MythsF a c t sAbout Affordable & High Density

ANd

H o u s i n gA Report by

California Planning RoundtableCalifornia Department of Housing & Community Development

IN THE PAST 30 YEARS,CALIFORNIA’S HOUSINGPRICES HAVE STEADILY

OUTPACED ITS RESIDENTS’INCOMES. Housing production hasn’tkept up with job and household growthwithin the State.1 The location andtype of new housing does not meet theneeds of many new California house-holds. As a result, only one in fivehouseholds can afford a typical home,overcrowding doubled in the 1990’s,and more than three million Californiahouseholds pay more than they canafford for their housing.2

Meanwhile, the federal governmenthas dramatically cut back programsthat used to help local governmentsaccommodate new growth. Voter-imposed property tax and spendingfreezes have further constrainedlocal governments from respondingeffectively to new growth. Andaffordable housing development,while still funded in part by thefederal government, requires a largerlocal commitment than ever before.

Against this backdrop, it shouldsurprise no one that many communitiesno longer accept population growthwith open arms. When anyone proposesthe development of affordable ormultifamily housing, ambivalenceabout growth often shifts to hostility.Hostility feeds and strengthens certainmyths, and deep emotional perceptionsof how the world works. Myths—important sources of meaning in allsocieties—provide shared rationales forcommunity members to behave incommon ways, having a strong moralcomponent, with clear lines betweenright and wrong. Although mythsare sometimes positive, they canalso serve as shields for deeper anduglier motivations: racism, fear ofoutsiders, and/or greed. When peo-ple argue against new high-densityand affordable housing, often mythsare used to convince decision-makersthat the new development and itsresidents don’t belong there. Traffic will be too heavy; schoolswill become

overcrowded; buildings will clashwith existing neighborhoods; peoplewon’t fit in; and maybe even a criminal element.

Opponents often believe thesemyths. But it’s essential to counterthese myths with facts. Californiadesperately needs new affordablehousing to reverse recent increasesin overcrowding and overpayment.We also need new high-densityhousing to support economic stabilityand prosperity. We need housing toaccommodate new workers and theirfamilies and to economize on infrastructure costs, while preservingopen space and reducing the distance between homes and jobs.

Fortunately, the facts ofCalifornia’s recent experiences withhigh-density and affordable housingoften contradict the myths. We cannow begin to rely on this recentexperience to reassure concernedresidents that the myths don’t haveto come true.

2

This myth expresses an essentialtruth: more units per acre meanlower land costs per unit,

especially if local governments allowbuilders meaningful density bonuses;smaller units cost less to build thanlarger ones. To encourage housingaffordability, California cities do needto promote higher densities.

But we also know from experienceand observation that not all high-densityhousing is affordable to low-incomefamilies. San Francisco’s Nob andTelegraph Hills, Los Angeles’Wilshire Corridor, and high-rises in

downtown San Diego are all examplesof upper-income areas where housingdensities are quite high. Similarly,most Californians know that low-densityneighborhoods often accommodatepeople of modest means. The residentsof these neighborhoods often movedin shortly after the homes were built(several decades ago) —and beforethe huge escalation in California’shome values that began in the early1970’s. With assistance, many fami-lies with limited incomes will contin-ue to buy homes in these neighbor-hoods. Many other low-income

households will continue to rent single-family homes because theyoffer more space in low-densityneighborhoods.

For the most part, of course, low-density neighborhoods offer moreexpensive housing than high-densityareas. Detached homes cost muchmore than most apartments and condominiums. Among new units, thedifference is even more striking; newhigh-density units are much morelikely to be affordable than new single-family units.

Density is not always enough,however. To ensure affordability,local governments must intervenewith programs and additional concessions if the new high-densityunits are also to be affordable. For alist of resources on affordable housingtechniques, see Resources: MakingHousing More Affordable, at the endof this report.

Myth #1High-density housing is affordable housing; affordable housing is high-density housing.

Fact #1Not all high density housing is affordable to low-income families.

In California’s six largest metro-politan areas, two-thirds ofrenters and over three-fourths of

the households living below thepoverty line own no vehicles or onlyone car, compared to 54 percent ofall households and 44 percent ofhomeowner households.3 With lowercar ownership rates come fewertrips, and fewer single occupantauto commutes. According to theNational Personal TransportationSurvey in 1995, low-income households make 40 percent fewertrips per household than otherhouseholds. Recent traffic growthowes much to existing development.

