100% 100% --
Growth -- -- 162,576 -- -- 219,410 -- -- 381,986
~ Pat. of Growth -- -- 43% -- -- 57% -- -- 100%
Notes: al Includes RSAs 35-J, 36-A, 37-H, 38-I, 41-B and 42-G
~/ Includes RSAs 39-F, 40-D, 43-C and 44-E
Sources: 1980 Census
County of Orange: OCP-85 Projections
Orange County EMA/Advance Planning Division
BJ:hdTABLE24 .WP (1/2/96)
PAGE 24 Show Image
TABLE 2-5
ORANGE COUNTY HOUSING TRENDS BY RSA
1980-2000
1980-88 1983-88 1988-95 1995-2000
RSA 19801/ 19832/ Growth (%) l988~~ Growth (%)* 1995 Growth (%)* 2000 Growth
35-J 52,454 53,382 928 (1.8%) 54,714 1,332 (0.5) 58,400 3,686 (1.0) 59,500 1,000 (0.38)
36-A 64,578 66,691 2,113 (3.3%) 69,408 2,717 (0.8) 73,500 4,092 (0.8) 75,900 2,400 (0.65)
37-H 124,875 128,070 3,195 (2.6%) 133,239 5,169 (0.8) 139,200 5,961 (0.6) 142,500 3,300 (0.47)
38-I 119,038 122,675 3,637 (3.0%) 128,071 5,396 (0.9) 138,900 10,829 (1.2) 143,600 4,700 (0.68)
39-F 74,920 77,968 3,048 (4.1%) 84,314 6,346 (1.6) 96,900 12,586 (2.1) 102,300 5,600 (1.16)
40-D 66,072 72,089 6,017 (9.1%) 87,990 15,901 (4.4) 107,800 19,810 (3.2) 117,000 11,600 (1.71)
41-B 39,276 42,710 3,434 (8.7%) 50,468 7,758 (3.6) 64,300 13,832 (3.9) 73,900 9,600 (2.99)
I 42-G 130,103 134,361 4,258 (3.3%) 139,876 5,515 (0.8) 148,500 8,624 (0.9) 154,000 5,600 (0.74)
43-C 32,885 37,154 4,269 (13.0%) 51,766 14,612 (7.9) 69,000 17,234 (4.8) 79,400 10,400 (2.96)
~ 44-E 17,313 20,905 3,592 (20.7%) 29,410 8,505 (8.1) 42,400 12,990 (6.3) 54,000 12,000 (5.47)
Incorp 618,899 648,389 29,490 (4.8%) 725,621 77,232 (2.4) 792,711 67,090 (1.3) 823,404 30,693 (0.77)
Unincorp 102,615 107,616 5,001 (4.9%) 103,635 -3,981 (-0.7) 146,189 42,554 (5.9) 178,696 32,507 (4.45)
County 721,514 756,005 34,491 (4.8%) 829,256 73,251 (1.9) 938,900 109,644 (1.9) 1,002,100 63,200 (1.35)
*Growth rates represent average annual compound rates of increase.
Sources:
1/ ~ Census Bureau; Orange County Administrative Office
M Orange County Administrative Office, OCP-85 Projection (Interpolation)
ji Orange County Administrative Office, OCP-88 Projections. Estimates reflect the March 31, 1988 incorporation of
the City of Mission Viejo, but include the City of Dana Point.
BJ:hdTABLE2S.wP* (1/2/96)
PAGE 25 Show Image
TABLE 2-6
PROJECTED EMPLOYMENT GROWTH TRENDS
NORTH COUNTY vs. SOUTH COUNTY
1980-2010
North Count~1 South County~1 County Total
1980 2010 Change 1980 2010 Change 1980 2010 Change
Total Employment 658,600 1,164,900 +77% 256,800 690,600 +168% 915,400 1,855,500 +103%
Pat. of Total 72% 63% -9% 28% 37% +9% 100% 100% --
Employment
z
~ Growth -- -- 506,300 -- -- 433,800 -- -- 940,100
Pat. of Growth -- -- 54% -- -- 46% -- -- 100%
Notes: ~/ Includes RSAs 35-J, 36-A, 37-H, 38-I, 41-B and 42-G
~b/ Includes RSAs 39-F, 40-D, 43-C and 44-E
Sources:
Orange County EMA/Advance Planning Division
County of Orange OCP-85
BJ:hdTABLE26 .WP (1/2/96)
PAGE 26 Show Image
between 1980 and 2010, only 46 percent of new jobs are expected to
be located in this area. According to a study released by the
Orange County Transportation Commission, this trend is explained
by a competitive advantage enjoyed by the established employment
centers in North County. The major reasons for this advantage are
access to labor supply, access to markets in the greater Los
Angeles area, availability of competitively-priced land for new
office and industrial developments, and the efforts of
redevelopment agencies to attract new projects. During the 1990s,
the focus of growth will shift to the presently less-developed
areas of the county. The primary reasons for this shift is that
by the 1990s, the developing county area will have an increased
population, and the older established areas will have relatively
fewer competitive sites remaining for development.
Overall, the county's employment base is projected to grow
considerably faster than the population as a whole. This compares
to a 47 percent population increase during the same period. Two
trends help to explain this difference: 1) an increasing labor
force participation rate, particularly among women and 2) more
Orange County workers commuting from Los Angeles, Riverside, San
Bernardino, and San Diego counties.
Table 2-7 contains employment trends by RSA for the period
1970-1988.
e. Comparison of Jobs to Housing Balance
One of the explicit implementation policies of the Land Use
Element of the General Plan is "to plan urban land uses with a
balance of residential, industrial, commercial, and public land
uses." Table 2-8 summarizes the jobs-to-housing balance between
different geographic areas and helps in evaluating the county's
growth trend in terms of the balanced land use policy.
If there were an equal number of job opportunities and housing
units throughout the county, the job/housing ratio would be 1.0.
An examination of Table 2-8 reveals that most RSAs show some
degree of imbalance between housing and jobs. Only RSAs 35-J
(Buena Park), 37-H (Anaheim), and 41-B (Canyon) show a consistent
balance between housing and employment. The remaining RSAs are
equally divided between "employment surplus" and "employment
deficit" areas. Employment surplus areas--those where the
proportion of jobs is substantially greater than housing--include
RSAs 36-A (Fullerton), 39-F (Central Coast), 42-G (Santa Ana), and
44-E (El Toro). On the other hand, RSAs 38-I (North Coast), 40-D
(South Coast), and 43-C (Trabuco) all contain significant
employment deficits.
H-2-l1
PAGE 27 Show Image
TABLE 2-7
ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYMENT TRENDS BY RSA
1980-2010
RSA 1980 1988 1995 2005 2010
35-J 55,200 70,800 75,800 86,500 93,100
36-A 100,600 115,220 132,600 143,200 146,700
37-H 146,000 186,340 195,800 226,000 241,700
38-I 90,300 114,780 122,600 139,500 150,200
39-F 146,800 192,780 231,300 270,300 282,900
40-D 32,600 52,700 78,900 110,400 119,500
41-B 54,900 72,340 84,500 101,800 107,200
42-G 211,600 273,860 341,600 397,200 426,000
43-C 17,400 26,080 51,200 76,600 85,300
44-E 60,000 100,140 159,500 187,900 202,900
County 915,400 1,205,040 1,473,800 1,613,000 1,855,500
Total
Sources: OCP-88
County Administrative Office
EMA/Advance Planning Division
BJ:hdTABLE27 .WP (1/2/96)
H-2-12
PAGE 28 Show Image
TABLE 2-8
COMPARISON OF JOBS TO HOUSING BALANCE BY RSA
1983-2000
1983 1988 1995 2000
RSA Emp DU Ratio Emp DU Ratio Emp DU Ratio Emp DU Ratio
35-J 57,248 53,382 1.07 70,800 55,440 1.30 75,800 58,400 1.30 80,800 59,500 1.36
36-A 98,262 66,691 1.50 115,220 69,900 1.64 132,600 73,500 1.80 136,600 75,900 1.80
37-H 150,824 128,070 1.18 186,340 131,880 1.41 195,800 139,200 1.41 208,900 142,500 1.47
38-I 95,216 122,675 0.80 114,780 130,140 0.88 122,600 138,900 .88 128,000 143,600 .89
39-F 152,558 77,968 2.00 192,780 85,760 2.24 231,300 96,700 2.39 257,500 102,300 2.52
i~ 40-D 43,300 72,089 0.60 52,700 84,260 0.63 78,900 105,400 .75 98,400 117,000 .84
CA)
41-B 56,538 42,710 1.32 72,340 51,300 1.41 84,500 64,300 1.31 93,000 73,900 1.26
42-G 218,676 134,361 1.63 273,860 142,360 2.02 341,600 148,400 2.30 367,500 154,000 2.39
43-C 22,762 37,154 0.61 26,080 47,560 0.54 51,200 69,000 .74 68,400 79,400 .86
44-E 64,816 20,905 3.10 100,140 28,580 3.50 159,500 42,000 3.80 173,900 54,000 3.22
Count 960,200 756,005 1.30 1,205,040 827,180 1.46 1,473,800 935,800 1.57 1,613,000 1,002,100 1.61
Total
Note: Ratio represents the number of employment opportunities per dwelling unit.
Sources: County of Orange, EMA-Advance Planning Division
OCP-85 Forecast
OCP-88 Forecast
BJ:hdTABLE28 .wP (1/2/96)
PAGE 29 Show Image
The relationship between housing and employment within the
county's RSAs should be considered when Housing Element policies
and programs are being developed with a goal of encouraging
residential development in areas where an employment surplus is
projected.
C. Population Characteristics
1. General Characteristics
According to the State of California Department of Finance, Orange
County's population, as of January 1, 1989 was 2,280,405. The
cities in Orange County contain 85 percent of this population with
the remaining 15 percent residing in the county's unincorporated
areas.
According to the 1980 census, Orange County contained 687,059
households in 1980. It is estimated that the number of households
will increase to 863,084 countywide by 1994 which represents
129,463 in the unincorporated area. This estimation is a straight
extrapolation based upon a projected annual growth rate of 1.83
for the years between 1980 and 1995. The term "household" is
defined by the Census Bureau as all persons who occupy a housing
unit. A householder is the person in whose name the home is owned
or rented.
Household types in the County are subdivided into three groups:
(1) Family households: those which consist of a householder
living with one or more persons related to him or her by
birth, marriage, or adoption.
(2) Non-family households: those which consist of a householder
living alone or with non-relatives only.
(3) Group quarters: all persons not living in households are
classified by the Census Bureau as living in group quarters.
Two general categories of persons in group quarters are
recognized: 1) Inmates or institutions and 2) Other, such as
rooming houses, communes, and workers' dormitories.
In 1980, persons in family households comprised 85 percent of the
county's total population and 87 percent of the population in the
unincorporated area. Non-family households contained 259,691
persons (13 percent of the total county population) with 30,737
living in the unincorporated area. Slightly more of these
households were headed by women than by men. Applying the same
percentages to 1994 estimates, non-family households will contain
314,433 persons with 37,732 living in the unincorporated area.
Persons occupying group quarters represented less than 2 percent
of both the county and unincorporated area populations.
H-2-14
PAGE 30 Show Image
2. Household Characteristics
a. Household Composition
In 1980, 72 percent of the county's housing units were occupied by
family households. This percentage was substantially higher than
the statewide figure of 69 percent but below tile unincorporated
area figure of nearly 76 percent. Non-family households
represented 28 percent of the county total, which was
substantially lower than the statewide figure of 31 percent but
higher than the unincorporated figure of 24 percent.
According to the 1980 census, married couples comprised 60 percent
of the county's total households, and one-half of these had
children under 18 living with them. Families headed by women
represented 9 percent of all county households, with two-thirds of
these women having children under 18 living with them.
In 1994, it is estimated that 517,850 households will be comprised
of married couples with 258,925 of these households with children
under 18 living with them. Families headed by women would
represent 77,677 of the County's households, with 51,785 of the
households with children under 18.
Countywide, non-family households are almost evenly split between
male and female householders, each comprising about 14 percent of
all county households.
b. Income Characteristics
Households include all occupied housing units, while families are
defined as two or more persons related by birth, marriage or
adoption.
According to the Chapman College Center for Economic Research, as
of January 1, 1989, the Orange County median family income was
$48,123, which is significantly higher than the California median
income.
Table 2-9 shows Orange County median family income statistics for
the years 1975 through 1989.
Section F of this Chapter (Regional Housing Needs Assessment)
further discusses overpayment and the current and future housing
needs of the unincorporated county.
H-2-15
PAGE 31 Show Image
TABLE 2-9
Orange County Median Family Income
Median Family Annual
Year Income Chance (~)a/
1975 Actual $16,379
1976 Actual $17,933 9.5
1977 Actual $20,122 12.2
1978 Actual $22,583 12.2
1979 Actual $25,499 12.9
1980 Estimate $28,705 12.6
1981 Estimate $31,900 11.1
1982 Estimate $32,815 2.9
1983 Estimate $34,371 4.7
1984 Estimate $37,025 7.7
1985 Estimate $39,941 7.9
1986 Estimate $41,537 4.0
1987 Estimate $43,112 3.8
1988 Forecast $45,176 4.8
1989 Forecast $49,916 10.5
Note: al Average annual compound rate of increase
Sources: Economic and Business Review, June 1988,
Center for Economic Research Chapman College.
Orange County Progress Report 1988-89, Vol. 25 p.149
County of Orange, EMA/Advance Planning Division
H-2-16
PAGE 32 Show Image
3. Special Needs
a. Elderly and Handicapped
According to the County1s 1988-91 Housing Assistance Plan, there
are 4,420 lower-income elderly and 4,431 handicapped households in
need of housing assistance in the unincorporated area.
The elderly population is comprised of persons who are 60 years of
age and older. According to the State Department of Finance, 90
percent of elderly persons are homeowners and 10 percent are
renters. Since most of the elderly persons are homeowners, they
are less affected by housing market conditions. While
appreciation of a home is a plus, the negative aspect of ownership
includes lack of funds due to a fixed income to provide needed
maintenance. Many elderly persons also live in housing too large
for their current needs. Though property taxes have been reduced
due to Proposition 13 for some, taxes and insurance are a
substantial portion of the elderly household's limited budget.
The 22,704 elderly renters countywide are most seriously impacted
by the housing market. For senior citizens dependent on a fixed
Social Security allocation, little remains for other necessary
expenses. Moreover, 3,503* senior citizens live in mobile homes
and feel the impact of increased space rental and conversion of
parks to non-residential use (Note: *This number has decreased
due to recent incorporations).
SB 1553 of 1984 (Govt. Code Sec. 65915) requires that local
governments grant density bonuses or other incentives to
developers who construct housing projects in which 50 percent or
more of the units are for senior citizens. The County will
encourage the development of housing for the elderly in compliance
with this legislation, as described in Chapter Five'(Meeting
Special Housing Needs).
According to United Way (1986), there are approximately 330,000
disabled persons residing in Orange County (approximately lS~ of
the overall County population). The State Department of
Rehabilitation estimates that this includes 230,000 physically
disabled and 130,000 developmentally disabled persons (60,000 are
both physically and developmentally disabled). This is probably a
conservative estimate due to the fact that the attractive benefits
package and mild climate draw a high number of people with
disabilities to Orange County.
Another critical subgroup in the disabled classification is the
mentally ill. As mental illness is not necessarily a visible
handicap, the mentally ill are often an invisible population
within the disabled community. As a result, the seriously and
persistently mentally ill are often overlooked and fail to reap
their fair share of all levels of low-income housing.
H-2-17
PAGE 33 Show Image
What was once thought of as fatal disabling trauma or birth defect
is now often responsive to medical treatment. As medical science
advances, the probability of disabled persons surviving their
disability is increasing in the same way that longevity for
elderly persons is increasing. Therefore the needs of disabled
persons will also continue to increase.
The two major housing needs of the disabled--particularly
physically disabled persons- -are affordability and accessibility.
A majority of Orange County1s disabled residents' incomes fall
below 50 percent of the County3s median income. As recipients of
Supplemental Social Security Income (SSI), many are on a fixed
income, per month, which places them at a disadvantage when faced
with inflation and rising housing costs. Since most disabled
persons cannot qualify for home ownership, they are forced into
the already-crowded rental housing market.
On January 23, 1989 HUD published final rules implementing the
1988 Federal Fair Housing Act. Under this law, the disabled have
been added as a protected class. A big concession was given to
apartment owners in allowing them to collect special deposits for
disabled tenants modifying apartments to make them more
accessible. The new law gives disabled tenants the right to
demand alterations to units without letting management increase
their security deposits. Landlords, however, may negotiate with
tenants to set up separate interest-bearing escrows to cover cost
of restoring modifications when tenants vacate. The following
conditions are also outlined in the HUD final rules:
1. Escrow payments may be negotiated only where it is reasonable
to do so.
2. Disabled residents must obtain landlord's permission before
proceeding with modifications.
3. The apartment owner may not require tenants to follow a
detailed approval process; permission to make modifications may
be oral.
4. Owner may withhold permission until renter selects a
responsible contractor to do the work.
5. Management may condition approval on renter providing
reasonable description of planned alterations and assurances
that necessary building permits will be obtained.
An aid in the provision of housing for the mentally ill has been
HOMES, Inc. (Helping Our Mentally ill Experience Success). HOMES
is a non-profit corporation organized in 1985 with the goal of
providing an array of housing options for the mentally ill.
H-2-18
PAGE 34 Show Image
HOMES currently provides three houses at the semi-independent
level with supportive services in Orange County for mentally ill
adults. The current program is considered transitional, and
residents move on to independent living when their Section 8
certificates become available to them.
Sources: Dayle McIntosh Center
United Way
State Dept. of Rehabilitation
H.O.M.E.S. Inc.
O.C. HCA, Mental Health Services
b. Large-Family Households
Families of five or more members are classified as large families.
Large-family household need is dictated by three factors:
(1) size of family; (2) family income; and (3) cost of housing.
The Housing Assistance Plan (HAP) for 1988-1991 identifies 2,999
lower-income large families in the unincorporated county area with
an unmet housing need. The 1980 Census stated that there were
90,657 large families within Orange County, with 11,496 of these
in the unincorporated area.
Sources: Housing Assistance Plan 1988-1991
c. Single Heads of Household
The single employed parent typically desires minimal maintenance
housing, primarily two-bedroom units near place of employment,
schools, shopping, and recreational activities. One of the main
priorities is a safe neighborhood; however, with limited income,
affordable housing is often available only in less-desirable areas
of the county. Although data on single male-headed households is
unavailable, the 1980 Census reported that in the unincorporated
County, 4,279 female householders had children under 18 years of
age. Using the same ratios as in 1989, it is estimated that in
1994, female-headed households with children under 18, in the
unincorporated areas, will total 5,437.
HUD published "final rule11 concessions to the 1988 Federal Fair
Housing Act (January 23, 1989) implementing amendments that add
families with children as a protected class under the federal
housing law. Although the regulations offer retirement
communities more leeway in types of facilities and services that
they must offer to be exempt from admitting children, this leeway
is not extended to mobile home park operators. The act only
provides exemptions for all-adult communities for pre-retirees at
least 55 years old and elderly 62 or older.
Also HUD rejects suggestion that mobile homes and conventional
multi-family housing be allowed to designate floors or buildings
in developments for elderly and others for families with children.
This would be blatantly discriminatory.
H-2-19
PAGE 35 Show Image
d. Military Personnel
Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) El Toro is located in
unincorporated Orange County within Irvine's sphere of influence
and MCAS Tustin is in the adjoining City of Tustin. As of October
1988, approximately 1,770 civilians and 6,300 military were on the
El Toro base, and 130 civilians and 3,900 military were on the
Tustin base, totaling 12,100 personnel for both bases. The number
of bachelor units in barracks on the El Toro base is approximately
4,000, and 1,800 units exist on the Thstin base. The number of
family units available on the El Toro base is currently 1,252 and
1,259 are located on the Tustin base. This means that
approximately 3,800 military households (both single person and
family) must seek housing off-base. There is currently a waiting
list of six months to three years for on-base housing. Future
plans include the construction of 100 family housing units in 1989
and 118 units in 1990, all on the Tustin base. Additionally, 64
family housing units will be relocated from El Toro to Tustin
during 1989.
Over 50% of the military personnel at El Toro and Tustin are
married. According to the Tustin and El Toro Stations, most
military personnel are stationed for two or three years, which
makes them a highly mobile population. Military personnel find
that with very limited incomes it is increasingly difficult to
find housing in Orange County. Clearly more available low-cost
housing is necessary for the military.
Source: J.M. Wagner, Colonel, U.S. Marine Corps
Community Plans and Liaison Officer
e. Farmworkers
In recent years, there has been a shift from traditional
agricultural to Special Agricultural Workers (SAWS). This shift
refers to agricultural workers as defined by the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS) in implementing the Imigration
Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA).
The passage by Congress of IRCA was intended to permit
legalization of individuals who had lived or worked in the United
States for specific periods of time. It also tightened
requirements for employers to document the legal status of new
employees and provided for the sanction of those employers found
to be knowingly employing undocumented aliens. IRCA, then, was an
opportunity for eligible illegal aliens to legalize their status
and eventually become citizens. At the same time, it was intended
to discourage future illegal immigration by preventing their
employment in the United States.
Agricultural employment accounts for less than 1 percent of total
county employment. The California Employment Development
Department reported that the agricultural employment average in
H-2-20
PAGE 36 Show Image
Orange County for 1988 was 8,100 employees. In April 1988, the
seasonal peak for agricultural employment which usually occurs
between April and June, was 10,900 employees. These figures do
not include those classified as SAWs in the county. This number
is unclear. The Department of Health in Sacramento estimates that
there are 19,195 SAWs in all agricultural pursuits in this county.
This figure was derived from the demographics created in
estimating funding and is considered very high by legalization
staff at INS.
f. Homeless Individuals and Families
Existing service agencies indicate that a growing need exists for
limited-term shelter facilities for individuals and families with
no available shelter due to the following constraints:
limited/fixed income (e.g., SSI recipient); unemployment; recent
eviction, rent raise, or home foreclosure; low vacancy rate;
emotional/mental problems; family violence; or difficulty adapting
to a new culture. The target group (some of whom are chronically
homeless and some of whom are temporarily homeless) consists of
men and women of all ages.
Current Needs
The most recent statistics regarding the magnitude of homelessness
and existing resources were compiled by EMA-HCD as part of the
County's Comprehensive Homeless Assistance Plan (CHAP). The CHAP
was prepared in 1987 in support of the County's Emergency Homeless
Shelter Grant application under the McKinney Act (see program
description on page H-5-25). It should be noted that the
following statistics apply to the entire county, not the
unincorporated area.
The CHAP indicated that the total number of homeless `in Orange
County is unknown, but the Homeless Issues Task Force estimates
this figure to be 8,000 to 10,000. The following information was
compiled by one service provider based on 5,940 homeless clients
served during one month:
o Of the 5,940 persons assisted, 4,572 (77%) were families with
children. 42% of the total (2,524) were children. The
remaining 23% were individual adults.
o 60% had lived in Orange County at least 10 years.
o 40% were mentally disabled, and 10% of those also had physical
or sensory disabilities.
o Many were employed full-time.
o Many were not receiving governmental assistance (AFDC, General
Relief, etc.) due to ignorance of these programs or processing
requirements.
H-2-21
PAGE 37 Show Image
o Those wishing to work had difficulty finding jobs due to lack
of a mailing address, phone, bathing facilities, and in the
case of single parents, low-cost child care facilities.
The Homeless Issues Task Force, in cooperation with the County, is
currently (June 1989) preparing a survey of homeless persons. The
results of this survey should be available by September 1989. In
addition, the 1990 Census will aggressively attempt to enumerate
the homeless.
Existing Services and Facilities
The Comprehensive Homeless Assistance Plan includes an inventory
of existing facilities that provide services and shelter to the
homeless. These facilities are summarized below:
o Women's Transitional Living Center (domestic violence) 75 beds
o Christian Temporary Housing Facility 60 beds
o Interval House (domestic violence) 24 beds
o Orange Coast Interfaith Shelter 20 beds
o Dayle McIntosh Center (handicapped) 6 beds
o Episcopal Service Alliance, Martha House (women) 10 beds
o Orangewood Children's Home (dependent children) 186 beds
o Emergency Shelter Housing (children) 98 beds
o Irvine Temporary Housing 20 beds
o Brothers of Charity 30 beds
o YWCA (women) 20 beds
o Salvation Army 76 beds
o Alcohol Program (de-tox/recovery) 154 beds
o Drug Residential Program 131 beds
o Psychiatric Inpatient Hospitalization 299 beds
o Transitional Living Center (mentally ill adults) 30 beds
Total 1,239 beds
In addition to these facilities, the National Guard Armories
provide 250 beds during harsh weather conditions.
H-2-22
PAGE 38 Show Image
Two county parks, Featherly and O'Neill, are used for overnight
camping. Approximately 5 percent of the campsites are used by the
homeless (3% at Featherly and 2% at O'Neill). Camping stay is
limited to 15 days maximum within any calendar month. Extension
of the camping stay limit has been considered but no time frame
has been established.
Motels offer a supply of temporary family housing but even modest
units may cost $30 per day and, in many cases, are not in livable
condition.
Orange County Housing Authority maintains an inventory of
Emergency/Temporary Housing Facilities (see page H 5-16, Housing
Referral Directory).
Revenue sharing funds and private donations provide most of the
funding used for emergency housing. Community Development Block
Grant funding has been used for acquisition of two battered
women's facilities, one family facility, and a facility for
children.
Costs incurred by service agencies can be divided into facility
costs and maintenance costs. The Christian Temporary Housing
Facility budget states a cost of $10.00 a day per person,
excluding the retirement of building loan and up-front structure
costs.
g. Asian Pacific Immigrants and Refugees
During the past five years, between 100,000 and 200,000 Asian-
Pacific immigrants and refugees have settled in Orange County.
The majority of these people have settled in the northern part of
the county, specifically in the cities of Anaheim, Costa Mesa,
Fountain valley, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach,
Orange, Santa Aria, and Westminster. However, a large number of
these people have migrated to South County cities and
unincorporated areas such as Irvine, Mission Viejo, San Clemente,
Lake Forest, El Toro, Saddleback valley, and Laguna Hills.
In addition to those immigrants and refugees who have settled in
Orange County in the past five years, a new influx of Taiwanese
and Chinese immigrants has begun. This influx is coming from Los
Angeles County cities bordering the Orange County line. As
affordable housing opportunities in these border cities
(predominantly Cerritos, Hacienda Heights, and La Puente) become
scarce, the newly arrived immigrants and refugees move into Orange
County cities, most notably Brea, Cypress, La Habra, and Yorba
Linda.
This influx of refugees has exacerbated the tight housing market
for low- and moderately-low-income families. Immigrants and
refugees are particularly hard-hit because they tend to have
larger households than the county as a whole and for most, for an
H-2-23
PAGE 39 Show Image
initial period of time, also undergo a naturalization process.
The supply of large family houses and apartments affordable to
low-income households is inadequate, resulting in frequent cases
of overcrowding and other poor living conditions which result in
additional personal problems.
In January 1981, the Orange County Human Relations Commission
published a `1Report on the Impact of Refugee Resettlement in
Orange County" that examined the problems of refugees in the areas
of education, housing, employment, health, criminal justice, and
public assistance. In reviewing the housing problems of refugees,
the report concluded that the housing problems of refugees could
not be isolated from those of other groups and "that the
refugee-specific problems could only be solved through a
comprehensive and aggressive approach to the countywide housing
situation."
Overall, the influx of newly arrived Asian-Pacific groups from at
least 16 different countries in the Pacific Rim will continue to
exacerbate the lack of affordable low-income housing in all areas
of `the County. It is projected that the number of Asian-Pacific
persons, the fastest growing ethnic group in Southern California,
will continue to increase over the next few years creating a
critical need to focus hdusing assistance in provision of
affordable low-income units.
D. Housing Stock Characteristics
1. Structure Type and Tenure
Large multi-unit structures represent the largest share of annual
added units in Orange County between January 1, 1987 and January 1,
1988, followed by single family units. In the unincorporated areas, a
total of 128,454 residential units were located there as of January 1,
1988. Single family detached homes represented the majority of units
at 76,603. Units in large multi-family structures totaled 25,690,
followed by single family attached units at 13,156, the duplex to
fourplex category at 10,703, and mobile homes at 2,302.
Rentals represent a significant number of the affordable units planned
and constructed to meet the County's affordable housing requirements.
This is particularly true as evidenced by recent activity under the
Housing Opportunity Program (HOP).
The County's Multi-family Revenue Bond Program has also functioned as
a stimulus for the production of rentals in Orange County. This
program was implemented in 1982 to provide below market financing to
builders for the construction of multiple family rental units in
participating cities and the unincorporated area of the County.
Information summarizing the Multi-family Revenue Bond Program is found
on page H 3-12 of this document.
H-2-24
PAGE 40 Show Image
The Orange County Assessor File was used to provide an updated
estimate of the number of rental units in the County as of March 31,
1988. Households filing a homeowner exemption with the County
Assessor were separated from all households in order to obtain an
estimate of rental units vs. owner-occupied units in Orange County.
While homeowner exemptions are not filed by every homeowner in the
County, those that do not file are not believed to be significant in
number.
Of the total households reflected on the March 1988 Assessor's roll
countywide, 47 percent filed homeowner exemptions, while 53 percent
are assumed to be renters. In the unincorporated area, 43 percent of
the households are estimated renters, while 57 percent are homeowners.
2. Overcrowding Status
The standard measure of overcrowded housing used by the U.S. Census
Bureau is a ratio of more than one person per room, excluding kitchens
and bathrooms. For example, a typical two-bedroom apartment with
living room, kitchen and one bathroom (three rooms total) would be
considered overcrowded if it were occupied by more than three persons.
According to the 1980 Census, overcrowding (1.01 or more person per
room) is much more prevalent among renters at all geographic levels.
The Census data also showed that overcrowded housing was much less of
a problem in unincorporated areas of the county than in the county as
a whole. Among rental units, almost 10 percent were defined as
overcrowded countywide, while in unincorporated areas this figure was
only 6 percent. Overcrowding was almost non-existent among owner-
occupied units in unincorporated areas (1 percent); countywide, the
figure was 3 percent.
