MO 2002-041 to 2002-045 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW DRAFT Housing down payments may also be a financial obstacle for low and moderate income households. A ten percent downpayment on the median priced single family home in San Leandro would amount to over $30,000. This is about half of the median household income in the City and may be a substantial impediment to first-time homebuyers. Renters face similar constraints, with total move in costs often in the thousands of dollars. Mortgage lending practices also may impact the local housing market. Generally, these practices have favored households of above -moderate income. Although racial discrimination and geographic discrimination (also known as `redlining") are illegal, such practices may continue to have subtle influences on lending patterns in California. Even in the absence of discrimination, lower income households may have difficulty qualifying for home loans due to insufficient income levels or bad credit history. Conclusions. Even with low interest rates, high real estate costs make housing unaffordable for many San Leandro households, particularly first time homebuyers. Downpayment assistance programs and low - interest (or no interest) loans can significantly improve the affordability of housing. Public Opinion Analysis. Another constraint to housing production in the City is public opinion, specifically community opposition to higher densities. Many of the higher density housing projects in San Leandro were built during the 1950s, 60s, and 70s. The quality of construction during this era was extremely variable. Some of the projects were constructed with little attention to context and architectural detail, creating a negative image of higher density housing in San Leandro neighborhoods. The ubiquitous "motel style" buildings, oriented perpendicular to the street on lots formerly occupied by single family homes, are often cited as the reason that more multi -family housing should be discouraged in San Leandro. Maintenance on some of these properties has been inconsistent. Some have been the source of persistent neighborhood complaints and code enforcement action. It is worth noting that almost all of the housing added in the City during the 1990s consisted of single family detached homes. Conversely, 90 percent of the potential housing capacity in the City today is associated with multi -family sites. There could be a public backlash to the construction of large multi- family projects in the future. This would be particularly true if new housing was poorly designed, produced negative fiscal impacts or contributed to school capacity problems, traffic congestion, or other quality of life factors. Conclusions. The potential for community opposition means that good design and planning are essential in higher density projects. The pending construction of two very low income, high density housing projects on East 10 Street may do a great deal to alleviate public concerns. Both of these projects have adhered to high -quality design standards and have received praise from the community. Similarly, the "affordable" units incorporated in the Cherrywood project are almost indistinguishable from the market rate units. Continued attention to detail, quality, and public input, will be important to sustain community acceptance. HOUSING ELEMENT 5-24 SAN L EANUKV U NzKAL rLAN A{ga