In many high-density neighbor-hoods, and in most neighborhoodswith a mix of housing types, trafficisn’t a big problem. Fewer auto tripsoccur in higher-density areas. In aneighborhood of 15 homes to theacre, one-third fewer auto tripsoccur, compared to a standard suburban tract.4 A 1990 survey bythe Sierra Club’s TransportationCommittee found that for every doubling of neighborhood density,vehicle miles traveled are reducedby 20 to 30 percent.

Car ownership rates are less inhigher density areas. According torecent American Housing Surveydata, multifamily developmentshave lower car ownership rates thansingle-family home tracts.

3

Myth #2High-density and affordable housing will cause too much traffic.

Fact #2People who live in affordable housing own fewer cars anddrive less.

In many high-densityneighborhoods, and in

most neighborhoods witha mix of housing types,

traffic isn’t a big problem.

To encourage housingaffordability, Californiacities need to promote

higher densities.

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Vehic

le M

iles

Trave

led (000 m

iles)

Num

ber

of

Vehic

les

lessthan$10

$10-$15

$15-20

$35-50

$20-55

$50-75

$75+

Annual income ($000)Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Residential Transportation

Energy Comsumption Survey, Household Vehicles Energy Consumption, 1994

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

High-density housing canencourage nearby retaildevelopment, along withease of walking and transituse. Mixing housing withcommercial developmentis ever more crucial fortraffic control, since non-work trips constitute thelargest number of trips.

Over three-fourths oftrips in SouthernCalifornia are non-worktrips. With high-density

housing, stores servingneighborhood residentsmove in, allowing residentsto walk to buy groceriesor to the dry cleanerinstead of driving.

Transit connections alsobecome more commonwhen neighborhood densityincreases, as transit isonly cost-effective at densities above eight or10 units per acre.5

Low-income households own fewer cars, drive less

Higher-density residentialdevelopment requires lessextensive infrastructure net-

works than does sprawl. Californiadevelopers must usually pay for sufficient infrastructure capacity toserve their own projects. Whencommunities cannot take advantageeconomies of scale in providinginfrastructure, extension costs rise.High-density housing helps provideeconomies of scale both in trunklines and in treatment plants. Thecost savings can be passed on tonew residents, and the smaller debtload can help ensure fiscal stabilitythroughout the community.

Infill development can sometimestake advantage of unused capacityin public services and infrastructure.Communities can save taxpayersand new residents money whenhousing construction is allowed inareas where infrastructure and servicecapacity has already been paid forand is underutilized. Infill developmentcan also make use of a transit andprovide better access to services,while improving economic viability.

Higher-density infill residentialdevelopment can translate to higherretail sales. By approving new high-density development in infill locations,communities can revitalize stagnant

commercial districts and increasetaxable sales—the primary sourceof revenue in most California jurisdictions.

According to the AmericanHousing Survey, the development ofsingle-family homes is much morelikely to cause strain on localschools than high-density development.In most cases, a single-family homecan have two to three times thenumbers of school aged childrenper household.6

4

Myth #3High-density development strains public services andinfrastructure.

Fact #3Compact development offers greater efficiency in use ofpublic services and infrastructure.

Librarians, sheriffs’deputies, nurses, fire

fighters, and many othervital members of our communities all needaffordable housing.

According to governmentdefinitions of affordablehousing, families should

devote no more than 30% of theirincome to rent or mortgage paymentsand utilities. Affordable housingoften means housing whose residentsdon’t pay too large a share of theirincomes on rent or a mortgage.

Households earning lowerincomes can have a variety of occupational and educational backgrounds. Families earning less

than four-fifths (80%) of the area’smedian income are officially lower-income households; families earningless than half of the median areknown as very low-income households.For example, a starting elementaryor high-school teacher in MountainView (Santa Clara County), with agross monthly income of around$3,200, can afford to pay $960 amonth in rent, which qualifies aslow-income if the teacher livesalone; if the salary must support a

spouse and a child, the familywould be a very low-income household. A starting air-traffic controller in San Diego County, withincome barely higher than $31,000a year, would also qualify for affordablehousing. Librarians, sheriffs’ deputies,nurses, fire fighters, and many othervital members of our communitiesall need affordable housing.

People motivated by these concernsmay just need to “meet” the residentsof high-density and affordable housing.Residents often have been long timemembers of the community, and willcontinue to make contributions totheir neighborhoods. For a list ofresources that can introduce peopleto those who live in high-densityand affordable housing, seeResources: Meeting the Residents ofAffordable Housing, at the end ofthis report.

Myth #4People who live in high-density and affordable housingwon’t fit into my neighborhood.

Fact #4People who need affordable housing already live and workin your community.