It should be noted that for purposes of determining compliance with
fair housing laws, different definitions of overcrowding.are used.
For example, the State Department of Fair Employment and Housing
utilizes a threshold of two persons per bedroom plus one additional
person, with occupancy limits more restrictive than this raising a
potential discrimination challenge. The Uniform Housing Code states:
"Every dwelling unit shall have at least one room which shall have not
less than 150 square feet of floor area. Other habitable rooms,
except kitchens, shall have an area of not less than 70 square feet.
Where more than two persons occupy a room used for sleeping purposes,
the required floor area shall be increased at the rate of 50 square
feet for each additional occupant in excess of two."
3. Condition of Housing Stock
A direct measure of housing stock condition is not available. A field
survey of housing condition is not practical given the size of the
geographic area involved and staff and budget constraints.
H-2-25
PAGE 41 Show Image
Orange County's housing stock is in better condition than that of
California as a whole.
One indicator of housing stock condition is units defined as
substandard. The Housing Assistance Plan, in determining the number
of units suitable for rehabilitation, uses 1980 Census data as
adjusted by the Southern California Association of Governments.
Substandard units are those that do not comply with Section 8 Existing
Housing Quality Standards for occupancy. The 1988 Housing Assistance
Plan states that 17,657 units are classified as substandard, broken
down as follows:
Substandard dwelling units total: 17,657
Owner-occupied: - 998
Vacant: 555
Renter-occupied: 7,659
Vacant: 388
Suitable for rehabilitation and occupied: 8,398
Low-income occupant: 1,446
Vacant: 391
Renter-Occupied: 6,532
Lower-income occupant: 2,644
Vacant: 234
A second definition of substandard units employed by the County is
"substandard beyond repair." This includes units that are not
economically feasible to repair (i.e., the rehabilitation costs exceed
the appraised value of the property minus the lot). The number of
substandard units in this latter category is unknown.
E. Housing Cost
1. Existing Home Prices
Data regarding sales prices for existing single family detached houses
is shown in Table 2-10. Sales price distribution is compiled from
transactions that occurred during 1988.
The table indicates that 33 percent of all units were priced at
$250,000 and over. Only 45 percent of transactions involved homes
were priced below $200,000.
2. Financing Costs
The full impact of rising mortgage rates upon potential homebuyers
becomes apparent when hypothetical monthly payment schedules are
examined. Table 2-11 shows the monthly payments and annual household
incomes required to qualify for loans at interest rates ranging from 8
H-2-26
PAGE 42 Show Image
TABLE 2-10
Price Distribution of Existing
Single-Family Detached Home Sales*
Orange County
1988
Price Sales Percent
Under $ 50,000 6 0.04
$ 50,000 - 59,000 14 0.09
$ 60,000 - 69,000 20 0.14
$ 70,000 - 79,000 58 0.39
$ 80,000 - 89,000 76 0.52
$ 90,000 - 99,000 124 0.84
$100,000 - 119,000 457 3.10
$120,000 - 139,000 952 5.45
$140,000 - 159,000 1,325 8.98
$160,000 - 179,000 1,797 12.18
$180,000 - 199,000 1,816 12.31
$200,000 - 249,000 3,199 21.69
$250,000 and over 4,905 33.26
Total 14,749 100.00
* Based on a monthly sales survey of existing homes conducted by
California Association of Realtors using data on closed escrow sales
provided by various boards of realtors.
Sources:
California Association of Realtors.
EMA/Advance Planning Division.
H-2-27
PAGE 43 Show Image
TABLE 2-11
Monthly Payments and Household Income Required
to Purchase a Average-Priced New Home in Orange County*
February 1989
Interest Rate Monthly Payment al Annual Income Required bi
8% $1,569 $65,898
9% $1,696 $71,232
10% $1,827 $76,734
11% $1,961 $82,362
12% $2,097 $88,074
13% $2,237 $93,954
* Average price for recorded new and existing homes sales for the month of
February 1989 was $224,057, per TRW.
Notes:
al Assumes a 30-year fixed rate mortgage with 20% down payment, property
tax of 1.2% of home value per year, $30 monthly property insurance. A
monthly homeowners association dues is not take into account.
bi Assumes 3.5-to-i income to payment qualifying ratio.
Source:
TRW Real Estate Market Information
EMA/Advance Planning Division
H-2-28
PAGE 44 Show Image
to 13 percent. For example, a family seeking to buy an averaged-
priced housing unit in Orange County in 1988, with the payment
required with a 10 percent interest rate would be about $1,827 per
month; at 13 percent, the monthly payment becomes $2,237. These
hypothetical cases underscore the critical importance of financing in
the real estate market.
3. Housing Costs vs. Ability to Pay
The spectacular increase in home values in Orange County has not been
matched in the rental market. As Table 2-12 indicates, rent increases
have been rather modest by comparison. While homes were appreciating
at annual rates above 20 percent during the late 1970s, rents were
typically increasing 8-10 percent annually.
Home price and rent statistics tell only half the story of housing
costs. Although prices and rents in Orange County are high in
comparison to other areas, incomes are also higher than average. In
order to accurately evaluate shelter costs, it is important to compare
monthly housing expenditures to incomes. In general, financial
advisors recommend that housing expenditures should not exceed 25 to
30 percent of gross household income. Expense ratios above this
standard are considered overpayment. In middle- and upper-income
categories this situation may be only a temporary inconvenience, such
as when young professionals stretch to buy their first house. For
low-income households, however, overpayment for housing may result in
an inadequate budget for food, clothing, health care, or other
necessities.
Table 2-13 presents housing cost to income ratios for owner occupied
units. These statistics are derived from 1980 Census data, which
utilize 1979 calendar year income figures. As Table 2-13 illustrates,
median monthly housing expenses for owner-occupied units in the
unincorporated area exceeded 25 percent of income in all but the
highest ($20,000+) income category. In the county as a whole,
overpayment was somewhat less common, although still the norm in
low- income households.
The 1980 census statistics for renter-occupied units are very similar
to those for owner-occupied units, although low-income renters
generally paid a higher proportion of their income for housing than
owners in similar financial brackets (see Table 2-14). This situation
was reversed in the upper-income category, however, where renters
generally paid a slightly smaller portion of their income for housing
than did owners.
4. Residential Energy Cost
The distribution of household energy costs as a percentage of income
for Orange County residents is presented in Table 2-15. According to
the 1980 census, in both renter- and owner-occupied categories, the
median energy cost was 1.5 percent of income. This relationship was
true for both the unincorporated area and the county as a whole.
H-2-29
PAGE 45 Show Image
TABLE 2-12
Residential Rent Index: 1978-1988
Los Angeles/Orange County MSAs
Annual
Year Indexal Charge (~)b/
1978 61.4
1979 68.0 10.7
1980 76.6 12.6
1981 85.3 11.4
1982 93.5 9.6
1983 99.6 6.5
1984 106.9 7.3
1985 115.6 8.1
1986 123.8 7.1
1987 130.5 5.4
1988c/ 135.8 4.5
Note: al This index is a component of the consumer Price Index.
bi Average Annual compound rate of income.
ci Through September only
Sources: Real Estate Research Council of Southern California
Real Estate and Construction ReDort, Third Quarter 1988, p.42.
County of Orange, EMA/Advance Planning Division
H-2-30
PAGE 46 Show Image
TABLE 2-13
Household Income by Selected Monthly Owner Costs as Percentage of Income
Owner-occupied Non-Condominium Housing Units
Orange County and California
1979
Orange County
Unincorporated Area Orange County California
Pct. of Income Households Percent Households Percent Households Percent
Less than ~5.000 1,520 100.0 10,476 100.0 219,010 100.0
Less than 20% 47 3.1 826 7.9 29,306 13.4
20 to 24% 54 3.6 626 6.0 18,456 8.4
25 to 34% 94 6.2 788 7.5 25,767 11.8
35% or more 937 61.6 6,206 59.2 114,577 52.3
Not computed 388 25.5 2,030 19.4 30,904 14.1
Median Over 35.0% Over 35.0% Over 35.0%
~5,000 to ~9.999 1,871 100.0 14,856 100.0 332,502 100.0
Less than 20% 296 15.8 4,243 28.6 144,279 43.4
20 to 24% 89 4.8 1,154 7.8 31.189 9.4
25 to 34% 251 13.4 2,111 14.2 46,354 13.9
35% or more 1,235 66.0 7,348 49.4 110,679 33.3
Not computed -- -- -- -- -- --
Median Over 35.0% 34.1 23.2
~10,000 to ~14.999 2,655 100.0 20,271 100.0 390,440 100.0
Less than 20% 721 27.2 7,251 35.8 195,713 50.1
20 to 24% 240 9.0 2,228 11.0 41,110 10.5
25 to 34% 455 17.1 3,035 15.0 56,415 14.5
35% or more 1,239 46.7 7,757 38.2 97,202 24.9
Not computed -- -- -- -- -- --
Median 32.6 26.7 Less than 20.0%
~15,000 to ~19.999 3,576 100.0 25,781 100.0 446,484 100.0
Less than 20% 1,200 33.6 11,421 42.7 236,941 53.1
20 to 24% 381 10.7 2,922 10.9 50,551 11.3
25 to 34% 525 14.7 4,339 16.2 75,044 16.8
35% or more 1,470 41.0 8,099 30.2 83,948 18.8
Not computed -- -- -- -- -- --
Median 29.4 22.9 Less than 20.0%
~20.000 or More 40,119 100.0 236,261 100.0 2,443,058 100.0
Less than 20% 20,606 51.4 145,398 61.6 1,678,993 68.7
20 to 24% 5,295 13.2 29,603 12.5 287,079 11.8
25 to 34% 8,149 20.3 38,046 16.1 323,007 13.2
35% or more 6,069 15.1 23,214 9.8 153,979 6.3
Not computed -- -- -- -- -- --
Median Less than 20.0% Less than 20.0% Less than 20.0%
Sources: 1980 Census, STF 3, Table 139
Orange County Administrative Office
Orange County EMA/Advance Planning Division
H-2-31
PAGE 47 Show Image
TABLE 2-14
Household Income by Selected Monthly Owner Costs as Percentage of Income
Renter-Occupied Housing Units
Orange County and California
1979
Orange County
Unincorporated Area Orange County California
Pat. of Income Households Percent Households Percent Households Percent
Less than ~5.000 2,166 100.0 29,869 100.0 673,053 100.0
Less than 20% 6 0.3 173 0.6 11,165 1.7
20 to 24% 28 1.3 393 1.3 21,300 3.2
25 to 34% 64 3.0 923 3.1 43,496 6.5
35% or more 1,681 77.5 23,993 80.3 502,000 74.6
Not computed 387 17.9 4,387 14.7 95,092 14.1
Median Over 35.0% Over 35.0% Over 35.0%
~5.000 to ~9.999 3,459 100.0 44,429 100.0 794,235 100.0
Less than 20%. 100 2.9 776 1.7 47,839 6.0
20 to 24% 144 4.2 1,365 3.1 160,809 7.7
25 to 34% 471 13.6 4,943 11.1 183,259 23.1
35% or more 2,650 76.6 36,600 82.4 481,665 60.7
Not computed 94 2.7 745 1.7 20,663 2.6
Median Over 35.0% Over 35.0% Over 35.0%
~l0.000 to ~14.999 4,299 100.0 52,287 100.0 731,277 100.0
Less than 20% 273 6.4 2,659 5.1 139,349 19.1
20 to 24% 346 8.0 5,397 10.3 145,911 20.0
25 to 34% 1,228 28.6 21,561 41.2 257,337 35.2
35% or more 2,367 55.0 22,064 42.2 172,384 23.6
Not computed 85 2.0 606 1.2 16,296 2.2
Median Over 35.0% 32.7 27.3
~15.000 to ~19.999 3,659 100.0 46,150 100.0 550,865 100.0
Less than 20% 609 16.6 8,745 18.9 230,246 41.8
20 to 24% 788 21.5 13,932 30.2 137,500 25.0
25 to 34% 1,374 37.6 17,259 137.5 129,340 23.5
35% or more 819 22.4 5,822 12.6 42,924 7.8
Not computed 69 1.9 392 0.8 10,855 2.0
Median 27.4 24.6 21.3
~20.000 or More 9,518 100.0 94,494 100.0 958,021 100.0
Less than 20% 5,551 58.3 62,161 65.7 708,517 74.0
20 to 24% 1,986 20.9 19,165 20.3 142,531 14.9
25 to 34% 1,675 17.6 11,428 12.1 81,066 8.5
35% or more 179 1.9 825 0.9 5,773 0.6
Not computed 127 1.3 915 1.0 20,134 2.1
Median Less than 20.0% Less than 20.0% Less than 20.0%
Sources: 1980 Census, STF 3, Table 139
Orange County Administrative Office
Orange County EMA/Advance Planning Division
H-2-32
PAGE 48 Show Image
TABLE 2-15
Tenure by Average Monthly Residential Energy Costs as Percentage of Income
Orange County
1979
Orange County
Orange County Unincorporated Area
Percent of Income Households Percent Households Percent
Owner-Occupied 415,127 100.0 72,088 100.0
No Charge 2,127 0.5 380 0.5
0.1 to 2% 265,384 63.9 47,951 66.5
3 to 4% 85,547 20.6 14,134 19.6
S to 9% 41,174 9.9 6,076 8.4
10 to 14% 8,817 2.1 1,482 2.1
15 to 19% 3,083 0.7 441 0.6
20% or more 5,803 1.4 874 1.2
Not computed 3,192 0.8 750 1.0
Median 1.5% 1.5%
Renter-Occupied 271,140 100.0 23,709 100.0
No Charge 36,721 13.5 2,880 12.1
0.1 to 2% 139,610 51.5 12,138 51.2
3 to 4% 45,615 16.8 4,279 18.0
5 to 9% 30,274 11.2 2,691 11.4
10 to 14% 7,180 2.6 675 2.8
15 to 19% 2,778 1.0 256 1.1
20% or more 5,011 1.8 445 1.9
Not computed 3,951 1.5 345 1.5
Median 1.5%
Sources: 1980 Census, STF 4A, Table HA 35
Orange County EMA/Advance Planning Division
H-2-33
PAGE 49 Show Image
F. Regional Housing Needs Assessment
Current and projected housing needs for the unincorporated area are
derived from the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) prepared by the
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). RHNA projections
are a direct indication of overpayment (i.e., household paying more than
30 percent of their income for housing). The current RHNA figures, shown
in Table 2-16, were released in June 1988.
The RHNA is composed of two parts: Current needs and future needs.
1. Current needs
According to the RHNA, in the unincorporated area, there are currently
(1988) a total of 123,246 households. Of these, 12,640 (10%) are
lower-income households "in need" (households paying an inordinate
amount for housing) in the unincorporated areas of Orange County
(Table 2-16). These households are distributed according to income
category (low vs. very low) and tenure.
(Note:~ These figures include the incorporated cities of Mission Viejo
and Dana Point.)
2. Future needs
Projected future needs, presented in Table 2-16, are based upon the
projected five-year growth in the unincorporated area, adjusted for
vacancy and the local income distribution. For the 1989-94 period, it
is estimated that 24,191 housing units will be required in the
unincorporated area. This growth need is distributed according to
income category as follows:
5-Year Growth Need
Income Category Units Pct. of Total
Very low (0-50%) 3,556 14.7
Low (50%-80%) 4,620 19.1
Moderate (90-120%) 5,008 20.7
Upper (Over 120%) 1l~007 45.5
24,191 100.00
H-2-34
PAGE 50 Show Image
TABLE 2-16
Regional Housing Needs Assessment for
Unincorporated Orange County
1988
Current Need
Very Low Income Low Income
Owner Renter Owner Renter Total
2,415 4,619 1,828 3,780 12,642
Future Need
Very Low Low Mod High Total
3,556 4,620 5,008 11,007 24,191
Source: Regional Housing Needs Assessment for Southern California,
Southern California Association of Governments, June 1988.
BJ:hdCHAP2 .wP (01/02/96)
H-2-35
PAGE 51 Show Image
PAGE 52 Show Image
CHAPTER THREE: POTENTIAL CONSTRAINTS ON HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND IMPROVEMENT
A. Land Use Controls, Land Availability and Suitable Sites
1. Land Use Controls: Public and Private
a. Public
Land use controls can pose a potential constraint to development.
On the one hand, to the extent that such controls reflect
underlying physical constraints, infrastructure capacity
limitation and market demand, they do not, in themselves,
constrain development or add to its cost. On the other hand, to
the extent that such controls are independent of, or in excess of,
more fundamental constraints, they can unnecessarily constrain a
competitive land market and otherwise impede feasible development,
thus adding to shelter costs. While the extent of such effects is
controversial, there is general recognition that they may be
significant. Identifying, understanding, and addressing these
constraints is essential in order to carry out the County's
commitment to facilitate adequate housing development.
Under state law, local government must plan and control the use of
all private and public land. With landowner and public
participation, the County determines broad land use designations
and specific zoning for the unincorporated area.
The Land Use Element (LUE) map identifies potential areas for
development. Within general public facility constraints, market
forces will determine the exact location and timing of
development.
The Land Use Element has eight land use designations. Residential
development is permitted in the following categories~at indicated
densities:
Categories Dwelling Units Per Acre
Rural Residential 0.025 - 0.5
Suburban Residential 0.5 - 18
Urban Residential 18 and above
Urban Activity Center Per Zoning Regulations
The Rural Residential category is applied to areas in which
limited residential use is compatible with the natural character
of the terrain and availability of infrastructure. The intensity
of development of these areas is thus severely constrained.
The Suburban Residential category is characterized by a wide range
of housing types from estate to attached dwelling units
(townhomes, condominiums, apartments, and clustered arrangements).
This category permits considerable flexibility for residential
H-3-l
PAGE 53 Show Image
development. Site-specific considerations and infrastructure
capacity will determine densities permitted for project proposal.
The Urban Residential category is applied to areas where intensive
residential development is compatible with surrounding urban
development. Development within this category is characterized by
intensive multiple-family residential uses such as apartment1
condominium, townhouse, and clustered residential units. Though
this category is the most conducive for affordable housing, it is
also the most demanding on infrastructure capacity.
The Urban Activity Center category is intended to facilitate
high-intensity focal points for the community, with a mix of
residential, business, cultural, and public facilities. These
centers are located adjacent to major transportation corridors to
allow the most efficient use of the circulation system, including
transit.
Urban Activity Centers, due to their diversity of uses, are, at
times, located in areas significantly impacted by noise. The
major sources of significant noise in Orange County are aircraft
and highway vehicles. While both can usually be mitigated to
acceptable levels indoors, aircraft noise cannot be mitigated
outdoors because of its overhead source. State law and County
policy prohibit residential development and similar uses in
high-noise (+65 CNEL) areas near El Toro Marine Corps Air Station
and John Wayne Airport. (Residential land use is the most
sensitive because of the nature of activities which occur over a
24-hour period as well as the generally accepted need for, and
design incorporating, outdoor living areas.) These policies thus
preclude residential development in certain areas or, if approved,
may increase development costs due to required attenuation
measures.
The Orange County Zoning Code enables implementation of the
General Plan through either conventional or planned community
zoning. The nature and complexity of zoning can be a short-term
constraint to development if project design is inconsistent with
zoning.
The zoning of property is a local option granted to each
jurisdiction by state legislation. The County of Orange has opted
to zone property and has wide discretion regarding the substance
of its code (e.g., type and intensity of uses permitted, site
development standards, etc.). It may permit uses outright or by
further discretionary review, e.g., by use permit. The County has
moved away from a rigid code and, instead, has granted greater
flexibility via use permits and site plans. Such flexibility
comes at a cost, however, because discretionary review prolongs
processing time and does not assure a specific outcome.
H-3-2
PAGE 54 Show Image
b. Private
The unincorporated area is characterized by several large
landowners that plan, develop, market, and, in some cases, build
housing. These planned communities have been a widely noted
feature of the county's development. They have greatly
facilitated the implementation of many County policies such as the
General Plan's balanced land use objectives and Growth Management
Program since the County can essentially work with one large
developer instead of many small developers. At the same time,
planned community owners/developers have independent strategies
and quality standards for development that may impose constraints
beyond those contained in County land use regulations.
2. Adequacy of Residential Land Approvals and Inventory of Residential
Sites.
The General Plan Land Use Element commits the County to the following
policy:
To provide a variety of residential densities that permit a mix of
housing opportunities affordable to the county's labor force.
The Growth Management Program (GMP), described in the Land Use
Element, implements Phased Development requiring project proponents to
submit annual monitoring reports (AMR's) which project future
development activity, identify public service deficiencies, and
identify mitigation measures. This practice of submitting AMR's is
intended to enable the County and the private sector to identify and
resolve potential deficiencies before they restrict development. This
is essential for continued availability of land for residential
development. The GMP will be evaluated periodically to determine if
the goal is being adequately met.
The County, on August 3, 1968, adopted a new Growth Management Plan
Element (GMPE) which is the most current expression of county growth
management policies and is an extension of the LUE Growth Management
Program. The Element contains County policies on the planning and
provision of traffic improvements and public facilities that are
necessary for orderly growth and development. A major goal of the
Growth Management Plan Element is to ensure that traffic improvements
and public facilities are planned and implemented in an efficient,
timely manner to meet the current and projected needs of Orange
County.
The County recognizes that whether projected needs are met will depend
on many factors in addition to the adequacy of residential development
approvals. These other factors include market conditions,
governmental financial constraints, and private development decisions.
Together with infrastructure availability, interest rates, etc., these
factors will also determine the pace of housing development.
H-3-3
PAGE 55 Show Image
As required by Government Code Section 65563(a) (3), the County has
prepared a detailed inventory of land suitable for residential
development or redevelopment, along with an estimate of the amount of
growth that can be accommodated during the time frame of the Housing
Element (1989-94). This material is contained in Appendix B. The
purpose of this inventory is to demonstrate that the County has
designated and planned for sufficient residential sites to accommodate
the level of growth indicated in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment
and the County's quantified objectives for new housing development.
3. Agricultural Preserves
The County's agricultural preserve policy implemented in 1969 was
intended to provide time to plan and develop mechanisms to preserve
agricultural land. These policies are contained in the Resources
Element of the General Plan.
The state enacted the Williamson Act in 1965 in response to increasing
land taxes which were forcing agricultural land into more intensive
uses. The act assesses agricultural land at a lower rate than
non-agricultural land. In exchange, landowners enter an agreement
with the local jurisdiction to limit uses on the contracted land for
at least 10 years. There are approximately 63,000 acres within the
county held as agricultural preserves under Williamson Act provisions.
Since 1960, approximately 13,000 acres have been removed from
agricultural preserves and subsequently planned for urban development.
The land inventory analysis contained in Appendix B concludes that
there currently are sufficient residential sites designated for
development (i.e., General Plan and zoning entitlements) to
accommodate future 5-year needs, and agricultural preserves do not
pose a constraint to development. If this situation were to change in
the future, the County's agricultural preserve policy may need to be
reconsidered.
B. Site Improvement Requirements, Fees and Exactions
The General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, planned community regulations,
coastal plans, and specific plans provide the goals, policies, and
regulations for planning and development in Orange County.
The primary purpose of Orange County's planning process is to provide a
balanced living environment so that all economic segments may enjoy a full
complement of public services. To achieve this goal, the County imposes
site improvement requirements upon new development projects.
As part of its project review and approval procedures, the County
frequently recommends conditions of approval for General Plan amendments,
zone changes, discretionary permits (e.g., use permits, site plans, etc.),
and subdivision maps. These conditions are imposed in accordance with
state law and County policy, and they address matters of public concern as
they relate to specific projects. Most development conditions have been
standardized to ensure equitable administration of the approval process.
H-3-4
PAGE 56 Show Image
Development conditions are reviewed on a regular basis by the County to
ensure that they are applied consistently and that they are reasonably
related to the use for which the property is intended.
The following are examples of development conditions imposed upon
residential projects. When not precluded by public safety considerations,
modifications of these requirements are granted by the County in order to
reduce project development costs and increase affordable housing
production.
1. Grading
These requirements address both geological conditions and aesthetic
impacts, e.g., preservation/enhancement of views, landforms,
screening, landscaping, etc. They are usually applied at the site-
specific level. Modifications in the form of less contour grading,
fewer manufactured berms, increased grading area allowances, etc. have
been approved for affordable housing projects.
2. Historic Sites
Requirements addressing conservation of historic resources located
within proposed projects are usually applied at the site-specific
level of approval. Reduction of standards for the size of sites to be
preserved or restricted from development have been approved for
affordable housing projects.
3. Regional Park and Open Space Requirements
In conjunction with the approval of residential General Plan
amendments or zone changes, regional park and open space requirements
are imposed for the dedications of regional and community open space
and recreation areas. Since the cost of housing may be affected by
the size and value of such dedication areas, reductions in
requirements and increases in density have been provided to effect
cost savings. Reduced park and open space dedication requirements and
the corresponding cost savings are achieved at the expense of
environmental quality, however.
4. Archaeological/Paleontological Sites
These requirements address reporting, preservation, and salvage of
sites and artifacts. Changes to substantive reporting requirements
and the preservation of sites in lieu of salvage excavation and/or the
capping and developing of sites have been approved for some projects
to cut costs.
Board of Supervisors policy permits the County to pay the cost of
salvage when funds have been budgeted from building permit fees for
that purpose. The possibility was explored in 1986-87 for budgeting
H/CD funds for payment of salvage on affordable housing projects but
was found infeasible.
H-3-5
PAGE 57 Show Image
5. Landscaping Requirements
These requirements address screening and scenic enhancement and are
usually applied at the site-specific level.
Modifications have been permitted for some projects in the form of
reduced plant coverage and the use of less expensive species. Lowered
landscaping costs help reduce the cost of affordable housing.
6. Parks and Recreation Requirements
These requirements apply to local parks and park improvements. County
exactions for parkland are guided by the appropriate sections of the
state Subdivision Map Act (California Government Code Section 661-6610
incorporating provisions of the Quimby Act (SB 1785)), which permit
local agencies to require developers to provide parkland at the rate
of up to three acres per thousand population. The County requires two
and one-half acres of parkland per thousand population, which is less
than the maximum permitted by state law. In addition, policies
contained in the Recreation Element allow up to 25 percent of this
requirement to be satisfied by private recreational facilities within
planned communities and up to 100 percent of the requirement in other
areas.
7. Transportation Facilities Requirements
These requirements consist of private sector assistance through the
County's Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program. Payment of fees
has been postponed for affordable housing projects resulting in
development cost savings.
8. Site Development Standards
These requirements are established through land use regulations.
Modification of standards for building height, setback, and parking
requirements often results in cost savings for affordable housing
proj ects.
In response to the need for affordable housing, the County adopted an
Affordable Housing Incentive Use Permit procedure (Section 7-9-140 of
the Orange County Zoning Code). The purpose of this ordinance is to
permit deviations from site development standards that provide
flexibility for builders in order to deliver a more affordable
product.
The extent to which the site development requirements discussed above
are applied to residential projects is based upon an evaluation by
decision makers of their effect upon the quality, quantity, and cost
of housing to be produced.
H-3-6
PAGE 58 Show Image
C. Building Code and Enforcement
The basic purpose of the Building Code and its enforcement is to protect
the public from unsafe buildings and unsafe conditions associated with
construction. However, constantly changing materials and construction
techniques make it essential to continually review and update the Building
Code to avoid obsolescence and ensure that health and safety standards are
maintained. Such code maintenance also provides an opportunity to ensure
that the code does not mandate unnecessarily costly materials or
construction techniques. Accordingly, the Building Code is similar to
those used by other local agencies in California and does not present any
special constraints to the development of housing.
D. Processing Requirements
The California Government Code establishes permitted time periods for
local agencies to review and act upon private development prQposals.
Examples of such restrictions for several discretionary permits are
identified in Figure 3-1, "Comparative Development Processing Time
Limits." Typically, state restrictions, especially those imposed by the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), are much less stringent than
those set by County policy. The county strives to complete all project
reviews within the time limitations defined by County policy regardless of
state allowances.
An amendment to the California Government Code (Section 65662) permits
concurrent processing of applications for general plan amendments and zone
changes when inconsistency between the general plan and zoning is the
result of a general plan amendment or element adoption. The Board of
Supervisors, in 1980, approved a policy to encourage concurrent processing
of development proposals, when appropriate, in order to reduce processing
time. Concurrent processing is permitted for the following actions:
1. Zone Change - use permit - tentative tract map
2. Zone Change - tentative tract map
3. Zone Change - use permit
4. Zone Change - site plan
5. Zone Change - tentative tract map - use permit - site plan
(These planning activities may also include a general plan amendment
as cited in Section 65862 of the California Government Code.)
E. State-Imposed Requirements
1. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
The environmental review process generally constrains the development
process by increasing project processing time. CEQA review, which is
mandated by the state, can cause unavoidable processing delays that
ultimately result in additional costs to the home buyers.
H-3-7
PAGE 59 Show Image
FIGURE 3-1
COMPARATIVE DEVELOPMENT PROCESSING TIME LIMITS
Item State Maximum County Policy
General Plan Amendments None None
Zone Chances None None
Subdivisions
o Action on Tentative Maps 50 days 50 days
Environmental Documentation
o Additional Data Needed - -
Notice to Applicant 30 days 5 working days
o Determination of Negative Declaration
or EIR' Requirement for project 45 days 20 working days
o Completion of Negative Declarations 60 days 14 days
o Certification of Final EIR 1 year 1 year
Variances. Use Permits. Site Plans,
Grading Permits
o Additional Data needed - -
Notice to applicant 30 days 30 days
0 Final Action on Project 1 year 1 year
Building Permits None None
H-3-8
PAGE 60 Show Image
In an effort to streamline the environmental review process, the
county implemented the Master Environmental Assessment (MEA) Program
to achieve the following goals:
a. Centralize and improve data accessibility.
b. Expedite the environmental review process.
c. Minimize development costs.
d. Ensure responsible development patterns.
e. Develop more specific performance standards from which to assess
the viability of projects.