Many studies have beendone. The truth is the singlemost significant factor

affecting property values is the pre-existing value of the land in a givencommunity or area. This is turn isbased on supply and demand,proximity to major urban centers,nearby attractions (beachfront property,panoramic views), any negative factors such as environmental contaminants, and availability of adequate infrastructure and services.

Architectural standards andadequate maintenance also stronglyinfluence property values, particularlyas they apply to affordable rentalproperties. Properly maintainedaffordable housing developments,designed and built with sensitivityto the architectural and aestheticstandards desired by the community,may even increase property values.8

age children, where the mother andfather attend PTA meetings, andspend their spare time enjoyingparks and other community facilities.These families and other affordablehousing tenants are concerned forthe public’s health and safety justlike other residents of the community.

5

According to San Francisco’sBRIDGE Housing, annualturnover in their affordable

housing projects is less than 10 percentannually. This turnover rate isapproximately the same as most single-family homeowners, around 10

>

* Source: U.S. Dept. of HUD, American Housing Surveys for San Francisco-Oakland, San Jose, Los Angeles-Long Beach, San Diego, Riverside-San Bernardino, and Anaheim-Santa Ana.

91%82%

79%9%

18%21%

68%

63%

60%

32%

37%

40%

_10 unit buildings2-to 9-unit bldgs.

single-familyhomes

>_10 unit buildings

2-to 9-unit bldgs.

single-familyhomes

Owners

Renters

moved Did not movein past year

The majority of both renters and homeowners in California metropolitan areas move less than once a year. Homeowners move less often than renters, but even renters move seldom enough to form long-term ties to neighbors.

percent, and much less than market-rate renters.

Affordable housing tenantsinvest in a neighborhood and community just as much as anyother resident. Affordable housingtenants include families with school

Myth #5Affordable housing reduces property values.

Fact #5No study in California has ever shown that affordablehousing developments reduce property values.7

Myth #6Residents of affordable housing move too often to be stablecommunity members.

Fact #6When rents are guaranteed to remain stable, tenantsmove less often.

Tenure much more important thandensity in recent moves

Architectural standardsand adequate maintenance

also strongly influenceproperty values

Affordable housing tenantsinvest in a neighborhoodand community just as

much as any other resident

Density, as measured in unitsper acre, can be a deceivingmeasurement, but new housing

at between 20 and 50 units per acrecan be designed to fit in mostCalifornia communities. The bestway to convince people of this is toshow them how well new housingcan fit into their neighborhoods. seeResources: Increasing housing densities, at the end of this part, fora list of slide shows and videos.

Communities can also achievehigher densities by filling in theexisting urban fabric with secondunits, duplexes, and conversion ofoutmoded or abandoned commercial

buildings. Local governments mostoften encourage infill by reducingregulations and restrictions.

New affordable housing differslittle or not at all from any otherdevelopment. When BRIDGEHousing opened its affordablePickleweed housing development inupscale Mill Valley, potential buyersfor neighboring condominiums mistook Pickleweed for the market-rate project. And when Habitat forHumanity built its self-help projectin Rancho Santa Margarita, localdevelopers and subcontractors contributed materials identical tothose used in nearby market-rate

Management & Design are Key.Local governments can also helpprotect the entire community,including new affordable housingresidents themselves, by attendingto details at the project level. Mostimportant is effective professionalonsite management, with strong tenant-screening and good security systems. Design, too, can play animportant role in protecting residentsand neighbors of high-density oraffordable housing, especially byensuring visibility. New developmentsshould also contain a mix of unittypes to accommodate differentkinds of households. When residentshave different occupations andfamily types, someone will probablybe home in the development almostall the time.

6

Density does not cause crime.For many years social scientistshave asked whether high-

density housing causes crime. Notone study has shown any relationshipbetween population or housing densityand violent crime rates; once residents’incomes are taken into account, theeffect of density on non-violent crimedecreases to non-significance.

After studying housing andneighborhoods throughout the country,Oscar Newman concluded that thedesign and use of public spaces, and

particularly the sense of ownership andcontrol that residents have over theseareas, has far more significant affecton crime than density or income levels.

In neighborhoods suffering from disinvestment, particularly thoseareas lacking jobs and communityservices, crime can be higher.

Local governments can helpaddress legitimate concerns aboutcrime by working with existing residents and law enforcement todevelop community-based strategiesto reduce crime.

Myth #7High-density and affordable housing undermine communitycharacter.

Fact #7New affordable and high-density housing can always bedesigned to fit into existing communities.

Myth #8High-density and affordable housing increase crime.

Fact #8The design and use of public spaces has a far more significant affect on crime than density or income levels.

High-density doesn’t meanhigh-rise. When most peoplehear high-density housing,

they imagine high-risehousing. But in most

California cities, the marketwon’t even support high-risehousing. More often than

not, high-density developmentnow means two- and three-story wood frame garden

apartments that frequentlyare similar in scale to large

home luxury housing.

homes. Thanks to sensitive work byexperienced architects, the newtownhomes fit in perfectly (see casestudy). These developments are proofthat affordable housing doesn’t meanhigh-rise slums.

In Conclusion

In this decade, California’s persistent affordable housingshortage has become so

commonplace that it seems natural.Planners and elected officials muststop believing another pervasivemyth: that they can do nothing tocreate affordable housing. This report shows that many Californiacommunities now believe they havethe creativity, resources, and will tohouse all those who need shelter. Asa result, they have established that,in fact, California communities canbecome more open, more accepting,and better places for old-timers, newimmigrants, or their children.

Case StudiesRenaissanceHigh-Density and AffordableHousing Help Balance SiliconValley

High-technology firms createthousands of jobs in SiliconValley, but housing

construction does not keep pace.New workers have to commute long distances to reach their jobs. As aresult, Silicon Valley suffers fromsome of the worst traffic in Californiaand from the State’s highest housingprices. In the late 1980s, San Joseset out to clear traffic and ease thehousing shortfall by changing itsland-use policies. The Renaissanceproject, on a 56-acre site in northSan Jose, was originally designatedfor research and development. It hadenough infrastructure -- including awide road and convenient access to

planned light rail to handle a largenumber of new jobs.

In 1991, RenaissanceAssociates, a partnership betweenGeneral Atlantic Development andForest City Development, proposedwith the landowners that San Joserezone the site for over 1,500 moderate -- and high-density rentalapartments and for-sale town homes,neighborhood retail, and a day-carecenter. San Jose readily agreed.

The project developers startedwork early with neighbors living inan existing single-family developmenton the site’s northern boundary toprovide appropriate transitions intoRenaissance, while making best useof the large existing road. In responseto neighbors’ concerns, the developerslocated the lowest-density townhome component adjacent to theexisting residences, and providedample setbacks between the newattached homes & the 1950s-vintagesingle-family homes.

The developers responded toconcerns about traffic by cancelinginitial plans for a through street thatwould connect the existing neighbor-hood with Renaissance Village.

This high-density developmentshows that often repeated mythsabout the effects of high-densityhousing on public services andtransportation aren’t always true.San Jose’s ambitious plans foremployment development in thearea led the City to require the con-struction of more infrastructure thanwas eventually necessary both onthe site itself and in neighboringareas of the City. Later, the Citydetermined that it could alleviatetraffic throughout its road networkby shifting the location of new resi-dences and workplaces.

The composition of the projectitself, with over 250 affordableapartments, market-rate apartments,and attached ownership units,further assures balance between the

housing and Silicon Valley’s newjobs. The site design, which featurespedestrian-friendly walkways andeasy connections to the TasmanLight Rail, will allow RenaissanceVillage residents to leave theircars—in their garages altogether.

The development also showsthat, with advance planning and sen-sitivity to neighbors’ concerns,NIMBY sentiments can be prevented.The neighbors and the developersdisplayed an attitude of opennessthat ensured both a smooth approvalprocess and a better project.

San PauloGood Design Beats NIMBYismin Irvine

The City of Irvine, one ofCalifornia’s largest plannedcommunities, added tens of

thousands of new jobs as the information economy boomed. Butthe City’s housing supply—especiallyhousing for families with modestincomes—could not keep up withits job creation. In late 1990s, theCity and The Irvine Company,which owns all the undevelopedland in the City, identified a 15-acremultifamily site as appropriate fornew affordable housing.

To ensure that such a large andprominent new development wouldfit into West Park Village, the Irvineneighborhood that surrounds it, TheIrvine Company contacted the CostaMesa-based architecture firm ofMcLarand Vasquez & Partners(MV&P). MV&P, which had alsodesigned the dense and highly popular Corte Bella town homesacross the street from the project site,

7

designed San Paulo’s 382 units in27 separate buildings, with flats andtown homes of various sizes. SanPaulo’s overall density reaches about25 units per acre, with room left overfor two swimming pools, generouslandscaping, a tot lot, and numerousfeatures to smooth the transitionfrom San Paulo’s surroundings intoits highest-density areas.