The MEA serves to streamline the environmental review process from the
research and analysis stage of a project through the decision-making
phase. This results in shorter processing times, which is ultimately
a cost cutting measure resulting in lower unit prices or rents.
In Fiscal Year 1987-88, projects were submitted to the Environmental
and Special Projects Division (ESP) for environmental review. Of the
total number of projects submitted, 2 were determined to have the
potential for significant impact on the environment and were required
to submit an EIR. In Orange County unincorporated areas, delays
caused as a result of the EIR process affect a minor portion of
projects submitted for processing.
2. Article 34
Article 34 of the California Constitution requires that any low-rent
housing projects "developed, constructed, or acquired in any manner"
by any state public agency receive voter approval. A voter referendum
must be held whether or not there are local costs associated with
development and operation.
The requirements of Article 34 have imposed a barrier to development
of housing for low-income families by state and local agencies not
generally incurred by comparable development undertaken by the private
sector. This requirement has discouraged many communities from
seeking federal and state housing assistance. In addition, the
resulting delays are a major factor in the already difficult task of
developing affordable housing for those of low income.
Article 34 was designed by its backers as a mechanism for constraining
the development of the traditional public housing projects, and in
most instances has accomplished that end. Although these provisions
have slowed the development of housing for low-income, aged, and
handicapped persons, many communities have gone to the electorate and
received approval for public housing developments.
H-3-9
PAGE 61 Show Image
In June 1980, a general Article 34 authorization was passed in the
unincorporated county and 11 cities. The effectiveness of such an
election is now questionable in light of the recent California Supreme
Court case of Davis vs. the City of Berkeley (1988) 41 Cat. 3d 512
which invalidated a general authorization adopted by Berkeley voters.
That decision is currently being reheard by the Supreme Court.
3. Building Energy Standards for Residential Development (Title 24)
On September 25, 1981, the state Building Standards Commission adopted
revised building energy standards for new residential development.
These standards, which went into effect on July 13, 1982, established
energy budgets (maximum energy use levels) for residential buildings
for each of the 16 established climate zones in California.
The cost of complying with these standards can range from $500 to
$17,000 depending on the package type and climate zone.~
Additional information regarding energy conservation is provided in
Appendix E.
F. Cost of Land, Construction, and Financing
1. Cost of Land
Residential land prices in Orange County have risen dramatically since
the early 1980's. According to the Construction Industry Research
Board, the cost of improved land in 1989 accounts for 35% of the total
cost of a single family house compared to 27.8% in 1980.
2. Construction Costs
Construction costs for residential units have increased rapidly over
the past decade. Land prices, together with construction costs, have
pushed up the cost of housing greatly.
In a market study prepared for the County in 1983, the Land Economies
Group developed six construction scenarios based on types of units and
quality of construction. Square foot costs were translated into
construction cost by unit adjusted for Orange County. Average
construction cost in Orange County during 1963 for a single family
detached dwelling was $46 per square foot; for a condominium
townhouse, it was $32 per square foot; and apartments averaged $37 per
square foot. Mininium prices ranged from $40,670 to $51,640 per unit
for an apartment, $40,190 to $68,900 for a townhouse, and $58,590 to
$70,980 for a single-family detached house.
Lower sales prices could result from a reduction in amenities or
quality of materials (above a minimum level consistent with health and
1 Title 24 compliance costs based upon CEC (low end) and Southern
California builders (high end) estimates.
H-3-l0
PAGE 62 Show Image
safety and adequate performance). To the developer and home-buyer,
interest rates have the greatest impact on the ability to construct or
purchase a home. Interest rates, however, are determined by national
policies and economic conditions, and there is little that local
governments can do to affect these rates.
3. Financing Costs
a. Orange County Revenue Bond Program
The County of Orange has established two revenue bond housing
programs to increase the supply of affordable housing stock in the
county. Under these programs, tax-exempt bonds are issued to
provide funds for construction and mortgage loans to encourage
developers to provide both rental and for sale housing which is
affordable to income qualified families and individuals.
Authority for use of tax-exempt financing is governed by the
Internal Revenue Code which sets a ceiling or cap on the volume of
tax-exempt "private activity bonds" that each state can issue each
year. Private activity bonds include qualified mortgage bonds
issued for private uses and other projects such as Industrial
Development Bonds and student loans. Each state can choose the
volume of each bond type it issues, as long as the overall cap is
not exceeded. For the calendar year 1988, the statewide ceiling
was $1,349,050,000. By setting a nationwide volume cap, the
Federal Government controls the amount of tax-exempt private
activity bonds available. The volume cap is not an allocation of
Federal dollars, but rather a limit on the authority to issue
these types of bonds.
The funding for these projects comes from the investors who
purchase these bonds and receive, in return, interest earnings
that are exempt from Federal Income taxation. Debt service for
principal and interest payments to the investors is paid back by
the home mortgage payments in the case of single family issues or
the rental payments in the case of multi-family bond issues.
(1) Single Family Residential Mortgage Revenue Bond Program
The Single Family Residential Mortgage Revenue Bond Program
has existed in Orange County since 1980. The program is
designed to provide mortgage loans to first-time homebuyers
whose incomes do not exceed maximum Federal limits. Buyers
must also intend to live in the homes as their principal
residence. Mortgage loans offered under the bond program
generally have lower interest rates than conventional loans.
Loans are made available for attached and detached single
family residences primarily in eligible developments at
various locations throughout the County. A smaller portion of
funds is available for existing or resale units Countywide.
H-3-l1
PAGE 63 Show Image
Since the inception of the Program, lower cost mortgage loans
have been made available for approximately seven thousand
single family residences. (Statistics represent data through
June 1988).
The following is a summary of the Single Family Residential
Mortgage Revenue Bond issues by year.
Year Number of Issues Total Bond Issues
1980 1 $100,000,000
1982 3 129,345,000
1983 2 147,800,000
1984 1 55,800,000
1985 1 58,999,870
1987 1 32,194,540
1988 1 27.687.744
TOTAL 10 $551,827,154
(2) Multi-family Revenue Bond Program
The Multi-family Revenue Bond Program was developed in Orange
County in 1982. This program is designed to make financing
available to developers for the construction of multi-family
residential rental units in the County. In order to receive
financing through the bond program, developers must reserve,
for 10 years, 20 percent of the units for rent by families or
individuals who earn 60 percent or less of the median family
income in Orange County. In addition, for recent projects,
half of the designated units must be reserved for occupancy on
a priority basis for tenants who generally earn 50 percent or
less of the median income. Furthermore, projects financed
after the passage of the 1986 Tax Reform Act must commit 20
percent of the total units for income qualified tenants for a
period of 15 years. Since the inception of the program, the
County has issued bonds totaling $1,096,066,876 to develop
16,706 apartment units throughout the County. Of these, 3,991
have been designated for occupancy by income qualified
tenants. The following is a summary of the Multi-family
Revenue Bond Program by year:
Year Number of Issues Total Bond Issues
1982 4 $ 40,137,200
1983 1 55,500,000
1984 8 115,690,000
1985 28 856,609,676
1986 1 7,000,000
1988 1 21~150.000
TOTAL 43 $1,096,086,876
Note: Statistics represent data through June 1988.
H-3-12
PAGE 64 Show Image
The program is designed for new projects that have not begun
construction before County approval of a bond inducement
resolution. (The County can issue bonds for existing rental
developments provided the project is acquired after the date
of inducement and at least 15% of the bond proceeds are spent
to rehabilitate the property.)
b. Tax Increment Funds
Except as otherwise provided in Health and Safety Code Section
33334.2, not less then twenty percent (20%) of all taxes which are
allocated to the Agency pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section
33670 shall be used by the Agency for the purpose of increasing
and improving the County's supply of housing for persons and
families of low or moderate income and very low-income households.
The housing set-aside funds shall be placed in a separate fund and
taken off the top of tax increment received each year by the
Agency prior to establishing an expenditure program for public
works and other Agency activities each fiscal year. The funds
available annually will depend upon the rate of property value
appreciation within the project area. In addition to the
mandatory set-aside requirement, the Neighborhood Development and
Preservation Plan (NDAPP) calls for housing improvement and
development as a central activity of the program.
(1) Home Improvement Program (HIP)
The Housing Improvement Program has as its goal the
rehabilitation of existing homes that have deteriorated
because of age, use, or deferred maintenance. The Program
will provide low-interest loans, deferred payments loans, and
grants for a variety of improvements aimed at bringing these
homes to current standards for decent, safe, and sanitary
housing.
Assistance will be directed to single-family and multi-family
rental and ownership units under procedures established by the
County Housing and Community Development Department (H/CD).
Loans will be made through private financial institutions
where appropriate agreements can be developed. Grants will be
made directly to property owners.
Specific activities will include home improvements,
reconstruction and additions, site improvements, loan
processing and refinancing, contract administration, and
construction inspection. Estimated production is based on the
needs established by the current Housing Assistance Plan
approved by the Board of Supervisors.
H-3-13
PAGE 65 Show Image
(2) New Housing Development Program (NHD)
The County's current H/CD program to promote the production of
housing for low and moderate income residents of Orange County
will continue under the Neighborhood Preservation and
Improvement Plan. The New Housing Program assists private and
non-profit developers.
BJ:hdCHAP3 .WP (1/3/96)
H-3-14
PAGE 66 Show Image
CHAPTER FOUR: GOALS, QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES
A. Goals
The overall goal of the County Housing Element is as follows:
Provide decent and adequate housing with respect to selection by type,
price, and tenure in a satisfying environment for all persons
regardless of age, race, sex, marital status, ethnic background,
socioeconomic status, or disability.
More specific goals and policies are described below.
Goal 1: HOUSING SUPPLY AND RESIDENTIAL CHOICE
An adequate supply of housing that varies sufficiently in cost,
style, tenure, and neighborhood type to meet the economic and
social needs of every existing and future resident of the
county; and which provides sufficient housing opportunities for
employees of county businesses and public service providers to
ensure the continued economic vitality of the county.
Goal 2: EQUAL HOUSING OPPORTUNITY
Equal housing opportunities available to all persons without
discrimination on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity, sex,
age, marital status, or household composition.
Goal 3: HOUSING CONSERVATION AND NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION
A structurally sound and well-maintained housing stock,
residential neighborhoods with adequate and coordinated public
and private services and facilities, clean air, quiet and
pleasant surroundings, reasonable assurances of safety and
security, and a sense of community identity.
Goal 4: HOUSING COOPERATION AND COORDINATION
Countywide and regional coordination of housing, community, and
economic development activities with private sector and citizen
involvement.
B. Ouantified Oblectives
The California Government Code mandates specific Housing Element
requirements, one of which is to establish: "A statement of the
community's goals, quantified objectives, and policies relative to the
maintenance, preservation, improvement, and development of housing. It is
recognized that the total housing needs identified may exceed available
resources and the community's ability to satisfy this need within the
context of the general plan requirements. Under these circumstances, the
quantified objectives need not be identical to the total housing needs.
The quantified objectives shall establish the maximum number of housing
H-4-l
PAGE 67 Show Image
units by income category that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and
conserved over a five-year time frame." (Section 65583(b), revised
effective 1-1-92).
The following quantified objectives have been developed in consideration
of the County's goals, its fair share allocation of regional housing
needs, and available financial resources and regulatory mechanisms.
Quantified objectives by income category are established as follows for
the period July, 1989 to June, 1994 and are summarized in Table 4-1.
Note: The following modifications to the quantified objectives were made
in 1993: 1) quantified objectives were added for the very-low and
above-moderate income categories; 2) the existing quantified
objectives were broken down to show the number of units to be
constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved by income category; and
3) the number of units to be conserved was increased to include
those units to be conserved under the new Preservation of Assisted
Rental Units Program.
Other than these modifications, the quantified objectives are the
same as those established for the unincorporated area as it
existed in July, 1989. Since that time, the communities of Dana
Point, Laguna Niguel, Laguna Hills, and Lake Forest have
incorporated, and Gypsum Canyon and Aegean Hills have been annexed
to the Cities of Anaheim and Mission Viejo, respectively. These
incorporations and annexations have decreased the unincorporated
area by 25,402 acres. The quantified objectives will be proposed
for amendment in 1994 as part of the five-year comprehensive
Housing Element update to reflect incorporations and annexations.
1. New Construction
a. Total New Units Added: 24,134
This forecast is consistent with current County policy and Land
Use Element assumptions. It includes only the unincorporated area
and has and will continue to be affected by annexations and
incorporations (see note above).
b. New Affordable Units Added: 6,033
Of the 24,134 new units added to the housing stock during the
1989-1994 time frame, 25 percent are designated as affordable to
low- and moderate-income households. Low and moderate income is
defined as 120 percent or less of the county median. Of this 25
percent, 10 percent (2,413) are designated for households earning
80 percent or less of the median income ("Low"), 10 percent
(2,413) are designated for households earning between 81 and 100
percent of median income ("Moderate I"), and 5 percent (1,207) are
designated for households earning between 101 and 120 percent of
median income ("Moderate II").
H-4-2
PAGE 68 Show Image
TABLE 4-1
QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES
July 1989 - June 1994
Income Level
(% of median) New Construction Rehabilitation Conservation
Very-low income 150 375 400
(50% and below)
Low-Income 2,263 650 413
(50.1-80.0%)
Low Income Subtotal 2,413 1,025 813
Moderate-I 2,413 200 0
(80.1-100.0%)
Moderate-Il 1,207 75 0
(100.1-120.0%)
Above moderate 18,101 0 0
(above 120.0%)
Total 24,134 1,300 813
BJ:hdTABLE24 .WP (1/4/96)
H 4-3
PAGE 69 Show Image
This affordable housing objective includes units built pursuant to
the Housing Opportunities Program as well as Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) and redevelopment-funded units. It is
recognized that significant financial subsidies and incentives
will be necessary to achieve these objectives, especially in the
low and very low income categories.
In conjunction with Housing Element Amendment 1993-1, the Board of
Supervisors established quantified objectives for the very-low and
above-moderate income categories (50 percent or less and above 120
percent of the County's median income, respectively). The
very-low income objective is based upon reasonable expectations of
the financial resources available during the five-year period.
2. Existing Units Rehabilitated and Conserved
a. Units Rehabilitated: 1,300
Programs that assist in the rehabilitation of substandard housing
include the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Home
Improvement Program, the Rental Rehabilitation Program, and the
Neighborhood Development and Preservation Program (redevelopment).
The objective for the number of units to be rehabilitated under
these programs for the 1989-94 period is 1,300.
This objective assumes the continuance of federal and state
funding at current levels.
b. Units Conserved: 813
This objective addresses programs that encourage the maintenance
of affordable housing units. The three major programs that serve
this function are the Section 8 Existing Rental Assistance
Program, the Aftercare Rental Assistance Program, and Preservation
of Assisted Rental Units Program. All three of these programs are
administered by EMA/Housing and Redevelopment which includes the
Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA).
It is estimated that 377 units will be available under the Section
8 Existing Rental Assistance program (353 Certificates and 24
Vouchers), and 23 units will be available under the Aftercare
Rental Assistance Program during this five-year time frame. These
programs are discussed more fully in Chapter 5. Since these
programs require certain property maintenance standards, they
encourage conservation of these existing units.
The objective of the Preservation of Assisted Rental Units Program
(see Appendix G) is to conserve all of the 413 units which are at
risk of converting to market-rate rents due to expiring
affordability restrictions during the five-year period. All of
the units at risk during the 5-year period were assisted under the
County's Inclusionary Housing Program/Housing Opportunities
Program.
H-4-4
PAGE 70 Show Image
In addition to these government programs to encourage
conservation, there are private property maintenance agreements
contained in condominium and planned-unit-development covenants,
conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs). According to the Census
Bureau, 17 percent of all housing units in the unincorporated
county area were identified as condominiums in 1980. It is
estimated that the majority of residential units built since then
are also covered under CC&Rs, and this trend is expected to
continue. These private maintenance agreements augment the
County's conservation efforts because they require continuing
maintenance and repair of the housing stock.
C. Policies
The following policies are intended to provide direction in
decision-making and development of specific programs in support of the
goals and quantified objectives.
1. Housing Supply and Residential Choice Policies
1-A To continue to support programs aimed at making affordable
housing units available at a monthly cost no more than 25 percent
to 30 percent of each households gross monthly income, depending
on income category. (See definitions in Appendix D, Housing
Opportunities Program, Policies, and Guidelines.)
1-B To continue to encourage coordination and uniformity in all
regulations relating to housing in order to minimize processing
times and costs.
1-C To continue to provide opportunities for new construction methods
and housing types to increase the supply of housing for all
segments of the population.
1-D To continue to implement existing financing mechanisms and
stimulate the development of innovative financial techniques that
will reduce housing cost.
l-E To continue to seek ways to reduce development processing and
review time by County government to the maximum extent feasible,
with special processing assistance for affordable housing
projects.
1-F To maintain effective mechanisms for ensuring that the maximum
feasible housing benefit is realized from public funds used to
assist builders or consumers of housing and to investigate
mechanisms to recapture public funds when directly subsidized
units are prematurely sold or otherwise withdrawn from the
subsidizing program.
1-G To consider a zoning code amendment to allow transitional housing
facilities as a permitted use in appropriate zoning districts
without requiring a use permit.
H-4-5
PAGE 71 Show Image
1-H To continue to pursue land use policies and regulations which
encourage manufactured housing as a means of reducing housing
costs.
1-I To consider a zoning code amendment to amend selective existing
commercial districts to allow residential use.
1-J To consider a density incentive for apartments, i.e., grant
apartments a higher density than condominiums so apartment
builders can better compete for available land.
1-K To consider establishing a minimum density "floor" below which
land suitable for apartments could not be developed. The intent
is to discourage the down-zoning of such parcels to lower density
single-family residential uses.
i-L To continue to utilize County mortgage revenue bond financing or
private sector lending for economically feasible apartment
construction.
i-M ~o continue to coordinate infrastructure financing measures in
order to reduce housing construction costs and minimize the
financial burden on homeowners and renters.
1-N To continue to pursue all available state and federal financial
assistance for the provision of very low-, low- and
moderate - income housing.
1-0 To continue to plan and zone land to encourage a wide variety of
neighborhoods and housing opportunities affordable to the
county's labor force.
1-P To continue to coordinate the location of major housing
developments, particularly affordable housing and multi-family
units, with existing and proposed highway and transit routes,
major employment centers, shopping facilities, and other
services.
1-Q To continue to encourage residential infill development to make
efficient use of existing public facilities.
1-R To continue to support programs that address the housing needs of
special groups such as the elderly; physically, mentally and
developmentally disabled; farmworkers; those in need of temporary
shelter; single-parent families; military personnel; large
families; and refugees.
1-S To develop an in-lieu fee policy as an alternative method of
complying with affordable housing requirements.
1-T To work with the BIA and other housing advocates to support
increased state and federal tax incentives to encourage
low- income housing construction and handicapped-accessible housing.
H-4-6
PAGE 72 Show Image
1-U To investigate the feasibility of participating in a regional
employee/housing linkage program based on a survey of employee
needs to assist in providing housing affordable to very-low and
low- income workers.
1-V To preserve the affordability of existing low-income multi-family
rental units assisted through federal, state, and local programs
which have expiring affordability restrictions and which are at
risk of converting to market rate units.
i-W To identify sites that are now available or easily made available
for transitional shelters for homeless families.
2. Equal Housing Opportunity Policies
2-A To continue to support actions to reduce regulatory constraints
to housing which impede equal housing opportunities.
2-B To continue affirmative action efforts to provide equal
opportunity in housing.
2-C To continue to support adequate relocation assistance to persons
and families displaced by demolition or conversion of residential
structures.
2-D To continue to encourage builders to provide ground floor units
of rental and condominium projects which have one wheelchair
accessible entrance and at least one bathroom that accommodates
wheelchairs by:
o Providing incentives and assistance to builders willing to
build such units.
o Distributing information to builders and offering them
technical support in the design of adaptable/accessible
building units.
o Undertaking a demonstration project with a willing builder and
documenting and disseminating the results to other builders.
2-E To consider support of just cause eviction legislation at the
state and federal level.
3. Housing Conservation and Neighborhood Preservation Policies
3-A To continue to promote the adequate provision of public
facilities for all residents, especially to those whose needs are
greatest.
3-B To continue to promote new housing that conserves land and
resources and is cost efficient.
H-4-7
PAGE 73 Show Image
3-C To continue to support programs designed to encourage the
maintenance and minor repair of structurally sound housing units
to prevent their deterioration.
3-D To continue to support programs designed to rehabilitate
deteriorated units
3-E To continue to promote development design which provides for
maximum possible residential security and safety.
3-F To continue to ensure that the conversion of rental units or
mobile home parks to ownership or other uses occurs in a
responsible manner to protect the rights of both owners and
tenants.
3-G To continue to encourage voluntary compliance with
weatherproof mg measures to reduce utility costs, specifically:
water heater insulation blankets, low-flow shower heads, ceiling
insulation, caulking and weather stripping, and duct insulation.
4. Housing Cooperation and Coordination Policies
4-A To continue to monitor and participate in the activities of local
governments, citizen groups, and the private sector, as
appropriate, to encourage the provision of adequate housing for
all households.
4-B To continue to encourage coordination of housing, community, and
economic development activities among local governments in the
county's housing market area.
4-C To continue to encourage recommendations from housing industry
professionals in identifying opportunities for cost savings which
will not adversely affect public health and safety.
4-D To support the establishment of a countywide housing task force
and trust fund to assist in the development of transitional
hbusing for homeless families; to assist the production of
housing for very-low and low-income households; and to support
the efforts of existing local and regional non-profit housing
development corporations to implement this policy. Potential
funding sources could include CDBG monies, employment-housing
linkage fees, hotel bed taxes, recapture of public funds,
affordable housing in-lieu fees, state/federal grants, private
donations, etc.
BJ:hdCHAP4 .WP (1/4/96)
H-4-8
PAGE 74 Show Image
CHAPTER FIVE: IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS
A. Underlying Principles
The Orange County Housing Element is based on the following basic
principles which govern its implementation programs.
1. The General Plan establishes the basic tenet of the Housing Element
specifically, a balanced community concept that maximizes the
availability of housing opportunities. A primary focus of County
policy is to facilitate an adequate total supply of housing.
2. The Housing Element must be framed in such a way that it allows the
public sector and the private sector to contribute to solutions by
doing what each does best.
3. It is important to focus energies toward satisfying housing need on
what can be done most effectively now and programming activities
beyond existing capability for later resource commitment and
attention.
4. It is essential to conserve the valuable existing housing stock
through a high degree of responsibility on the part of individual
owners for maintaining the condition of existing housing, regardless
of age.
5. It is essential to recognize that it has never been possible to build
new for-sale housing at affordable prices for all income levels and
that housing for those households with lower incomes has traditionally
been provided by the resale and rental market and by various
government subsidy programs.
6. Orange County's housing and economic market forces should be used to
the maximum extent to reach goals dealing with affordable housing.
7. The major thrust of investment of public fund in solving housing
problems should be targeted specifically to those households having an
annual income of less than 80 percent of the county's median family
income.
B. Program Descriptions
In order to make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic
segments of the community and meet or exceed the quantified objectives set
forth in Chapter 4, the programs described on the following pages have
been established.
H-5-l
PAGE 75 Show Image
1. Aftercare Rental Assistance Program
a. Action: Provide rental assistance to handicapped and disabled
very-low-income persons.
b. Discussion: This is the only rental assistance program being
implemented to serve disabled households earning less than 50% of the
county median income (as established by HUD). The Aftercare Program
was established through the state Department of Housing and Community
Development (state HCD) in conjunction with the state Department of
Health. Federal funding is provided to state HCD from HUD. The
program operates in the same manner as the Section 8 Existing Rental
Assistance Program (see page H-5-21). Rental assistance is provided
to eligible handicapped persons as an alternative to institutional
living. A total of 166 units are administered by OCHA countywide
under this program, with 23 of these in the unincorporated area.
c. Source of Funds: HUD/State HCD
d. New or Existing Program: Existing
e. Implementation Schedule: Ongoing
f. Responsible Agency: Orange County Housing Authority
g. Program Objectives: (1) Maintain and increase, if possible, the
availability of rental assistance to
handicapped very-low-income persons.
The specific objective for the 1989-94
period is 23 units based on current
funding levels.
H-5-2
PAGE 76 Show Image
2. Block Grant Home Improvement Program
a. Action: The Home Improvement Program of the Housing and Community
Development Program provides low-interest loans and grants to
owner-occupants and investor-owners to rehabilitate residential units
and owner-occupied mobile homes in unincorporated county areas and in
cities contracting with the County for administration of their
rehabilitation programs. Cities currently contracting with the County
are Cypress, Dana Point, Laguna Beach, La Palma, Los Alamitos, Mission
Viejo, Placentia, San Clemente, Seal Beach, Stanton, Tustin, and Yorba
Linda. Specific unincorporated areas that receive housing services
are Anaheim Island, Ball/Brookhurst, Colonia Independencia, Southwest
Anaheim, El Toro, El Modena, Midway City, Olive Island, Modjeska
Canyon, Trabuco Canyon, Silverado Canyon, Santa Aria Heights, and West
Garden Grove Island. Additionally, any eligible low/moderate-income
family living in any unincorporated area may receive assistance from
the `1spot1 rehabilitation program to correct code or incipient code
violations.
b. Discussion: Many tract homes in Orange County are over twenty years
old; rehabilitation of homes is needed and will continue to be needed.
Also, given the excessive cost of housing, families that would
formerly have "moved upward" are having to remain in their homes.
Energy conservation measures will continue to be a component of all
home improvement projects. Rehabilitation of multi-family units is a
relatively new program, and it will continue to grow in the next five
years.
c. Source of Funds: HUD/CDBG
Lending Institutions
d. New or Existing Program: Existing
e. Implementation Schedule: Ongoing
f. Responsible Agency: EMA/HCD
g. Program Objectives: Prevent deterioration of neighborhoods and
preserve existing affordable housing.
Approximately 850 rehabilitated low- and
very-low-income units are expected to be
completed under this program during the
5-year time frame of the element.
H-5-3
PAGE 77 Show Image
3. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program
a. Action: The Community Development Block Grant Program is expedited
and augmented so that the funds are leveraged or used to the greatest
possible benefit in meeting low- and very-low-income housing needs.
b. Discussion: The Community Development Block Grant Program is an
important part of the County's efforts in meeting low- and
very-low-income needs. This program is administered by the EMA/HCD
Program Office. CDBG funds are utilized to provide low-income housing
rehabilitation, community improvements, land writedowns, and .other
incentives for new low- and very-low-income housing through
public/private cooperative agreements.
c. Source of Funds: Federal Government (HUD)
d. New of Existing Program: Existing
e. Implementation Schedule: Ongoing
f. Responsible Agency: EMA/HCD
g. Program Objectives: (1) Construct and rehabilitate housing for
low- and very-low-income households.
Approximately 850 rehabilitated and 500
newly constructed low- and
very-low-income units are anticipated
to be accomplished under this program
during the 5-year time frame of the
element.
(2) Provide community improvements to
prevent neighborhood deterioration.
H-5-4
PAGE 78 Show Image
4. Consistency Review Program
a. Action: Preparation and distribution of General Plan consistency
manual and subsequent updates and revisions. The manual provides
uniform basis for General Plan consistency determinations and
facilitates streamlined processing of housing development.
b. Discussion: State law requires that private and public projects be
consistent with the General Plan. As the consistency process is
simplified, development processing time (and holding costs) can be
minimized.
c. Source of Funds: General Fund
d. New or Existing Program: Existing
e. Implementation Schedule: Ongoing
f. Responsible Agency: EMA/Planning
g. Program Objectives: (1) Ensure that discretionary approvals are
consistent with the General Plan and
zoning regulations.
(2) Minimize permit processing time.
H-5-5
PAGE 79 Show Image
5. Countywide Homeless Family Transitional Housing Initiative
a. Action: Explore the feasibility of creating a regional pool of CDBG
funds for the purpose of developing and assisting transitional housing
programs for homeless families.
b. Discussion: Homeless families in need of temporary shelter are a
growing segment of the county's special housing needs. This program
would explore the feasibility of a countywide approach to the problem
by pooling financial resources and coordinating assistance efforts.
The purpose of this program would be to provide low-cost shelter where
families could stay a few months while accumulating enough savings to
move into traditional rental housing.
For example, if the county and each block grant entitlement city were
to set aside 7.5 percent of its annual CDBG budget, a total of about
$1.4 million would be available each year to support these programs.
State law requires local agencies to address the needs of these
homeless families. Since the problem does not follow jurisdictional
boundaries, this countywide approach would enable each jurisdiction to
provide meaningful assistance toward addressing this need.
c. Source of Funds: CDBG
d. New of Existing Program: New
e. Implementation Schedule: 1989-90
f. Responsible Agency: CAO
EMA-Housing/Community Development Office
g. Program Objectives: (1) Establish a countywide fund for
assisting the development of
transitional housing facilities.
H-5-6
PAGE 80 Show Image
6. Development Processing System Review
a. Action: Review and evaluate development processing procedures and
standards on a regular basis in order to minimize delays or
unnecessary requirements that can result in higher development costs.
b. Discussion: Cutting processing time and eliminating unnecessary
requirements will reduce the developer's holding costs for land,
design, engineering, and the like which, in turn, directly affect the
final costs of the housing product.
Efforts that the County has already undertaken include creation of the
Development Processing Center, a "one stop shop" for all development
permits and information, and a simplified Consolidated Planning
Application Form. The County also formed the Development Processing
Review Committee, made up of local building industry representatives
and County management, for the purpose of reviewing new procedures and
regulations prior to their adoption and recommending modification or
deletion of unnecessary standards.
c. Source of Funds: General Fund
Development Fees
d. New or Existing Program: Existing
e. Implementation Schedule: Existing
f. Responsible Agency: EMA/Planning (lead)
EMA/Regulat ions
g. Program Objectives: (1) Minimize processing time for
development permits.
(2) Modify or eliminate unnecessary
requirements and standards that
increase housing costs.
H-5-7
PAGE 81 Show Image
7. Federal Housing Programs
a. Action: The County of Orange takes every step necessary to encourage
and connect the developer with the most feasible of the currently
available housing programs of the federal government which meet the
needs of Orange County existing and future residents. The County
assists developers in pre-design of projects to assure compliance with
federal minimum property standards.
b. Discussion: HUD/FHA currently has a number of programs which can be
used if the cost of housing can be brought into the affordable range.