To show the City’s residents thataffordable housing and its residentsbelong in Irvine, The Irvine Companyalso met early with West Park Villageresidents. The neighbors were wonover by the open process and thehigh-quality design. The IrvineCompany and the City emphasizedthat San Paulo’s residents would bemembers of the Irvine community.Teachers, firefighters, and otheressential contributors to the City’slife previously forced out of the Cityby its high housing prices would findan affordable place to live if SanPaulo were approved.

Also key to the project’s successwas the participation of its non-profitpartner, San Francisco’s BRIDGEHousing. BRIDGE provided vitaladvice on affordable housing to theother members of the developmentteam, assisted in the City’s approvalprocess, and coordinated the project’sfinancing, which came from City &county sources and State-authorizedbonds and tax credits, with creditenhancement by Sumitomo Bank,Ltd. Forty percent of the units areaffordable to families earning lessthan half of Orange County’s medianincome of $56,500; another 50 unitsare also designated as affordable tolow- and moderate-income families.

In Irvine, the developer, architect,non-profit partner, and City staffneeded to overcome one key obstacle:unfamiliarity. Residents’ preconceptionsfit the myths—and not the reality—of today’s mixed-income, non-profitsponsored affordable housing. Bybeing sensitive to both the design of

and nearby a number of boutiquesinterspersed in a largely residentialneighborhood. The School andChurch occupied over half of a cityblock and the Church had rights tothe entire block. The bishop wasinterested in developing housing onthe underutilized area of the block.One of the famous Victorian housessuccumbed to a fire by transients.The Church had the remains removedand was left with an eyesore andpotentially hazardous attraction nextto the School playground. Althoughthere are high-rises housing elderlyresidents in the midtown neighbor-hood, community members andSaint Francis parishioners didn’tperceive an affordable multifamilyhousing project fitting in to theexisting residential neighborhood.There was significant opposition tobuilding such a project.

Mercy Housing Californiaenlisted the assistance of MichaelFriedman, an experienced in filldevelopment architect with Tongand Bottomly, to conduct a series ofworkshops to listen to communityand parishioner concerns. To buildthe desired number of family unitscomposed of one-, two-, and three-bedroom units, the architecturalfirm designed the building from theinside out. Conscientious of localresident concerns, the project savedthe School playground while pre-serving the privacy of the new 46affordable family housing units.Additionally, local input resulted innew public space for the communityto enjoy. The project has been builtand occupied for several years andhas become an integral part of themidtown neighborhood. Residentsand parishioners, who at first fearedthe project, now point with pride tothe community asset they had ahand in creating.

8

surrounding developments andneighboring residents’ desires tofeel included in decisions, thedevelopment team has created asuccessful model for emulationthroughout southern California.

MidtownSacramentoResidents Play a Role inCreating Affordable FamilyHousing in Neighborhood

Midtown Sacramento boasts adiverse mix of housing andsmall businesses. Midtown

streets are lined with early 1900Victorian houses, some of which areoccupied by high-income families,others have been converted intomultiple rental units and more stillare occupied by office-type businesses,primarily law firms.

Building family housing in anestablished downtown isn’t easy, butMercy Housing California demonstratesthat when the lines of communicationare opened, a dense multifamilyproject can gain public support.

Saint Francis of AssisiElementary School and Church islocated in a midtown neighborhood,a block from historic Sutter’s Fort

9

San DiegoSmall Scale, Mixed-IncomeHousing is good fit for LittleItaly Neighborhood Development

The sloping landscape at thenorthern downtown edge ofSan Diego Bay was once

home to the many Italian familieswho derived a living from the highlysuccessful tuna fishing industry.Although large-scale commercialfishing is now a memory, the district’s

southern European characterremains. Always a neighborhoodfirst and then a commercial andlight industrial center, Little Italy’sspirit is perhaps best typified by therebuilt Washington ElementarySchool and development of the adjacent Amici Park, which servesboth as a playground for the schooland a park including a bocce ballcourt for the community. Its lovelyvistas now offer an urban neighbor-hood with single-family homes,condominiums, lofts and apartments.The India Street commercial strip isalive with Italian restaurants, smallcafes, art and graphic studios/galleries,specialty shops and low-rise offices.

Little Italy NeighborhoodDevelopment (LIND), one of theregion’s most innovative residential

San Paulo Apartments, Irvine, CA 25 Unit/Acre

Chesnut Place, Orange, CA100 Unit/Acre

San Marcos Apartments, Irvine, CA64 Units/Acre

Arroyo Vista Apartments, Mission Viejo, CA14 Units/Acre

Woodpark Apartments, Aliso Viejo, CA24 Units/Acre

Fullerton City Lights, Fullerton, CA83 Units/Acre

ideas, was one of six new successfulaffordable housing projects thathas received the State HousingDirector’s Award for HousingDevelopment Excellence in 2000.The Little Italy development consists of 16 row homes, 12affordable rental lofts and 37 low- and moderate-income apart-ments. This successful developmentdemonstrates that smaller scale,mixed-income housing can beinfilled in an urban setting.