Sections 203(b), 235, 245, 223(f), and the standard 202 and 207 are
all available. Except for the 203(b) and 235 programs, all processing
is accomplished in the Los Angeles area office.
Other large federal programs such as CDBG and Section 8 are described
separately in this Chapter.
c. Source of Funds: Private Mortgage Lenders
Federal Housing Programs
d. New or Exiting Program: Existing
e. Implementation Schedule: Ongoing
f. Responsible Agency: EMA/HCD
g. Program Objectives: Provide financing for purchase,
construction, or rehabilitation of
low- income housing.
H-5-8
PAGE 82 Show Image
8. Homeless Issues Coordination
a. Action: The CAO, with the assistance of the Interagency Coordinating
Committee, has been directed to identify a series of issues related to
the coordination of County resources for the homeless and to submit
conclusions to the Board of Supervisors in June of 1989.
b. Discussion: Homelessness has become a major concern on a national
level. Orange County is not immune to the problem of homelessness.
Commitment to help address this issue of concern has continued to
increase throughout the county. The Orange County Homeless Issues
Task Force, once a group of service providers and involved support
organizations, has evolved into a cohesive entity with a Task Force
coordinator, membership structure, and five-year General Plan. In
January, representatives of the Building Industry Association (BIA)
began meeting with representatives of Board offices and County staff
to follow through on their commitment of philanthropic involvement.
The 1988-89 Orange County Grand Jury identified homeless families as a
problem which warranted study and recently released a report with
recommendations on the subject.
With the evidence of community and private sector commitment and
governmental participation, it is time for the County government to
assess present and potential resources and to direct its energies
toward better coordination. The County cannot and should not assume
the full responsibility of serving the homeless. However, it must be
part of an integrated partnership with nonprofit providers,
governmental entities, private sector, and others to serve the
homeless people. Orange County government has a record of creative
partnerships which lead to noteworthy accomplishments.
c. Source of Funds: General Fund
d. New or Existing Program: New
e. Implementation Schedule: 1989-90
f. Responsible Agency: CAO
g. Program Objectives: (1) Restructure the Interagency
Coordinating Committee, established on
5/22/84, to include, but not be limited
to, directors from HCA, SSA, CSA, EMA,
and representation from all Board
offices.
(2) To ensure effective coordination the
CAO will serve as Chairman and
designate a staff member to serve as
the County representative on homeless
issues.
(3) Effectively coordinate the County's
limited resources to better serve the
homeless.
H-5-9
PAGE 83 Show Image
9. Housing Development Finance Program
a. Action: Initiated in the spring of 1988, this new Orange County
Housing Authority (OCHA) activity is designed to stimulate the
development and preservation of low-income rental housing throughout
Orange County.
b. Discussion: The program is based on the Housing Action Strategy, a
long range framework of OCHA objectives, guidelines, financing
approaches, and program initiatives approved by the Board of
Commissioners in February, 1988. The Housing Development Finance
Program offers financial and technical assistance aimed at producing
and/or preserving affordable rental housing opportunities, as follows:
*financial assistance in the form of secondary loans or loan
guarantees to developers of privately-owned rental housing in which a
portion of the development is reserved for very-low-income tenants,
and
*technical assistance to OCHA member jurisdictions and developers
regarding available techniques and resources (such as tax credits, tax
exempt bonds, and redevelopment funds) which support affordable
housing development.
c. Source of Funds: OCHA's surplus operating reserve funds
(accumulated as a result of efficient
management of all OCHA programs).
d. New or Existing Program: New
e. Implementation Schedule: 1988 start-up
f. Responsible Agency: OCHA
g. Program Objectives: (1) Provide loans to secure new or existing
rental units affordable to
very-low-income households.
(2) Provide ongoing technical assistance to
OCHA's 25 member jurisdictions and
local developers seeking financial
resources for affordable housing.
H-S-b
PAGE 84 Show Image
10. Housing Discrimination/Aff irmative Action
a. Action: The County continues to fund a strong and active Fair
Housing Council, Human Relations Commission, and other organizations
concerned with the problems of low- and moderate-income households in
the county.
b. Discussion: These organizations serve as a necessary county-balance
insofar as county housing problems are concerned.
c. Source of Funds: Community Development Block Grant
Other Subventions
d. New or Existing Program: Existing
e. Implementation Schedule: Ongoing
f. Responsible Agency: EMA/HCD (lead)
Orange County Fair Housing Council
Orange County Human Relations Commission
g. Program Objectives: Prevent discrimination and promote equal
housing opportunities.
H-5-l1
PAGE 85 Show Image
11. Housing Element Periodic Review and Update
a. Action: Periodically review and update the Housing Element of the
General Plan as required by state law.
b. Discussion: State Law requires each local jurisdiction to evaluate
its Housing Element every five years to determine 1) the
effectiveness of the element in achieving stated goals and
objectives; 2) the progress in implementing the element's policies
and programs; and 3) the appropriateness of the element's goals,
objectives, policies, and programs. As part of this effort, the
County reexamines its housing needs; resources available for housing
production, including the adequacy of the land inventory; and
constraints on the conservation and development of housing.
c. Source of Funds: General Fund
d. New or Existing Program: Existing
e. Implementation Schedule: 1989 and every five years thereafter
f. Responsible Agencies: EMA/Planning (lead)
CAO/Bond/Capital Finance Program
CAO/Forecast and Analysis Center
CAO/Management and Budget
EMA/HCD Program Office
OCHA
SSA
g. Program Objectives: (1) Maintain the Housing Element of the
General Plan in compliance with state
law.
H-5-12
PAGE 86 Show Image
12. Housing Opportunities Program
a. Action: A key component of the County's overall housing strategy is
to encourage the production of market-rate housing that is affordable
to households with incomes of 120 percent or less of the county
median. It is recognized that significant financial subsidies are
generally required in order for new very-low-income housing to be
economically feasible. The primary objective of the Housing
Opportunities Program is the production of 25 percent of all new
housing units within the affordable category.
b. Discussion: A full description of the Housing Opportunities Program
is included in Appendix D.
c. Source of Funds:
(1) For Housing Private Mortgage Lenders
Development: HUD/FHA Revenue Bonds
California Housing Finance Agency (CHFA)
(2) For Program Expertise General Fund
and Capability: Community Development Block Grant
d. New or Existing Program: Existing
e. Implementation Schedule: Ongoing
f. Responsible Agency: EMA/Planning (lead)
CAO/Bond/Capital Finance Program
g. Program Objectives: (1) To ensure that at least 25% of new
housing units in the unincorporated
area are affordable to households
with incomes of 120 percent or less
of the county median, further
prescribed as follows:
- 10% Low (80% or less of median
income)
- 10% Moderate I (81-100% of median
income)
- 5% Moderate II (101-120% of median
income)
(2) Implement appropriate measures to
ensure that permit processing time for
affordable housing developments is
minimized.
(3) Periodically review codes and standards
to ensure that these requirements do
H-5-13
PAGE 87 Show Image
not pose an unreasonable obstacle to
affordable housing production.
(4) Periodically review General Plan and
zoning designations to ensure that
sufficient land is designated to meet
affordable housing production
objectives.
(5) Provide sufficient incentives to ensure
that affordable housing productions is
financially feasible.
H-5-14
PAGE 88 Show Image
13. Housing Referral Directory
a. Action: Maintain a resource directory of housing programs and
services to assist the consumer in securing housing services.
b. Discussion: The referral directory provides concise information
regarding current services available in the county and cities.
Primarily targeted for renters and homeowners of low to median
income, it has special emphasis on meeting the needs of the homeless.
The directory serves as a tool for persons working with the public,
enabling them to answer questions and direct inquiries to the proper
sources of service.
c. Source of Funds: Orange County Housing Authority
d. New or Existing Program: Existing
e. Implementation Schedule: Ongoing
f. Responsible Agency: OCHA
g. Program Objectives: (1) Maintain a resource directory of
housing programs and services.
H-5-15
PAGE 89 Show Image
14. Infrastructure Provision and Financing
a. Action: Coordination of infrastructure planning, financing, and
construction in order to minimize the potential financial burden on
hoineowners and renters. Two activities will effectuate this
objective:
(1) Analyze existing and potential infrastructure financing measures
for their ability to meet infrastructure needs without an
adverse impact on housing costs and modify the existing
infrastructure planning and financing process as necessary.
(2) Evaluate measures which reduce infrastructure demands and,
consequently, the need for public facilities to serve
residential development.
b. Discussion: The County's ability to fund or finance the
infrastructure necessary for residential development through the
general property tax levy has diminished in recent years. In order
to satisfy existing and future infrastructure needs, the County
should consider measures which address these needs without causing a
significant increase in housing costs.
c. Source of Funds: General Fund
HCD Block Grant
d. New or Existing Program: Existing. Expand effort and commit new
resources to program.
e. Implementation Schedule: Ongoing
f. Responsible Agencies: CAO/Bond/Capital Finance Program (lead)
EMA/Planning
g. Program Objectives: (1) Minimize infrastructure costs for
residential development.
(2) Coordinate and streamline
infrastructure financing programs.
H-S-16
PAGE 90 Show Image
15. Intergovernmental Advocacy with HUD/FHA
a. Action: Persuasive and strong effort is undertaken by the County of
Orange, its staff, congressional representatives, and lobbyist to
persuade HUD/FHA to:
(1) Make multi-year commitments of units for large planned
communities which have or will make a substantial commitment to
affordable housing.
(2) Liberalize applicability of minimum property standards for local
flexibility to avoid features which may increase the costs of
producing the units rather than achieve a more affordable unit.
(3) Streamline processing of existing and available programs so that
developers are less frustrated and more inclined to use the
subsidy program.
(4) Return processing of a wider range of programs to the Santa Ana
FHA insuring office.
(5) Assist in funding preparation of a community-wide economic and
environmental study to avoid lengthy project reviews.
b. Discussion: A great number of units were federally financed and
mortgage loan guarantees made in Orange County since 1950. This
intergovernmental advocacy will assist cooperating developers with
using a variety of tools to build and produce affordable housing.
The local program coordination will assist in dispersing the units in
a logical way to meet the most serious needs.
c. Source of Funds: Developer Fees
General Fund
CDBG
d. New or Existing Program: Existing
e. Implementation Schedule: Ongoing
f. Responsible Agency: Board of Supervisors with EMA - H/CD
support.
g. Program Objectives: Maximize the availability of HUD/FHA
programs and funding in Orange County.
H-5-17
PAGE 91 Show Image
16. Land Acquisition for Housing
a. Action: Inventory and make available surplus, publicly-owned lands
(including state and federal owned land) for low and moderate income
housing projects. Provide or otherwise make available sites or land
acquired previously for development of affordable housing through the
use of all available funds as appropriate and feasible. Aggressively
pursue a land banking program to provide sites for development or for
which trades could be consummated to provide better located low- and
moderate- or very-low-income housing sites.
b. Discussion: The strategic acquisition of land for housing for low-
and moderate- and very-low-income households should be given a high
priority to augment the Housing Opportunities Program. The priority
sites are those already in public ownership which are surplus or can
be reused. For instance, undeveloped land in tax default or which is
surplus, might be made available. The local HCD Program also
addresses the need for providing sites.
Orange County General Services Agency currently reviews surplus sites
with interested County offices to determine whether any are
appropriate for development of low-income housing.
c. Source of Funds: CDBG
Orange County Development Agency
d. New or Existing Program: Existing
e. Implementation Schedule: Ongoing
f. Responsible Agency: EMA/HCD (lead)
GSA
g. Program Objectives: (1) Make surplus government-owned property
available for low-income housing
development where feasible.
(2) Acquire and hold property to be used
for low-income housing development.
H-5-18
PAGE 92 Show Image
17. Neighborhood Development and Preservation Program
a. Action: The Orange County Neighborhood Development and Preservation
Project was adopted by the Board of Supervisors/Development Agency
Board on June 22, 1988. this project will bring to bear the tools of
California Redevelopment Law to address the community needs of
thirteen areas within unincorporated Orange County.
b. Discussion: These areas contain the largest concentrations of
very-low-, low-, and moderate-income populations. The funds from
this project have been targeted for community preservation and
improvement. This will include activities directed toward
facilitating enhancement, rehabilitation, and repair of the existing
housing stock, most of which is low-income, and the production of
additional very-low-, low-, and moderate-income housing throughout
Orange County. This effort will greatly increase the traditional HCD
Block Grant efforts in these areas and allow for new and expanded
projects to make housing opportunities available to the target
population and other low- and moderate-income households in Orange
County.
c. Source of Funds: Property tax subventions
Development Agency bonds
Other debt
d. New or Existing Program: New
e. Responsible Agencies: EMA/HCD Program Office
CAO/Bond/Capital Finance Program
f. Implementation Schedule: Ongoing
g. Program Objectives: Provide funding assistance for very-low-,
low-, and moderate-income housing
rehabilitation and construction, and
neighborhood preservation efforts.
Approximately 200 rehabilitated units and
50 new very-low-income units are expected
to be accomplished under this program.
H-5-19
PAGE 93 Show Image
18. Residential Energy and Water Conservation Retrofit
a. Action: Establish an energy and water conservation program for
existing residential units in Orange County. This objective will be
effectuated through the following actions:
(1) Monitoring of existing and proposed utility and water district
program
(2) Coordination of existing housing and community development
activities with energy and water conservation programs for
existing residential units.
(3) Development of a comprehensive utility cost reduction program
utilizing utility, waster district, and County staff and
resources, if existing utility programs are not effective.
b. Discussion: Rising utility bills have caused an increase in the
monthly costs of owning or renting a home in Orange County. As a
result, a utility cost reduction program is an essential component to
efforts to reduce or maintain monthly housing costs for Orange County
residents.
c. Source of Funds: General Fund
HCD Block Grant
Potential utility, waster district, and
State funding or assistance
d. New or Existing Program: Existing. Integrate efforts and commit
existing resources to program.
e. Implementation Schedule: Action 1 and Action 2: 1983. Action 3:
Uncertain depends on effectiveness of
existing utility programs.
f. Responsible Agencies: EMA and CAO
g. Program Objectives: Minimize utility costs for existing
residential units.
H-5-20
PAGE 94 Show Image
19. Section 8 Existing Rental Assistance Program
a. Action: Provide rental assistance to very-low-income households.
b. Discussion: This is the primary program serving families earning
less than 50% of the county median income.
The Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA) offers affordable rental
housing to qualified county residents through both the Section 8
Certificate and Section 8 Voucher programs. Both programs rely on
the private sector to supply rental units for very-low-income
families, the handicapped, and elderly. The source of funding is the
federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which is
used to supplement rent payments of program participants. Payments
are processed by the Housing Authority and forwarded directly to
landlords for the subsidized portion of the rent. HUD funding is
based in population needs and administrative effectiveness of the
local housing agency. OCHA administers Section 8 programs on behalf
of the county unincorporated area and the 24 cities that do not have
independent housing authorities. (Anaheim, Brea, Garden Grove, and
Santa Ana maintain separate programs.)
In order to participate in the Certificate or Voucher programs,
tenants may earn no more than 50 percent of the HUD-determined median
income, adjusted for family size (for Fiscal 1989, $46,900 for a
family of four). Families who are determined to be eligible for
rental assistance are issued either a certificate or a voucher,
depending on their choice and funding availability. As of January 1,
1989, 5,200 tenants countywide were being assisted by OCHA under the
Section 8 Certificate Program. By comparison, 440 tenants were being
assisted under the Section 8 Voucher Program. Vouchers were offered
to applicants from OCHA1s waiting list for the first time in April
1987.
Section 8 Certificate Program
Landlords who are willing to offer units within HUD-established fair
market rent limits and meet certain minimum property standards are
eligible to participate in this program. Landlords list their vacant
units with the Housing Authority and select tenants who have received
a certificate. Tenants pay 30 percent of their income toward rent
with the difference paid by OCHA. Under this program, tenants are
free to move to any qualified unit within OCHA1s jurisdiction. As of
January 1, 1989, about 340 Certificate families resided in the county
unincorporated area.
Section 8 Voucher Program
The Voucher Program differs from the Certificate Program in three
significant ways: 1) there are no rent limits established by HUD for
the program; 2) families may pay either more or less than 30 percent
of their net monthly income for rent, but never less than 10 percent
H-5-21
PAGE 95 Show Image
of their gross income; 3) families may move to any jurisdiction that
participates in the Voucher Program.
c. Source of Funds: Federal Government (HUD)
d. New or Existing Program: Existing
e. Implementation Schedule: Ongoing
f. Responsible Agency: Orange County Housing Authority
g. Program Objectives: (1) Maintain and increase, if possible, the
availability of rental subsidies to
very-low-income families. Specific
objectives for the 1989-94 period area:
(a) Section 8 Certificates: 353
(b) Section 8 Vouchers: 24
H-5-22
PAGE 96 Show Image
20. State of California Housing Programs
a. Action: The County of Orange uses all available California
Department of Housing and Community Development and California
Housing Finance Agency programs in the systematic approach to solving
the County's housing problem.
b. Discussion: The state housing programs and activities are more
limited in scope and funding than federal housing programs. One
organization closely involved in housing is the California Department
of Housing and Community Development (CHCD). It currently sponsors
or operates the Urban Predevelopment Loan Fund, Home Management
Training and Counseling, and the Aftercare Rental Assistance program
directed at disabled persons. The other state agency directly
involved with housing is the California Housing Finance Agency (CHFA)
which currently offers direct loans and purchase of single-family
mortgages.
Specific state programs the County will apply for will be determined
upon availability of the programs and the specific need of each
project.
c. Source of Funds: California Housing & Community Development
Department
California Housing Finance Agency
The County is also pursuing State grant
funds under the Proposition 77 and 84 bond
program.
d. New or Existing Program: Existing
e. Implementation Schedule: Ongoing
f. Responsible Agency: EMA/HCD
OCHA
g. Program Objectives: (1) Provide financial assistance for low-
and moderate-income housing.
(2) Pursue funding for homeless assistance.
H-5-23
PAGE 97 Show Image
21. Stewart McKinney Homeless Assistance Act
a. Action: This act made a limited amount of federal funds available to
help improve the quality of emergency shelters for the homeless, make
available additional emergency shelters, and meet the costs of
operating emergency shelters and providing essential social services
to homeless individuals. This act helps individuals to have access
not only to safe and sanitary shelter, but also to the supportive
services and other types of assistance they need to improve their
situations.
b. Discussion: These funds first became available in 1987. The County
of Orange has received 100% of its allocation fixed by HUD and has
distributed these monies to provide non-profit agencies and to the
Armory Shelter effort sponsored by the County. These funds are
administered by EMA/HCD and the United Way.
c. Source of Funds: HUD under McKinney Act
d. New or Existing: New
e. Responsible Agency: EMA/HCD
United Way
f. Implementation Schedule: On-going
g. Program Objectives: Provide development and operation funding
assistance for emergency shelters for the
homeless.
H-5-24
PAGE 98 Show Image
22. Tax-Exempt Housing Revenue Bonds
a. Action: The County continues to use its authority to issue tax
exempt revenue bonds to finance both single- and multiple-family
developments which provide defined affordable housing.
b. Discussion: This is an existing program. Over $1.6 billion in bond
proceeds have been issued to finance more than 11,000 affordable
units. Subject to federal and state legislation and bond market
conditions, the program can continue to support the Housing Element's
new construction policies to increase the supply and affordability of
modestly priced for-sale housing and apartments.
c. Source of Funds: Tax-exempt single-family mortgage revenue
bond issues
Tax exempt apartment revenue bond issues
d. New or Existing Program: Existing
e. Implementation Schedule: Ongoing, conditioned upon federal and state
authority and the status of the bond
market.
f. Responsible Agencies: CAO/Bond Capital Finance Program
g. Program Objectives: (1) Provide tax-exempt bond financed
mortgages for low- and moderate-income
first-time home buyers.
(2) Provide tax-exempt bond financed loans
to developers of mixed-income, rental
housing, which includes at least 20
percent very-low-income units.
H-5-25
PAGE 99 Show Image
23. Preservation of Assisted Rental Units Program
a. Action: Initiated in 1993, as required by Government Code 65583,
this program is designed to provide for the continued affordability
of low-income, multi-family rental units which received governmental
assistance. Projects included in this program are those which
received assistance through any federal or state programs, the
County's Multi-family Housing Revenue Bond Program, the County's
Inclusionary Housing Program/Housing Opportunities Program,
redevelopment programs, and projects which received a density bonus
with direct governmental financial contribution per Government Code
Section 85916. The program includes an inventory of assisted
multi-family rental units with restrictions expiring during the next
10-years. This inventory will be updated as part of each 5-year
comprehensive Housing Element update.
b. Discussion: A full description of this program is included in
Appendix G.
c. Source of Funds: Federal and State Housing Programs
OCHAs Surplus Operating Reserve
Orange County Development Agency
Tax Exempt Multi-family Revenue Bonds
d. New or Existing Program: New
e. Implementation Schedule: Ongoing, dependent on when affordability
restrictions on individual projects expire
f. Responsible Agency EMA/Housing and Redevelopment
Orange County Housing Authority
Orange County Development Agency
CAO/Public Finance and Advocacy
EMA/Advance Planning Division
g. Program Objectives: (1) Maintain an inventory of multi-family
rental projects which receive
governmental assistance and which have
expiring affordability restrictions.
(2) Utilize all potential funding sources
and strategies to ensure the continued
affordability of these units (see
Appendix G).
BJ:hdCHAP5 .wP (1/4/96)
H-5-26
PAGE 100 Show Image
APPENDIX A
PAGE 101 Show Image
PAGE 102 Show Image
APPENDIX A
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AC Acre
AFIS Areawide Fiscal Impact System
AHIS Affordable Housing Information Supplement
AHIUP Affordable Housing Incentive Use Permit
AMR Annual Monitoring Report
AQMD Air Quality Management District
AP Area Plan
ARB Air Resources Board (State)
B/S Board of Supervisors
BIA Building Industry Association
CAA Community Analysis Area
CAO County Administrative Office
CDBG Community Development Block Grant
CT Census Tract
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CDBG Community Development Block Grant
CHFA California Housing Finance Agency
DMP Development Monitoring Program
DPC Development Processing Center
DU Dwelling Unit
EAD Environmental Analysis Division
EIR Environmental Impact Report (State)
EIS Environmental Impact Statement (Federal)
EMA Environmental Management Agency
FAC Forecast and Analysis Center
H-A-l
PAGE 103 Show Image
FHA Federal Housing Administration
FHLBB Federal Home Loan Bank Board
FHLMC Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation ("Freddie Mac")
FNMA Federal National Mortgage Association ("Fannie Mae")
GNMA Government National Mortgage Association ("Ginnie Mac")
GPA General Plan Amendment
GMP Growth Management Program
GMPE Growth Management Plan Element
HAP Housing Assistance Plan (County)
H/TAG Housing Technical Advisory Group
H/CD Housing/Community Development
HE Housing Element
HIP Housing Implementation Plan/Home Improvement Program
HOHI Home Ownership and Home Improvement
HOP Housing Opportunities Program
HRC Human Relations Commission
HUD Housing and Urban Development (U.S. Department of)
IHDO Information and Housing Development Office
IHP Inclusionary Housing Program
LCP Local Coastal Program
LUE Land Use Element
MEA Master Environmental Assessment
MMTS Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPAH Master Plan of Arterial Highways
MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area
ND Negative Declaration
NDAPP Neighborhood Development and Preservation Project
H-A-2
PAGE 104 Show Image
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NHD New Housing Development Program
OCDA Orange County Development Agency
OCFHC Orange County Fair Housing Council
OCHA Orange County Housing Authority
OCHC Orange County Housing (Finance) Corporation
ORCHID Orange County Housing Information Directory
OCP-92 Orange County Projections-1992
PA Planning Area
P.C. Planning Commission
PC Planned Community
PCMS Planned Community Monitoring System
RFP Request for Proposals
RHNA Regional Housing Needs Assessment
RPAA Residential Processing Assistance Agreement
RSA Regional Statistical Area
SCAG Southern California Association of Government
Sec. 8 Section 8 (of the U.S. Housing Act)
SMSA Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area
TPM Tentative Parcel Map
TT Tentative Tract
UDAG Urban Development Action Grant
UP Use Permit
VA Variance
ZC Zone Change
BJ:h~PPA.WP (1/4/96)
H-A-3
PAGE 105 Show Image
PAGE 106 Show Image
APPENDIX B
PAGE 107 Show Image
PAGE 108 Show Image
APPENDIX B
LAND INVENTORY AND SITE AVAILABILITY
A. Introduction
The purpose of this appendix is to provide a land inventory and identify
suitable sites for housing development as required by Government Code
Section 65583. This discussion also highlights key aspects of the
County's affordable housing program and provides an overview of
significant "sites" (which at the geographical scale of the county
includes: planned communities, redevelopment areas, and Community
Development Block Grant areas).
B. Residential Land Inventory
1. Overview
Most of the buildable land currently zoned for development in the
unincorporated area is found within planned communities, which are
usually large parcels planned and developed by a single landowner with
a unified set of zoning regulations covering the entire project. For
most of these large projects, the County requires the developer to
submit "annual monitoring reports" (AMR's) to discuss the existing and
anticipated level of development along with an analysis of public
services and infrastructure availability. Because of this unified
planning, zoning, and monitoring system, it is relatively easy to
maintain a land inventory for these areas as required by state housing
element law.
In addition to these large planned communities, which are mostly
located in the southeastern portion of the county, there are several
unincorporated "islands" in the older areas in the northwestern
portion of the county. These islands are conventionally~zoned (R-2,
C-l, etc.) and are made up of thousands of separate parcels. It is
much more time-consuming to compile a detailed inventory of land in
these areas.
2. Planned Community Inventory
Table B-l on the following page contains an inventory of existing and
potential residential development within the planned communities in
the Orange County unincorporated area. This table indicates that
there are a total of about 11,800 acres of undeveloped land zoned for
residential use within these planned communities, which can
accommodate about 34,000 single-family units and 50,000
multiple-family units. The allowable density range for single-family
development is generally less than 6 units per acre, although some
projects may be as high as 8 to 9 units per acre. The density for
multiple-family project is generally from 10 to 30 units per acre,
although higher density may be permitted in designated areas such as
urban activity centers (see discussion under "Land Use Controls" in
Chapter 3).
H-B-l
PAGE 109 Show Image
TABLE B-i
RESIDENTIAL LAND INVENTORY
ORANGE COUNTY UNINCORPORATED AREA
1989
Existing Development Maximum Development Potential New Development
Planned Communities SF Units SF Acres MF Units MF Acres SF Units SF Acres MF Units MF Acres SF Units SF Acres MF Units MF Acres
Alicia Creek1 88 22.3 1,011 1,346 88 22.3 1,063 1,349 0 0 52 2.9
Aliso Viejo2 774 225.4 2,107 182.4 7,995 1,230 19,062 1,059 7,221 1,004.6 16,955 876.6
Bear Brand3 165 70.7 543 40 679 290.8 1,028 755 514 220.1 485 35.5
Bear Brand (Parcel 5)4 40 64 79 24 50 80 79 24 10 16 0 0
Bear Brand Hill5 239 51 0 0 518 119 0 0 279 68 0 0
Borchers6 0 0 0 0 113 46.7 0 0 113 46.7 0 0
Colinas de Capistrano7 961 379.8 1,397 94.9 1,058 418.1 1,397 94.9 97 38.3 0 0
Country Home Properties8 0 0 0 0 142 92.9 0 0 142 92.9 0 0
Country Villaqe9 1,203 273j 989 129.8 1,984 375.6j 3,115 185.9 781 102.6 2,126 56.1
Coto de Caza10 1,222 742.5 462 69.3 3,239 1,968 3,180 477 2,017 1,225.5 2,718 407
Dove Canyon11 0 0 0 0 683 200 738 109 683 200 738 109
Foothill Ranch12 0 0 0 0 1,231 238 2,669 292 1,231 238 2,669 292
Holtz13 0 0 0 0 67 67.0 0 0 67 67.0 0 0
Irvine Coast14 0 0 0 0 800 1,672 1,800 240 800 1,672 1,800 240
Laquna Laurel15 0 0 0 0 956 227 697 217 956 227 697 217
Laquna Heiqhts1£ 0 0 0 0 108 35.47 0 0 108 35.47 0 0
Laquna Niquel17 Includes:
Area A 969 160.5 0 0 1,460 241.8 1,590 81.4 491 81.3 1,590 81.4
Areas D-1, D-2, D-3,
G, 0-3, 0-4 1,431 363.8 24 3.4 9,365 625.95 1,846 187.6 7,934 262.15 1,822 184.2
Area D-4 (Marina Hills) 200 74.1 128 46.0 815 234.5 1,500 142.3 615 160.4 1,372 96.3
Area E-2 & E-3 76 12.9 353 76.8 235 39.0 1,070 232.6 159 26.1 717 155.8
Area 1/1-10, 11 & 16
(Stein-Brief) 161 2.0 86 30.2 328 32.3 250 59.3 167 30.3 164 29.1
Area I/il and 14
(B.H. Mortqaqe) 0 0 45 3.6 0 0 1,542 124.8 0 0 1,497 121.2
Area M 166 44.9 98 26.5 376 101.6 318 41.82 210 56.7 2,120 15.32
Lyon Ranch18 0 0 0 0 78 60j 0 0 78 60j 0 0
Mort Hermann19 0 0 0 0 173 43.3 57 7.0 173 43.3 57 7.0
Moulton Ranch20 150 43 100 15 525 150.6 100 15.0 375 107.6 0 0
H-B-2
PAGE 110 Show Image
TABLE B-i
RESIDENTIAL LAND INVENTORY
ORANGE COUNTY UNINCORPORATED AREA
1989
Existing Development Maximum Development Potential New Development
Planned Communities SF Units SF Acres MF Units MF Acres SF Units SF Acres MF Units MF Acres SF Units SF Acres MF Units MF Acres
Portola Hills21 275 33 407 40 1,215 114 985 96 940 81 578 56
Rancho Cielo22 0 0 0 0 240 56.0 0 0 240 56.0 0 0
Rancho de Los Alisos23 1,186 155 2,644 328 1,264 180 3,560 334 78 25 916 6
Rancho Santa Margarita24 557 62.8 804 76.6 2,943 228.9 8,138 378.8 2,386 166.1 7,334 302.2
Ranch Trabuco25 0 0 0 0 1,618 465.7 2,126 218.6 1,618 465.7 2,126 218.6
Robinson Ranch26 689 200j 184 27j 1,216 318+ 184 27+ 527 118+ 0 0
Saddleback Meadows27 0 0 0 0 714 148.8 0 0 714 148.8 0 0
Santiago Estates28 0 0 0 0 25 45.0 0 0 25 46.0 0 0
Santiago Ranch29 0 0 0 0 162 102 0 0 162 102 0 0
Serrano Highlands30 129 46.8 365 97.1 129 46.8 866 142.8 0 0 501 45.7
Telega Valley31 0 0 0 0 2,197 355.1 3,068 432.2 2,197 355.1 3,068 432.2
Watson32 0 0 0 0 80 49.6 0 0 80 49.6 0 0
Zadeh33 0 0 0 0 20 22.0 0 0 20 22.0 0 0
4S Ranch (Edgar)34 0 0 0 0 178 91.3 0 0 178 91.3 0 0
Total 10,681 3,027.Sf 11,826 2,656.6f 45,067 10,835.1 62,028 7,324j 34,386 7,808.6j 50,202 3,987.1
BJ:hdTABLEBl .wP (1/1/96)
H-B-3
PAGE 111 Show Image
ENDNOTES FOR TABLE B-i
1. Alicia Creek - Annual Monitoring Renort (AMR) for Alicia Creek Planned Community, County of
Orange 1987. January 1988 aerial photographs show that all of the planned community is
built-out except for planning area "D'3.