Continuing infill for-sale andrental residential projects is further reinforcing little Italy’s distinctive character. Property hasbeen acquired recently by theRedevelopment Agency for futurehousing developments.

Coggins Square Pleasant Hill, Walnut Creek, CA42 Units/Acre

Casa San Juan, Oxnard, CA64 Units/Acre of Family Housing

Russell Manor, Sacramento, CA66 Unites/Acre of Elderly Housing

What Does Density Look Like?Providing a broad range of housing densities is key to ensuring housing opportunities for all residents. Density is calculated by determining the number of dwelling units per acre (du/ac). But, what do different housing densities look like?

ResourcesSome communities will need to see more

specific examples of good high-densityand affordable housing before being con-

vinced that they can live with it. In othercases, residents may need to meet people wholive in affordable housing. Almost universally,local governments and planners need adviceand information about how best to ensure thedesign of quality affordable and high-densityhousing in their communities. Luckily, moreand more resources--books, pamphlets, hand-books, slide shows, and videos--are becomingavailable. This list includes only a fewresources; those interested are encouraged tocontact the California Department of Housingand Community Development (916/445-4728)for ordering information on most of these pub-lications and for additional suggestions.

Making Housing More Affordable

Blue Print 2001: Housing Element Ideas andSolutions for a Sustainable and AffordableFuture, Bay Area Housing, 2001. Blue Print2001 includes a large directory of housingprograms and strategies with a wealth of casestudies, including adaptive reuse, air rightsdevelopment, infill development, second unitsand density bonus developments.

There Goes the Neighborhood? The Impact ofSubsidized Multi-Family Housing on UrbanNeighborhoods, by Edward Goetz, Hin KinLam and Anne Heitlinger. Center for Urbanand Regional Affairs and NeighborhoodPlanning for Community Revitalization,Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1996

Affordable Housing Slide Show. This 1989slide show, also from LHEAP, focuses on theSan Francisco Bay Area, on techniques forachieving housing affordability; available onloan from HCD for the cost of mailing plus adeposit. For more information, call HCD at916/445-4728.

Affordable Housing Handbook. A 1991 publi-cation of the California Coalition for RuralHousing. This handbook offers an exhaustivelist of programs and policies that local govern-ments can use to ensure the construction,rehabilitation, and preservation of affordablehousing. $5.00 To order, call CCRH at916/443-4448.

Creating a Local Advisory Commission onRegulatory Barriers to Affordable Housing. This1992 publication by the US Department ofHousing and Urban Development guides localgovernments that want to establish committeesto identify and reform ordinances and policiesthat reduce the supply of housing andincrease its costs. $4. To order, call HUD Userat 800/245-2691.

Affordable Housing: Proactive & ReactivePlanning Strategies. This recent publicationdiscusses both “affirmative” measures suchas, inclusionary zoning, linkage, affordable housing finance, affordable housing preservation,and infill-and reactive measures, including

zoning and subdivision reform, growth man-agement, impact fees, environmental legislation,and administrative reform. $29 includes shipping and handling. To order, call thePlanners’ Bookstore at 312/955-9100.

Affordable Housing: Restoring the Dream. 15-minute video (1989) by the Urban LandInstitute promotes cost savings in single-familyhousing through flexible development standardsand expedited processing. $34.95 for non-ULImembers. Order number A-17. To order, call800/321-5011.

The Effects of Subsidized and AffordableHousing on Property Values: A Survey ofResearch. Out of 15 published papers on sub-sidized housing, group homes for the handi-capped, and manufactured housing, 14 con-cluded that this housing had no significantnegative effects on the values of neighboringproperties. Some reported positive propertyvalue effects. Free. To order, call HCD at916/445-4728.

Second Units. This paper, updated to reflect1990 amendments to State law increasing thepermissible size of second units, describes theadvantages of and statutory requirements forthe development of second units. Free. Toorder, call HCD at 916/445-4728.

Meeting the Residents ofAffordable Housing

California Homeless and Housing Coalition: A42-minute video, Neighbors in Need, documentsthe experiences of three organizations inestablishing facilities for the homeless. The1991 video features interviews with residentsand clients, as well as with one-skepticalneighbor who now advocate for other similarfacilities, in Hayward, San Mateo County, andLos Angeles. $15. To order, call 916/447-0390.