2. Aliso Viejo - Telephone conversation with Alison Martin of the Mission Viejo Company, March
21, 1989.
3. Bear Brand - Annual Monitoring ReDort (AMR) for Bear Brand Planned Community, County of
Orange, 1987. "1987 AMR Socioeconomic Data Summary", March 22, 1988. Existing acreage was
determined by taking the proportion of units to build-out.
4. Bear Brand (Parcel 5) - Annual Monitoring ReDort (AMR) for Bear Brand (Parcel S) Planned
Community, County of Orange, 1987.
5. Bear Brand - Annual Monitoring ReDort (AMR) for Bear Brand Planned Community, County of
Orange, 1987. "1987 AMR Socioeconomic Data Summary", March 22, 1988. Existing acreage was
determined by taking the proportion of units to build-out.
6. Borchers - Orange County Planning Commission Staff Report for ZC 87-19 and Community
Profile Amendment CPA 87-11.
7. Colinas de Capistrano - Annual Monitoring ReDort (AMR) for Bear Brand Planned Community,
County of Orange, 1987. "1987 AMR Socioeconomic Data Summary", March 22, 1988. Existing
acreage was determined by taking the proportion of units to build-out.
8. Country Home Properties - Land Use Amendment 83-2, November 16, 1983.
9. County Village - Annual Monitoring ReDort (AMR) for Country Village Planned Community,
County of Orange, 1987. Multi-family categories include rental units.
10. Coto de Caza - Annual Monitoring ReDort (AMR) for Coto de Caza Planned Community, County of
Orange, 1987. "1987 AMR Socioeconomic Data Summary", March 22, 1988. Existing acreage was
determined by taking the proportion of units to build-out.
11. Dove Canyon - Annual Monitoring ReDort (AMR) for Dove Canvon Planned Community, County of
Orange 1987.
12. Foothill Ranch - Foothill Ranch Planned Community. Area Plan. Planning Areas 1. 2. 17. 18.
19. 20. 21, Development Plan, Statistical Summary, County of Orange, April 1988.
13. Holtz Ranch - Zone Change 87-14, March 21, 1989.
14. Irvine Coast - Annual Monitoring ReDort (AMR) for Irvine Coast Planned Community, County of
Orange, 1987.
15. Laguna Laurel - Annual Monitoring ReDort (AMR) for Laguna Laurel Planned Community, County
of Orange, 1987. Laguna Laurel Feature Plan, September 26, 1986.
16. Laguna Heights - Annual Monitoring ReDort (AMR) for Laauna Heights Planned Community,
County of Orange, 1987.
17. Laguna Niguel - There are seven planning areas in the Laguna Niguel Planned Community which
are currently required to submit AMRs. For the purposes of Table B-i it is assumed that it
is within these planning areas that future residential development will occur.
Area A - Annual Monitoring ReDort (AMR) for Laguna Niguel Planned Community. Area A County
of Orange, 1987.
Areas D-1, D-2, D-3, Annual Monitoring ReDort (AMR) for Laguna Niguel Planned Community.
Areas D-1. D-2. D-3, County of Orange, 1987.
Area G - Annual Monitoring ReDort (AMR) for Lacuna Niguel Planned Community. Area G County
of Orange, 1987.
Area 0-3, 0-4 - Annual Monitoring ReDort (AMR) for Lacuna Niguel Planned Community. Areas
0-2. 0-3, County of Orange, 1987.
Area D (Marina Hills) - Annual Monitoring ReDort (AMR) for Lacuna Niguel Planned Community.
Area D-4. (Marina Hills), County of Orange, 1987. Multi-family categories include rental
units.
H-B-4
PAGE 112 Show Image
Areas E-2, E-3 - Annual Monitoring ReDort (AMR) for Lacuna Niguel Planned Community. Areas
E-2. E-3, County of Orange, 1987. Existing acreage was determined by taking the proportion
of units to acre at built-out. January 1988 aerial photographs show that area E-2 is
approximately 33~ built.
Areas 1/1-10, 11, 16 (Stein-Brief) - Annual Monitoring ReDort (AMR) for Laguna Niguel
Planned Community. Areas I/1~10 11. 16, County of Orange, 1987.
Areas 1/11, 14 (B.H. Mortgage) - Annual Monitoring Renort (AMR) for La~na Niguel Planned
Community. Areas 1/11, 14, County of Orange, 1987.
Area M - La~na Niguel Planned Community. Area M Area Plan, County of Orange, Approved July
16, 1987. Acreage for existing categories was calculated as a proportion of build-out.
18. Lyon Ranch - Annual Monitoring ReDort (AMR) for Lvon Ranch Planned Community, County of
Orange, 1987.
19. Mort Herrmann - Land Use Element Amendment 1984-3, December 12, 1984.
20. Moulton Ranch - Annual Monitoring ReDort (AMR) for Moulton Ranch Planned Community, County
of Orange, 1987.
21. Portola Hills - Annual Monitoring ReDort (AMR) for Portola Hills Planned Community, County
of Orange, 1987.
22. Rancho Cielo - Annual Monitoring ReDort (AMR) for Rancho Cielo Planned Community, County of
Orange, 1987.
23. Rancho de Los Alisos - Annual Monitoring ReDort (AMR) for Rancho de Los Alisos Planned
Community, County of Orange, 1987.
24. Rancho Santa Margarita - Correspondence to Peter Hersh, EMA/Advance Planning, from Kari
Kilstrom, Santa Margarita Company, "Subject: Annual Review of Development Agreement (DA
87-1)", March 30, 1989.
25. Rancho Trabuco - Annual Monitoring ReDort (AMR) for Rancho Trabuco Planned Community,
County of Orange, 1987.
26. Robinson Ranch - Annual Monitoring ReDort (AMR) for Robinson Ranch Planned Community,
County of Orange, 1987.
27. Saddleback Meadows - Saddleback Meadows Planned Community Develonment Plan, June 25, 1984.
28. Santiago Estates - Land Use Element Amendment 1978-2, December 1978, and Zone Change 81-S,
June 1981.
29. Santiago Ranch - Land Use Amendment 82-1, June 6, 1982.
30. Serrano Highlands - Annual Monitoring ReDort (AMR) for Serrano Highlands Planned Community,
County of Orange, 1987.
31. Telaga Valley - Annual Monitoring ReDort (AMR) for Te1a~a Vallev Planned Community, County
of Orange, 1987.
32. Watson - Land Use Amendment 83-2, November 16, 1983.
33. Zadeh - Zoning Map, Tentative Tract 12365.
34. 4S Ranch (Edgar) - Land Use Amendment 83-2, November 16, 1983.
BJ:hdENDNOTES .wP (1/4/96)
H-B-5
PAGE 113 Show Image
3. Infill and Redevelopment Inventory
In addition to the inventory of land in planned communities, a smaller
inventory exists within the unincorporated islands. An evaluation of
these sites is summarized by community analysis area in Table B-2.
This analysis indicates that 8,446 new units are anticipated within
these areas during the 1989-94 period. Although no detailed breakdown
is available, it is expected that the majority of these will be
multiple-family units. For further information regarding potential
redevelopment sites, please refer to Section C, below.
4. Infrastructure Capacity and Financing
a. Capacity
The Land Use Element's Growth Management Program implements the
Phased Development and Land Use/Transportation Integration
policies of the LUE by requiring proponents of major land use
projects to submit annual reports that project future development
activity, identify public service deficiencies, and provide
mitigation measures.
The primary purpose of this program is to enable the County to
anticipate potential shortfalls in infrastructure capacity so that
steps can be taken to correct imbalances before they hinder
development.
b. Financing
The growing cost of public facilities combined with reductions in
state and federal funding for public facility development have
made the provision of infrastructure a difficult task for local
government. The tax revolt of the late 1970s and the resultant
tax and expenditure limitations (Propositions 4 and 13) have
further constrained the ability of local governments to provide
the regional and sub-regional public facilities necessary to serve
existing and future developments.
As a result of these factors, local governments have canceled or
deferred many essential public facility projects and shifted the
responsibility for the provision of major public facilities to
developers. While developers historically have provided local
improvements (e.g., local streets, sidewalks), their
responsibility for the provision of major regional public
facilities has increased significantly.
The additional burden of infrastructure financing increases the
risks and costs for residential developers in Orange County. Some
of the increased costs of infrastructure financing will be borne
by new homebuyers both directly (e.g., homeowners association
fees, assessments) and indirectly as costs reflected in house
prices.
H-B-6
PAGE 114 Show Image
TABLE B-2
RESIDENTIAL LAND INVENTORY
ORANGE COUNTY UNINCORPORATED ISLANDS*
BY COMMUNITY ANALYSIS AREA (CAA)
1988-1994
CAA Potential New Dwelling Units
1 64
2 313
3 799
4 208
5 4
7 4
9 1,481
10 0
11 0
13 15
14 0
16 0
17 0
18 499
19 16
20 16
22 3
24 59
25 1
26 8
28 429
29 963
32 63
34 11336
37 39
42 383
43 391
44 10
45 77
46 365
47 970
TOTAL 8,446
* Excludes Planned Communities and major developments.
Source: OCP-88 Population & Housing Projections, CAO.
EMA/Advance Planning.
H-B-7
PAGE 115 Show Image
In order to facilitate the provision of community and regional
facilities, the County has an active public infrastructure finance
program to debt-finance needed facilities through mechanisms such
as Mello-Roos Community Facilities Districts. County-issued
tax-exempt bonds enable facilities to be financed at lower
interest rates with repayment made over a number of years by
property owners who use or are benefited by the facilities. These
special tax payments are also tax-deductible. The County supports
the formation of Mello-Roos CFD's in order to minimize the impact
of infrastructure costs on housing prices.
C. Affordable Housing Sites
In 1979, the County adopted the Inclusionary Housing Program (IHP), which
essentially required developers to provide 25% of all new dwellings within
the affordable category (i.e., 120% or less of median income). In 1983,
the IHP was replaced by the Housing Opportunities Program (HOP), which
phased out mandatory requirements over a three-year period in favor of
voluntary compliance with affordable housing objectives encouraged by
County incentives and market forces. The adoption of the HOP did not
alter the existing mandatory affordable housing requirements placed on
projects as conditions of approval under the IHP.
A total of 26,907 mandatory affordable units have been required to date as
part of General Plan amendments or zone changes. The vast majority of
these (24,268) are found within planned communities, with the remainder
scattered in conventionally-zoned parcels. Map B-i shows the location of
these planned communities along with the number of affordable units
required in each.
Of the 26,907 affordable units required, 12,274 had been built as of June
30, 1988, with 14,633 additional units remaining to be built. These
remaining units represent designated sites for affordable housing
development.
Planned communities contain most of the available affordable housing
sites, as they account for 90% of the total new affordable housing
requirement for the unincorporated areas (26,907 total vs. 24,268 for
major planned communities).
In addition to these affordable housing requirements, two redevelopment
projects have been adopted with a combined area of 13,167 acres. Within
these projects, individual project areas vary in size, composition, and
potential for affordable housing sites. However, redevelopment law
requires that not less than 20% of the taxes collected by the Orange
County Neighborhood Development and Preservation Agency shall be used for
increasing the supply of affordable housing in the county. This program
is intended in part to compensate for the anticipated reduction in the
levels of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding. Map B-2 shows
the location of the redevelopment areas along with an inventory of the
dwelling units and acreage within each area.
H-B-8
PAGE 116 Show Image
* PLANNED COMMJNITIES MAfr BI
8 *esiueea LEISUIS 35835 34 8£8538 3333318 48 W3. -~
PLANNED COMMUNITIES 33 muse viuje 38 NI:'. UIIL 4. MUKUIII p5888
38 LUIFImY 38 auw ~3i88 43 88813885SU88
WITH AFFORDABLE REQUIREMENTS 2. IKISAl I. C£Pt315138 31 UUftY ULAN 45 811155N£81
84 TDU.*331U8 NMKNLSIAUW N I£Nfl?3£8~
88 8153Pe1111£8853 38 .145 3341. 3~ 81 M*IUI£uT33UMuTi
PLANNED CWI~ITY: REQUIRED: 88 USual
48 SIRUIS 33335533 CIITIS .1 IMESIn.
36 ALECIA CREEK 289 3. IliUm 34888 43 £834834388 51 UWUIg :88ms1£11Y88
33 ALISO HILLS 296 33 N*~8£UU 48 ftTm 54
45 ALISO VIEJO 5000
35 BEACON HILLS 231
* 54 BEAR BRAND 171
39 BEAR BRAND HILL 50
20 COLINAS DE CAPISTRANO 844
17 ColD DE CASA 1472
56 COUNTRY HONE
3? COUNTRY VILLAGE 1038 1,
49 IRVINE COAST `48
44 PORTOLA HILLS ((LENN) 370
13 NISSION VIEJO 3000
,,\` 51 RANCHO SANTA ~URITA 3165
½. 38 RANCHO BE LOS ALISOS 848
k3 50 ~HD TRABUCO 939
31 FODThILL RANCH (lilITING) 1365
ll-B-9
PAGE 117 Show Image
REDEVELOPMENT AREAS MAPB2
COUNTY OF ORANGE
ft..~P.UVwLopMENT ARflA8 ACREA&E: ~ ~81LE
SIPELE-
PI.JECT AREA 1: _____ l(LLJN&S ~MI1LT FMIILY DUlIES VACANT TOTAL
1. SANTA AMA NEIIIITS £140.00 110.00 23.00 0.00 7.00 1018.00
~ PIOJECT AREA II: m
1. NIWAY CiTY 2092.00 192.29 35.50 21.22 0.23 373 oo
2. NEST SAROEN GROVE ISLAl. 317.00 53.58 1.36 0.00 0.48 69:00
6 3. MIWEIN ISLAW 413.00 76.19 0.17 0.00 0.00 `9.00
4. $01,111 NEST MWEIK ISlND 126.00 23.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.00
6. COLONIA 1NDEl~1A 1705.00 260.59 8.04 0.00 2.33 382.00
7. CYPRESS ISLAi* 310.00 52.58 0.81 0.00 0.69 81.00
8. DEIUIIS STREET 1SLM~ `03.00 101.74 12.74 0.00 1.62 172.00
16.00 5.81 0.28 0.00 2.40 9.00
9. OLIVE 1S~ 129.00 13.22 3.84 0.00 1.41 37.00
11.NORTNEASTELNOOENA "3.00 40.05 23.12 0.00 1.68 102.00
H16II~5 7171:.0000 23.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 34.00
12. I(11;~T NE16~ITSICOSTA NESA . 108.43 31.50 0.00 0.41 301.00
2254.00 216.50 29.50 `5.57 1.46 856.00
14. 1N1ER~CMiYONS 719.00 6022.42 0.06 81.52 1137.00 9528.00
10122.00 7191.01 152.98 168.31 1169.7112089.00
11262.00 1301.01 175.98 168.31 1116.7113167.00
H- `
PAGE 118 Show Image
D. Annexations uncorporations
An important factor which affects site availability (and Housing need) in
the county unincorporated area is the continued incorporation and
annexation of formerly unincorporated areas. Over the past few years, the
communities listed below have been annexed or incorporated which has
resulted in a reduction of 43,700 acres in the county unincorporated area.
These areas are shown on Map B-3.
Community Year of Annexation/Incorporation Approximate Acres*
South Laguna 1987 1,300
Mission Viejo 1988 17,000
Dana Point 1989 3,200
Laguna Niguel 1989 9,400
Laguna Hills 1991 3,200
Lake Forest 1991 6,600
Gypsum Canyon 1992 2,340
Aegean Hills 1992 662
Total 43,702
*Source: Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission
E. Low-Income Housing Sites
Site identification for low-income housing development is an ongoing
program of the EMA Housing and Redevelopment (H/R) Function. All property
to be acquired with Community Development Block Grant funding requires HIR
site review and approval. This includes environmental, land use, and
financial feasibility considerations. In addition, CDBG program
regulations require "principal benefit" to low- and moderate-income
households (80 percent and less of the HUD-published median income).
H-B-il
PAGE 119 Show Image
PAGE 120 Show Image
F. Surplus Government Property
Surplus properties of federal, state, and county governments and local
school districts are periodically monitored for potential housing use, as
are County Public Guardian estate real property, sales, and tax-deeded
properties offered by the County's Assessor's Office. There are special
problems applicable to each of these areas. For example, surplus school
properties are generally located in highly urbanized districts where the
potential enrollment is deemed to have already peaked. Such cities are
generally in older Orange County cities that are not under County zoning
control and are often surrounded by established single-family
neighborhoods whose residents may strenuously oppose any multi-family
intrusion. Lastly, school districts want "top dollar" for their resources
and often expect bids above fair market value.
With estate sales, the Public Guardian is legally obligated to secure the
maximum return to potential heirs and creditors and sets a minimum bid.
Also, most estate properties are older single-family detached homes or
small businesses that are not suited to more intensive residential use.
On tax-deeded properties, those few properties that are more than strips
of land resulting from subdivision surveying errors may be redeemed by
their owners up to the date of sale or auction. Also, properties on which
people refuse to pay their taxes are generally not developable without
substantial time and money to provide infrastructure or improve access.
Despite all of these problems, the County has managed to make surplus
property available for potential housing sites. Of the current County
surplus properties, several have limited potential for multi-family
housing. A 21-acre inactive solid waste disposal site between the Santa
Ana River and Riverside Freeway is at the end of an industrial road and is
still settling, but remains a possibility--subject to the zoning authority
of the City of Anaheim in which it is located. Many County-owned parcels
are similarly located within independent cities exercising their own
responsibilities as to zoning requirements. For example, a 1.43-acre site
between the San Diego Freeway Edison Company powerline easement and a
flood control channel in Westminster is not feasible to develop because
the City insists on an access road constructed to standard width- - to serve
about five units.
Every other remaining parcel under County control presents serious
development obstacles. A 0.34-acre site suitable for a duplex above the
Chapman Avenue road cut in Orange Park Acres has an irregular slope of
volcanic bedrock. A small parcel in Capistrano Beach adjacent to San Juan
Creek is subject to flooding and has no public road access. Lastly, 16.51
acres between Santiago Canyon Road and Santiago Creek within the City of
Orange is another inactive disposal site that is still settling, but has
long-term possibilities.
Among County-owned properties not previously considered for housing are
parcels or portions of parcels acquired for parks but not yet developed.
Some of these have been suggested as sites for less permanent housing
types such as manufactured or mobile housing for 5 to 20 years. However,
H-B-13
PAGE 121 Show Image
land acquired for recreation use may not be available for other uses due
to legal prohibition, public resistance, and lack of infrastructure
availability.
G. Mobile Homes and Manufactured Housing
As provided by state law and the Orange County Zoning Code, mobile or
manufactured homes are permitted in all single-family zoning districts
subject to certain minimum development standards. These standards are
only intended to insure that such units meet health and safety standards
and are compatible with surrounding neighborhoods.
Mobile and manufactured housing developments are also permitted in
multiple-family districts subject to the prevailing density or minimum
site area regulations.
H. Transitional Housing and Shelters for the Homeless
The Orange County Zoning Code establishes siting requirements for these
types of uses under the definition of 31community care facilities." Such
facilities'serving 12 or less persons are permitted in any residential
district subject to the prevailing site development standards.
BJ:h~PPB.WP (1/4/96)
H-B-14
PAGE 122 Show Image
APPENDIX C
Orange County Agencies
Involved in Housing Provision
This appendix contains descriptions of County agencies
or agencies with specialized services which aid in the
provision of housing. These agencies administer a
variety of programs which, to some degree, are part of
the County's efforts to achieve its 5-year quantified
objectives while implementing this element.
PAGE 123 Show Image
PAGE 124 Show Image
CO)0WNITY SERVICES AGENCY (CSA)
A. Human Relations Commission (HRC)
Address: 1300 5. Grand, Bldg. B, Santa Ana, CA 92705
Phone: (714) 567-7470
Executive Director: Rusty Kennedy
Summary of Purpose and Function
HRC promotes socioeconomic and political opportunity including equity in
housing. The Housing Committee: "Advocates for decent shelter and a
suitable living environment for every person in Orange County, regardless
of socioeconomic status."
The HRC Housing Committee objectives are:
To work toward provision of local programs that increase and/or
preserve low-income housing.
To increase public and private sector awareness and involvement in
implementation of programs to assist the homeless in the County.
To increase public awareness and involvement in programs aimed at
preventing residential displacement in low-income and/or minority
neighborhoods.
The population served by the HRC Housing Committee is Orange County
residents with emphasis on the low-income and minority population. An
estimated 500 persons are served each month. Fifty persons are given
direct personal assistance; an estimated 450 persons are assisted
indirectly by technical advice and help of the housing specialist.
HRC Housing staff works with County staff from CSA, the Environmental
Management Agency (EMA), Health Care Agency (HCA), County Administrative
Office (CAO), and the Social Services Agency (SSA) as well as numerous
agencies and community groups. Community groups include: Housing
Coalition, Community Development Council, Interfaith Housing Association,
American Association of University Women, Dayle McIntosh Center for the
Disabled, Fair Housing Council, Share Ourselves, Orange Counter Renters
Association, Coalition for the Homeless, League of Women Voters, Feedback
Foundation, and St. Anselm's Refugee Center.
Funding
Appropriation
General Fund
H-C-l
PAGE 125 Show Image
B. Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA)
Address: 2043 N. Broadway, Santa Ana 92706
Phone: (714) 836-3033
Executive Director: Sandra J. McClymonds
Summary of Puroose and Function
The Orange County Housing Authority was created by the Board of
Supervisors on November 24, 1971 (Resolution #71-1366), to address the
problem of shortage of rental dwelling units and financial resources to
assist low-income persons residing in Orange County.
The powers which a housing authority may exercise are set forth in the
California Health and Safety Code, Section 34200. Broadly stated, an
authority may acquire, lease, and operate housing projects for persons of
low-income; provide counseling, referral and advisory services to person
and families of low- or moderate-income in connection with purchase,
rental, occupancy, maintenance or repair of housing; and administer rental
assistance programs.
An authority may also investigate living conditions and means and methods
of improving such conditions. Finally, an authority may issue bonds for
any of its purposes.
The Orange County Housing Authority is governed by a five-member Board of
Commissioners comprised of the elected members of the Orange County Board
of Supervisors. A seven-member, Board-appointed Housing Commission, which
advises the Board of Commissioners, is comprised of two tenant
representatives and two League of Cities' representatives; the three
remaining representatives are selected at-large by the Board of
Supervisors.
Under cooperative agreements and authorizing resolutions, the Housing
Authority services twenty-four (24) of the Counts's twenty-eight (28)
cities and the County unincorporated area (Anaheim, Brea, Garden Grove,
and Santa Ana have their own housing authorities). An Advisory Committee,
comprised 6f one representative from each city and the unincorporated area
of the county, meets monthly and makes recommendations to the Housing
Commission on housing-related matters.
Funding
The Housing Authority administers Section 8 Programs, the Housing
Development Finance Program, and other housing support service programs.
The primary funding source for the Orange County Housing Authority is the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The Authority
administers over $30,000,000 in rental assistance payments annually.
Administrative costs of the Authority are paid from administrative fees
earned. Other programs of the Authority are financed through direct fee
charges, rental income, and the use of Authority reserves.
H-C-2
PAGE 126 Show Image
C. Area Agency on Aging
Address: 1300 5. Grand Avenue, Building B, Santa Ana, CA 92705
Phone: (714) 567-7418
Manager: Peggy Weatherspoon
Summary of Purpose and Function
The Area Agency on Aging is responsible for developing a comprehensive and
coordinated system of services for older adults (age 60+) within the
County of Orange.
The agency contracts with 26 service provider organizations for congregate
and home delivered meals and a myriad of social and supportive services
including transportation, legal, case management, homemaker, minority
outreach, employment, social day care, long term care ombudsman, and
information and referral. Services operated directly by theArea Agency
include a 200 client case management program called MSSP and the Senior
Shared Housing Coordination Program which coordinates shared housing
intakes and matches for 18 city-based Senior Shared Housing Programs. The
Senior Shared Housing Coordinator also staffs the Senior Citizens Advisory
Council Housing Committee, comprised of senior advocates and professional
personnel from the mobile home industry and housing community. The
primary focus of the committee is to advocate for affordable housing for
older adults.
With over 325,000 individuals residing in Orange County age 60+, 8% are
estimated to be minority persons, and about 25% are at or near the poverty
level. Individuals on fixed incomes residing in this high-cost-of-living-
county struggle against soaring housing and rental increases. Thus, the
Housing Committee serves as a chief advocate for this growing population
of older adults.
Funding
The annual budget of $8,000,000 is derived from Older Americans Act funds,
state general funds, a Health Care Financing Administration waiver, and
client donations for services.
H-C-3
PAGE 127 Show Image
D. Special Programs Division
Address: 1300 S. Grand Avenue, Building B, Santa Ana, CA 92705
Phone: (714) 567-7370
Division Manager: Jane O'Grady
Summarv of Purpose and Function
The Community Services Agency (CSA), Special Programs Office is charged
with administering three housing-related programs: General Revenue
Sharing Housing-Related Programs, Domestic Violence Program, and the
County Justice System Subvention (AB 90).
Under the General Revenue Sharing Program, County federal revenue sharing
dollars available, with few restrictions, are allocated to social programs
and County land, capital, and operation expenditures at the discretion of
the Board of Supervisors. The Special Programs Office is responsible for
administering Revenue Sharing Funds and for contract development and
monitoring of social programs funded through Revenue Sharing. Projects
completed under this program since its inception in 1980 include:
Feedback Foundation Inc. - hotel relocation; CPC-Juvenile Alternative Care
Center; C.S.P. Inc. - South County Youth Shelter, Laguna Beach; Child or
Parental Emergency Services (C.O.P.E.S.); Casa de Bienvenidos; Turning
Point/Amparo - Shelter Care Program; and South County YMCA (Residential
Hotel).
Domestic Violence funds are generated from a special assessment fee for
the issuance of a marriage license and for the filing of a Certificate of
Marriage. Senate Bill 1364 (Presley) enacted May 10, 1984 authorizes a
fee of $19.00 to be collected for Domestic Violence Centers. The
legislation imposes restrictions on the use of funds which include: 24
hour per day shelter, temporary housing, food, psychological support and
peer counseling, and referral and emergency services.
Victims of domestic violence and their children are provided the above
services via three 24 hour per day shelters and a motel voucher program.
Ninety-three beds are available for the former and motel beds are
available as needed. Victims sheltered July 1, 1987 to June 30, 1988
numbered 944; victims estimated to be sheltered July 1, 1988 through
June 30, 1989 are 1,032.
AB 90 provides funding for programs relating to crime and delinquency
prevention. Community-based programs include youth shelters for youth who
are in crisis (runaways, abused, incorrigible), emancipation training for
youth ages sixteen to seventeen who cannot live at home, and a residential
community corrections program designed as an alternative to County jail
and as a resource for probationers in transition from institutionalization
to society. In FY 1987/88, 757 youth and 181 adults received residential
services. In FY 1988/89, it is projected that 944 youth and 175 adults
will receive residential assistance.
A final housing-related program which CSA/Special Programs Office helps to
administer is emergency shelter and services as provided through the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The FEMA Local Board consists
of individuals affiliated with United Way, the Salvation Army, National
H-C-4
PAGE 128 Show Image
Council of Churches, National Council of Catholic Charities, Council of
Jewish Federation, American Red Cross, and the highest ranking local
government official, who is Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, and is
represented on the local FEMA Board by Joan Connery of the Special
Programs Office.
FEMA provides to low income persons emergency food and shelter assistance.
The Local Board sets local priorities, reviews RFP's, recommends
allocation levels to National FEMA Board, and monitors local programs
receiving funds. The FEMA funds appropriated for 1988 provided 112,278
nights lodging. Nights lodging projected for 1989 is 97,132.
1988 1989
Mass Shelter (large facility) 21,681 nights 26,536 nights
Other Shelter (motel, camp, park) 32,633 36,996
Rent and mortgage 57.964 33.600
Total 112,278 nights 97,132 nights
Funding
1. General Revenue Sharing Programs: Revenue Sharing Funds
2. Domestic Violence Program: Marriage License Fees
3. County Justice System Subvention Program: State Appropriation (AB 90)
4. Federal Emergency Management Agency: Federal Appropriation
H-C-S
PAGE 129 Show Image
COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE (CAO)
A. Bond/Capital Finance Program
Address: 10 Civic Center Plaza, 3rd Floor, Santa Ana, CA 92701
Phone: (714) 834-4775
Manager: Stephen V. Kozak, Jr.
Housing Program Contact: Susan Steinfeld
Summary of Purpose and Function
The CAO Bond Capital Finance Program identifies, evaluates, implements,
and manages unique or alternative financing programs to meet the County's
long-term financing needs.
The County of Orange has established two housing revenue bond programs to
increase the supply of housing stock in participating cities and the
unincorporated areas of the County. Under these programs, tax-exempt
bonds are used to provide funds for construction loans and mortgages to
encourage developers to provide both rental and for-sale housing which is
affordable'to lower income families and individuals.
Single Family Residential Mort~a~e Revenue Bond Program
The Single Family Residential Mortgage Revenue Bond Program has existed in
Orange County since 1980. The Program is designed to provide mortgage
loans to first-time home buyers whose incomes do not exceed maximum
federal limits. Buyers must also intend to live in the homes as their
principal residence. Mortgage loans offered under the bond program
generally have lower interest rates than conventional loans. Loans are
made available for attached and detached single family residences
primarily in eligible new developments at various locations throughout the
county. A smaller portion of funds is available for existing or resale
units countywide. Since the inception of the program, approximately $532
million has been made available to finance mortgage loans for
approximately 7,103 new and resale residences.
Multi-Family Apartment Revenue Bond Program
The Multi-Family Apartment Development Revenue Bond Program was developed
in Orange County in 1982. This program is designed to make financing
available to developers for the construction of multi-family residential
rental units in the county. In order to receive financing through this
program, developers must reserve 20 percent of the units for 15 years for
rental by families or individuals who earn 50 percent or less of the
federal median income. Since the inception of the program, the County has
issued bonds totaling $1.1 billion to develop 16,726 apartment units
throughout the county. Of these, 3,991 apartments have been designated
for occupancy by income qualified tenants.
The Tax Reform Act of 1986 significantly changed the requirements and
procedures for the issuance of tax-exempt multi-family bonds. Since 1986,
the increased restrictions imposed at the Federal and State level have
significantly slowed the interest on the part of apartment developers for
this program.
H-C-6
PAGE 130 Show Image
Additionally, the single family bond program has also experienced
decreased activity. The single family program is patterned after the
Federal Housing Authority (FHA) Home Mortgage Program because of the
government backed securities that insure these mortgages. The FHA maximum
loan limit for 1989 is $101,250. The rising cost of land in Orange County
has reduced the number of single family units available within this price
range and accounts for the reduced activity in the single family bond
program.
FundinQ
The financing for the housing revenue bond programs comes from the sale of
municipal revenue bonds to investors. Investors receive interest on their
investment which is tax-exempt at the Federal and California State levels.
The bonds are repaid from the mortgage loans originated under the single
family housing bond program and loan payments from the developers of the
multi-family apartment units. The County, State, or Federal Government
provides no repayment obligation nor any pledge of its revenues, taxes, or
assets.
H-C-7
PAGE 131 Show Image
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY (EMA)
A. Advance Planning Division
Address: 12 Civic Center Plaza, Room 243, Santa Ana, CA 92701
Phone: (714) 834-5380
Manager: Joan S. Golding
Summary of Purpose and Function
EMA/Advance Planning Division, Element Planning Section is charged with
the updating of all elements of the General Plan (excluding the
Transportation Element). State law requires a comprehensive 5-year review
and update of the County's Housing Element. This review must include the
following:
o The appropriateness of the housing goals, objectives, and policies
in contributing to the attainment of the state housing goal.
o The effectiveness of the housing element in attainment of the
community's housing goals and objectives.
o The progress of the County in implementation of the housing
element.
One of the key components of the process is a public participation program
that seeks to involve all economic segments of the community in the
Housing Element evaluation and update. A technical advisory committee is
established and public workshops are held in order to solicit suggestions
regarding the Housing Element.
Another function of the Advance Planning Division is the administration of
the Housing Opportunities Program. A key component of the County's
overall housing strategy is to encourage the production of market-rate
housing that is affordable to households with incomes under 120 percent of
the County median. In undertaking this program, the County commits itself
to the following:
o Ensuring that it has authorized development of all types of housing
in areas appropriate for residential development and at sufficient
densities to permit the program's performance objective to be met;
o Developing the necessary program capability and expertise to carry
out its role and meet its commitment to the Housing Opportunities
Program; and
o Developing and implementing support and incentive mechanisms to
assist private developers in achieving the program's performance
obj ectives.
Finally, the Advance Planning Division is responsible for the
incorporation into its affordable housing program of data from the Housing
Affordability Monitoring System (HAMS) Report. This document, in previous
years prepared by the County Administrative Office, provides the Board of
Supervisors with a periodically updated data source regarding the state of
H-C-8
PAGE 132 Show Image
housing in Orange County. The main focus of the report is to present
information pertaining to the production of affordable housing within the
County's unincorporated area. The HAMS Report provides a convenient
reference document for decision-makers to assess the progress achieved
toward meeting specific objectives included in the Housing Element of the
County's General Plan.
This report was created in response to Resolution 83-184, which directed
the compilation of an objective data base and monitoring system in order
to ascertain the progress attained toward meeting the following goals:
- The production of housing units affordable to households with a broad
range of income levels.
- The need and provision of housing for all segments of the population.
- The establishment of communities with a balance of jobs and housing.
The HAMS Report presents data reflecting affordable housing production
under the County's Inclusionary Housing Program (IHP), adopted in 1979,
and the Housing Opportunities Program (HOP) which replaces the IHP under
revised Housing Element H 83-1.
Funding
(1) For General Plan Update County General Fund
(2) For Housing Development Private Mortgage Lenders
(HOP) HUD/FHA
Revenue Bonds
California Housing Finance Agency (CHFA)
(3) For Program Expertise County General Fund
and Capability (HOP) Community Development Block Grant
H-C-9
PAGE 133 Show Image
B. Housing and Community Development (H/CD)
Address: 1200 N. Main, Suite 600, Santa Ana, CA 92701
Phone: (714) 568-4199
Director: Dhongchai (Bob) Pusavat
Summary of PurDose and Function
The Housing and Community Development (H/CD) Program is a federally funded
program developed to address some of the low and moderate income family
needs related to housing and community development. The County of Orange
prepares the application annually for submittal to the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Typically, these funds are used for
basic programs including:
1. Rehabilitation of Homes
The County has a Home Improvement Program for low-moderate income
areas. The Home Improvement Program provides low interest loans,
deferred payment loans and grants (when necessary) to assist qualified
low income homeowners, tenants and landlords to correct code
violations, repair hazards, and provide necessary home improvements.
Properties should be located in target areas within the unincorporated
County or contracting cities.
Typical financing may include:
LOW INTEREST LOANS - 15 year loan term
DEFERRED PAYMENT LOANS - Zero interest, due in full only upon sale
or transfer.
OWNER REBATES - for necessary improvements
GRANTS - Emergency repairs, health and safety hazards
RENTAL REHABILITATION PROGRAM ONLY - To benefit low income renters
3% to 9% interest, 15 year loan term
Deferred payment loans, 2% interest, 10 year loan term
50% Cash Rebate up to $5000 per rental unit
2. Public Improvements in Support of Neighborhood Preservation
These projects can consist of:
a. Street improvements, lights, traffic signals
b. Sidewalks, curbs, gutters, storm drains
3. Community Facilities in Support of Neighborhood Preservation
These projects can consist of:
a. Rehabilitation or construction of community centers
b. Improvements to playgrounds and parks
H-C-b
PAGE 134 Show Image
4. Grant Assistance to Non-Profit Organizations/Groups
Direct and staff assistance may be provided to non-profit
organizations serving low-income persons in the areas of
discrimination, housing, employment, training, health care, day care,
and community activities.
The primary participants and beneficiaries of the H/CD Program are low-
and moderate-income residents. It is the intent of the program, however,
that all segments of the affected community participate in community
revitalization and the housing programs.
The unincorporated areas which submitted proposals for the thirteenth
Block Grant year (Fiscal Year 1988-1989) were:
Anaheim Independencia, Anaheim Island, Brookhurst/Ball, Capistrano Beach,
Cypress Island, Denni Street, Dana Point, El Modena, El Toro,
Inter-Canyons (Modjeska, Silverado, Trabuco), Mac Island, Northeast El
Modena, Orange-Olive, Rustic Lane, Southwest Anaheim, Sherwood Forest,
Santa Aria Heights, and West Garden Grove.
Participating cities with populations under 50,000 include:
Brea Los Alamitos Seal Beach
Cypress Placentia Stanton
Laguna Beach San Clemente Tustin
La Habra San Juan Capistrano Villa Park
La Palma Yorba Linda
Residents within participating cities may contact their city administrator
for specific city H/CD information.
Funding
1. Annual Federal Block Grant (CDBG) allocation for unincorp9rated Orange
County and participating cities.
2. Tax Increment Funds from the newly adopted Orange County Neighborhood
Development and Preservation Project under California Predevelopment
Law.
H-C-il
PAGE 135 Show Image
HEALTH CARE AGENCY (HCA)
A. Adult Community Mental Health Services
Address: 515 No. Sycamore Street, Santa Ana, CA 92701
Phone: (714) 834-5904
Manager: Doug Barton
Summary of Purpose and Function
Adult Community Health Services administers three housing-related
programs: Homeless Mentally Disabled Program, the Transitional Living
Center and Case Management Services (Placement Services).
The Homeless Mentally Disabled Program is a comprehensive system of
services for homeless mentally disabled adults which has three basic
components: Case Management/Outreach, Housing, and Multi-Service Centers.
A centralized County staff of outreach workers links homeless persons with
seven contracted shelter facilities and three multi-service centers. The
centers provide socialization, laundry and shower facilities, hot meals,
transportation, and vocational services. Services may be accessed by
contacting the program at (714) 568-4252.
The Transitional Living Center is a 29-bed licensed adult residential care
facility which provides a supportive home environment, 24-hour
supervision, daily activities, and transportation for mentally disabled
adults. Services may be accessed by contacting Anaheim Case Management at
(714) 447-7200.
Case Management or placement services are services which provide for
continuity of care for severely and persistently mentally disabled adults
within the Mental Health system and related social service systems.
Services include placement, hospital discharge planning, development of
individual service plan, crisis intervention, and assistance in daily
living. Placement services may be accessed by cdntacting the Mental Health
Case Management unit nearest to the clients residence:
Fullerton (714) 447-7000
Anaheim (714) 447-7200
Santa Ana (714) 834-8250
Westminster (714) 896-7540
Garden Grove (714) 636-7300
Costa Mesa (714) 850-8461
Funding
Short-Doyle Funds
Homeless Categorical Funds
H-C-12
PAGE 136 Show Image
SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY (SSA)
A. AFDC Homeless Assistance Program
Address: 1055 N. Main Street
Phone: (714) 541-7700
Director: Larry Leaman
Summary of Purpose and Function
This program assists homeless families with children who are AFDC
eligible. Families who meet AFDC criteria may receive up to 4 weeks of
payments (based on family size) for temporary shelter and last month's
rent and deposits for permanent shelter if the rent is no more than 80~ of
an AFDC grant for the family. No family may receive this assistance more
than once in 12 calendar months. All of the offices listed below take and
process applications for AFDC Homeless Assistance.
East District Refugee District
2020 W. Walnut 1619 W. 17th Street
Santa Ana, CA 92703 Santa Ana, CA 92706
(714) 834-8902 (714) 834-7073
South District West District
290 Fisher Avenue 9191 Westminster Avenue
Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Garden Grove, CA 92644
(714) 850-8500 (714) 896-7799
San Juan CaDistrano District North District
32118 Paseo Adelante, Suite 1-A 1133 Homer Street
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 Anaheim, CA 92801
(714) 496-3514 (714) 490-5160
Funding
This statewide program was implemented February 1, 1988 and utilizes funds
according to the AFDC sharing ratio of approximately 50~ federal, 45~
state, and 5~ county dollars. Although the program is proposed for
continuance through January 31, 1990, federal participation is not
assured. Under current state law, this program would have to be
discontinued if federal funds become unavailable.
H-C-13
PAGE 137 Show Image
B. Emergency Shelter for the Homeless
Address: 1055 N. Main Street
Phone: (714) 541-7700
Director: Larry Leaman
Summary of Purpose and Function
In 1987, the governor authorized the use of National Guard Armories to
house the homeless on an emergency basis when night temperatures dropped
to 40 degrees or below or temperatures were 50 degrees accompanied by
rain. SSA has the lead role in arranging armory operations, but active
participation by other agencies and community groups has been the key to
keeping this service functional.
When evening weather forecasts indicate a need for opening the armories,
agencies who provide for the homeless are notified. Bus transportation
from a series of pick-up points is provided. The shelters open at 6:00
p.m. and close at 7:30 a.m. Dinner and breakfast are provided by Feedback
Foundation. Volunteers assist in serving meals and clean-up activities.
Red Cross provides cots, blankets, and towels. Shower facilities are
available on site. SSA and other County agencies and certain city
managers provide on-site supervision throughout the night. SSA also
handles laundry, storage, and security arrangements.
In 1988-1989, the armories have accommodated 5,821 homeless people and
churches, which are used on an emergency overflow basis, have accommodated
another 1,165 persons.
National Guard Armory National Guard Armory
612 E. Warner 400 5. Brookhurst
Santa Ana, CA 92707 Fullerton, CA 92633
Funding
Homeless Shelter Charitable Trust Fund
Federal Emergency Management Act Funds
Stewart Mc~inney monies
Donations and Contributions by:
Feedback Foundation
California National Guard
O.C. Chapter of the Red Cross
O.C. Sheriff 5 Department
O.C. Marshal's Office
City of Santa Ana Park Rangers
H-C-14
PAGE 138 Show Image
ORANGE COUNTY HOMELESS ISSUES TASK FORCE
Address: 13252 Garden Grove Blvd., Suite 200, Garden Grove, CA 92643
Phone: (714) 740-1157
Executive Board (1988-1989):
Chairman: Scott Mather (S.O.S., Orange Coast Interfaith Shelter)
Vice-Chairman: Alison Klakovich (Rainbows to End Hunger)
Secretary: Kelley Sullivan (Food Distribution Center)
Committee Chairmen:
By-Laws and Membership: Janie Arnold (Sen. Marian Bergeson's Office)
Education: Dianne Russell (YWCA)
Kathie Murtey (Public Guardian)
Housing: Jim Miller (Housing)
Research: Alison Klakovich (Rainbows to End Hunger)
Resource: Maria Mendoza (County Administrative Office)
Fiscal: Dan Harney (St. Vincent de Paul Society)
Legislative: Lee Podolak (League of Women Voters)
Staff: Susan Oakson
Summary of Purpose and Function
Founded in 1985 by Senator Marian Bergeson (R-Newport Beach), the purpose
of the Task Force is to provide regional leadership and direction in
creating a working coalition and partnership between homeless persons,
service providers, advocates, government, and public representatives as
they identify and address the issue of homelessness.
Further, the Task Force aims to be a catalyst in securing positive
solutions for homelessness that use the financial and human resources of
Orange County's public, non-profit, religious and private organizations
and groups.
The Task Force will address homelessness through emergency care,
transitional shelters, and low-income housing.
Finally, the Task Force strives to end involuntary homelessness in Orange
County.
Funding
Hands Across America Grant
Private donations
H-C-15
PAGE 139 Show Image
H.O.M.E.S., (HELPING OUR MENTAL iLL EXPERIENCE SUCCESS)
Address: 1905 East 17th Street, Suite 217, Santa Ana, CA 92705
Phone: (714) 836-6543
Board of Directors (1989):
President: Ramona Schneider (California Council on Mental Health,
Alliance for the Mentally Ill - Orange County)
Vice President: Marie McNabola, Ph.D. (Orange County Mental Health
Advisory Board)
Secretary-Treasurer: Nancy Weir (Alliance for the Mentally Ill -
Orange County)
Beverly Cunningham (Alliance for the Mentally Ill - Orange County)
Mildred Garcia (Board & Care Quality Assurance Committee for the
Mentally Ill)
Pat Lenard (Consultant)
Eileen Miller (Orange County Mental Health Advisory Board)
Jim Nantais (Developer)
Allan Rawland (Professor, Graduate School of Social Work - Cal
State, Long Beach)
Chris St. Clare (Partner, Accounting firm)
Summary of Purpose and Function
HOMES is a non-profit corporation organized in 1985 with the goal of
providing an array of housing options for the mentally ill. HOMES
currently provides three houses at the semi-independent level with
supportive services in Orange County for mentally ill adults. The current
program is considered transitional, and residents move on to independent
living when their Section 8 certificates become available to them.
FundinQ
(Fiscal year 1988-89)
Private donations
Revenue Sharing
Rent from residents
BJ:h~PPC.WP (1/5/96)
H-C-16
PAGE 140 Show Image
APPENDIX D
ORANGE COUNTY
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES PROGRAM
Policies and Guidelines
PAGE 141 Show Image
PAGE 142 Show Image
TABLE OF CONTESTS
Section Title Pare
A. Program Rationale H-D-1
B. Guiding Principles for the Housing Opportunities Program H-D-2
C. Definitions H-D-3
D. Program Description H-D-5
E. County Support and Incentives to Affordable Housing H-D-7
PAGE 143 Show Image
PAGE 144 Show Image
A. Program Rationale
WHEREAS, the price of housing in Orange County has increased rapidly
in the past several years; and,
WHEREAS, substantial numbers of Orange County low-income households
are paying in excess of 35% of their limited incomes for housing; and,
WHEREAS, as a result of the above, there is a high demand for low-
and moderate-income for-sale and rental housing in the County; and,
WHEREAS, there are significant and expanding industrial and service
employment needs and opportunities for workers with incomes at or below the
County median who cannot find affordable housing in reasonable proximity to
their work and thus must commute excessive distance; and,
WHEREAS, such commute distance has had and will have an increasing
negative impact on the County's transportation system, air quality, and energy
consumption; and,
WHEREAS, public housing and housing subsidy programs can meet only a
small portion of the need for low- and moderate-income housing; and,
WHEREAS, the vast majority of housing units have been and will
continue to be produced by the private housing industry; and,
WHEREAS, this industry has the knowledge and ability to produce
housing in the affordable range given supportive government policies and
incentives; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to state law, the County has an obligation to make
adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the
community; and,
WHEREAS, the County has required the provision of affordable housing
through the Inclusionary Housing Program (IHP) from 1979 to 1983 and the
Housing Opportunities Program (HOP) from 1983 to the present; and,
WHEREAS, the County has met and exceeded previous low- and
moderate-income production objectives, and,
WHEREAS, it is the goal of the County to continue the production of
housing units affordable to households in a broad range of income levels; and,
WHEREAS, the County has established commitments under both IHP and
HOP for a majority of the unincorporated area that remains to be developed,
and the commitments will remain in effect assuring a continued supply of
affordable housing in the short- and long-term future consistent with this
goal; and
WHEREAS, County efforts to encourage construction of affordable
housing should be focused on the segment of the population with the greatest
need, i.e., low- and very-low-income households.
H-D-l
PAGE 145 Show Image
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, for those areas of the County not
covered by affordable housing commitments, the County will continue to pursue
a voluntary program for affordable housing consistent with the County
objective and will evaluate it to assure that the County objective continues
to be met.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the County will continue to monitor the
provision of affordable housing to insure compliance with existing
requirements and program objectives.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Housing Opportunities Program shall
include the policies, guidelines, objectives, arid criteria stated below and
shall supersede any earlier adopted Resolutions regarding affordable housing.
B. Guiding Principles for the Housing Opportunities Program
1. A joint and balanced commitment by developers and the County to
affordable housing objectives is essential to a successful housing
program. Therefore:
a. Program emphasis is placed on engaging the resources of the
private housing industry in devising workable methods for
achieving affordable housing objectives;
b. The program is based on recognition that housing projects must be
economically feasible, i.e., the developer should have an
opportunity to make a reasonable profit;
c. The County should seek affordable housing commitments, whether
voluntary or mandatory, at the largest possible scale and at the
earliest possible stage of the development process so that housing
types, densities, etc., can be planned to support and implement
the program's affordable objectives. Concurrently, it should
identify and apply those incentives and support programs, which
will be provided to complement developer commitments.
2. The program should contain strategies to reduce housing costs through
all available techniques.
3. The objective of the Housing Opportunities Program is that at least
25~ of the new housing built in the unincorporated area be affordable
to households earning no more than 120% of the County Median Income
and be further allocated as follows:
10% - Low
10% - Moderate I
5% - Moderate II
4. Primary emphasis in the investment of public funds should be to
provide housing for households in greatest need, i.e., 80% of median
income and below.
H-D-2
PAGE 146 Show Image
5. Depending on project scale, the affordable units should be designed
to satisfy the widest possible range of housing needs: e.g.,
singles, elderly, disabled, couples, and families with children.
6. Affordable units should be located and designed so that they are
compatible with their surroundings. Adequate provision should be
made for imaginative architectural and site design, landscaping, and
maintenance of common areas to meet this objective.
7. Affordable units should be distributed throughout the community in
such a manner that undue concentration of such units is avoided and
buyers/ renters have reasonable access to community employment
opportunities, services, facilities, and public transportation.
8. Since economic integration of diverse income groups is not the
program1s purpose or goal, it is not necessary that every planning
area or development project contain a mix of affordable and
11non-affordable" units, provided that a plan for the dispersal of the
required affordable units over a larger project area has been
adopted.
9. The program should be sensitive to changing market conditions and be
designed to minimize County and private industry overhead
expenditures.
10. The County should provide technical information to cities that wish
to undertake affordable housing programs and offer them an
opportunity to participate in joint programs when feasible, e.g.,
revenue bond financing and the Community Development Block Grant
Program.
11. Although state law permits affordable housing requirements to be met
by rental units, developers are encouraged to satisfy at least
one-half of a project's Moderate I requirement and three-quarters of
the Moderate II requirement with for-sale units in order to provide
appropriate home ownership opportunities for households of moderate
means.
12. To implement the Housing Opportunities Program, the Director, EMA,
shall prepare appropriate standard conditions for the Manual of
Standard Conditions of Approval.
13. Families of five or more persons should be given priority in buying
or renting affordable units with three or more bedrooms.
14. The County requires that an affordable unit be owner occupied.
However, blood relatives not living in the affordable unit may co-
sign a loan to allow a buyer to qualify.
C. Definitions
Affordable Housing Implementation Plan (AHIP): A document which defines
the method(s) of compliance with the mandatory affordable housing
H-D-3
PAGE 147 Show Image
requirements of a residential development. Also known as Housing Element
Implementation Plan. AHIPs may include/require Housing Program Reports,
Rental Agreements, and Transfer of Credit Reports.
Affordable Unit:
o Rental: Any multiple-family structure built pursuant to the
Inclusionary Housing Program or Housing Opportunities Program for
rental purposes.
o For-Sale:
Income Based - A unit that is sold to and occupied by a household in an
income category established by the Housing Affordability Table.
Cost Eased - A unit whose cost after a 10% down payment, given the best
available fixed-rate fully amortized 30-year loan, including principle,
interest, taxes, insurance, and homeowner association dues, would not
exceed the maximum monthly mortgage payment established by the Housing
Affordability Table, regardless of occupant income. Alternative
financing mechanisms (e.g., adjustable rate mortgages) may be used by
purchasers, but calculations for purposes of certifying affordability
shall be based on prevailing fixed-rate terms.
Density Bonus: An increase in the density of a residential project above
that normally permitted by zoning in order to facilitate the provision of
affordable housing. The standard density bonus is 25% above zoning. No
additional density bonus shall be granted where increased density has been
approved and specifically conditioned in writing to facilitate affordable
housing as part of a previous Land Use Element amendment or zone change.
Excess Affordable Unit Credit: An affordable unit which is not needed to
satisfy the affordable unit requirements of the Inclusionary Housing
Program of Housing Opportunity Program. These credits may be transferred
only within the Planned Community in which they were generated to satisfy
affordable housing requirements.
Housing Affordability Table: A computation of maximum income levels and
maximum monthly mortgage or rental payments based upon the County Median
Income prepared by the Manager, Advance Planning Division according to the
following methodology:
o Income-Based Calculation: Affordable income-based definitions are
calculated by using 80% of the median income as the maximum allowable
income for Low-income households, 100% of the median income as the
maximum allowable income for Moderate I households, and 120% of the
median income as the maximum allowable income fob Moderate II
households.
o Cost-Based Calculation: The cost-based portion of the Housing
Affordability Table (HAT) indicates the maximum monthly payment
permitted in each affordable income category (see definition under
"Affordable Unit'1). The maximum monthly payment is calculated by
H-D-4
PAGE 148 Show Image
taking 30% for rental units or 33% for for-sale units of the maximum
income permitted for each category and dividing by 12.
Housing Program Report: A detailed report regarding the provision of
mandatory affordable housing in a residential development which specifies
the affordable requirement, on-site or off-site compliance, and the type
of housing product.
Inclusionary Housing Program: The mandatory affordable housing program
adopted in 1979 and superseded by the Housing Opportunities Program in
1983.
~me Median: That figure published and periodically updated for Orange
County as a whole by the Chapman College Center for Economic Research or
another source determined to be more appropriate by the Director, EMA.
Income. Very Low: 50% or less of median income.
Income. Low: 51% to 80% of median income.
Income, Moderate: 81% to 120% of median income.
This income range is further subdivided as follows:
Moderate I: 81% to 100% of median income.
Moderate II: 101% to 120% of median income.
Rental Agreement: An agreement to satisfy affordable housing requirements
by providing rental units.
Vested Excess Affordable Unit Credit: An "excess affordable unit credit"
created prior to July 17, 1986 and part of a tentative tract map, use
permit, or site plan approved prior to July 17, 1983. Vested credits may
be transferred anywhere within the unincorporated area regardless of where
they were generated.
D. Program Description
The Housing Opportunities Program consists of both mandatory and voluntary
components in which County regulatory powers are combined with specified
incentives to achieve program objectives.
1. Mandatory Component: The County recognizes that there is a committed
supply of mandatory affordable housing in previously approved
Inclusionary Housing Program and Housing Opportunities Program
projects. Applications to amend those commitments with respect to the
number or percentage of affordable housing units required under those
previous approvals will be discouraged.
a. Although the dispersal of affordable units is desirable, it is not
required that every protect provide affordable units on-site.
Developers may transfer excess affordable unit credits of any
H-D-5
PAGE 149 Show Image
income category from other projects which have produced excess
affordable credits.
b. It is recognized that development phasing depends on available
infrastructure and physical constraints and that affordable
housing sites may not always be appropriate for the initial phase
of development. However, to the extent feasible, the desired
percentage of affordable units should be constructed as early as
possible and prior to the last development phase of the
`1non-affordable" units.
c. Provision will be made for the certification of affordable units
produced under the program. The Director, EMA is responsible for
establishing administrative mechanisms for this purpose and will
ensure that these mechanisms are as simple and inexpensive to
apply as possible.
d. Implementation of the mandatory component is via Affordable
Housing Implementation Plans. When such documents are clearly
consistent with all provisions of the Housing Element, they may be
approved by the Director, EMA. Otherwise, they shall be
considered by the Board of Supervisors.
e. If a new unit has been offered for sale to eligible buyers
pursuant to both income-based and cost-based criteria and the unit
remains unsold after 90 days, then:
(1) The unit may be sold to anyone at the same price it was
offered to eligible buyers, and
(2) The builder will be given affordable credit for the unit
within the applicable affordability category based on cost
based criteria only.
f. If a new unit has been offered for rent £0 eligible renters
pursuant to both income-based and cost-based criteria and the unit
remains unrented for 30 days, then:
(1) The unit may be rented to anyone at the same rate that it was
offered to eligible renters.
(2) If the builder is able to document that a good faith attempt
was made to rent to target income groups for 30 days, then
affordable credit will be given for the unit at the level of
rent or the gross income of the renter, whichever is lower.
g. If there are no subsidy programs available and other incentives
are not sufficient to make compliance economically feasible, all
or a portion of mandatory low-income units may be satisfied by the
provision of units at the Moderate I level. This provision should
be utilized as a last resort once all avenues of assistance,
incentives, and marketing considerations have been adequately
explored and found not feasible for a particular project.
H-D-6
PAGE 150 Show Image
h. Families of five or more persons shall be given priority in buying
or renting units with three or more bedrooms. If after 90 days
(for-sale) or 30 days (rental) such units remain unsold or
unrented, then they may be sold or rented to households of any
size.
2. Voluntary Component: This component is intended to complement the
mandatory requirements of the Housing Opportunities Program. Any
affordable units provided in excess of requirements are voluntary
affordable units. A unit may not be counted as voluntary if it is
used or transferred to meet mandatory requirements.
In order to monitor the provision of voluntary affordable units,
builders will be required to provide information on buyer incomes and
selling prices or rents of all residential developments of 5 units or
more. The Director, EMA, is responsible for establishing
administrative mechanisms for this purpose and will ensure that these
mechanisms are as simple and inexpensive to apply as possible.
The information received in compliance with this condition will be
kept confidential except for its annual use in compiling aggregate
affordable housing production statistics.
E. County Support and Incentives to Affordable Housing
Developers agreeing to provide units affordable to households earning not
more than l20~ of the median income will be evaluated on the basis of need
for County incentives outlined below. Special consideration for County
incentives will be made for developers agreeing to provide units
affordable to households earning 80~ of median income or less.
1. Criteria for which affordable housing will be evaluated for County
support include the following:
a. Affordability - The extent to which the project provides
affordable dwelling units responsive to the needs defined in the
Housing Element.
b. Infrastructure Capacity - The degree to which infrastructure
components within the area in which the project is located are
capable of accommodating the proposed densities.
c. Speculation Control/Continued Affordability - The extent to which
the project prevents first buyer speculation gain and/or provides
for the long-term availability of the affordable units.
d. Location - The proximity of the project to public services and
facilities, employment centers, and commercial centers required
for the expected needs of project residents of affordable units.
e. Accessibility to the Disabled - The extent to which projects
incorporate accessible design configurations in excess of minimum
standards.