Realize the Dream. The City of FremontHousing Department produced a five-minutevideo, now available through HCD introducingdecision-makers and citizens to the residentsof three of the City’s bond-financed mixed-income apartment projects. Features inter-views with residents of both subsidized andunsubsidized units. For information on how toobtain, call HCD at 916/445-4728.

We Call It Home: A Tour of Affordable Housing.16-minutes. Recent video produced by MarinCounty’s Ecumenical Association for Housing(EAH) introduces several of EAH’s projectsand the people who live there, in Marin andContra Costa counties. $15 to purchase,postage costs to borrow. Call Betty Pagett at415/258-1800.

NIMBY fears, community perceptions: Analysisof Affordable and Market Rate HousingDevelopments in Oakland, California, byCathy Cha. Dept. of City and Regional Planning,University of California at Berkeley, 1996

HCD offers a website with a section titled:NIMBY Resources at www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/nimby.The page includes resources and tools foraddressing NIMBY concerns about housing

and especially affordable housing and/or high-density housing.

Increasing Housing Densities inNew and Existing Development

Good Neighbors: Affordable Family Housing(Design for Living) by Tom Jones, WilliamPettus (Contributor), Michael Pyatok, and R.Thomas Jones. 1996. McGraw-Hill ProfessionalPublishing. Based on the acclaimed AIADesign for Housing initiative and supportedby and NEA grant. This is an authoritativeguide to modern affordable housing design.This landmark book provides architects, landscape architects, planners, developers,advocates, government officials, and policymakers with workable answers for the designof affordable, anesthetically pleasing housing.

Density by Design: New Directions inResidential Development by Steven D. Fader,Vincent Scully. 137 pages 2nd edition, March15, 2000, Urban Land Institute (ULI). Thisdocument provides innovative solutions to thechallenge of developing higher density housingthat will be successful in the marketplace.Case studies of 14 projects show how othershave implemented the best new ideas in residential development and design. Projectscovered range in density from single-familysubdivisions to downtown high-rise apartments and illustrate many up-to-theminute concepts: new urbanism, transit-orienteddevelopment, mixed-income and mixed-housingtypes, urban infill, and adaptive use. Theyalso reveal trends and standards for developingprojects that provide a sense of place, useland efficiently without compromising livability,and that can pass the twin tests of governmentalapproval and marketability.

Compact Development Presentation. This pres-entation with 39 slides from the LocalGovernment Commission highlights some ofthe needs, myths and misconceptions aboutcompact housing and its role in helping tocreate more livable communities. Slide showsmay be purchased or rented. $50.00 for complete set, $2.50 for individual slides, orrent for $15.00 plus $50.00 deposit.

Multifamily Residential Design Principles. TheCity of Sacramento published this excellentguidebook November 19, 1999 to providemultifamily design guidelines for the CityPlanning Commission.

Big Blue Book of Affordable Housing CaseStudies, Alexander and Edwards Publishing,2000 Compact and Balanced Development:Designs for California Living. This 15-minutevideo by the American Institute of ArchitectsCalifornia Council provides tangible examplesof infill and higher-density developments thatenjoy community support, and highlights therole of local governments in their approvaland construction. AIA members: $25; non-members: $40. To order, call 916/448-9082.In late 1993, the AIACC will release a follow-upurban design video demonstrating how torespond to community concerns, increase density, encourage mixed-use transit-orienteddevelopment, and obtain innovative financing.

10

Room Enough. This publication, by SanFrancisco’s Greenbelt Alliance, discusses fivestrategies using vacant land more effectively,building more housing along major streets,bringing homes and people downtown, addingsecond units on existing home sites, and recycling lands no longer needed for industrythat communities can use to accommodatemore housing while meeting concerns aboutcommunity character and open space. $9. Toorder, call Greenbelt Alliance at 415/543-4291.

Transit-Oriented, Mixed-Use andInfill Development

Building Livable Communities: A Policy-maker’s Guide to Infill Development. TheJanuary 2001 publication from the LocalGovernment Commission helps to answer twoof a policymaker’s most frequently askedquestions: “Why build in town?” and “Whatcan local government do to encourage infilldevelopment?” This guidebook suggests anumber of ways to create infill development inyour community. These include: planningproactively; assuring public participation;using public facilities and development toattract investment; assisting with projectfinancing; zoning for mixed-use and higher-density development; encouraging rehabilitation;providing in-kind assistance; streamlining thepermit process; providing public services; andaddressing toxic contamination.

Building Livable Communities: A Policymaker’sGuide to Transit-Oriented Development. Thisis a companion guidebook on transit-orienteddevelopment from the Local GovernmentCommission. More and more, community leadersare recognizing that building residences,stores and work places near transit stops canplay a major role in creating places where weenjoy living, working and playing. The guide-book addresses the questions of “why buildnear transit?” and “why should electedofficials, land-use agencies and developerspay more attention to development near transitthan to any other kind of development?” Theguidebook has helpful advice, model examples,and resources to help create livable,transit-oriented communities in your region.

Notes1Statewide Housing Plan: Raising the Roof,California Housing Development Projectionsand Constraints 1997-2020, CaliforniaDepartment of Housing and CommunityDevelopment, May 2000

2Still Locked Out: New Data Confirm thatCalifornia’s Housing Affordability CrisisContinues, California Budget Project,March 2001

3American Housing Survey

4John Holtzclaw, 1997m MetropolitanTransportation Commission, 1990 HouseholdTravel Survey

5Cambridge Systematics and ParsonsBrinckerhoff Quade & Douglas. Making theLand Use Transportation Air QualityConnection: Analysis of Alternatives. Vol. 5Friends of Oregon

6American Housing Survey, 1999; NationalMulti Housing Council, Research Notes,August 24, 2000

7Paul Cummings and John Landis,“Relationships between Affordable HousingDevelopments and Neighboring PropertyValues” (Berkeley: University of CaliforniaInstitute of Urban & Regional Development, 1993)

8California Department of Housing andCommunity Development, “The Effects ofSubsidized and Affordable Housing onProperty Values: A Survey of Research”(Sacramento: DHCD, 1988), 2

Published by the CaliforniaPlanning Roundtable

The California Planning Roundtable is anorganization of experienced planning professionals who are members of theAmerican Planning Association. Membershipis balanced between the public and privatesectors, and between Northern and SouthernCalifornia. The mission of the Roundtable isto promote creativity and excellence in planning by providing leadership in addressingimportant, unresolved planning issues inCalifornia.

Members of the California PlanningRoundtable, May 2002:Jeff CarpenterAICP, Community Redevelopment Agency, City of Los Angeles

Elaine CostelloAICP, City of Mountain View

Paul C. CrawfordFAICP, Crawford Multari & Clark Associates, San Luis Obispo

Cathy E. CreswellCalif Dept. Housing and Community Development

Linda C. DaltonPhD, AICP, California Polytechnic State University,San Luis Obispo

Susan A. DeSantisIBI Group, Irvine

Michael DyettAICP, Dyett and Bhatia, San Francisco

David EarlyDesign, Community & Environment, Berkeley

Janet FairbanksAICP, San Diego Association of Governments, San Diego

Joanne FreilichAICP, UCLA Extension Public Policy Program, Los Angeles

Wayne GoldbergAICP, City of Santa Rosa

Al HersonFAICP, SAIC, Sacramento

Sharon HightowerHightower/Associates, Claremont

Stan HoffmanFAICP, Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Los Angeles

M. Thomas JacobsonJD, AICP, Sonoma State University

Vivian KahnFAICP, Kahn/Mortimer/Associates, Oakland

Sandra Massa-LavittPalm Desert

Mike McCoyUniversity of California, Davis

Michael MooreCity of Petaluma

John W. McKennaSan Clemente

Roberta MundieAICP, Mundie & Associates, San Francisco

Steve PrestonFAICP, City of San Gabriel

Marvin D. RoosAICP, Mainiero, Smith and Associates, Palm Springs

Janet RuggieroFAICP, City of Citrus Heights

David SalazarAICP, Claremont Graduate University

R. Ann SiracusaAICP, Santee

Richard B. StephensThe AEI-CASC Companies, Colton

Susan Stoddard,PhDFAICP, InfoUse, Berkeley

Woodie TescherEIP Associates, Los Angeles

Frank WeinFAICP, DPDS, URS Corporation, Los Angeles

Mark WinogrondAICP, City of Culver City

Project TeamProject Manager:Susan DeSantis

California Planning Roundtable project team:David EarlyWayne GoldbergVivian KahnMarvin RoosJanet Ruggiero

California Department of Housing & CommunityDevelopment project team:Cathy CreswellPaul McDougallPaul Dirksen

Report Design and Production:Pierre Rademaker Designwww.rademakerdesign.com

Cover Rendering © 2002 :Elizabeth Moule & Stefanos PolyzoidesArchitects and UrbanistsPasadena, CA

11