H-D-7
PAGE 151 Show Image
2. Increased incentives may be provided to developers in exchange for
additional public benefits such as the following:
a. Providing more than the minimum required residential units
proposed as Low Income.
b. Providing low-income senior citizen housing.
c. Providing very-low-income units (50w or less of the county median
income.
d. Providing low-income three- and four-bedroom rental units.
e. Maintaining the affordability of rental units for a period greater
than the minimum required.
f. Providing handicapped-accessible low- and very-low-income units in
excess of minimum requirements.
g. Combinations of the above public benefits.
3. The specific incentives to be provided for a project will be
determined on a case-by-case basis. Incentives which may be made
available include the following:
a. County housing revenue bond financing for all of the affordable
units to be constructed, as needed in times of high interest
rates.
b. Density bonus or relaxation in site development standards per
Zoning Code Section 7-9-140.
c. Land write-down through use of CDBG funds or other revenue
sources.
d. Elimination or reduction of non-park open space requirements on
land which is not environmentally sensitive.
e. Elimination or reduction of off-site improvements and public
facility requirements or fees which are not generated by or
essential to the proposed project or necessary for the public
health and safety such as libraries, trail improvements,
landscaping, etc.
f. Provide public financing of residential infrastructure and form
special assessment districts.
g. Secure federal or state housing program funds.
Consideration shall be given to other incentives not listed which are
feasible, do not create a burden on other housing projects, and which
do not jeopardize the public health and safety.
BJ:h~PPD.wP (1/1/96)
H-D-8
PAGE 152 Show Image
APPENDIX E
Energy Conservation: Building Energy
Standard for Residential Development
(Title 24)
PAGE 153 Show Image
PAGE 154 Show Image
APPENDIX E
Energy Conservation: Building Energy Standard for Residential
Development (Title 24)
Building energy standards for new residential development establish `1energy
budgets11, or maximum energy use levels, for three types of residential
buildings applicable to each of 16 climate zones within California. These
standards supersede local regulations, and state requirements mandate their
implementation by local jurisdictions. Consequently, any further analysis of
energy conservation beyond the Title 24 standards is unnecessary.
Furthermore, any locally adopted conservation measures to achieve energy
savings beyond the Title 24 Standards would conflict with housing cost
reduction objectives.
In meeting the standards, builders can use either the "performance" or the
"prescriptive" approach.
Performance Approach: The performance approach provides the builder with the
greatest flexibility in that the builder determines which mix of design and
equipment technologies will be used in meeting the specified energy budget.
The builder, however, must be able to demonstrate, through the application of
state-approved calculation methods, that the proposed building will consume no
more energy than the energy budget allows.
Prescriptive Approach: The prescriptive approach will probably be the most
common because it does not require computerized calculations. The
prescriptive approach involves the use of one of five packages which can be
characterized as the simplest and least flexible compliance path. The only
choice involved in the prescriptive approach is the selection of which package
to use within the designated climate zone. Each package may be generally
described according to the conservation strategy it emphasizes in meeting the
budget:
Package A: A passive solar building that is designed to take advantage of
the direct rays of the sun for heating purposes or to be protected from
the sun for cooling purposes through proper solar orientation, appropriate
selection of building materials, and a moderate amount of insulation;
Package B: A non-active solar building which allows a fairly small area
of total glazing and requires R-19 walls in most climate zones. On the
other hand, no thermal mass is required, and minimum IWAC efficiencies may
be used. "Light mass11 wall and "heavy mass'1 wall R-value requirements are
available as alternatives to the frame wall insulation requirements;
Package C: This package essentially exchanges a requirement for solar hot
water for less insulation as compared with Package B;
Package D: This package is tailored to slab floor buildings and trades
higher HVAC efficiencies and exposed thermal mass area for more glazing
and R-ll wall insulation in most climate zones. No slab edge insulation
is required except in Climate Zones 1 and 16;
H-E-l
PAGE 155 Show Image
Package E: This package applies to raised floor buildings and is
identical to Package D except that it requires R-19 floor insulation and
less exposed thermal mass area.
(See Figure E-l for the application of each package to the non-coastal area of
Orange County.)
Additionally, all new residential buildings must include minimum levels of
wall and ceiling insulation (R-19 ceiling and R-ll wall insulation for frame
construction), infiltration control measures, vapor barriers (in certain
climate zones), duct insulation, proper sizing of space conditioning
equipment, setback thermostats, and energy-efficient lighting.
The cost of complying with the new standards ranges from $500 to $17,000 per
unit depending on the package type and climate zone. (See Chapter Three:
Constraints and Opportunities, section E: State-Imposed Requirements.)
The costs of compliance associated with the Title 24 Building Standards will
influence the costs of constructing and purchasing or renting a new home in
Orange County. However, as energy prices rise, homeowners and renters will
most likely spend an increasing proportion of household income for utility
bills. This may cause housing to become even less affordable than it is now
and further constrain residents' ability to meet monthly mortgage or rental
payments.
H-E-2
PAGE 156 Show Image
FIGURE E-l:
PRESCRIPTIVE PACKAGES FOR CLIMATE ZONE 8
(Non-Coastal Orange Co.)
Package Package Package Package Package
Component A B C D E
BUILDING ENVELOPE
Insulation Minimums:
Ceiling R-30 R-30 R-30 R-30 R-30
Wall1 R-ll R-l9 R-ll R-11 R-11
`1Heavy" Wall (R-l.6) (R-1.6) (R-l.4) N/A N/A
"Light Mass" Wall "R-4.0" "R-4.5" "R-3.5" N/A N/A
Slab Floor Perimeter R-7 R-7 R-7 NR N/A
Raised Floor R-ll R-19 R-ll N/A R-19
GLAZING
Maximum U-Value 1.10 0.65 1.10 0.65 0.65
Maximum Total Area NR 14% 14% 20% 20%
Max. Total Nonsouth Facing Area 9.6% N/A N/A N/A N/A
Minimum South Facing Area 6.4% NR NR NR NR
SHADING COEFFICIENT
South Facing Glazing 0.36/ 0.36/ 0.36/ 0.662 0.662
Opt.Ov. Opt.Ov. Opt.Ov.
West Facing Glazing 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36
East Facing Glazing NR NR NR 0.36 0.36
North Facing Glazing NR NR NR 0,66 0.66
THERMAL MASSE REQ NR NR 25% 10%
INFILTRATION CONTROL
Continuous Barrier NR NR NR NR NR
Air-to-Air Heat Exchanger NR NR NR NR NR
SPACE HEATING SYSTEM4
If Gas, Seasonal Efficiency= 71% 71% 71% 72% 72%
If Heat Pump51 ACOP MIN MIN MIN 2.5 2.5
SPACE COOLING SYSTEM
If Air Conditioner6 SEER- MIN MIN MIN 8'. 9 8.9
DOMESTIC WATER HEATING TYPE
System must meet budget, ANY ANY Solar w/ ANY ANY
sec §2-5351(b) and 2-5351(f) (8) Any Backup
LEGEND: ~ = Not Required; N/A = Not Applicable; REQ = Required
1. The value in parentheses is the minimum R-value for the entire wall
assembly excluding interior and exterior air films if the wall weight
exceeds 40 pounds per square foot. The value in quotation marks is
the minimum R-value for the entire assembly if the heat capacity of
the wall meets or exceeds the result of multiplying the bracketed
minimum R-value by 0.65. The insulation must be integral with or
installed on the outside of the exterior mass. The inside surface of
the thermal mass, including plaster or gypsum board in direct contract
with the masonry wall, shall be exposed to the room air. The exterior
wall used to meet the R-Value in parentheses cannot also be used to
meet the above thermal mass requirement.
H-E-3
PAGE 157 Show Image
2. No specific shading must be installed with double glazing to meet the
0.66 shading coefficient requirement which assumes light drapery.
3. To calculate the amount of thermal mass required fob Package A, use
the method set forth in ~2-535l(f)4. Package D (for slab floor
buildings) requires 25 percent of the ground floor area directly
exposed to the conditioned space. Uncarpeted (e.g., linoleum or
tiled) ground floor area, such as entry ways, kitchens, bathrooms, and
conditioned utility rooms or closets may all be counted towards this
requirement. Package E (for raised floor buildings) requires a
thermal mass area equal to 10 percent of the ground floor area. To
qualify for thermal mass, the material used must have a performance
equivalent to a two inch thick mass element with a volumetric heat
capacity of 28 Btu/ft3-0F., a thermal conductivity of 0.98 Btu/ft0-F.,
and a surface area directly exposed to the room air of the required
percentage of the ground floor.
4. The 71% SE requirements are superseded by the Appliance Efficiency
Standards which require that all non-weatherproof control gas furnaces
of less than 175,000 Btu/hr. manufactured on of after January 1, 1988
have a'rating of 72% SE or higher. Automatic setback thermostats must
be installed in conjunction with all space heating systems except
those noted in Section 2.3.
5. Heat pumps must meet the minimum 6.6 HSPF (Heating Seasonal
Performance Factor) value specified in the Appliance Efficiency
Standards as well as the ACOP (Adjusted Coefficient of Performance)
listed in the table.
6. Both air conditioners and the cooling cycle of heat pumps must meet
the listed SEER (Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio) listed in the
table. Any equipment which meets the Appliance Efficiency Standards
also meets the 11M1N11 package requirement for cooling.
BJ:h~PPE.WP (1/5/96)
H-E-4
PAGE 158 Show Image
APPENDIX F
PAGE 159 Show Image
PAGE 160 Show Image
APPENDIX F
HOUSING ELEMENT REVIEW AND EVALUATION
California Government Code Section 65588 requires each local government to
review its Housing Element at least once every five years to determine the
appropriateness of the element1s goals, objectives, and policies; the
effectiveness of the element in attaining the community's goals and
objectives; and the jurisdiction's progress in implementing the element. This
appendix contains a summary of the County's Housing Element Review.
State law specifies that jurisdictions within the Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG) region must complete their Housing Element
updates by July 1, 1989. In late 1988, County staff prepared a work program
for the project and submitted it to the Planning Commission for approval. The
work program included a technical advisory committee made up of County
agencies, private organizations, housing interest groups, and building
industry representatives. This technical advisory committee held a series of
public workshops intended to solicit information and recommendations from all
economic segments of the community, as required by Government Code Sec.
65583 (c). A list of technical advisory committee members is provided on the
credits page inside the front cover of the element.
Following the technical advisory committee public workshops, County staff
prepared a new draft Housing Element which was circulated to the state
Department of Housing and Community Development and to local organizations and
persons for review and comment. A series of public hearings was held before
the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors to discuss the revised
element. The following sections describe the analysis that was conducted
prior to final adoption of the new element.
A. Appropriateness of Goals, Objectives. Policies and Programs
In drafting the revised element, staff evaluated the appropriateness of
existing goals, objectives, policies, and programs to determine what
modifications were needed in response to new circumstances and the
County's performance during the previous five years. The significant
changes and the rationale in support of these changes are discussed below.
1. Goals (Page H-4-l)
The five previous goals have been consolidated into four goals to
avoid duplication. Goal 1 also includes a new statement regarding
adequate housing for employees of county firms and public service
providers. This reflects the increased public concern over the rapid
escalation in housing costs in the county during the past few years,
making it increasingly difficult for employers to attract and retain
qualified workers. This is especially true for the growing service
sector of the economy.
H-F-l
PAGE 161 Show Image
2. Objectives (Page H-4-l)
Quantified objectives are broken down into three components: new
housing construction, housing conservation, and rehabilitation. The
new objective for total housing production is based on the most recent
Board-adopted growth forecast, Orange County Projections - 1988
(OCP-88). This objective reflects anticipated growth in the
unincorporated area for the period of 1989-1994.
A separate objective is stated for new affordable housing production,
which is defined as housing affordable to households with incomes of
120 percent or less of the County median. This objective is 25
percent of new housing units built, unchanged from the previous
element. The new element also retains the previous objectives for 10
percent of all new units in the Low category (80 percent or less of
median income), 10 percent in the Moderate I category (81-100 percent
of median income), and 5 percent in the Moderate II category (101-120
percent of median income). The element was revised in conjunction
with Housing Element Amendment 1993-1 to establish a new objective for
very-low-income housing (50 percent or less of median income). This
objective was determined based on an evaluation of available
resources. A key assumption of the Housing Element continues to be
that the majority of very low-, low- and moderate income needs are met
by existing, rather than new housing.
The previous element contained a quantified objective for new units
assisted with federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds.
Since these units must be affordable to low- and moderate-income
households, this objective is now included within the affordable
housing quantified objective.
The quantified objective for rehabilitation and conservation of
existing units has been updated to reflect the most current funding
expectations.
Finally, the program objectives for Chapter 4 of the previous element
have been reformatted and are included either as policy statements
(Chapter 4) or in the individual program descriptions (Chapter 5) of
the revised element.
3. Policies (Page H-4-4)
Policy statements have been reviewed and updated to reflect the
revised goals and changes in circumstances. Many policy statements
were consolidated or revised to eliminate duplication or ambiguity.
In addition, the following new policy statements have been added in
response to needs identified during the amendment process:
a. Policy 1-F includes a provision for the recapture of direct public
subsidies if units are prematurely withdrawn from the subsidizing
program.
H-F-2
PAGE 162 Show Image
b. In response to a recommendation from the technical advisory
committee, Policy l-G has been revised to initiate consideration
of a zoning code amendment that would allow administrative
approval of transitional housing in appropriate districts.
c. Policy 1-I commits the County to consider a zoning code amendment
to allow residential uses in appropriate commercial districts to
facilitate the production of affordable housing and transitional
shelters close to employment opportunities and major
transportation routes.
d. Policy 1-S directs staff to develop an in-lieu fee policy as an
alternative method of complying with affordable housing
requirements.
e. Policy l-T commits the County to support increased state and
federal tax incentives to encourage low-income housing
construction and handicapped-accessible housing.
f. Policy 1-U indicates the County will investigate the feasibility
of participating in a regional employment/housing linkage program
that would assist in providing housing affordable to low- and
very-low-income workers.
g. Policy I-V commits the County to continue to inventory and
preserve existing low-income housing units that were assisted
through federal, state, and local programs and which are eligible
to convert to market-rate housing due to expiring affordability
restrictions. (Note: This program has been established in
conjunction with the adoption of Housing Element Amendment 1993-1.
See Appendix G: Preservation of Assisted Rental Units Program.)
h. Policy 1-W directs staff to identify sites for transitional
shelters for homeless families that are now available or easily
made available.
1. Policy 2-E directs the County to consider support of just cause
eviction legislation at the state and federal level.
~. Policy 4-D supports the establishment of a countywide housing task
force and trust fund to assist the production of low-income
housing and transitional housing for homeless families.
4. Programs (Chapter 5)
In the previous element, individual program descriptions were listed
in Appendix C. The revised element contains a complete listing of
updated programs in Chapter 5.
a. New Programs
The revised element contains the following new program
descriptions: (Note: With the exception of the Preservation of
H-F-3
PAGE 163 Show Image
Assisted Rental Units Program which was added in 1993 in
conjunction with Housing Element Amendment 1993-1, all of these
programs were added in 1989 in conjunction with Housing Element
Amendment 1989-1.)
o Aftercare Rental Assistance Program (page H-5-2)
This is an existing program that was inadvertently omitted from
the previous element's catalogue of programs.
o Countywide Homeless Family Transition Housing Initiative
(page H-5-6)
In response to the growing need for temporary shelter, the
Board of Supervisors recently directed County staff to explore
the feasibility of creating a Countywide pool of CDBG funds to
support a joint city-county program to assist the development
of transitional housing facilities for homeless families.
o Homeless Issues Coordination (page H-5-2)
This new program was created to provide a mechanism to
coordinate the activities of various County departments in
their programs to assist the homeless.
o Housing Development Finance Program (page H-S-il)
This new program administered by the Orange County Housing
Authority is intended to support the production and
preservation of low-income rental housing. It is funded
through OCHA's surplus operating reserve.
o Housing Element Periodic Review and Update (page H-5-13)
This is an existing activity mandated by state law. The new
element elevates this activity to program status, and other
previously incorporated programs such as the Housing
Affordability Monitoring System, Land Availability, and
Economic Analysis of Land Use.
o Neighborhood Development and Preservation Project (page H-5-20)
This new program will utilize redevelopment financing
mechanisms to support construction, rehabilitation, and
neighborhood improvement efforts in selected areas.
o Stewart McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (page H-5-25)
This program was recently established to utilize federal grants
for improvement and operation of emergency shelters for the
homeless.
H-F-4
PAGE 164 Show Image
o Preservation of Assisted Rental Units Program (page H-5-27 and
Appendix G)
This program was established in conjunction with Housing
Element Amendment 1993-1 to provide for the continued
affordability of dwelling units assisted through federal,
state, and local programs which have expiring affordability
restrictions and are at risk of converting to market rate
units.
b. Programs Discontinued or Redesignated
Several Programs have been deleted from the new element to
eliminate redundancy. These programs are identified below.
o Building Code Review and Revision
This activity is incorporated within both the Development
Processing System, Review Program (page H-5-6) and the Housing
Opportunities Program (page H-5-12, Appendix D).
o Controlling Speculation
This activity is included within the Housing Opportunities
program (page H-5-12, Appendix D)
o Economic Analysis of Land Use
This activity is included within the Housing Element Periodic
Review and Update (page H-5-13).
o Housing Affordability Monitoring System
This activity has been incorporated into the Housing Element
Periodic Review and Update program (page H-5-13).
o Housing Outreach and Education
This activity is included within other programs such as CDBG
(page H-5-4), other federal housing programs (Page H-5-8), the
Housing Development Finance Program (page H-5-ll), and the
Housing Referral Directory (page H-5-16).
o Housing Program Performance Report
This activity is included within the Housing Element Periodic
Review and Update (page H-5-13) and the Community Development
Block Grant Program (page H-5-4).
o Land Availability
This activity is included within the Housing Element Periodic
Review and Update (page H-5-13)
H-F-5
PAGE 165 Show Image
o Liaison With Other Local Agencies
This activity is included within each of the programs that
involve other agencies, such as the Countywide Homeless Family
Transitional Housing Initiative (page H-5-6), the CDBG program
(page H-5-4), and the Housing Element Periodic Review and
Update (page H-5-13)
o Master Environmental Assessment
This activity is included within the Development Processing
System Review Program (page H-5-6) and the Housing
Opportunities Program (page H-5-12, Appendix D).
o Meeting Special Housing Needs
These efforts are included within the CDBG program (page
H-5-4), the Aftercare Rental Assistance Program (page H-5-2),
and various state and federal programs.
o `Modification of Development Standards
This activity is included within the Development Processing
System Review Program (page H-5-6) and the Housing
Opportunities Program (page H-5-12, Appendix D).
o Housing Information System
This activity is included within the Housing Element Periodic
Review and Update Program (p. H 5-13).
o Reduction of Processing Time
This activity has been incorporated into the Consistency Review
Program (p. H 5-5) and the Development Processing System Review
program (p. H 5-7).
The descriptions of remaining programs have been updated to reflect
current activities and funding levels.
B. Effectiveness of the Housing Element in Attainment of Housing Goals and
Objectives.
Table F-i summarizes the County's performance compared to quantified
objectives during the period 1982-1988. As indicated in this table, all
of the new housing production objectives were exceeded by a considerable
margin. Even construction of new low-income units, which is the most
difficult to achieve, exceeded the objective by 50 percent.
Construction of new CDBG units was slightly less than the objective (85w),
but this was attributable to a cut in federal funding in 1984.
H-F-6
PAGE 166 Show Image
Conservation and rehabilitation efforts exceeded the objectives by
24 percent.
C. Progress in Housing Element Implementation
In addition to evaluating the County's performance with respect to the
quantified objectives, the previous element's program objectives were
reviewed to determine the level of progress in achieving these objectives.
The results of this review are presented in Table F-2.
D. New and Replacement Units in the Coastal Zone
For localities with territory in the coastal zone, Government Code
Sec. 65588 (c) and (d) require that the housing element report on housing
production activities within the coastal zone.
Table F-3 contains statistics regarding new housing production in the
coastal zone during the 1982-1988 period. During this time, a total of
3,746 new affordable units were required. Table F-4 provides information
on demolitions and conversions within the unincorporated coastal zone for
the years 1982-1988. According to records kept by the County
Administrative Office, a total of 9 units were added due to conversion, 4
units were deleted due to conversion, and 29 units were deleted due to
demolition or fire.
BJ:h~PPF.wP (1/8/96)
H-F-7
PAGE 167 Show Image
TABLE F-i
HOUSING PERFORMANCE SUMMARY
ORANGE COUNTY UNINCORPORATED AREA
JULY 1983 - JUNE 1988
Housing Element Performance
Total Units Objective 5/ (% of Objective)
1. Total Units Built 29,l94j~ 22,638 129%
2. Affordable Units
Built and Certified 10,0142/ 5,660 177%
Low7~ 3,402 2,264 150%
Mod-I 3,597 2,264 159%
Mod-Il 3,015 1,132 266%
3. New CDBG Units BuiltM 424 500 85%
New 413 375
Inf ill61 11 125
4. Units Conserved
or Rehabilitated l,l99~½~~ 965 124%
CDBG Funded~1 812 600
HUD Funded41 364 345
AftercareM 23 20
Sources/Notes:
1/
- CAO, Housing Inventory System
2/ EMA, Advance Planning Division
3/
- EMA, Housi,~ng/Community Development Office
4/
- Orange County Housing Authority
5/
- County of Orange, Housing Element H-86-l, Page H 4-1
6/ The Urban Infill Program was projected to accomplish approximately 25 new
units per year in 1983. H/CD had 30 units in process during 1984 when a
federal CDBG regulation amendment sequestered future funds for this
activity. H/CD finished 11 units prior to the federal determination.
7/ Includes CDBG units.
BJ:hdTABLEFl .wP (1/5/96)
H-F-8
PAGE 168 Show Image
TABLE F-2
PROGRESS IN IMPLEMENTING HOUSING ELEMENT PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
Program Obj ectives Progress
1.1. Completion and operation of a Housing Information In February 1983, the Board of Supervisors
System satisfying all local, state and federal established the Housing Affordability Monitoring
requirements for data compatibility, currency, System (Resolution No. 83-184), which serves as a
updating capability and retrieval to document and comprehensive data source for evaluating the
monitor housing needs. County's housing needs and progress in implementing
goals. This document is updated annually and
serves as the County primary housing data
reference source.
1.2. Implementation of Consistency Assessment. The Consistency Review Section has been created
within the Planning Function to evaluate
consistency of permit applications with the
General Plan and zoning regulations.
1.3. Implementation of a New Construction Housing See discussion under Section B(l) and Table E-l.
Program yielding 25 percent of new units
constructed in the affordable price range.
1.4. Definition of Community Development Block Grant Housing and Community Development Block Grant
Programs and related budgets which respond to funds have been used as seed money in financing
appropriate policies in the Housing Element. rehabilitation, replacement of deteriorated housing,
and development of new units for low- and
moderate-income families.
1.5. Continuation of Section 8 Existing Program. The Section 8 Existing Program has been expanded
in funding levels, staffing, numbers of projects
processed, and types of projects utilizing these
funds.
H-F-9
PAGE 169 Show Image
TABLE F-2 (Continued)
Program Objectives Progress
1.6. Implementation of a coordinating mechanism to As part of the Housing Element periodic review and
directly involve business and industry in solving update, representatives of the business community
the housing needs and problems of their employees and building industry were invited to participate
and involving the building industry in satisfying in the development of programs to address employee
the need. housing needs.
1.7. Transportation Element interface (e.g., employer- This program objective is implemented through the
residence proximity, encouraging balanced Balanced Land Use Policy of the Land Use Element.
communities, implications of high density All communities in the unincorporated area are
residential development on transportation planned with a mix of land uses so that residents
facilities). have the opportunity to work, shop, and play within
a short distance of their homes.
11.1. Housing Information System See comment 1.1.
11.2. Maintain a land inventory of all government- and An inventory has been completed and additional
publicly-owned surplus sites (including state- sites deemed surplus are evaluated and added to
and federally-owned land) in the county, which the inventory by HCD.
have potential for residential development for
low- and moderate-income households.
11.3. Consistency Assessment See comment 1.2.
11.4. Establishment of a system for continuous building A Planning Regulation Review Committee has been
code and regulatory review for flexibility in established to oversee streamlining of the zoning
building standards and pilot projects. code and other regulatory mechanisms (e.g.,
specific plans, planned communities).
11.5. Housing Opportunities Program See comment 1.3.
H-F-lO
PAGE 170 Show Image
TABLE F-2 (Continued)
Program Objectives Progress
11.6. Continue reduction of processing times program With recent revisions to the Zoning Code (#3499)
under way with continued monitoring of which streamlined the regulations and with
performance. concurrent processing of project approvals,
processing times have been reduced.
11.7. Secure funds provided by federal, state, and local The County has issued over $1.6 billion of
housing and revenue bond programs. tax-exempt revenue bonds to provide below-market
loans for more than 11,000 units.
11.8. Continue to implement and expand the Land The Land Acquisition Program has continued at the
Acquisition Program (HCD activity) so as to same scope and funding level.
provide additional sites for residential
development for low- and moderate-income
households.
11.9. Contingent upon funding availability, initiate No federal funding has been available for this
Section 8 projects under both new and substantial program.
rehabilitation provisions.
11.10. Consider revisions to the Zoning Code to allow In 1984, a comprehensive zoning code amendment was
mixed uses and temporary housing facilities and approved (#3499), which contained provisions to
facilitate apartment construction. permit mixed-use development and community care
facilities (temporary housing) with a use permit or
site development permit. This revision also
increased permissible density and building height
and reduced processing time and fees for apartment
construction.
H-F-il
PAGE 171 Show Image
TABLE F-2 (Continued)
Program Objectives Progress
11.11. Review and revise speculation control and To control speculation, in the grant deed of each
continuing affordability mechanisms to conform to bond-financed unit is a statement of owner intent
modified policy. to occupy the unit. Continued affordability is
facilitated by restricting loans to low- and
moderate-income buyers only and by requiring
pre-payment penalties on bond-financed units.
11.12. Pursue alternative financing mechanisms for The County has explored possible funding
Infill Program if HUD funds are reduced. alternatives, however none have been found to date.
11.13. Continue implementation of Tax Exempt Revenue See comment 11.7.
Bonds Program.
11.14. Prepare and adopt the Public Facilities Element The Public Services and Facilities Element was
as a new element of the general plan. adopted by the Board of Supervisors on
January 9, 1985 (Resolution No. 85-54).
11.15. Conduct Infrastructure Studies. The County conducts several programs to ensure
that adequate infrastructure is available to
support new development. The CAO's Development
Monitoring program annually evaluates the capacity
of key systems, including water, wastewater,
schools, roads, libraries, flood control, and fire
protection. In addition, the Public Services and
Facilities Element of the General Plan establishes
the policy frame-work for the development of
infrastructure systems.
111.1. Maintain housing affirmative action - H/CD funded the Fair Housing Council to monitor
nondiscrimination program at existing resources both for-sale and rental units for affirmative
and staff levels. action and discrimination.
H-F- 12
PAGE 172 Show Image
TABLE F-2 (Continued)
Program Objectives Progress
111.2. New Construction Housing Program See comment 1.3.
111.3. Community Development Block Grant Programs See comment 1.4.
111.4. Implement housing outreach and education program Outreach and education programs operate
to inform the public of housing opportunities continuously through flyers and community
available to eligible households. meetings.
111.5. To support and undertake programs which reduce No new programs have been initiated.
housing costs by making better use of existing
housing resources.
111.6. Consider a Zoning Code amendment to permit second The Zoning Code has been amended to allow second
units on lots zoned single-family. units in single-family districts (Sec. 7-9-146.5).
111.7. To provide the extension of the camp site time In 1984, the Harbors, Beaches and Parks Commission
frame to 30 days for a specific number of rejected this proposal as an inappropriate use of
available camp sites. park facilities.
IV.1. Maintain rehabilitation support in target areas The Housing and Community Development Block Grant
under Housing and Community Development Block Program has continued rehabilitation support at
Grant Program. the same funding level, scope and scale.
IV.2. Implement Residential Energy and Water All housing rehabilitation coordinated through
Conservation Retrofit Program. H/CD implement energy-saver improvements including
windows, faucets, toilets, insulation, and
electronic ignitions.
IV.3. Implement Block Grant Home Improvement Program. The Block Grant Home Improvement Program has been
implemented (see program description on page H-5-3).
H-F-i3
PAGE 173 Show Image
TABLE F-2 (Continued)
Program Ob~ ectives Progress
IV.4. To consider revision of the Zoning Code to secure The State Government Code (Section 65863.7)
tenant relocation safeguards when a mobile home addresses this subject. The Board of Supervisors
park is converted to a commercial use. has determined that no additional County zoning
regulations are necessary.
IV.5. Earmark a portion of available rehabilitation The Dale McIntosh Center for handicapped persons
funds for use in modifying (retrofitting) was completed in early 1985 with H/CD
existing rental or ownership units to make them rehabilitation funds. The Center provides
accessible. emergency housing for the handicapped.
V.1. Interface with industry and business See comment 1.6.
organizations, especially those composed of
employers.
V.2. Interface with cities in the forum provided by The County is a member of the Southern California
the SCAG Sub-Regional Planning Council. Assoc. of Governments (SCAG), the regional council
of governments for Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside,
San Bernardino, Ventura, and Imperial counties.
The County participates in any SCAG programs that
relate to Orange County planning issues.
V.3. Share with cities information and experience See comment V.2.
regarding special topics (e.g., granny housing).
V.4. Identify the Shared Emergency housing Task (SET) In 1984, OCHA subsidized the computerization of
force as the clearinghouse for information and SET's Shared Housing Directory. This directory
referral. Recommend OCHA interface with SET as lists clients, sponsoring agencies, rent, and other
the public sector liaison. information so that compatible roommates can be
matched. The target group is seniors. SET is also
updating its Emergency Housing Referral
Directory. The SET Director is appointed by the
Director of the OCHA.
BJ:hdTABLEF2 .WP (1/8/96)
H-F-14
PAGE 174 Show Image
TABLE F-3
COASTAL ZONE HOUSING APPROVALS WITH
AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS
ORANGE COUNTY UNINCORPORATED AREA
1982-1988
New Protects
Total Units Affordable
Project Authorized Units Required Comments
1982
TT 11632 9 3
TP 82-114/UP 82-8P 1 0 Exempt from replacement requirement
TT 11711/UP 82-3P 46 12 Transfer affordable credits used
UP 82-72P/SP 82-70P 4 0
SP 82-56P 1 0
TT 11594 119 0 Afford. units not reqvd; CAA object met
TT 11799 384 225
TT 8735 (2nd rev.) 80 20
TT 82-138/UP 82-12P 4 0
TT 82-108 2 0
TT 82-160 2 0
TP 82-148 2 0
1982 Subtotal 654 260
1983
UP 83-8P/VA 87-4P/
GPI 83-iP 2 0
TT 11843/UP 82-81P/
SP 82-77P 40 40
TT 11985/SP 83-68P 32 8 Transfer affordable credits used
Up 83-41P/SP 83-44P/
CD 83-7P/TP 83-121 24 24
TP 82-158 1 0
1983 Subtotal 99 72
H-F-iS
PAGE 175 Show Image
TABLE F-3
COASTAL ZONE HOUSING APPROVALS WITH
AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS
ORANGE COUNTY UNINCORPORATED AREA
1982-1988
New Prolects
Total Units Affordable
Project Authorized Units Required Comments
1984
Up 84-90P/SP 84-llOP/
CD 84-52P 1 0
SP 84-86P/CD 84-41P 29 0 Timeshare project
SP 84-60P/VA 84-llOP/
CD 84-23P 68 0 Timeshare project
Ap 84-18P/FP 84-8A 450 113 Not all units are in coastal zone
Up 84-65P/CD 84-40P 2 0
TT 8735 (6th rev.) 119 30 Transfer affordable credits used
UP 83-95P/SP 83-118P/
CD 83-51P 2 0
Up 84-85P - Exempt from replacement requirement
Up 84-62P - Exempt from replacement requirement
1984 Subtotal 671 143
1985
TT 9702 35 4
TT 110802/SP 83-156P 108 11 Transfer of vested coastal credit
TT 11578 63 - Affordable objective met alternative
CD 85-56P/VA 84-20P 71 71 On-site
TT 12366/SP 85-9P 450 125 On-site
TT 11578 180 45 Transfer coastal excess affordable credit
TT 12376 190 48 Transfer coastal excess affordable credit
TT 12604 111 27 On-site or transfer
1985 Subtotal 1,208 331
H-F-16
PAGE 176 Show Image
TABLE F-3 (Continued)
New Pro7ects
Total Units Affordable
Protect Authorized Units Required Comments
1986
TT 12577 68 17 Transfer or on-site
TT 8551/CD 86-06P/
YA 86-06P 100 100 Laguna Sur Rental Agreement
TT 12709/CD 85-48P/
SP 86-90P 116 29
TT 12764 76 19
TT 12765 112 28 Compliance with AHIP
TT 12590/CD 86-58P
SP 86-hOP 70 18
TT 12666 65 16
1986 Subtotal 607 227
1987
TT 12708 82 20
1987 Subtotal 82 20
1988*
TT 13434 325 125
TT 8551/VA 88-OSP 100 100 Density Bonus
1988 Subtotal 425 225
1982-1988 Total 3,746 1,278
*1988 information is through July 1, 1988.
Sources: EMA/Advance Planning
EMA/Current Planning & Development Assistance
H-F-17
PAGE 177 Show Image
TABLE F-4
COASTAL ZONE DEMOLITIONS AND CONVERSIONS
ORANGE COUNTY UNINCORPORATED AREA `D
1982-1988
Units Added Units Deleted Units Deleted
Year Due to Conversion Due to Conversion Due to Demolition or Fire
1982 3
1983 2 1
1984 2
1985
1986 3 1 3
1987 12
1988 4 2 9
TOTAL 9 4 29
Note: The above information is recorded by transportation analysis zone which is
some cases extend inland or beyond the coastal zone. Therefore, there may
actually be fewer demolition and conversions than reflected in this table.
Sources: CAO/Forecast and Analysis
EMA/Advance Planning
BJ:hdTABLEF3 .WP (1/8/96)
H-F-18
PAGE 178 Show Image
APPENDIX G
PRESERVATION OF ASSISTED RENTAL UNITS PROGRAM
PAGE 179 Show Image
PAGE 180 Show Image
APPENDIX G
PRESERVATION OF ASSISTED RENTAL UNITS PROGRAM
A. Background
In October 1991, SB 1019 (L. Greene) amended Government Code Section 65583
to require local jurisdictions to include within their Housing Elements an
analysis of assisted housing developments that are eligible to change from
low-income use during the next 10 years due to termination of subsidy
contracts, mortgage prepayment, or expiration of restrictions on use.
"Assisted housing developments" are defined as multi-family rental housing
that received governmental assistance under any federal programs, state
and local multi-family revenue bond programs, local redevelopment
programs, local in-lieu fees, local inclusionary housing programs, and
projects which obtained a density bonus with direct governmental
assistance pursuant to Government Code Section 65916 (participation in the
cost of infrastructure, write-down of land costs, or subsidizing
construction costs).
The following is a summary of the components which are required to be
included in the Housing Element. These requirements were added to
Government Code Section 65583 in October 1991 by SB 1019 (Greene).
o An inventory of units at risk of losing affordability restrictions.
o A cost analysis of preserving the at-risk units versus replacing them.
o A listing of non-profit entities capable of acquiring and managing
at-risk projects.
o Potential funding sources for preserving at-risk units.
o Quantified objectives for the number of at-risk projects to be
preserved.
o Program efforts to preserve assisted units.
B. Inventory of Units At Risk of Losing Affordability Restrictions
For purposes of the County's Housing Element, the inventory includes
assisted projects which have affordability controls which may expire (or
have expired) during the period from July 1, 1989 (the date of the last
comprehensive Housing Element Amendment) through June 30, 1999. The
inventory includes projects in the unincorporated area which were assisted
under federal programs, the Multi-Family Housing Revenue Bond Program, or
the County's former Inclusionary Housing Program. There are no projects
within the unincorporated area with use restrictions which may expire
during the 10-year period which received government assistance through
redevelopment, in-lieu fees, or a density bonus with a direct governmental
financial contribution per Government Code Section 65916.
H-G-l
PAGE 181 Show Image
Tables G-l and G-2 include an inventory of each development by project
name, project address, the type of governmental assistance provided, the
earliest possible date of conversion from low-income use, and the total
number of elderly or non-elderly units that could be lost from the
County's low-income housing stock. Government Code Section 65583 requires
the inventory to be broken down into two, five-year increments. Table G-l
includes those projects with affordability restrictions expiring during
the period from July 1, 1989 through June 30, 1994, while Table G-2
includes those projects with affordability restrictions expiring during
the period from July 1, 1994 through June 30, 1999. A particular project
may appear in the inventory more than once since the project has
affordability restrictions under more than one federal, state, or local
housing program and since the affordability restrictions expire at
different points in time.
C. Analysis of Program Restrictions and Peak Periods of Affordability
Expiration
To understand the various program restrictions, one must first gain an
understanding of how affordability is defined under each of these
programs. `All housing assistance programs other than the County's IHP/HOP
Program (e.g., state and federal housing programs, redevelopment,
Multi-Family Revenue Bond Program, etc.) use a definition of affordability
as established by the Federal Department of Housing and Community
Development (HUD). A low-income household as defined by the IHP/HOP has a
higher income than a low-income household as defined by HUD. While the
HUD median income is higher then the median income as determined by
Chapman University for the IHP/HOP, HUD uses adjustments for family size
which result in lower income limits than those for the IHP/HOP.
The current HUD-estimated median income for Orange County for Fiscal Year
1993 is $56,500, compared with the Chapman University median income of
54,380 (for the period July through September 1993). The HUD definition
of a low-income household is based on 80 percent of the area median income
with adjustments for family size. Currently, HUD defines an Orange County
family of four earning $39,700 or less as a low-income household, compared
with $43,504 under the IHP/HOP. In addition, since 1986, 20 percent of
the units financed through Multi-Family Revenue Bond financing must be
affordable to very-low-income households, as defined by HUD. Currently,
HUD defines an Orange County family of four earning $28,250 or less as a
very- low- income household.
H-G-2
PAGE 182 Show Image
TABLE G-l: LOW-INCOME MULTI-FAMILY RENTAL UNITS WITH AFFORDABILITY RESTRICTIONS EXPIRING FROM
JULY 1. 1989 THROUGH JUNE 30. 1994
Earliest Possible
Type(s) of Government Expiration of Number of Low-Income Units
Project Name Project Location/Address Assistance Used Restrictions Elderly Non-elderly
Las Colinas 25631 Indian Hill Ln. IHP/HOP 10-13-89 0 14
Aliso Viejo
Villa La Paz 2 Via Amistosa IHP/HOP 11-12-90 0 25
Rancho Santa Margarita
Aliso Creek Villas 24152 Hollyoak IHP/HOP 06-10-91 0 143
Aliso Viejo
Trabuco Highlands Apts. 31872 Joshua Dr. IHP/HOP 11-15-93 0 51
Trabuco Canyon
Villa Aliento 114 Aliento IHP/HOP 12-31-93 0 180
Rancho Santa Margarita
SUBTOTALS IHP/HOP 0 413
TOTALS 0 413
Key to abbreviations: IHP/HOP - Inalusionary Housing Program/Housing Opportunities Program
BJ:hdTABLEGl .WP (1/8/96)
H-G-3
PAGE 183 Show Image
TABLE G-2: LOW-INCOME MULTI-FAMILY RENTAL UNITS WITH AFFORDABILITY RESTRICTIONS EXPIRING FROM
JULY 1. 1994 THROUGH JUNE 30. 1999
Earliest Possible
Type(s) of Government Expiration of Number of Low-Income Units
Project Name Project Location/Address Assistance Used Restrictions Elderly Non-elderly
Villa Serena 111 Via Serena IHP/HOP 11-30-94 0 301
Rancho Santa Margarita
Foothill Oaks Foothill Ranch PC, PA 2A IHP/HOP 02-13-95 0 106
Foothill Ranch
Barcelona 23592 Windsong IHP/HOP 06-05-95 0 52
Aliso Viejo
Paloma Summit 26371 Paloma IHP/HOP 06-05-95 0 140
Foothill Ranch
Innsbruck 23412 Pacific Park Dr. IHP/HOP 06-05-95 0 124
Aliso Viejo
St. Moritz 23411 Summerfield IHP/HOP 06-05-95 0 239
Aliso Viejo
Pacific Terrace 15000 Pacific HUD Section 8 05-21-96 97 0
Midway City
Aliso Creek Villas 24152 Hollyoak MFR Bond 11-11-96 0 107
Aliso Viejo
Villa La Paz 2 Via Amistosa MFR Bond 02-15-97 0 100
Rancho Santa Margarita
(Continued on next page)
H-G-4
PAGE 184 Show Image
TABLE G-2 (continued)
Earliest Possible
Type(s) of Government Expiration of Number of Low-Income Units
Project Name Project Location/Address Assistance Used Restrictions Elderly Non-elderly
Trabuco Highlands Apts. 31872 Joshua Dr. MFR Bond 01-01-98 0 37
Trabuco Canyon
Villa Aliento 114 Aliento MFR Bond 07-30-98 0 45
Rancho Santa Margarita
SUBTOTAL IHP/HOP 0 9G2
MFR Bond 0 289
HUD Section 8 97 0
TOTAL 97 1,251
Key to Abbreviations: HOP - Housing Opportunities Program
HUD - U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
IHP - Inclusionary Housing Program
MFR Bonds - Multi-Family Revenue Bonds
PA - Planning Area
BJ:hdTABLEG2 .wP (1/8/96)
H-G-5
PAGE 185 Show Image
1. Federal Programs
The Pacific Terrace Apartment project is the only federally assisted
project within the unincorporated area which has affordability
restrictions expiring during the 10-year period. This project
utilized Section 8 Rental Assistance. The affordability restrictions
on the Pacific Terrace Apartments expired on May 21, 1991 but were
automatically renewed for an additional five years since the owners
did not provide a 1-year notice of intent to opt out of the program.
The owners will be required to provide a 1-year notice of intent in
1995 if they intend to opt out of the Section 8 Rental Assistance
Program in 1996 and convert the units to market-rate rents.
2. Multi-Family Revenue Bond Program
Prior to 1986, bond-financed developments were required to provide at
least 20 percent of the total units for lower-income households,
although the rents for these units were unrestricted. All of the
projects included in the inventory were financed prior to 1986.
However, the market rents for all of the bond-financed units currently
meet the HUD affordability standard for a low-income household of four
persons. On January 1, 1986, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 required the
bond-financed developments to provide at least 20% of the total units
for very-low-income persons at affordable rents as defined by HUD.
Developers utilizing bond financing were required to enter into
regulatory agreements with the County to retain the units as
affordable for a period of 10 to 15 years after 50 percent of the
units were first occupied. For purposes of this analysis, the
expiration date in the regulatory agreement was considered to be the
earliest possible date for the expiration of affordability
restrictions. Between July 1989 and July 1994, no bond-financed units
are at risk (see Table G-l). Between July 1994 and July 1999, 289
bond-financed units are at risk of converting to market-rate rents
(see Table G-2).
3. Inclusionary Housing Program/Housing Opportunities Program
The County's Inclusionary Housing Program (IHP) was a mandatory
affordable housing program which was in effect from 1979 until 1983.
It was superseded by the Housing Opportunities Program (HOP) which
incrementally phased out the mandatory requirements. No mandatory
affordable housing requirements have been in effect since 1986;
however, protects approved under the mandatory requiretrtents in effect
prior to 1986 are still subject to those requirements. (For a
complete description of the Housing Opportunities Program, see
Appendix D.)
Developers of projects with mandatory requirements under the IHP/HOP
were required (through conditions of approval) to enter into
agreements with the County to ensure the continued affordability of
these units for a 5-year period. Only those units which have
low-income affordability restrictions (as opposed to Moderate I and
H-G-6
PAGE 186 Show Image
Moderate II) are included in the inventory.
As defined by the HOP, low-income units are those which are affordable
to households earning 80 percent or less of the County's median
household income. The County1s median household income, as published
and periodically updated by Chapman University, is currently $54,380
(for the period from July through September 1993). Currently rents
which do not exceed $1,088 per month are considered to be affordable
to low-income households under the IHP/HOP.
Since July 1989, the affordability restrictions have expired on 182
low-income IHP/HOP units. The affordability restrictions on 231 units
will expire between July 1993 through June 1994, while the
restrictions on 962 units will expire between July 1994 and July 1999.
The peak period for potential conversion is June 1995 when 555 units
are at risk. Even though these units are technically at risk of
converting from low-income use, it should be noted that market-rate
rents within the county currently average $784 per month (Research
Network Limited). In addition, County staff has contacted the
management of each of the 3 apartment complexes on which the
affordability restrictions have already expired (182 rental units).
The following is a listing of the current market-rate rents at each of
these projects:
Project Namel Monthly Rent (Range) Monthly Rent (Range)
(Number of Units) 1-bedroom units 2-bedroom units
Las Colinas (14) $810 to $830 $930 to $975
Aliso Viejo
Villa La Paz (25) $595 to $690 $775 to $875
Rancho Santa Margarita
Aliso Creek Villas (143) $700 to 725 $925 to 970
As demonstrated above, these rents are below the current IHP/HOP
low-income rental restriction of $1,088 per month. Even if the units
with affordability restrictions that have not yet expired convert to
market-rate rents, under current market conditions, the units would
continue to be affordable to low-income households per the definition
of affordability included in the IHP/HOP (see Appendix D).
D. Cost Analysis of Preserving vs. Replacing At-Risk Units
EMA/Housing and Redevelopment staff have estimated the cost of subsidizing
a low-income rental unit for 15 years to be approximately $15,000, while
the estimated cost of producing a new, low-income rental unit is
approximately $85, 000.
During the period from July 1, 1994 to June 30, 1999, 289 units financed
through the Multi-Family Revenue Bond Program are at risk of converting
from low-income use. The County may potentially refund (refinance) the
H-G-7
PAGE 187 Show Image
bond issues which financed these developments and extend the regulatory
period to maintain these units as affordable for low-income households.
As previously noted, all of these units were bond-financed prior to 1986
and had no rent restrictions. These projects could potentially be
refunded under the current Multi-Family Revenue Bond Program requirements
which stipulate that 20 percent of the units be reserved for
very-low-income households, thereby strengthening the affordability
restrictions on these units. Since the bond issues include the costs of
issuance, such refunds would result in no net costs to the County. The
cost of replacing these units with new units would be approximately
$24,565,000.
During the period from July 1, 1989 through June 30, 1994, the
affordability restrictions on 413 units under the IHP/HOP will expire. Of
this total, the restrictions on 182 units have already expired, and the
units have converted to market-rate rents. The cost of replacing these
413 units with new units would be approximately $35,105,000. Between July
1, 1994 and June 30, 1999, the affordability restrictions on 962 IHP/HOP
units will expire. The cost of replacing these units would be
approximately $81,770,000.
As noted above, market-rate rents for the IHP/HOP units are currently
lower than the low-income affordability restriction. Since the low-income
affordability restriction for IHP/HOP units (currently $1,088.00 per
month) is based upon the county's median income, it is unlikely that
market-rate rents will increase so as to exceed the low-income rental
restriction. Even if market-rate rents were to increase to exceed the
current rental restriction of $1,088.00 per month, it is likely that the
low-income rental restriction will also experience a commensurate increase
since it is based on the county's median income.
Although market-rate rents could increase due to market conditions and,
thereby, exceed the affordability restriction, it is not feasible to
estimate the cost of preserving these units as affordable since the
potential difference between the future market-rate rents and the future
low-income rental limit is unknown. (See additional discussion below
under Section H: "Program Efforts to Preserve Assisted Units: Monitoring
Market-Rate Rents.")
During the period from July 1, 1994 to June 30, 1999, 97 federally
assisted units are at risk of converting from low-income use. The cost of
preserving these units as affordable would be approximately $1,455,000
assuming a $15,000 subsidy per unit. The cost of replacing these units is
approximately $8,245, 000.
In summary, the least costly approach to preserve the federally assisted
and bond-financed units with expiring affordability restrictions would be
to refinance the units and extend the affordability controls for another
10-15 years. The most costly approach would be to replace the units with
new rental units.
H-G-8
PAGE 188 Show Image
E. Resources for Preservation
As required by Government Code Section 65583, the following is a list of
public and private nonprofit corporations which are known to have legal
and managerial capacity to acquire and manage the housing developments
with expiring affordability restrictions. (It should be noted that State
law currently precludes the Orange County Development Agency from using
redevelopment set-aside funds outside of the redevelopment area unless the
Board of Supervisors adopts a resolution finding that the use of funds
outside the redevelopment area will benefit the redevelopment area
itself.)
Orange County Housing Authority Orange County Development Agency
2043 N. Broadway 1200 N. Main Street, Suite 600
Santa Ana, CA 92706 P.O. Box 4048
Santa Ana, CA 92702
Civic Center Barrio Housing Corp. Colonia Service Committee
431 5. Bristol 10871 Garza Ave.
Colonia Community Center Anaheim, CA 92804
Santa Ana, CA 92703
Dayle McIntosh Ctr. for the Disabled Episcopal Service Alliance
150 W. Cerritos, Bldg. # 4 23421 5. Pointe Drive, Ste. 130
Anaheim, CA 92805 Laguna Hills, CA 92653
Habitat for Humanity of O.C., Inc. Home Aid
P.O. Box 7086 2001 E. 4th Street, #224
Orange, CA 92613 Santa Ana, CA 92705
O.C. County Community Housing Corp.
1833 E. 17th Street, Suite 207
Santa Ana, CA 92701
F. Estimates of Available Funds
As required by Government Code Section 65583, the following is a
discussion of potential funding sources which could be used to preserve
assisted units with expiring affordability restrictions.
1. Multi-Family Revenue Bond Program
Since there are many influencing factors affecting bond financing, the
County cannot estimate the amount `of funding which may be available to
finance new units or refinance existing units in order to extend the
affordability restrictions. Initially, a developer must apply to the
County to utilize multi-family revenue bond financing. The County
must then apply to the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee
(CDLAC) for individual allocations for all new financing through
private activity bonds, including housing revenue bonds. According to
CDLAC staff, the annual State limit for private activity bond
authority totals $50 per capita, currently about $1.5 billion, of
H-G-9
PAGE 189 Show Image
which about $1.2 billion (80%) will be annually available for housing
revenue bonds
The critical factor for this type of financing is that the project
must meet loan-underwriting standards and obtain credit support for
the bond issue from a private lender/guarantor or mortgage insurer.
Generally, revenue bonds cannot be rated solely on the basis of the
security provided by the value of the apartment development but must
have some form of third-party guarantee. It has become increasingly
difficult for developers to obtain the necessary credit enhancement to
support a bond issuance. Recently, lenders are often unwilling to
offer support in amounts sufficient to finance larger apartment
developments.
2. Federal Programs, State Programs, Redevelopment Funds, and OCHA
Operating Reserves
The following is an estimate of funds (other than Multi-Family Revenue
Bonds) available from federal, state, and local programs to address
new and continued housing affordability. The funds apply to the
unincotporated area only and are estimated in two, five-year
increments. A portion of these funds could be used to preserve units
with expiring affordability restrictions or to provide replacement
units. It should be noted that the estimates for the state and
federal programs are based on the assumption that funding for these
programs will continue at current levels.
ESTIMATED FUNDS AVAILABLE1
PROGRAM 7-1-89 TO 6-30-94 7-1-94 TO 6-30-99
CDBG $20,075,000. $27,075,000.
Redevelopment
Agency 35,000,000. 45,000,000.
Federal HOMES 9,125,000. 9,125,000.
OCHA Reserve 2,450,000. 1,750,000.
Other2 1.825£000. 1.825.000.
Total 68,475,000. 84,775,000.
1 Source: EMA/Housing and Redevelopment
2 Other funds include those available through other state and federal
housing assistance programs.
H-G-l0
PAGE 190 Show Image
G. quantified Obiectives: Number of At-Risk Units to be Preserved
Government Code Section 65583 requires jurisdictions to establish
quantified objectives for the number of units to be constructed,
rehabilitated, and conserved over a five-year period. The quantified
objectives are included in Chapter 4. The objective for units to be
conserved includes a subtotal for the number of at-risk units to be
preserved.
As noted above, the restrictions on 413 IHP/HOP units will expire during
the period from July 1989 through June 1994. Of this total, the
affordability restrictions on 182 units have already expired and the units
have converted to market-rate rents. The County's objective is to
conserve all of these units as affordable per the criteria of the IHP and
HOP programs. Currently, market-rate rents for the IHP/HOP units are
lower than the low-income rental restrictions for these units. Should
market-rate rents rise above the limit for low-income rental units, the
County will examine the potential to extend the affordability controls on
these units through refinancing, use of rent subsidies, or other
incentives. No bond-financed or federally assisted units are at risk
during the five-year period.
H. Program Efforts to Preserve At-Risk Units
1. Provision of Rental Assistance
Prior to the expiration of the affordability restrictions on projects
included in the inventory (with the exception IHP/HOP projects and
projects financed with Multi-Family Revenue Bonds), EMA/Housing and
Redevelopment shall coordinate with affected owners to determine the
owners intent with regard to the assisted units. For those projects
where the rents will convert and will no longer be affordable to
low-income households, EMA/Housing and Redevelopment will examine the
possibility of providing rental assistance or economic incentives to
the apartment owners in order to retain these units as affordable.
Potential funding sources for these incentives or rental assistance
include federal HOME funds, OCHA Operating Reserves, and redevelopment
set-aside funds.
2. Multi-Family Revenue Bond Program
CAO/Public Finance and Advocacy will survey owners of those units
financed through the Multi-Family Revenue Bond Program which have the
potential to convert to non-low-income use and examine the feasibility
of refunding (refinancing) these projects with Multi-Family Revenue
Bonds. CAO/Public Finance may issue tax-exempt housing revenue bonds
to retain the supply of rental housing for low-income persons.
Existing, bond-financed units may be refunded to extend the
affordability restrictions.
Bond financing or refunding may also be used for projects which have
additional funding, such as redevelopment tax increment, CDBG or
Section 8 Operating Reserve funds. This additional funding may assist
H-G-ll
PAGE 191 Show Image
developers to secure the necessary credit support and increase the
number of affordable units developed or retained for low- and
very-low-income persons. CAO/Public Finance may also request that
EMA/Housing and Redevelopment consider providing rent subsidies or
incentives for the bond-financed projects upon expiration of the
affordability restrictions.
3. Monitor Market-Rate Rents
As discussed above, units with affordability restrictions under the
IHP or HOP are technically at risk; however, market-rate rents are
presently well below the low-income rental restriction of $1,088 per
month. No programs are necessary at this time to preserve these units
for low-income households (as defined by the IHP/HOP). However,
EMA/Advance Planning Division will continue to monitor market-rate
rents on an annual basis. Should market-rate rents rise above the
limit for the low-income units then at risk, the County will consider
the use of other programs (CDBG, Operating Reserves, etc.) to preserve
these units as affordable to low-income households.
4. Notification of Nonprofit Entities
Pursuant to state law, all of the projects included in the inventory
(with the exception of bond-financed and IHP/HOP projects) are
required to submit notices of intent to the local government one year
in advance of the expiration of the affordability restrictions. Upon
receipt of these individual notices, EMA/Housing and Redevelopment
shall notify the listed nonprofit entities to determine if they are
interested in acquiring and managing such projects. EMA/Housing and
Redevelopment shall also consider the possibility of acquiring and
managing these projects.
5. Update Inventory of Projects with Expiring Affordability Restrictions
In conjunction with each comprehensive 5-yea? Housing Element update,
EMA/Advance Planning Division will update the Inventory of Assisted
Rental Units (Tables G-l and G-2) to include those projects assisted
through federal, state, and local programs which are eligible to
convert from low-income use during the following 10-year period. Any
necessary revisions to the Preservation of Assisted Rental Units
Program (Appendix G) will be made in conjunction with these updates.
BJ:h~PPG.WP (1/8/96)
H-G-12
PAGE 192 Show Image
APPENDIX H
Board of Supervisors' Resolution No. 93-1006
September 14, 1993
PAGE 193 Show Image
PAGE 194 Show Image
2
3 RESOLUTION OF' TRE. BOARD OF' SUPKRVISORS'
4 ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
5 ~~eptember 14, 1993
() On the motion of Supervisor Wieder , duly seconded and carried, the
foudwing Resolution was adopted.
7
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65000 et seq.,
8 the County of Orange has an adopted General Plan; and
9 WHEREAS, SB 1019 (L. Greene, 1991) amended Government Code Section 65583
to require local jurisdictions to include within their Housing Elements: 1) an
10 inventory of government-assisted, low-inconie, multi-family rental units which
have affordability restrictions expiring during the next ten years; 2) program
[1 efforts to preserve these assisted units as affordable for low-income
households; and 3) a breakdown of the quantified objectives for the number of
12 housing units to be constructed, rehabilitated and conserved by income category;
13 WHEREAS, in conformance with State law and the Orange~County Zoning Code,
a legally noticed public hearing was held by the Orange County Planning
14 Commission to consider Housing Element Amendment 1993-1 on July 27, 1993; and
~z ~5 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission acted on this project on July 27, 1993
WOOS and adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 93-10 recommending the Board of
16 Supervisors adopt Housing Element Amendment 1993-1;
z
oz~
17 WHEREAS, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(California Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq.) and the State CEQA
18 Guidelines (California Administrative Code Sections 15000, et~seq.), Negative
Declaration IP 92-52 has been prepared to address the potential adverse
19 environmental impacts of the' proposed project. It was posted for public review'
on January 20, 1993;
20
WHEREAS, in compliance with~California Government Code, the Environmental
Management Agency transmitted Draft Housing. Element Amendment 1993-1 to the
State Department of Housing and Community Development for review and report of
22 its advisory findings; and
23 WHEREAS, the Department of Housing and Community Development's comments
on Draft Housing Element Amendment 1993-I were reviewed and considered by the
24 ` Board of Supervisors. The Draft Housing Element was revised to address these
comments;
25
NOW, THEREFORE BE' IT RESOLVED, that the Orange County Board of
26 Supervisors finds that Negative Declaration No. IP 92-52 satisfies the
requirements of CEQA for this project and is therefore approved. It was
~ 27 considered and found adequate in addressing the environmental impacts for the
project prior to its approval. The Negative Declaration the
J 28 independent judgment of the Lead Agency. r~lEecCtsE V ED
Resolution No. 93-1006
?ublic Hearing - Housing E1~r~rit ~r~~nt SEP 22 1993
No.1993-i (H93-l) -- Negative Declaration 1.
No.92-52 B?D:ep ` EMA
PAGE 195 Show Image
PAGE 196 Show Image
1 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Orange County Board of
Supervisors finds, pursuant to Section 711~4 of the Fish and Game
2 Code, that the project is exempt from the required fees as it has
been determined that no adverse impact to wildlife resources will
3 result from the project.
4 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Orange County Board of
Supervisors adopts Housing Element 1993-1.
5
6
7 _______________
Chairman of the Board of Supervisors
8
9 SIGNED AND CERTIFIED THAT A COPY
OF THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN DELIVERED
10 TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD
11
12 YLLIS A. HENDERSON
Cler of the Board of Supervisors
13 Orange County, California
14
AYES: SUPERVISORS HARRIETT N. WIEDER, WILLIAM G. STEINER, ROGER
15 R. STANTON, GADDI H. VASQUEZ, AND THOMAS F.
16 RILEY
NOES: SUPERVISORS NONE
17
ABSENT: SUPERVISORS NONE
18
19 STATE OF CALIFORNIA
20 COUNTY OF ORANGE ss.
21 I, PHYLLIS A. HENDERSON, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of
22 Orange County, California, hereby certify that the above and
foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the said Board
at a regular meeting thereof held on the 14th day of September, 1993,
23 and passed by a unanimous vote of said Board.
24 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this
25 14th day of September, 1993.
~ 26
~ 27
28 Clerk 0 the Board of Supervisors of
Orange County, California
2.